News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools

Started by Squid, January 21, 2010, 01:28:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tank

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID. They are using scientific terms. So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not) as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another. In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all. So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic. It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage. You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.
You obviously don't know as much about ID as I do, or the Discovery Institute 'Wedge Strategy' that underpins ID. ID is creationism in disguise, end of story. It's lots of fancy scientific words and no content.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Thumpalumpacus

QuoteI know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it.

Science is not about what sounds "sciency".  It is about what can withstand rigorous examination while retaining explanatory power.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Davin

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID.
Just barely.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"They are using scientific terms.
Yes, the problem is that they're not using them correctly. By correctly I mean that they're constantly failing at the scientific method by consistently committing logical errors, the biggest one being confirmation bias, the worst is when they "trust" a scientifically proven method in one instance but disregard it as not accurate enough in another instance (like carbon dating is perfectly fine when it dates back to some tree that got flooded about 4,000 years ago but not when carbon dating dates something back more than 10,000 years), also: just using scientific terms does not a science make.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not)
Only in the same sense that a child with a garden hose is a fireman.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it.
The problem is that they can't back up what they say and it fails scrutinies of the scientific method every time. When it's treated just as every other scientific theory, it fails. It has no accurate or useful predictions, all independent verification shows that each of it's conclusions aren't true and simple demonstrations show that it doesn't work the way they say it does. Really it fails all around as a scientific theory, especially when compared to what we call real science.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another.
There's a big difference. When scientists disagree with each other they provide the reasons they disagree. While Newton came up with a theory for gravity, and like I think should happen, he was questioned and argued with and because he was somewhat correct, he was able to show evidence that the theory was correct. Now it wasn't completely right just as our current theory of gravity likely isn't completely right, but at the very least it was in the right direction. In comparison, when religion is wrong, they don't refine where they're wrong, they just abandon the dogma. Like that the Sol revolves around the Earth.

The contrast between the two methods is that when ID is shown evidence that they're wrong, they either ignore the evidence or drop the idea. When science is wrong, they use the evidence to make the theory more accurate to reality. The reason is because when science says "this is the way this works" it isn't because someone got drunk one night and came up with a random idea, it's because they've gathered evidence that shows that that is the way things work. While ID people tend to work from the conclusion to find evidence that supports the conclusion instead of finding out where the evidence leads resulting in a conclusion.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all.
Never seen any example where ID people were right against science.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic.
It's better than in a fiction reading class where it really belongs.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage.
Because they've already been discredited several times. They'd get the same respect as other scientific proposals, if they followed the same methodology of other scientific proposals. But I'm sure that the ID people know that they're ideas won't hold up to the same scientific scrutiny that real scientific theories are held to.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.
No, it only belongs in the realm of science after it's passed the gauntlet of the scientific method.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID. They are using scientific terms. So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not) as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another. In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all. So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic. It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage. You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.

You seriously need to read the book 'Monkey Girl'.  ID is not only a religious idea in sciency clothing, they sciency clothing they tried to give to the concept was so flimsy that a court of law had no way to distinguish ID from Creationism except a few key pieces of terminology were different.  ID was the next try by an obsessed anti-science community to get religion taught as an alternative to science and they were found out and exposed for the frauds they are.  It is NOT science, or if it is science, it's bad science that should be entirely ignored by anyone with serious scientific aspirations.  The fact that anyone would try to say that ID in any way should be considered science simply shows the person who is arguing either has very little knowledge of science, what ID is, or both.

The whole 'teach the controversy' BS is simply a childish ploy, a double dog dare from a group who has no other way to get their fractured, broken 'scientific theory' to be taken seriously.  Should we also teach in geography that the Earth sits on pillars?  Or is flat?  Or in the centre of the universe?  Or rides on the back of a giant turtle?  Any one of those arguments could be just as convincing as ID given the same amount of time and money the ID movement has invested to make themselves seem somewhat credible to the uninformed.

ID is mythology explained with scientific terminology in order to make creationists feel less silly about believing that the Earth is 6000-10000 years old when there are historical accounts of civilizations older than that, not to mention fossils, ice core samples, geological strata, etc. etc. etc.  Instead of desperately trying to find some shred of proof that the impossible is possible, why not start looking at other explanations beyond archaic religious belief?  If you like this ID rubbish science, you might LOVE real, valid science.  :)
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

Kylyssa

Quote from: "Filanthropod"It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage.

Are you at all aware of where the ID movement originated and the plan that it embodies?  It's creators' intent is important.  If Darwin's theory of Evolution had been created to slowly erode belief in Yahweh rather than based on observable phenomena and objects, wouldn't you question it?  Evolutionary theory is not an attempt to disprove anything.  Rather, it is like a crime scene investigation trying to reconstruct what happened based on the evidence.  ID, however has a clear goal in mind and any evidence is warped to fit the goal or discarded if it does not fit the goal.  

Those who began the recent ID movement laid out its purpose - to insert the concept of God into evolution, then to slowly erode the evolution part until, over a period of years, what would eventually taught would be Christian style Creationism.  They have a plan for it, not based on evidence but on their vision of Christianity being taught as fact in public schools.  Doesn't the motivation or methodology matter to you at all?  If the point and motivation for ID is to insert Christianity into schools, how is it not religious?

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage.

Are you at all aware of where the ID movement originated and the plan that it embodies?  It's creators' intent is important.  If Darwin's theory of Evolution had been created to slowly erode belief in Yahweh rather than based on observable phenomena and objects, wouldn't you question it?  Evolutionary theory is not an attempt to disprove anything.  Rather, it is like a crime scene investigation trying to reconstruct what happened based on the evidence.  ID, however has a clear goal in mind and any evidence is warped to fit the goal or discarded if it does not fit the goal.  

Those who began the recent ID movement laid out its purpose - to insert the concept of God into evolution, then to slowly erode the evolution part until, over a period of years, what would eventually taught would be Christian style Creationism.  They have a plan for it, not based on evidence but on their vision of Christianity being taught as fact in public schools.  Doesn't the motivation or methodology matter to you at all?  If the point and motivation for ID is to insert Christianity into schools, how is it not religious?

I tried to help him by linking to an article about the "cdesign proponentist" kerfuffle, but he has yet to comment on it.  One wonders if he'll absorb the new data, or ignore it.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Kylyssa

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I tried to help him by linking to an article about the "cdesign proponentist" kerfuffle, but he has yet to comment on it.  One wonders if he'll absorb the new data, or ignore it.

Yeah, I figured he wouldn't read your link so I tried to give a short explanation.

Filanthropod

You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

Tank

Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
0/10 Fail.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
0/10 Fail.

I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.

Tank

Quote from: "Filanthropod"
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
0/10 Fail.

I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.
I love people who disagree with me, it's morons I have difficulty with  :D
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Filanthropod

You're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.

Kylyssa

Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

The people behind the ID movement have written to others in the movement stating that ID is creationism in disguise.  They have stated that their plan is to use ID to insert Christian creationism into schools.  Their stated aims are to insert Christian creationism into public schools by using ID as a wedge to get in the door.  The people behind the ID movement, themselves, communicated that it is merely a tactic to squeeze creationism into schools eventually, a foot in the door for religion.  But if you'd bother to read that link provided by Thumpalumpacus, you'd know that.  

The same people trying to get Intelligent Design into schools failed to get creationism into schools. The very same people.  Why, pray tell, would people who got defeated in trying to get creationism taught in schools suddenly switch to trying to get ID taught in schools?

Scientists who talk about ID as if it were reality are speaking in their capacity as men of faith.  If ID is the one and only truth, then why is there no physical evidence in support of it and why do more than 99% of biologists think it's religion, not science?  Redefining science to not require any empirical evidence does not make it so.  Things believed without evidence are examples of faith, not science.

Kylyssa

So I suppose if a scientist speaks about Zeus as if he were real then that makes talking about Zeus science, right?

Tank

Quote from: "Filanthropod"You're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.
In for a penny in for a pound as they say. No. I'm calling you a Moron, you walk like a Moron, talk like a Moron and quack like a Moron. Can I be more explicit? No I don't think so. I'll take my strips, but you'll still be a Moron spouting moronic ideas provided to you by other morons who think that using long words will make them sound smart through their dullard mindless and delusional maundering. People like you who hold ideas like you are singularly dangerous to humanity. You despoil all that is good about humanity. You deny real science and attempt to insert your own strawman in its place. Your behaviour and attitude are truly despicable, I have nothing but contempt for people like you and the ideas you spout from the pulpit of selfish insanity. I'm not scared of calling a moron a moron and you sir, are a moron.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.