ID: Coming to Your State Soon!

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The main hypothesis in my understanding is basically what you said [...] that chance and necessety are insufficient causal agents and that some intellegence was required.

Okay... so based on this hypothesis, can you come up with a prediction for something that we can measure in order to test the hypothesis? i.e. either:

- if and only if ID is correct, then ______ exists/does not exist/does something funky/etc., and we can measure/observe/test whether this is the case like this: _______, or...

- if and only if ID is incorrect, then ______ exists/does not exist/does something funky/etc., and we can measure/observe/test whether this is the case like this: _______.

That hypothesis can be falsified by showing that chance and necessity are sufficient causal agents.

Which would require in-depth analysis of the evolutionary history of every single organism that ever existed. In practical terms, this is impossible; therefore, ID is not falsifiable.

And if and when that fact is proven conclusively, that chance and necessity are sufficient in developing comlex biological structures, then I don't think that has any bearing on whether ID is scientific or not. Failed science is still science so long as it stays true to the scientific methodology.

But the truth or falsehood of something has a bearing on whether it should be taught to kids, no?

I am not sure if testablility is that important in regards to natural history. We are talking about theories that refer to how things came to be as they are, past events that we cannot observe directly. Testability is more important for sciences like chemestry and physics. What kind of experiemnts can we set up to test what has already happened?

You can make predictions for evidence that you haven't found yet. For example, consider the predictions that have been made by evolution:

- the Earth is at least many millions of years old. This was confirmed by geology.
- a mechanism for inheritability of physical traits between one generation and another exists. This was confirmed by the discovery of DNA.
- for a given extant species, there is a chain of species which it descended from, each slightly different from each other. This has been confirmed countless times by paleontology.

You can also look at what would falsify evolution. The classic example is a mammal in the Cretaceous era: if you found evidence that a rabbit existed alongside stegasauruses, then it would contradict the fundamental principles of evolution.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... if you found evidence that a rabbit existed alongside stegasauruses, then it would contradict the fundamental principles of evolution.

OH! OH! - I've got this one!!

I live about 60 miles from the Creation Museum in KY. They have a model of a Triceratops with a saddle on it!

That's all the proof we need!!

ID is scientific!!

 

[LittlePinky82]

OH! OH! - I've got this one!!

I live about 60 miles from the Creation Museum in KY. They have a model of a Triceratops with a saddle on it!

That's all the proof we need!!

ID is scientific!!

A saddle? :cover:

 

[fantome profane]

The main hypothesis in my understanding is basically what you said that chance and necessety are insufficient causal agents and that some intellegence was required.

False dichotomy.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... That hypothesis can be falsified by showing that chance and necessity are sufficient causal agents. ...

As pointed out by Fantome, this is a false dichotomy.

I also reject your premise that chance is an insufficient causal agent.

The mathematics most commonly relied on by ID (or Creation) proponents is ridiculously skewed.

Please provide whatever calculations that you choose to support your assertion.

Needless to say, they will be challenged.

Sadly, I fear that the refutation of them will almost certainly be ignored.

 

[Runlikethewind]

False dichotomy.

As pointed out by Fantome, this is a false dichotomy.

Guilty as charged. Thanks for pointing that out. That certainly changes things. It is not enough for ID to show that chance and necessity are not sufficient causal agents in order to prove that intelligence is the answer. There could certainly be other explanations.

I also reject your premise that chance is an insufficient causal agent.

Not my premise. That is the premise that ID is putting out.

Sadly, I fear that the refutation of them will almost certainly be ignored.

That may apply to others but not me. I am seriously interested in working out this problem in my own mind because I cannot make up my mind as to whether ID is a science or not. That is why I started the other thread to deal specifically with this question.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

OH! OH! - I've got this one!!

I live about 60 miles from the Creation Museum in KY. They have a model of a Triceratops with a saddle on it!

That's all the proof we need!!

ID is scientific!!

oh boy...a saddle...!!!

What will they think of next?....cause that's got Fred Flinstone written all over it. Is that Ken Ham's museum???? I thought I heard that some where. They need to spend less time getting those ideas from cartoons.....

 

[McBell]

They need to spend less time getting those ideas from cartoons.....

What?
And ignore their evidence?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What?
And ignore their evidence?

:biglaugh:...........good one....!!

 

[rocketman]

No, I read what the law said, and I read what you wrote. You put your own definite spin on it.

Hardly. And you have shown twice now that you don't understand how the current laws create a framework that the new bill must operate within.

The bill specifically says that a teacher:

The key words here from the bill are "understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner." ID as a whole does not fit into that slot. Some small parts of it may, but only very small parts. As I keep reminding you, the current restrictions still apply. Now add the old and the new together and you have the effect of the bill.

SETI is not the repeatable, falsifiable experiment, ....

So there is currently a topic allowed to be discussed in science classrooms which is not falsifiable and may or may not ever lead anywhere. I'm shocked.

..... it's the step that allows the repeatable, falsifiable experiment.

Which is? The hypothesis says that aliens may be deliberately transmitting signals (very simple ones that would appear to be artificial). SETIs job is not to sift and, if a signal is found, to let someone else decide if it's from aliens. They already know what they are looking for, and it is already known and accepted that if they find it (either by clear signal or sifitng) that it will not be falsifiable proof of e-t 'intelligence'. How can you verify the (simple) signal is really from another intelligence even if you do find it? How can you verify that it is artificial?

Are you serious? The bill is loaded with buzzwords and code words of the ID movement. On top of this, the stated intent of the bill makes no sense: how exactly are critical thinking, logical analysis and open and objective discussion not permitted under the current system? This bill specifically creates an ID-shaped hole in the public school science curriculum and lets local boards put whatever they want in it.

See post 133.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Not my premise. That is the premise that ID is putting out.

That may apply to others but not me.

In that case, I sincerely apologize for my post having a "smarmy" quality to it.

I am seriously interested in working out this problem in my own mind because I cannot make up my mind as to whether ID is a science or not. That is why I started the other thread to deal specifically with this question.

Well, that question has been asked, and answered. Still, you must reach your own conclusions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hardly. And you have shown twice now that you don't understand how the current laws create a framework that the new bill must operate within.

How so?

The key words here from the bill are "understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner." ID as a whole does not fit into that slot. Some small parts of it may, but only very small parts. As I keep reminding you, the current restrictions still apply. Now add the old and the new together and you have the effect of the bill.

Hang on: are you actually claiming that this bill will not lead to the teaching of ID in public school classrooms?

If so, what exactly do you think was the intent of this bill?

So there is currently a topic allowed to be discussed in science classrooms which is not falsifiable and may or may not ever lead anywhere. I'm shocked.

It's a matter of methodology. It's just as much a part of science as lab safety is: practically, there are a lot of things that you need to do in order to undertake an analysis using the scientific method. Getting your data to a manageable size is one of them.

Which is? The hypothesis says that aliens may be deliberately transmitting signals (very simple ones that would appear to be artificial). SETIs job is not to sift and, if a signal is found, to let someone else decide if it's from aliens. They already know what they are looking for, and it is already known and accepted that if they find it (either by clear signal or sifitng) that it will not be falsifiable proof of e-t 'intelligence'. How can you verify the (simple) signal is really from another intelligence even if you do find it? How can you verify that it is artificial?

From the FAQ on the SETI web site (though please keep in mind that it's geared to a general audience):

4 -What happens if we find something?

Keep in mind that the receivers used for SETI are designed to find constant or slowly pulsed carrier signals… something like a flute tone against the noise of a waterfall. But any rapid variation in the signal - known as modulation, or more colloquially as the "message" - would be smeared out and lost. In order to understand anything that E.T. might be saying to us, we'll have to build far larger instruments to look for the modulation of his signal.

See post 133.

I saw it. The bill's not about academic freedom, it's about freedom to indoctrinate kids in religious belief.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... The bill's not about academic freedom, it's about freedom to indoctrinate kids in religious belief.

And there it is in a nutshell.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I saw it. The bill's not about academic freedom, it's about freedom to indoctrinate kids in religious belief.

Yep....The bill is so subtle. The first step is to get the bill passed and then when ID is brought forth no one will be able to shoot it down because it will be protected by law. This bill is so transparent. It's as phony as a seven dollar bill......:sarcastic

 

[rocketman]

How so?

You do realise that there are existing Acts and that the new one does not diminish any of the existing laws?

Hang on: are you actually claiming that this bill will not lead to the teaching of ID in public school classrooms?

That's right. And I hope it doesn't, as I've already said. Critical questions are one thing, ID as a whole is another. The religious clause gives the bill some real teeth.

If so, what exactly do you think was the intent of this bill?

Please friend, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

It's a matter of methodology. It's just as much a part of science as lab safety is: practically, there are a lot of things that you need to do in order to undertake an analysis using the scientific method. Getting your data to a manageable size is one of them.

I'm all for SETI in the classroom by the way. It fires the kids imaginations. And any methodolgy is better than none.

From the FAQ on the SETI web site (though please keep in mind that it's geared to a general audience):

Assuming there will even be a modulation. Such a thing has not been found yet. And even if it was we are still at the same point where we would need to verify that it was artificial.

I saw it. The bill's not about academic freedom, it's about freedom to indoctrinate kids in religious belief.

I respectfully disagree for all the reasons I have already mentioned. I'm going to leave it there for this thread. As I said at the beginning to the OP: I don't see how this threatens science education.

I hope nothing adverse comes from this bill. I'm sure we are in agreement on that at least.

Cheers.

 

[logician]

Mother, apple pie, and ID.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You do realise that there are existing Acts and that the new one does not diminish any of the existing laws?

Yes, I do. And you realize that an explicit permission in this law combined with some prohibition in another does not necessarily mean that the prohibition takes precedence, right?

But I'll bite: how exactly do you think existing laws protect against ID entering into public school science classes?

That's right. And I hope it doesn't, as I've already said. Critical questions are one thing, ID as a whole is another. The religious clause gives the bill some real teeth.

I disagree. I think the word choice in the religious clause can be interpreted one of two ways:

- "even if you think this bill gives you permission to teach religious material to kids, it doesn't, so don't."
- "we declare that this bill does not allow teaching religious material to kids, even if it actually does."

Please friend, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

You haven't actually said.

You've repeated the wording in the bill's preamble about logical reasoning and critical examination, but you've never said what you think that enacting a law that addresses those things (if that's what it does) is in aid of.

Were teachers somehow not able to teach these things before? Was this bill needed to fulfil some valid purpose? Is there some unmet need that this bill meets?

Assuming there will even be a modulation. Such a thing has not been found yet.

No, but you sure won't find one if you don't look.

And even if it was we are still at the same point where we would need to verify that it was artificial.

Which is where the linguists and mathematicians would start doing their thing to do just that, and the astrophysicists would start looking for a natural phenomenon that can create the observed effect.

 

[rocketman]

You haven't actually said.

Were teachers somehow not able to teach these things before? Was this bill needed to fulfil some valid purpose? Is there some unmet need that this bill meets?

See post 133. Please.

I'm done here.

 

[robtex]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried to be.

Let's get it right: As long as there is even a small chance that an educator can be sued or prosecuted for talking about something that warrants consideration, even brief and fleeting consideration, then we are all the poorer for it, I believe. Academic freedom is worth fighting and legislating for, providing it is done appropriately.

You can't call it academic if it is agenda-based in proposition. You can't call it academic if there is no empirical data to support claim. You can't call it academic if it is a faith-based proposition

Trust me when I tell you, that most RF's have read the "Wedge strategy"
The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture

and are well aware of the agenda, intent and process proxyed by theocratic proponets such as yourself.

If you want your kids to learn a religious mythology based on your personal faith home school them as opposed to indoctrinate the children that do not come from religious homes. It is not the school system isn't giving you any recourse or options. If you think that evolution is a lie or a product of Satan's propaganda campaign or whatever your (or other's) driving religion conviction is you can home-school your children . However you can't indoctrinate your neighbors and I have no idea why this is not a reasonable proposition to you or other proponents to ID .

 

[logician]

Religious dogma of any sort should not be taught in public secondary schools period. To do so violates the doctrine of separation of church and state.