Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

[RitalinO.D.]

Evolution and ID are both different conclusions based on the observable science. Neither can be proven 100%.

Since when is ID observable science? When has ID ever been considered science period?

Apparent design is ID. When a scientist sees something that has an apparent design, such as the eye, the conclusion should be the best explanation which is, apparent design is design.

Yes thats right, if a creationist see's something that looks designed, its obviously designed. Thankfully accredited scientists don't think this way. Explain to me animals living in caves that are blind but have partially formed eyes? Was this some form of sick God joke?

I didn't say all data is faked, I said historically evoluton has the faked data on its side.

I would say you are seriously over reaching here. Are you saying Creationists haven't faked any data? Adam & Eve, Parting the Red Sea, Biblical flood, etc. None of which has a single iota of evidence. There's even evidence a global flood never happened. So much for your faked data argument.

That is not empirical observable science.

You keep using this statement, yet show me one single piece of empirical observable evidence for creationism, and I will eat my keyboard and provide pictures as empirical observable evidence of said eaten keyboard.

You might have even have seen this in your school books because I heard it was still in there.

You should probably go to your local library and read a few of those school books. Get informed before making ignorant statements like this.

I would support the teaching of Darwinian evolution as an alternative to ID, side by side. I'm for following where the science where it leads, the real science that is, not the speculation.

You have this idea that anything about creationism is scientific. "6000" years should be more than ample time to provide at least 1 credible piece of evidence, yet it hasn't happened. Wonder why. NOT SCIENCE.

Now do not misrepresent me here. I am not saying creationists are not scientific, it's just when they are, they are researching subjects with an empirical basis. ID is not one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Man from monkey is not empiracle science, but antidotal.

Yes, and the accredited university can sequester this kind of nonsense somewhere outside of academia.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For good reason. No evidence for astrology. However, creationists seem to think there is evidence for their position (but not actually providing any...), and are hell-bent on distorting current thinking on evolution. This has to be counter-acted. That's where the debates arise from.

Sure there is, it's a subject in anthropology.

Just like creationism is a curiosity of religion and not a subject of science.

 

[doppelganger]

Sure there is, it's a subject in anthropology.

Just like creationism is a curiosity of religion and not a subject of science.

Right. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for your religious creeds and holy books to be taught about in contexts where learning about them is appropriate. If what you want to teach doesn't use the scientific method, a science class is not one of these contexts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nobody has to be protected from teaching evolution, at least at this time frame. I would support the teaching of Darwinian evolution as an alternative to ID, side by side. I'm for following where the science where it leads, the real science that is, not the speculation.

You're in no position to compromise.

If - and only if - ID was proven, which it is not.... then it could be a viable alternative to evolution and taught side by side.

It's interesting to me that the Texas Republicans have already made the Texas high school diploma useless - it's unacceptable even to Texas state universities!!! - now they are trying to destroy academia. Texas universities have to teach Texas high school graduates remedial history, science, and math before they are ready for university level courses.

And the kids who go into the workforce have nothing to help them succeed.

 

[doppelganger]

You're in no position to compromise.

Right. He wants his peanut butter on everyone else's chocolate but they better keep their chocolate out of his peanut butter jar.

Would he be okay with the teaching of the theory of biological evolution, a course on historical method, and course on critical thinking, logic and the philosophy of science being taught to kids at his Church's Sunday School - right alongside the Bible? It would be equally out of place there as ID is in a science class.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think they've already tried that.

The Flagellum Unspun

And here....

[youtube]a_5FToP_mMY[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY&feature=related

 

[Man of Faith]

Ok, so not all data is fake.

can you give me an idea of which data is not fake then?

The observable, empiracle data for evolution isn't faked. If scientists would leave it at that we wouldn't have common descent. However they take an extra unobservable step to common descent, called Darwinism. That is imagination, not real science.

 

[Revoltingest]

The observable, empiracle data for evolution isn't faked. If scientists would leave it at that we wouldn't have common descent. However they take an extra unobservable step to common descent, called Darwinism. That is imagination, not real science.

What definition of "science" do you use?

Do you object to this description of the "scientific method"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[Man of Faith]

Because ID is strictly a religious concept, and the bill only applies to those doing research in ID, I assume this would only be applicable to those faculty and students who are in a religious studies department, and not any other department. I assume.

Dawkins said that he could imagine aliens designing life on earth. If he can imagine that, as a biologist then biology teachers should be able to also. Common descent is imagination as well.

 

[Valjean]

What's the alternative to common descent, MoF?

And what the heck is "Darwinism?"

 

[Man of Faith]

Um....has that been a problem in Texas? Professors actually doing research into ID creationism and getting fired over it?

Or is this like the anti-Sharia law in neighboring Oklahoma, in that it attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

It doesn't have to be a problem in Texas before it is addressed. The link in the OP has two examples of problems in other states. Sometimes it is good to learn from other peoples issues and fix it ahead of time.

 

[Man of Faith]

But it does make predictions that intermediate critters would exist in the fossil record.
This has been borne out by findings.
What testable predictions does ID make?

ID makes a prediction that there are no verifiable ancestor/descendant fossil relationships or any fossil that shows all this evolution and that is what we have.

 

[Tristesse]

ID makes a prediction that there are no verifiable ancestor/descendant fossil relationships or any fossil that shows all this evolution and that is what we have.

And how does it do that?

 

[Man of Faith]

If the eye is designed, it's poorly designed. And either the creator is incompetent or he just doesn't care enough about his creation.

That can be a test question.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

ID makes a prediction that there are no verifiable ancestor/descendant fossil relationships or any fossil that shows all this evolution and that is what we have.

And what evidence does ID use to make these predictions?

 

[Man of Faith]

What definition of "science" do you use?

Do you object to this description of the "scientific method"?
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've already been over this adnosium in this forum. Common descent fails the testing part of the scientific method. You cannot test and observe common descent.

 

[Man of Faith]

What's the alternative to common descent, MoF?

And what the heck is "Darwinism?"

The creation or ID tree of life wouldn't be a tree, but an orchard where the original created beings were created whole in different categories and then they started evolving from there.

 

[Valjean]

Yes you can

 

[Man of Faith]

And what evidence does ID use to make these predictions?

Apparent design. If you found an electric motor on the ground you would see an apparent design, same thing for the eye, or ear, or brain.