“Poor wording on my part. I should have said "neither proven nor disproven".”

“I assume you mean just "proven" because you just said these theories have evidence that can't be disproven so I assume you think that's somehow relevant ... so now are you saying "The idea that if it can't be proven, it must be taught as science is counter to the very nature of the scientific method.", because if that's what you're now saying that discredits nothing from our discussion.

Which is it? Pick one and go with it so we're on the same track here. It's a good discussion, but if you're going to change your argument half way through it's really going to get confusing.”

“Oy.

1. False evidence or evidence that is thoroughly refuted is not evidence.
2. Hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not testable and fail as scientific theories.


What I was saying is that ID, being non-falsifiable by its nature, fails as a scientific theory.

Non-falsifiable hypotheses can be neither proven nor disproven.”

“1. False evidence or evidence that is thoroughly refuted is not evidence.

You also said that evidence that is not provable is not evidence. What happened to that? Please apply this to the "scientific teachings" I listed above. You're evading the point.

2. Hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not testable and fail as scientific theories.

Two questions. 1) I believe you, but could you please reference this rule to a credible scientific source? I haven't seen that. Thank you. 2) How do you know it's not falsifiable? Perhaps someday we can explain mathematically the "Theory of Everything" even to the point of explaining how something came from nothing.
last edited: 4/15/05 7:02:54 AM”

“Here's a primer on the scientific method that will explain most of the questions you've posed. This is from the University of Rochester:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading4

Some specific passages that apply:

II. Testing hypotheses
As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.
last edited: 4/15/05 8:16:48 AM”

“Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

... yet "theories" fitting this description are taught as "theory" in science classes every day - and are considered science. (they are put in science papers, theorized by scientists, read by scientists, pursued by scientists)

Why can these things be called "science", but ID can not?

It's hypocritical.

It's lying to our children.

It's being biased.”

“Sarge, if you can find a public school that is teaching string theory and quantum mechanics alongside ID, send your kid somewhere else. Seriously.”

“That's the point. They aren't teaching it along side ID.”

“They shouldn't be teaching it at all in high school. They're theoretical in the extreme, and even though they have more observable evidence that supports them as realities than ID, public schools should be teaching science students the more solidly founded science, such as evolution.
last edited: 4/15/05 8:30:55 AM”

“quick question for any of you Math majors

Will parallel lines ever intersect?”

“Only at traffic lights in the city of Pi.”

“Phad, honest answer please”

“I'm not a math major, but what I guess you're asking is the nature of infinite theoretical space. My honest answer is: No freaking idea.”

“Ok, you just restated the argument again. Why do you keep doing that when I ask you a specific question - To explain the hypocricy of the science community on this matter.

You are not going to get schools to stop teaching theoretical (ironic word) science in science classes. It's just not going to happen.

I believe you have confused "scientific method" with "science". Scientific method is a process for a specific purpose - To give credence and method to scientific discoveries. But science can include a broader range of inputs than just scientific method. Science comes from human curiosity. If you take that out of science, you have no more science.

I bet you have never criticized science for having theoretical science as part of the curriculum until now. Am I right? That is because you are only downplaying it's role at this point because it contradicts the very arguments that are used against ID theory.

Science comes from human curiosity. There is no purpose for science other than for humans. Nature does just fine without our poking and proding into it. You have asked the scientific community (at least at the high school level) to ignore scientific curiosity. That's counterproductive. I personally don't think you really want to not teach theoretical (have to laugh at that word) science but have only said this because you've been backed into a corner with your own logic.

Science demands open mindedness.”

“Only in non-Euclidean geometries.

(of course, that's all theoretical and should not be taught in science class, right Phaedrus?)
last edited: 4/15/05 8:43:32 AM”

“Ewker, parallel lines, by definition, do not intersect, and are infinite.

I should add, as Sarge has noted, that this holds for Euclidian geometry.
last edited: 4/15/05 8:43:56 AM”

“Bison, don't go by definition. You have to look outside the box.”

“You can't look outside the box Ewker, if you don't go by definition you are talking about something other than "parallel lines."

A little further study shows that this also does hold for Non-Euclidian geometry. The difference being that in Euclidian geometry if two lines that are parallel to a third line then those two lines are parallel to each other, but in non-euclidian geometry this is not necessarily true, however by definition "parallel" lines in non-euclidian geometry are infinite, in the same plane, and do not intersect.
last edited: 4/15/05 8:52:23 AM”

“Science demands open mindedness.”
Sarge
6:39:07 AM
4/15/05

Not so open-minded that theories with no falsifiable evidence to them that just happen to coincide with religious beliefs should be taught in science class.”

“BTW, sarge, here's a challenge for you: Please find a high school science class that is teaching the theories you have stated a problem with on this thread.
last edited: 4/15/05 8:53:04 AM”

“(of course, that's all theoretical and should not be taught in science class, right Phaedrus?)
last edited: 4/15/05 6:43:32 AM”
Sarge
6:42:23 AM
4/15/05

No, it shouldn't. It should be taught in math class, and probably not a high school math class. I've never seen a high school offer theoretical geometry before...”

“I thought this was going to be about architecture
last edited: 4/15/05 8:56:05 AM”

“I had to take a Calculus class many yrs ago. God, I hated that class. I took it in the summer just so I could concentrate on it alone.
Anyway the teacher was talking about her classes in college to get her Masters or
PHD don't remember which. She told us about a class she took which totally blew a lot of know math facts out the window.

They are to many variables which causes know facts to change.

So somewhere in time and space two parallel lines will intersect and become parallel lines again.”

“What about evidence that just happens to coincide with pre-conceived scientific beliefs? Is that ok? Like for example, evolution?

The theory of evolution came about before the evidence used to support it.

Same with the Big Bang theory.

Again, you are being biased - You have avoided the question as to why certain things are allowed in science and why ID is not. Unless of course, if I can presume when you said "just happen to coincide with religious beliefs" you are showing your reasoning.

By the way, "religion" has nothing to do with "ID". The only commonality is a creator. Should we never theorize of a creator in science because it will always coincide with religion?”

“BTW, sarge, here's a challenge for you: Please find a high school science class that is teaching the theories you have stated a problem with on this thread.
Phaedrus - My public high-school taught all of those theories except for super-string theory (which was in it's infancy).”

“No, it shouldn't. It should be taught in math class, and probably not a high school math class. I've never seen a high school offer theoretical geometry before...

Wow! Where did you go to school?”

“Come to think of it, I learned about black dwarfs in middle school science. (we had a planetarium)”

““Come to think of it, I learned about black dwarfs in middle school science. ----------”

Sarge
9:01:04 AM
4/15/05

No don't go gettin' all racial up in here...





8O”

“Sorry ... african american little people

Better?”

“no now your being PC..just call them black midgets
last edited: 4/15/05 9:07:19 AM”

“Yes, much, now no discussion of white dwarfs either. And don't offend my fascination with Kirstie Alley by talkin' about Supergiant Stars.”

“The theory of evolution came about before the evidence used to support it.

Same with the Big Bang theory.

Okay, Sarge, it sounds like you're all set to find some falsifiable evidence of ID, and make accurate predictions about what the theory of ID means to the universe.

Again, you are being biased - You have avoided the question as to why certain things are allowed in science and why ID is not. Unless of course, if I can presume when you said "just happen to coincide with religious beliefs" you are showing your reasoning.

It coincides, more or less, with my religious beliefs as well, but there has yet to be a logical argument put forth that makes the ID theory a valid one.

I guess my high school, which won several national awards for academics, was just behind the times as far as teaching those particular theories?”

“Oh, I learned about black dwarfs, also. I was told of the evidence there was for them.

Again, as I pointed out earlier in the discussion, this is not a parallel. You avoided addressing that.
last edited: 4/15/05 9:11:08 AM”

“Okay, Sarge, it sounds like you're all set to find some falsifiable evidence of ID, and make accurate predictions about what the theory of ID means to the universe.

You're all over the place. You have to put 2 and 2 together. Science allows for non-falsifiable evidencial theories (which you don't know if ID is or is not). Science also allows for theoretical science. ID, by it's nature, very might as well fall into both of those categories as once. You keep flip-flopping from one to another and allowing one one time, and another another time, but never with ID. IT IS HYPOCRITICAL! (emphasis - not yelling)

It coincides, more or less, with my religious beliefs as well, but there has yet to be a logical argument put forth that makes the ID theory a valid one.

Assuming your premise is correct, the same can be said about other things taught in science. Why do you keep ignoring that? (little bit of yelling - mostly emphasis)

I guess my high school, which won several national awards for academics, was just behind the times as far as teaching those particular theories?

I guess so. Sorry about that. The fact remains, schools (middle and high) teach theoretical science in science!

Oh, I leanred about black dwarfs, also. I was told of the evidence there was for them.

Very interesting. Especially since they are thought not to exist.”

“Sarge, since you've continually ignored posts that don't agree with your set of views, and seem to want the discussion to end with you being right, I'll grant that you're right.

Black dwarves don't exist. Please see my comment about the erosion of pyramids earlier in the thread.

I'm done with this discussion now. Thanks.
last edited: 4/15/05 9:28:47 AM”

“You two must be sporting epic erections right now.
last edited: 4/15/05 9:34:51 AM”

“Sarge, since you've continually ignored posts that don't agree with your set of views, and seem to want the discussion to end with you being right, I'll grant that you're right. Black dwarves don't exist. Please see my comment about the erosion of pyramids earlier in the thread.

See my response to your pyramid post earlier in the thread. (which you never responded to by the way)

Phaedrus - I've ignored your posts? LOL!

Bottom line:

Science allows theoretical science.
Science allows non-falsifiable evidential theories.
Science classes in high-schools teach both.
Scientists don't want ID theory in schools because it would consider that humans are not the ones in charge and would coincide with religion (your point, not mine).
Scientists are hypocrites.
Parents have a right to prevent their children from being brain-washed by the socialist government (public schools) because the schools work for them, not the other way around.
last edited: 4/15/05 9:41:04 AM”

“Hahaha! Man, it must be nice to live in a reality that requires no evidence for belief. I envy you. You can convince yourself of anything!

Socialist government! Haha! Brainwashing! Haha! ID is science! Haha!


Brainwashing! Scientists are all in on a conspiracy to hide God from you! My sides hurt!”

“non-Euclidean Geometries:

a) I'm not sure what "theoretical geometry" means, but just about every high school in the country teaches Euclidean Geometry, which I imagine qualifies as "theoretical geometry"

b) There exist non-euclidean geometries where all parallel lines necessarily intersect”

“Phaedrus - Are you paying attention at all?

I am saying that science allows for a "reality" that requires no evidence for belief! What don't you get about that? You continually have ignored my questions about the theoretical sciences taught in science class! Just because you ignore that point - it's not going to go away! You can't wish away the fact that science classes teach theories that don't have evidence for them, no matter how much you try. And I'm not even saying there is no evidence for ID, you are the one saying that! Dude, pay attention.”

“Well, you've sucessfully avoided answering very specific points regarding the hypocricy of what's taught in science school.

You've concluded your argument with some "HaHa's" and some "LOLs" etc ...

I knew it would come down to this. When all else fails, laugh and mock your opponent. Distract him with shiney objects. "Look, a pink elephant over there!" ... Whatever it takes.

Very disappointing.
last edited: 4/15/05 10:00:41 AM”

“Sarge, your entire argument has been to shift the burden of proof for ID to those who do not presuppose its validity. When asked for evidence supporting ID, your response has been to try to poke holes in other scientific theories and call me a hypocrite. The one bit of evidence you brought into the conversation was quickly acknowledged to be flawed. I engaged you in this for a time because I wondered if I just knew more about the method of science than you did. It seems to have turned out that your intent, however, was to muddy the water to such an extent that I would get sick of the debate and leave.

I've heard you argument about the supposed presupposition of NO god in science and rejected it on the basis that there is no presupposition either way. To you, apparently, this means that it is a bias. I don't agree, but whatever. Take a look at your own bias, while you're at it. ID as science would certainly keep a comfy universe for your acknowledged belief in a universal creator. How is that NOT bias?

At any rate, the fact remains that the ID movement has yet to either:
1. lead the way in some marked and drastic logical refinement in the scientific method that would allow for a theory with no supporting evidence to be construed as science - this would entail a method that BETTER predicts and includes previously unobservable evidence. I have no idea what that would be.

or

2. Publish and undergo peer review for a valid theory which does not contradict the known realities (you'll go back to calling them theories in the syllogistic sense, I'm sure) of the universe.

Lastly, ID as a movement in the US today is meant to be taught as an alternative to evolution in science classes. THIS is what I'm most against - not the vague search for God in the universe as you have aparently taken to it. Heck, if you've read as much about string theory as ID and you decide ID is the real science, more power to you. I know practically nothing about string theory, so I'll reserve judgement on that. Nonetheless, flaws in other scientific theories do not make ID more valid. If you're against those theories being taught in public schools, read up, speak up, and debate those theories on their own merit, rather than trying to find some parallel with the completely unsupportable ID "theory".

Again, I'm finished with this.”

“it just keeps dragging on and on..kind of like the Terri thread.


anyone got any plans to backpack this weekend.”

“ME ME ME! I'm hiking this weekend. But it's an ultra private trip that can't even speak of. It's gorgeous here in northern California! Where I live in the foothills the lupines are mixed with the poppies on the green hillsides and it's AWESOME! The combination of gold and purple with a green backdrop is stunning!”

“Buck, I am sure you will have pics for us to gawk at”

“Sarge, your entire argument has been to shift the burden of proof for ID to those who do not presuppose its validity.

Wrong. My entire argument has been that science holds ID to a different standard than it does other "science".

When asked for evidence supporting ID, your response has been to try to poke holes in other scientific theories and call me a hypocrite.

Only partially correct. I also gave you supporting evidence. (statistical in nature) You found "theories" that disagree with them philosophically (coming from scientists), but did nothing to disprove them mathematically.

The one bit of evidence you brought into the conversation was quickly acknowledged to be flawed.

Wrong. You said it was flawed. That does not make it so. The fact that it's statistically impossible for the universe to be set-up the way it is and support intelligent life as we know it is supported mathematically. No other thing in science is held to as rigorous as a test as you've given ID theory.

I engaged you in this for a time because I wondered if I just knew more about the method of science than you did. It seems to have turned out that your intent, however, was to muddy the water to such an extent that I would get sick of the debate and leave.

You only got sick of the debate when you got backed into a corner. You would not, and have not, responded to the hypocritical standards that science has for what is science. Which, like it or not, is what this debate boils down to. Hypocricy.

I've heard you argument about the supposed presupposition of NO god in science and rejected it on the basis that there is no presupposition either way.

Wrong again. If I am wrong that God is not wanted in science (maybe I should quote you here ...) then why did you say you do not want God in science?! You yourself admit "God" has no place in science. Wow! That's not science. Plain and simple. You are discounting the possibility of something existing without allowing it to be tested, or even theorized about. Period. You even admitted to this. Why are you now denying it?

To you, apparently, this means that it is a bias. I don't agree, but whatever. Take a look at your own bias, while you're at it. ID as science would certainly keep a comfy universe for your acknowledged belief in a universal creator. How is that NOT bias?

Look at who is the one trying to determine if a theory is fact or just theory. You are confusing the two and projecting your misconceptions onto me. I have never claimed in this debate that it should be stated as fact. I said "ID theory". Don't project on to me your bias against people who believe ID theory should be taught in school. You are assuming I am not using logic in the theory, while that could not be further from the truth. I came to know God through the study of physics. (coincidentally, a book on Feynman's work is what I was reading literally at the time I was saved, who somebody else mentioned in this thread) You couldn't be more far off on this assumption.

At any rate, the fact remains that the ID movement has yet to either:
1. lead the way in some marked and drastic logical refinement in the scientific method that would allow for a theory with no supporting evidence to be construed as science - this would entail a method that BETTER predicts and includes previously unobservable evidence. I have no idea what that would be.

The ones who control "scientific method" won't even hear the argument. They control the scientific method. That is the whole debate! Again you go back and restate the point of the debate. We're having this debate because scientists are being hypocritical in their definition of what is science.

or

2. Publish and undergo peer review for a valid theory which does not contradict the known realities (you'll go back to calling them theories in the syllogistic sense, I'm sure) of the universe.

Once again, you are applying a different standard for ID theory than other accepted theories which I have previously named. And the wheels on the bus go round and round ...

Lastly, ID as a movement in the US today is meant to be taught as an alternative to evolution in science classes.

WRONG AGAIN! Man, are you just trolling now? ID is meant to be taught as an alternative theory to multiple universe theory.

THIS is what I'm most against - not the vague search for God in the universe as you have aparently taken to it. Heck, if you've read as much about string theory as ID and you decide ID is the real science, more power to you. I know practically nothing about string theory, so I'll reserve judgement on that. Nonetheless, flaws in other scientific theories do not make ID more valid. If you're against those theories being taught in public schools, read up, speak up, and debate those theories on their own merit, rather than trying to find some parallel with the completely unsupportable ID "theory".

You are the one who said they should not be taught if they don't meet certain standards. I am the one arguing that students should be taught to think outside the box. You have got to be trolling at this point. Either that or you've gone beyond desperation are experiencing amnesia as a self-defense mechanism.

Again, I'm finished with this.

Thank God.
last edited: 4/15/05 12:02:10 PM”

“any of you going to Trail days next month ought to be a blast”

“I'll be sure to bring some charts to discuss Intelligent design and when thats exhausted we can burn the fire down debating Terry Schiavao”

“heck if we wereto pring out the pages from those 2 threads we would have a heck of a bonfire”

“i wish you guys would also figure out this iraq war thing, too.

if you have some time at the end of the night could you discuss it, then get back to me whether it's a good or bad thing?

oh yeah, and while you're at it, solve this abortion debate i've heard about.

thanks.”