• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which should be taught in school science classes?

Which should be taught in school science classes?

  • Total voters
    84
Guy Incognito said:
If it's shown that evolution can be a product of chance, then ID is false.

As for the rest, that's for an ID proponent to work out isn't it?
Click to expand...

How do you test ID itself?
 
ricksfolly said:
Psychology isn't a science, It's an unprovable theory...
Click to expand...

No, it's an unprovable hypothesis. To be a scientific theory, it has to pass peer review. Since it has absolutely no evidence whatsoever, it cannot be more than a hypothesis and a failed one at that.
 
Redress said:
How do you test ID itself?
Click to expand...

Do you deny that ID is falsifiable? The burden is on you to demonstrate it. The burden is on the ID proponent to devise a test. Meanwhile, they deserve the chance to air their theory without being preemptively shot down by know-it-alls who do a disservice to the scientific method with their own brand of dogmatism.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Do you deny that ID is falsifiable? The burden is on you to demonstrate it. The burden is on the ID proponent to devise a test. Meanwhile, they deserve the chance to air their theory without being preemptively shot down by know-it-alls who do a disservice to the scientific method with their own brand of dogmatism.
Click to expand...

ID proponents have never managed to present a case for falsifiability. They cannot produce evidence that it's correct, nor can they produce a means to demonstrate it is incorrect. That means it's not science. Even the courts have ruled that ID is religion masquerading as science.

If they want to be in science class, they need to prove it's science. Until they can do so, it doesn't belong there. Of course, they're not even trying to be scientific, they spend most of their time playing on the emotions, not the intelligence, of the public.
 
Cephus said:
No, it's an unprovable hypothesis. To be a scientific theory, it has to pass peer review. Since it has absolutely no evidence whatsoever, it cannot be more than a hypothesis and a failed one at that.
Click to expand...

Actually, our approach is all wrong... It doesn't take children's behavior characteristics into consideration. If 90 percent of the kids believe in ID, it should be encouraged. Kids social lives are much more important that any hypothesis.

ricksfolly
 
Guy Incognito said:
Do you deny that ID is falsifiable? The burden is on you to demonstrate it. The burden is on the ID proponent to devise a test. Meanwhile, they deserve the chance to air their theory without being preemptively shot down by know-it-alls who do a disservice to the scientific method with their own brand of dogmatism.
Click to expand...

It is not a theory until it is testable. They have to devise a test before it can be considered a theory and as such the burden is on them.
 
Redress said:
They have to devise a test before it can be considered a theory and as such the burden is on them.
Click to expand...

That's what I said. Why are you being so antagonistic when you are saying the exact same thing I am? Just because I want to give ID proponents a fair chance to be heard?
 
Here is a quick quote from Thomas Nagel that might be enlightening:

Thomas Nagel said:
Are the sources of genetic variation uniformly random or not? That is
the central issue, and the point of entry for defenders of ID. In his recent
book, The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe examines a body of currently
available evidence about the normal frequency and biochemical charac-
ter of random mutations in the genetic material of several organisms: the
malaria parasite, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the bacte-
rium E. coli, and humans. He argues that those widely cited examples
of evolutionary adaptation, including the development of immunity
to antibiotics, when properly understood, cannot be extrapolated to
explain the formation of complex new biological systems. These, he
claims, would require mutations of a completely different order, muta-
tions whose random probability, either as simultaneous multiple muta-
tions or as sequences of separately adaptive individual mutations, is
vanishingly small. He concludes that
alterations to DNA over the course of the history of life on earth
must have included many changes that we have no statistical right
to expect, ones that were beneficial beyond the wildest reach
of probability.5
Like Kauffman, he believes that random mutation is not sufficient to
explain the range of variation on which natural selection must have
acted to yield the history of life: some of the variation was not due to
chance. This seems on the face of it to be a scientific claim, about what
the evidence suggests, and one that is not self-evidently absurd. I cannot
evaluate it; I merely want to stress its importance for the current debate.
Skepticism about the standard evolutionary model is not limited to
defenders of ID. The skeptics may be right or they may be wrong. But
even if one merely regards the randomness of the sources of variation as
an open question, it seems to call for the consideration of alternatives.

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/papa_132.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
That's not how it works, but if it makes you feel better to pretend that it does; well then more power to ya.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm willing to learn.. You tell me how science theory works, and how it applies to existing scientific claims.

ricksfolly
 
What should be taught? Critical thinking and how to analyze data, plus some generally accepted scientific theories and techniques to discover new information in that specific scientific field.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's what I said. Why are you being so antagonistic when you are saying the exact same thing I am? Just because I want to give ID proponents a fair chance to be heard?
Click to expand...

They have every right to be heard, but not in science class until they can create a valid, testable theory.
 
phattonez said:
What should be taught? Critical thinking and how to analyze data, plus some generally accepted scientific theories and techniques to discover new information in that specific scientific field.
Click to expand...

None of the above. You should only teach kids the same things the other 95 percent of the kids believe. The bright kids who need to know facts just don't fit in with the other kids.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
None of the above. You should only teach kids the same things the other 95 percent of the kids believe. The bright kids who need to know facts just don't fit in with the other kids.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Am I missing sarcasm?
 
ricksfolly said:
Actually, our approach is all wrong... It doesn't take children's behavior characteristics into consideration. If 90 percent of the kids believe in ID, it should be encouraged. Kids social lives are much more important that any hypothesis.
Click to expand...

The purpose of education is to teach facts, not fantasy. We should not teach kids that Santa Claus is real just because kids want to believe it's true. We should also not teach kids that God is real because they're being indocrtinated to believe it at home. Schools are about facts. You want fantasy? Find a church.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's what I said. Why are you being so antagonistic when you are saying the exact same thing I am? Just because I want to give ID proponents a fair chance to be heard?
Click to expand...

When it proves it should be heard, it will be. There's a reason that we don't teach flat earthism, geocentrism or the "demon theory" of disease. Beause none of them are credible or remotely true. The same goes for ID. When it proves otherwise, let us know.
 
Redress said:
They have every right to be heard, but not in science class until they can create a valid, testable theory.
Click to expand...

Cephus said:
When it proves it should be heard, it will be. There's a reason that we don't teach flat earthism, geocentrism or the "demon theory" of disease. Beause none of them are credible or remotely true. The same goes for ID. When it proves otherwise, let us know.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I understand why conservatives think liberals are so dense. It's like you guys don't even read.

I never said ID should be taught in schools, that is absurd.

liblady said:
i kind of am an id proponent, but still don't think it should ever be taught in schools.
Guy Incognito said:
Agreed, it's highly theoretical at best.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm not even a proponent of ID. Please try to read the entire thread from now on.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Seriously, I understand why conservatives think liberals are so dense. It's like you guys don't even read.

I never said ID should be taught in schools, that is absurd.
Click to expand...

This is why liberals think Libertarians are so dense: they cannot explain what they are trying to say.
 
Redress said:
This is why liberals think Libertarians are so dense: they cannot explain what they are trying to say.
Click to expand...

I explained it already, you just didn't read it. Nice try.
 
ricksfolly said:
OK, I'm willing to learn.. You tell me how science theory works, and how it applies to existing scientific claims.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

It's not that some famous scientist says something and the rest of us fall in line. Yes, we may pay more heed if it comes from say a Carl Wieman. But even he or Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji or William D. Phillips
said something outrageous it is not going to be accepted by the scientific community as a whole. We review everything, we require measurements and proof. You were trying to state a reality which isn't real in order to advance some anti-science endeavor which is quiet frankly stupid. Science helps people every single day.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Seriously, I understand why conservatives think liberals are so dense. It's like you guys don't even read.

I never said ID should be taught in schools, that is absurd.
Click to expand...

You just said: Just because I want to give ID proponents a fair chance to be heard?

Well where do you think they want to be heard? It isn't in the scientific forum, they're not even trying to get into scientific peer-reviewed journals, they just want to brainwash impressionable students with their non-scientific nonsense.
 
Cephus said:
You just said: Just because I want to give ID proponents a fair chance to be heard?

Well where do you think they want to be heard? It isn't in the scientific forum, they're not even trying to get into scientific peer-reviewed journals, they just want to brainwash impressionable students with their non-scientific nonsense.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, there are some people who are trying to do real science with ID. Just read the Nagel paper I linked to, he mentions a number of such scientists.

Does it belong in school? Of course not, no more than the steady state theory does. School is for established science, not fringe science. But fringe science should still be treated as science and given a fair look.

Instead, all I see is closed mindedness towards ID coming from people who purport to represent the scientific method. If you genuinely support science you don't shoot down ideas before they've been tested.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Instead, all I see is closed mindedness towards ID coming from people who purport to represent the scientific method. If you genuinely support science you don't shoot down ideas before they've been tested.
Click to expand...

Who's testing them? And how are they being tested according to the scientific process?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom