Republican running for Michigan governer says it's ok to teach Intelligent design in science class.

[darkhorror]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...D=/20060921/NEWS06/609210320/1001/NEWS

I live in Michigan, and really didn't have a good feeling about how the current govener was doing so hoping there would be someone new I wanted to vote for. Though this sure as heck means I won't be voting for this guy. I don't understand who the hell tells these people that this is a good idea. There is not science debate here, and then you have something like evolution that people think they understnad but really don't. You get a bunch of ignorant or ones with there religions agenda then take the media put this out there as a "real debate" Then they don't even try to explain how these things come together but simply say you are wrong and it only could have happened a certain way with no proof at all.

 

[CSMR]

Everyone is somehow interested in one or two tiny issues rather than the big problem.

Is ID a bad isea? Probably.
Will it make the standard of education worse in the US? Is that possible?

You need complete overhaul of the system if people are going to learn to think but no one is interested in this. It may be illegal to change it anyway. And people want a nice little subject to argue about, so easy that high school students will be arguing about it.

 

[imported_Seer]

CSMR: It's very easy to make sweeping doom and gloom generalisations, so long as you don't provide any proof or even explain what you're talking about.

eg Your third paragraph and "Is that possible?"

Also, this is in the wrong forum. It should be in politics.

 

[Trevorsouter]

 

[pHi1618]

I read or saw somewhere a bit of aparant evidence to back up the intelligent design theory.
Scientists found a small multicellular organisim in the ocean somewhere that had an extremely odd anatomy. It almost looked like a machine (like a virus does) it had a strange tail that worked similar to that of an outboard motor on your boat and seemed quite complex for such a small creature. They determined that this thing could not move or live if just one of its body parts where missing or changed (like taking the clutch out of your car) which according to them rules out evoloution. There can be other explanations im sure, evoloution has already showed us some pretty damn amazing things.

After all these years of them telling us evoloution isnt proven (close enough for me) now they find one whisp of evidence that in my opinion does not rule out evoloution at all, they think they can say "nope ur all wrong, all mighty god did it all, u should read your bible" yessss read my bible that trys to tell me the earth is 10000 years old... That man started off with adam and eve when theres EVIDENCE that we have evolved over 10s of thousands of years, tehres been dozens of species of humans found but NOOO our fossils and carbon dating is all wrong, a book written a millenia ago by people whose scientific knowledge told them the earth was flat is much more accurate.

How can tehy rule out evoloution when we see it happening right now. Recently there was a shark found that walks on its fins, remind u of anything??? Scientists are almost positive that dolphins were once a land predator similar to a canine. How can one scrap of inconvincing evidence for intelligent design compete with that. Or even be thought of teaching in schools, religion classes already do enough damage. Outlaw religion and we will see world peace, or close to it. Galileo/capernicus along with darwin and a list of otehrs have already proven the church wrong many times over, why do people so blindly folow it.

 

[oynaz]

Originally posted by: pHi1618
I read or saw somewhere a bit of aparant evidence to back up the intelligent design theory.
Scientists found a small multicellular organisim in the ocean somewhere that had an extremely odd anatomy. It almost looked like a machine (like a virus does) it had a strange tail that worked similar to that of an outboard motor on your boat and seemed quite complex for such a small creature. They determined that this thing could not move or live if just one of its body parts where missing or changed (like taking the clutch out of your car) which according to them rules out evoloution. There can be other explanations im sure, evoloution has already showed us some pretty damn amazing things.

This is due to an evolutionary principle known as reduction. Any organism tends to get rid of anything it does not need. Anything superflous requires energy, and puts the organism at a disadvantage. The human tail-bone is a prime example of this principle. The organism you mention has taken reduction to the extreme, and actually follows the principle of evolution very closely.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Seer
CSMR: It's very easy to make sweeping doom and gloom generalisations, so long as you don't provide any proof or even explain what you're talking about.

eg Your third paragraph and "Is that possible?"

Also, this is in the wrong forum. It should be in politics.

I have taught the best products of this system at university both in technical courses and in one more discursive course and it is evident that they come in with minimal technical knowledge (eg basic mathematics) and little in the way of critical thinking. Now some come good in the end because they are naturally clever and somewhat creative but their many years of previous schooling have not been much of a help.

 

[pcy]

Hi,

To return to the actual subject:


Intelligent Design should not be taught in Science Classes because it is not Science.


This is nothing to do with whether you think it's right or wrong - but everything to do with the Scientific Method.

In order to qualify as Science, a theory must adhere to th Scientific Method - that is to say it must among other things be a coherant theroy that predicts observable phenomenon (preferably directly observable, quantifyable phenomenon) which can be used to verify it etc.


Intelligent Design fails this test. Right or wrong it is not Science.



Peter

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: pcy
This is nothing to do with whether you think it's right or wrong - but everything to do with the Scientific Method.

In order to qualify as Science, a theory must adhere to th Scientific Method - that is to say it must among other things be a coherant theroy that predicts observable phenomenon (preferably directly observable, quantifyable phenomenon) which can be used to verify it etc.

Peter

I think one could define science as what is empirical in nature. Scientific theories should be about what can be observed. (I suppose this is Berkeleyan.)
Sometimes you get theories that don't make definite predictions but are rather a sort of framework for looking at things. I am not sure whether evolution makes definite predictions. Or ID for that matter. My suspicion is either the theories are not precise or they are false but that is just from looking at evolutionary economic theories; these are precise but do not correspond exactly to reality. But they still might be scientific by the criterion above.

 

[pcy]

Hi,


Clearly a theory in it's embrionic state maight make few (and certainly not quantitiive) prodictions. We normally use the words "Hypothesis" or "Conjecture" to describe an idea in that phase of its development; leaving "Theory" for something with greater cohernance and predictive power.


Whether a Hypothesis is Science would depend on where it was going, and how it was developing. If it had some underlying principles with the potential for qualatative predicive power, and was being actively developed in that direction, with the possibility of quantative prodictions later on, that would qualify it as Science in my book. No matter that it might be a judgement call, particularly in the early days.


I'm a mathematician, and an IT guy, not an expert on Evolution; but I have read books in which evolution was subjected to mathematical analysis and computer modelling that did produce quantative results consistant with what we observe.

Scientific Theories are not necessarily complete, and are not required to accord with reality 100% in all respects. What matters is that they explain and predict some things, and develop so as to reduce the differences between prediction and observation in an objective, scientific fashion.


So how does ID measure up? Does it contain some internal structures or methodology which could (in principle) capture the intelligence mathematically, or model it on a computer (however imperfectly) - treating it as an AI project essentially? I don't want to understate the magnitude of such a task - because I think that if you tried to do that you'd end up reproducing the whole of modern science and proposing an intelligence whose defining characteristic would turn out to be the laws of physics.

If ID admits, in principle, to that idea, then however embrionic, it is a Scientific Hypothesis; but by the same token it would then have no conflict, in principle, with any aspect of modern science.

On the other hand, if the intelligence is fundamentally unknowable, impervious to investigation; and if ID is incapable making any prediction from its basic ideas that can be verfied by observation, because everything depends on teh whim of the intelligence; then ID is Religion or Philosophy, not Science.



Peter

 

[pHi1618]

Originally posted by: oynaz

Originally posted by: pHi1618
I read or saw somewhere a bit of aparant evidence to back up the intelligent design theory.
Scientists found a small multicellular organisim in the ocean somewhere that had an extremely odd anatomy. It almost looked like a machine (like a virus does) it had a strange tail that worked similar to that of an outboard motor on your boat and seemed quite complex for such a small creature. They determined that this thing could not move or live if just one of its body parts where missing or changed (like taking the clutch out of your car) which according to them rules out evoloution. There can be other explanations im sure, evoloution has already showed us some pretty damn amazing things.

This is due to an evolutionary principle known as reduction. Any organism tends to get rid of anything it does not need. Anything superflous requires energy, and puts the organism at a disadvantage. The human tail-bone is a prime example of this principle. The organism you mention has taken reduction to the extreme, and actually follows the principle of evolution very closely.

Yes, i think what i read though was going the other way with it though. Finding that this organism could not have evolved from a more primitive state into its current state. I wish i coud find the picture, i tried but i cant rembmer the name of the organism. Is it possible for it to have evolved into a simple multicelular organism that then evolved into a more complex state and then reduction takes place and it loses the "simple" parts of it anantomy to be left as this strange complex multicelular creature?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: pHi1618

Originally posted by: oynaz

Originally posted by: pHi1618
I read or saw somewhere a bit of aparant evidence to back up the intelligent design theory.
Scientists found a small multicellular organisim in the ocean somewhere that had an extremely odd anatomy. It almost looked like a machine (like a virus does) it had a strange tail that worked similar to that of an outboard motor on your boat and seemed quite complex for such a small creature. They determined that this thing could not move or live if just one of its body parts where missing or changed (like taking the clutch out of your car) which according to them rules out evoloution. There can be other explanations im sure, evoloution has already showed us some pretty damn amazing things.

This is due to an evolutionary principle known as reduction. Any organism tends to get rid of anything it does not need. Anything superflous requires energy, and puts the organism at a disadvantage. The human tail-bone is a prime example of this principle. The organism you mention has taken reduction to the extreme, and actually follows the principle of evolution very closely.

Yes, i think what i read though was going the other way with it though. Finding that this organism could not have evolved from a more primitive state into its current state. I wish i coud find the picture, i tried but i cant rembmer the name of the organism. Is it possible for it to have evolved into a simple multicelular organism that then evolved into a more complex state and then reduction takes place and it loses the "simple" parts of it anantomy to be left as this strange complex multicelular creature?

Sounds like flagella

 

[spike spiegal]

I also live in Michigan and am concerned about Dick Devos's stance on intelligent design, which if you ask me is a contradiction in terms. People believe in intelligent design as an excuse not to think, or, because it re-inforces their view that god is a big white guy with a beard, wears sandals, and votes Republican.

However, I' not sure what's lower on the evolutionary scale; pond scum, creationists, or Quixtar Salesman.

Jennifer Granholm might not be the smartest cookie in the jar, but I trust her more than the Amway family that's trying to buy the entire state much like wealthy Russian oligarchists.

 

[pcy]

Hi,


Even if it were true that flagella cuold not have evolved accordinf to our current Theories of Evolution (which is highly debatable), that is not evidence for Intelligent Design.


It is, of course, evidence that our knowledge of the Universe is incomplete, and that our current Theories on Evolution are not 100% correct. Big Deal. No Scientist has ever claimed othewise.


It is totally rediculous to claim that Intelligent Design is the sole alternative to Evolution, so that one or other must be correct, and that any flaws in Evolution necessarily provide evidence in support of Intelligent Design.


If Intelligent Design had any specific suggestions as to how the flagella came to exist, that would be a different matter. As I have already observed, the answer "it came about because the Intelligenvce designed it that way" does not count, unless backed up by some description of the laws under which this intelligence opertates, and which could in principle explain why and in what way the intelligence decided to design the flagella. Withtout these underlying laws Intilligent Design fails the litmus test and does not qualify evan a a scientific hypothesis.


Put it in a Philosopy or Religion Class, if you want. But it is not science.


Peter

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: pcy
I'm a mathematician, and an IT guy, not an expert on Evolution; but I have read books in which evolution was subjected to mathematical analysis and computer modelling that did produce quantative results consistant with what we observe.

Cool - you wouldn't happen to have any references on that, eh? (for a fellow mathematician / statistician)

As for the subject at hand, I agree that this sort of thing isn't science per se. Teach ID, Creationism, the Big Bang, and some of the other more popular ideas of the origins of the Universe in a type of philosophy course - a meta-philosophy. Make people think. Each concept draws its own conclusions from its own assumptions (or axioms).

And don't neglect that even Almighty Science is often based on assumptions.

 

[pcy]

Hi,

It was over 10 years ago now, but I'll see if I can find the references.



Peter

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: pcy
Even if it were true that flagella cuold not have evolved accordinf to our current Theories of Evolution (which is highly debatable), that is not evidence for Intelligent Design.

And it is this obvious idea that ID proponents have ignored. Evidence against evolution says absolutely nothing about Intelligent Design.

 

[Agent11]

Simply put, how the hell are we suppose to compete with the world in the sciences when these idiots push to teach our kids rubish??

Leave religious indoctrination to the parents, they do just fine as it is.

 

[pm]

Simply put, how the hell are we suppose to compete with the world in the sciences when these idiots push to teach our kids rubish??

I don't understand how anyone could think that mentioning ID in a classroom could lead to lower test scores by science students unless people are thinking this is some kind of "slippery slope".

I'm an electrical engineer. I went to Catholic grammar, junior high, high school and, yes, even (briefly) Catholic college (Santa Clara University). I was taught all sorts of interesting things in my long stint in religious-based education. But regardless of the amount of my education devoted to subjects that wouldn't be considered "science" by any stretch of the word, I am a moderately successful electrical engineer with a major high tech company who has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals.

And, although, using myself as a sole example to refute a statement is statistical mistake, I disagree with the general idea that teaching students about conflicting views could lower their test scores.

I personally don't think we should teach anything except evolution at public schools because only evolution has scientific validity. But I don't understand some of the arguements that people who agree with me use.

 

[Pulsar]

Agent11, you seem to have mistaken this for the political forum.

This is not the political rhetoric emotional-filled hatred forum.

The teaching of intelligent design violates the basic premise of science:

One cannot prove intelligent design through repetition of experiments.
There is no evidence FOR intelligent design.

And so on.

 

[pcy]

Hi,

Agreed.... and the issue here is not whether it's reasonable to teach ID in school at all (that belongs in politics as LsDPulsar says).

The issue here is whether ID should be taught in Science lessons, as Science.


The answer has to be No, because ID is not Science.





Peter

 

[Agent11]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
Agent11, you seem to have mistaken this for the political forum.

This is not the political rhetoric emotional-filled hatred forum.

The teaching of intelligent design violates the basic premise of science:

One cannot prove intelligent design through repetition of experiments.
There is no evidence FOR intelligent design.

And so on.

ID being pushed on schools really pisses me off on several levels, being as it is not science, and violates the seperation of church and state.
sorry.. although believe it or not that was the restrained version of my post

Actually now that I think of it this thread does not belong here at all, it would be much better suited for the emotional-filled hatred forum

 

[pm]

Originally posted by: pcy
The issue here is whether ID should be taught in Science lessons, as Science. The answer has to be No, because ID is not Science.
Peter

Precisely. It's not science, so it shouldn't be taught as science.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: pmI'm an electrical engineer. I went to Catholic grammar, junior high, high school and, yes, even (briefly) Catholic college (Santa Clara University). I was taught all sorts of interesting things in my long stint in religious-based education. But regardless of the amount of my education devoted to subjects that wouldn't be considered "science" by any stretch of the word, I am a moderately successful electrical engineer with a major high tech company who has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals.

You're clearly capable of critical thinking, and filter what you're told through some sort of "this doesn't make sense" detector.

But I don't understand some of the arguements that people who agree with me use.

Many people are more readily swayed (than you or me) by arguments not based strictly on rational interpretation of facts and observations. I think the concern is that some of this segment of people will one day be in a position to make some sort of difference, and will choose not to use critical thinking when addressing an important issue (e.g. energy policies, whether to stick to a decision even though later observations seem to say that it was an incorrect decision) because even in science class critical thinking wasn't required.

And, although, using myself as a sole example to refute a statement is statistical mistake, I disagree with the general idea that teaching students about conflicting views could lower their test scores.

The people who would be swayed are probably less likely to be the ones who get high scores anyway.

 

[bsobel]

Shame on you for posting this in HT