[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Eh, I'd say refusing to vaccinate your kids or treat them for diseases should be considered child abuse.

Yep, that's you imposing your belief on someone else though, ain't it?

And it's the start of a long, long slide into a deep dark place.

Not getting your kids vaccinated? Child abuse!
Not taking your kids swimming twice a week? Child abuse!
Not getting your kids microchipped for their own safety? Child abuse!

In the UK, the government's already way further down that path than you guys are. We've seen the future... ...and it's unpleasant.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-lunches.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...blic-park.html

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Eh, I'd say refusing to vaccinate your kids or treat them for diseases should be considered child abuse. It's one thing if you do it to yourself, but not to another person. We may have to agree to differ on that one.

I haven't been vaccinated for Measles/Mumps/Rubella since the very first time when I was a baby because I had such a bad reaction to the vaccine then that it almost killed me. Good thing there are people out there who are looking out for my interests and would force me to get vaccinated anyway!

[Luca Rescigno]

I see what you mean, but I could just as easily say that all cultural or religious practices, no matter how barbaric they seem, should be accepted because no cultures are inherently better or worse, just different.

Female genital mutilation? Cultural differences.
Gang rapes for women accused of spending time with a member of the opposite sex, unchaperoned? Cultural differences.
FLDS cult members impregnating children? Religious protection.

So it's not a question of whether you should impose one's beliefs on another, but to what degree. I think mandatory vaccinations are probably taking it a bit too far. On the other hand, letting a child die because of refusing treatment would be abuse.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

So it's not a question of whether you should impose one's beliefs on another, but to what degree. I think mandatory vaccinations are probably taking it a bit too far. On the other hand, letting a child die because of refusing treatment would be abuse.

Yep, I can agree with that. As long as there's no "one size fits all" (see nonhuman reaction to MMR) going on, it'd be fine. Just have to keep an eye on that thin green line to make sure it doesn't stray too far either way.

Right, sorted. I'm gone for the evening. Massive upload to colleague means no bandwidth (between 0 and 2 KB/s) and it's too painful.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I see what you mean, but I could just as easily say that all cultural or religious practices, no matter how barbaric they seem, should be accepted because no cultures are inherently better or worse, just different.

This is obviously a very tricky question, and not one that I think is even possible to answer as all cultures are constantly undergoing change, fissioning, and converging. Personally I think a laissez-faire approach is best here. If certain cultural values prove to be more successful in the modern world than others, then they'll end up being dominant. The less successful ones might die out completely or might simply become isolated to certain populations. But in the end, cultural diversity is a good thing because when the situation changes it might turn out that the dominant culture isn't well equiped to handle the new order of things while one of those fringe groups is much better able to. Ironically, this is evolution-memetic evolution rather than genetic.

Female genital mutilation? Cultural differences.
Gang rapes for women accused of spending time with a member of the opposite sex, unchaperoned? Cultural differences.
FLDS cult members impregnating children? Religious protection.

The thing is these are cultural differences. And the people who practice them don't approve of our way of life any more than we approve of theirs. (Also, it should be noted that in the case of the FLDS most to all of the accusation of child abuse have been disproved, and the handful of questionable cases that remain are actually only questionable due to relatively new laws that were created specifically to target the FLDS.)

I believe strongly in the (admittedly somewhat ambiguous) libertarian ideal that you should be free to do anything short of impinging on the freedoms of another. Thus I think that forcible female circumcision should be illegal as it obviates the girl/woman's right to choose whether or not she wants it for herself, but also that women can, if they so desire, choose to live according to strict religious law (which is not restricted to so-called non-Western cultures) so long as no one forced them to do anything they haven't consented to including leaving that society if they so choose. And the same goes for polygamy; while I absolutely reject the idea that young girls are no more than property and can be married off to whomever their father choose, I also absolutely believe that if any combination of men and women choose to enter into any sort of relationship that they all agree and consent to then they should be allowed to do so. Age of majority issues obviously come into play in pretty much all these cases, and I do have thoughts on that as well, but unless someone really wants to get into that I think we can leave it for a different discusion.

So it's not a question of whether you should impose one's beliefs on another, but to what degree. I think mandatory vaccinations are probably taking it a bit too far. On the other hand, letting a child die because of refusing treatment would be abuse.

I would say that only belief that need be imposed on others is the belief that we have a right to render assistance and protection where it is desired, and the belief that we have the right to make it known that said assistance and protection is available to any and all who ask.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Logically deduce it?

Interesting. So, in the absence of any other reason why a bunch of nothingness one day decided to have itself a big bang, logic dictates that there *must* be an outside influence. Since, at the time, the nothingness encompassed the whole of everything, said influence must be outside of space and time. I wonder what said outside influence could be.

Religion or science?

Is that a trick question?

Occam's razor my friend. "God did it" is not a valid answer.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

In the immortal words of The Rock, "It doesn't matter what you think!" You're missing the entire premise of scientific theory. You can think, believe, or have faith in absolutely anything you want. I can't make this any more clear, as I am constantly repeating myself.

NO ONE IS PROPOSING THE TEACHING OF ID! ID IS NOWHERE IN THE LAW! TEACHERS ARE JUST AS FREE TO USE KENNETH MILLER, CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AND TALK ORIGINS DESIGNED WITH THE EXPRESS INTENT OF ADDRESSING CREATIONISTS!!! PROHIBITION OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING WAS CLARIFIED IN THE LAW ITSELF AND TEACHERS PROSELYTIZING IN CLASS ARE JUST AS ACCOUNTABLE IF NOT MORE THAN THEY WERE PRIOR TO THE LAW!!! TO TREAT IT AS TABOO SUBJECT MATTER THAT CAN'T BE DISCUSSED IN CLASS RELEGATES CHILDREN TO QUIETLY LEAVING THE CLASS AND POSTING ON THE INTERNET; "IF MAN CAME FROM APE HOW ARE THEIR STILL APES?!?"

IF YOU CAN NOT TEST IT, DIRECTLY OBSERVE IT, OR LOGICALLY DEDUCE IT, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. YOUR BELIEFS (RELIGIOUS OR NOT) ARE COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT.

Are we done yelling and banging our heads yet? You're missing several points here in your zest;

- The first one is that teachers need to do a better job of explaining evolution. It might behoove you to realize that the scientific community has acknowledged this problem as well.
- multiple universes of the Anthropic Principle, worm holes, string theory, etc... are all difficult if not currently impossible to test, but this does not mean that a mechanism will never be developed to test them nor does it mean they can't enjoy some scientific methodology and even some class time. We seem to become more stringent on the definition of "science" contingent upon whether or not we agree with the alleged philosophical world view of the one positing. Tell me, how long did it take to test the theory of relativity?
- Teachers who want to teach "alternative theories" will teach them whether you like it or not. What stops this has been found to be more formal training in the principles they're teaching. i.e. biological evolution. You can point fingers at Creationists and proponents of ID all you want, but you're just addressing symptoms of the virus and not the virus itself. You're welcome to it, but you'll continue to lose the issue to more and more school districts my friend.
- Proponents of evolution debate aspects of the theory. Why should the teaching of the discipline be any different? Why should questions simply be swept under the rug because the subject matter tickles your personal sensitivities? I can imagine a great many science teachers love to have these questions come up in their classes because they have carefully prepared a means to address them and... POWER TO THEM! BRING ON THE ARGUMENTS OF KENNETH MILLER, CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AND TALK ORIGINS. It's all good. The law works perfectly well both ways and there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it. Unless of course you're suggesting that evolution is not falsifiable.

I have never suggest sweeping it under the rug. My problem is calling it science. Calling it a theory. Suggesting it is an alternative to evolution.

The law does not mention additional theories. It does not give any weight to open discourse in class other than the acknowledgment that it exists and should be addressed in the classroom setting. Any instructional text worth its binding should anticipate the most common questions and address them.

Suggesting it is scientific in any sense of the word. It is not. Keep it out of the ing science class room.

Keep what out?!?

You're just not getting it. There was never a problem with Talk Origins because it approaches the problem from a scientific view. It explains the inherent problems with Creationism and Intelligent Design through evidence, discovery, and deduction.

Conversely, you're still not getting it. Why would Talk Origins, Christopher Hitchens, and Kenneth Miller whose popular material opposes the musings of the ID proponent and Creationist even come up in a class that doesn't allow for such discourse? People are going to ask, but if the subject matter is taboo, why would a teacher with any integrity go out of their way to espouse opposition to "religious science"? This could land them in trouble. Now it won't. Why? Because the law works both ways and very specifically prohibits the distribution of religious material.

There isn't a problem explaining why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Hell, have the students discover it themselves. When they get the mystical God or super power part, ask them how to test it. Tell them to set up an experiment to test the existence of that Intelligent Creator.

What if they ask how long it took to test the theory of relativity? What if they ask how one tests any other host of scientific theories outside our ability to test them currently? How do we test the Big Bang? Didn't that ever come up in your class? No one ever discussed the Big Bang in your science classes? Really????

They will then know why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and why it does not belong in a science class.

Your definition of science seems to ebb and flow contingent upon the philosophical world view of a proponent. Next you'll be telling me about a host of evolution scientists who authored studies on how ID is not true or is not testable.

That is completely different than letting teachers flat out lie to their students, telling them why Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, that it can be tested, and why it's a valid subject for them to learn in a science class room. There will be no lab on the subject. You just have to have faith.

The law says absolutely nothing of calling any theory anything. Did you evolve novel traits in bacteria in your high school science lab or something? Shxt son that's an amazing take your school's got there!

It's your ilk's

I have no ilk.

complete lack of understanding of why my ilk is so concerned.

Oh I know why and I've illustrated why it has absolutely nothing to do with a concern for science.

It doesn't matter if they teach it in school, just so long as it's not in the science class room and it is made abundantly clear that it is not a scientific theory. My mom taught at a Christian primary school for 12 years. They have Bible study right next to math and science. They keep the subjects separate (probably in part because the school also hosted non-religious students.) That is all I ask for in a public school. Keep them separate. Stop trying to force faith and religious doctrine into the science class room, it doesn't belong there.

No one is forcing anything other than healthy objectivity and to leave naiveté at the door. The subject comes up, teachers need to be armed with a sufficient handle on their principles to address them appropriately. This law enables them to do it while discouraging zealots of another kind from having their way with kids' minds. It works both ways.

Evolution science has dominated biology classes across our country since the 60's and yet the majority of those polled still support Creationism. Creationists have been railing on school systems since the dawn of Darwin and yet, it is only the laws of the past decade that concern you? No mention of the numerous studies that suggest teachers aren't educated enough in these principles to teach them effectively? Don't talk to me about what the Creationists are doing, talk to me about what the scientific community and educators have been doing the past 40+ years!

[efithian]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You can't teach about intelligent design in a matter-of-fact manner. Whether or not it's actually true, it's sorely lacking in scientific facts to support it — it's a religious belief. This is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created to parody. If you're going to teach intelligent design, why not teach Spaghetti Monsterism?

If you are referring to me, I am a Pastafarian, and I have a T-shirt to prove it ;-)

[MacnnGregor]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When the Government tells students that they must learn a single theory whose premise requires the assumption that there is no God, that's no more a "separation" than forcing people accept Genesis as a guide for the origin of our species.

How does the theory of evolution "require the assumption that there is no God?" I think at least the Catholic Church and every large religious based university with serious biology departments, like Notre Dame, are full of people who believe in God and not only teach evolution, but do the very research that helps define it.

Maybe the ID folks need to define what evolution really is - "the change in gene sequence frequencies within a breeding population over time." This may or may not be partially driven by competition, it may or may not be driven by cooperation and it may or may not help define the beginning of life.

Creationism is always assumed to by Christian, but the Maya, the Indonesians and myany indigenous people have creation stories and geological calendars that go back thousands to millions and even billions of years. So whose creationism is at stake here.

Finally, defining Intelligent Design has been pretty loose as well. If it means looking for evidence for a supernatural origin to human life or a 10,000 year old Earth, I think there must be a minimum level of integrity given the research before it makes its way to public grade schools. Shouldn't this be tested out in universities first?

Evolution is not dogma from past events, like iD. It is an observable part of life right now. We have seen evidence of evolution over a 35 year time period in some populations. This has not been long enough to create separate species, but it may be possible to show this in another 100 years. We are finding out that just like with climate change, changes in genotypes and phenotypes can happen far faster than was thought before.

Finally there is the common misconception by the general public about what a scientific theory is. It isn't a trial run of something that is refutable, it is testable hypothesis that has been shown to be valid in all reasonable ways. It becomes a true scientific theory when it elegantly answers complex questions and resolves problems that have been seen in previous theories. For example the Cell Theory, describes the observation that all know life is based upon the fundamental structures and functioning of the cell - i.e. nothing that is not a cell or made up of cells is considered alive (sorry viruses).

So time to be intellectually honest with this debate.

[MacnnGregor]

eBuddy: You sound very reasonable and I appreciate your posts. I also have been too lazy to look up the actual wording of the Louisiana law and so I assume that you have accurately portrayed it .... So, Macnn's article was inaccruate?!!? No!!!!

However to one of your points (below):
"What if they ask how long it took to test the theory of relativity? What if they ask how one tests any other host of scientific theories outside our ability to test them currently? How do we test the Big Bang? Didn't that ever come up in your class? No one ever discussed the Big Bang in your science classes? Really????"

The Theory of Relativity has several components and Einstein described it in two ways, the general and the special. It would take too long to describe the tests for each, but it did take a few decades before one of the most important aspects of the general theory of relativity (that mass physically warps space) could be measured by directly seeing how the light of distant stars actually bent to a predictable angle when it moved past the sun during a solar eclipse. And of course it took the creation of accurate atomic clocks to prove that time moves slower nearer the equator (where people are spinning around at almost 1,000 mph) than near the Arctic Circle (where the surface of the earth is spinning at less than half that speed). BTW if you stood on the North Pole you wouldn't be moving relative to the rotation of the Earth at any speed.

So you are right, many theories that are assumed true, may take a while to pre proven and proven in different ways by different people. But what these theories may have over ID, is that each one (even string theory) has the ability to be modeled. That is, someone is able to mentally, physically or mathematically able to describe the theory and make reasonable tests of the model if not the real thing. Tornado experts don't need to be inside a tornado to figure out what is going on - just make careful observations, articulate a model (usually on computers right now) and test the model. In science it is about who has the best model, that wins the scientific debate. Einstein as a theoretician was not about studying reality much, he was about testing models mathematically. This is a legitimate means of proving theories that of course requires experimental scientific proof as well, but can be valid enough to be used in science classes. As for the Big Bang, yes, there was immediately a mathematical model for it and telescopes and supercolliders were rather quickly used to confirm some of the assumptions of the Big Bang Theory. You don't need to reproduce the Big Bang to study it.

As far as I know there is no valid model for ID that can even be rationally debated or tested, theoretically or experimentally. I may be wrong, but just saying that the human eye is really complicated and could not evolve over 500,000,000 years is not a scientific model. It is just an assertion, reasonable or not. To be science it has to be articulated into some kind of rational model, based upon observations or other theories. There is no currently valid model of any supernatural intercession in the laws of nature. As a practicing Christian and scientist it seems clear to me that Intelligent Design, while philosophically debatable and fascinating at the dinner table, is not based upon any model that could even be researched. When it can be, I'll re-evaluate my opinion.

cheers

As to whether the new LA law is constitutional, I don't know yet, but anyone who thinks that this Supreme Court is truly only interested in "original intent" is being intellectually dishonest. Environmental Law and nuclear bombs in brief cases were not imaginable by the Founding Fathers and there would be no original intent to use. And Civil Rights were of course compromised away to keep the Southern states in the Union.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Is that a trick question?

Occam's razor my friend. "God did it" is not a valid answer.

Perhaps it is, if you ask the right question.

[Kerrigan]

While I do not believe in ID or any of that sort of thing, I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the universe was created by some sort of god.

Before you jump on that, Erik, consider this: How is it acceptable to say that something just "came into being" by itself? That is not an acceptable answer to a scientific query. To say that the universe came from nowhere is not a valid explanation.

The only other logical response (that I can think of) would be to say that there has been for all eternity a chain of action and reaction--a universe without the "uncaused cause". This may certainly be possible. But how are we to know this? On what grounds can you prove that your position on the origin (or non-origin) of the universe is correct? I am curious to see what ontological approach you take.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

While I do not believe in ID or any of that sort of thing, I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the universe was created by some sort of god.

Before you jump on that, Erik, consider this: How is it acceptable to say that something just "came into being" by itself? That is not an acceptable answer to a scientific query. To say that the universe came from nowhere is not a valid explanation.

The only other logical response (that I can think of) would be to say that there has been for all eternity a chain of action and reaction--a universe without the "uncaused cause". This may certainly be possible. But how are we to know this? On what grounds can you prove that your position on the origin (or non-origin) of the universe is correct? I am curious to see what ontological approach you take.

The problem is you are just inventing an explanation that is at best superfluous. It is no more logical to jump to that conclusion than to say that it was caused by a giant's fart.

And I don't see where anyone is saying that "it came from nowhere".

The "God" hypothesis also cause the problem of infinite regression: if God created the universe - who then created God?

It is perfectly understandable to see why someone would invent "God" as an explanation, but it's not a valid logical reasoning.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

How is it acceptable to say that something just "came into being" by itself?

That's not really what the Big Bang theory is all about. The Big Bang is the origin of the present arrangement of the the universe. It did not "come out of nothing." We simply cannot speculate on what happened "before" the Big Bang because there's no evidence to examine.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

To say that the universe came from nowhere is not a valid explanation.

Scientists do not say this. You are arguing with a straw man.

[Kerrigan]

So then where did it come from? Or has it always been? You still have not provided an ontological account.

And if you argue that it has always been in existence (which, if you read my posts with understanding, you would have seen that I have made an admission that this may very well be the case), then we are beginning to enter into the realm of aesthetic differences between your view and mine.

Perhaps I should not expect here the same sort of discourse that I would find in a university's philosophy department, but I can hope.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Perhaps I should not expect here the same sort of discourse that I would find in a university's philosophy department..

or even the average Starbucks.

[- - e r i k - -]

I'm not pretending to be an expert in cosmology nor quantum physics, but just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I have to oppose it. From my understanding "where did it come from?" is a relatively useless question - philosophy rather than physics. As far as I understand it the universe expanded rapidly from a singularity and then expanded and cooled and keeps expanding to this day.

As for the start? Perhaps it started from another universe in a black hole? I could state this and believe this for the rest of my life, but I am always open to new theories and explanations. We are learning more and more about the very early stages of the universe by way of quantum gravity theories - so perhaps in my lifetime we'll have learnt more than we know now. Perhaps not.

The problem with a dogmatic set-in-stone mentality is that once you believe "God did it" then no one can prove you otherwise, it's a very buttheaded way of looking at things. Especially when you start out with a non-testable invented hypothesis.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

So then where did it come from? Or has it always been?

Yes, it has always been.

[Kerrigan]

As an aside--the key to these types of discussion is circumspection. This isn't the sort of debate where you can quote a portion of text, say, "Ha! You're wrong!" and then return to your dogmatic slumbers, utterly convinced that your position is correct. One must be circumspect about what they can claim to prove and claim to disprove. And one must also realize that far more intelligent thinkers have expounded one's own like-minded viewpoints and have reached the same roadblocks that you and I reach whenever we set out to answer such grandiose questions as the nature of the being of the universe.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, it has always been.

In the most literal sense, this is true.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

NO ONE IS PROPOSING THE TEACHING OF ID! ID IS NOWHERE IN THE LAW! TEACHERS ARE JUST AS FREE TO USE KENNETH MILLER, CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AND TALK ORIGINS DESIGNED WITH THE EXPRESS INTENT OF ADDRESSING CREATIONISTS!!! PROHIBITION OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING WAS CLARIFIED IN THE LAW ITSELF AND TEACHERS PROSELYTIZING IN CLASS ARE JUST AS ACCOUNTABLE IF NOT MORE THAN THEY WERE PRIOR TO THE LAW!!! TO TREAT IT AS TABOO SUBJECT MATTER THAT CAN'T BE DISCUSSED IN CLASS RELEGATES CHILDREN TO QUIETLY LEAVING THE CLASS AND POSTING ON THE INTERNET; "IF MAN CAME FROM APE HOW ARE THEIR STILL APES?!?"

Gah! I feel like I'm in a Dilbert comic. You're a pointy haired boss. You're ignoring everything I've already stated and circle back to your original argument after it's already been addressed. What am I not making clear? As I've already stated on numerous occasions:

The law does not state that Intelligent Design must be taught, nor does it list Intelligent Design specifically. The law does prohibit teaching religion. Yes, the Dover case established Intelligent Design as religious. However, Intelligent Design proponents get around this ruling by no longer calling it Intelligent Design. As I stated before, they relabeled it "Exploration of Evolution," or something else to that affect, then preach the exact same thing they did before in regards to Intelligent Design: a higher power intervened or controls evolution.

The law essentially states that alternative theories must be taught next to existing popular theory (which would be fine, except the theories don't have to be scientific by any stretch of the word.) The intentional hole is that it lists evolution specifically as one of the theories that qualify to have an alternative theory; the law explicitly implies that evolution is scientifically controversial when it is not. By doing so, staff and teachers who supported the law are going to exploit this and teach "Exploration of Evolution" to their students in the science classroom, and call it science.

As I also stated before, this law does not give teachers any more ability to teach science related material than what they already had. This is not a two-way law because there wasn't a problem in the first place with explaining (through testing, observation, and deduction) why Intelligent Design and Creation are not scientific theory and should not be taught in a science classroom.

What the law does do is enables religious teachers to get around the Dover ruling, teach their supernatural view of the universe in a science classroom, then call it science fact.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

How does the theory of evolution "require the assumption that there is no God?"

Because you can not test, directly observe, or logically deduce the existence of God, Magic Teapots, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters; therefor, it is not a consideration when dealing with the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

Creationism is always assumed to by Christian, but the Maya, the Indonesians and myany indigenous people have creation stories and geological calendars that go back thousands to millions and even billions of years. So whose creationism is at stake here.

No it's not, if not taken literally. Philosophically speaking, the I.D. people could be right! Who knows? There could be a god or gods directly manipulating life at its most basic levels, guiding the universe to a predestined future. Just because religion and science are exclusive it doesn't mean religion isn't true; it just means you can't test it, and therefor religion is not science.

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

I think there must be a minimum level of integrity given the research before it makes its way to public grade schools. Shouldn't this be tested out in universities first?

You're absolutely right, and yes, it's already been tested out in universities. The argument is almost exclusively at the K-12 level.

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

Evolution is not dogma from past events, like iD. It is an observable part of life right now. We have seen evidence of evolution over a 35 year time period in some populations. This has not been long enough to create separate species, but it may be possible to show this in another 100 years. We are finding out that just like with climate change, changes in genotypes and phenotypes can happen far faster than was thought before.

Yes. Aside from fossil evidence, that is why I brought up this article. A completely (yet isolated) new species of Escherichia coli emerged after 20 years of development in a controlled environment. One of the samples of E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate.

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

EFinally there is the common misconception by the general public about what a scientific theory is. It isn't a trial run of something that is refutable, it is testable hypothesis that has been shown to be valid in all reasonable ways. It becomes a true scientific theory when it elegantly answers complex questions and resolves problems that have been seen in previous theories.

Also, a scientific theory isn't always right, but perhaps more important than it being right, is that you can show why it's wrong. Discovery is so important to scientific theory, it helps you to understand. God may be infallible, but people make mistakes all the time. That is why it is important to know why it's wrong. If you can never determine that the basic premise of a theory is right or even wrong, it's just not science.

Coincidentally, in the scientific community, String theory is a hotly debated subject; perhaps even more than Intelligent Design. So even within the scientific community there are arguments about which should and shouldn't be considered a theory. Peter Woit is a very vocal opponent to String theory. As he stated in an interview, "It's not even wrong!" He kinda got famous for that, so he now has a book on String theory titled, "Not even wrong." Hehe.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

eBuddy: You sound very reasonable and I appreciate your posts. I also have been too lazy to look up the actual wording of the Louisiana law and so I assume that you have accurately portrayed it .... So, Macnn's article was inaccruate?!!? No!!!!

Here is the Act. He's interpreting it half right. As I mentioned, he's correct that it doesn't mention Intelligent Design and it does prevent teaching or promotion of religion. However, the problem with the law is that it presents evolution as though it were controvertible scientifically. The law states that teachers can use any text books (outside of those already banned) to supplement their science curriculum, that includes a lot of books already published by the Discovery Institute (a literal Creation organization that believes Jesus rode on dinosaurs... seriously.) Those books were written specifically to keep religious viewpoints ambiguous (replacing references to God and Jesus with "an unknown force" or "a higher power") and promoting a nearly identical agenda to that of Intelligent Design. These books, because they don't promote religion and don't refer to it as Intelligent Design, would be applicable addendum to the science curriculum.

The law is being heralded by churches, religious leaders, and homeschooling parents, and its promotion is being funded by the Discovery Institute which conveniently publishes books that can be used under the new law.

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

As far as I know there is no valid model for ID that can even be rationally debated or tested, theoretically or experimentally. I may be wrong, but just saying that the human eye is really complicated and could not evolve over 500,000,000 years is not a scientific model. It is just an assertion, reasonable or not. To be science it has to be articulated into some kind of rational model, based upon observations or other theories. There is no currently valid model of any supernatural intercession in the laws of nature. As a practicing Christian and scientist it seems clear to me that Intelligent Design, while philosophically debatable and fascinating at the dinner table, is not based upon any model that could even be researched. When it can be, I'll re-evaluate my opinion.

Much better said than me. I don't have any hair left, I've pulled it all out trying to explain it to him.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The law is being heralded by churches, religious leaders, and homeschooling parents, and its promotion is being funded by the Discovery Institute which conveniently publishes books that can be used under the new law.



Much better said than me. I don't have any hair left, I've pulled it all out trying to explain it to him.

Me either. IMO, he's being either naive or disingenuous when he says that the law doesn't allow religious teachings. He should know that it will be used specifically for that agenda, and if he doesn't, shame, shame, shame.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

NO ONE IS PROPOSING THE TEACHING OF ID!

Well now that's just not true. Plenty of people are advocating the teaching of ID. The courts famously had to get involved in Pennsylvania a few years ago because schools were required to teach it. This Louisiana law does not mandate it, but it is specifically designed to permit teachers to teach it as science.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This Louisiana law does not mandate it, but it is specifically designed to permit teachers to teach it as science.

In that case don't you have to wait until teachers actually do that before you can react? I mean, if what you just said is true, then the law itself is not the problem, it just leaves the door open for the problem to stroll in. So you have to wait for the problem to stroll through the door before you can object.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In that case don't you have to wait until teachers actually do that before you can react? I mean, if what you just said is true, then the law itself is not the problem, it just leaves the door open for the problem to stroll in. So you have to wait for the problem to stroll through the door before you can object.

Yes, and turning off the alarm system and giving all the employees a vacation at Fort Knox wouldn't actually be a problem unless someone actually strolled right in and stole all the gold.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

It's not anyone's place to be teaching religious "theories" in public schools.

Why not? shouldn't students be encouraged to make their own decisions? Shouldn't they be presented all the facts and all the evidence and given their own choice?

Religion exists: FACT
Religion is true: Uncertain (not enough evidence)

Why not teach that to school kids?

What you suggest is censoring religion completely from school. Students should learn about religion, its people, the effects it has on society, and the theories behind it. Students should ALSO learn about the scientific evidence behind it and the distinction between what we know and what we speculate. Evolution should be taught in a biology or science class, and religion should be taught in a social studies or philosephy class.

[MacnnGregor]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In that case don't you have to wait until teachers actually do that before you can react? I mean, if what you just said is true, then the law itself is not the problem, it just leaves the door open for the problem to stroll in. So you have to wait for the problem to stroll through the door before you can object.

Yes, that is the way we usually do it in America. You wait to sue someone, then go to court and work your way up the legal ladder (and media ladder) so that either the Supreme Court rules or the Legislature changes the law or the Executive Branch tries to enforce something. Three branches of government - three ways to make decisions - three realms for debate. That of course is just for the state, then it goes to the Feds to do the same thing.

It's messy, but it is how our democratic republic works.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why not? shouldn't students be encouraged to make their own decisions? Shouldn't they be presented all the facts and all the evidence and given their own choice?

Religion exists: FACT
Religion is true: Uncertain (not enough evidence)

Why not teach that to school kids?

What you suggest is censoring religion completely from school. Students should learn about religion, its people, the effects it has on society, and the theories behind it. Students should ALSO learn about the scientific evidence behind it and the distinction between what we know and what we speculate. Evolution should be taught in a biology or science class, and religion should be taught in a social studies or philosephy class.

Religion should be taught in private schools and churches. It is not the business of the state to propagate on religion or another. Social studies and philosophy are entirely different branches of scientifically based areas of study; they have nothing to do with religion (or shouldn't have, in any case).

[MacnnGregor]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Because you can not test, directly observe, or logically deduce the existence of God, Magic Teapots, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters; therefor, it is not a consideration when dealing with the theory of evolution.

Thanks for you words in other posts. I'm not sure I agree with the above though. Evolution is either a good scientific model or a problematic one, regardless of whether God exists or not. To believe in evolution is to believe in the results (so far) of the scientific method and to the observable data. To believe in God or gods is to have faith in the existence and/or the personal experience of supernatural knowledge or revelation. Evolution does not negate this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, and turning off the alarm system and giving all the employees a vacation at Fort Knox wouldn't actually be a problem unless someone actually strolled right in and stole all the gold.

Did you read what the law says? It basically says that students should be induced to think critically. On its face, that's a good thing. Whether that means really thinking critically, or thinking critically with a wink and a nudge from the Discovery Institute, well, that all depends on what the teachers actually do with it. You can't strike down a law which requires things that are actually good things, just because you suspect it's a back-door to something else.

To address your analogy, it's not like that at all. It's like implementing a new high-tech security system that you suspect might contain a back-door to hackers. Your suspicion isn't necessarily true.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Did you read what the law says? It basically says that students should be induced to think critically. On its face, that's a good thing. Whether that means really thinking critically, or thinking critically with a wink and a nudge from the Discovery Institute, well, that all depends on what the teachers actually do with it. You can't strike down a law which requires things that are actually good things, just because you suspect it's a back-door to something else.

To address your analogy, it's not like that at all. It's like implementing a new high-tech security system that you suspect might contain a back-door to hackers. Your suspicion isn't necessarily true.

I wasn't responding to the law, I was responding to the idea that, as you say, opening a backdoor isn't actually a problem until someone actually takes advantage of it. And yes, my analogy wasn't entirely accurate, it's called hyperbole.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In that case don't you have to wait until teachers actually do that before you can react? I mean, if what you just said is true, then the law itself is not the problem, it just leaves the door open for the problem to stroll in. So you have to wait for the problem to stroll through the door before you can object.

I don't think you have to wait to say that the intention - and effect - of the law is to have teachers teach creationism. And I don't think you have to wait to oppose the law if that's the clear effect of it, even if the effect won't occur for a few months yet.

[edit] Uncle Skelton, I just read your response to nonhuman. The law does more than encourage critical thinking. It specifically allows creationist supplemental materials. That was its intent and its effect. I don't think it's helpful to kind of play along with them and pretend that it's something else. The question is only whether they've been forced to make the law so weak that it doesn't do what they want it to do, or if they framed it carefully enough that it does do what they want.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

Thanks for you words in other posts. I'm not sure I agree with the above though. Evolution is either a good scientific model or a problematic one, regardless of whether God exists or not. To believe in evolution is to believe in the results (so far) of the scientific method and to the observable data. To believe in God or gods is to have faith in the existence and/or the personal experience of supernatural knowledge or revelation. Evolution does not negate this.

I didn't say it negates it, as I mentioned earlier there could be a god or gods directly guiding evolution. Shoot, someone could be a direct messenger of God and be told by Him directly that, "Yeah, I control evolution. Just look at the Platypus," but also understand that you can't test God, so God is a variable not present (yet) in the equation. Maybe God is a 1 in the mother of multiplication problems, whether or not He's there isn't going to change the result or the equation from a rational perspective.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

[edit] Uncle Skelton, I just read your response to nonhuman. The law does more than encourage critical thinking. It specifically allows creationist supplemental materials. That was its intent and its effect. I don't think it's helpful to kind of play along with them and pretend that it's something else. The question is only whether they've been forced to make the law so weak that it doesn't do what they want it to do, or if they framed it carefully enough that it does do what they want.

They need to add another clause that states material presented in supplemental texts must be material that was peer reviewed by an accredited University and/or scientific body. That would eliminate anything religious, but not eliminate unpopular competing scientific theories.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They need to add another clause that states material presented in supplemental texts must be material that was peer reviewed by an accredited University and/or scientific body. That would eliminate anything religious, but not eliminate unpopular competing scientific theories.

Yeah I agree. The idea that you have to go outside of standard science in order to see competing points of view is crazy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It specifically allows creationist supplemental materials.

Either you're reading a different law than I am, or you don't understand what the word "specifically" means.

I don't think it's helpful to kind of play along with them and pretend that it's something else.

I think it's easier to squash someone caught red-handed than someone merely making a future crime easier for themselves while technically playing by the rules.

And I don't think you have to wait to oppose the law if that's the clear effect of it

No you're perfectly able to oppose it, but what I should have said was overturn it. The people of Louisiana have a right to govern themselves, and if this is the law they want then they will pass it. But there's a higher standard required before the rest of us can say "your democracy, you're doing it wrong." And rightly so. Besides, it's not like this law will supersede the existing unconstitutionality of creationism in public schools.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Either you're reading a different law than I am, or you don't understand what the word "specifically" means.

Here's the text of the law. It specifically mentions evolution and specifically provides for critique and specifically recommends the use of supplemental material. Again, I think you have to willingly play along to say this isn't what is going on.

I think it's easier to squash someone caught red-handed than someone merely making a future crime easier for themselves while technically playing by the rules.

Yeah it's easier. But I would have voted against this because it absolutely crystal clear what is going on.

No you're perfectly able to oppose it, but what I should have said was overturn it. The people of Louisiana have a right to govern themselves, and if this is the law they want then they will pass it. But there's a higher standard required before the rest of us can say "your democracy, you're doing it wrong." And rightly so. Besides, it's not like this law will supersede the existing unconstitutionality of creationism in public schools.

I agree, and in fact I'm not even sure that I would have overturned the Dover PA law if I was the judge.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, it has always been.

I can't even remember where in the discussion we were, since I clocked out last night in order to wake up early and do some skiing while the lake was still glassy. Skiing and then drinking mimosas around lunchtime is, I think, the true purpose around which the universe was intelligently designed

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by MacnnGregor 

eBuddy: You sound very reasonable and I appreciate your posts. I also have been too lazy to look up the actual wording of the Louisiana law and so I assume that you have accurately portrayed it .... So, Macnn's article was inaccruate?!!? No!!!!

Thank you MacnnGregor.

I've not read each line, but have skimmed and found points of it that suit my arguments naturally. I began by asking several contributors to this thread what it was in the law that caused such a stir. I've accurately portrayed the law as it is written, but the emotional responses I received were more related to slippery slopes founded on the notions of those promoting it. This bias does not appear in the law itself. Furthermore, it was my opinion that the OP was being disingenuous with his post title. This was the crux of my complaint.

So you are right, many theories that are assumed true, may take a while to pre proven and proven in different ways by different people. But what these theories may have over ID, is that each one (even string theory) has the ability to be modeled. That is, someone is able to mentally, physically or mathematically able to describe the theory and make reasonable tests of the model if not the real thing. Tornado experts don't need to be inside a tornado to figure out what is going on - just make careful observations, articulate a model (usually on computers right now) and test the model. In science it is about who has the best model, that wins the scientific debate. Einstein as a theoretician was not about studying reality much, he was about testing models mathematically. This is a legitimate means of proving theories that of course requires experimental scientific proof as well, but can be valid enough to be used in science classes. As for the Big Bang, yes, there was immediately a mathematical model for it and telescopes and supercolliders were rather quickly used to confirm some of the assumptions of the Big Bang Theory. You don't need to reproduce the Big Bang to study it.

To be clear, I cannot disagree with most of the above and am not comfortable being placed in a position of trying to give ID more merit than it deserves. I do not believe ID has satisfied enough of the rigors of empirical science to be given equal consideration with the theory of evolution. Moreover, I do not believe ID should be taught in school. We're really talking about "alternative" materials, theories, slippery slopes, authors, and their motives.

Materials and authors. Al Gore is not a scientist, but his material has been heralded as "authoritative" on global climate change by the international community. The scientific community on the other hand, has several questions about his work and yet my daughter has been required to watch his film no less than twice. I find this is not exclusive to our 'red-state' school system. Because Al Gore has been caught in dishonesty in the past, should his work be completely discarded? No. Al Gore most definitely has an agenda political and otherwise, but does this mean his work should be abandoned a priori? Absolutely not. I don't think an argument should me measured first on the bias of the person behind it, then the merits of the arguments themselves. It should be the other way around. IMO, there appears to be a lop-sided application of this principle in both pop-media and the school system. Regardless of what you think of Al Gore or whether there are serious questions about his work, there is legitimate and redeeming qualities to the information presented.

Theories. As you know, ID itself has enjoyed very little of what we'd no doubt agree is necessary for reasonable scientific discourse. This does not mean there are absolutely no redeeming qualities in their author's materials however. Within these materials are a host of knock-out experiments in an attempt to affirm irreducible complexity and there are those who've used and published knock-out experiments to disprove irreducible complexity. This is science. There are many things I love about the discipline, but my favorites are;
- iron sharpens iron; it is competition that drives the discipline. I may be alone in having a peculiar distaste for lock-steps of any kind. Thankfully, it is not usually the scientists that are in lock-step.
- "unemotional" documentation produced by a field with integrity. In an abstract you might see; "Toxin gene removed from bacteria to aide in fight against cancer" and in National Geographic you'll see; "New Bacteria Created!"

Motives. Evolution is generally understood not to address origins, but I've long disagreed with that. A great deal of resources have been exhausted studying origins. Then the accusation is quickly thrown at proponents of ID that they are using a god to fill gaps in theory. IMO, what is lacking is an adequate definition of these general principles. There is no demarcation between life and pre-life which cuts to the very core of competing ideals. It seems reasonable to conclude that the ones most passionate about these principles are motivated. You must admit, origins absolutely begs for fillers. This should not surprise any learned educator nor would any "aware" curriculum be designed without acknowledging the anomaly. Motives should not be deal-breakers.

Back to Materials. I've been trying to appeal in this thread to basic logic with mixed results. Again, the issue is going to come up. The teacher is either going to be prepared or unprepared. The teachers more prepared and the integrity of the text they use is critical. Studies indicate that the more educated a teacher is in their discipline, the less apt they are to delve into "alternative theories" in the public school and worse (legally), proselytization. The textbooks they're using have problems. Some studies such as a 2-year study linked below reviewed a dozen physical science textbooks commonly used in middle school. Some of these texts contained errors like; sound travels faster through warm air than cold air, A map showing the equator running through Texas and Florida, when it's actually about 1,500 miles south, the notion that sound below 400 hz is inaudible to humans, when there are 47 notes on a piano below 400 hz, Periodic tables not updated years after new elements have been added, etc... not withstanding the fact that I've personally been subject to the teaching of human "gill slits" as evidence of recapitulation. This is irresponsible.
CNN article on Hubisz study
We have a problem here that transcends Creationists. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that unless we address the virus, the symptoms people rail on are excitable, but unimportant. I believe the Louisiana law helps address some of the symptoms by allowing free discourse and acknowledging the reality of our social make-up, but unfortunately also does not address the virus. I'm optimistic that iron will sharpen iron here on a host of fronts up to and including urging the improvement in training for educators and better curriculum materials in general.

As far as I know there is no valid model for ID that can even be rationally debated or tested, theoretically or experimentally. I may be wrong, but just saying that the human eye is really complicated and could not evolve over 500,000,000 years is not a scientific model.

Creationists are people too and they likewise have an irresponsible pop-media. However, this does not mean that Michael Behe (proponent of ID) is claiming that ID is true because "gosh, the eye is like so complicated and could not evolve over 500,000,000 years." He is a tenured professor of Biochemistry. There are other proponents of ID with similar credentials. While this does not give their theory credibility nor should the theory itself necessarily be taught in class, they pose legitimate material for scientific discourse none the less IMO.

To be science it has to be articulated into some kind of rational model, based upon observations or other theories. There is no currently valid model of any supernatural intercession in the laws of nature. As a practicing Christian and scientist it seems clear to me that Intelligent Design, while philosophically debatable and fascinating at the dinner table, is not based upon any model that could even be researched. When it can be, I'll re-evaluate my opinion.

This is fair. I respectfully disagree that Intelligent Design lacks a model for applied methodology. Its more basic premise enjoys practical application in fields ranging from archeology to SETI. I have trouble requiring the name of the intelligent agent, but I acknowledge most do not. Furthermore, an aspect of ID cannot be both untestable, yet falsified by knock-out experimentation. While this does not mean it is something more than a just-so story, the ol' rule; "if you make a play on it, it's live" applies here IMO.

As to whether the new LA law is constitutional, I don't know yet, but anyone who thinks that this Supreme Court is truly only interested in "original intent" is being intellectually dishonest. Environmental Law and nuclear bombs in brief cases were not imaginable by the Founding Fathers and there would be no original intent to use. And Civil Rights were of course compromised away to keep the Southern states in the Union.

Slippery slopes. I believe "separation" is too often confused with "suppression", but that's a lengthier discussion. The merits of law are not necessarily contingent upon the bias of those who support it and I dare say, those who author it. The head of the ACLU is not happy with this law, but has conceded that it is perfectly constitutional as written. Now it's a matter of accountability. I see no difference in standards that would somehow hold teachers less accountable for proselytizing in class than they were prior. I see mostly good to come of it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Religion should be taught in private schools and churches. It is not the business of the state to propagate on religion or another. Social studies and philosophy are entirely different branches of scientifically based areas of study; they have nothing to do with religion (or shouldn't have, in any case).

It IS their responsibility to teach kids about the world and what drives people...especially in social studies. Religion is undoubtedly a large factor in this area of study.

Like I said...science? No....Social studies, history or philosephy? Of course.

If you censor your kids to reality even within schools than you're hurting them more than helping them. Educating is about developing the mind and encouraging them to think for themselves. It is not to cut parts of history and society out of their education just because you don't agree with them.

Make no mistake, i'm not religious. But I also think people have the right and schools have the burden of completely educating our kids about all people's views, outlooks, and beliefs. To do otherwise is not educating.

[andi*pandi]

in other words, "a wizard did it." I see no reason why a term usually applied to fanwanking Buffy the Vampire plot-holes couldn't also be used to explain away the mysteries of the universe. Let's all get the schools to start using it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Within these materials are a host of knock-out experiments in an attempt to affirm irreducible complexity and there are those who've used and published knock-out experiments to disprove irreducible complexity. This is science.

Yes, but at the same time, a very resounding no. You fail to see the distinction. There is a huge difference between using a religious & fundamentally wrong book as a teaching device to explain why it's wrong through experimentation, and making a religious & fundamentally wrong book available as a teaching device regardless of motivation.

This is so unbelievably frustrating that you don't understand this. You say that students should know about both, then understand why Intelligent Design and the premises it's based on are wrong; and I agree with that. However, this law does not add anything to an already approved curriculum. There was nothing before preventing science teachers from using an Intelligent Design book to explain and demonstrate why it's wrong. This law was designed specifically so religious teachers can expound their philosophies in the science classroom.

"Irreducible Complexity" has already been refuted. It's bunk. Michael Behe formed the hypothesis from a misunderstanding of the workings of biological systems. His works have been peer reviewed by hundreds of biologists and other specialists, and he was wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You must admit, origins absolutely begs for fillers. This should not surprise any learned educator nor would any "aware" curriculum be designed without acknowledging the anomaly. Motives should not be deal-breakers.

There are holes, but none of which require the existence of God or Invisible Pink Unicorns. What anomaly? There are quite a few credible theories as to the origin of life on Earth. There are tests that have been done (and can be reproduced) that give credibility to these theories. Nucleotides forming protein structures and DNA is one possibility. However, it's looking more and more likely that life started as a result of panspermia. We know through experiments that there are several types of bacteria that can survive in a vacuum, extreme temperatures of hot and cold, and severe radiation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've been trying to appeal in this thread to basic logic with mixed results. Again, the issue is going to come up. The teacher is either going to be prepared or unprepared. The teachers more prepared and the integrity of the text they use is critical.

Non sequiturs are not logical. Properly prepared teachers have nothing to do with the intention of this law. Many teachers -- prepared or not -- are going to use this law to teach their philosophical views in a science classroom.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Studies indicate that the more educated a teacher is in their discipline, the less apt they are to delve into "alternative theories" in the public school and worse (legally), proselytization. The textbooks they're using have problems.

Because some school text books have inaccurate or incorrect information, you support a law that will introduce books that are nothing more than fantasy & science-fiction? Not only are they fiction but they will pass them off as fact.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

However, this does not mean that Michael Behe (proponent of ID) is claiming that ID is true because "gosh, the eye is like so complicated and could not evolve over 500,000,000 years." He is a tenured professor of Biochemistry. There are other proponents of ID with similar credentials. While this does not give their theory credibility nor should the theory itself necessarily be taught in class, they pose legitimate material for scientific discourse none the less IMO.

Furthermore, an aspect of ID cannot be both untestable, yet falsified by knock-out experimentation. While this does not mean it is something more than a just-so story, the ol' rule; "if you make a play on it, it's live" applies here IMO.

Michael Behe demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of the workings of the biological systems he proposed for his Irreducibly Complex "theory." All of his examples for Irreducible Complexity were debunked. His theory is not falsifiable, so it is not science.

According to Wikipedia, "[Behe] posits taking bacteria with no flagellum and imposing a selective pressure for mobility. If, after a few thousand generations, the bacteria evolved the bacterial flagellum, then Behe believes that this would refute his theory." Now, I bring you back to this article where a similarly "irreducibly complex" development occurred. Nearly everything about his "theory" has been debunked, even "falsified" as per his definition of it. There is no credibility to the theory.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

in other words, "a wizard did it."

Man, I hope there's at least one smart-ass in Louisiana taking a test and does this:

"Question 10: Identify the holes on the abdomen of a locust and what their functions are. Describe a possible reason for their development."

"Answer 10: They're used for breathing; and f*ck if I know why they developed, God works in mysterious ways."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, but at the same time, a very resounding no. You fail to see the distinction. There is a huge difference between using a religious & fundamentally wrong book as a teaching device to explain why it's wrong through experimentation, and making a religious & fundamentally wrong book available as a teaching device regardless of motivation.

We're arguing too different things here. I understand you have a problem with religious text. I get that. There has been no proposed religious text in the law and section 1D of the law specifically prohibits the promotion of religion in school. Whatever "separation" application of law that prohibited teachers from proselytizing in class prior has been clarified again in the new law should there be any mistaking it. I've indicated that religious or not, much of the text being used in classes today are "wrong". You kind of brushed right past this point which IMO, is unfortunate. Either you're opposed to "wrongness", "fantasy", and falsities or you're not. I'm thinking your concern for the integrity of science curriculum is defined only by those you believe are hostile to it.

This is so unbelievably frustrating that you don't understand this. You say that students should know about both, then understand why Intelligent Design and the premises it's based on are wrong; and I agree with that. However, this law does not add anything to an already approved curriculum. There was nothing before preventing science teachers from using an Intelligent Design book to explain and demonstrate why it's wrong. This law was designed specifically so religious teachers can expound their philosophies in the science classroom.

Two problems with this;
- it has been found through numerous studies that teachers are going to teach and expound on their philosophies regardless. The new law clarifies again, the prohibition of religious teaching. This is a good thing. The one aspect found to have made a difference on this front is the level of knowledge attained by the educator. I believe this is key, but we'll get back to that.
- In a classroom where such discussions were considered "taboo" or "off-limits", it would make no sense for a teacher with integrity (notice I'm differentiating between teachers with integrity and those that would teach and expound on their own philosophies in public school.) to go out of their way to debunk a theory that is not generally being discussed in class. Kids get their education of one principle in class, another principle in Sunday school or at home. You seem to favor this status quo from your prior posts. Let's look at the fruits of this status quo; "if man evolved from ape, how are there still apes?" and numerous polls still showing majority favor of special creation. They do not generally have the opportunity to hash any of this out in the confines of the learning institution. They do not have the benefit of a well-prepared science teacher on these specific "fringe" elements of science. I believe this problem is apparent. We may have to agree to disagree here.

"Irreducible Complexity" has already been refuted. It's bunk. Michael Behe formed the hypothesis from a misunderstanding of the workings of biological systems. His works have been peer reviewed by hundreds of biologists and other specialists, and he was wrong.

I believe IC has enjoyed banter and deserves some merit specifically because it gives an actual, testable attribute to several potentials depending on presupposition;
- Proponent of Evolution, no design inference; uncovers new pathways of evolution. (living cells are wrought with complex structures yet to be addressed by a detailed evolutionary account). IC does not have to be construed as an argument against evolution. I believe it is just as excitable and errant for a proponent of evolution to assume this as it is an opponent of evolution. Scientifically, just because a mechanism has yet to be defined, doesn't mean it is disproved or does not have an evolutionary explanation.

- Proponent of ID, a design inference; The combination of previous "working" parts for future function is the act of an intelligent agent, not that of a process that selects on contemporaneous advantages. You disagree with this premise? Fine. You believe this is destructive to an already woefully inadequate curriculum? Fine. I believe this will perpetuate the search for irreducible complexity and drive the subsequent discovery of its evolutionary pathways. There's nothing wrong with this IMO.

There are holes, but none of which require the existence of God or Invisible Pink Unicorns. What anomaly? There are quite a few credible theories as to the origin of life on Earth. There are tests that have been done (and can be reproduced) that give credibility to these theories. Nucleotides forming protein structures and DNA is one possibility. However, it's looking more and more likely that life started as a result of panspermia. We know through experiments that there are several types of bacteria that can survive in a vacuum, extreme temperatures of hot and cold, and severe radiation.

I'd be curious to see a link for this. I'm skeptical about the degree of "extreme heat" and "severe radiation" they're talking about here. With all due respect, this seems more like "anything, but ID" to me. You may as well just say "god did it". Science on this matter is as infantile as the 'God hypothesis' in merely extending both the location of the "genesis" event (not that it be relegated to one place/time to be clear) and the amount of time involved. As you know, there would be no end to where and when this occurred. As specifics are tested and debunked, one could too easily simply say this wasn't "the one". As such, it is not falsifiable. It should also be noted that in the definition of panspermia I've found, they're using the Creationist/ID made up term of "macro-evolution".

In fairness, until we find some form of life elsewhere (or agreed, seed), this doesn't mean panspermia is disproved and if you could provide the above studies, I'd be willing to check it out. I'm merely using your criteria for what is and is not science.

Non sequiturs are not logical. Properly prepared teachers have nothing to do with the intention of this law. Many teachers -- prepared or not -- are going to use this law to teach their philosophical views in a science classroom

.
The entire premise of your argument and your OP against this law have been non-sequiturs.
- ID has roots in Creationism/religion
- This law has the support of Republicans, Conservatives, ID proponents, and Creationists
- Therefore, this law requires the teaching of religion and use of religious material in class

Problem is; the law clarifies again, the prohibition of religious teaching. ID and Creationism have not been stated nor implied in the law. I maintain the real concern here is that educators are not prepared enough to address the questions this legislature may pose. Instead of addressing the problem (educators are not prepared), we seek to keep the discussion (including whatever "easily debunked" material it produces) out of the classroom altogether. I disagree.

Because some school text books have inaccurate or incorrect information, you support a law that will introduce books that are nothing more than fantasy & science-fiction? Not only are they fiction but they will pass them off as fact.

What books? I thought non-sequiturs were illogical. I've given you examples affirmed by several studies that have found the current science curriculum woefully inadequate, fallacious, and that of science-fiction. Your argument is founded on a fear of slippery slopes. My argument is founded on the current status of science curriculum. I see no harm in the law. You do. Why? Slippery slopes having nothing to do with a concern for the dire status of science curriculum today nor the text of the law itself.

Michael Behe demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of the workings of the biological systems he proposed for his Irreducibly Complex "theory." All of his examples for Irreducible Complexity were debunked. His theory is not falsifiable, so it is not science.

Panspermia is not falsifiable. Of course Behe's theory is falsifiable as you indicated below. Why would your criteria change contingent upon the bias of the proponent???

This doesn't mean that scientists will stop looking for examples of IC nor does any such evidence of IC have to be construed as contrary to evolution. This should be easily addressed by any learned educator.

According to Wikipedia, "[Behe] posits taking bacteria with no flagellum and imposing a selective pressure for mobility. If, after a few thousand generations, the bacteria evolved the bacterial flagellum, then Behe believes that this would refute his theory." Now, I bring you back to this article where a similarly "irreducibly complex" development occurred. Nearly everything about his "theory" has been debunked, even "falsified" as per his definition of it. There is no credibility to the theory.

To your link I would say again; What about the Japanese bacterium, nylon bug able to metabolize nylon waste or D. radiodurans able to metabolize radioactive waste? These have all been known since the early 60's. Why would you then turn around and ridicule creationists when you're apparently not convinced?

To be clear, every example of irreducible complexity to date has been debunked, but of course you understand that this does not mean that no examples exist or can be found and tested. You should likewise understand that Darwin's admitted challenge is to find such, you can bet people will continue to try. Perhaps in vain, perhaps not. There's no reason any of this has to be avoided.