That wasn't the question. The question is that given that there are many "flaws" in standardly accepted theories of science do you advocate teaching those and alternative ideas to all standardly accepted scientific theories?
What you call a flaw other consider unproven understandings. Just because you can't totally prove macro-evolution, it doesn't make it a "flaw". If we look at the beginning of earth to present time we see that life is constantly changing. Macro evolution imo is not a stretch of the imagination. Natural change is elementary.
Sorry, Where there are 'flaws' admit them. Where there are questions ask them. Where there are contradictions include them. When teaching we are all biased. Everyone. I know for certain that I am not always right (that is absolute). I am not right. But I do try my best to be honest. I don't have to be right, but I want to be honest. I think science should be taught with the same ethic. If no one was around 3.5 million years ago and a scientist assumes anything about what happened 3.5 million years ago, don't hang your theory on it. You will find a great deal of educated assumption if you read enough scientific papers on evolution and the big bang. I will call it bias. I have no problem with alternatives that are treated honestly.
I have no problem with your opinion. You are certainly in the majority. I would only add that natural change is elementary in line with thermodynamics; that systems do not increase energy and complexity over time but lose it. Everything is changing, but not necessarily for the better.
I’m starting to fall behind on this thread, so I’m not sure if any of this has been covered, but with that in mind: Evolutionist have no problem not addressing the problem of the spontaneous generation of matter, so why do you think this should be a problem for ID? Some ID people believe in Alien life forms as the intelligent designers and that can be studied in various ways, and many other ID people have other theories relating to spiritual/supernatural or other not directly scientific sources, but it’s at that point that I say the discussion should be taken to a philosophy/religion class This is a false statement. Why would they want to? What’s you’re point? Two points here. First, we have not observed or even been able to devise a sound theory for now vertical evolution could happen. Natural selection w.r.t. existing genes in a gene pool or even some lateral mutations are not the same as an organism evolving to a higher level of complexity. This phenomenon is simply not observed and based on all we know is extremely improbable at all. Second, as another poster pointed out, if the two are mutually exclusive and represent an either or choice then evidence against the one supports the other. Either what exists on earth today represents random development or non-random development. Note that although in this case there could be combinations of the two, if there are substantial portions of it that appear, based on our best knowledge and probability calculations, to be ordered and complex enough that it is extremely unlikely that it could be the result of random development, then it is scenically sound reasoning to look for the source of that design. Saying that ID is just as bad as evolution on this point is hardly a defence of evolution, but to answer the question, some do look to extra terrestrial sources, and other will look to supernatural sources, but at this point, at least initially, I would take the discussion to another class. I absolutely agree with this.
That is not what thermodynamics is at all. Energy is conserved in closed systems and I'm still not sure what this "complexity" quality is. Also, Earth is not a closed system and receives large amounts of energy from the Sun.
This isn't true - there are still unanswered questions beyond just the fossil records. The theory has changed substantially over the last few decades - that alone tells you that there is much that is unknown. However, it is not presented that way. This is in contrast to other theories such as gravity which remains substantially the same for the past 50 years. The Big Bang, more similar to evolution as a theory, was taught to me definitely as one possible theory of how the universe started.
The context was 'natural change' as if natural change could violate thermodynamics, no system 'open' or 'closed' creates energy. Energy is conserved. Nothing improves its performance without energy. So to expect increases in complexity without violating thermodynamics is stretching out beyond observable systems in my opinion. Unless you have an example from nature.
Man it's like deja vu all over again: 328 Posts of ID lunacy Code Blue for Dr. Robert! Dr. Robert, Please report to the D&D to revive my sanity; it's flatlining again.
When people say they want "ID" taught in schools they mean the Judeo-Christian version. How many more ID versions are there? Should we also teach the ID versions of Hindus, Muslims, and any and all other religious versions? SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, I know it's a radical idea. You want your children to be taught ID, fine tell them yourselves, send your kids to a religious school, or just go to Sunday school. What's the problem? You should not impose a specific religious ideology on everyone. Imagine if your kids were being taught RELIGIOUS beliefs other than your own.
I’m not sure what post this is referring to initially, but by way of general comment one of the big problems in this debate overall is the over reliance on the position of the scientific establishment. This is why what Kuhn brought to light in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions is so relevant to this discussion and why I keep bringing it up again and again. He was not saying, as some of your postmodernist buddies have claimed, that there is no truth, but he did clearly point out that there are times when the scientific community holds onto ideas and theories that are not supported by the evidence and by good science for political and other power oriented reasons. They hold to the old paradigm because it is in their personal interest to do so, even though they may not be aware of this motivation at the time, rather than for scientific reasons. This is a phenomenon that is in part made up by selfish human nature, by the tribal nature of humans, by ignorance, by pure laziness, and we could probably flesh out some other factors. Kuhn doesn’t go into that level of detail very much (others do, however) but he clearly identifies the phenomenon in arguably the most important and widely read book on the philosophy of science ever written. So while I agree it would be absurd to say that science never challenges its theories, paradigm shifts do occur after all, it is also an absurd statement, at least from educated people in this day and age, to suggest that science always does, or even that it always does on even very prominent issues like this. It’s not clear to me that this is exactly what you are saying, but if you are you would be revealing your ignorance about how science is practiced. http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
Well your teacher was stupid or that was 50 years ago. Big Bang cosmology should be taught as accepted fact. (even though I believe that nothing comes from nothing)
You may have explained it best: nothing comes from nothing something comes from nothing man comes from something
You are such a conservative Meowgi! I don’t there are very many scientists who think the Big Bang Theory, as is, is an absolute fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#Speculative_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang The world keeps evolving and people keep learning, you know. It’s very likely that much of what we think of today as “fact” won’t be thought of as fact in 100 years, just like our knowledge now has changed from 100 years ago. Holding onto the past like that is an extremely conservative position, and needless to say not scientific.
