Mariner
Active Member
you have a point--as the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (whom I once had the honor of meeting) pointed out, science doesn't always move straight ahead. At times there are scientific revolutions, which change the basic questions that people ask, and set science in a new direction.
Evolution itself was such a "paradigm shift," as he called it, and it is not inconceivable that a new paradigm will come along.
The thing is, the new paradigm has to meet basic criteria for what science is. That rules out supernatural explanations, period. The new paradigm has to answer all the old questions, in addition to posing new ones.
Avatar--so why don't we teach the Gilgamesh myth, the Hindu creation myths, and everything else as "alternative theories" to evolution? You missed the point that I.D. does not meet basic criteria for a scientific theory (actually, it is a hybrid, accepting 90% of evolutionary ideas, while saying species can't result from evolution. It proposes no way of knowing where species do come from, except by divine revelation. It has no research program to determine where species come from. It is creationism, in new clothes.)
Why is this thread under health? I think it belongs here, since all of modern medicine depends on biological theory, and evolutionary theory is the current basis of modern biology. Plenty of the medicines we take depend on molecular biology, which essentially is the understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms within our cells. And plenty of the medicines we take are necessary because of the continued day-to-day, observable, evolution of bacteria and viruses. Remember when penicillin cured everything? Did God or aliens come down to instruct the bacteria how to develop penicillin resisitance?
Why is a judge involved? Because school boards determine curriculum. Most school boards trust scientists about what constitutes science. This particular school board decided to trust their religious beliefs instead. Not only were they all turned out of office for this, but a judge has now ruled that their arguments were "inane."
Mariner.
Evolution itself was such a "paradigm shift," as he called it, and it is not inconceivable that a new paradigm will come along.
The thing is, the new paradigm has to meet basic criteria for what science is. That rules out supernatural explanations, period. The new paradigm has to answer all the old questions, in addition to posing new ones.
Avatar--so why don't we teach the Gilgamesh myth, the Hindu creation myths, and everything else as "alternative theories" to evolution? You missed the point that I.D. does not meet basic criteria for a scientific theory (actually, it is a hybrid, accepting 90% of evolutionary ideas, while saying species can't result from evolution. It proposes no way of knowing where species do come from, except by divine revelation. It has no research program to determine where species come from. It is creationism, in new clothes.)
Why is this thread under health? I think it belongs here, since all of modern medicine depends on biological theory, and evolutionary theory is the current basis of modern biology. Plenty of the medicines we take depend on molecular biology, which essentially is the understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms within our cells. And plenty of the medicines we take are necessary because of the continued day-to-day, observable, evolution of bacteria and viruses. Remember when penicillin cured everything? Did God or aliens come down to instruct the bacteria how to develop penicillin resisitance?
Why is a judge involved? Because school boards determine curriculum. Most school boards trust scientists about what constitutes science. This particular school board decided to trust their religious beliefs instead. Not only were they all turned out of office for this, but a judge has now ruled that their arguments were "inane."
Mariner.
