>> Christians -- depends on the Christian, just
>> like any other group of people.
>>
>> ID yes -- because the logic of ID is provably
>> flawed (Re: what good is half an eye)... and
>> they're demanding that it be taught in a class
>> which is explicitly about proof. Teaching ID
>> in science class is teaching children that
>> flawed logic is just as good as unflawed logic.
>> Hence the frustration of the science community
>> in the face of the insistance taht ID be taught.
> I'd take issue with that. ID is most definitely not
> a scientific theory, and therefore it cannot be
> demonstrably proven (or supported) scientifically.
> The same is true for disproving, however. How does
> your example ("what good is half an eye")
> demonstrably disprove the logic of ID??
One of the arguments for ID is that some constructs of living
organisms are irreducibly complex. The traditional example of this is
the eye, mostly because Darwin struggled with trying to conceptualize
how an eye could evolve over time through approximation. Since darwin,
however, we have discovered many examples of intermediary eyes which
exist in nature and lots of evidence to support the idea that not only
has the eye evolved naturally, but that it has independently evolved
several times throughout history. So the claim that the eye is an
irreducibly complex construct is flawed.
>> Okay... I'll allow ID to be taught in science
>> class... on one condition... It needs to be
>> taught the same way that the theory of
>> spontaneous generation was taught in my biology
>> class... That is -- the theory was explained,
>> immediately followed by the explanation of
>> the experiment(s) which disproved the theory.
>> ID can be taught, as long as it is immediately
>> followed by the explanation of why ID is flawed
>> (the fact that there's no irreducible complexity
>> in biological organisms, etc).
> But why introduce a NON scientific theory, in a
> science class?
Well the ID theorists are claiming that it is a scientific theory --
that's the whole reason for the debate, because they want it taught in
science classes... So... if they want it taught in science classes,
then the theory should be examined under the rigors of the scientific
method.
> Your spontaneous generation theory makes sense in
> a science class because it is a SCIENCE experiment.
> Since science can make no claims about
> non-scientific experiments, why mention ID at all?
That's not entirely accurate... legitimate science can reasonably
disprove the theory of ID if you understand the statement made by the
theory, which is, more or less:
"Life is too complex to have been created by an unintelligent force
(evolution), therefore an intelligent force (god or aliens) must have
created life."
(If aliens created us, of course, that begs the question who created
the aliens.)
But we don't have any reason to believe that there are irreducibly
complex structures in biological organisms, which invalidates the
theory (although not the conclusion).
>> I'm not saying that people who choose to believe
>> that life is intelligently designed are stupid
>> -- only people who believe in the theory (which
>> also means, you need to have an understanding of
>> the specific theory of ID which most Christians
>> probably don't). Beleiving that an intelligent
>> creator is responsible for life is acceptable --
>> that's an opinion removed from sicence. Believing
>> that the ID theory is good science is stupid...
> Again, to be very specific here, if someone chooses
> to believe in the theory of an intelligent creator,
> and bases their belief on some of the tenets of
> the "theory" of Intelligent Design, that isn't
> really "stupid" in and of itself.
Umm... yes... yes it is. Until there's reasonable evidence to support
an ID theory, any belief in an intelligent creator should be
identified as one of faith (an opinion), while the thoery is
recognized as being flawed. I personally do believe in an intelligent
creator -- albeit my suspicions about the being's particulars are
rather different than most folks -- but I identify that as an opinion.
> I mean, life IS really, really complex! If i
> choose to think that some higher power had some
> hand in that, that's not really "stupid".
No it's not.
> It's when I think my conclusion amounts to a
> scientific conclusion, meriting mention along side
> evolution in a science class, that i've made my
> mistake. The belief isn't "stupid", the belief that
> you engaging in science and should have your
> beliefs taught as such, is indeed stupid.
I think we're making the same argument... or trying to anyway.
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.fusiontap.com
http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167840
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
