So much for your "open and objective discussion". Why is it that everyone who calls for debate simply dismisses any evidence provided? Does that sound objective to you?
Why do you who believe that all of a sudden a big bang occurred and all the atoms that we know of suddenly appeared and formed the planets and the stars think that that theory is any more credible than a God all of a sudden creating everything?
Because Big Bang theory makes predictions, such as the existence of the cosmic background radiation. That's the difference between science and religion. Science makes predictions that can be tested. Religion depends on blind faith.
It's the folks at the Discovery Institute who are concerned about evolution being taught. They think it causes immorality and is to blame for many of society's ills. Their aim is to fix the perceived problem by bringing religion into the schools, disguised as "science". The problem with teaching ID in science classrooms is that it is pseudoscience, and once you've opened the door to that, you're going to have a hard time closing it. This could be the turning point that leads to a generation of scientific illiterates. As there's enough scientific illiteracy as it is, we should attempt to do a better job teaching actual science.
Because ID is not science and has no place in the science classroom. It's about trying to bring pseudoscience up to the same level of credibility as science. To answer your question, evolution is of course still occurring, just as the continents are still drifting.
Yes, I agree that we should teach legitimate scientific dispute in science classrooms. It's good to teach folks to think about what they're being told, by anyone. On the other hand, the ID movement amounts to pseudoscience and the attempt to spread ignorance. Your original post indicated that anyone who doesn't simply agree with facts shoved down their throat would be expelled, and that the ideas presented could not be disputed. That's just a strawman argument. It doesn't happen.
No, we don't need to think the same way and believe the same way. On the other hand, try believing that the acceleration due to gravity is 5.6 m/s^2 and see how far that gets you.
You are correct that critical thinking is important. On the other hand, there are lots of basic math and science facts that children need to learn before they leave high school, so they can be prepared to enter college. If we let everyone just
"decide what to think" we wouldn't be able to function as a society.
It's the same even with things that aren't basic facts. We all agree to drive on the left side of the road, and that the green paper in our wallets has a specific value.
Critical thinking should be taught in our science classrooms. We should be teaching children how to be skeptical and demand evidence rather than being gullible. I don't see how presenting ID is going to do that.
I agree they should have a right to express their loony opinion. That's free speech. But they shouldn't have a right to express their loony opinion in a science classroom in a public school. They should restrict discussions to widely accepted scientific ideas. There's plenty of basic biology, chemistry, physics, and geology to teach to get them prepared for college classes.
Faith is believing without evidence. Science requires evidence before deciding whether to believe or not believe in a hypothesis.
There is scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution is a theory in the sense that it makes testable predictions, and when we test those predictions, the evidence matches the predictions. We cannot see the Big Bang or the continents move thousands of miles, but there is lots of evidence for believing the Big Bang theory and plate tectonic theory.
ID says we should find ample evidence of "design" in living organisms that could not have occurred through mutation and selection. So far, there is no evidence that gives us any reason to believe it. ID is not proven at all, as opposed to the massive amount of evidence that backs up the theory of evolution.
You've bought into the premise of Ben Stein's movie hook, line, and sinker, haven't you? You might want to check out Expelled Exposed to get the real story.
If the climate stayed exactly the same for decades, that would clearly be proof that global warming is not occurring. That the Earth's mean temperature has climbed every decade for the past several decades is clear evidence that global warming is occurring. It's amazing what you can tell if you actually examine the evidence.
There are many renewable energy sources: biofuels, solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal. As long as Earth is habitable, those energy sources will exist. At some point the Earth will become uninhabitable, at which point not having an energy source will not be an issue.
Why would we phase out fissile energy? We should be using that for everything. Nuclear power is the best thing we have.
Fissile energy is non-renewable. If we use it for everything, we will eventually exhaust all fissile materials and we will be back to running out of fuel. I agree that it's one alternative energy source that we could put to use while we're finding renewable sources, but it's not the answer to all our problems. It's more of a stopgap solution.
Haven't they heard? Biofuels are now officially evil.
Hmmm... typical Slashdot oversimplification. Biofuels are not necessarily good or evil. It's the way they're made that makes the difference.
If you're using farmland that would normally be used for food crops to grow plants for biofuels, rainforest is cut down and burnt to make more farmland to grow food. That burning ends up releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the biofuels save.
If you're able to grow plants where vegetation is normally sparse, those plants can be used for biofuels. Because burning those plants only releases the carbon dioxide they took out of the atmosphere, that burning does not release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Uh, well it was the point you kept making. I must have been confused by the words you were saying. I would have become further confused by reading your sources, as they would not back up your claims. Thank you for not shaking my faith in your lack of critical thinking skills. Now I know you also have problems communicating clearly. Maybe in the next discussion you can calmly collect your thoughts and express them so others can understand.
There is plenty of evidence presented by both sides of the Intelligent Design/Creationism/Evolution debate, and if they are right, they could all paint a valid picture of the universe.
Really? I haven't seen any evidence presented by the ID proponents. They simply don't make any predictions, so there's no evidence to compare those predictions to. It isn't even science.
All I need to do is look at any graph of global mean temperatures over the past five decades, and the fact that global warming is real is obvious. Do your sources have other graphs? Why would I have to look at those graphs instead? Are they not representative in some way? Do a Google image search for "global annual mean temperature graph" sometime and just look at them. It's a real eye opener for a global warming denier. As I said, it will be more than a decade before we could conclude global warming has stopped or reversed, so there's no hurry for me to go looking at the graphs yet again.
I agree that, in theory, this could help students learn science better. From the comments in this story, I can see many people do not understand the essence of science and cannot think critically. By opening up the classroom to scientific debate, students could learn exactly how science works, and the limits to what it can do. It could teach them to be truly skeptical of new ideas and to think critically for themselves.
In practice, however, anti-science propaganda is pushed under the guise of "teaching the controversy" or "being open to competing theories". It's an excuse for putting the supernatural into science classrooms. It's not science at all, but pseudoscience. I'm all for discussion, but trying to convince schoolchildren that there is genuine scientific debate whether evolution occurs or not is just plain lies. This type of undermining does not make scientific understanding stronger, but makes people distrustful of science.
If you're going to go on about "the warming that has occurred for the past decade has been undone in the last year or two of cooling" I would have simply ignored you. Global warming is about long term temperature change, not over the course of a decade or less. Similarly, I invest in the stock market. If the stock market loses all the gains it made over the past ten years over the course of a year or two, I am not going to pull all my money out because I've concluded that the stock market does not give good returns. If I look at a graph of global mean temperature and see that it stays steady or goes down for longer than a decade, I'll look again at what you have to say. Until then, all evidence points to temperatures rising around the globe.
Now as for your original claim, I refuted it with evidence. The evidence is not Wikipedia itself, but the data collected. I have linked to many graphs in the past, and someone always retorts that it's based on some biased source and can't be believed. Whatever. Believe whatever you want. That has absolutely nothing to do with thinking critically, which I have faith that you have no idea how to do.
Slashdot Mirror
So much for your "open and objective discussion". Why is it that everyone who calls for debate simply dismisses any evidence provided? Does that sound objective to you?
Because Big Bang theory makes predictions, such as the existence of the cosmic background radiation. That's the difference between science and religion. Science makes predictions that can be tested. Religion depends on blind faith.
Alright, let's engage in the discussion scientifically. What is the scientific evidence for ID?
It's the folks at the Discovery Institute who are concerned about evolution being taught. They think it causes immorality and is to blame for many of society's ills. Their aim is to fix the perceived problem by bringing religion into the schools, disguised as "science". The problem with teaching ID in science classrooms is that it is pseudoscience, and once you've opened the door to that, you're going to have a hard time closing it. This could be the turning point that leads to a generation of scientific illiterates. As there's enough scientific illiteracy as it is, we should attempt to do a better job teaching actual science.
Because ID is not science and has no place in the science classroom. It's about trying to bring pseudoscience up to the same level of credibility as science. To answer your question, evolution is of course still occurring, just as the continents are still drifting.
Yes, I agree that we should teach legitimate scientific dispute in science classrooms. It's good to teach folks to think about what they're being told, by anyone. On the other hand, the ID movement amounts to pseudoscience and the attempt to spread ignorance. Your original post indicated that anyone who doesn't simply agree with facts shoved down their throat would be expelled, and that the ideas presented could not be disputed. That's just a strawman argument. It doesn't happen.
No, we don't need to think the same way and believe the same way. On the other hand, try believing that the acceleration due to gravity is 5.6 m/s^2 and see how far that gets you.
You are correct that critical thinking is important. On the other hand, there are lots of basic math and science facts that children need to learn before they leave high school, so they can be prepared to enter college. If we let everyone just "decide what to think" we wouldn't be able to function as a society.
It's the same even with things that aren't basic facts. We all agree to drive on the left side of the road, and that the green paper in our wallets has a specific value.
Critical thinking should be taught in our science classrooms. We should be teaching children how to be skeptical and demand evidence rather than being gullible. I don't see how presenting ID is going to do that.
I agree they should have a right to express their loony opinion. That's free speech. But they shouldn't have a right to express their loony opinion in a science classroom in a public school. They should restrict discussions to widely accepted scientific ideas. There's plenty of basic biology, chemistry, physics, and geology to teach to get them prepared for college classes.
Faith is believing without evidence. Science requires evidence before deciding whether to believe or not believe in a hypothesis.
There is scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution is a theory in the sense that it makes testable predictions, and when we test those predictions, the evidence matches the predictions. We cannot see the Big Bang or the continents move thousands of miles, but there is lots of evidence for believing the Big Bang theory and plate tectonic theory.
ID says we should find ample evidence of "design" in living organisms that could not have occurred through mutation and selection. So far, there is no evidence that gives us any reason to believe it. ID is not proven at all, as opposed to the massive amount of evidence that backs up the theory of evolution.
You've bought into the premise of Ben Stein's movie hook, line, and sinker, haven't you? You might want to check out Expelled Exposed to get the real story.
You might want to watch the University of California lecture The American Denial of Global Warming.
It's that darn metric system again. My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
If the climate stayed exactly the same for decades, that would clearly be proof that global warming is not occurring. That the Earth's mean temperature has climbed every decade for the past several decades is clear evidence that global warming is occurring. It's amazing what you can tell if you actually examine the evidence.
That means that crops are a limited source of energy. On the other hand, they are renewable. Once you harvest one crop, you can plant another.
I already realize your point about using food crops as biofuels. That's why non-food biofuel sources (for example, switchgrass) are being explored.
There are many renewable energy sources: biofuels, solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal. As long as Earth is habitable, those energy sources will exist. At some point the Earth will become uninhabitable, at which point not having an energy source will not be an issue.
That's why work is being done on developing second-generation biofuels.
Fissile energy is non-renewable. If we use it for everything, we will eventually exhaust all fissile materials and we will be back to running out of fuel. I agree that it's one alternative energy source that we could put to use while we're finding renewable sources, but it's not the answer to all our problems. It's more of a stopgap solution.
Hence the focus on finding renewable energy sources. Biofuels are renewable.
Hmmm... typical Slashdot oversimplification. Biofuels are not necessarily good or evil. It's the way they're made that makes the difference.
If you're using farmland that would normally be used for food crops to grow plants for biofuels, rainforest is cut down and burnt to make more farmland to grow food. That burning ends up releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the biofuels save.
If you're able to grow plants where vegetation is normally sparse, those plants can be used for biofuels. Because burning those plants only releases the carbon dioxide they took out of the atmosphere, that burning does not release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Meh. It doesn't even recurse like GNU's Not Unix.
Uh, well it was the point you kept making. I must have been confused by the words you were saying. I would have become further confused by reading your sources, as they would not back up your claims. Thank you for not shaking my faith in your lack of critical thinking skills. Now I know you also have problems communicating clearly. Maybe in the next discussion you can calmly collect your thoughts and express them so others can understand.
Really? I haven't seen any evidence presented by the ID proponents. They simply don't make any predictions, so there's no evidence to compare those predictions to. It isn't even science.
All I need to do is look at any graph of global mean temperatures over the past five decades, and the fact that global warming is real is obvious. Do your sources have other graphs? Why would I have to look at those graphs instead? Are they not representative in some way? Do a Google image search for "global annual mean temperature graph" sometime and just look at them. It's a real eye opener for a global warming denier. As I said, it will be more than a decade before we could conclude global warming has stopped or reversed, so there's no hurry for me to go looking at the graphs yet again.
I agree that, in theory, this could help students learn science better. From the comments in this story, I can see many people do not understand the essence of science and cannot think critically. By opening up the classroom to scientific debate, students could learn exactly how science works, and the limits to what it can do. It could teach them to be truly skeptical of new ideas and to think critically for themselves.
In practice, however, anti-science propaganda is pushed under the guise of "teaching the controversy" or "being open to competing theories". It's an excuse for putting the supernatural into science classrooms. It's not science at all, but pseudoscience. I'm all for discussion, but trying to convince schoolchildren that there is genuine scientific debate whether evolution occurs or not is just plain lies. This type of undermining does not make scientific understanding stronger, but makes people distrustful of science.
If you're going to go on about "the warming that has occurred for the past decade has been undone in the last year or two of cooling" I would have simply ignored you. Global warming is about long term temperature change, not over the course of a decade or less. Similarly, I invest in the stock market. If the stock market loses all the gains it made over the past ten years over the course of a year or two, I am not going to pull all my money out because I've concluded that the stock market does not give good returns. If I look at a graph of global mean temperature and see that it stays steady or goes down for longer than a decade, I'll look again at what you have to say. Until then, all evidence points to temperatures rising around the globe.
Now as for your original claim, I refuted it with evidence. The evidence is not Wikipedia itself, but the data collected. I have linked to many graphs in the past, and someone always retorts that it's based on some biased source and can't be believed. Whatever. Believe whatever you want. That has absolutely nothing to do with thinking critically, which I have faith that you have no idea how to do.