Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Science Standards in Florida
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 24 (463228)
04-13-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
04-13-2008 2:59 PM


Re: mythology
Cute....science? as if ID isn't science?
I have seen no evidence of objectivity within evo science,...none. In fact, evos seem to do exactly what you accuse IDers of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2008 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2008 4:23 PM randman has not replied
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 04-13-2008 5:45 PM randman has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 24 (463230)
04-13-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
04-13-2008 3:12 PM


Re: mythology
ID is not science. At best it is an untestable hypothesis. At worst it is a blatant attempt to legitimise a religious position by unjustifiably disguising itself so as to benefit from the authority and respect that science has earned over time.
Is it that you disagree with prediction and verification as a means of improving objectivity and reliability or that you do agree with this as a technique BUT think both ID and Evo equally fail in this respect and are therefore equally unscientific?
My response to the latter position would be that evolution has been verified by means of prediction but that proponents of ID do not even claim that this as a posibility with regad to their position.
On what basis can you really dispute this?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 04-13-2008 3:12 PM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 18 of 24 (463234)
04-13-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
04-13-2008 3:12 PM


Moderator Action
Hi Randman,
90% of my time on the site these days is spent posting requests that you stay on topic and avoid making discussion personal. In my last post to you in this thread (msg=-14) I said this:
Admin in Message 14 writes:
Rather than accusing the other side of foibles to which you, also being of the human race, are equally vulnerable, you might consider exploring the principles that should underlie the establishment of science standards for public schools. It might not only be productive, it would even be on-topic!
And this is your next post in the thread:
randman in Message 16 writes:
Cute....science? as if ID isn't science?
I have seen no evidence of objectivity within evo science,...none. In fact, evos seem to do exactly what you accuse IDers of.
I've been sincerely hoping that you'd begin at some point to start following my requests, but it seems that is not going to come to pass. Your last suspension was for 2 days, so this one is for 3 days.
What I want to encourage here at EvC Forum is evidence, argument, rebuttal, evidence, argument, rebuttal, over and over again.
I also want to spend less time making moderator requests that you ignore, so from now on as far as you're concerned I'll no longer waste time making several requests before taking action.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 04-13-2008 3:12 PM randman has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 19 of 24 (463851)
04-21-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
04-11-2008 11:21 AM


Re: Hey Archie
Thanks for the tip, Phat.
Always on the lookout for a new watering hole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 04-11-2008 11:21 AM Phat has not replied

  
davidannis
Junior Member (Idle past 5896 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 04-29-2008


Message 20 of 24 (464801)
04-29-2008 1:10 PM


I am advocating protecting proponents of alternative to the theory of heliocentrism. Information on how you can help lobby the Florida legislature to include protections for this group in their bill is on my website Teach The Controversy. LEt me know if you drop them a note.
Thanks,
David

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 21 of 24 (467425)
05-21-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
04-13-2008 2:59 PM


Re: mythology
Would you count Richard Dawkins as a strong candidate for objectivity in science?
Does a atheistic bias necessarily make evolution theory incorrect?
Does a theistic bias necessaruly make ID theory incorrect then ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2008 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by bluescat48, posted 05-21-2008 4:54 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 23 by ramoss, posted 05-21-2008 5:36 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2008 8:44 PM jaywill has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4274 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 22 of 24 (467446)
05-21-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jaywill
05-21-2008 3:15 PM


Re: mythology
Does a theistic bias necessaruly make ID theory incorrect then ?
ID is NOT a theory, it is at best a hypothosis. To be a theory it would have to be tested and then accepted by science as science. ID is not testable nor falsifiable due to the fact it deals with the supernatural which is not science.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2008 3:15 PM jaywill has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 696 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 23 of 24 (467454)
05-21-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jaywill
05-21-2008 3:15 PM


Re: mythology
quote:
Would you count Richard Dawkins as a strong candidate for objectivity in science?
When he is talking straight science, yes. When he goes on his anti-religious talk, then it isn't science.
quote:
Does a atheistic bias necessarily make evolution theory incorrect?
No, because evolutionary theory is god neutral, it doesn't care if there is a god or not, but only goes where the evidence points.
quote:
Does a theistic bias necessaruly make ID theory incorrect then ?
It isn't the 'bias' that makes the "ID" proposition incorrect. What makes it not a theory is that it is not testable, and explains nothing. It trys to distract from the fact is has nothing to show for it by attacking evolution, and trying to 'teach the controversy'.. but it is nothing but a combination of pseudoscience and bad theology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2008 3:15 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 24 of 24 (467485)
05-21-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jaywill
05-21-2008 3:15 PM


Re: mythology
Would you count Richard Dawkins as a strong candidate for objectivity in science?
Yes.
Does a atheistic bias necessarily make evolution theory incorrect?
No. Empirical evidence is the key. Evolution is not a product of atheism (indeed many religious people have no problem at all with evolution). Evolutionary theory is a product of emperical evidence. A theory borne of atheistic bias that was not supported by or even actually contradicted empirical evidence would not be valid.
The assertion that God absolutely definitely does not exist would be such an assertion. No atheist I am aware of (incl Dawkins) makes this claim.
Does a theistic bias necessaruly make ID theory incorrect then?
A theory that assumes the existence of an entity for which there is no empirical evidence but which is somehow known to exist and which then interprets all evidence with regard to this entity is incapable of objectivity and is thus invalid.
To be objective you must be skeptical. Things for which there is empirical evidence need to be empirically tested in order to be verified. Things for which there is no empirical evidence must be assumed not to exist.
Nature does not give a shit how we want it to be. It is as it is. By testing our theories against nature by means of prediction and verification we eliminate as much as possible our unavoidable biases. That is why the scientific method works.
Dawkins is as strong a proponent of the scientific method as anyone. You show me a IDist or creationist theory with a genuinely refutable prediction regarding new empirical evidence andI will show you a pig with big feathery wings.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jaywill, posted 05-21-2008 3:15 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024