Not try to evade your challenge, but I tend to think this whole evolution vs ID thing is more of a philosophical question than a scientific quandary. I remember someone once said science, in its highest abstraction, is an art, not science, and philosophy encompasses them all. There may be truth to that.
It's interesting how both left and right leaning news sources are jumping all over this news conference: Bush Wants Intelligent Design Taught In Public Schools Family.org _________ Often presidents are forced to be vague or deliberately obtuse when pushing for something that is important to them on a personal level. Clearly this is exactly what Bush is doing here and that's why both the left and right are correct in stating that Bush is endorsing the teaching of ID in public schools.
I think that's partially right but not that simple. I believe MadMax and Rhester that their frustration is that Evolution is taught as unquestioning fact but I don't believe that that is what most ID proponents are upset about but are specifically looking to force a supernatural POV into education. As I've said before ID is composed of two parts. 1. That Evolution has serious flaws. 2. That speciation and origin is due to an intelligent designer. I don't believe that most ID proponents are satisfied with just dealing with the first part but want the whole of ID included. If you look at the groups that are pressing for ID to be taught previously were groups that were pressing for creationism and / or the outright banning of Evolution. If these groups were so concerned about how Evolution was being taught why ban it altogether and demand instead the teaching of a Biblical account. Another problem with this is that science in schools isn't comprehensively taught enough already. Evolution isn't the only scientific theory that isn't loaded with complex questions and unexplained issues. The unexplained issues in Evolution pale to the issues in quantum theory yet you don't see a political outcry over that people are teaching the internal structure of an atom as fact or a demand to teach an alternative theory about the structure of an atom. Also the problem with teaching Evolution in a manner that doesn't at least acknowledge that it currently is the most plausible explanation based upon science is that Evolutionary theory isn't just abstract science but actually a practically applied theory. We know more about the process of speciation and mutation than we do about the inner workings of an atom and that knowledge in general is more applicable to us. Without understanding the mechanisms of Evolution we wouldn't have that much understanding of Epidemiology, genetics, microbiology and many other fields. To teach Evolution as some sort of questionable shaky theory would be the same as teaching electro-magnetism as some sort of questionable theory and then wondering why we have such poor electrical engineers. I agree Evolution isn't completely proven and is fraught with many questions but to not teach it as the most plausible scientific explanation we have will cripple the level of scientific understanding that we are teaching our children.
Max, It is not an ignorance for science theories/study/experiments that is annoying, it is intentionally ignoring how the science community works. To suggest that scientists never challenge their theories is beyond absurd and, frankly, beyond science. This, to me, is similar to treeman arguing with me about the pyramids not being built by the Egyptians and how Egyptologists only say that because they are so rigid and treat everything like religious law and perpetuate the cycle, etc.. But there are a few noble souls who challenge the ignorance and they are discredited by the big bad Egyptologists for bad reasons (see how similar it sounds)? Absurd. It never mattered that I personally know people who have worked at Giza and participated in the repeated evaluation of dating etc that occurs every few years. All that mattered was that he believed in the rigidity of academia and the beast behind the pyramid "myth". Don't believe in evolution all you want. Believe in God. Don't revel in ignorance about how science is practiced.
That article is even worse. It doesn't have a single quote from Bush. And it's not "clear", it's a tremendous reach, and I don't care how many people with their own agendas declare something, it doesn't make it true.
Maybe my broken English got you confused. But your logic certainly got me confused. I started by saying that you didn't get the facts straight, and you asked me to point out. Well, that was the starting sentence, but my whole reply was pointing out your missed facts and flawed logic. Of course you can dismiss ID as not SCIENTIFIC. I reiterated many times, that yes, science needs to be verifible, but ID can't be, so far; hence it's not science and shouldn't be taught in science class. What are you arguing with me about? The only point I made to you was, that ID, as a theory itself, can be true without being science. You don't mind people criticise Evolution? Then how come you asked wnes to only argue for ID, not to "bash" Evolution? Critisizing Evolution doesn't necessarily mean to force it refine further, it could be, but it could also prove it to be wrong. Talking about this side and that side, you really simplified everything by black or white. The quotes you used were merely asking Evolution advocators to explain those questions and facts, which leads to the conclusion that Evolution is still flawed, not fully proven, so far. What makes you think that they are trying to prove ID is science by questioning Evolution? Isn't that a little bit defensive? You said you'd like to keep the discussion scientific and logical. Well, I have no problem with the logic part, but the scientific premise is just wrong. You already dismissed ID as science (I agree with you), how can you discuss it by scientific means or criteria? You refuted ID as science, but by no means you refuted ID as a theory holds truth. It's like people talking to you about apple and orange, and you insist to talk in apple terms, and keep saying that orange is no apple. Of course orange is no apple, but how can you talk about it in apple terms only? And then you complained that people don't want to talk about orange in apple terms with you? Life itself must come from somewhere. The only two main suggestions/believes are Evolution vs. ID. Therefore, people questioning ID does help the case of Evolution, vice versa. In other words, since Evolution is still unproven, what's wrong with people believing in ID, the obvious alternative? You made a list, and claimed it didn't make sense, so I just pointed it out to you one by one, what kind of sense it made. And you don't know what I am arguing about? Well, I guess I can't help then.
I wasn't offended by your comments. I understand what you were saying. I am only expressing my own opinions. I also have the opinion that I can argue for evolution as well as any others here have. I did it in my college days. I always did well in biology, chemistry, and physics. I like healthy debate. I learn alot and I see my own deficiences. Prior to becoming a pastor I was in charge of statistical process analysis for a large chemical Co. lot of design of experiment, I also worked as a chem. tech in the lab. I am not a scientist but I understand the scientific process. I understand evolution and the science of it. I do not try to attack anyone who believes in evolution because I understand why someone can be so defensive (been there done that). I read both the ID, creationist works and the rebuttals from the science community. Again since my belief in creation is a part of my religious faith I don't have to get too bent out of shape over the science of ID, evolution, or creationism. The only thing that bothers me is putting evolution on a pedastal and saying it is untouchable, no questioning it, it has been absolutely proven in the same category as laws of physics. I happen to disagree. And I am not blinding myself to science when I say that.
rimmy-- i'm not sure your post is even remotely responsive to what i'm talking about. my point is merely that evolution is presented as science in classrooms around the country and, presumably, around the world. as if what it theorizes absolutely happened...no question about it. that's the way i've seen it presented. haven't you seen that response here...just here in this thread? question it, and you're less than intelligent. a theory. i do believe in God. i'm not going to apologize for that...and i'm not going to check my intellect at the door, either, as limited as it may be.
Some quotes from notables on the subject: ___________ John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution," he said. ... At a morning briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was simply restating long-standing views. "He has said that going back to his days as governor," McClellan said. "I think he also said in those remarks that local school districts should make the decisions about their curriculum. But it's long been his belief that students ought to be exposed to different ideas, and so that's what he was reiterating yesterday." ... The president's latest remarks came less than two months after Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, archbishop of Vienna and an influential Roman Catholic theologian, said evolution as "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is not true. "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science," Schonborn wrote in the New York Times. He said he wanted to correct the idea that neo-Darwinism is compatible with Christian faith. ... John H. Marburger III (Science Adviser to the President) sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news. Mr. Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." ... "The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted." "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." ---The National Academy of Sciences ... In comments published last year in Science magazine, Bush said that the federal government should not tell states or school boards what to teach but that "scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum."
But it is how scientists understand it. Why would they teach differently? I could not imagine taking an anthropology class and evolution as it is understood not being taught. That's what it is, the evolution of man. Evolution itself is the course. Do ID'ers really expect anthropologists to say "well this is when god jumped in and magically changed us". This is crazy.
Meowgi -- one doesn't have to mention God or Creator or anything of the sort when pointing out the flaws in evolution.
Actually it depends on which anthropologist teaching, they are in constant disagreement about origins. From Anthropology in the news. link Robotics show Lucy walked upright Australopithecus afarensis , the early human who lived about 3.2 million years ago, walked upright, according to an "evolutionary robotics" model. The model, which uses footprints to predict gait, suggests "Lucy", as the first fossil afarensis was called, walked rather like us. This contradicts earlier suggestions that Lucy shuffled like a bipedally walking chimpanzee. The research is published in the Royal Society Interface journal. "I think it is very interesting work," Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, told the BBC News website. "There was controversy as to whether [footprints purported to be from afarensis ] were showing a human pattern. And it looks like they do." How human? Lucy was discovered in Ethiopia in 1974, by a team of palaeoanthropologists who were fans of the Beatles' song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. It doesn't end the argument because there is still the possibility that there were different creatures around at the time Prof Chris Stringer, Natural History Museum The ancient hominid had many features reminiscent of her early ape ancestry, but she also carried hints of her future descendents. Her jaw was protruding and her forehead sloped back. But she seemed human, too; her posture being more upright than that of a chimpanzee. However, there has been a debate about how "human" Lucy's posture actually was. Some scientists maintain she was probably rather stooped and may have shuffled awkwardly, much like a modern chimp does when it is walking bipedally for short distances; while others think she was upright, routinely walking tall on two legs. Twenty-five years ago, some footprints were found in Laetoli, Tanzania. The lonely path, trodden by at least two individuals walking side by side, was preserved immaculately in volcanic ash. It is thought to have been left by a pair of Australopithecus afarensis , vainly retreating from an erupting volcano. The discovery of the Laetoli footprints generated a flurry of interest in scientists hoping to clear up the "posture debate". Some felt the prints suggested a human-like gait but others were not convinced. Questions remain Now, a team of scientists from around the UK have used computer robotic techniques to work out the most energy efficient gait for afarensis based on Lucy's skeleton and the Laetoli footprint trails. They claim to have cleared up the debate by finding that, based on their model, Lucy almost certainly did walk tall. "Assuming that the early human relative Australopithecus afarensis was the maker of the Laetoli footprint trails, our study suggests that by 3.5 million years ago at least some of our early relatives - despite their small stature - could sustain efficient bipedal walking at absolute speeds within the range shown by modern humans," co-author Weijie Wang, from Dundee University, told the Scotsman newspaper. However, Professor Stringer believes the controversy will not vanish overnight. "There are still some people who argue that, looking at the anatomy of the foot bones of afarensis , that they were unlikely to have made the Laetoli footprints," he told the BBC News website. "So it doesn't end the argument because there is still the possibility that there were different creatures around at the time." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4697977.stm Published: 2005/07/20 12:29:35 GMT © BBC MMV "Lucy is the crown jewel of humanoid finds, some anthropologists see Australopithecus afarensis as an ancient ape, some as a humanoid with some human-like qualities (a possible transitional species) of course if evolution is true then there would not be any apes today (except the ones that stopped evolving over 3 million years ago).-Rhester"
Let me add that when you take ape bones found in Ethiopia and date them at 3.5 million years and then find two footprints in Tanzania and assume they belong to the ape, then you have Evolutionary science at its best. Tried and tested.
They just consider the "flaws" to be unproven due to the time that it takes to happen. How do you teach anthropology without teaching evolution? What do you teach besides evolution through natural forces? I for one will never believe that things just magically happened. It is ridiculous to expect people to think that way.
i'm not asking you to think that way. i don't think it happened that way, either. i don't take the creation story of Genesis as a literal event, personally. i'm not saying stop teaching evolution..i'm saying, teach it in its entirey...warts and all.
Question to Mad Max and Rhester: Would you also advocate teaching alternative ideas to prevailing theory on every scientific issue where there are unexplained questions? For instance should the Big Bang be taught even though there are huge unexplainable questions like why some stars appear to be older than the estimated age of the Universe or that atoms are composed of nuclei with orbiting electrons even though no nuclei or electron has been directly observed?
They don't really see warts. Just gaps in proof. I see scientists on tv all the time on them learnin' shows talking about different ways life could of evolved. And what is being taught today is probably different than what was being taught 20 years ago. But it will all be though natural forces, that will never change.
Madmax already answered that. "pointing out the flaws in evolution" How many textbooks would I have to quote in here before you would see that it is taught today as absolute unquestioned fact on a level with the laws of thermodynamics? My problem is I believe there are serious flaws in the theory and so do other reputable scientists. They are being black-balled in scientific publications and in the educational community. We are too narrow-minded with respect to Macro Evolution. I think the flaws should be emphasized, not ignored.
Don't we already assume that we don't know everything when it comes to science, and that knowledge is always evolving? Like Pluto losing it's planet status etc?
