Even at the most charitable, ID is emphatically not going to be the type of science they teach in primary or secondary level school, any more than they teach the Steady State Theory or the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics, or the Anthropic Principle. These are all too highly theoretical to go in your basic Earth Science textbook, and in many cases (as in both ID, Many Worlds, and the Anthropic Principle) they don't quite qualify as science at all, yet.
Funny, though, I never see anybody get worked up over people supporting the Anthropic Principle. It's patently unscientific (or rather, it is exactly as scientific as ID) and yet people like Carl Sagan supported it and got no flack. Not every idea that gets bandied about by scientists have to be perfectly formed to be given respectful attention. I think the prejudice against ID demostrates the ugly, groupthinking side of the scientific establishment.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 10-29-10 at 02:35 PM.
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus I was browsing around and happened to come across another example of smooth evolutionary transition.
Alright Guy. If ID is a scientific theory, why not explain it? Make sure that your theory fits current observations, IE the fossil record. Include some testable predictions along with supporting evidence. Obviously, I don't expect real scientific detail, but a general outline would be nice.
There are plenty of people out there trying it. It's similar to the anthropic principle in this regard. You can look at things like fine tuning to see if the universe is the way we would expect it to appear by chance or somehow specifically geared towards life.
That's the thing, I don't have the expertise or inclination to do this sort of leg work. I'm not a proponent of ID. Let some proponent of ID do it.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 10-29-10 at 11:02 PM.
As far as the aspect of what are the odds of life occurring in our universe or our planet, or our universe being precisely tuned, we have no way of evaluating the odds.. our sample size is 1.
regarding the odds of complex life occurring at random: natural selection acting on random processes is what drives the complexity, not the random events themselves, this is NOT any more random than rolling 50 dice and picking out the 6's and then rerolling the rest, in short order you have 50 die with all 6's.. what are the odds of that happening at random? pretty darn slim, but the results and the 50 dice showing all 6's did not happen randomly, they were selected.
Here we have random mutation coupled with selection with just a few variables and can see the resulting complexity (and as a bonus we also see how quickly a beneficial mutation takes over - this is punctuated equilibrium):
Last edited by marduc; 10-30-10 at 12:53 AM.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse
You guys are arguing about something that shouldn't even be debated. Kids come out of school knowing nothing about how to think for themselves. All that they've learned is a list of facts, a small proportion of which will be useful to them in the future. The emphasis should not be on facts; we should be emphasizing how to actually do science. How to think as a scientist thinks, how to form questions, how to discover the answer to those questions, etc. I really think that, for example, in science, kids should learn the technology of the field. Teach them how to use microscopes, how to find information online, etc. Sure, you should teach the generally accepted scientific theories of the time, but I also think that they should learn how ideas were developed and disproved and that nothing in science is final and certain.
Either way, everyone in this thread is arguing about something that doesn't even matter in the long run. Only teaching kids facts teaches them nothing. Teach them to think and they'll keep that for the rest of their lives and it will be much more valuable than some facts that might change in 30 years anyway.
Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero