The good guys win again

[packsaddle]

Fishsqueezer, I agree with your bottomline assessment on waste of time. However, I remind everyone that comparison of ID to alchemy is still giving way too much credit to ID.

Alchemy was, at least, an important historical precursor to modern chemistry. Although much of alchemy has been discredited, at least alchemy had a hypothetical structure and an observational basis. Alchemy and similar chemical ideas (such as phlogiston) are instructive as examples because they demonstrate the power of science to 1) identify false concepts, and 2) to discredit them.

In contrast, ID has no such observational or experimental basis and, in fact, depends on ignorance for its existence. It has nothing in common with science.

[OldGreyEagle]

Well now, lets not pooh pooh Alchemy all that quickly, after all, it is theoretically possible to change lead into gold. Gold has an atomic number of 79, this means it has 79 protons in its nucleus. Lead on the other hand has an atomic number of 82 or 82 protons. Now, all that has to happen is to remove 3 protons from the lead nucleus and voila you have an atom of gold. A suitable device such as a neutron gun bombarding a mass of lead will knock out protons from a lead mass and create gold.

 

Which leads to the story about about the gold atom talking to the silver atom, when the gold atom says, "wow, I suddenly feel like I am ionized" "are you sure" asks the silver atom to which the gold atom replies. "yes, I'm positive"

[Scoutndad]

Even worse than trying to one up each other is stating that religious beliefs are based on ignorance...

 

Poor excuse and stance for anyone involved with or leading a youth group

 

Kahuna,

I did watch the movie with my scout (those parts that were age appropriate) and he was clueless - but he did watch the Kingdom of Heaven regarding the religious crusades in the Middle East and was fascinated - I guess it depends on how it is presented...go figure...

[SR540Beaver]

Packsaddle said, "In contrast, ID has no such observational or experimental basis and, in fact, depends on ignorance for its existence. It has nothing in common with science."

 

Scoutndad heard, "Even worse than trying to one up each other is stating that religious beliefs are based on ignorance..."

 

Therein lies the problem. Pack said nothing of religion. He was speaking to the "science" of ID. Those who support ID claim that it is science, but when it is criticized, they say the criticism is an attack on religion. So, which is ID......science OR religion? That is what the whole court case addressed. It was religion dressed up in science jargon. The religious beliefs of the origin has its place in a child's education, just not in the public school science class. I don't want my son learning how to sew in an auto mechanics shop class. He needs to learn sewing in home economics.

 

[firstpusk]

Ed, this case didn't address a biology teacher presenting ID on his/her own. The case was about the school board forcing ID into the curriculum. I know of a couple of cases of teachers arguing their 'right' to teach creationism from 1990 and 1994. In both cases, they lost. There is also an ID case in Minnesota state court. The teacher lost there also.

[Scoutndad]

SR540,

I can appreciate your line of reasoning on distinguishing the two lines of thought...however, you can not read the quote out of context.

The statement was clearly made...if no experimental or observational methods are used, your result is based upon ignorance...in this case religion/faith.

This is not a disagreement...if they choose not to teach ID in public school science classes, that's fine...but do not equate faith to ignorance.

 

What I find most alarming is that this same battle with most of the same posting participants has been occurring and reoccurring over 3+ years under this forum...disturbing to say the least.

[SR540Beaver]

Scoutndad,

 

With all due respect, I did not take Pack's comment out of context. I cut and pasted the quote exactly as he posted it. You have taken it out of context and read into it something that is not there. Pack's original post did not mention or allude to religion or faith. It referred to ID and science. The whole case for ID is that it is not religion, but an alternate "scientific" theory that should be taught along side evolution in public school classrooms. You can dress a pig in a sik gown, but at the ned of the day, it is still a pig. Don't get me wrong, I believe that God is THE creator. I believe it with all of my heart and soul. But it is a belief born out of faith. I can do nothing to prove it. Science attempts to prove things thru a methodolgy and continues to refine itself as new discoveries are made. ID IS religion and evolution is science. They are apples and oranges, home ec and auto mechanics. Both have their place, just not together. By arguing that ID has no place in the science classroom, that is not a rejection of God being the creator or religion in general.

[Scoutndad]

SR540,

Sorry that you misunderstood my last post due to syntax.

I was not pointing out that you took his quote out of context, I was trying to point out that there was nothing to misunderstand...it was a black and white statement.

 

And although there is an inherent contradiction("original post did not allude to religion" vs. "ID IS religion") in your last post, I agree with ID v pig analogy and the general tone of your explanation.

 

I have no problem with the ruling on the latest ID trial...as I said before, the judge had no choice to rule the way he did and would expect nothing less with false testimony in any case.

[SR540Beaver]

Scoutndad,

 

Words, words, words. So many to pick from and half the time I still can't pick the right ones to communicate with!

 

Here is what I said:

 

The whole case for ID is that it is not religion, but an alternate "scientific" theory that should be taught along side evolution in public school classrooms.

 

Here is what I meant to say:

 

The whole case MADE for ID is that it is not religion, but an alternate "scientific" theory that should be taught along side evolution in public school classrooms.....WHILE IN FACT, IT IS RELIGION.

 

You are right, the judge had no other choice but to decide the way he did. I think the problem for ID is that the way it was presented before that judge will be the only way it can be presented before other judges in the future. The outcome will most likely be the same. It is the whole pig/silk gown thing.

[evmori]

firstpusk,

Yeah I know. The school board wanted to make ID mandatory. I have no problem with the ruling. But that doesn't stop a teacher from introducing ID during the course of the year.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver]

Ed,

 

Why on Earth would you want your son's auto mechanics shop teacher introducing sewing during the course of the year when they are supposed to be learning alternators? Or your son's football coach introducing synchronized swimming? One has nothing to do with the other.

[evmori]

Since evolution and the theory can't explain how it all began, what's wrong with using ID to give another perspective?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver]

Simple, it is not science.

[evmori]

Simple, it is not science.

 

And the point is .........................?

 

History.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Now THAT, Ed, might indeed be a different matter. The way biology is taught is somewhat variable but there are some common features that are necessary if students are to be prepared for later studies in college - and that is often an important factor for the establishment of curriculum standards.

Nevertheless, most courses attempt to provide an introductory section in which the history of the field is presented. The history is important in order to gain a sense of direction in science. It allows us to see our philosophical origins and better understand how we developed modern ideas. Although 'intelligent design' is a modern fabrication, the idea that ID exploits is, of course, implicit in many views of the world that are based on faith. And to the extent that the faiths (and the list of these is long) affected scientific advances, their contributions to the advancement of science are important, even if negative.

I could accept, in the introductory section, the presentation of failed or false ideas, such as ID, as examples of how science has continued to progress in spite of some negative religious, political, and social forces. And after the introduction, then get on with the actual course in biology.

 

Is this what you had in mind?

 

OGE, I hope your good-natured mention of transmutation wasn't aimed at me. I could also add that particle accelerators, ahem, are a rather recent development. Just ask Theodoric of York.

 

Scoutndad, I sincerely appreciate the exchange between you and SR540Beaver and I agree with Beav's summations. I stayed out of the exchange for two reasons: Beav was doing a great job, and my power supply died for the day so I didn't get to read it until last night late. You are one of many persons to perceive something that was either unstated or unintended. All of us are susceptible to this and you can accept my assurance that Beav is correct and my statement was aimed not at religion but at any religious idea promoted as science.

 

I will take one step toward reconciliation and offer that if anyone can provide a religious concept for which an experiment can be constructed, thereby being falsifiable, and if the observations and results can be repeated independently by others, and if you are prepared to reject the concept if such experiment provides evidence for that rejection, I am willing to consider that it could qualify as science. Many scientists would be very interested in seeing the results and whether they could repeat the experiment.

On this, however, ID fails miserably.