Thread: Should Intelligent Weather Theory be taught in schools?

This is a test to see how easy it is to argue for inclusion of alternative ideas in science classes, and how easy it is to make it look like there is a case for it.

Meteorology is the science of weather processes. This is a debate over whether alternative weather process theories should be taught alongside meteorology in schools. I am going to take the role of a person arguing that they should.

This in the religion & philosophy forum because I am going to ground my advocation of an alternative weather theory on religious/philosophical grounds (although I am going to claim the theory itself is not religious)

------------------------------------------------------------

I have a religious belief that the Earth is a living intelligent being and is directly controlling the weather. I believe that rain is a way for the Earth to manage cooling itself and feed the plants upon it. Hurricanes, tornados and lightning are created by the planet in reaction to anything harming it. I believe that by worshipping this Intelligent force, it will be more likely to spare me punishment.

I bring my children up to believe likewise. But when I send my children to state controlled school I find they are being taught that weather only has natural causes. Anti-religious bias of educators mean I can't teach my religion in schools, but what about a scientific alternative to naturalistic meteorology?

Me and some of my friends have got together and put together a scientific theory called Intelligent Weather Theory. This theory explains that an unknown intelligent force is controlling worldwide weather according to some unknown plan. because we leave the identity and motive of the intelligent force unknown this means it is not religious and so must be accepted by educators as a scientific theory.

The following arguments are that this theory should be taught in schools as an alternative to naturalistic meteorology:

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.

By all means teach it in a philosophy or relgion course but it's not a scientific theory. Science is not about accuracy, it's about being testable and falsifiable. I am going to cut and paste my arguement against intelligent design and just put intelligent weather where intelligent design is.

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.

People that believe in ID probably also believe that the earth is flat.

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

I am going to cut and paste my argument against intelligent design and just put intelligent weather where intelligent design is.

Okay

Wether to teach Intelligent Weather next to meteorology as a "science" is completely fallacious if you want to go by strict standards of science.

That's only because meteorologists define science in such a way as to exclude Intelligent Weather. The public education system indoctrinates kids that natural meteorology is some kind of fact, when there are serious holes in it. Also many meteorologists see problems with natural meteorology but are too scared to speak out because they will lose funding.

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.

If meteorology isn't proven then how can it be taught as fact in schools? All I am saying is teach the alternative theory of Intelligent Weather alongside it. Otherwise you are restricting the education of kids. Let them decide for themselves. What are you afraid of?

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

But how is meteorology testable? It isn't testable. No matter what meteorologists observe they just fit it into their theory. When they make predictions and the weather turns out different than what they predicted they just shrug it off rather than admitting their theory is falsified.

Advocates for Intelligent Weather being taught in the classroom assert that their criticism of meteorology is scientific, not religious.

That is true. It isnt religious because it doesn't say exactly what is controlling the weather, it just says the evidence clearly points to some sort of intelligence controlling the weather. The global weather system is too complex to be the result of natural causes. Meteorology isn't really science, not where experiments can be done like in physics and chemistry.

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

Natural meteorology isn't testable either. Meteorologists admit they often get predictions wrong.

No research supporting the claims of Intelligent Weather has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

That's because meteorologists control all the scientific journals and they discriminate against anyone who advocates Intelligent Weather and won't publish anything they write. I know because I submitted a paper on it the subject and it was TURNED DOWN!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by OnionCollection

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.

Er, uh do you realize you are describing the very tests that meterologists conduct that makes it a testable science! They predict that if certain variables are controlled for in an controlled experimental manner then certain outcomes will happen (seed the clouds and rain will happen.) 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! (As we all know this happens naturally in stars without intelligent guidance following the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics)

Here's an admission from a renowned meteorologist:

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

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

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!

It proves that Intelligent Design of weather is possible, which is something naturalistic meteorology denies. Natural meteorology is incapable of detecting intelligence in weather and so is majorly flawed as we have empirical evidence that it does happen.

I am not disputing micro-weather by the way. Micro-weather such as small rainclouds occuring naturally has been proven in the lab. Macro-weather such as hurricanes, tornados and huge weather systems containing many fronts and storms requires an increase in complexity that cannot occur without an intelligent controller.

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.

In addition, we haven't mastered the mathmatics and physics behind phenomenom that is slightly affected by the minutest variation in one variable among thousands. (although the chaos theory in physics is offering a promising insight into this.) That's all the meterologist is saying.

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. It's a new science because we haven't come up with the right physics to define it.(although once again, chaos theory is close.) Until general relativity came along, we were at a loss to explain a lot of phenonmenom. (Did you know Newton thought God periodically pushed the planets back to orbit ( divine intervention) because his theory of gravity could not account for stable orbits!) Thank goodness general relativity came along and got rid of that misconception!


And yes, it is a field that relys heavily on computer modeling (whose programs are based on mathmatics we have yet to master ) which are not accurate but are gettiing more so with each decade. You think they don't use computer modeling to predict behavior in other fields of science such as mechanical engineering ( effect on car on impact) , a chemical reaction in large industrial furnaces etc? Unlike the weather, the others can be done relatively easily (smash a car and look at the damage add a certain molar concentration of a catlyst and see if the reaction goes etc.) They can find out right away if the computer modeling was true, and if it wasn't they adjust it. The key is, these other phenomenom require relatively few variables to be adjusted or kept constant and can be done at any time. The poor meterologist has to wait for the weather to happen!


Although computer modeling is imperfect, it is a form of testability. But I know they do a lot in other mediums, (they create small storms in laboratories etc.) which requires scientific knowledge of the chemistry behind condensation, precipitation, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, and though primitive, are a form of testing.

Now design an experiment that tests for an intelligent weather designer, even one as imperfect as computer modeling.

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.

Originally Posted by The Real McCoy

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.

you sound like a Diest! That's pretty much my philosophy (god created the universe and let it run according to natural laws...ie: he wound up the clock and let it run.)