The comment "ID is not science" is such a dishonest statement. Of course ID is not a scientific method. It's a conclusion _from_ a scientific method, just like evolution is. You can't say Darwin used evolution to discover evolution. No, he came to the conclusion of evolution by using the scentific method of which the supreme factor is _observation_, and I have no problem with that. One scientist looks at finch beaks and concludes macro-evolution. Another sees the same beaks and concludes micro-evolution. It is all so obviously about presuppositional biases isn't it?
I said nothing of Miller interfering with his experiment. My problem with Miller is that he made up all of the parameters of the experiment out of whole cloth. He had no evidence whatsoever to prove that the parameters of his experiments are what actually existed.
I agree that the lawsuit was misguided at best. Trying to sue to require Intelligent Design to be taught was a bad move. If you listen to ID scientists then I don't see how you could say that they aren't willing to have their theories vetted by the scientific community. But when you have the editor of Nature magazine essentially apologizing for publishing an article on ID then it's pretty hard to have a normal peer review process. It gives the impression that the fear of vetting is on the other side.
"And yes, scientific theories that differ from evolution deserve investigation. That's science. Intelligent design merely fails to be a scientific theory, for the reasons I've noted."
If we go back to the time of Galileo we would find the same sort of thinking flipped on it's head. Everything at that time was thought of through the mindset of a god/creator and anything that came to a non-creator conclusion was called non-scientific and censored. Eliminating a set of possible answers before you ask the question is patently un-scientific and that is exactly what is happening right now.
The repeatability requirement is not found in the scientific method. Observation is the crux of the method. Many areas of science don't use repeatability tests in their field because it just doesn't make sense to do so. In chemistry and biology it makes sense, but in paleontology it doesn't fit because there is nothing to repeat. It's just discovery, observation and deduction, which sounds a lot like the method ID uses. It seems to me that the same sort of biological tests used to test the voracity of evolution also apply to ID. Since you brought up Stanley Miller's prebiotic soup tests(you have guts by the way), it is fair to point out that those tests are at the same time a test of abiogenesis and ID. The only thing that makes it one or the other is the presupposition of the tester.
The idea of a third possible scenario of how life began other than chance or a creative intelligence is just a secular gap theory. I don't see anybody with guts enough to call Francis Crick or Antony Flew un-scientific for being persuaded by Intelligent Design theory.
"Really? If that were the case you child might be in school reciting the Lord's prayer with a bunch of other kids of the same skin color. The issue here is whether the school board is acting in keeping with the constitution. Last I checked that's within a judge's mandate."
If you are referring to a ruling like Brown vs. Board of Ed. then I think you have missed the point. You are talking about a judge ruling to grant more liberty. The parent's concern and mine as well is that this judge has SILENCED a certain _idea_. Now you can't even express the very _idea_ in the science class. Judges _granting_ liberties is much easier to stomach than taking them away.
The real issue in this is that a judge just declared that you can not teach a certain thing in a science class. This precedent will most definitely cut both ways in the future. I am really bothered by judges getting the last word on what can be included in a science text. What happens when a "religious" judge declares certain portions of evolutionary theory "unacceptable". The best way to avoid both extremes is to leave this out of the courts. If evolution has stronger merits then it will prevail long-term on it's own. Any time we give the court the power to SILENCE a certain idea there better be a darn good argument for it, because down then road when the social winds change it could come back and bite us.
A bunch of hormone triggerings and muscle signals?
To speak of thoughts, beliefs, reflections or any other mental state as something physical denies the law of identity(A != !(A)). A is not equal to non-A. If anything is true about mental states that isn't true about physical brain activities then mental states are non-physical. As it happens there are many things that are true of one but not the other. For instance, brain components have mass and words do not. Therefore words can't be "in" your brain. The same with beliefs, introspection, etc.
you don't want to talk about it being a democrat because you can't defend it. everybody knows that democrat's answer to everything is to tax it. lame attempt at censoring slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
The comment "ID is not science" is such a dishonest statement. Of course ID is not a scientific method. It's a conclusion _from_ a scientific method, just like evolution is. You can't say Darwin used evolution to discover evolution. No, he came to the conclusion of evolution by using the scentific method of which the supreme factor is _observation_, and I have no problem with that. One scientist looks at finch beaks and concludes macro-evolution. Another sees the same beaks and concludes micro-evolution. It is all so obviously about presuppositional biases isn't it?
I said nothing of Miller interfering with his experiment. My problem with Miller is that he made up all of the parameters of the experiment out of whole cloth. He had no evidence whatsoever to prove that the parameters of his experiments are what actually existed.
I agree that the lawsuit was misguided at best. Trying to sue to require Intelligent Design to be taught was a bad move. If you listen to ID scientists then I don't see how you could say that they aren't willing to have their theories vetted by the scientific community. But when you have the editor of Nature magazine essentially apologizing for publishing an article on ID then it's pretty hard to have a normal peer review process. It gives the impression that the fear of vetting is on the other side.
If we go back to the time of Galileo we would find the same sort of thinking flipped on it's head. Everything at that time was thought of through the mindset of a god/creator and anything that came to a non-creator conclusion was called non-scientific and censored. Eliminating a set of possible answers before you ask the question is patently un-scientific and that is exactly what is happening right now.
The repeatability requirement is not found in the scientific method. Observation is the crux of the method. Many areas of science don't use repeatability tests in their field because it just doesn't make sense to do so. In chemistry and biology it makes sense, but in paleontology it doesn't fit because there is nothing to repeat. It's just discovery, observation and deduction, which sounds a lot like the method ID uses. It seems to me that the same sort of biological tests used to test the voracity of evolution also apply to ID. Since you brought up Stanley Miller's prebiotic soup tests(you have guts by the way), it is fair to point out that those tests are at the same time a test of abiogenesis and ID. The only thing that makes it one or the other is the presupposition of the tester.
The idea of a third possible scenario of how life began other than chance or a creative intelligence is just a secular gap theory. I don't see anybody with guts enough to call Francis Crick or Antony Flew un-scientific for being persuaded by Intelligent Design theory.
I agree with you totally, though I have yet to find the part of the constitution that has anything to do with public school curriculum.
If you are referring to a ruling like Brown vs. Board of Ed. then I think you have missed the point. You are talking about a judge ruling to grant more liberty. The parent's concern and mine as well is that this judge has SILENCED a certain _idea_. Now you can't even express the very _idea_ in the science class. Judges _granting_ liberties is much easier to stomach than taking them away.
The real issue in this is that a judge just declared that you can not teach a certain thing in a science class. This precedent will most definitely cut both ways in the future. I am really bothered by judges getting the last word on what can be included in a science text. What happens when a "religious" judge declares certain portions of evolutionary theory "unacceptable". The best way to avoid both extremes is to leave this out of the courts. If evolution has stronger merits then it will prevail long-term on it's own. Any time we give the court the power to SILENCE a certain idea there better be a darn good argument for it, because down then road when the social winds change it could come back and bite us.
A bunch of hormone triggerings and muscle signals? To speak of thoughts, beliefs, reflections or any other mental state as something physical denies the law of identity(A != !(A)). A is not equal to non-A. If anything is true about mental states that isn't true about physical brain activities then mental states are non-physical. As it happens there are many things that are true of one but not the other. For instance, brain components have mass and words do not. Therefore words can't be "in" your brain. The same with beliefs, introspection, etc.
you don't want to talk about it being a democrat because you can't defend it. everybody knows that democrat's answer to everything is to tax it. lame attempt at censoring slashdot.