Friday, January 23, 2009

Texas ID Proponents Defeated in Court

Photobucket

This is a huge decision. A victory for ID would have changed science standards until they are reviewed ten years hence. I tip my hat to you Texas!

4 comments:

  1. Well, a theory is only a theory, and while Darwin's has served us well, if there's one thing the scientific method is prized for, it's admitting a theory's weaknesses as well as its strengths. I can't say I'm for any kind of legislation that wants to gloss over one aspect of a theory, or present only one side of history (I don't know how old you are, but how much did you learn in school about the Vietnam war? I didn't learn a damn thing).

    In fact, my libertarian atheist self will go so far as to say creationism is also a theory--one very poorly supported by evidence--that deserves at least a passing mention AS A THEORY (along with reasons why the theory is not in scientific favor, lacking evidential support) when the origins of man and the universe are covered.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a common mistake to take the word theory to mean a different thing than it does pertaining to the scientific world. Many ID followers are actually referring to evolution as a theorem by definition.

    Evolution is as much of a fact as it is possible to become in science.

    There is virtually no controversy about the process taking place with only minor quibbles mainly in the gene centered evolutionary path.

    One of the myriad of problems with ID is that it is not a scientific theory.

    It is impossible for creationism to verify results by attempting to reproduce them via experimentation, so it is not a theory or even a theorem, just gross speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, considering my background is physics, mathematics, and computer science, I'd say I have a decent grasp of the words 'theory' and 'theorem'. ;-)

    Evolution is a postulated model of physical events. I agree with your assessment that it's "as much of a fact as it is possible to become in science," but that doesn't mean it's infallible. Someday we may discover that evolution, like Newton's gravitation, isn't the whole story. It's possible for a theory to describe events accurately within a certain scope, without accurately representing the underlying causal system.

    No argument on creationism being very weak in the reproduce results department, but you're presupposing here that the scientific method is the only correct method for arriving at truth. As that can neither be disproved nor proved, it's a matter of faith. Hey, I'm with you on a major preference for and trust in scientific explanations and the scientific method; I just don't think that makes it "better" than an intuitive feeling that other explanations are "right."

    I don't believe in God, I adore Richard Dawkins, and I think science serves us quite well in explaining the nuts and bolts of our universe without invoking a creator. I can't make any sense at all of the creationism argument; it's clearly a matter of feeling. I just don't think people who believe it need to be bashed on the head with their wrongness. To each his own.

    The main problem is that creationists want to bash us for not believing their view. To prohibit our view from being taught or discussed. That, in my book, is wrong. I hate to see atheists make the same mistake. Who does it hurt to mention creationism in school as one of many theories (use a different term if you like) people have to explain our existence? Solid theories can certainly tolerate "competition" from poor ones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wasn't inferring that you didn't know what a theory was, but to ID proponents not understanding or purposefully misunderstanding what a theory is.

    I would be fine mentioning some sort of creationism if they could keep religion out of it.

    They have not been able to do so, which is the main reason the have lost the court cases that they have initiated.

    I do believe weaknesses or controversy within evolution should be taught. The hilarious sniping back and forth between Dawkins and Gould are classic.

    ReplyDelete

 
Site Meter
Science Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory