Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2127052/" target="_blank">http://slate.msn.com/id/212705 2/</a> The basic thrust of the article is that proponents of intelligent design want to challenge Darwin's theory in every conceivable way, but they won't submit intelligent design to the same kind of testing standards. Darwin's theory is real science because it can be tested, proven, or disproven. Thus far, the supporters of intelligent design only offer it as an alternative to Darwinism; they don't want to have to subject it to the same kind of rigorous standards science demands. Here's the entire article: Grow Some Testables Intelligent design ducks the rigors of science. By William Saletan Posted Thursday, Sept. 29, 2005, at 4:30 AM PT Four months ago, when evolution and "intelligent design" (ID) squared off in Kansas, I defended ID as a more evolved version of creationism. ID posits that complex systems in nature must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The crucial step forward is ID's concession that "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building"—not scriptural authority—define science. Having acknowledged that standard, advocates of ID must now demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science. This week, ID is on trial again in Pennsylvania. And so far, its proponents aren't taking the experimental test they accepted in Kansas. They're ducking it. The Pennsylvania case involves a policy, adopted by the board of the Dover Area School District, that requires ninth-grade biology teachers to tell students about ID. According to the policy, "A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations." So far, so good. Under the policy, "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design." Notice the "of" before "other theories." The policy doesn't tell teachers to discuss gaps and problems in ID. It tells them to discuss gaps and problems in Darwinism—and then to discuss ID as an alternative "theory." The board's brief makes clear that the policy's aim is "informing students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution, including the fact that there are alternative scientific theories."
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 >>Darwin's theory is real science because it can be tested, proven, or disproven.<< Actually Ecdc, only parts of it can be proven and disproven, but the major basis of Evolution is a Theory only and not a Fact. For something to become a proven scientific fact it must be verifiable. Conveniently enough, there is no way to verify what took "millions of years" to accomplish. It is impossible to verify that we come from apes. There aren't any currently existing forms between man and ape. There is not any way to verify so many things in evolution that even scientists admit it is a theory. There are certain things that they feel supports thier theory, but it certainately is not a proven fact.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's a proven fact, Disneyman55. Every scientific discipline supports it - geology, biology, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, etc. It's called a theory because that's how scientists refer to the framework of a particular model. We also operate under what's called the germ theory of disease, and the theory of relativity and quantum theory in physics. Relativity has been proven, but they still refer to it as a theory. We can prove the claims of evolution by using several independent tools and methods. And we can prove as false the claims that the earth is only 10,000 years old or that all animials were created fully formed in their current state.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 You didn't explain how any of those things VERIFY the basic tenets of the theory of evolution.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Actually Tom, although I appreciate your implications that I am an "ignerent ful", I can assure that I have taken a number of college level courses on a variety of these subjects. But thank you for being predictable.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Have you taken them recently? The advancements in these fields in the last five years alone are pretty astonishing. There were huge differences in the classes I took in the 1980s and the classes I took just a few years ago.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Actually, early 90's for me. Lovely degree. Keep it plastered on the wall of my office so I can remind myself why I paid so much money. Now that you mention it, I suspect I will need to go back for my Masters, because I intend to get a Doctorate so I can be like my dear friend who has his Doctorate in Geological Science and is always going to school. But hey, we are "ignerent fuls" cuz we doesn't beleive in alda stuff on dat there evolution stuff.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Can your friend prove that supernatural forces were involved in creating rocks? Can he point to any studies that show that? That's why ID fails as a science - it offers no testable hypotheses. If it isn't science, it doesn't belong in biology classrooms or textbooks. You must know that biology and geology don't expect you to believe anything you can't see or prove for yourself.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Can your friend prove that supernatural forces were involved in creating rocks?<< I saw a rock one time that looked just like my uncle Leo. Big nose like Leo's got, sort of squinty eyes, and it almost had that same smirk Leo has after he's had a little egg nog over the holidays. What are the odds I would find a rock that not only looks humanoid, but like someone I PERSONALLY KNOW? Come to think of it, I also saw a bunch of broccoli once that looked a lot like uncle Leo. He's a homely man. Heart as big as Texas, mind you, but home-ly.
Originally Posted By itsme Stoped in to see whats new here, Funny to read this thread and the one about global warming. So scientists are to belived when they say that global warming is a made up thing like scare tactics and how they are not wrong cause they are the worlds top at what they do. But when the same worlds top scientists talk about how the god issue is a fairy tale just like global warming is and that we are here cause of evolution, now all the sudden thier science cant be proven and they are wrong. Gotta love it.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I'm so glad that, for the Catholic, evolution is irrelevant. How it happens isn't important to us, just that we believe that God directed the creation of the world and that every human soul is created by God.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You must know that biology and geology don't expect you to believe anything you can't see or prove for yourself.<< Says the million year old man who has seen it all, apparently... The thrust of the article is not that ID is "bogus," but rather its proponents must be willing to apply to it the same scientific standards as are applied to the theory of evolution. I have spent years listening to people claim, over and over, that Evolution is a fact. It's apparently, for some, an Article of Faith. A few years ago I was in the Natural History Museum in Washington DC. They were busily dismantling a rather large gallery devoted to early life on earth. A sign explained that with the advances in scientific knowledge, most of the information in the gallery was now disproven, and was being brought up to date. This was the same "information" that was taught to me and my generation in school. It was the same "information" that was the basis of many in the past who assuredly stated "Evolution is a fact." And I suppose in thirty of forty years today's "information" will be supplanted by yet another set of "truer" facts, discovered through diligent scientific inquiry. I believe that, ultimately, it all comes down to faith.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think evolution is very relevant to Catholics, cmpaley. After all, you are benefiting from the advances in medicine and agriculture that have their roots in evolutionary biology just like the rest of us. itsme, I doubt you'll find many scientists making declarations about "the god issue" at all. There is no incompatibility between faith in God and believing in evolution.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>A sign explained that with the advances in scientific knowledge, most of the information in the gallery was now disproven, and was being brought up to date.<< In other words, the evidence they had was reviewed after new evidence had been found, and their original ideas about the old evidence had to be revised as the pool of knowledge expanded. But they didn't change the display to say that evolution never happened, did they?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But they didn't change the display to say that evolution never happened, did they?<< Of course. Because, as we all well know, you can't prove a negative.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I think evolution is very relevant to Catholics, cmpaley. After all, you are benefiting from the advances in medicine and agriculture that have their roots in evolutionary biology just like the rest of us.<< I think you may have misunderstood. The Church's teaching is that HOW God did it theologically adiophora (things indifferent). Theologically, the process involved in creation isn't as important as WHO did the creating. One can believe in evolution and that God directed the process and still remain the bounds of theological orthodoxy. On the other hand, one can believe in the literal account in Genesis, including the literal 24 hour days) and still remain in the bounds of theological orthodoxy. What is important is that it was GOD who directed it and that He creates each human soul.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Of course. Because, as we all well know, you can't prove a negative.<< Which is why intelligent design is bogus as science.
