[blackshoe]

Disclaimer: I'm an engineer, not a philosopher.

The Roman Catholic Church used to preach that the Earth is the center of the Universe - because, iirc, it was the place God created for his Children to live.

Then Galileo came along and said that his scientific observations suggested a different theory - that the Sun was at the center, and the earth moved around it.

The Church told him he was wrong, and furthermore if he didn't admit he was wrong, he would be excommunicated - not a pleasant fate, in Galileo's day. So he recanted in front of a curia (a Church court). Rumor has it that as he was leaving, he whispered under his breath "it still moves".

Later on, Newton suggested that Galileo's theory was wrong in some details, and proposed a new theory. Later still, because some observers had seen things that seemed to contradict Newton's theory, Einstein proposed a newer theory. So far, Einstein's theory hasn't, afaik, run into any major stumbling blocks, so it's still current. That's how science works. When somebody comes along with a better theory, Einstein's will be replaced.

Darwin's scientific observations led him to postulate his theory of evolution. That theory provides a better description of the observed phenomena, on the whole, than does creationism or intelligent design. Yes, there are holes. So what? Faith based "science" doesn't do a better job of explaining the overall observations than does evolution, it does a worse job. When some scientist comes up with a theory that explains the holes in evolution, and provides at least as good an explanation of the things evolution explains well, that new theory will supplant Darwin's. As it should.

Neither creationism nor intelligent design is a new theory. Both are more closely akin to the Curia's ultimatum to Galileo. Or, as Gary Gygax put it when describing why the magic system in Dungeons and Dragons works the way it does "it's that way because I say so. Now shut up." Mr. Gygax can perhaps be permitted that luxury - after all, he (well, along with Dave Arneson) created D&D. But the people who claim creationism or intelligent design aren't God, nor has God told me that they speak for Him. So perhaps we can be forgiven if we decline to believe them, particularly when their "evidence" includes, in effect "God said so". Did he? Can you prove it? Nope, you can't.

In a free society, continued freedom, indeed the continued existence of the society itself, depends on the ability of its citizens to do their own thinking, not be told what to think by others. The system by which such a society teaches its children must teach them to think for themselves - and that they should value ideas -- theories if you will -- that allow and require them to do so. Evolution is such a theory. Creationism and intelligent design are not. To require schools to teach those things as if they had the same value as evolution is not only nonsense, it is folly of the worst kind.

[mike777]

This whole thread seems to assume public schools. Do people still attend those things? I assume a private school can teach this stuff?

btw many seem to assume that the students know that the earth orbits the sun, this seems way too big an assumption. Let us all back up.

Evolution, geez can we get people to know the basic stuff first?

[Al_U_Card]

What are the chances that the intelligent design was....evolution?

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on Nov 19 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Nov 19 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

Science is about prediction, not proof.

Someone shoot me...

The goal of pure science is to figure out how things work. The test of the theories that originate from science is to be able to predict effects, phenomena etc. The science can then be _applied_ to make stuff, build stuff, design stuff and so forth. But the fundamental goal is to understand how things function.

[han]

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

Quote

on average?

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

Yes, and 50% of the time it is more!

While I don't doubt that Gerben is approximately correct, this is not what the word "average" means so the answer to mike777's question should have been "no".

[han]

matmat, on Nov 19 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Nov 19 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Nov 19 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

Science is about prediction, not proof.

Someone shoot me...

The goal of pure science is to figure out how things work. The test of the theories that originate from science is to be able to predict effects, phenomena etc. The science can then be _applied_ to make stuff, build stuff, design stuff and so forth. But the fundamental goal is to understand how things function.

I certainly agree with this.

On the other hand, most scientists will understand that the theories we have are mostly models for how things really function.

Matmat can correct me if I am wrong, he is a scientist and I am not.

[han]

Also, it is my impression that evolution theory serves as a very good model and it is my opinion that having a basic understanding of evolution theory will enhance one's understanding of how the world functions. Therefore, I think it is a must that all children are taught the basics of this theory.

I also think that having a basic understanding of religion enhances one's understanding of how humans work and having some basic knowledge of christianity is necessary to understand some of western history. As such, I think that the basics of christianity has to be taught at schools in the US.

[matmat]

Hannie, on Nov 19 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

Also, it is my impression that evolution theory serves as a very good model and it is my opinion that having a basic understanding of evolution theory will enhance one's understanding of how the world functions. Therefore, I think it is a must that all children are taught the basics of this theory.

I also think that having a basic understanding of religion enhances one's understanding of how humans work and having some basic knowledge of christianity is necessary to understand some of western history. As such, I think that the basics of christianity has to be taught at schools in the US.

I am not going to go as far as that there is no place for religion in school (and we're talking elementary school here). But I feel there is _NO_ place in school for solely christianity. If you are going to have a religion class, you have to include at least the other major religions and there need to be checks to make sure that whatever is being taught is done from a philosophy/culture perspective rather than in belief oriented manner.
When I was in the equivalent of high school in Poland, were were forced to choose between a Religion (read: roman catholic) class and an Ethics (read: catholic ethics) class. I attended a few lectures of the latter and it quickly became clear that they were angling to teach RC to non-believers, thinly disguised and interleaved with some greek philosophy (the teacher was a priest) . I did manage to get myself out of there into a programming class -- much better use of my time.

[Winstonm]

It is odd to me that so much time, energy, and money is spent simply challenging the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has been tested now about 150 years and in each case has passed the test - it as good of scientific theory as there is.

ID is not a testable theory but simply a negative argument. But then, because it requires no proof or testing, it is simpler to convince the unthinking of its rightness.

[Winstonm]

Let me add that the great animosity toward the theory most likely stirs from the concept of "common ancestor" - but so far all the evidence supports this concept and none refutes it.

On the Nova show, it was put eloquently: genetics had the ability to invalidate the concept of "common ancestor" due to the difference in number of chromosomes between humans and the great apes. Great apes have 24 pairs while humans have 23 pairs. Evolutionary theory predicted that a fused set of chromosomes would be found, and if NOT found, would invalidate the theory.

Genetics found that human chormosome 2 had all the charateristics of having been fused - thus the evidence once again supported the theory.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Evolution is not a water-tight theory and like 'Intelligent Design' it can't be definitively proven.

I have to differ with this statement.  Of course evolutions is not a water-tight theory - no scientific theory is; however, evolutionary theory has been put to the test now for about 150 years and has not failed once.

On the other hand, ID cannot even be tested - if there is no way to test a theory then it is simply NOT a scientific theory.

The fact that neither can be 100% proven does not make them equally valid.

Quote

Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here

There is zero evidence supporting intelligent design - and that is its problem. ID does not contain a predictable model but instead relies on negative inference to reach a conclusion - the flagellum is too complex to be the work of random events, hence intelligent design was involved.

Sorry - that is not science but supposition. It's not even a good argument.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Nov 19 2007, 07:24 PM, said:

There is zero evidence supporting intelligent design - and that is its problem. ID does not contain a predictable model but instead relies on negative inference to reach a conclusion - the flagellum is too complex to be the work of random events, hence intelligent design was involved.

Sorry - that is not science but supposition. It's not even a good argument.

Especially, as I understand matters, a plausible evolutionary explanation for the development of the flagellum has been suggested.

There are two central tenets to the ID should be taught along with evolution by natural selection.

One is that ID is a scientific theory, which no rational person, familiar with the English language and the concept of scientific theory can accept, and

The second is that evolution is merely another competing theory, which remains unproven.

In support of the last proposition, they argue (often using examples for which plausible natural selection mechanisms have been demonstrated) that there remain 'holes'... areas of inquiry where they say E.T. has not yet come up with an explanation. The eye and the wing, and the flagellum are examples.

Yet no-one I know of disputes quantum mechanics with the same zealotry and unthinking, instinctive anger and passion. There are more unsolved issues behind quantum mechanics than there are behind evolution by natural selection (ET), as far as I can tell from my reading.

The difference is that QM doesn't directly attack our need, as a species and as individuals, to see ourselves as immortal. If ET is correct, there can be no meaningful distinction between humans and bacteria: the Vatican's efforts to conflate acceptance of natural selection and the existence of a uniquely human soul cannot satisfy even the most devout RC without indulgence in a willing suspension of disbelief.

QM is shown to be a reasonable approximation of the way the universe operates: and we get proof of this every day in many ways: every time I turn on the cd player in my car on the way to the office, I get the benefit of a laser: a device that required an understanding of quanta to be created. So QM is accepted despite its practitioners acknowledging that it is probably merely a stage along the way to a TOE, and evolution by natural selection is 'just a theory'. If religiously motivated ignorance were not so fundamental to so many of the wrongs in the world, it would merely be amusing.

[mrdct]

Winstonm, on Nov 19 2007, 07:24 PM, said:

Quote

Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here

There is zero evidence supporting intelligent design - and that is its problem. ID does not contain a predictable model but instead relies on negative inference to reach a conclusion - the flagellum is too complex to be the work of random events, hence intelligent design was involved.

Theories can be tested in number of ways. One method is ask yourself what observations you would expect to see if the theory held true and then go out and make those observations and compare those observations to what your theory predicts. In the case of 'Intelligent Design' if the theory were to hold true, the expectation would be that extremely complex organisms would exist. The fact that extremely complex organisms exist is not a proof of 'Intelligent Design' but it is evidence that is consistent with the 'Intelligent Design' theory. It is incorrect to say "there is zero evidence supporting intelligent design'.

[Winstonm]

Quote

In the case of 'Intelligent Design' if the theory were to hold true, the expectation would be that extremely complex organisms would exist. The fact that extremely complex organisms exist is not a proof of 'Intelligent Design' but it is evidence that is consistent with the 'Intelligent Design' theory.

Surely, you do not believe this but are only trying to bait.

I may then say that spacemen from Planet Q introduced food to the earth and claim that finding a delicious, yummy taco on my plate supports my theory.

By this same non-theory theorizing, you may claim a theory that god created the heavens and the earth, and the fact that you can find oceans and dry land on earth supports that theory - while my theory is that the inhabitants of Planet Q like to surf and then dry off on land, so they sucked out the excess ocean water into an inter-steller siphon hose and deposited the excess water at the edge of the galaxy in a gigantic slurpy cup. The oceans and the dry land support my theory, as well.

You may have a hypothesis with ID, but scientific inquiry does not support it, and in no way is it considered by a theory by the scientific community.

[mrdct]

Winstonm, on Nov 19 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

... my theory is that the inhabitants of Planet Q like to surf and then dry off on land, so they sucked out the excess ocean water into an inter-steller siphon hose and deposited the excess water at the edge of the galaxy in a gigantic slurpy cup.

I think your theory is in much the same category as Genesis 1:1 and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nobody can disprove your theory, but if your theory holds true one would expect to observe certain things, such as oceans and dry land. The fact that we can observe those things is evidence that supports your 'Planet Q' theory but it certainly doesn't prove it.

The inter-steller siphon hose and the gigantic slurpy cup components of your theory would probably give rise to other expected observations that could be tested and when found to be not observable might provide some evidence to debunk your theory.

[Winstonm]

Well, for your information that red shift observed at the end of space is NOT evidence of an expanding universe but simply light reflected from a gigantic red, slightly wobbly slurpy cup, while that great split in the land called the Grand Canyon is clear evidence of a super-sized siphon hosed being dragged back into a spacecraft.

And I had tacos for dinner tonight - so there!!!

[han]

matmat, on Nov 19 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 19 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

Also, it is my impression that evolution theory serves as a very good model and it is my opinion that having a basic understanding of evolution theory will enhance one's understanding of how the world functions. Therefore, I think it is a must that all children are taught the basics of this theory.

I also think that having a basic understanding of religion enhances one's understanding of how humans work and having some basic knowledge of christianity is necessary to understand some of western history. As such, I think that the basics of christianity has to be taught at schools in the US.

I am not going to go as far as that there is no place for religion in school (and we're talking elementary school here). But I feel there is _NO_ place in school for solely christianity. If you are going to have a religion class, you have to include at least the other major religions and there need to be checks to make sure that whatever is being taught is done from a philosophy/culture perspective rather than in belief oriented manner.
When I was in the equivalent of high school in Poland, were were forced to choose between a Religion (read: roman catholic) class and an Ethics (read: catholic ethics) class. I attended a few lectures of the latter and it quickly became clear that they were angling to teach RC to non-believers, thinly disguised and interleaved with some greek philosophy (the teacher was a priest) . I did manage to get myself out of there into a programming class -- much better use of my time.

What I was talking about teaching religion I was thinking about it more in a historical context. For example in the Netherlands, to understand some of the 80-year war with spain you'd have to understand what catholics and protestants are. You'd also need to know something about religion to understand the crusades or why the printing press was invented (I think). Non-Christian religions are not that relevant to old Dutch history but very relevant to current problems in the Netherlands so they would also make for important topics in non-science classes. I was certainly not suggesting anything like what Polish schools might teach in terms of religion.

[barmar]

Hannie, on Nov 19 2007, 06:16 PM, said:

I also think that having a basic understanding of religion enhances one's understanding of how humans work and having some basic knowledge of christianity is necessary to understand some of western history. As such, I think that the basics of christianity has to be taught at schools in the US.

In that context, religion should be taught as part of Social Studies and History, not Science. It's certainly important to understand how religion has shaped society and impacts culture. But in a public school it would be inappropriate to teach the precepts of any particular religion as if they're true.

When we learn about Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology, they're taught as if they were fairy tales or literature. Too bad we can't treat Christianity, Judaism, and Islam similarly -- would anyone go to war because another culture had a different version of the "Goldilocks" story?

Regarding "Intelligent Design" -- if it's supposed to be a scientific theory, it's an incredibly lousy one, because it doesn't provide any useful explanation. I read Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" a few years ago, not realising at the outset that it was ID propoganda. He spends 90% of the book describing various features of organisms that are difficult to explain, and I was expecting him to eventually get the point of explaining how they evolved. But in the end he just gives up. Basically, his whole theory is that if we don't understand how something complicated happened, it must have been "designed".

Of course, this begs the question: who designed the designers? Which is why this ultimately turns into religion -- God is the only "uncaused cause". And it ignores a much more obvious explanation: if we don't understand how something happened, isn't it more likely to be a limitation of our understanding than evidence for a supernatural cause? As much as science has discovered in the past few millenia, we still have some unanswered questions. The goal of science is to keep on filling in the blanks, we never give up and just make up something like ID. That's what primitive, pre-scientific societies did -- religion was how they made sense of the world before enough science was developed to replace it. Primitive human societies were like children -- religion served their need to understand the world much the same way that it's easier to tell children about the stork than to explain how babies really happen. But children eventually outgrow the stork, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus; unfortunately, humanity is mostly unwilling to outgrow religion.

Recommended reading: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. He makes Dawkins seem mild.

[Fluffy]

You can always argue that evolution/science doesn't explain why the universe is there, religion does.

[SillyBily]

I propose to finesse intelligent design and squeeze evolution for what it's worth and see what happens