| Michigan Science Curriculum; We want your feedback...NOT | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 13 2006, 06:41 AM (3,023 Views) | |
| BoaterDan | Sep 20 2006, 06:55 AM Post #76 |
|
Principal
|
Could you and fyi please explain your insistence that ID is not science? If a world-renown agnostic/atheistic scientist comes to the conclusion that something beyond natural evolution must have been involved in the creation of life here via use of the scientific method, what IS it then? The fact that the only thing you've heard about ID is some religious people discussing it does not make it a theological concept. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Sep 20 2006, 07:42 AM Post #77 |
|
Principal
|
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. I consider ID a philosophical or spiritual concept---not science---for the above reasons. BTW, I am Catholic and against this concept being taught along with the science curriculum. I think there is a false notion out there that people that are against ID are either agnostic or atheists. I am not questioning the existence of a "creator" or "designer." |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Sep 20 2006, 07:49 AM Post #78 |
|
Principal
|
Just because one concept has not been proven does not mean that therefore the other common explanation is "science." |
![]() |
|
| Anna Krome | Sep 20 2006, 09:37 AM Post #79 |
|
Principal
|
As noted earlier in this thread, a focus on Western religious beliefs, aka Christianity, alienates students of other religions--most likely children who follow Eastern religions--or atheists, who do not believe in "God." For that reason, Christian concepts of "a Western-perceived God and his/her plans" should not be taught in public school. Public school is no place to emphasize one group's religious concepts over another's. All "science" does require faith in the scientific method of intense scruntiny. But, for e.g., do most forgoe medical intervention, because they do not believe in the long-proven results of good health care, which has been established through the scientific method? It seems specious to selectively accept the intense scruntiny of one discipline and deny the very same scientific method when it does not agree w/personal values of Western Christianity. AK |
![]() |
|
| f11 | Sep 20 2006, 09:54 AM Post #80 |
|
LPS, transportation for all
|
Regardless of how you feel about ID or evolution, etc.. We should think about getting the BOE to support ID....then maybe this can happen :lol: From NPR.org Pa. Voters Eject School Board Amidst Evolution Debate Listen to this story... Morning Edition, November 14, 2005 · Residents of Dover, Penn., voted out almost every member of their local school board last week. Eight people ran against a policy requiring the mention of intelligent design in classrooms, and all of them won. Steve Inskeep talks to one of the newly elected board members, Bernadette Reinking. |
![]() |
|
| Administrator | Sep 20 2006, 09:55 AM Post #81 |
|
Administrator
|
This is a tough thread. The toughest yet. These are questions that most humans ask, or think, at one point in their life. There are no concrete answers. You believe what you believe. I think it would be how this is presented in a classroom that would sway me one way or the other. I would try to leave science in the science room. Including scientific theory. I would rather see a separate coarse on world religions, where that debate or discussion could take place. Preferably in High School. |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 20 2006, 10:00 AM Post #82 |
|
Principal
|
That's interesting fyi. From that perspective I guess it would fall into the same category as lots of other things like Einstein's ideas on the essence of time. But oddly, the scientific community didn't dismiss his ideas as just so much theology or philosophy. I guess I've not really considered ID as a "thing" itself that could be tested but rather a proposed hypothesis arising from evidence contradicting the alternative explanation. Isn't that what a hypothesis is? One definition I found online for hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. Scientific journals are full of conjecture based on observation (hypothesis) - it's a critical part of the scientific method. Indeed, the "life from ooze" evolution generally taught as truth in our schools is certainly disqualified by the same test the NAS proposes to apply to ID, isn't it? Even if I accept that ID is not "science" by the NAS's definition, that really only applies to the conclusions of those scientists (that some intelligent force was involved in the origins of life) and has nothing at all to do with the validity of the work. The proposal that there are no instances of the components of a cellular flagellum existing in any simpler form meets the NAS definition. |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Sep 20 2006, 11:20 AM Post #83 |
|
Principal
|
And there is the difference: Intelligent Design is a hypothesis that is impossible to prove and for which there is no evidence other than the absence of proof of other explanations. Evolution is a theory which has a substantial base of supportive scientific evidence and it does not rule out Intelligent Design whatsoever. Both could be true. |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 20 2006, 01:03 PM Post #84 |
|
Principal
|
Sure both could be true, as could other combinations of these proposed explanations. (Ask me to start my "God is an alien" discussion the next time we have a few hours together - LOL) But the thing that's interesting to me about your description of the two theories is that it seems to start from a presupposition. When the first person proposed that the sun was a burning ball of gas or that light was a ray of energy I suspect nobody in the world could even imagine a way to prove or disprove it. Setting out to find those proofs is part of the process by definition, not a measure of the worthiness of the hypothesis. Origin (life from ooze) evolution has been around for a long time and has therefore been examined and tested by many people. Some of them have found supporting evidence while others have found evidence completely contradicting it. And that's really the point. One hypothesis is dismissed without even consideration, in violation of the scientific method, while another theory gets passes in the face of conflicting scientific observation, in violation of the scientific method. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Sep 20 2006, 01:21 PM Post #85 |
|
Principal
|
In making the case for ID, proponents try to discredit the theory of evolution. As NF stated, the theory of evolution does not rule out ID. How life began is a complex ideology which should be left up to individual interpretation. |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Sep 20 2006, 01:42 PM Post #86 |
|
Principal
|
What experiment would or could be done or what data gathered to test the hypothesis of intelligent design? |
![]() |
|
| f11 | Sep 20 2006, 01:54 PM Post #87 |
|
LPS, transportation for all
|
Is intelligent design testable? |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Sep 20 2006, 02:51 PM Post #88 |
|
Principal
|
Eugenie Scott, Director of National Center For Science Education Evolution, Religion and Public Science Education |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Sep 20 2006, 04:52 PM Post #89 |
|
Principal
|
To Listen Click Here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4178920 Talk of the Nation, November 19, 2004 · A Pennsylvania school district mandates that a theory called "intelligent design" be taught along with evolution in public schools. We take a look at that and other recent challenges to teaching evolution in public schools. Guests: Kenneth Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. Co-author, Biology (high school textbook). Professor of biology, Brown University. Charles Haynes, senior scholar and director of education programs, First Amendment Center. David K. DeWolf, attorney, professor of law. Gonzaga University School of Law. Nick Matkze, public information project specialist. National Center for Science Education. Jeff and Carol Brown, board members (both recently resigned), Dover Area School District in Dover, Penn. |
![]() |
|
| Livonia Voter | Sep 20 2006, 05:45 PM Post #90 |
|
Principal
|
The problem is perhaps that the teaching of evolution has changed over the years from a theory, to a dogma every bit as rigid as any religion. It's a theory you have to accept at face value, if you don't want to be labeled a religious nut. Go ahead and teach evolution, but teach the "theory" of evolution, and explain how theories are created, changed, and thrown out altogether. Remember those cold blooded dinosaurs? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |






9:10 AM Jul 11