ID is as scientific as evolution.
Both are totally unprovable.
How can you 'prove' evolution?
It is impossible!
Science doesn't 'prove' anything in the sense you're using here, that of absolute proof. It merely describes what is most evidently correct. Evolution is most evidently correct, as the mountains of evidence supporting it show. ID is not scientific at all, as it makes no scientific claims or predictions.
If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.
No, it should be taught - in Ancient History class, as they're doing - alongside Egyptian, Greek, Norse, and other mythologies, as some silly stuff that people made up in an attempt to make sense of the world before the development of reason and the scientific method.
History classes tend to focus on things that we know, at some reasonable level of certainty, actually happened. More likely to cover mythologies in a literature class, or a course that specializes in such mythologies. If you're talking about the history of those civilizations, then yes, it will probably mention their religion, but won't go into any real detail about it because it isn't the focus of that type of course. We see plenty of that in our history books now. They explain certain religious ideas or concepts when they're relevant to historic events, such as the religious conflicts of Europe, immigrants coming to America to escape religious persecution, etc. I remember reading quite a bit about the various religious groups in America in my US history classes. Teaching intelligent design serves no real purpose in this context. It's just a religious myth that some fundamentalists are trying to pass off as science. Most major Christian faiths accept evolution, so it's not even as controversial a subject as the fundamentalists try to make it into.
Actually if you would take time to look into it, you would find the extraordinary efforts those in control go to in order to remove any scientist that presents a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design. Our higher education system is being destroyed by keeping dissenting viewpoints out when science has the intent of examining everything.
First you have demonstrate that there actually is a scientist that has presented a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design. Then we can discuss the treatment that theory gets.
Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.
Fair enough. However, I've never seen a teacher get fired for mentioning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise.
Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.
The first link sounds like the courts did their job and the wall was restored. Like I said, I'm not advocating the removal of any reference whatsoever. Just that the school doesn't involve itself in the teaching of religious belief or the promotion of any religion over any others or none at all. As long as the wall displays are open to images and text regardless of what faith position they might represent or imply, and they don't cross into proselytizing, I don't have a problem with it.
The second link was just ridiculous. Devoid of information about what was actually said by the atheist teacher, or what occurred in the incident, but chock full of unsubstantiated allegations made against him by the writer of what I assume is some kind of opinion piece. It goes on to make some utterly moronic claims about both atheism and Christianity. Worthless article. The writer is more interested in preaching than reporting facts.
Your futility claims only serve to support your anti-religious goals. The exact same claims could be made about all manner of topics, including but not limited to the proper way to fold laundry in HomeEc, teaching non-talented kids to play baseball, or school dances in general.
It is natural that people only get involved in their particular agendas, but you'd do the conversation some service if you'd just be open and honest about it. You're not worried about futility or else you'd be worried about all the various limitations of this type in education. You're only focusing on the religious as if it would be the only effort to have efficiency issues.
I could say the same about your desire to have religion taught to kids by the government. Comparing it to folding laundry is just beyond the pale. Your dismissal of the inevitable conflicts this would create, just in determining what should even be said about the various religions shows that you haven't thought this through in the slightest and are just assuming that what you want to have taught is what would be taught.
I have read up on the textbook situation and understand the full extent of the mole-hill that it truly is.
Yes, trying to introduce religion as science is no big deal at all.
As for my kids, well, kindly attend to your own business. I'll continue to want their schools to do what I pay them to do, thank you very much.
Schools aren't paid to teach religion. That's the domain of the family and church/synagogue/mosque/coven/etc. I have no idea what you would even teach them about all the various religions out there, and how you would decide which of the innumerable faiths to exclude. I suspect you don't either.
It doesn't seem so much that you're interested in discussing the points, but are seeking pinholes in them. I think we're done here, unless you have something you'd like to contribute.
I am, but you just hand-wave away the issues and make accusations. You act as if there isn't a history of religious disagreements and conflict within and among every religion for as long as they've existed, and that creating a curriculum for it would be straight-forward. I find this naive in the extreme.
Parents aren't going to be qualified to touch on religions they don't personally practice.
Go to the library, buy a book, or use the Internet. We've got more information available to us today than at any point in our history. Use it. Get kids interested in learning by showing them how they can find out more about virtually any subject they want. And if you really want to go crazy, you could even talk to people of those religions.
And the board in Texas isn't deciding what is in the books, per se, they're dictating which books the schools are willing to purchase. These will still be printed by companies that hire authors to write the content. It isn't as if the dentist himself will be dusting off a typewriter to get it done.
You're completely wrong about that. The Texas SBOE has a lot of say about what the publishers put into the books. You should read up on what they've been trying to do.
I think we understand each other well. You feel that a world where there is no formal education on huge portions of human culture is a better one, and I do not.
I feel that trying to create standards for religious education is futile, because there are too many variations and no objective definitions of each religion. It's all interpretation and personal beliefs. It's not the government's place to be "standardizing" religion so that it can be taught in some objective manner.
If you really want tolerance, then teach your kids that. Buy them books, encourage them to learn about other cultures and religions, and teach them what you want them to understand about your own beliefs. Don't abdicate that responsibility to the state so that they can teach some inane, politically correct version of religious culture that will probably do more to mis-inform than it would to create understanding.
I would expect the curriculum to be written by a group of individual experts, one for each topical area. I wouldn't expect Christians to write chapters on Buddhism any more than I expect Biologists to explain Psychology.
And I pay my taxes so my children will be educated. Standing in line at the restaurant isn't the time nor place to educate on religions of the world. There's an entire system for this type of information delivery, and if we could just get past the last vestiges of pro-religion AND anti-religion bigotry then we'd live in a better world.
Tell me you're not understanding what I'm saying.
First of all, you do bear some responsibility for your kids education. I'm sorry if that's a burden, but schools aren't responsible for teaching kids everything about the world. Second, the group of experts thing sounds nice and all, but that's now how the curriculum gets done in the real world. Texas is a good example of this now. You've got a bunch of people with no training in these subjects making the decisions. A dentist is chair of the board and is pushing for the teaching of intelligent design, but he's made quite a few statements that show that he has absolutely no idea what evolution is. These are the people deciding what our kids will be learning!
When it comes to religion, it's not like there is a lot of agreement about it to begin with, even among experts. There are hundreds of different variations of Christianity, and even more variation in individual beliefs within them. I was just talking yesterday with a guy who says he's Catholic, but that he doesn't agree with them on a lot of issues. He just felt more comfortable being a Catholic than finding some other group to join or not claiming a religion at all. This is not uncommon at all. So, how do you propose that we teach about religion when even the adherents can't agree on their beliefs? What's the point of it? It's completely personal and the government would just make a mess of it. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be taught by parents.
When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.
OK, I'm going to try this again. If you don't understand, please report to your local elementary school to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Here we go, are you ready. One more time for the slow kid:
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes.
Remember, that "ancient hearsay", no matter how close to zero you think it is, is still greater than zero. Again, I did not say the evidence was strong, but it is evidence, no matter low of a value you place on it, it is still more than nothing.
Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.
If you think ancient evidence is completely worhtless, please review this slashdot story from earlier today.
Understand now? If not, please ask someone who has passed the second grade with anything above a 'D' average.
First, that's hardly ancient. Second, there were over 300 eyewitness accounts documented for it. They even said, "this may be the most observed, and most documented, single meteor event in history." Third, maybe you should look up the term "corroborating evidence". And finally, it was certainly not an example of the supernatural, for which we should have an even higher bar for proof. We already know that meteors happen quite frequently.
The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation.
And this is different than the "theory" of multiverses, how?
It's not. I already told you that multiverses are considered hypothetical because we really don't have any evidence for them. They are simply "what ifs" that get brought up with a lot of other hypotheticals dealing with the origins of the universe.
There's nothing to teach there.
Again, go back and ask someone what I meant when I said:
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible... Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
Really, it's not that hard to understand.
Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.
If I cannot even discuss "atheism is a religion", then we're deeper in dogma than we realize.
You can discuss it if you like, but I must insist that you define religion before we go there. Otherwise it's pointless.
And my preference isn't towards the promotion of any religion over any other. In point of fact I absolutely detest the abhorrence dealt out by the church-powers. However I do realize that these organizations exist and that interacting with their followers will be an important part of my life. I would expect my children to understand that the Buddha at the Chinese restaurant is not simply a "brown Shrek", for example. It would seem that any basic introduction to that culture would cover its religions as well as its traditions.
So teach your kids that. You're completely free to do so. It's just not the government's place to explain religion to kids, especially since even adherents of the religions often can't agree on a lot of things. Why? Because it all amounts to what you, personally, believe. Involving the state in that is just asking for trouble.
Perhaps if we had more tolerance like this taught in schools it would be a friendlier world. Instead you're leaving it up to the already-indoctrinated to include and/or omit whatever they individually please. Which is acceptable, but definitely not better.
Who do you think would be writing the curriculum if we go that route? The already indoctrinated, of course! Whatever religious group gets a majority on the board ends up calling the shots. Why do you think we're having such a tough time keeping religion out of the science classes here in Texas?
But your religion, or any other religion is kosher, I take it. That would be my problem.
I don't have a religion, and the state shouldn't be discussing any religions with students. That's a personal issue that the government should not be involved in. Don't even start on the "atheism is a religion" crap either. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in theism. It's not an affirmative claim that there is no God of any kind, as that would be a ridiculous claim as well. Sure, there are some nutters that make that claim, but they can't support it with anything.
I'd prefer that any culturally relevant religion be teachable even in a public school. Again the Constitution is about freedom from oppression which is an inclusive, rather than exclusive, position. This point is subtle, I guess, but not at all a "does not follow" if you can try and overlook the nits and get to the meaning behind it.
I'm sure you would prefer that, but that would be the government giving preferential treatment to "culturally relevant" religions. Of course the religion that actually gets taught will be determined by whoever gets a majority on the school board, as we've seen in Texas lately, so it won't just be "culturally relevant" religions anyway. The only way to prevent one religion from getting preferential treatment over others is to not allow the government to get involved. Religion is a personal issue and keeping the government out of it is why we are still able to practice whatever religion we like today, as opposed to most other countries that are less free than we are to do that.
You're distorting it by pinning it to Johnson. Others believe it as well, without even being aware of the plot.
Johnson was primarily responsible for the wedge strategy though, so he's the most relevant one to this discussion.
And I actually disagree that discussing religion is unconstitutional. The First requires a freedom to worship as one sees fit, rather than a world where everyone is required to be an atheist.
Wow, non sequitur much? Who's requiring anyone to be an atheist?
"In God We Trust" is on the damn coinage, for crying out loud.
Which I also disagree with. Just another fine thing to come from the McCarthy era.
If you genuinely believe the intent of the Constitution was to make us all mute in terms of religious matters... well you can't possibly believe that, now can you?
No, I don't believe that. I believe that you and I can say whatever we like about religion. What I don't believe is that you get to have government employees teach your religion to school children. I really don't see why that's a problem for you.
This was nothing more than a scam, and I don't see how it has anymore value in a classroom than any other scam.
You're against it, I get it. But you're coming from an emotional place, rather than a logical one. You're equating Plato to Ponzi and expecting it to make sense.
If they weren't trying to pull a fast one, why did they deny the Wedge document was theirs? Why lie if you're not trying to deceive? The document lays out their strategy. Johnson has since admitted it. How am I distorting that? I'm against it because it's simply the introduction of religious teaching into public school, which is plainly unconstitutional and they know it. That's the entire reason they had to disguise creationism as ID. They admit this too!
No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
That's because it's not science.
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero.
It's not evidence, it's hearsay. If anyone said they saw some guy jump off a bridge and fly away, nobody would believe them without additional solid evidence. But because the claimed events happened a couple thousand years ago, they get a pass? That's just insane. It's not even like these supposed eye-witnesses are the ones that wrote down the accounts. That didn't happen until decades later and they were written by people who weren't even there. So it's not even an eyewitness account, it's a retelling, however many times removed, of an alleged eyewitness account. The old Chinese whisper. The different versions of the story aren't even consistent. I can't really imagine anything less credible.
In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes. Yet, I hear people all the time dismiss Creation (Capital 'C') as there is no evidence, but have no issues with multiverses being discussed as science when it has even less evidence.
What scientists are claiming the existence of multiverses? It's discussed in a hypothetical way in conjunction with other purely hypothetical things like the fine-tuned universe. It's not considered science because there's really no falsifiable claims made, and even if there were, we probably couldn't test them.
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible. Teachers have no business trying to convert their students either to or away form religion. I'm just saying that the idea is not so far out that those who choose to believe it, or even consider, are not stupid or not crazy. Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation. There's nothing to teach there. When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.
Where's the value in teaching them about something that is of no use scientifically, is factually unfounded, and has no artistic or moral value either? I'm really not seeing any good reason for including this. What do you think the benefit is, other than a lot of other people believe some variation of it for some reason?
It has cultural value. Imagine someone completely unaware of the belief were to stumble upon this slashdot thread. Would they have any idea what we were discussing? Also it helps to understand a person's belief system when you know things like where they believe they originated.
We talk about a thousand things a day here that the average person hasn't heard of. But lucky us, we're on the internet, so you can find out damn near anything you want in ten minutes of searching. That doesn't make everything worthy of being included in school curriculum. What exactly would we teach them about ID anyway? Teach them how they came up with the wedge strategy and then lied about it when they were called on trying to get religious teaching into the schools? At least Johnson admits that that's what they're trying to do now. This was nothing more than a scam, and I don't see how it has anymore value in a classroom than any other scam. There's already a lot of history to cover and a lot of more important things that don't get included in the curriculum. This is a waste of time.
So you are saying that something that has cooked up so much controversy and cause so much uproar over the last 20 some years isn't history? How long do we have to wait until Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in office or Obama being the first Black president of the US gets to be called history?
I think the impact on society or the conflict that is caused along with how it has shaped society makes it history worthy regardless of how long ago it is/was.
Religious things cause uproar all the time throughout history. It's just how they roll. What should we teach about ID? Some creationists edited their texts to try to make them look non-religious so that they could get the government to teach their religion to children and got caught doing it? They kept lying about it, despite writings that detail the scam they were trying to pull? Well, ok, I guess, but I still don't see it being historically important. It's just yet another attempt by religious people to indoctrinate others, which we've seen countless times throughout history.
The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
That's kind of the point, there's really no evidence for any of it! It's all speculation. We don't know what forces were acting on the pre-universe, so we can't know what the odds of it forming this way really are. And really, ancient texts are evidence of the supernatural now? Eyewitness accounts? Could there possibly be anything less reliable than what some superstitious ancient people think they might have seen? We've learned not to trust eyewitness testimony even today, yet we should accept crap that was written down decades after the supposed events by people who weren't there, and stories that are cribbed from other sources and earlier myths, and that aren't even consistent then? Sorry, but that doesn't pass for evidence anywhere, anytime.
My post addresses all that, but you neglected to reply to anything but the first paragraph. You still haven't provided any substantial evidence to back up the claim that the odds of it existing this way are astronomical, or that there aren't an astronomical number of universes, only one of which contains us, or that the universe has formed and collapsed or dissipated an astronomical number of times before achieving a stable state. Like I said, it's all just conjecture.
Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?
Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.
To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.
Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.
In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.
Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.
That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.
Many textbooks put forth theories for the origin of life, claiming that it arose out of random chance. They claim this is a "scientific" explanation, but it is not a testable scientific hypothesis so there really is nothing scientific about it. Just read the other guy's explanation, it makes sense.
Bah. Meant that last response to go to the other guy. Whatever. It applies to you as well since you agree with him.
Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?
Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.
To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.
Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.
In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.
Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.
That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.
These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.
Sort of. I stop at the point where the argument start talking about the odds for life forming. I believe that the fact that stars wouldn't form or the universe would collapse or expand too rapidly for matter to form if gravity were a touch stronger or weaker is enough to blow my mind. Multiply that by the narrow margin for the other weak and strong forces to be set in such a way that matter can even form, much less create all that we see around us, and you realize that we shouldn't be here at all. I read a quote that the odds are equivalent of winning the lottery a million times in a row. I figure that once you make it this far with billions galaxies, life, silicon based or otherwise, is a pretty much sure thing and there is not need to calculate further.
Ok, and if the laws were different, maybe we wouldn't be here. What does that prove? Nothing except that this is what the universe is like, so the life that formed in it is the type of life that could survive in it. At least in a infinitesimally small part of it anyway. Life as we know it wouldn't have evolved anywhere else but a place like this. You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to say that the universe was designed so that life would form on one little rock around one nondescript star. There may be life elsewhere as well, but, like us, it formed in a way that is compatible with its environment. If the environment were different, then it wouldn't have formed that way.
Who's to say this is the only universe either? Maybe there are a million others that have no life at all? Maybe others formed and collapsed only to form again until it was sustainable. Ultimately it is all just conjecture and not based on any substantial evidence. If there are extra-universal laws governing whatever exists outside of or before the universe, then we don't know what they are, and possibly couldn't comprehend them anyway. Call that God if you want, but it certainly has nothing to do with the religions invented by humans.
That almost sounds reasonable to some people, but it's based on a fundamental lie, which is that ID is a scientific theory at all.
Psst... what part of "in a history lesson" and "not in a science lesson" didn't you understand? You can shout and scream about how much you don't like religion and you're a pure mechanical materialist to the core, but all the lessons that aren't Science (shock, horror) aren't science. And it's pretty tough to argue that religion isn't relevant to history...
But, IDers say it's not religion! ID has no historical merit either. It's simply a little scam they cooked up some 20 years ago to try to sneak creationism into schools. Why should it be included in a history class?
That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?
You draw the line when the bell rings and they have to go home.
Is there any factual basis for morality lessons during 'character week'? Or for Hamlet? Or for abstinence classes?
Schools, or good ones anyway, are a lot more than just dissertation of facts.
That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?
You draw the line when the bell rings and they have to go home.
Is there any factual basis for morality lessons during 'character week'? Or for Hamlet? Or for abstinence classes?
Schools, or good ones anyway, are a lot more than just dissertation of facts.
Things that have value, sure (although having an entire class for abstinence seems a bit counter-productive (ok, pun intended)). Where's the value in teaching them about something that is of no use scientifically, is factually unfounded, and has no artistic or moral value either? I'm really not seeing any good reason for including this. What do you think the benefit is, other than a lot of other people believe some variation of it for some reason?
I may have missed it, but where was it mentioned when this would occur? Or are you taking the position that it shouldn't ever be taught by schools, and should only be available to adults with access to special texts?
I made this point in another post. The article doesn't say what grade level this would be introduced at. But, as I said there, unless the schools in Australia are quite a bit better than those in the USA (which I'm not ruling out), most high-school students aren't equipped to evaluated such assertions and separate fact from fallacy. Most students here probably couldn't even explain what a fallacy is.
And fundamentally, should a too-young student fail to evaluate it properly, what's the harm? Can they never go back and re-evaluate it at a later date? Is none of the science they are likewise being taught going to change and/or be re-understood in their lifetimes?
The function of schools is to educate the students. Teaching something like ID, which has no scientific or historical basis for its claims, is a waste of time at best, and a way to insert religious indoctrination into the schools at worst. The actual effect would depend very much on how it was taught, which the article was extremely vague about.
And finally, isn't the purpose of an education to help craft humans who are able to function in the real world? And doesn't the real world have religious people in it? And wouldn't it be useful for such a child to have at least considered the possibility that a large-ish group of people believe something different?
That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?
These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.
Slashdot Mirror
ID is as scientific as evolution. Both are totally unprovable.
How can you 'prove' evolution? It is impossible!
Science doesn't 'prove' anything in the sense you're using here, that of absolute proof. It merely describes what is most evidently correct. Evolution is most evidently correct, as the mountains of evidence supporting it show. ID is not scientific at all, as it makes no scientific claims or predictions.
No, it should be taught - in Ancient History class, as they're doing - alongside Egyptian, Greek, Norse, and other mythologies, as some silly stuff that people made up in an attempt to make sense of the world before the development of reason and the scientific method.
History classes tend to focus on things that we know, at some reasonable level of certainty, actually happened. More likely to cover mythologies in a literature class, or a course that specializes in such mythologies. If you're talking about the history of those civilizations, then yes, it will probably mention their religion, but won't go into any real detail about it because it isn't the focus of that type of course. We see plenty of that in our history books now. They explain certain religious ideas or concepts when they're relevant to historic events, such as the religious conflicts of Europe, immigrants coming to America to escape religious persecution, etc. I remember reading quite a bit about the various religious groups in America in my US history classes. Teaching intelligent design serves no real purpose in this context. It's just a religious myth that some fundamentalists are trying to pass off as science. Most major Christian faiths accept evolution, so it's not even as controversial a subject as the fundamentalists try to make it into.
Actually if you would take time to look into it, you would find the extraordinary efforts those in control go to in order to remove any scientist that presents a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design. Our higher education system is being destroyed by keeping dissenting viewpoints out when science has the intent of examining everything.
First you have demonstrate that there actually is a scientist that has presented a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design. Then we can discuss the treatment that theory gets.
Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.
Fair enough. However, I've never seen a teacher get fired for mentioning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise.
Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.
Here is one. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/03/the_classroom_wall_of_separation.html And another http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23671
The first link sounds like the courts did their job and the wall was restored. Like I said, I'm not advocating the removal of any reference whatsoever. Just that the school doesn't involve itself in the teaching of religious belief or the promotion of any religion over any others or none at all. As long as the wall displays are open to images and text regardless of what faith position they might represent or imply, and they don't cross into proselytizing, I don't have a problem with it.
The second link was just ridiculous. Devoid of information about what was actually said by the atheist teacher, or what occurred in the incident, but chock full of unsubstantiated allegations made against him by the writer of what I assume is some kind of opinion piece. It goes on to make some utterly moronic claims about both atheism and Christianity. Worthless article. The writer is more interested in preaching than reporting facts.
Your futility claims only serve to support your anti-religious goals. The exact same claims could be made about all manner of topics, including but not limited to the proper way to fold laundry in HomeEc, teaching non-talented kids to play baseball, or school dances in general.
It is natural that people only get involved in their particular agendas, but you'd do the conversation some service if you'd just be open and honest about it. You're not worried about futility or else you'd be worried about all the various limitations of this type in education. You're only focusing on the religious as if it would be the only effort to have efficiency issues.
I could say the same about your desire to have religion taught to kids by the government. Comparing it to folding laundry is just beyond the pale. Your dismissal of the inevitable conflicts this would create, just in determining what should even be said about the various religions shows that you haven't thought this through in the slightest and are just assuming that what you want to have taught is what would be taught.
I have read up on the textbook situation and understand the full extent of the mole-hill that it truly is.
Yes, trying to introduce religion as science is no big deal at all.
As for my kids, well, kindly attend to your own business. I'll continue to want their schools to do what I pay them to do, thank you very much.
Schools aren't paid to teach religion. That's the domain of the family and church/synagogue/mosque/coven/etc. I have no idea what you would even teach them about all the various religions out there, and how you would decide which of the innumerable faiths to exclude. I suspect you don't either.
It doesn't seem so much that you're interested in discussing the points, but are seeking pinholes in them. I think we're done here, unless you have something you'd like to contribute.
I am, but you just hand-wave away the issues and make accusations. You act as if there isn't a history of religious disagreements and conflict within and among every religion for as long as they've existed, and that creating a curriculum for it would be straight-forward. I find this naive in the extreme.
Parents aren't going to be qualified to touch on religions they don't personally practice.
Go to the library, buy a book, or use the Internet. We've got more information available to us today than at any point in our history. Use it. Get kids interested in learning by showing them how they can find out more about virtually any subject they want. And if you really want to go crazy, you could even talk to people of those religions.
And the board in Texas isn't deciding what is in the books, per se, they're dictating which books the schools are willing to purchase. These will still be printed by companies that hire authors to write the content. It isn't as if the dentist himself will be dusting off a typewriter to get it done.
You're completely wrong about that. The Texas SBOE has a lot of say about what the publishers put into the books. You should read up on what they've been trying to do.
I think we understand each other well. You feel that a world where there is no formal education on huge portions of human culture is a better one, and I do not.
I feel that trying to create standards for religious education is futile, because there are too many variations and no objective definitions of each religion. It's all interpretation and personal beliefs. It's not the government's place to be "standardizing" religion so that it can be taught in some objective manner.
If you really want tolerance, then teach your kids that. Buy them books, encourage them to learn about other cultures and religions, and teach them what you want them to understand about your own beliefs. Don't abdicate that responsibility to the state so that they can teach some inane, politically correct version of religious culture that will probably do more to mis-inform than it would to create understanding.
I would expect the curriculum to be written by a group of individual experts, one for each topical area. I wouldn't expect Christians to write chapters on Buddhism any more than I expect Biologists to explain Psychology.
And I pay my taxes so my children will be educated. Standing in line at the restaurant isn't the time nor place to educate on religions of the world. There's an entire system for this type of information delivery, and if we could just get past the last vestiges of pro-religion AND anti-religion bigotry then we'd live in a better world.
Tell me you're not understanding what I'm saying.
First of all, you do bear some responsibility for your kids education. I'm sorry if that's a burden, but schools aren't responsible for teaching kids everything about the world. Second, the group of experts thing sounds nice and all, but that's now how the curriculum gets done in the real world. Texas is a good example of this now. You've got a bunch of people with no training in these subjects making the decisions. A dentist is chair of the board and is pushing for the teaching of intelligent design, but he's made quite a few statements that show that he has absolutely no idea what evolution is. These are the people deciding what our kids will be learning!
When it comes to religion, it's not like there is a lot of agreement about it to begin with, even among experts. There are hundreds of different variations of Christianity, and even more variation in individual beliefs within them. I was just talking yesterday with a guy who says he's Catholic, but that he doesn't agree with them on a lot of issues. He just felt more comfortable being a Catholic than finding some other group to join or not claiming a religion at all. This is not uncommon at all. So, how do you propose that we teach about religion when even the adherents can't agree on their beliefs? What's the point of it? It's completely personal and the government would just make a mess of it. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be taught by parents.
When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.
OK, I'm going to try this again. If you don't understand, please report to your local elementary school to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Here we go, are you ready. One more time for the slow kid:
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes.
Remember, that "ancient hearsay", no matter how close to zero you think it is, is still greater than zero. Again, I did not say the evidence was strong, but it is evidence, no matter low of a value you place on it, it is still more than nothing.
Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.
If you think ancient evidence is completely worhtless, please review this slashdot story from earlier today. Understand now? If not, please ask someone who has passed the second grade with anything above a 'D' average.
First, that's hardly ancient. Second, there were over 300 eyewitness accounts documented for it. They even said, "this may be the most observed, and most documented, single meteor event in history." Third, maybe you should look up the term "corroborating evidence". And finally, it was certainly not an example of the supernatural, for which we should have an even higher bar for proof. We already know that meteors happen quite frequently.
The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation.
And this is different than the "theory" of multiverses, how?
It's not. I already told you that multiverses are considered hypothetical because we really don't have any evidence for them. They are simply "what ifs" that get brought up with a lot of other hypotheticals dealing with the origins of the universe.
There's nothing to teach there.
Again, go back and ask someone what I meant when I said:
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible... Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
Really, it's not that hard to understand.
Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.
If I cannot even discuss "atheism is a religion", then we're deeper in dogma than we realize.
You can discuss it if you like, but I must insist that you define religion before we go there. Otherwise it's pointless.
And my preference isn't towards the promotion of any religion over any other. In point of fact I absolutely detest the abhorrence dealt out by the church-powers. However I do realize that these organizations exist and that interacting with their followers will be an important part of my life. I would expect my children to understand that the Buddha at the Chinese restaurant is not simply a "brown Shrek", for example. It would seem that any basic introduction to that culture would cover its religions as well as its traditions.
So teach your kids that. You're completely free to do so. It's just not the government's place to explain religion to kids, especially since even adherents of the religions often can't agree on a lot of things. Why? Because it all amounts to what you, personally, believe. Involving the state in that is just asking for trouble.
Perhaps if we had more tolerance like this taught in schools it would be a friendlier world. Instead you're leaving it up to the already-indoctrinated to include and/or omit whatever they individually please. Which is acceptable, but definitely not better.
Who do you think would be writing the curriculum if we go that route? The already indoctrinated, of course! Whatever religious group gets a majority on the board ends up calling the shots. Why do you think we're having such a tough time keeping religion out of the science classes here in Texas?
But your religion, or any other religion is kosher, I take it. That would be my problem.
I don't have a religion, and the state shouldn't be discussing any religions with students. That's a personal issue that the government should not be involved in. Don't even start on the "atheism is a religion" crap either. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in theism. It's not an affirmative claim that there is no God of any kind, as that would be a ridiculous claim as well. Sure, there are some nutters that make that claim, but they can't support it with anything.
I'd prefer that any culturally relevant religion be teachable even in a public school. Again the Constitution is about freedom from oppression which is an inclusive, rather than exclusive, position. This point is subtle, I guess, but not at all a "does not follow" if you can try and overlook the nits and get to the meaning behind it.
I'm sure you would prefer that, but that would be the government giving preferential treatment to "culturally relevant" religions. Of course the religion that actually gets taught will be determined by whoever gets a majority on the school board, as we've seen in Texas lately, so it won't just be "culturally relevant" religions anyway. The only way to prevent one religion from getting preferential treatment over others is to not allow the government to get involved. Religion is a personal issue and keeping the government out of it is why we are still able to practice whatever religion we like today, as opposed to most other countries that are less free than we are to do that.
You're distorting it by pinning it to Johnson. Others believe it as well, without even being aware of the plot.
Johnson was primarily responsible for the wedge strategy though, so he's the most relevant one to this discussion.
And I actually disagree that discussing religion is unconstitutional. The First requires a freedom to worship as one sees fit, rather than a world where everyone is required to be an atheist.
Wow, non sequitur much? Who's requiring anyone to be an atheist?
"In God We Trust" is on the damn coinage, for crying out loud.
Which I also disagree with. Just another fine thing to come from the McCarthy era.
If you genuinely believe the intent of the Constitution was to make us all mute in terms of religious matters... well you can't possibly believe that, now can you?
No, I don't believe that. I believe that you and I can say whatever we like about religion. What I don't believe is that you get to have government employees teach your religion to school children. I really don't see why that's a problem for you.
This was nothing more than a scam, and I don't see how it has anymore value in a classroom than any other scam.
You're against it, I get it. But you're coming from an emotional place, rather than a logical one. You're equating Plato to Ponzi and expecting it to make sense.
If they weren't trying to pull a fast one, why did they deny the Wedge document was theirs? Why lie if you're not trying to deceive? The document lays out their strategy. Johnson has since admitted it. How am I distorting that? I'm against it because it's simply the introduction of religious teaching into public school, which is plainly unconstitutional and they know it. That's the entire reason they had to disguise creationism as ID. They admit this too!
No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
That's because it's not science.
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero.
It's not evidence, it's hearsay. If anyone said they saw some guy jump off a bridge and fly away, nobody would believe them without additional solid evidence. But because the claimed events happened a couple thousand years ago, they get a pass? That's just insane. It's not even like these supposed eye-witnesses are the ones that wrote down the accounts. That didn't happen until decades later and they were written by people who weren't even there. So it's not even an eyewitness account, it's a retelling, however many times removed, of an alleged eyewitness account. The old Chinese whisper. The different versions of the story aren't even consistent. I can't really imagine anything less credible.
In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes. Yet, I hear people all the time dismiss Creation (Capital 'C') as there is no evidence, but have no issues with multiverses being discussed as science when it has even less evidence.
What scientists are claiming the existence of multiverses? It's discussed in a hypothetical way in conjunction with other purely hypothetical things like the fine-tuned universe. It's not considered science because there's really no falsifiable claims made, and even if there were, we probably couldn't test them.
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible. Teachers have no business trying to convert their students either to or away form religion. I'm just saying that the idea is not so far out that those who choose to believe it, or even consider, are not stupid or not crazy. Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation. There's nothing to teach there. When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.
Where's the value in teaching them about something that is of no use scientifically, is factually unfounded, and has no artistic or moral value either? I'm really not seeing any good reason for including this. What do you think the benefit is, other than a lot of other people believe some variation of it for some reason?
It has cultural value. Imagine someone completely unaware of the belief were to stumble upon this slashdot thread. Would they have any idea what we were discussing? Also it helps to understand a person's belief system when you know things like where they believe they originated.
We talk about a thousand things a day here that the average person hasn't heard of. But lucky us, we're on the internet, so you can find out damn near anything you want in ten minutes of searching. That doesn't make everything worthy of being included in school curriculum. What exactly would we teach them about ID anyway? Teach them how they came up with the wedge strategy and then lied about it when they were called on trying to get religious teaching into the schools? At least Johnson admits that that's what they're trying to do now. This was nothing more than a scam, and I don't see how it has anymore value in a classroom than any other scam. There's already a lot of history to cover and a lot of more important things that don't get included in the curriculum. This is a waste of time.
So you are saying that something that has cooked up so much controversy and cause so much uproar over the last 20 some years isn't history? How long do we have to wait until Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in office or Obama being the first Black president of the US gets to be called history?
I think the impact on society or the conflict that is caused along with how it has shaped society makes it history worthy regardless of how long ago it is/was.
Religious things cause uproar all the time throughout history. It's just how they roll. What should we teach about ID? Some creationists edited their texts to try to make them look non-religious so that they could get the government to teach their religion to children and got caught doing it? They kept lying about it, despite writings that detail the scam they were trying to pull? Well, ok, I guess, but I still don't see it being historically important. It's just yet another attempt by religious people to indoctrinate others, which we've seen countless times throughout history.
I think I did. Please allow me to quote myself:
The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
That's kind of the point, there's really no evidence for any of it! It's all speculation. We don't know what forces were acting on the pre-universe, so we can't know what the odds of it forming this way really are. And really, ancient texts are evidence of the supernatural now? Eyewitness accounts? Could there possibly be anything less reliable than what some superstitious ancient people think they might have seen? We've learned not to trust eyewitness testimony even today, yet we should accept crap that was written down decades after the supposed events by people who weren't there, and stories that are cribbed from other sources and earlier myths, and that aren't even consistent then? Sorry, but that doesn't pass for evidence anywhere, anytime.
My post addresses all that, but you neglected to reply to anything but the first paragraph. You still haven't provided any substantial evidence to back up the claim that the odds of it existing this way are astronomical, or that there aren't an astronomical number of universes, only one of which contains us, or that the universe has formed and collapsed or dissipated an astronomical number of times before achieving a stable state. Like I said, it's all just conjecture.
Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?
Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.
To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.
Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.
In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.
Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.
That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.
Many textbooks put forth theories for the origin of life, claiming that it arose out of random chance. They claim this is a "scientific" explanation, but it is not a testable scientific hypothesis so there really is nothing scientific about it. Just read the other guy's explanation, it makes sense.
Bah. Meant that last response to go to the other guy. Whatever. It applies to you as well since you agree with him.
Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?
Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.
To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.
Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.
In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.
Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.
That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.
These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.
Sort of. I stop at the point where the argument start talking about the odds for life forming. I believe that the fact that stars wouldn't form or the universe would collapse or expand too rapidly for matter to form if gravity were a touch stronger or weaker is enough to blow my mind. Multiply that by the narrow margin for the other weak and strong forces to be set in such a way that matter can even form, much less create all that we see around us, and you realize that we shouldn't be here at all. I read a quote that the odds are equivalent of winning the lottery a million times in a row. I figure that once you make it this far with billions galaxies, life, silicon based or otherwise, is a pretty much sure thing and there is not need to calculate further.
Ok, and if the laws were different, maybe we wouldn't be here. What does that prove? Nothing except that this is what the universe is like, so the life that formed in it is the type of life that could survive in it. At least in a infinitesimally small part of it anyway. Life as we know it wouldn't have evolved anywhere else but a place like this. You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to say that the universe was designed so that life would form on one little rock around one nondescript star. There may be life elsewhere as well, but, like us, it formed in a way that is compatible with its environment. If the environment were different, then it wouldn't have formed that way.
Who's to say this is the only universe either? Maybe there are a million others that have no life at all? Maybe others formed and collapsed only to form again until it was sustainable. Ultimately it is all just conjecture and not based on any substantial evidence. If there are extra-universal laws governing whatever exists outside of or before the universe, then we don't know what they are, and possibly couldn't comprehend them anyway. Call that God if you want, but it certainly has nothing to do with the religions invented by humans.
That almost sounds reasonable to some people, but it's based on a fundamental lie, which is that ID is a scientific theory at all.
Psst... what part of "in a history lesson" and "not in a science lesson" didn't you understand? You can shout and scream about how much you don't like religion and you're a pure mechanical materialist to the core, but all the lessons that aren't Science (shock, horror) aren't science. And it's pretty tough to argue that religion isn't relevant to history...
But, IDers say it's not religion! ID has no historical merit either. It's simply a little scam they cooked up some 20 years ago to try to sneak creationism into schools. Why should it be included in a history class?
That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?
You draw the line when the bell rings and they have to go home.
Is there any factual basis for morality lessons during 'character week'? Or for Hamlet? Or for abstinence classes?
Schools, or good ones anyway, are a lot more than just dissertation of facts.
That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?
You draw the line when the bell rings and they have to go home.
Is there any factual basis for morality lessons during 'character week'? Or for Hamlet? Or for abstinence classes?
Schools, or good ones anyway, are a lot more than just dissertation of facts.
Things that have value, sure (although having an entire class for abstinence seems a bit counter-productive (ok, pun intended)). Where's the value in teaching them about something that is of no use scientifically, is factually unfounded, and has no artistic or moral value either? I'm really not seeing any good reason for including this. What do you think the benefit is, other than a lot of other people believe some variation of it for some reason?
I may have missed it, but where was it mentioned when this would occur? Or are you taking the position that it shouldn't ever be taught by schools, and should only be available to adults with access to special texts?
I made this point in another post. The article doesn't say what grade level this would be introduced at. But, as I said there, unless the schools in Australia are quite a bit better than those in the USA (which I'm not ruling out), most high-school students aren't equipped to evaluated such assertions and separate fact from fallacy. Most students here probably couldn't even explain what a fallacy is.
And fundamentally, should a too-young student fail to evaluate it properly, what's the harm? Can they never go back and re-evaluate it at a later date? Is none of the science they are likewise being taught going to change and/or be re-understood in their lifetimes?
The function of schools is to educate the students. Teaching something like ID, which has no scientific or historical basis for its claims, is a waste of time at best, and a way to insert religious indoctrination into the schools at worst. The actual effect would depend very much on how it was taught, which the article was extremely vague about.
And finally, isn't the purpose of an education to help craft humans who are able to function in the real world? And doesn't the real world have religious people in it? And wouldn't it be useful for such a child to have at least considered the possibility that a large-ish group of people believe something different?
That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?
These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.