-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Federal judge rules "intelligent design"... UPDATE
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
That's great...for history class. But there is no place in science for "what some poeple think" unless there is a scientific basis for that thinking. Religion is very democratic in this respect, your beliefs are just as valid and good as my beliefs. Science is NOT democratic, if you can't back your opinion up with something, you don't get to talk. In a way, I'm surprised more conservatives aren't behind this...it's the ultimate conservative approach to things. The whole "ID" nonsense is pretty PC if you ask me, "it's wrong for science to dismiss my beliefs!"
Yes... but it shouldn't be in the science books. They're science books. If anything, they should emphasize the lack of support for any religious theories of creation.
I would be ok seeing it in a history book though. It is history, after all.
P.S. As a "this is what some people thought" kind of entry.
The entire basis of religion is on faith; something that isn't exactly provable (otherwise we wouldn't call it faith). Science is based on, well, science. Things that you can witness and prove have occurred, are occurring or are likely to occur.
Your example of teaching about religion in a history class holds no ground, since religion has a part in history.
I agree, but it IS at the very least about science. Of course science should be approached with imagination, exploration, trial and error and creativity as the most important lessons. But all in the context of science...the non-scientific beliefs of religious people do not fit.
Future Shock
Senior member
And if there were competitve, SCIENTIFIC alternatives to evolution, we would all, I think, be very open to airing them in science class, discussing them in science class, and funding research on them.
Tell you what - name the three most important research thrusts that should be performed to prove the existance of Intelligent Design...and then we'll talk about how it holds together as a scientific theory...
FS
Future Shock
Senior member
Go read a book on anthropology - we can, in this day and age, measure bone density from fossils and buried remains and notice the change of nutrients available to both animals and humans that must have lived in those times. I suppose that we won't have lost those skills by then...
Future Shock
Future Shock
Senior member
You stole my post - I think this is the most hilarious aspect of this whole case.
In all honesty, I think that this judge has just proven that he is Supreme Court materiel. Which means that he can probably never get appointed in this climate. He did what was legally correct, he interpreted the Consitution from a legal perspective, he ignored the politics, and he even ignored his own personal beliefs. He even ignored who appointed him. I also liked the fact that he especially noted that he was NOT an activist judge, to head off those cries before they start.
I wouldn't mind a pack of judges like him on the Supremes and having abortion judged - whichever way it came out, I could at least be confident that it was judged on the law, and not on politics...
Future Shock
Bitek
Lifer
As a scientist I would approach it this way:
The data and evidence you would have to gather to base you conclusions are dependent on the technology and tools you have available to you at the time. Without certain tools or methods you may be able to make a claim that such changes are due to genetic changes, and there may not be proper understanding or technology to provide contrary evidence. However, even at such a time your suppositions would not be seen as conclusive, as another scientist could/would just as easily claim that the changes are environmental, and there would be insufficent data to distinguish the two. Therefore the conclusions are uncertain. IE nobody really knows, and it would be treated as such scientifically.
Now, years later, greater technology develops that could examine the microscopic and molecular structure of the bones. A clever scientist compares that the older "short" bones are lacking in certain minerals which the newer "long" bones do not. Dating could show they are only a few hundred years apart and mutation/evolutionary rates could be calculated (and seen as extremely high.) DNA evidence could show that the genentic makeup of the two "populations" are close and are not consistant with what would be needed for a genetic basis for increased growth. This scientist has then conclusively proven that environmental factors are to credit for the growth (unless other studies show contradictory evidence, and then debate would go on.)
This is the scientific process. It is a rational process based on logic and evidence. Hubris in scientific knowledge is a competitive disadvantage and the system works effectively to tear it down by academic, professional and economic incentives. Anyone is free to participate in the process, so if you think you have conclusive evidence and arguements that provides a better explaination of the phenomenon, nothing is stopping you to so it other than your own motivation.
Be warned however, the scientific community is highly competitive, critical and brutal. Your theories will be challenged from every logical angle. Just one look at the (fraudulent) Korean Stem Cell researchers is proof enough of the rigors of the process.
DealMonkey
Lifer
I want to see if I can get my theory taught in High School science classes. I call it, "ID" which stands for "Ignorant Design." Essentially my theory in a nutshell: The earth and all life upon it was created by a random cosmic error.
Think it'll pass muster?
Think it'll pass muster?
fierydemise
Platinum Member
GoPackGo what is your problem with evolution?
fierydemise
Platinum Member
I'm sorry I don't get what you're saying, will you restate it in a more straight forward manner
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
