Question From High School Student

[Raithere]

Yet there seems to be some amount of uncertainty within the laws themselves. Why did it turn out this way? I am at least equally justified in asking that as you may be in ignoring it.

I don't ignore it, I just find it to be a leading question. My initial answer would be, "Why not?" People tend to ascribe larger significance to things than they often deserve. Not knowing the parameters defining the origin of the Universe I find speculation as to its probability rather silly.

Well it seems I misunderstood your (god + not-god) venture. In this case (god + not-god) may be equated to (infinity + 1) which may be limited to (>>1 + 1). Regardless, the point is I haven't seen you present any justification of your notion that defining god, which results in god + not-god then makes god < not-god;

Ah, I see. Rather it would be god < god + not god. That is there would be something is greater than god, specifically that which encompasses god and that which is not god.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

It's seems unrealistic to make such a general statement about a very large group of people. Looking at the world "deeply enough" and having religious feelings do not seem mutually exclusive.

I debated the phrasing of it myself. I decided to go with it because I think it actually does stand. That is, I find that people who do truly look deep into religion and the natural world strongly tend to move beyond doctrine and thus, as I understand it, are irreligious. But yes, I suppose it is possible to do both.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Students should be introduced to the concept of pseudo-science, and why Intelligent Design is not valid from a scientific perspective

Wonderful idea, you get my vote too. This way we can appease the Creationists and continue to teach science at the same time.

"What are you complaining about now? You wanted us to add ID to the science curriculum. We did."

Freaking brilliant.

~Raithere

 

[Light Travelling]

Now all I am saying is that you did not (maybe) read; or respond to what I wrote. . .

It does not matter if science does not understand everything; it does not now; nor did it (understand everything) in the past; science is discovery; not the assigning of “incompleteness” of knowledge and theory to a god-abstraction; belief system; or mythology.

Do you understand all of science theory-fact; in aspect and detail? You can’t (I don’t; I can’t); this theory-database has grown to large for anyone (any single person) to know already; your (my) knowledge of (even known) reality will always be incomplete; especially as science theory-fact continues to grow.

Anything and everything can be attributed to a god-abstraction.

A tsunami.
A child’s birth.
A star.
Mathematics.
Physics
Biology
Anything
And
Everything.
Even Science
And
Even Evolution Science.
Anything
And
Everything. . . can be attributed to any god-abstraction.

Belief has no place in any textbook about any process or theory of - anything and everything. It only describes the belief system nothing more; and has no place in an American Public Classroom. It is a purely (known) subversive proselytizing “wedge-in” belief attempt by specifically Christian Organizations designed for children. It is not a theory of anything - it is an attempt to indoctrinate non-Christians (into some belief), through a (designed) lie, and saying one thing with an intent to do something else is a lie. ID theory; is not a theory of a process; nor is it science.

This is an American Issue (it is not a European issue):
It is a Lie - sophistry designed to confuse (American) children (malleable minds).
It is an imagined battleground for (a small measure of Christian) political control, starting within the classroom.
It is not science - nor is it sophistry designed for scientists.
All theories of science are incomplete; they have not in the past been a complete description of reality; nor are they complete description of reality today. Incompleteness does not give rise to proselytizing a (Christian) point of view within the (specifically) American public classrooms.
Process theories describe the process; facts back up the theory; evolution theory-fact is huge; and increasing.
Being(god)-abstractions describe the abstraction; nothing more.
Belief systems describe the belief system; nothing more.
Evolution theory will continue to grow; evolution fact gathering will continue to grow - irregardless of any pointless ID “wedge” attempt. Real scientist are not working; nor will be working on this pointless non-theory.

It comes down to what is it even for? And what I have told you is (only a small part) of what I know (about ID) - you decide if you think a sophisticated lie (a known lie) designed to indoctrinate children in a small way into a belief system is valid; if you think yes; then I cannot make a point to you.

Anything
And
Everything. . . Can be attributed to god in the end; it is merely an unnecessary inclusion (“god did it”) into any textbook; that describes a process; a theory; natural facts; physical laws; etc.

ID is only valid if it describes a process; assigning “incompleteness” to a god-abstraction and a belief system serves no scientific purpose; period.

I believe in God, and Jesus, but I was not (am not) blinded; nor was I blindly indoctrinated when I was a child. Science is what it is; facts and theories; revealing the nature of reality; through discovery and tedious committed (non-evil) work to bring to light this nature of things; if you believe in God; and evolution is; then evolution is part of god’s nature.

The unrealistic expectation of science to fill-in all “incompleteness” of what is known; and to do it immediately is part of ID theory - a subtle appeal to the lesser mind in all of us; that which seeks contentment within self over the danger of what we believe may turn out in the end - to be false.

You may well be right when you say I dont fully understand this American problem.
However, I do have a 15 year old son at school in England. He studies religious beliefs as part of his curriculum, the idea being he devotes an equal amount of time to studying all the world major religions. I would suggest that this would be and appropriate place in school, where students could discuss (not be taught) alternative belief systems and ideas such as ID.

I do not try to force my beliefs on my son, and I would be horrified if I thought somone else was. At school or anywhere else. I am happy though, for my son to have all religions and ideas presented before him (including atheism and ID). He his intelligent and free enough to choose his own beliefs, even if they do differ from mine. I can only hope all children would have the same opportunities.

 

[cole grey]

regarding the god equation you guys are tossing back and forth-
it is quite possible that
god + notgod < god
We just have to have the correct idea of what in the universe is positive and what is negative.

Regarding evolution - when unscientific religious ideas are placed in opposition to scientific principles we are teaching religion in science class (not good). One child should be able to think evolution occurs by chance, and another that it occurs because of a divine intelligence, and that aspect of the subject should not be brought up. There isn't enough time in a science class to deal with that, so evoultion should just be presented as a theory that, although people think it is anti-religious, has no bearing on religious matters. If it is not approached in this manner, i.e., if evolution is presented as going against the idea of a divine intelligence, then religion is still being argued about in a science class (not good).

Also, if someone could tell me which parts of darwin's theory of evolution are now considered law, as evolutionary theory is still evolving, that is the genius of science.

 

[duendy]

heyyyyy...all yo scientists out there. stody the history of myth!....from what i read, none of you do it! what you do do is go on about two stremas that some from the same pond. on one hand the materialistic-mechansitic idea of Darwinsism------and on the other the patriarchal idea of a 'craftsman' designer separate from 'his' 'creation'....poor kid. he is presented with two wonky ideas both patriarchal and bost with a precept of a split between 'matter' and 'spirit/consciousness'........the po child cant even LOOK at this shtuation intellectually to decide from her.his OWN intellgence how to proceed, cause you curriculum HIDES this other information. this is all due to you LACK OF IMAGINATION!.......pity the poor children in your factory-schools

 

[mountainhare]

OK, I understand everyone has covered this, but I thought I'd pipe in.

My questions are:

“ Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes? ”

Absolutely. It would also be very wise to teach students about what science IS, and how good science is practised. Inductive reasoning to form a hypothesis, experimentation and observational studies to test the hypothesis. A number of successfully proven hypothesis may eventually provide the framework for a good theory.

Then you would be able to display that evolution is both fact, and theory. It is a fact, as we know it has occured, is occuring, and continues to occur. The theory explains the intricate details of how it occured/occurs.

“ Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes? ”

Well, Spidergoat brought up a good point, but I am opposed to it being TAUGHT. Just use it as an example of bad science methodology, and move on. Focusing to much on a pseudoscientific theory is a waste of precious time. Should we dissect the claims of Flat-Earthers in a Year 12 physics class? Time is better spent teaching foundational physics.

 

[Raithere]

I would suggest that this would be and appropriate place in school, where students could discuss (not be taught) alternative belief systems and ideas such as ID.

I don't think anyone is proposing or objecting to ID being presented in a religion class, or even philosophy. But there is a vocal Creationist movement in the U.S. to have it put into the science curriculum where it does not belong. Even worse, some of these efforts are directed towards, and have temporarily succeeded in, removing Evolution from the curriculum or pasting a disclaimer undermining the science of Evolution in the textbooks.

~Raithere

 

[Light Travelling]

But there is a vocal Creationist movement in the U.S. to have it put into the science curriculum where it does not belong. Even worse, some of these efforts are directed towards, and have temporarily succeeded in, removing Evolution from the curriculum or pasting a disclaimer undermining the science of Evolution in the textbooks.

~Raithere

Ok - yes, I agree, this is worrying and wrong. fullstop.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I'm sure your assignment is long past, but I'd still like to offer my opinion in regards to this topic.

Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes? Why or why not?

Considering that the Theory of Evolution has always been and always be of the realm of science, yes, it does have its place in the school of science, and should be taught as a likely method for the development of diverse organisms. However, it is also true that science is a branch of philosophy, or philosophy is a branch of science. Philosophy, particularly metaphysics, deals with first origins. I think it would be proper to make notable mention of Intelligent design as either an alternative method of the development of diverse organisms, or as a conjunct to the evolutionary process.

Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high school science classes? Why or why not?

Though I would consider Intelligent Design to fall under a branch of science, Metaphysics, I would not say that it has a place in the science taught in High School. High school science deals with the immediately observable and testable; Modern Science. Therefore, I could not rightly propose Intelligent Design as a subject proper to that area of science. If Cosmology was taught in high school, then certainly it has a place, but as it is, Cosmology is not taught in most high schools. Though, as I said, it does deserve honorable mention within the topic of evolution, as it is relevant to that subject matter.

 

[spidergoat]

What should also be taught are the limitations of science, what part of science is taken on faith, and what can actually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Some scientists have their own beliefs which do not necessarily have substantiation.

I don't think the debate over ID vs. Evolution is really a scientific question, but a political battle between people willing to accept change and emerging scientific truth on the one hand, and people entrenched in a nostalgic religious desire for sameness and tradition on the other. ID advocates are motivated by fear. People that subscribe to evolution are willing to accept some insecurity in the persuit of truth. Christianity is like an anchor, great for feeling like you know your place in the world, but inappropriate for discovering anything new that might contradict it's dogma.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

You've made a number of bold statements here, spidergoat. Firstly, I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. IMO, it holds merit. However, I am also an advocate of Evolutionary Theory (not of the Darwinian sense, however). That I pronounce ID as sound rationalle does not mean that I am motivated by fear. I can assure you I am not. Quite simply, it makes sense to me. Furthermore, you claim against Christianity is also quite unfounded (or perhaps it is founded upon dubious sources). The Pope (leader of the largest Christian organization) has stated that Evolution is not simply a matter of speculation. He has acknowledged that evolutionary processes do in fact occur. I don't know how one could deny that. It is easy enough to see an egg evolve into an adult; microevolution. Macroevolution is a strong theory. Yet, like any working theory, it is not yet perfect, there is much still to be sorted out.

 

[SkinWalker]

there is much still to be sorted out.

Like what? What, specifically, isn't sorted out enough to support the fact that evolution is a fact?

Your opinion that ID has merit only demonstrates that your professional opinion on the subject isn't credible. What specifically has merit with regard to ID?

ID is simply the creationist attempt to subvert evolution. The reason is that creationist proponents believe that those who accept evolution over creation are automatically atheists. That simply isn't the case.

 

[Raithere]

Philosophy, particularly metaphysics, deals with first origins. I think it would be proper to make notable mention of Intelligent design as either an alternative method of the development of diverse organisms, or as a conjunct to the evolutionary process.

ID is not about first origins. ID simply and purely states that if something looks designed it must have an intelligent designer. Everything else about ID is pseudoscientific bullshit meant to make it seem more plausible and sound scientifically credible. It is neither.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. IMO, it holds merit.

What are its merits as a science?

I don't know how one could deny that. It is easy enough to see an egg evolve into an adult; microevolution.

This is not Evolution, nor is it "microevolution" (a nonsense term actually). This is ontogeny.

~Raithere

 

[mountainhare]

ID simply and purely states that if something looks designed it must have an intelligent designer. Everything else about ID is pseudoscientific bullshit meant to make it seem more plausible and sound scientifically credible

My thoughts exactly.

 

[cole grey]

Itopal,

I actually think it is unfortunate that people apply evolutionary concepts to non-living things, unless it is just metaphorically, or as a thought-experiment.
People are confused when they think that, because they see the evidence of evolution in biological life, everything else must work the same way.

And regarding progress, as Nietzsche put it best, "what is strong wins: that is the universal law. If only it were not so often precisely what is stupid and evil" - notes 1873.

 

[cole grey]

Actually, you were replying to my statement about evolutionary theory still being in flux, and I often hear people applying concepts from evolutionary theory of living organisms to non-living things, as if the same principles applied to those things. I assumed you were doing the same thing.
My point was that rocks, etc., don't evolve the same way organisms do, unless you are into Gaia theories or something.

 

[spidergoat]

You've made a number of bold statements here, spidergoat. Firstly, I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. IMO, it holds merit. However, I am also an advocate of Evolutionary Theory (not of the Darwinian sense, however). That I pronounce ID as sound rationalle does not mean that I am motivated by fear. I can assure you I am not. Quite simply, it makes sense to me. Furthermore, you claim against Christianity is also quite unfounded (or perhaps it is founded upon dubious sources). The Pope (leader of the largest Christian organization) has stated that Evolution is not simply a matter of speculation. He has acknowledged that evolutionary processes do in fact occur. I don't know how one could deny that. It is easy enough to see an egg evolve into an adult; microevolution. Macroevolution is a strong theory. Yet, like any working theory, it is not yet perfect, there is much still to be sorted out.

Aren't you motivated by the fear that Evolution renders as unnecessary the idea of God? Science is not driven by "what makes sense to me", except at the most initial stages. Then, it must be tested. Scientific truths are often counterintuitive. What is your test?

Eggs do not "evolve" into an adult, they grow. Macroevolution is not a "working theory", it is as close to a scientific fact as it is possible to be. It is an elegant and comprehensive explanation for the origin of species. Quantuum theory, for example, is a work in progress.

ID isn't an attempt to sort out the shortcomings of evolutionary theory, it is a non-scientific religious variation of the creation myth. In fact, you could say that Cristianity is evolving to adapt to our modern political climate- but not very much. Religion was the first science, an attempt to describe everything, but it's time has passed in this regard, and it should focus on personal well being.

It is noteworthy that the advocates of ID also seek to discredit global warming, prevent sex education, and overturn environmental regulations. They want to home school and drive big SUV's, fund church organizations with taxpayer money, and are hawkish about military intervention. It's all the same disease, an arrogant focus on their own interests and promoting their own warped worldview and to hell with anyone else.

 

[cole grey]

LOL -

. . . and duh!

you say, duh, but people apply evolutionary ideas to inorganic matter all the time, as if everything evolves under the same principles. All the time.