blevkog

Accepting intelligent design in classrooms is a middle ground behind the chaos if they actually get into the topic at hand:
What is science?

If they ask that question they'll be going into a problem that not even Karl Popper could resolve. Science cannot simply be using the scientific method because Darwinism doesn't do that.

Once they get into that debate it would have to strip down a lot more of the science programs. Darwinism is not a cut and clear thing. There are differing theories out there about rationality, eyes, ears, and teeth. None of them are complete and none of them have any substantive evidence. There are countering and paralelling theories of each. Take teeth for example:

The current form taught in schools dictates that early man was a hunter. Man began to use tools and hunt down his prey. As man began to do this more and more the need for sharper teeth was weeded out of the gene pool because they nolonger needed to bite their prey. We've accepted this for roughly 70 years as being the theory to explain our teeth.

However in the last 30 years the theory that women were the causers of teeth change is becoming strong. The theory suggests women were berry pickers. As they formed pots and baskets they could carry more berries and feed more people. Women chose men with teeth that were not as sharp as mates so they could eat berries and fruits. These men were also less aggressive and thus became rational.

Which one do you teach in school? The courts would argue this case for centuries.

Paul, there are so many things wrong with your statement that I don't even know where to begin. First off, do you have any cites to actual scientific papers on your teeth theory, cause thats the first time I've seen that particular piece of crap - IFAIK, mankind was never exclusively either a meat eater nor berry picker - you might want to look up the word 'omnivore' sometimes. For that matter, can you direct us to one scientific, peer-reviewed paper supporting Intelligent Design? Don't strain yourself too hard - because there aren't. And, please don't try and pass off anything from the Discovery Institute as a scientific paper. On second thought, please do, since sites such as this and this do a pretty good job of shredding the Discovery Institute's crap to shreds.

Secondly, with regards to your continuing use of the term 'Darwinism', to quote my favourite movie, 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.' The scientific community has moved far beyond just what Charles Darwin wrote in 'The Origin of Species' - why is it creationists (and I know you are one - because they're the only ones who toss that word around as an epithet) think that everyone bases their beliefs on a single, non-changing document? Are there conflicting theories within evolutionary biology? Yes, although not to the extent that you seem to believe - and none of this means throwing it all out and substituting a theory where states that if there are no questions, it must be the work of God - that's not science, it's anti-science, pure and simple.

Actually, Kev - the Roman Catholic Church does acknowledge reality, at least when it applies to evolution. This paper, from the director of the Vatican Observatory, does a pretty good job of stating the Church's position, which is that Intelligent Design in fact belittles God, making him in effect no more than a mere watchmaker. I'd also direct you to this site where you can find over 10,000 signatures from Clergymen who do accept Evolution, and even preached sermons supporting it last February.

Paul,
Accepting ID is not a middle ground by any means. ID has no scientific validity beyond vain attempts to poke holes in evolution, and as the Liberal party found in this past election, attacking another political party is no substitute for having real policies of your own.

As Dan asks, what exactly do you mean by "Darwinism"? From my reading, when people use this term they are wrongly conflating both evolution and natural selection together into the same thing. Let me clarify - evolution describes the development of species from earlier, usually simpler forms. Natural selection, on the other hand is the proposed mechanism for evolutionary change. Let me further clarify, "evolution" is not a theory, it is a scientific fact, like gravity. Natural selection is indeed a theory, but a well-supported one.

Why do you get a different flu vaccine every year? Why are we waiting with baited breath for a H5N1 to evolve the ability to affect humans? I challenge Creationist and ID enthusiasts to stick with the old flu vaccines when we've developed a new one for bird flu. Hear that Creationists? Put your money where your mouth is!

As for your suppositions on eyes, ears, teeth and rationality we have theories as to how they have developed. However what is not subject to serious debate is that these things evolved. And before you get all Karl Popper on me, they are not of serious debate because the evidence in favour of their evolution is so compelling that it is time to move on.

Frankly it was time to move on 100 years ago and definitely time to move on after Francis and Crick.

Dan - thanks for the tip on the Catholic Church docs. I remember discussing this with you a little while ago and forgot about their stance.

It's funny, I think I can safely say that most of my profs at university, where I studied geology, were church-going christians of one denomination or another. They seemed to have no problem at all teaching that the earth was 4.5 billion years old, but this ID/Creationist crowd seems to be really hung up.

I think you have my position confused. I'm not defending intelligent design as an acceptable scientific theory, I'm defending its place in a classroom.

Courts absolutely hate making decisions that require expert opinion. But if you ask the question, "what is science" you get an espoused and broken opinion from the scientific community. Few people want to admit "political science" is science or that clinical science is science. Yet there is still that claim that it is science.

Simultaneously the old notion of science was that it was the application of the scientific method. Anything that does not apply that is not science. So Darwinistic theory may have scientific methods but that however does not make the theory itself science.

In our modern world we're willing to accept a lot of things as science. The belief that life originated from a comet has been in science for quite a while.

My qualms here is that there are so many difering and broken views on science that to open it to a "what is science" debate would either cut out some legitimate science programs or allow for the opening of new non-science ones.

I see no problem with the status quo, it gives students the choice between fact and fiction.

Ah, the 'Teach the Controversy' tactic - good to see you're keeping up on the Disco Centre 'Pravda' Paul. BTW, you still haven't answered either mine or Kev's challenge to define what you mean by 'Darwinism' - either put up or shut up. As for courts not relying on expert opinions - might I suggest that you check out Judge Jone's opinion on 'Kitzmiller vs. Dover' - you'll see lots of expert opinions on there.

Paul,
I would grant that ID or evolution could have a place in a classroom in scientific philosophy or maybe one on scientific ethics and fraud, but that's as close as it should ever get to a science class.

Your question about "Darwinism" being "science" is a non-sequitor. First, like Dan I would like to see your definition of "Darwinism" so I know exactly what we're talking about. For now I'll have to assume you are using the standard mish-mash definition that creationists usually use which has a component of the evolution observations and the theory of natural selection.

That said, Darwinism is scientific without being "science". It is scientific because the theory bit was derived based on direct, and later indirect, observation. In addition, 150 years of observations made after the initial theory of natural selection (see why I need a definition?) have not decidedly disproven it. That is also what makes it scientific - it can possibly be disproven.

And again with your life from a comet example. That is merely an hypothesis as to one possible origin of life. There have been some tests performed that seem to indicate that electrical discharge and all sorts of other things might generate simple, self-replicating proteins, but these too are still considered hypotheses.

Are they "science" in your mind, I don't know. You seem to have a very post-modern nothing-is-real sense of science that I can't put my finger on.

Now, back to your first statement; I seem to have drifted off. You say that you are "defending the place of ID in the classroom" but not "defending it as an acceptable scientific theory". Ohvey. Here you're just trying to have it both ways - it's either scientific or it's not. If not, it should not be taught in a class dedicated to science. When I sign up for a class, why would I expect to be taught something else?