Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[Sunstone]

What I feel is interesting is that this judge was appointed by Bush. Do you guys think that he's less likely to get heckled by the conservative community because of this?

The conservative community is already coming out with declarations that he's an "activist judge" (despite all evidence to the contrary).

 

[Sunstone]

It's those gay opponents of ID that I worry about.

That's very true, Jayhawker. In my experience, the only gays who don't oppose ID are the few who think ID stands for "Interior Design", poor souls.

 

[Jaymes]

That's very true, Jayhawker. In my experience, the only gays who don't oppose ID are the few who think ID stands for "Interior Design", poor souls.

You mean ID isn't about teaching students how to decorate their living rooms in a snazzy way? ... oops...

 

[Green Gaia]

That's very true, Jayhawker. In my experience, the only gays who don't oppose ID are the few who think ID stands for "Interior Design", poor souls.

:biglaugh:

Oh that was a good laugh...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's very true, Jayhawker. In my experience, the only gays who don't oppose ID are the few who think ID stands for "Interior Design", poor souls.

:clap Very good! :clap

 

[SPLogan]

Perhaps a good alternative to offering a Creation Science or Intelligent Design based course in school is to offer a History of Science course.

That would help give students a healthy skepticism toward the credibility of scientific theories. Historical science has a pretty poor track record in theorizing what's beyond one's clear perception. Is science less fallible today than it was 500 years ago?

 

[SPLogan]

It's interesting to see how unscientific and dogmatic people behave when defending a particular set of scientific assumptions, as if the very scientific method were in jeopardy by someone introducing a less-tested hypothesis.


What place does civil law have in the scientific method? Why are people so passionate about Earth’s origins that they want to establish a particular theory in Court? It seems like any court action whatsoever on this issue violates the First Amendment. (The government shall not establish religion, nor prevent the free exercise thereof.) There is no such provision for science in the Constitution. (because science is not supposed to be biased)

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps a good alternative to offering a Creation Science or Intelligent Design based course in school is to offer a History of Science course.

That would help give students a healthy skepticism toward the credibility of scientific theories. Historical science has a pretty poor track record in theorizing what's beyond one's clear perception. Is science less fallible today than it was 500 years ago?

I've studied the history of science. I've also studied several religions. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that science has a poorer track record in theorizing what's beyond one's clear perception than does religion?

 

[Sunstone]

It's interesting to see how unscientific and dogmatic people behave when defending a particular set of scientific assumptions, as if the very scientific method were in jeopardy by someone introducing a less-tested hypothesis.

ID is not a "less tested hypothesis", but a non-falsifiable farce. Whether you want to believe that or not does not change the fact that ID is non-falsifiable. Furthermore, the ID "hypothesis" would allow not only for God to be the Designer, but for any other supernatural agency to be the Designer, including pixies. That's not science, but superstition.

 

[YmirGF]

including pixies.

Hmmm. We ought to draft a pixie and maker her god. She couldn't do much worse than the oaf's we have to contend with now. At least her religion would probably be fun... if a bit syrupy.

 

[SPLogan]

ID is not a "less tested hypothesis", but a non-falsifiable farce. Whether you want to believe that or not does not change the fact that ID is non-falsifiable.[/color] Furthermore, the ID "hypothesis" would allow not only for God to be the Designer, but for any other supernatural agency to be the Designer, including pixies. That's not science, but superstition.

Other than ID, what are some other "non-falsifiable" assumptions that science avoids?
Are there any that do not ralate to the supernatural realm? I'm honestly currious about what other examples are out there.

 

[standing_alone]

Are there any that do not ralate to the supernatural realm?

Science only deals with what is in the natural realm. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

 

[Sunstone]

Other than ID, what are some other "non-falsifiable" assumptions that science avoids?
Are there any that do not ralate to the supernatural realm? I'm honestly currious about what other examples are out there.

Most, perhaps all, of Freudian psychology is non-falsifiable, which is why psychologists today don't make use of it (although there are some therapists that still do.) Are you familiar with Freudian psychology, or do I need to go into specifics?

 

[SPLogan]

I've studied the history of science. I've also studied several religions. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that science has a poorer track record in theorizing what's beyond one's clear perception than does religion?

Your question assumes that religion is a science and/or science is a religion. I agree that the two subjects are integrated with one another. Because religion is studied scientifically, it often has a poor track record as well. Likewise, because science is done religiously, it is contains non-falsifiable assumptions. (like there was an Intelligent Designer or there was not an Intelligent Designer)

Whether you want to believe that or not does not change the fact that ID is non-falsifiable.</FONT>

Non-ID is equally as non-falsifiable as ID.

 

[SPLogan]

Most, perhaps all, of Freudian psychology is non-falsifiable, which is why psychologists today don't make use of it (although there are some therapists that still do.) Are you familiar with Freudian psychology, or do I need to go into specifics?

What is Freudian psychology?

 

[Sunstone]

What is Freudian psychology?

Freudian psychology is the body of speculation that Sigmund Freud came up with to explain human psychology. It includes such well known concepts as "Oedipus Complex", "Penis Envy", "Death Wish", and the "Id", "Ego", and "Superego". None of these concepts is falsifiable, which is why today's scientists dismiss Sigmund Freud's psychology.

 

[Sunstone]

Non-ID is equally as non-falsifiable as ID.

That happens not to be true. The theory of evolution is falsifiable. As is the Big Bang.

 

[SPLogan]

To amend what I said previously, I do not really believe that non-ID is equally as non-falsifiable as ID.
I was trying to be fair. I really believe that non-ID is quite falsifiable.

I say that as a point of honesty. Honesty is fair right?

 

[SPLogan]

We like to build our buildings on non-falsifiable stuff, right?

 

[Sunstone]

Honesty is worth frubals. Kudos to you!