Also, I've noticed some logical fallacies. Let me point it out: Here are some points people make: a). Lots of inconsistencies and assumptions in evolution b). Many scientists believe evolution is incorrect c). ID also contains assumptions. d). Many scientists believe ID is incorrect. Just because a). and b). IS SIMILAR TO c). and d). DOES NOT IMPLY ID is a scientific theory like EVOLUTION. Also, disproving evolution DOES NOT prove ID. So, if you want to prove ID is a theory, you should only argue FOR ID. Bashing Evolution DOES NOT advance ID's case as some of you believe.
I'm talking about taking a HARD stance on a position and never changing it even in light of the facts. I'm talking about advocating an idea STRONGLY even though your knowledge of it is slim to none. Say you believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. Then someone came and showed calculations that proved otherwise. But you still won't change your mind. That annoys the **** out of me. People here are saying ID can't be taught in science class because it can't be verified empirically. It should end at that. But instead, people attack evolution to bring it down to ID's level since they can't bring ID up to evolution's level (scientifically). But while attacking evolution, they don't even bother researching facts. Instead, we end up listing a bunch of facts and arguing in circles. Hundreds of logical fallacies occur. It's really a waste of time.
Well MM, although I don't necessarily agree with rhester on many of his views on this subject, I think this critisism from you is quite off base. I don't think anyone can claim to have the absolute superior knowledge, thus qualified to dismiss another person's belief or opinion. rhester's personal journey earned him a right to debate something he feels profoundly important to him, regardless what kind of professional training and formal education he has received.
I don't think you got the facts straight, or the logic. Many here claimed here that although they believe in ID, not necessary consider ID science. As the main opposing theory of ID, Evolution is what you and many others believe. Once Evolution is not fully proved, you can not just dismiss ID, vice versa. I don't understand why you are so upset that people believe in ID pointed out shortcomings of Evolution. In fact, lots of ID believers are more open-minded than Bush, and maybe you as well. Before they are convincingly proved wrong, they are staying with the belief of ID; same could be said to you. But despite the fact a lot here believe in ID, they don't totally dismiss Evolution, even if it's not fully proven. I don't think most of posters here discussing matter can be considered experts in those areas, but it shouldn't stop them form own opinions based on the knowledge and experience they have, and even arguments from opposite sides. But you just totally dismiss ID based on your belief - Evolution, even if it's not fully proven. Furthermore, you even went as far as acting in a way, that discussing with ID believers is an insult to you. I don't think that's proper way for "scientific" research or discussion. Back to your points, although I don't think it's really conclusive or organized, I would like to try to answer you. a) means that Evolution is not proven, so far. b) means there are supporters for notion a), among actual experts and knowledgable people (the group you gave credit for). c) it's a fact, and it's similar to science, in this particular aspect. d) obvious, otherwise there might be no debate about ID vs. Evolution. By the way, people don't want to prove ID as a theory; it is as a matter of fact. People do not necessary want to IMPLY ID is a scientific theory like Evolution. A "scientific" title, doesn't give you any exclusive leverage. Since you are advocating Evolution, applying your logic, shouldn't you stick with Evolution, instead of bashing ID, although you don't have much knowledge of ID. Of course, I don't think that logic stands in the first place.
Trying to act as a "devil's advocate" here. It would make absolutely perfect sense if it turns out (or if we assume) evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. In fact, it is one of the scietific approaches widely and often used. When you have a finite number of permutations P1 - Pn, if you can prove the incorrectness of P1 - Pn-1, then Pn must be correct by default. Not that I am saying one or the other has been proven correct, I am trying to point out the possible pitfall in your argument.
Accept that this whole issue is about teaching ID in science classes and not philosophy classes. The proponents of ID in political arenas are advocating it as a scientific theory as valid as Evolution As for asking Martian Man or anyother proponent of Evolution to stop bashing ID for one totally misses that skepticism and criticism is critical to science but further its asking proponents of Evolution to not do what they are doing themselves, bashing Evolution. My own view is that if ID wants to be considered science then very well lets subject it to the same scrutiny as Evolution. ID propoenents have been bilding their argument on criticizing the premise of Evolution that speciation is created through mutation and selection lets hear the explanation of the functioning and methodology of an intelligent designer.
You are correct in terms that logically if you eliminate every possibility but one then that last one must be true. That said though if ID proponents can disprove Evolution that still doesn't mean that ID is necesarrily any more plausible. If it was shown that species didn't evolve the logical next presumption using Occam's razor would be that species formed randomly not that there was an intelligent designer. For an intelligent designer to be the next logical step that would require some independent proof that there was something out there that could be the intelligent designer. Martian Man is absolutely right that disproving Evolution isn't a proof of ID. At the same time neither is the converse true but since Evolution isn't primarily based upon disproving ID it stands independently and the honus is on ID to do so also.
I think another part of the problem is, as MadMax mentioned, how evolution is taught in schools. It's taught as simple fact - and the potential holes or unanswered questions are often ignored. I think that leads ID proponents to want more effort put into the problems-aspect of evolution, and ID with its quasi-science nature is seen as a way to do that. I think you could solve a lot of problems by teaching evolution more fully, including the unanswered questions or internal disagreements of the theory, while also optionally teaching ID or other such non-scientific theories in a separate non-science classroom environment. But as long as evolution is taught in a more-conclusive/comprehensive-than-it-is method in science classes, people are going to fight it.
This approach assumes that the possibilities are finite and that each possibility can be conclusively proven to be right or wrong. This is possible in mathematics and certain well controlled experiments but not possible in general. Often the possibilities are not finite or even if finite, all possibilities are not known. Another thing is that it is not really as simple as saying something is either "right" or "wrong" because it is often the case that it is a spectrum because totally correct and totally false. Something that isn't totally correct, isn't therefore equivalent to it being totally wrong and thus a completely different possibility is the correct one rather than a modified version of the slightly incorrect possibility.
I probably didn't express myself clearly. I am opposing to teach ID in science classe, and I don't consider ID science. My discussion was more pointing to certain comments here. Martian Man talked about logical fallacies, I was merely pointing out his flaws. He suggested ID believers should focus on ID, instead of "bashing" Evolution; so I just suggested the same thing to him. I already said that logic doesn't stand in the first place. You can't just say that my theory isn't fully proven yet, but yours is certainly wrong, and you have to convert to my side, and we will prove that eventually. There are lots of extremists in ID believers, and same thing can be said to lots of Evolution proponents. You just can't totally dismiss something without a) prove it's absolutely wrong b) prove the exact opposite is right, and those two opposites are multually exclusive.
I guess I came off as bashing rhester for which I'm sorry because his posts are very civil. I'm just expressing my view of people who disregard information that is contrary to their views as opposed to thinking the subject through.
The article posted at the beginning of this topic is a bad one. If your article is titled "Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught", somewhere in it should be contained a quote from Bush actually saying that, or even using the term. These are the only quotes from Bush in the article: "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought" "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team" Only the third one of those is specific enough to merit discussion, and that one has nothing to do with the debate in the rest of this topic. Personally, I don't concern myself much with the specifics of creation. I've got enough other stuff to worry about. Anyway, typical bad journalism, presenting things in a way skewed to provoke easily provoked people, rather than actually presenting facts as they are.
Really? Please point it out. I can dismiss it as not SCIENTIFIC because it cannot be verified. This point has been made again and again. I don't mind people believing ID or criticizing evolution. Criticizing evolution is great because it forces the theory to be refined further and further. I do mind people advocating ID in biology class. I don't mind discussion. But when one side says, "hey science needs to be verifiable." The other side disregards that fact. Then they make broad statements like, "how can something so complex be formed?", then they conclude it must be ID because evolution cannot create such complexity. Err....great. A priori knowledge as science? Should we start sacrificing goats too? I'd like to keep the discussion scientific and logical but many people apparently don't want to. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I'm not advocating evolution. I'm refuting ID. The list was not meant to be conclusive.
LOL. I doubt you can prove ID and evolution is mutually exclusive AND prove that those are the only 2 possibilities. But I see you are just trying to post for the sake of seeing yourself post...
If I wrote, what you think I wrote, then you'd be right. But I didn't write, what you thought I wrote, so your argument doesn't fly, since you are arguing something I did not argue.
First, I'd like to say you are right. Second, no, I don't think so. ID has a religious slant. It's not only about how evolution is taught, rather that evolution contradicts the bible. Maybe the religious community should start arguing about the inner workings of the String Theory? Relativity at a quantum level? Anti-matter? they will argue only when it contradicts the bible.
so you CAN prove that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive and comprise the entire set of possibilities that answer how humans and the world were formed? Please elucidate us with your knowledge.
you know there are Christians in all different fields, right? in the law...in medicine...in sales...in auto repair...and, yes...in science. this isn't a situation where all the Christians are on one side of the room and all the scientists are on the other.
