Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[Dragon]

Irreducible complexity is just one.

No, it's not. What you're demonstrating here is that you don't understand what Si Modo means by "falsifiable." Let me see if I can explain it.

For a theory to be falsifiable means that you can pose a test of it that, so that, if you do X and you observe Y, then the theory is proven to be false. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that if a group of living things is exposed to a factor that increases their mortality, natural selection will cause their descendents to evolve ways of dealing with that factor. If we find living things exposed to such a factor that do not evolve in this way, we will have disproved the theory of evolution, or at least a very important component of it.

So what you need to do is to propose a similar test for ID. Tell us what we can do, what experiment we can perform or what observations we can make, such that if they come out a certain way, then we can know that intelligent design is FALSE.

That's what falsifiability is. In response, you presented one of the arguments in favor of ID, and that in no way answered Si Modo's challenge. Don't give us arguments supporting ID. Tell us how we can prove that it is false. If you can do that, then the theory becomes falsifiable and therefore can be considered a scientific theory.

 

[Vidi]

I think students should freely be able to debate the merits of astrology and alchemy.

What are you afraid of?

Absolutely!! That's how we create people who think, and can back up their thoughts with reason.

We covered alchemy when I was in school manymanymany moons ago. Bottomline was, it's horseshit. and indisputable horseshit.

When did it become worthy of debate again? Where was I when that happened?

Actually as AlCHEMy is the historical forerunner of CHEMistry. It's not bullshit at all.

 

[Vidi]

Irreducible complexity is just one.

No, it's not. What you're demonstrating here is that you don't understand what Si Modo means by "falsifiable." Let me see if I can explain it.

For a theory to be falsifiable means that you can pose a test of it that, so that, if you do X and you observe Y, then the theory is proven to be false. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that if a group of living things is exposed to a factor that increases their mortality, natural selection will cause their descendents to evolve ways of dealing with that factor. If we find living things exposed to such a factor that do not evolve in this way, we will have disproved the theory of evolution, or at least a very important component of it.

So what you need to do is to propose a similar test for ID. Tell us what we can do, what experiment we can perform or what observations we can make, such that if they come out a certain way, then we can know that intelligent design is FALSE.

That's what falsifiability is. In response, you presented one of the arguments in favor of ID, and that in no way answered Si Modo's challenge. Don't give us arguments supporting ID. Tell us how we can prove that it is false. If you can do that, then the theory becomes falsifiable and therefore can be considered a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design can be proven false by doing what he demanded could it not?

If the theory is based on certain concepts such as Irreducible complexity, then if those concepts are then proven false, that would disprove ID.

Does that fall into your parameters?

 

[BDBoop]

I think students should freely be able to debate the merits of astrology and alchemy.

What are you afraid of?

Absolutely!! That's how we create people who think, and can back up their thoughts with reason.

We covered alchemy when I was in school manymanymany moons ago. Bottomline was, it's horseshit. and indisputable horseshit.

When did it become worthy of debate again? Where was I when that happened?

What made it horseshit? How did you reach that conclusion? Did anybody get to debate it?

 

[Si modo]

Irreducible complexity is just one.

No, it's not. What you're demonstrating here is that you don't understand what Si Modo means by "falsifiable." Let me see if I can explain it.

For a theory to be falsifiable means that you can pose a test of it that, so that, if you do X and you observe Y, then the theory is proven to be false. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that if a group of living things is exposed to a factor that increases their mortality, natural selection will cause their descendents to evolve ways of dealing with that factor. If we find living things exposed to such a factor that do not evolve in this way, we will have disproved the theory of evolution, or at least a very important component of it.

So what you need to do is to propose a similar test for ID. Tell us what we can do, what experiment we can perform or what observations we can make, such that if they come out a certain way, then we can know that intelligent design is FALSE.

That's what falsifiability is. In response, you presented one of the arguments in favor of ID, and that in no way answered Si Modo's challenge. Don't give us arguments supporting ID. Tell us how we can prove that it is false. If you can do that, then the theory becomes falsifiable and therefore can be considered a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design can be proven false by doing what he demanded could it not?

If the theory is based on certain concepts such as Irreducible complexity, then if those concepts are then proven false, that would disprove ID.

Does that fall into your parameters?

First, let's examine this concept of 'irreducible complexity". According to a poster in this thread who is a proponent of it, it is "

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.

On it's face, that is classic begging the question, thus it's nonsense.

According to wiki, "Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

More begging the question.

So, logic discards anything containing IC.

And, ID is not proven false by disproving IC, as IC has no basis in logic. IC is discarded as a fallacy, not a theory.

Think about ID and what it is. ID means that a god made everything in science happen. A divine being is behind it all.

I actually believe that, too.

However, that is a faith-oriented belief.

Anyway, basically ID is the "God did it" theory. That's fine. Now, try to imagine ANY data set (something that is testable, measurable and/or observable) that shows there is no god or god wasn't the fundamental cause of something?

I can't imagine any data set that would do that. Even a made up one. Nor can any scientist (a person educated and trained in the sciences).

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

 

[Vidi]

No, it's not. What you're demonstrating here is that you don't understand what Si Modo means by "falsifiable." Let me see if I can explain it.

For a theory to be falsifiable means that you can pose a test of it that, so that, if you do X and you observe Y, then the theory is proven to be false. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that if a group of living things is exposed to a factor that increases their mortality, natural selection will cause their descendents to evolve ways of dealing with that factor. If we find living things exposed to such a factor that do not evolve in this way, we will have disproved the theory of evolution, or at least a very important component of it.

So what you need to do is to propose a similar test for ID. Tell us what we can do, what experiment we can perform or what observations we can make, such that if they come out a certain way, then we can know that intelligent design is FALSE.

That's what falsifiability is. In response, you presented one of the arguments in favor of ID, and that in no way answered Si Modo's challenge. Don't give us arguments supporting ID. Tell us how we can prove that it is false. If you can do that, then the theory becomes falsifiable and therefore can be considered a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design can be proven false by doing what he demanded could it not?

If the theory is based on certain concepts such as Irreducible complexity, then if those concepts are then proven false, that would disprove ID.

Does that fall into your parameters?

First, let's examine this concept of 'irreducible complexity". According to a poster in this thread who is a proponent of it, it is "

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.

On it's face, that is classic begging the question, thus it's nonsense.

According to wiki, "Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

More begging the question.

So, logic discards anything containing IC.

And, ID is not proven false by disproving IC, as IC has no basis in logic. IC is discarded as a fallacy, not a theory.

Think about ID and what it is. ID means that a god made everything in science happen. A divine being is behind it all.

I actually believe that, too.

However, that is a faith-oriented belief.

Anyway, basically ID is the "God did it" theory. That's fine. Now, try to imagine ANY data set (something that is testable, measurable and/or observable) that shows there is no god or god wasn't the fundamental cause of something?

I can't imagine any data set that would do that. Even a made up one. Nor can any scientist (a person educated and trained in the sciences).

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

Fair enough.

I think God did it personally, but dont believe in the concepts of intelligent design. Like Ive said, Science only tells us HOW God did it.

Let me add two things gto that.

The WHY God did it, is left to philosophy and theologians.

And the only people of faith who feel threatened by science are those with very little faith.

 

[Si modo]

Intelligent Design can be proven false by doing what he demanded could it not?

If the theory is based on certain concepts such as Irreducible complexity, then if those concepts are then proven false, that would disprove ID.

Does that fall into your parameters?

First, let's examine this concept of 'irreducible complexity". According to a poster in this thread who is a proponent of it, it is "

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.

On it's face, that is classic begging the question, thus it's nonsense.

According to wiki, "Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

More begging the question.

So, logic discards anything containing IC.

And, ID is not proven false by disproving IC, as IC has no basis in logic. IC is discarded as a fallacy, not a theory.

Think about ID and what it is. ID means that a god made everything in science happen. A divine being is behind it all.

I actually believe that, too.

However, that is a faith-oriented belief.

Anyway, basically ID is the "God did it" theory. That's fine. Now, try to imagine ANY data set (something that is testable, measurable and/or observable) that shows there is no god or god wasn't the fundamental cause of something?

I can't imagine any data set that would do that. Even a made up one. Nor can any scientist (a person educated and trained in the sciences).

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

Fair enough.

I think God did it personally, but dont believe in the concepts of intelligent design. Like Ive said, Science only tells us HOW God did it.

Let me add two things gto that.

The WHY God did it, is left to philosophy and theologians.

And the only people of faith who feel threatened by science are those with very little faith.

Very poignant and concise points.

 

[SniperFire]

I would expect those primitive people to believe that their world must have been created by a supernatural power,

because they didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand that such a world could have been created by forces of nature devoid of the supernatural.

That, of course, is the heart of the study and debate. Perhaps 90% of the people in the world disagree with your theory.

In Tennessee, our school children will also be examining and debating the theory of Intelligent Design along with your 'non-directed bumping and grinding of primordial ooze somehow generated information sets that Bill Gates described as 'far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created' theory - which is ridiculous on it's face but still taught by the shamans in most every science classroom in America.

Yet even though your theory is stupid on it's face, we shall remain open minded about it and let the free exchange of ideas flow!

The Bible was written by God, according to the believers.

Swwwwing and a miss.

 

[SniperFire]

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.

 

[Si modo]

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.

Science has specific methodology and specific logic of discovery.

I'm sorry that bothers you.

I'm sorry it bothers anyone else, too.

Perhaps if they are bothered enough, they might actually learn something.

Or remain willfully ignorant, like you.

 

[Vidi]

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.

Actually the scientific method is fairly well established.

And God should not be debated in public schools. The teachers are not schooled in theology. Its like asking a tv repair man to fix the space shuttle. No expertise.

 

[SniperFire]

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.

Science has specific methodology and specific logic of discovery.

You have expressed your personal opinion, and of course, the people in Tennesee roundly reject your knuckle-dragging way of thinking. Science does not know what it does not know.

Close minded types such as you have soiled science for centuries.

 

[SniperFire]

Thus, ID is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.

Actually the scientific method is fairly well established.

And God should not be debated in public schools. The teachers are not schooled in theology. Its like asking a tv repair man to fix the space shuttle. No expertise.

ID is not theology. It is a competing theory to the 'non-directed primordial ooze bumped and grinded itself into a set of advanced information and instructions which Bill Gates once described as 'like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created' - or simply, the scientific equivalent of and 'then a miracle happened.'

That must have been one hell of a lighting bolt.

 

[Si modo]

You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.

Actually the scientific method is fairly well established.

And God should not be debated in public schools. The teachers are not schooled in theology. Its like asking a tv repair man to fix the space shuttle. No expertise.

ID is not theology. It is a competing theory to the 'non-directed primordial ooze bumped and grinded itself into a set of advanced information and instructions which Bill Gates once described as 'like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created' - or simply, the scientific equivalent of and 'then a miracle happened.'

That must have been one hell of a lighting bolt.

Well, evolution is an actual scientific theory because it is falsifiable. ID is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable.

So, ID has no place in a science curriculum.

 

[Si modo]

You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.

Science has specific methodology and specific logic of discovery.

You have expressed your personal opinion, and of course, the people in Tennesee roundly reject your knuckle-dragging way of thinking. Science does not know what it does not know.

Close minded types such as you have soiled science for centuries.

Well, that's a new one - promoting science is equal to knuckle-dragging behavior.

 

[SniperFire]

Actually the scientific method is fairly well established.

And God should not be debated in public schools. The teachers are not schooled in theology. Its like asking a tv repair man to fix the space shuttle. No expertise.

ID is not theology. It is a competing theory to the 'non-directed primordial ooze bumped and grinded itself into a set of advanced information and instructions which Bill Gates once described as 'like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created' - or simply, the scientific equivalent of and 'then a miracle happened.'

That must have been one hell of a lighting bolt.

Well, evolution is an actual scientific theory because it is falsifiable

This is your opinion, which you have stated ad nauseum.

Many, many disagree with you. Thus, we shall be debating the science of ID in the classrooms in Tennessee, despite the attempts of petrified shamans such as yourself to bury knowledge and discovery.

 

[SniperFire]

This is where you scream (in terror) ' BUT THAT IS NOT TO BE DISCUSSED!!!', si modo.


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

Science has specific methodology and specific logic of discovery.

You have expressed your personal opinion, and of course, the people in Tennesee roundly reject your knuckle-dragging way of thinking. Science does not know what it does not know.

Close minded types such as you have soiled science for centuries.

Well, that's a new one - promoting science is equal to knuckle-dragging behavior.

You certainly are not the first flat-earther to jealously protect your archaic belief system by attempting to silence discovery and competing ideas.

 

[Si modo]

You have expressed your personal opinion, and of course, the people in Tennesee roundly reject your knuckle-dragging way of thinking. Science does not know what it does not know.

Close minded types such as you have soiled science for centuries.

Well, that's a new one - promoting science is equal to knuckle-dragging behavior.

You certainly are not the first flat-earther to jealously protect your archaic belief system by attempting to silence discovery and competing ideas.

Well, that's pretty silly. What makes you think I am trying to silence discovery or competing ideas?

 

[SniperFire]

Well, that's a new one - promoting science is equal to knuckle-dragging behavior.

You certainly are not the first flat-earther to jealously protect your archaic belief system by attempting to silence discovery and competing ideas.

Well, that's pretty silly. What makes you think I am trying to silence discovery or competing ideas?

OK. That one is funny.