OnionCollection
Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 141
- Reaction score
- 11
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Wether to teach intelligent design next to evolution as a "science" is completely fallacious if you want to go by strict standards of science.
Science is a process by which laws and theories are testable, but it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, contrary to public belief. In fact, there is very little science that does that.
In other words, science is not a list of laws and/or theories that have been proven. Rather, the requirement is that they are testable. To test an idea, we need to be able to utilize the idea to make a prediction. Many times, the prediction is specified in terms of what will happen if one does a particular experiment. However it can also be that the prediction needs to be specified in terms of an observation that has yet to be made. For example, this prediction could deal with what we might find if we dig in a certain location.
Is the theory of evolution, testable?
The prediction needs to be specified in terms of an observation that has yet to be made.
For example, this prediction could deal with what we might find if we dig in a certain location If macro-evolution has occurred, then we might expect to find certain fossils in certain locations (e.g., fossils would be found in strata from similar dates). If the actual observations match the predicted observations we have evidence in support for the theory. Evolution makes testable predictions regarding that the DNA of related species should be more similar than those that "look" the same but don't have any fossil evidence linking the two. As such, it is testable. Similarly, if the earth was so old, then we might expect to observe certain values from dating techniques in certain locations. As such, it is testable.
Thus, what makes evolution scientific is not whether it has been adequately tested but rather whether it is testable. In other words, if the question is whether the theory of evolution is science, then the debate is not over whether the theory of evolution has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather whether it is falsifiable. And the answer to the latter is "yes". The theory of evolution is science.
( Not ony does evolution make testable predictions about micro-evolution,(antibiotic resistance) but it also makes testable predictions about macro-evolution and the age of the earth/universe.)
Has the theory of evolution been sufficiently tested? Of course not!
But that is okay
Advocates for intelligent design being taught in the classroom assert that their criticism of evolution is scientific, not religious.
But the intelligent design (also interject intelligent weather) theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate and most importantly, it is not testable. Does it provide a better and easier explanation of diversity of life! (easier better explanation for weather?) Well hell yeah but that does not make scientific
No research supporting the claims of intelligent design (intelligent weather) has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Therefore, question of whether there is an intelligent designer (intelliegent weather ) is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim and should not be taught in classrooms.
For the record, I believe in Intelligent design , but it is my religious belief.
bandaidwoman said:I am going to cut and paste my argument against intelligent design and just put intelligent weather where intelligent design is.
Wether to teach Intelligent Weather next to meteorology as a "science" is completely fallacious if you want to go by strict standards of science.
Science is a process by which laws and theories are testable, but it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, contrary to public belief. In fact, there is very little science that does that.
In other words, science is not a list of laws and/or theories that have been proven. Rather, the requirement is that they are testable
Advocates for Intelligent Weather being taught in the classroom assert that their criticism of meteorology is scientific, not religious.
But the Intelligent Weather theory has not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate and most importantly, it is not testable. Does it provide a better and easier explanation for weather? Well hell yeah but that does not make scientific
No research supporting the claims of Intelligent Weather has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Therefore, question of whether there is an intelligent controller of weather is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim and should not be taught in classrooms.
OnionCollection said:It is testable, in some instances WE can create weather. There was this experiment done recently where they flew aircraft into some clouds and pumped out some chemicals. The result was that it caused it to rain. That proves that Intelligence can control the weather. If meteorologists were looking up that day they would wrongly assume the rain had a natural cause. That is why meteorology is flawed - it rules out the valid possibility of intelligence.
A computer model is always an imperfect picture of the way the atmosphere works. We don't have the computing resources to do it in great detail, and we simply don't understand the physical processes involved. Something like clouds, for example, are very difficult to put into a computer model. The detailed processes that go on, for example, how cloud droplets turn into rain, are not fully understood and yet are crucial to all kinds of weather modeling. Many processes in the real atmosphere simply can't be correctly modeled.
Dr. Eric Fetzer meteorologist at NASA
bandaidwoman said:To say this proves that there is an intelligent designer is equivalent to saying that because we can create nuclear fusion (nuclear bomb) that all nuclear fusion processes require an intelligent designer!
The Real McCoy said:Weather isn't directly intelligently controlled. It's the product of the laws of physics: interactions between substances in our atmosphere with differing temperatures. I personally believe the intelligent designer (God) devised these universal physical laws that determine the behavior of matter in our universe. The laws of physics didn't randomly originate out of nowhere and it's naive to believe they did.
The Real McCoy said:Weather isn't directly intelligently controlled. It's the product of the laws of physics: interactions between substances in our atmosphere with differing temperatures. I personally believe the intelligent designer (God) devised these universal physical laws that determine the behavior of matter in our universe. The laws of physics didn't randomly originate out of nowhere and it's naive to believe they did.
bandaidwoman said:Do you realize how medieval it is to say 'Well, since we really don't know why or how it happens, there must be a intelligent force behind it!"
Once again, I have to stess that science is not about accuracy, so who cares if weather forecasting is not accurate yet? You might as well call the whole field of medicine unscientific since so many of its predicitons are also inaccurate.
We still haven't a clue and are at a complete loss about how to cure the common cold, should we assume that there is some divine intelligent force guiding its elusive cure?
In addition, meterology is relatively new science compared to say, harnessing nuclear energy or genetic manipulation.
Now design an experiment that tests for an intelligent weather designer, even one as imperfect as computer modeling.
OnionCollection said:------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that by worshipping this Intelligent force, it will be more likely to spare me punishment.
and so must be accepted by educators as a scientific theory.
1) Discrimination: It is discriminatory to only teach one explaination for the processes of weather. Either Intelligent Weather Theory should be taught alongside naturalistic Meteorology, or neither should be taught.
2) Education: It is better education to teach kids all possible explainations and let them decide for themselves. Teach the controversy.
3) Science: Meteorology is a science in crisis. Despite hundreds of years of meteorology, meteorologists still cannot accurately predict the weather, and they admit that they likely never will. The weather system is far too complex to explain by soley natural means. But Intelligent Weather Theory can explain everything about the weather easily. So it is a better scientific theory and so should be taught.
If anyone thinks they can defeat these arguments please try.
OnionCollection said:We're not saying atheistic meteorology is false, we are just saying it isn't proven, and that Intelligent Weather theory should be taught as an alternative. Why can't we just let kids decide for themselves? If meteorology is so factual then why would you be bothered about teaching them alternatives?
Is all science atheistic to you? Alternatives are a waste of instructuion time. If the schools give in to your theories, next they will be giving in to some other religions ideas, and the school year will have to be extended to the full 12 months.
If it is inaccurate it isn't a proven fact, and therefore it shouldn't be taught to kids as the only possible explaination. Teach the controversy.
False statement, proven facts do not have to be 100% accurate, even in science. And, inaccurate to what degree? Is 95% accurate enough to be taught? 99%, or do you want 100%?
You shouldn't rule it out. I notice the germ theory of disease is in crisis. By ruling out supernatural causes, Mainstream science is encountering all sorts of problems.
What crisis? Is it in the news? What problems? Science is about the understanding of our world, and the solving of problems, so there will always be controversy where opinions conflict and more and more problems to solve. It is called progress.
Intelligent Weather theory is a new science too. If atheistic meteorology is taught then I think Intelligent Weather Theory should be taught as an alternative.
Google "intellegent weather" and you get almost nothing that supports your views. It is not a new science, but an end run that Pat Robetson would like to use as evidence that God is punishing the unfaithful and the sinners with bad weather.
Various methods are being proposed to detect design in nature. We believe many storm systems show evidence of design because they contain specified information, which cannot arise by natural means.
Got links? Pics? what information? Tell us so we can determine for ourselves if such could arise from natural means.
If it is inaccurate it isn't a proven fact, and therefore it shouldn't be taught to kids as the only possible explaination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?