|
|
Post by phil on Nov 9, 2005 15:52:40 GMT -5
YEAH ! How stupid of Darwin to forget his electron microscope
when he set out for his trip on the Beagle back in 1831 ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 9, 2005 15:55:19 GMT -5
YEAH ! How stupid of Darwin to forget his electron microscope when he set out for his trip on the Beagle back in 1831 ... Darwinian, as in the Darwinists....of today. |
|
|
|
Post by luke on Nov 9, 2005 15:55:35 GMT -5
Well, being that Darwinian evolution is pretty much obsolete, especially when it comes to the really specific stuff like molecular systems, that's a pretty moot point.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 9, 2005 16:00:12 GMT -5
OK ! I give up ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 9, 2005 16:10:52 GMT -5
Well, being that Darwinian evolution is pretty much obsolete, especially when it comes to the really specific stuff like molecular systems, that's a pretty moot point. Well its about time! The man barely had an education to begin with. At any rate, Evolution in the purest sense of the word cannot be tested and proven. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Nov 9, 2005 16:19:20 GMT -5
NO theory of creation can be tested and proven, so that's a pretty moot point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 9, 2005 16:33:16 GMT -5
NO theory of creation can be tested and proven, so that's a pretty moot point. Wow, you don't say? The fact is Neo-Darwinism is what is taught in schools today, whether Luke wants to believe it or not. He needs to pick up a textbook. I have nothing against this, the more I read the babbling the further my own beliefs are reinforced. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 9, 2005 16:37:13 GMT -5
Ok, but how does this prove creationism or ID? It doesn't because it tries to answer scientific questions with non- sceintific answers. It's like saying that pudding could be the answer to a math problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Nov 9, 2005 17:01:52 GMT -5
all theories are disputable. but that's science: laying the middle way, as an aggregate collection of the known facts of the time added to as-healthy a framework as possible in uniting those facts amongst the community of scientists of the era.
so in other words, you're both right. a thoery like Evolution is a collective effort, based on furthering the understanding of natural phenomena, without recourse to lazy shorthands, such as faith-based doctrine....
the thing that puts what Shin, DED, Phil, and Luke are saying over what you are saying, Tuatha, is that they are advocating a communal effort, in support behind the scientific community, requiring constant vigilance and refinement and advancement and reassessment... all of which combine to create a positive culture. These are the qualities a healthy society needs to promote in their scientific communities.
Intelligent design fucks things up. it undermines the internal tension/ balance inherent in an active and healthy scientific arena.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 9, 2005 17:53:36 GMT -5
NO theory of creation can be tested and proven, so that's a pretty moot point. But it ought to be emphasized that while theories cannot (by definition) be proven, ample observable testable evidence of evolutionary theory exists today. Entire semesters are dedicated in medical school to the study of evolutionary biology as a means to prevent and treat certain diseases. There's no such thing as an ID experiment, nor can understanding its application yield testable results to be used for the betterment of mankind. Just as the belief that Santa brings presents is not science, so is ID. Certainly there are holes in evolutionary science. For that matter, there are holes in just about every single scientific theory you can think of. But to propose that these holes invalidate the theory is to betray a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 9, 2005 17:57:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 9, 2005 18:04:55 GMT -5
First of all, exactly what do you think I am saying? Or am I missing something? I believe I just said that I have nothing against the teaching of evolution in schools. It would be nice though if they could get their facts straight and update their textbook drawings now and then and not teach "false" information. There are several other instances of this besides just the drawings of embryos. When I have time I can post a few interesting examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 9, 2005 18:06:55 GMT -5
I'm sorry, our problem isn't with evolution, it is with incompetent teachers and outdated textbooks?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Nov 9, 2005 18:14:50 GMT -5
By definition, no experiment can "prove" a theory to be correct, it can only prove it false. A scientific hypothesis is one that can be proven false. ID cannot be shown to be false, ergo, it is not a scientific hypothesis. There are many experiments and studies which could prove evolution to be false, though thus far none have. For this reason, evolution has moved from the status of ordinary hypothesis, or working idea, to the designation of theory.
ID is not science. If someone wants to teach this in a comparitive religions course, a study of various creation myths, or some other such approach, that would be fine with me. But until there is an experiment that can disprove "god" (or whatever you want to call your "designer"), then ID has no place in a science classroom.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 9, 2005 18:27:13 GMT -5
It's an apples and oranges thing.
|
|
