|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The I in ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:Great couple of sentences. It shows that it is not god of the gaps but rather god is a gap...any gap in scientific knowledge, creationists/IDists try to fill with god..if they cannot find a gap, they ignore evidence and claim a gap is there anyway...unfortunately, science has a nasty habit of filling in gaps and thus god is constantly shrinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Except if I was imitating Neitzche, I would have have had to preceed the statement with a few lines about how great I am and that nobody recognizes it because they are dumb ...and write it in German.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I would agree but would add that the difference between the two is that creationists equate hypotheses based on personal experience or belief, without any evidence in nature nor any way to obtain evidence in the first place i.e. faith, with scientific evidence based on testable and falsifiable hypotheses constructed to describe natural phenomenon. ID (in all its forms) does exactly the same thing but claims, without ever supporting it, that it is applying methodological naturalism and not just that it is equating itself with science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: That would be great except until ID can propose a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design it is by definition pseudoscience. You cannot even begin to conceive of experiements or gather evidence for a hypothesis that you cannot even falsify much less test. Anytime ID is confronted with a natural explanation for an IC system they claim that some other system must then be IC. They are in constant retreat or denial. Thus far I have actually yet to see any scientific hypothesis of ID. They claim that there is intelligence involved yet fail to show how one would detect it or rule it out. The most common explanation is that if it is complex it must be ID (or that it is self-evident). They spend virtually all their time critiquing natural explanations of observed phenomenon like creationists as it is easier to critique than it is to actually engage in scientific investigation. However, to date, biological sciences have successfully produced everything from medicine to explanations of how heredity works whereas ID has made absolutely no advancement and remains a loose affiliation of anti-science protesters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: I still don't buy that. You are either taught methodological naturalism properly and both understand it and practice it or you do not. The process of elimination will not achieve much. It already happens. IDists say something is IC or involves intelligence, science provides a natural explanation without invoking supernatural entities and IDist counter by saying..ok, then it was this system we meant. They will just move their targets around as their "designer/creator" continues to shrink. It is hardly an educational tool. A better educational tool would be to spend a year of science class actually learning what science is and how it works before rote learning the Krebs cycle or equations. One could then use ID as an example of pseudoscience by challenging students to come up with a testable and falsifiable hypothesis for ID and to do the same for an actual scientific hypothesis. When they fail to do so for ID, they would have a better understanding of what the differences are between science and quackery. However, modern education is unfortunately not up to such a task and the religious right wingers have a political interest in keeping people ignorant and willing to believe in fairy tales over science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I won't claim to have a solution, but I don't think that the hook should be to give credibility to a completely anti-scientific supernatural explanation for biodiversity. Only perhaps in the context of demonstrating the he ToE (or any scientific theory) is testable and falsifiable whereas ID is neither to give people an understanding of what science is or is not. I don't think science would gain by pandering to the lowest common denominator of education and saying ok, here is how we prove each and every thing you say is wrong.
Unfortunately, science education is not a high priority in the US with the end effect that it is becoming both ever more structured as a discipline for the elite and less understandable for the general public. Another consequence is that the US is highly dependent on foreign trained scientists. There is very little bridging between science and the public. For any dent to be made, people have to be interested and more products have to be available to both feed and increase the interest. Here in Germany, there is an enormous amount of tv time and museums devoted to science and particularly to natural history. Most 5 year olds get more of a science education watching tv than most of the creationists/IDist posters at this site exhibit. If I compare it to US tv programming or other popular entertainment, one can almost see why people grow up with little or no exposure to what science has and can acheive. They are then easily manipulated by zealots who play off that ignorance. I guess the only hook is exposure...science is interesting enough and has achieved enough to fascinate on its own...the creation/ID camp wishes that it could be kept a secret.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: I totally agree. I think the problem is that pure memorization of facts, like memorizing the periodic table or the Krebs cycle, occurs prior to learning the fundamentals of methodological naturalism. If the principles of science and logic were taught before the rote learning begins, there would be more students with a better grasp of the subsequent material. Even if they did not continue in the sciences. Coupled with comparisons with pseudoscience (I had some teachers myself who did this effectively) one would be pretty well prepared to evaluate what the media spews out. But you are right, there is no way to make every student a capable scientist and there is no reason to hinder those who are gifted from moving ahead of the curve.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024