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

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

Incidentally, I know several people who have sent their kids to private schools at the high school and college level and they taught science there like anywhere else, even evolution. The intelligent design question ads another dimension to the discussion, that is all. Sometimes I think many of you people are the ones who are very afraid to think outside the box.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

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

From what I can tell, Intelligent design is interested in explaining how a creator *could have* created the Earth and what we see and so forth. Sounds like a serious inquiry to me.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

There is disagreement about what involves good testing, from what I have read, and they are very highly speculative. Theoretical physics involves to a very, very large degree finding math to explain how a conclusion could be valid.

There are a lot of books on this issue by scientists, have you looked at any of them? There is even stuff out there that argues scientifically about validating Biblical events, like the argument that human beings descended from one man and on woman.

So it all depends on what "good testing" is.

[Giant Saguaro]

No. Teach science and teach about religion and religions. Teach about everything ideally. No limits.

Ideally, yes, but I would worry about a secular institution delving too deeply into religion, and also there really are separation of church and state issues, IMO. One that I know of right now is what's to stop a Muslim from getting in and preaching the Koran. I don't think that sort of thing should be going on - talking about how a creator may have created the Earth and the universe is to me completely unobjectionable and could be easily objective, especially considering how evolution through natural selection is anything but provable. Purely theory.

[Giant Saguaro]

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).

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.

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. There are just ways to explain how it got where it is. That's all Intelligent Design is. Personally, I don't see how it's this hard move totally away from science - I don't see that it's a big deal, that's all. Now delving into religion and theology is another matter completely.

Intelligent Falling - Ha, you know what I think that is? Someone subtly making the point that since we can't see gravity, we just use it to explain how something falls back to Earth. It's conjecture that fits facts - a lot of science is conjecture that just fits facts. That's what Intelligent Design is, to me.

So I guess in space, that's Intelligent Floating.

[Giant Saguaro]

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."

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.

Variants on evolution could be used to explain anything too. In fact many people have argued, "well everything evolves as a matter of the definition of the word." ID is a tad more involved than Aristotle since we're dealing still with what we can observe scientifically with our advancements and technology, we're just speculating as to a different kind of conclusion/origin. Evolution now is a little like saying, "Well, things change." Yeah, so they do.

I think then, if science is only what's testable, what we need to do then is rid science of anything that isn't testable. Call evolution and ID and other stuff philosophy then.

[Giant Saguaro]

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

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

[Giant Saguaro]

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

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

There are certain fundamental laws that have held up to rigorous experimental testing (the only question is what happens at very high energies like 1 nanosecond after big bang). You use the math for calculations assuming these laws. You clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics.

And the laws and the math change frequently with a lot of discussion and disagreement, that's what I'm telling you. Stephen Hawking has gone on and on and on about this - this stuff doesn't mean there wasn't a creator, it just might give some indications as to when the creator did what he did.  And you can't test what happens one nanosecond after the big bang, to use your example. This is a bit of a red herring, Fern.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

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. Background radiation just makes it hard to imagine a static universe, which for years and years good scientists thought was the case - a static universe. This gets into the nature of time and now we're into philosophy.

Developmental evolution is still hard to imagine because when new life forms appear they appear suddenly and what corresponds to fully developed, genetically similar or not.

We also can't test where the universe came from. Perhaps someday when/if we can make planets, we'll find out and we can call it testable.

ID is new, evolution is not. Indeed, science is an evolving field. Developmental evolution has had a lot of time to be thought out and there is as much evidence, if not more, against it as for it. It's had its time, I say it's time to broaden the scope a bit.

Been a good debate guys, but I got to go. It's Friday and all I'm going to head out in a bit.

[Giant Saguaro]

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?

In regard to evolution, just that small scale evolution seems to have a lot of support and evidence, unlike larger scale evolution. Large scale evolution is where things get real shaky. There's a lot of skepticism about that even in Darwinian communities.

Actually, I gave a once-over look to some proposed ID curricula and I'm a bit surprised - it seems to lend itself less to religion than I thought. 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.

I've also read something on one of the curricula pages that argued that using Darwin's testing methods one could argue ID is testable. Like the above - look for evidence that suggests it didn't 'just all happen' where Darwin looked for evidence that suggested it did 'just happen.'

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

But the more level-headed ID theories and curricula seem built around challenging the idea that everything just happened. It's a challenge to Darwinism that's often taken for granted. ID should predict the presence of evidence that suggests we haven't found ourselves in all of this by chance - they are only really starting to look for that evidence and of course it, like science itself, is debatable. I imagine that's where probability could factor in. It's like the idea that everything is a little too perfect to just compute - we could find mountains of evidence out there to argue that.

I feel it's debate worth having and it's an idea worth entertaining.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

I think you could make a probability statement based on how likely life is to just spring up somewhere. Again, they have to flush it out and many folks are dismissing it entirely too soon.

If ID has not made any such prediction(s) to everyone's satisfaction it's because it's really just now being developed and the curricula are in the beginning stages. It will be revised as it goes along, like evolution. Books like 'The Science of God,' for ex., are just beginning to posture some of the evidence.

I don't think ID so far is vastly inferior to evolution by natural selection at all. Again, we can't even explain the lack of missing links to any degree of satisfaction, so overall evolution by natural selection is severely lacking.

Haha - I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine, I don't think.

[Giant Saguaro]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

[Giant Saguaro]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

Gee, forgive me for not liking rabid creationists who are out to destroy science. Funny how you complain about the insults, and then whip out a bunch of them. Face it, you lost, Physics is a science, only you wingnuts think otherwise.

I'm guessing you're a member of the 94%-correlation-is-never-statistically-significant club? I as a member of the reality based community don't hold back on calling the bullsh**t spouted from you members of the faith based fantasy community.

As to what I said - if you want to do insults, we can do that. That's all. Now, what kind of hard drug are you on anyway? OF COURSE physics is still science, no one has said otherwise. I was merely pointing out that there is conjecture in all science.

Wrong on global warming and another ad hominem attack - I believe there is evidence for global warming and I believe at some level human beings may be responsible for it. I don't know how or to what degree or whether it's part of a trend or not and neither do you. You are good at throwing in red herrings, Fern, and this is another.

Faith based wingnut group - that's good. And you're the one displaying crosses and such in your signature? Oh right, because they fit the current agenda. An ad hominem act again if there ever was one - a person who supports ID must be a religious wingnut. Try again.

ID is a science as it predicts evidence that suggests we did not find ourselves in the universe by chance. It is testable from a couple avenues.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

I'm also looking for a chapter from a guy's PhD dissertation in biology, I believe. I'll tack it on if I can find it later.