• 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
I think you're getting logic mixed up with science. Negation of a theory doesn't mean the theory ceases to be science. The fact that you have attempted to show a premise upon which the theory rests to be false, you have also proven that the theory itself is science. Thank you for making my point for me.

evolution is not random. this says nothing about any ID theory. I am not mixed up
 
evolution is not random. this says nothing about any ID theory. I am not mixed up

I don't think you understand the argument. It's complicated stuff, so don't feel bad. It is sometimes too much for a layperson to follow.

But we're talking here about philosophy of science, not about the merits of the arguments themselves. Whether or not something is a scientific theory has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true. So, yes, you are pretty mixed up. See to it that you correct it. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand the argument. It's complicated stuff, so don't feel bad. It is sometimes too much for a layperson to follow.

But we're talking here about philosophy of science, not about the merits of the arguments themselves. Whether or not something is a scientific theory has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true. So, yes, you are pretty mixed up. See to it that you correct it. Thanks.

I think you assume I am a layperson
 
I think you assume I am a layperson

You argue like you are, so I'll talk to you like one. Makes it easier on everybody. I shouldn't expect everybody here to have a technical education.
 
Last edited:
You argue like you are, so I'll talk to you like one. Makes it easier on everybody. I shouldn't expect everybody here to have a technical education.

I will keep that in mind next time I ponder my student loans or look at my degree, thank you.
 
I will keep that in mind next time I ponder my student loans or look at my degree, thank you.

Money well spent, I trust. Let me give you a free piece of advice, read up on philosophy of science, and learn about it. It will do you a world of good.

I find that people will often parrot back words they have learned like "theory" and "scientific method" without really understanding what they mean or how all its moving parts fit together. However, it is important to understand little nuances like this, and understand them well. Because, as we can see, if you don't understand them, you can find youself being squarely wrong about simple questions like "Is ID science?" Which is a very different question from "Is ID true?"
 
You argue like you are, so I'll talk to you like one. Makes it easier on everybody. I shouldn't expect everybody here to have a technical education.

Moderator's Warning:
Let's knock off the tone and commenting on the poster, and get back to the topic.
 
I will keep that in mind next time I ponder my student loans or look at my degree, thank you.

I got paid for mine. Well not undergrad, but graduate school. Not the worst living ever, teach a bunch or do outrageous amounts of research (preferably the latter).
 
Evolution should be taught in science class, and generally is as part of an introductory survey course. Young students would certainly understand that teaching intelligent design in a science class was teaching opinion. I'm assuming we're not talking about grad school here.
 
Actually, I think society should find better ways to handle the lone geniuses. In fact, they don't have to be "lone geniuses", not in this day and age.

And people don't have to fit in with the 99% of society to actually be able to be in society. I have met plenty of people who really didn't fit in, in fact, I could kinda fall in that area myself.

The one percent are in their own exclusive zone, and can only honestly relate with things in their own zone. Of course they can adapt to people with lesser intelligence just to get along, but sooner or later honesty will trip them up, and so-called friends out of their zone will gradually disappear.

That's why they always show the wise guru sitting on a mountain top all alone.

How many real friends do you think the idiot savant has, who can do figures in his head faster than a calculator?

Myself, I only have two friends I can honestly relate with, definitely not my wife or children... How about you?

ricksfolly
 
The one percent are in their own exclusive zone, and can only honestly relate with things in their own zone. Of course they can adapt to people with lesser intelligence just to get along, but sooner or later honesty will trip them up, and so-called friends out of their zone will gradually disappear.

That's why they always show the wise guru sitting on a mountain top all alone.

How many real friends do you think the idiot savant has, who can do figures in his head faster than a calculator?

Myself, I only have two friends I can honestly relate with, definitely not my wife or children... How about you?

ricksfolly

I have very few friends at all. My best friend I will share emotional issues with, but never talk about the technicaly aspects of my job or probably even most political issues because I feel that it would hurt her feelings that she probably wouldn't understand most of it or she simply wouldn't be very interested in it. This is actually how I feel about a lot of the people I consider friends or acquaintances. My husband I can relate to in almost anything because we are at the same basic intelligence level and have a lot of the same interests and beliefs. He understands the science and math of my work and the more technical aspects of my political views (even if he doesn't always agree with me). Some of the guys I worked with while active Navy I got along with great and could talk to about many things, especially technical, because they were pretty much all very intelligent. But I still didn't always "fit in", not necessarily because of my intelligence level, but because of many interests that I have that are considered "weird". And I actually enjoy being alone sometimes.

I also knew a chief who was so intelligent that he figured out how to cheat on the advancement exams by figuring out the pattern the computer used in the answers. He was a millionaire Navy chief. He told us he spent every leave he took alone, reading in his cottage he owned in the-middle-of-nowhere Montana. He would definitely fit into that 1% you were talking about, but he still performed in his job quite well and even helped the Navy improve in other areas.

There is a huge difference between being so intelligent that a person is crazy and can't actually accept the real world and being so intelligent that a person just doesn't fit in well with the real world. I think your 1% estimate is those that just don't fit in well. The number of those who can't actually live in and interact with the real world is probably closer to less than .0001% of the population.
 
That sure sounds like a falsifiable theory to me.

With all due respect, you wouldn't know a falsifiable theory if if bit you on the ass. Throwing out a wild guess that completely contradicts most known physics without a shred of evidence to explain a phenomenon that has an alternative explanation which extremely well documented does not a falsifiable theory make.

What is hypocritical about it? Why is impossible about the solution?

Some kind of intelligent being capable of creating life is much more complicated than the first life forms found on earth. It is therefore hypocritical to claim that single-celled life is too complex to form spontaneously, but then posit a hypothesis which requires a far more complicated creator being to form spontaneously. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any such intelligent creators exist, nor any method of how them came into existence.


The aliens have to come from somewhere. If you think abiogenesis it too unlikely to happen on earth, it is also equally unlikely abiogenesis could happen on another planet and then somehow make its way here.
 
Wow, I guess Intelligent Design wins.
 
Back
Top Bottom