nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 112:
Line 112: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 15:39, April 10, 2008
, 15:39, April 10, 2008Falsifying evoluition, T.O., ID, etc.
::::Phillip, as for indoctrination, I tell my students (I am a PhD candidate) to keep an open mind because science changes as new discoveries are made. However, when something has been shown to be upheld through much testing and is a basis for fundamental understanding of a concept then it would be folly to tell the student to keep an open mind when the evidence is so one-sided. To do so would offer more confusion than absolution this would defeat the purpose of learning. An example would be the simple physics of gravity, there are many different ideas surrounding gravity however in a physic’s course in high school one would find the most fundamental understanding of what gravity does, not how it really works. Same with evolution, in high school biology a person finds what evolution does, not how it works. You do not get into that until some very specific high level courses in the biological sciences, just as you would with gravity being found in higher level physics courses. No one questions gravity being taught or labels it as indoctrination however evolution is labeled as such even when its premise is just as important to understanding higher level biology as gravity is to understanding higher level physics.
::::Phillip, as for indoctrination, I tell my students (I am a PhD candidate) to keep an open mind because science changes as new discoveries are made. However, when something has been shown to be upheld through much testing and is a basis for fundamental understanding of a concept then it would be folly to tell the student to keep an open mind when the evidence is so one-sided. To do so would offer more confusion than absolution this would defeat the purpose of learning. An example would be the simple physics of gravity, there are many different ideas surrounding gravity however in a physic’s course in high school one would find the most fundamental understanding of what gravity does, not how it really works. Same with evolution, in high school biology a person finds what evolution does, not how it works. You do not get into that until some very specific high level courses in the biological sciences, just as you would with gravity being found in higher level physics courses. No one questions gravity being taught or labels it as indoctrination however evolution is labeled as such even when its premise is just as important to understanding higher level biology as gravity is to understanding higher level physics.
::::I would like to continue this converstation but I do not wish to abuse the allowence that EdPoor gave me by unblocking my account. So I shall finish up my work on a couple of articles.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:32, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I would like to continue this converstation but I do not wish to abuse the allowence that EdPoor gave me by unblocking my account. So I shall finish up my work on a couple of articles.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:32, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: If a human fossil were to be found in a Paleozoic stratum, and that couldn't be explained away by intrusive burial or something, then most likely the stratum would be reclassified so that it wasn't Paleozoic. Of course, I can't claim that with certainty, but you can't deny it with certainty either. We'd both have to wait and see. But as the [[falsifiability of evolution]] page documents, tests that supposedly would falsify evolution have been found to have passed (failed?) (e.g. magnets), yet evolution continues on as though nothing happened. So I would not be convinced that a human fossil found in Paleozoic stratum would succeed either—some way of accommodating it would be found (as I'd expect, actually. I don't expect ''any'' single discovery would falsify evolution).
::::: I accept that the Talk.Origins arguments are layman's versions, but I don't really accept that they can therefore make them so brief that one is unable to determine that they really do have an argument. And I've seen many arguments on Talk.Origins that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
::::: Initially I guess I overstated the ID research issue a bit. There is, as I later said, ''some'' funding available (although, as I also said, the funds available are a drop in the bucket compared to evolutionary research). Also, I'm more familiar with creationist research than ID research, and there ''has'' been some of that, and it ''has'' been published (in creationist publications, of course, because mainstream publications refuse to touch it for ideological reasons).
::::: I've just had a quick read of the Wedge Document, and I can't see anything in there about driving a wedge between science and religion. Perhaps you could point out to me the exact part?
::::: There's a difference between "not fully accepted" (which you didn't mention when you mentioned string theory) and "rejected". And as you said, string theory did not "have to" go to other avenues. It was allowed to be discussed in the scientific journals. But you yourself say that ID should not be, but should be discussed in a theological setting. ID did not "circumvent" that process, but was ''barred from'' that process. It is ''not'' allowed to be discussed. Just see the uproar when an ID paper ''was'' published in a peer-reviewed journal. The journal said that they would never do so again!
::::: Evolution has ''not'' "been shown to be upheld through much testing and is a basis for fundamental understanding of a concept". That's just evolutionist rhetoric. The difference between gravity and evolution (why does ''that'' comparison come up so often?? At least I can keep using the same reply!) is that gravity is ''observed'', unlike molecules-to-man evolution. Also, who disagrees with gravity? Creation and ID are a small minority view, but not that small. That is, there are thousands or tens of thousands of scientists who agree with creation and/or ID. And giving students both sides of this issue and explaining how to determine which is the better explanation would actually be a very good teaching approach.
::::: Thanks for actually addressing the points that I made, and for doing so civilly. Too often critics are derogatory and keep throwing up new objections without actually addressing the responses that have been made.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 10 April 2008 (EDT)