Michigan Anti-Evolution Bill

[lucaspa]

Stick with your story? That's what I say now? You wouldn't by chance be calling me a liar would you?

No. But there might have been a little revisionist history there, but it's not worthwhile tracking down.

I realize I don't want exactly what you call ID.

It's not what IDers call ID. I'm only trying to accurately represent here what IDers say the theory is.

 

[lucaspa]

but creationism is NOT a theory. The thing to remember is that the ideas surrounding evolution evolved (haha) on logic and are not a belief structure, or based upon one.

thank you, wblastyn, for the reply.

Futanbirth, scientific theories have to be falsifiable, right? Well, being falsifiable means that they can be false. Right? So, falsifying a theory does NOT remove it from science. It merely moves it from the short list of currently valid theories to the long list of falsified ones. Remember, theory doesn't only refer to the currently valid ones.

In the 1700s and early 1800s, creationism was THE reigning scientific theory. The scientists of the time (many of them ministers) showed it to be false. Since that happened, modern day creationists have an impossible task: they have to portray an already falsified theory as being valid. It is this contradiction that makes creationism so often look like it isn't a theory.

 

[jon1101]

TE IS NOT ID. TE IS NOT ID. TE IS NOT ID.

If you go thru the ID literature, you find IDers emphatically repeating that position and violently attacking TE. See page 19-22 of Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design. "intelligent design is incompatible with what typically is meant by theistic evolution." And you stated exactly what Demski is stating is TE

You are not mistaken in TE nor mistaken in the statements you made as far as I can see. I agree wholeheartedly. However, the IDers deny emphatically that this view is compatible with or overlaps ID.

Then I was mistaken about ID. I thought that the term was broad enough in meaning to encompass TE, which you have shown is not true. Thanks.

-jon

 

[lucaspa]

Then I was mistaken about ID. I thought that the term was broad enough in meaning to encompass TE, which you have shown is not true. Thanks.

-jon

You're welcome. The heart of ID is that the ID has to manufacture organisms or parts of organisms in their present form and without connection to previous forms. IOW, there has to be a discontinuity in nature that evolution doesn't cover. ID is anti-evolution. Since TE accepts evolution fully, it rules out that discontinuity.

In reading Dembski's critique of Darwinism and TE, I find that he trots out all the traditional claims of inadequate evidence in evolution: abiogenesis, transitional forms, no macroevolution, etc.

"The point, however, at which the design theorists' critique becomes interesting and novel is when they begin raising the following sorts of questions: Why does Darwinism, despite being so inadequately supported as a scientific theiry, continue to garner the full support of the academic establishment? What continues to keep Darwinism afloat despite its many glaring faults? Why are alternatives that introduce design ruled out of court by fiat? ..."

Notice that NOWHERE in the list is there any DATA that design explains and evolution doesn't. There are NO risky predictions of new data that should be found if design theory is true and then the experiments that have found such data. IOW, this is all about politics and nothing about experimental science.

 

[Cantuar]

Didn't you tell me above that you were telling the experimentalists that their experiments wouldn't work because they were based on faulty theory?

When they talked to us about their work,which was hardly ever, then we did. That is, we did tell them that something wouldn't work if that's what our theoretical work was telling us. They didn't want to test that theory, they just wanted to tell us that we had no right to be talking about their work because we couldn't possibly know, because equations on a piece of paper had nothing to do with real hands-on chemistry, and because our work was irrelevant to the real world. It probably didn't help that the lecturer in charge of the theory group was not what you would call likeable, but it shouldn't have made that much difference.

And didn't you feel justified when they "wasted" their time?

No, I felt frustrated. Some of our work did have applications to some of their work, and they simply refused to accept that our work had any applications anywhere. Like I said, it was, "you have no right to tell us anything about our work."

As I said, both of you seem to equally misunderstand science, from my outside pov reading your posts.

It isn't misunderstanding science to say that theory research applies to experimental work and isn't just a bunch of airy-fairy intellectualism that doesn't deserve to be called science.

But apparently this never happened in biology.

I've heard biologists sneering about "that pop gen rubbish."

Einstein NEVER did a lab experiment that I can think of. Neither has Hawking. They rely on others to actually test their theories.

Exactly. They do theoretical work that's tested by others. Those experimental tests feed back to the theorists. The two work together. There isn't this attitude, which I actually found more prevalent in chemistry research (probably at least partly because there was a strong applied-science bias in the department where I was working) that if you aren't in a lab working at a bench, you aren't doing science. They thought we should be moved to the maths department. I think they're the ones who didn't know what science is really about. One inorganic-chemistry lecturer told me that he couldn't see the use of theory because his group could do great and useful things with inorganic catalysis "and you people don't even understand the hydrogen atom."

I've just been to have a look at the website of the department where I did my degrees, and it looks as if they've become very applied in their outlook now. I took courses in history and philosophy of science and molecular-bond theory in my final year, and they aren't offering any of that now, it's all materials science and polymer chemistry and pharmaceutical science. My PhD supervisor must be feeling more out of place than ever.

 

[ceridwens_descent]

just happened upon this site in a google for 'creationism, evolution'....

just wanted to leave a note for ikester....

yes, this is a free country, and one of the things that keeps it free is the doctrine of seperation of church and state. and yes, it should be treated as a doctrine.

it keeps america from becoming a theocracy...whether christian. muslim, or buddhist.

therefore, constitutionally, creationism cannot be taught in our schools. i'm sure everyone here would not want the wiccan version of creation taught in our schools....right?

you have to be fair. but all in all, religion in school is not fair.


"our forefathers warned us about the church in state"

 

[ceridwens_descent]

OH


and einstein did do his own experiments to test his theories...look up the light clock

that is how he timed the speed of light


ouch

 

[Mistermystery]

This thread is over a year old lady. The person who you were responding to is long gone/banned.

 

[Blackmarch]

I was just reading through other posts and articles and came across this one.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/MI/741_proposed_legislation_requires__7_25_2003.asp

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4946


I never thought an entire state could be this follish.

"(a) In the science standards, all references to "evolution" and "how species change through time" shall be modified to indicate that this is an unproven theory by adding the phrase "All students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(b) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Describe how life may be the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(c) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".


If this bill passes, I will lose all faith I have in state legislature.

You had faith in them before?
Legalizing any side of the argument to the prohibition of the other is wrong.

 

[L'Anatra]

Seems to me that science is a little afraid of losing ground in the schools. This is a free country the last I looked. So whats wrong with having a choice?

Being that creationism and ID are falsified scientific theories, they have no other role in the science classroom. This is what's wrong with having a choice, as you say: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Perhaps you should read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America before you start talking about our "free country."

EDIT: Heh, it's frustrating when you respond to a year-old thread. I know ikester hasn't been around for quite awhile...