<p>(“I am very intriqued by the creation of a new form of matter- aren’t you?”</p>
<p>agreed! let’s hope that we can put it to good, humane use.)</p>
<p>The mind boggles- predicted applications include an atom laser- nanotechnology & telecommunications
translation? The laptop I just bought will be outdated soon…</p>
<p>“is science atheism?
Are people who beleive in evolution atheists?”</p>
<p>never said that. read the other portion of my post, and you will see that the way we are telling our kids everything in this book is true and excluding God in very possible way we can is implying that God doesn’t exist, and therefore indirectly advocating atheism. </p>
<p>Just read some of these evolution/creation debates, and with all the ridicule of God coming from the evolutionist’s arguments I think my hypothesis of “excluding God in a book of truth = implying God is not true = advocating principle doctrine of atheism (when we’re not supposed to teach religion)” is justified. or else where would these unscientific insults come from??? something from nothing…oh i don’t think it’s just an evolutionist thing 
~</p>
<p>So, bneg, if the schools fail to promote religion they are guilty of promoting atheism? It’s a “Either you’re with us or against us” kind of thing - there can be no neutrality? Any explanation of any aspect of the state of the universe which doesn’t include “…or else God just made it that way” is advocating atheism? </p>
<p>I don’t “ridicule” God. (That would be presumptuous, wouldn’t it?) But I don’t include “because God made it that way” as an answer to any question raised in a science class, because that’s a) always a possible explanation for everything, and b) not something I can determine the truth or falsity of through science. </p>
<p>I think you’re confusing “science” with “truth”. When we teach kids that science leads to a particular answer, they tend to believe that it is “true”, because science has gotten a pretty good rep lately. And I think that good reputation is what the people who want to bring religion into the science class are trying to piggyback onto. I don’t think evolution should be required to be taught in church, and I don’t think “ID” should be required to be taught in science class - but that doesn’t mean that either one is necessarily “true” and the other “false.”</p>
<p>schools do not need to promote either one. and so far that’s not the case.
do you not find the neutrality we have right now is exactly what atheism is? </p>
<p>ID is not about “God made it that way”, by the way…i’m pretty sure you’re just manipulating it to fit your arugment. Not a really scientific method, would you agree?</p>
<p>so by what you’re saying, science is not true, but it’s just got a good rep and so it’s just believable? I don’t even know why I’m responding to this statement. you definition of science make it sound like a philosophical theory instead. In that case, sure, teach whatever whoever wants. And in that case, why don’t ID people get to teach what they want??
A bit unfair wouldn’t you think??</p>
<p>bneg - I think if you google “scientific method” you’ll get a lot of hits that describe science in a lot of slightly different ways, but by thinking about those different writings you’ll get a better idea of what I mean by “science” and “truth” are not the same thing. I like this one:
You’ll note that the word “truth” does not appear in the definition. It’s a mistake to “believe in” science the way it’s perfectly OK to “believe in” God. They’re not in the same category of things. That’s why I think its a mistake to confuse “science” with “truth”. Good science will yield “reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary” explanations for the world we see around us. But I can’t guaranty that those explanations are “true”, only that they’re likely to be “accurate”. If you want “truth”, you need to go beyond mere science.</p>
<p>“If you want “truth”, you need to go beyond mere science.”</p>
<p>we should teach that in our science classes! </p>
<p>the problem is that a lot of scientist don’t think that . And i don’t think many science students think that either. during this period when science is hailed absolute by nearly all (those who don’t are described as ignorant, hiding behind their faith, chanting “i’m not listening i’m not listening”), i think measure should be taken to balance that view.</p>
<p>If “reliable and consistent” is a requirement for it to be science, then evolution doesn’t appear to be a part of science. It may be many things, but reliable and consistent is not one that I would attribute to it.</p>
<p>Kluge,
how very clever of you: Science doesnt have to be true, only accurate. The tired difference without a distinction
the heads spins
[I will not mention sophistry as it would be redundant and obvious]</p>
<p>Science looks for an explanation of natural processes that corresponds with reality.</p>
<p>reality P Pronunciation Key (r - l -t )
n. pl. realities
<a href=“http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066286?query=science&ct=[/url]”>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066286?query=science&ct=</a>
In other words: accurate.</p>
<p>I would like to have prayer in school, Christmas pagents on the school stage, and I would like to have realistic discussions of sex and birth control beyond: “Just say no, thank you!” There are a lot of things I would like taught in school, including passivism…but more than all of these things put together, I want people to have a freedom from the government imposing itself into their private decisions regarding religion. So I understand that some things I believe in are best not taught nor presented in schools, but are better taught after school in religion classes being held in churches, mosques, shrines, hogans, synagogues and temples. That is where intelligent design should be discussed not in a science class.</p>
<p>Let’s play nice everyone.</p>
<p>while not everyone has access to “churches, mosques, shrines, hogans, synagogues and temples”, everyone is forced to attend “school”. </p>
<p>and “school” has that odd neutrality to oppose “churches, mosques, shrines, hogans, synagogues and temples” that really doesn’t make it as neutral as we want to believe.</p>
<p>OK (ignoring the ideological cheapshots) let me try with an example: Newtonian Physics are not “true”. That is, modern experimentation has demonstrated that Newton’s “laws” don’t hold true - they do not produce accurate predictions - when applied to situations outside the normal range of size and speed which we usually encounter in the “ordinary” world. So the “laws” are not the “truth”. But they are still good science, because within the frame of reference in which they are usually applied, they do produce accurate predictions. Understanding that those scientific “laws” are actually just approximations of more complicated principles is just another step down the road of science. And that’s OK. We still get to teach Newtonian physics in science class because they are still useful in the real world.</p>
<p>That is the difference between science and not-science. Science does not purport to state the “truth” - just the explanation which best predicts things and which has been tested and not yet been proven false. Every experiment which yields a result consistent with the explanation (theory) strengthens it in the eyes of science - but nothing, not even theories as generally reliable as Newtonian physics, is considered to be ultimately and indisputably the “truth.” I know that many people equate “science” with “truth”, and that’s probably because science has generally done a better job of prediction in recent years than witchcraft or astrology, and that’s why we have classes in it. It’s useful. Science is taught for the same reason as Math, or English, or Home Ec - it’s a useful tool. </p>
<p>ID, on the other hand, is not a useful tool. Understanding the principle that things are really complicated because a higher being decided to make them that way gives us no advantage in trying to figure out the exact nature of those complicated things, or in using them to our advantage. ID is a metaphysical musing. Interesting, and in my opinion definitely worth discussing and thinking about. But it doesn’t belong in Math, science, or Home Ec class, because it isn’t a tool.</p>
<p>
Whats your source for this bald statement? How have you determined that knowing something is designed, and therefore with purpose, is not scientifically usefulcertainly not using the scientific method. Most scientists would disagree with this statement, even neo-Darwinists would disagree and some have, it is false on its face. </p>
<p>Of course there would be scientific advantages to knowing an organism is designed, the scientific implications would be quite serious and determinative. </p>
<p>Let me be clear, I accept evolution as a process in many if not most instances as a process; that is, where the evidence seems evident and scientific. However, that there would be natural selection in some things does not extend itself into all things. It may be beautiful philosophy or poetry but it is not science unless there is evidence that it is the case in all discrete things and evidently there is not. Moreover, where there is a stronger case for design, such as in the bio-chemistry of cells and other irreducibly complex organic systems it seems ideological and dogmatic to maintain it is other than it is.</p>
<p>Please give me an example of an “irreducibly complex organic system”. Thanks.</p>
<p>FYI . . . it appears that the Vatican is for evolution and against intelligent design. Here is a reference to the discussion occuring right now on Slashdot:</p>
<p><a href=“Vatican Rejects Intelligent Design? - Slashdot”>Vatican Rejects Intelligent Design? - Slashdot;
<p>
Exactly what is the advantage to coming to that conclusion? And how would you come to “know” that an organism was designed?</p>
<p>“things are really complicated because a higher being decided to make them that way”</p>
<p>again, i believe you know very well that is not intelligent design. A creator is not part of the evidence nor explanation in ID; the creator is part of the the deduced conclusion.</p>
<p>I’ve never really understood the term, “natural selection”, as used in evolutionary science. I do fully understand the logic of the concept that organisms and animal species changed over time in order to better adapt to critical environmental shifts. But I’ve never heard an adequate explaination of the “selection” in “natural selection”. The very definition of the word, “selection” involves the function of “purposeful choice”, does it not? However, in evolutionary science, the theory is that the countless complex and logical adaptations found in the natural world simply “occurred” randomly, or that “nature” (whatever that means) “selected” these adaptations, and finding them advantageous, “decided” to replicate them in successive generations. This gives “nature” a curiously god-like modus operandi—the ability to “select”. But what is the mechanism by which “nature” makes these “decisions”? How does nature “recognize” (cognition, being the intrinsic and logical prerequisit for such action) the need for a specific adaptation? </p>
<p>I think questions like this are intrinsic to the concept of Intelligent Design. It is simply the postulation that there appears to be an inherent intelligence of unknown type and origin, which governs the functioning of the known world. It does not postulate as to whether that intelligence is excercised by a “God” or “Gods”, extremely advanced, and as yet, undiscovered lifeform(s), or some other entity(ies) of an undiscovered “kind”. Religion is very specific. It uses very specific doctrines and identifies very specific deities to explain the natural world, mankind, and his place in the world. Intelligent Design theory offers non is these things. It merely asks logical questions about concepts that science fails to address when explaining the nature and function of the known universe, and points out faults in current scientific logic and explaination. It points out that logic dictates that some form of intelligence appears inherent in the natural world. </p>
<p>As I see it, there is no room in the concept of ID to identify a specific religious explaination for this seemingly “cognitive” function at work in the natural world. What is encumbent in ID is that it shows the countless ways in which intelligence (of whatever kind) appears to be at work.</p>
<p>It appears to me that it is the bogey-man of the possibility of “State-Sponsored” religion in the classroom that makes opponents of ID so very adamant against it mention science classes. I have no problem with ID being a small part of a science curriculum, as long as no specific god or religion is postulated as being the origin of the “I” in ID. To me, ID is a valid subject of scientific discussion, because it deals in issues of scientific postulation or more accurately, the areas in which current scientific postulation fails to explain itself fully.</p>
<p>
Eagle, that IS design. </p>
<p>I believe you are confused over a finer point between literal creationists and scientists and laymen who find scientific evidence for a designed universe. Evolution, as a process, is not incompatible with design; in fact, they are completely compatible if understood for what they are rather than as political and cultural weapons to be used in an unrelated battle.</p>
<p>By definition, any religion that has a Creator (god) must by force of logic believe in a designed universe, as does the Catholic Church, as do the mass of humanity currently residing on this earth. For instance, a Buddhist is not a theist and yet no Buddhism that I am aware of envisions an un-designed universe. To a Buddhist there is a very specific design in the universe, though there is no theological speculation that leads to a belief in a god or gods. </p>
<p>Historically, evolution has co-existed quite well with religious doctrine and belief. Some of Darwins earliest and most vociferous supporters were in fact theists; the noted Presbyterian Asa Gray, Darwins greatest champion in America, was perhaps most responsible for Natural Selection being taken seriously in the Stateshis friends innovative theory being held in contempt by most of Americas noted scientists at that time.</p>
<p>The real friction began when many of Darwins most unhinged supporters, atheists one and all, began to postulate unscientific conclusions they claimed to have derived from Natural Selection (this is in part why William Jennings Bryant was repulsed by Darwinism and fought it in Tennessee). For instance, many proclaimed that there is no real morality, that there was nothing more than an ethic derived from the Darwinian slogan survival of the fittest, whether it be in the economic sphere or in the military way of viewing the world: from the ethical horrors of eugenics, to Robber Barron capitalism, to the justifications of slaughter in the first world war: Darwinism has been put to many uses it is ill-suited for.</p>
<p>Anyhow, re-read your quote above and you will see what I mean.</p>
<p>[poetsheart, way to cut through the BS! loved your post and I humbly second everything you said]</p>
<p>Believing that God is involved in the universe is fine. Trying to scientifically observe God’s involvement in evolution is at best disingenous. Because God’s involvement cannot be measured, it has no place in evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>I agree with you wholeheartedly: No religion in science.</p>