Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

[Emsworth]

Obviously not, and no, it's not happening in Kansas. Intelligent design is not the equivalent of "banning science" in favor evangelizing. The idea that everything was created is a serious inquiry and many scientists are engaging in the discussion and speculation. Public school education is also a secular institution, they are not interested in evangelizing.

Intelligent design may or may not be religious, but I would hardly call it science. It makes no testable hypotheses, and is (as far as one can tell) unverifiable.

[Emsworth]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

On the contrary. Several predictions made by the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have been tested. Theoretical physics actually does involve testable hypotheses.

[Emsworth]

There is disagreement about what involves good testing, from what I have read, and they are very highly speculative.

Several predictions of theoretical physics have indeed been verified; the same cannot be said of intelligent design. There are several examples: for example, Sir Arthur Eddington's observations of a solar eclipse helped confirm the general theory of relativity.

That point notwithstanding, the intelligent design theory is entirely untestable. It is, indeed, as scientifically viable as the theory of "intelligent falling" (the tongue-in-cheek theory that objects fall not because of gravity, but because an intelligent force pushes them down). Shall we teach intelligent falling alongside gravity as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I have heard some rather interesing theories. For example, there is the theory that the planet Jupiter expelled a large object, which, upon coming close to the Earth, caused phenomena like the parting of the Red Sea. The object supposedly later became the planet Venus.

[Emsworth]

Well, science speculates as to where the moon came from. There are indeed some very conflicting ideas as to where it came from, that is science, and I'm not sure there is a way to test where the moon came from.

You make a very good point. However, I don't think that it applies in this particular case.

ID does not just attempt to explain where life comes from. It also tries to explain how life reached where it is now, i.e., how the complexities of living organisms arose. Evolution also attempts to do the same thing. Clearly, the predictions of evolution are in a sense testable (fossil evidence, etc.). The predictions of ID are not. Therefore, when attempting to explain how the complexities of life have arisen, evolution is science, but ID is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could explain anything with a variant of intelligent design. I think that this is a very narrow and parochial approach as far as science is concerned; it is of as much use as Aristotle's view that something happens simply because it is "natural."

[Emsworth]

I think another problem evolutionists run into in explaining developmental evolution is where the 'missing links' are - indeed there should be quite a bit evident links to lesser life forms. There aren't, so it's just speculation that leans pretty close to philosophy too.

Science is an evolving field. Every theory will have its missing links. Classical mechanics, too, had its missing links, until they were filled in by Einstein. Does that mean that classical mechanics is unscientific?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Evolution is based on actual evidence, and is testable through genetics. One reasonable prediction of evolution would be that there is a genetic  similarity between certain lifeforms. This prediction can most certainly be tested.

There is no similar evidence to support ID. ID does not make any testable predictions.

[Emsworth]

Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative.

There is plenty of evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The observation that distant astronomical objects are redshifted and the presence of background radiation in the Cosmos are perhaps the most important examples.

[Emsworth]

They have no idea if and especially when the universe will collapse back in on itself, btw. They can't really say that it will.

Yes: I never asserted otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is only valid if you agree with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not. I never said that every aspect of a valid scientific theory has to be testable. However, the theory's predictions must be testable. The Big Bang theory's prediction of an expanding universe is certainly testable, and has in fact been proven.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like what?

[Emsworth]

Obviously there are competing curricula in states and districts, but what I came across was invested in questioning the assumption or the idea that by chance we found ourselves in this universe and on planet Earth and it all just sort of computes. It just runs along. I don't think it's counterproductive or non scientific at all to question that notion. It's been kind of taken for granted since Darwin by so many people, so in that case ID seems to be testable to some degree, likely using probability theory to name one thing, which is a science. Specific criteria would need to be agreed upon and then we examine how likely events are to have just simply happened. That seems to lend itself to testability, actually.

Again, as I said before, "testability" is not what you suggest it is. The theory itself is not what I am concerned about testing. It is the predictions made by the theory that should be testable. The theory of evolution predicts the presence of fossils of animals no longer in existence, a genetic similarity between different species, and so forth. These can be tested. The theory of relativity predicts the gravitational redshift of light. This can be tested. The theory of the Big Bang predicts that the light from distant galaxies will be redshifted. This can be tested. And so on.

The ID theory, however, makes no such testable prediction. It is not based on any actual evidence. It is no more than blind conjecture. It has as much scientific credibility, in my opinion, as the suggestion that the first humans spontaneously oozed out of the ground.

[Emsworth]

ID should predict the presence of evidence that suggests we haven't found ourselves in all of this by chance...

So far, no ID theory has made any such prediction. No ID theory has provided any concrete evidence or proof of its correctness. Therefore, it should not be taught as "science." At this point, it is pure conjecture, far inferior in scientific merit to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Jfern might tell you, this is unrelated to probability or statistics. How would you measure the probability of an intelligent designer existing? One would have to merely make a completely arbitrary pronouncement.

[Emsworth]

I think you could make a probability statement based on how likely life is to just spring up somewhere.

Ah, there's a catch. If it is improbable that life just sprang up on Earth, then why is it not equally improbable that the intelligent designer just sprang up elsewhere?

In any event, I fear (with all due respect, of course) that you are mixing apples and oranges. The theory of evolution does not explain how "life is to just spring up somewhere." It has nothing to do with the origin of life, but with how it has changed over time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When (and if) it is developed, and shown to be a viable theory, then, perhaps, we may consider it science. But until then, it is nothing more than blind conjecture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Severely" is a great overstatement. ID is even more lacking, by far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll have to agree there !

[Emsworth]

It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations.

As I said earlier, the conjecture in evolution is comparatively minimal. Sure, there is some conjecture, but it is based on observations, and involves testable predictions.

ID is pure conjecture. It is as much conjecture as the notion that the first humans oozed out of the ground, that they fell from the sky, or that they spontaneously appeared from nowhere. All of these ideas, as well as ID, are nothing but conjecture, whereas evolution is a scientific theory, backed by evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would agree that this need not descend to name-calling.

[Emsworth]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.

Yes, I doubt that there is any point in arguing with him. It's even worse than arguing with opebo, because opebo at least makes some attempt at sounding reasonable.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be brief: The fusion of hydrogen and helium over billions of years leads to the formation of the heavier elements, which in turn react and form inorganic compounds, which then (due to various conditions on the primordial Earth) yielded organic molecules (as has been shown to be possible by the Miller experiments), which spawned RNA molecules, which then formed a protocell, which evolved into the beings we know today by natural selection.

There: it's explained. Now you explain how God evolved from hydrogen.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly what you've been doing, actually.

[Emsworth]

I don't personally believe in evolution.

Well, that's certainly quite a pity, A18.

[Emsworth]

How so?

I find that it's not a matter of mere belief. The theory is supported by a large body of evidence, and is, moreover, scientific.

But, I suppose, if you choose to personally reject evolution, I can't say that I have any problem with your private views, given that you don't seem bent on telling schools what to teach.

[Emsworth]

As long as one does not teach it as fact, I don't oppose teaching about religion in schools.

[Emsworth]

I think how we weigh the teaching of a religion shouldn't be based on how many people currently practice it, rather we should weight it based on historical significance. Christianity is no doubt in the top three, of course, but I'm saying that we should not base our criterion on the number of people practicing it today.

Certainly.

I think that a class on religion should teach about (at the very least) Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and agnosticism/atheism, for an understanding of all of these is, in my opinion, essential to cultural literacy. Greek and Roman mythology should also be covered somewhere in school, but as the religion is dead, it need not be taught in this particular class.

[Emsworth]

Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Ancient Central American religions are all taught in History and English classes, and in many schools, they are covered in more detail than modern living religions/cultures.  I always found it interesting that the celtic religions were often ignored in public schools though.  I think those should also be covered, along with Native American.

I would say that the Celtic, Native American, and other tribal religions are not of as great historical significance as (say) the Roman and Egyptian ones, because the latter had more important civilizations associated with them. I regard teaching the five major religions before mentioned, as well as the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, as more important.