• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Intelligent design taught in schools

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
It depends what you mean by ID.

If you mean the world is 6 000 years old ID, then that's from religion, but no book said that.

If you're talking about the universe necessitating a designer, but not committing to 6 000 years, then that's not religious. Scientists upon analysing the scientific evidence have
converted to belief in God without committing to any religion.
 

Violence

Smash Lord
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,249
Location
Vancouver, BC
very quickly, i'd like to say Intelligent design is not, as some say, a religion, or part of religion, it is in fact a theory. this means that as a largely accepted theory, like the theory of evolution, ID should be taught as well. Not as a "Accept Jesus into your heart" or "Believe in Buddha" type of thing, simply as a theory. just like how evolution should be taught, as a theory.

Science as it advances, is comprised more and more of theories. thus science class is already comprised of theories being taught to students. why should ID be treated differently?
This is one of the common misunderstandings of the word theory, from my experience.

A scientific theory isn't simply something that scientists think may be correct.

It starts as a hypothesis that undergoes discussion in the scientific community, where it is attacked by other people and modified until it supports the evidence and satisfies the community(that doesn't mean it can't still be brought under attack again). Science realizes that it is not possible to prove something definitely correct, but by having a hypothesis under constant scrutiny, and constant attempts to prove it wrong make it stronger, until it is acknowledged as a scientific fact.

Once it is acknowledged as a fact, it can further be used to explain other observable facts. This is a scientific theory. For example, the atomic theory explains how atoms work and interact with each other. The theory of gravitation explains how gravity works. Likewise, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact and explains the diversity of life on Earth. It carries with it the same weight as the theory of gravitation and atomic theory.


The theory of Intelligent Design is not a scientific one, it did not show up for scrutiny in peer reviewed articles, and is not science at all. As ruled in the courtroom trial, I forgot the actual name of the case, if you'd like I can look it up, Intelligent Design was ruled to be a rebranding of Creationism by its proponents in an attempt to get religion into the science classroom.


If you're talking about the universe necessitating a designer, but not committing to 6 000 years, then that's not religious. Scientists upon analysing the scientific evidence have
converted to belief in God without committing to any religion.
I believe this is known as pantheism? Or Deism? I get my terms mixed up. But yeah, I think that's a different issue entirely.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Pantheism is a specific type of theism, the belief that God and the universe are one, so pretty much everything is divine.

Deism is the belief that God was the first cause, but is impersonal, or does not involve Hismelf in the world.

All types of theism propose that there was a deity which actuated the universe. Theism is just a belief in God.

I think the term "creationist" is the one which most accurately depicts those who believ the world is only 6000 years old.
 

Ganonsburg

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
1,083
It's true that a fact is often something observably, and testably true, however, a fact is also a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.

I'm not much of a physicist, so please forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe we have test or observed length contraction, though it is part of special relativity.
I can't seem to find any experiments on length contraction either, and I don't recall learning of any (yet). However, length contraction is not a topic that many schools teach (I know that AP Physics B does not cover it, and I am fairly sure that AP Physics C does not, as it is mostly AP Physics B + Calculus. AP Physics is generally the highest level physics class in public schools, so any schools that teach about length contraction are certainly a small number).

As a side note, I noticed a mention that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed length contraction, but I didn't read much into it because I didn't have the time and it's not really relevant to this discussion. But if you're interested, it's there.

I'd like to note, first off, that the two explanations you gave for the fossil record and the genetic map of animal species both use supernatural means to explain natural phenomena(the former because we have no documentation of what happened to all the water after the flood, and the latter because it involves a supernatural designer).

Science does not use supernatural means to explain natural phenomena, because that has no predictive power and undermines the purpose of science. However, if you can come up with another naturalistic theory that explains the existence of those two things I mentioned, then I believe you would be able to make a case. Other scientists have done exactly that in the past, but the fundamental principle of descent through modification has stood unchanged.
That was my point. Because it was in the past, we can not simply say that the pieces of evidence point unquestionably to one explanation. And really, the past is outside of science's realm, just as the supernatural is. We can not observe and experiment on what happened back then because it is done. By the definition of science, and the definition of the past, it is simply unreasonable to call molecules-to-man macroevolution (which happened in the past, and therefore is unobservable and untestable) science.

If, in (insert large amount of time) scientists then see that new species have come and gone because of the documents we write, they will be able to say that they evolved from us, and give a detailed account of the mechanisms that allowed that to happen. However, they still would not be able to say a thing about what happened prior to the documentation because they will have nothing. The evidence we have now does not allow for experimentation. We can not take it, experiment, and say, "Okay, this fits this theory, that one, and that one. Let's control for this variable to try and eliminate two of the theories." All it tells us is that some time in the past, some animals died.

And I would like to stress that you cannot dismiss macroevolution without dismissing speciation and microevolution. They operate on the same, exact driving principles, and they are all a part of the theory of Evolution. If you dismiss one, you dismiss all of it.


It is like the theory of Gravity. We can observe and test how less massive object fall toward more massive objects, and we can observe smaller object revolving around the earth.

Now, we have the Sun. We know that there is relative movement between the Sun and the Earth, we see the Sun rise and fall every day.

Because we understand the underlying principles of gravity, we can conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.

However, a modern geocentrist would of course beg to differ, saying that the evidence for the Earth revolving around the sun instead supports the theory that the major celestial bodies in the universe orbit the Earth, including the Sun.

We know his theory violates the fundamental, testable laws that have to explain how gravity works, we don't have to go out into space and observe the Earth revolving around the sun in order to be able to declare a heliocentric solar system as fact.

Just as we are able to make measurements and obtain evidence without having to actually go out into space and watch the Earth travel around the Sun, we can make measurements and obtain evidence without actually having to travel back in time and watch evolution occur.


It's the same with our own solar system's formation. We have theory on how that happened, but that isn't any less factual than things that we can observe and test either, even though we can't go back and test it. It's because of the underlying principles that we already know very well, and supporting evidence that we've found.
Firstly, teaching about the universe's formation would fall into the same category as molecules-to-man evolution. Secondly, yes, we can take theories shown to work and apply them elsewhere without actually having to observe it directly. But here's one of the big differences:

In your gravity example, you start out with one situation that you have seen to be correct, have shown mathematically, and tested/experimented/observed. Then you took that situation, notice that another situation follows what seems to be similar principles. Then you test/experiment/observe that, and find that it follows the established principles.

However, with evolution, you start out with one situation that you have seen to be correct and have tested/experimented/observed. Then you took that situation, and noticed that it could be used to explain something in the past that no one has documented, that no one can experiment on to confirm, nor can anyone replicate it.

Do you see the difference? It's huge, and it's the very difference that makes something scientific or not.

In statistics, you can not plot your data, come up with a line of best fit, and then extend that line of best fit outside of the domain of the graph. Statisticians are not allowed to do that for one reason: anything could happen outside the domain. In the case of evolution, we know that the principles behind microevolution and speciation allow for small changes within a species and allow those changes to accumulate, but it is not known whether those changes can accumulate to form completely new species. That's a completely different result, outside the range of results that have been shown before.

EDIT: Oops, forgot one last point.

In the scientific community, it is very rare that you can prove that something is true.

A scientific theory is an idea that has withstood the scrutiny of many opposing arguments, ideas, and, most importantly, evidence. It is no small matter to have the support of the entire scientific community behind you. When something does have that support, it is usually quite robust.

Though I don't mean to make an appeal to authority, it just bothered me that you took it so lightly.
Sorry, I used the term "prove" because people in this thread have used it quite often, and my point was that it has not been proven. But yes, if something has been replicated, tested, and the evidence fits the bill, then for all practical purposes it is true.

As for your scientific community comment, scientific communities in the past have accepted a flat earth to be true, yet that does nothing to make it correct.

very quickly, i'd like to say Intelligent design is not, as some say, a religion, or part of religion, it is in fact a theory. this means that as a largely accepted theory, like the theory of evolution, ID should be taught as well. Not as a "Accept Jesus into your heart" or "Believe in Buddha" type of thing, simply as a theory. just like how evolution should be taught, as a theory.
Perhaps you were just pointing this out for others to see, but if you were directly addressing me, you should note that I used the word "theory" when addressing ID.

Science as it advances, is comprised more and more of theories. thus science class is already comprised of theories being taught to students. why should ID be treated differently?
Because it is not observable or testable, unlike the theory of relativity or theory/law of gravity (use to be called the law of gravity, sometimes still is). And, as I'm arguing, the theory of evolution (in regards to macroevolution), is no more observable or testable than ID, and likewise should not be taught.

I think the term "creationist" is the one which most accurately depicts those who believ the world is only 6000 years old.
Typically, but when talking about Biblical Creation there are generally two camps, young-earth creationists (who believe that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old), and old-earth creationists (who believe that the earth is millions of years old or whatever).
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
The ones who believe the world is millions of years old aren't considered creationists.

For example, William Lane Craig is not considered a Creationist, yet he's a Christian who believes the world is millions of years old.
 

Violence

Smash Lord
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,249
Location
Vancouver, BC
So first of all, I would like to ask you to refrain from using the term, "molecules to man" and associating it with macroevolution, because it covers two completely different ideas, which are abiogenesis, and evolution.

Abiogenesis describes the origin of life and how life started from mere macromolecules. It is not something which is taught in high schools(to my knowledge, I've gone through at least 4 HS level bio related courses and never encountered it), and the scientific community has yet to reach a clear consensus on the topic.

Evolution describes the diversity of life and how life developed from single-cellular to multi-cellular organisms that now populate the planet. It does not start with non-living macromolecules, it starts with primitive cells. It is taught in high schools, and the scientific community has a very strong consensus on the topic.

Instead of "molecules to man," which isn't really an accurate description of the macroevolution you're referring to, I think "single cells to man" is more accurate.



I think that perhaps my analogy was not the best one. Please allow me to make another one.

We can observe erosion regularly. We repeatedly observe, test, and predict using the power of water and its ability to erode soil and rock. It is a well understood, well documented phenomenon. I'm sure that no one really objects to that.

Now we look at the Grand Canyon.

An incredibly deep chasm, with water flowing at the bottom.

This is not something we can conclusively test, as it takes a large amount of water, land, and time.

However, we still assume it was the Colorado River that eroded the canyon into the shape it is today.

Even though there are people who say that the canyon was formed due to a global flood(just as they believe the flood was what caused the existence of fossils).


Because of this, do you also believe that we should not teach the origin of the Grand Canyon in schools?
 

Photos

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
399
Location
Dreamworld
Ganonsburg:Perhaps you were just pointing this out for others to see, but if you were directly addressing me, you should note that I used the word "theory" when addressing ID.

no, i was not directing that at you specifically. although you made a very good point when you said:
Now, the problem here is that science comes from observation. So no ID, because we couldn't observe it and the ideas in ID are ones of faith. However, this also means that biological molecules-to-man evolution can not be taught as well.

the reason i say that ID should be taught in schools is because, without a very large overhaul of the science class curriculum, a curriculum of only facts is impossible. therefore, by simply inserting ID as a non-religious theory, a lot of work would be cut out.

so, my argument is for the equalization of theories, because evolution and ID are at least nearly equal in validity, as evolution has more logic but has too many unexplained facts, and ID explains those facts but has less logic. Stephan hawking himself has said that it could be either, but that he personally goes with evolution.

(@everyone) science being "knowledge, as of facts or principles" and science class including theories, the valid Theory of Intelligent Design should be taught alongside the valid Theory of Evolution, as they are both valid theories and equal in the explanation of the beginning of man.
 

Violence

Smash Lord
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,249
Location
Vancouver, BC
so, my argument is for the equalization of theories, because evolution and ID are at least nearly equal in validity, as evolution has more logic but has too many unexplained facts, and ID explains those facts but has less logic. Stephan hawking himself has said that it could be either, but that he personally goes with evolution.
A few responses.

because evolution and ID are at least nearly equal in validity, as evolution has more logic but has too many unexplained facts, and ID explains those facts but has less logic.
The theory of Intelligent Design is not a scientific one, it did not show up for scrutiny in peer reviewed articles, and is not science at all. As ruled in the courtroom trial, I forgot the actual name of the case, if you'd like I can look it up, Intelligent Design was ruled to be a rebranding of Creationism by its proponents in an attempt to get religion into the science classroom.

Stephan hawking himself has said that it could be either, but that he personally goes with evolution.
Stephen Hawking is a physicist, not a biologist.
 

Ganonsburg

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
1,083
The ones who believe the world is millions of years old aren't considered creationists.

For example, William Lane Craig is not considered a Creationist, yet he's a Christian who believes the world is millions of years old.
Actually, they are. Old Earth Creationism.

So first of all, I would like to ask you to refrain from using the term, "molecules to man" and associating it with macroevolution, because it covers two completely different ideas, which are abiogenesis, and evolution.

Abiogenesis describes the origin of life and how life started from mere macromolecules. It is not something which is taught in high schools(to my knowledge, I've gone through at least 4 HS level bio related courses and never encountered it), and the scientific community has yet to reach a clear consensus on the topic.

Evolution describes the diversity of life and how life developed from single-cellular to multi-cellular organisms that now populate the planet. It does not start with non-living macromolecules, it starts with primitive cells. It is taught in high schools, and the scientific community has a very strong consensus on the topic.

Instead of "molecules to man," which isn't really an accurate description of the macroevolution you're referring to, I think "single cells to man" is more accurate.
Okay, but the point is still the same, which is that I'm talking about the theory of evolution as it pertains to the history of organisms.

I think that perhaps my analogy was not the best one. Please allow me to make another one.

We can observe erosion regularly. We repeatedly observe, test, and predict using the power of water and its ability to erode soil and rock. It is a well understood, well documented phenomenon. I'm sure that no one really objects to that.

Now we look at the Grand Canyon.

An incredibly deep chasm, with water flowing at the bottom.

This is not something we can conclusively test, as it takes a large amount of water, land, and time.

However, we still assume it was the Colorado River that eroded the canyon into the shape it is today.

Even though there are people who say that the canyon was formed due to a global flood(just as they believe the flood was what caused the existence of fossils).

Because of this, do you also believe that we should not teach the origin of the Grand Canyon in schools?
However, this is in the exact same category as macroevolution: you can't observe or test this in any way, you can only assume that this is how it happened. It does not fall into the definition of science, just like "single cells to man" evolution.

So no, I would not teach the "origin" of the Grand Canyon in a science class, because it is not science.

Ganonsburg:Perhaps you were just pointing this out for others to see, but if you were directly addressing me, you should note that I used the word "theory" when addressing ID.

no, i was not directing that at you specifically. although you made a very good point when you said:
Now, the problem here is that science comes from observation. So no ID, because we couldn't observe it and the ideas in ID are ones of faith. However, this also means that biological molecules-to-man evolution can not be taught as well.
Ah, okay. Glad we're in agreement here.

the reason i say that ID should be taught in schools is because, without a very large overhaul of the science class curriculum, a curriculum of only facts is impossible. therefore, by simply inserting ID as a non-religious theory, a lot of work would be cut out.

so, my argument is for the equalization of theories, because evolution and ID are at least nearly equal in validity, as evolution has more logic but has too many unexplained facts, and ID explains those facts but has less logic. Stephan hawking himself has said that it could be either, but that he personally goes with evolution.

(@everyone) science being "knowledge, as of facts or principles" and science class including theories, the valid Theory of Intelligent Design should be taught alongside the valid Theory of Evolution, as they are both valid theories and equal in the explanation of the beginning of man.
Really, there aren't too many things that would have to be revised. It's not like many physics classes go over the Big Bang (which would be at fault), or many chem classes doe anything with abiogenesis. The two big problems would be biology with macroevolution, and geometry/astronomy with how the universe formed (not really sure if that's covered, my sister took the class and mentioned it a few times though). Those topics simply do not fall into the category of science, by the very definition of science.

Maybe if you could mention some other theories though to explain why you think a major overhall would be needed, that would be helpful. But really it's just better to take out the few unscientific theories.
 

Mike

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
166
Creationism should never be taught in science classes as a scientific idea. It cannot be proven wrong, so it is not scientific. It's really that simple.

If it were taught in schools, it should be taught as what it is: an idea that came from religious beliefs that cannot be verified, maybe in a history class or something.

@Dre: intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life on Earth, it deals with the change of life after the fact. Also, evolution IS proven; it's an entirely observable phenomenon! Its most obvious occurrence is in bacteria, but even more complex species such as fish have been found to evolve in adaptation to cultural ceremonies in South America, where the tribes would throw neurotoxic drugs into their ponds.
 

Violence

Smash Lord
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,249
Location
Vancouver, BC
So no, I would not teach the "origin" of the Grand Canyon in a science class, because it is not science.
Science is indeed, largely about making repeatable observations and drawing conclusions from them which have testably predictive power.

However, it is also largely about making inferences with previously established principles. We build on the knowledge we have.



I'd have to say that I think your definition of science is quite narrow.

Radiometric dating must not be science either, since we can't really test it against anything, right? At least, anything beyond carbon dating.

We've never observed or tested the creation of sedimentary layers within the Earth, so such a thing is not science either?

Fossilization must not be science either, since we lack the time to test how fossils are created?

The idea of Pangaea and tectonic plate shifting, is completely untestable as well, so it shouldn't be taught?


If this is what you really believe, then I think we have a fundamental split in our lines of thinking and we won't easily come to a consensus.
 

Photos

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
399
Location
Dreamworld
Definition of Intelligent Design: certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process.
Just in case anyone needs it.

Mike: Also, evolution IS proven; it's an entirely observable phenomenon! Its most obvious occurrence is in bacteria.

@ mike: alrighty, i know that this was aimed at dre, but i actually worked on this topic in debate. Micro-evolution is entirely true. completely. and it has been observed. Macro-evolution (molecules to man evolution) in the way we know micro-evolution simply is not possible. Mathematically, along with optimum conditions, it is not possible. that is why there is not just one type of bio-evolution. there is macro evolution and micro evolution.


@ganonsburg: think of everything that has "theory of" before it, and get rid of it. that leaves out a lot of mid to high level science. firstly, structure of atoms has not been seen. secondly, evolution in biology.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
Really, there aren't too many things that would have to be revised. It's not like many physics classes go over the Big Bang (which would be at fault), or many chem classes doe anything with abiogenesis. The two big problems would be biology with macroevolution, and geometry/astronomy with how the universe formed (not really sure if that's covered, my sister took the class and mentioned it a few times though). Those topics simply do not fall into the category of science, by the very definition of science.

Maybe if you could mention some other theories though to explain why you think a major overhall would be needed, that would be helpful. But really it's just better to take out the few unscientific theories.
I think you don't understand the idea of a "theory." Theories don't just come into being from someone's head and published. No, the exact opposite is true. Actual theories are backed up with evidence, discussed for years, experimented with, studied, and written about in countless journals until they can really be called theory. As such, theories are generally considered fact or at least has a strong basis in fact.

The theory of evolution is taught because it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as fact. Just like how the theory of gravity is taught, the theory of evolution is also taught in science classes, although to a much lesser degree.

Arguing for something like ID to be put into a science class is ludicrous because not only does it have no basis in SCIENCE, but has no basis in real-life evidence. Once substantial evidence has been gathered for ID, published in a journal for scientists to discuss, and undergone the rigorous experimentation and study that evolution has, then it can be proposed as a theory and taught as a plausible theory in a Science class.

I'm skeptical though.
 

Violence

Smash Lord
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,249
Location
Vancouver, BC
Definition of Intelligent Design: certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process.
Just in case anyone needs it.

Mike: Also, evolution IS proven; it's an entirely observable phenomenon! Its most obvious occurrence is in bacteria.

@ mike: alrighty, i know that this was aimed at dre, but i actually worked on this topic in debate. Micro-evolution is entirely true. completely. and it has been observed. Macro-evolution (molecules to man evolution) in the way we know micro-evolution simply is not possible. Mathematically, along with optimum conditions, it is not possible. that is why there is not just one type of bio-evolution. there is macro evolution and micro evolution.


@ganonsburg: think of everything that has "theory of" before it, and get rid of it. that leaves out a lot of mid to high level science. firstly, structure of atoms has not been seen. secondly, evolution in biology.
I think you have quite a few misconceptions about evolution.

As I said before, I'd really appreciate people not using the term molecules to man, because it is not a correct term and spans two completely different ideas: abiogenesis, and evolution.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it is an explanation of the diversity of life.

The mathematical argument against evolution is a fallacious one which doesn't really work.

All in all, it's an argument from incredulity, thinking that because something is highly improbable to have had occurred, there's no way it could've happened.

However, evolution is anything but random. We didn't take a deck, well shuffled, and deal ourselves a royal flush.

Evolution describes descent with modification, along with natural selection as the driving force as for which species survive and which ones die off. Given a very long period of time, lots and lots of "microevolution" will result in speciations(which has also been observed), which, after a very long period of time, will result in "macroevolution." It's all one principle, using the same driving mechanisms.



And... I don't know if you read what I said before, if you take away every scientific theory out of science, you are left with nothing. Not just mid and high level science, you have nothing. Science is made of scientific theories.

And what do you mean the structure of atoms hasn't been seen?

While it is true we can't see atoms, I mean... photons are too big to give us good enough detail, it is still possible to visualize and display the structure of atoms without physically using photons to see them.

http://www.hydrogenlab.de/elektronium/HTML/einleitung_hauptseite_uk.html

That's how we know the makeup of the electron clouds that surround the nucleus.
 

Ganonsburg

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
1,083
Science is indeed, largely about making repeatable observations and drawing conclusions from them which have testably predictive power.

However, it is also largely about making inferences with previously established principles. We build on the knowledge we have.



I'd have to say that I think your definition of science is quite narrow.

Radiometric dating must not be science either, since we can't really test it against anything, right? At least, anything beyond carbon dating.

We've never observed or tested the creation of sedimentary layers within the Earth, so such a thing is not science either?

Fossilization must not be science either, since we lack the time to test how fossils are created?

The idea of Pangaea and tectonic plate shifting, is completely untestable as well, so it shouldn't be taught?


If this is what you really believe, then I think we have a fundamental split in our lines of thinking and we won't easily come to a consensus.
Woah. You're taking my entire point out of context. Not only that, but it is not my definition of science I'm arguing from; I'm arguing from the very definition of science. <- That is a link, just so you know. I feel like you either missed it the first time, or forgot what was there. Let me go through it for everyone reading my posts:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Definitions 1 and 2 are the most specific. If you think science is simply knowledge (as per definition 4), then we completely differ in what we think of science. You could then argue that just about anything is science. So I will be using definitions 1 and 2.

Macroevolution, assuming it to be true (which I am doing for the sake of argument), is knowledge. Therefore, it could be classified as science by definition 4. But that tells us nothing, because suddenly many more non-scientific things are scientific because of the general definition. However, looking at definition 1, we see that science deals with showing the operation of laws. Macroevolution does not do this, plain and simply. It shows the operation of laws as what we think may of happened, but this is not fact, simply speculation. Looking at definition 2, we see that scientific facts are gathered by observation and experimentation. Again, macroevolution is neither of these.

Even when inferences are made, the conclusion is tested to see if it explains what it attempts to explain. ie, gravity. Not many inferences were made, but even after being accepted by the community (after many experiments), it was still tested and tried. In fact, when scientists noticed that Uranus's orbit could not be explained by Newton's Law of Gravity, they began to question it. Some scientists, however, proposed that there was a planet beyond what they had seen thus far, and used the Law of Gravity to show where it would be. This was an inference. Soon after, Neptune was discovered, and explained exactly the "problem" with Uranus's orbit! This is the difference between the inferences made with macroevolution and true operational science.

As for your list, I'd like to address it but I'm exhausted (this is the paragraph I'm writing last, despite you reading it before the responses below). But based on what I've told you, you should be able to figure it out on your own. Here's a starting point: radiometric dating is based on radioactive decay, a very well documented and observable event. However, it can not reliably be used for giving dates in the distant past for many reasons. So radiometric dating itself is based on a scientific finding, but using the findings for dates in the unobservable past can not be used as concrete evidence. If you're a bit confused by this last paragraph, please forgive me. I'll try to show you why in the morning with some articles.

Mike: Also, evolution IS proven; it's an entirely observable phenomenon! Its most obvious occurrence is in bacteria.

@ganonsburg: think of everything that has "theory of" before it, and get rid of it. that leaves out a lot of mid to high level science. firstly, structure of atoms has not been seen. secondly, evolution in biology.
Firstly, only microevolution and speciation are observable and have been shown to work. Macroevolution is not, and can not be shown to work (at least in reference to "single cells to man") because it has already happened (assuming again that it even happened). It is far from being proven.

Secondly, not all things with "theory" in front of them use "theory" in the same way. ie, Theory of Gravity. This can be observed, patterns in it can be noticed, and it can be manipulated in ways for our benefit. Very real, very "provable" (in the sense that you can show it). On the other hand, you have many psychology theories that amount merely to speculation (ie, psychoanalysis and Freud's ego/superego/id). Macroevolution falls closer to the second category, as it can not be shown or manipulated.

And although the structure of atoms can not be seen, scientists can tell what structures work and don't work thanks to many different experiments. ie, Rutherford's Gold Foil experiment told/tells/shows (notice, it is an observable event, and can continue to be shown) us that atoms are not solid as in the Plum Pudding Model, but rather that the negative and positive parts of the atom were seperate. Other experiments tell us other properties, and all these are continuous, observable findings/events.

I think you don't understand the idea of a "theory." Theories don't just come into being from someone's head and published. No, the exact opposite is true. Actual theories are backed up with evidence, discussed for years, experimented with, studied, and written about in countless journals until they can really be called theory. As such, theories are generally considered fact or at least has a strong basis in fact.

The theory of evolution is taught because it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as fact. Just like how the theory of gravity is taught, the theory of evolution is also taught in science classes, although to a much lesser degree.

Arguing for something like ID to be put into a science class is ludicrous because not only does it have no basis in SCIENCE, but has no basis in real-life evidence. Once substantial evidence has been gathered for ID, published in a journal for scientists to discuss, and undergone the rigorous experimentation and study that evolution has, then it can be proposed as a theory and taught as a plausible theory in a Science class.

I'm skeptical though.
I don't see how I implied that I don't know this. If you were referring to what you quoted directly, I was responding to Photos, and as I didn't know what he was considering a theory, I had to use the word as he used it.
 

Photos

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
399
Location
Dreamworld
The theory of evolution is taught because it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as fact. Just like how the theory of gravity is taught, the theory of evolution is also taught in science classes, although to a much lesser degree.

ID has generally been accepted by the world at large including some scientists.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Questions for those who say ID should be taught in class.

What is it that would actually be taught in these classes? How many classes do you think it would take? In what subject should this be taught and why?

This is somewhat of a sneaky set of questions IMO, because from what I can understand (which may not be correct), there is very little to actually be explained about intelligent design. It would only take approximately 1 class (as in one individual 30 minute-1 hour class), and it doesn't really fit in any particular subject.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
The theory of evolution is taught because it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as fact. Just like how the theory of gravity is taught, the theory of evolution is also taught in science classes, although to a much lesser degree.

ID has generally been accepted by the world at large including some scientists.
Accepted doesn't mean it's been backed up by evidence. And not only that, but I said that it was accepted by the scientific community because you are proposing that it be taught in a science class.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
The theory of evolution is taught because it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as fact. Just like how the theory of gravity is taught, the theory of evolution is also taught in science classes, although to a much lesser degree.

ID has generally been accepted by the world at large including some scientists.
Why does it matter if the world at large accepts it? Those people haven't actually studied it and don't have enough information to come up with a reasonable conclusion.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Except that scientists do believe it.

Scientists have converted to belief in God purely because of the scientific evidence.

So yes, these people have studied. Saying they haven't is just arrogance.
 

Mike

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
166
Except that scientists do believe it.

Scientists have converted to belief in God purely because of the scientific evidence.
This is true, but they converted because they don't believe what can be found through science is all there is. They didn't convert because of any evidence supporting the existence of a God.

I don't understand why there is even a debate at all. ID is not scientific so it should not be taught in science classes as science. It also doesn't have any evidence supporting it so it should not be taught as any sort of fact. Bam, end of debate!
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Except that scientists do believe it.

Scientists have converted to belief in God purely because of the scientific evidence.

So yes, these people have studied. Saying they haven't is just arrogance.
Some scientists believe it ... as the post I quoted said.

My only point was that it doesn't really matter what PEOPLE IN GENERAL think.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Mind showing me an example or two, dre?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g9NXjAZENo&NR=1 At the start.

P. C Davies, or paul Davies, was previously agnostic until he discovered what was worked out in the vid.

Mike, no it's just that. The scientific evidence shows that the slightest of tweaks to the universe would have made it recollapse into itself. Science has also calculated that the probability of the universe formulating as it has by chance is literally one in trillions.
 

professor mgw

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
2,573
Location
Bronx, NY
NNID
Prof3ssorMGW
Props for dre. for showing evidence or backing up both sides, atleast making this a debate.

@topic: no it shouldn't. In fact, i dont think it sholud be taught at all (through the school system). I think teens should go && reasearch for themselves.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Perhaps the reason why evolution is always claimed to be universally accepted, and ID as a scientific theory is met with such hostility is simply because evolution is taught in schools and ID isn't.

Had we all been taught the scientific evidence in the video I showed, the hostility towards ID as a scientific theory wouldn't be so intense.
 

Mike

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
166
Mike, no it's just that. The scientific evidence shows that the slightest of tweaks to the universe would have made it recollapse into itself. Science has also calculated that the probability of the universe formulating as it has by chance is literally one in trillions.
Please list some sources.

Anyways, it's interesting how you're assuming as fact ideas that are supposedly found through science that agree with your beliefs, but you ignore the ones that go against your beliefs (such as the existence of the metaphysical).
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
....The existence of the metaphysical compliments my beliefs. Metaphysical reality is a necessary condition for belief in God.

Look at the video I posted, it shows the evidence.

Besides, I didn't need that scientific evidence to conclude that God exists anyway, I feel atheism has too many metaphysical issues to be plausible, even if the big bang instantiating out of nothing by chance didn't have a probaility of one in trillions.
 

Mike

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
166
....The existence of the metaphysical compliments my beliefs. Metaphysical reality is a necessary condition for belief in God.
Yes, and I am saying claims of the metaphysical are ignored by science, though you ignore that when defending your position on it.

Look at the video I posted, it shows the evidence.

Besides, I didn't need that scientific evidence to conclude that God exists anyway, I feel atheism has too many metaphysical issues to be plausible, even if the big bang instantiating out of nothing by chance didn't have a probaility of one in trillions.
Where did they get the probabilities to be able to accurately calculate all that in the first place? It reminds me of the claim that the chances of people evolving from the earliest for of life is the same as a jet being assembled in a tornado. Completely ridiculous! Try again with real science.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Firstly, science is founded on metaphysical propositions, such as other minds existing, our perception of the external world correlating to reality, the world being millions/billions of years old, and not just being amde 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age. In fact, science only exists because of the metaphysical proposition that science can conclude truths.

And of course science ignores metaphysics, science comes after metaphysics, just like how science ignores music theory, they're different disciplines.

The jet and tornado example isn't about humans evolving from the earliest forms of life, it's the idea of complexity arising, and being preserved from unordered chaotic potency.

Notice how you just dismiss it as "this stuff is rubbish" without explaining why, and without providing evidence for alternate theories. It's as if you just expect me to say "Well yeah Mike's right, this is all just urbbish, it's entirely logical for me to agree with him despite he fact he's provided me no reason why it's wrong, and hasn't provided me with an alternative with evidence".

Besides, the idea that the probability of a universe coming out of nothing, and forming complexity that is preserved in complete randomness, but just happens to have coherent laws that allow for life, and despite the source of all this being random, the laws remain completely consistent and untampered with, being enormously improbable is just common sense anyway.
 

Violence

Smash Lord
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,249
Location
Vancouver, BC
I'm going to post a longer response to Ganonsburg, but that comes later tonight.

I just wanted to respond to Dre here,

Had we all been taught the scientific evidence in the video I showed, the hostility towards ID as a scientific theory wouldn't be so intense.
This is the retrospective improbabilistic argument, and, to my knowledge, is fallacious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5NPpoM5lIQ

ID, again, is not a scientific theory, it is a rebranding of creationism, which has never been in a peer reviewed journal article or come under scrutiny in the scientific arena of discussion.

Mike, no it's just that. The scientific evidence shows that the slightest of tweaks to the universe would have made it recollapse into itself. Science has also calculated that the probability of the universe formulating as it has by chance is literally one in trillions.
There is also the possibility that the state of the universe comes to fit the initial conditions. If the weak force/strong force/some other mathematical constant was changed, surely a different universe would have been formed, but it would've reached a stable conformation(even if that conformation is to simply recollapse on itself). And I don't find it so unlikely that within the range of possible universes with different possible initial conditions, that there are others with stable conformations like our own, that also have the potential for their own version of intelligent life.

I can understand the sentiment that we don't know where our initial conditions came from, and such a thing suggests a cause, and so on and so forth until we reach a first cause.

The problem for me, anyway, is that it is difficult to leap from there to any kind of supposition about this first cause. We know nothing about it, whatever it is, whether natural or intelligent.

I'm atheistic in the sense that I believe that the deities that we all know of all over the world do not exist, and if there was some kind of intelligence that created our universe, we have not heard of it yet.

After all, I think an eternal universe is just as ludicrous and idea as an eternal creator.

Anyways, that's just my take on it, I guess it's not really an argument, you can disregard it if you want. I'll write to Ganonsburg on the topic of historical sciences later.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
The probablity of the universe instantiating purely by chance out of nothing is so outrageous that atheists generally revert to either some sort of infinite regress theory, or a multiple universes theory.

Firstly, infinite regress has been shown to be logically impossible. Secondly, the multiple universe theory is a purely metaphysical assumption, just like theism, except the MU theory was made to retain the conclusion that God does not exist. The theory is only floating around because there are problems with all other atheistic theories.

Besides, most atheistic theories have metaphysical issues. For example, someone who proposes that the universe is infinite, no matter what type of infinite regress theory it is, be it looping theory or the no boundary proposal , has to conceded that's possible that a FSM could have been the first cause, because ironically, the FSM actually meets the conditions atheism has for being a first cause, which are essentially none. Theism doesn't logically permit the existence of the FSM of the first cause, because it doesn't meet the conditions of being the first cause theists put forward.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
You're following a very fallacious path.

The disproof of the Big Bang does not prove the existence of a higher being.

You didn't even disprove the Big Bang, merely stating that it is incomprehensibly unlikely. Impossibility does not follow unlikeliness.

Of all the "evidence" you provided for Intelligent Design, you only provided evidence against the scientific theory. Where is the evidence for ID?
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
The point is, the explanation of the origin of the universe without God is so ridiculously improbable that it is not rational to choose atheism over theism. Choosing atheism ironically, would be a matter of faith, or having a conclusion before the premises.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
The point is, the explanation of the origin of the universe without God is so ridiculously improbable that it is not rational to choose atheism over theism. Choosing atheism ironically, would be a matter of faith, or having a conclusion before the premises.
Not so.

Who says that the Big Bang is the definitive answer to how the universe was creative?

Perhaps the Big Bang theory is very unlikely (not impossible). So what? Does this automatically prove that a god exists? NO

it means that we have to keep searching for answers, more answers and better answers. You may have already found yours, but science will keep searching.

Perhaps that is the main difference between theism and atheism.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
The point is, the explanation of the origin of the universe without God is so ridiculously improbable that it is not rational to choose atheism over theism.
That is based on an unfounded premise. The underlying assumptions in order to do the probability calculation would be, as you put it, a matter of faith.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
The point is, the explanation of the origin of the universe without God is so ridiculously improbable that it is not rational to choose atheism over theism. Choosing atheism ironically, would be a matter of faith, or having a conclusion before the premises.
If you give it enough time, an event with low probability will eventually happen.

You also don't have a counterfactual to say what the universe would be like if it didn't evolve this particular way.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
If you give it enough time, an event with low probability will eventually happen.

You also don't have a counterfactual to say what the universe would be like if it didn't evolve this particular way.
That brings up something else pretty philosophical to consider.

how could time exist without the universe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom