Scientists as Kings?

I think the idea of "ID theory" should be taught provided it's in its correct context - i.e. that it seems, really quite clearly, not to be true. ID theory is one of those things that you'd have to be really very determined to believe in order to believe it. Like most of the imaginary man in the sky stories.

Scientists are good at running science; they wouldn't, on the whole, be much good at funning a market stall.

EW

If it’s being pushed as a scientific hypothesis then the scientists damn well should be owning it. Fundamentalist revisionist claptrap can and has powered the engines of many doctrines of faith – but it shouldn’t be pushed or taught as something it isn’t. If religion wants to become science they’re going have to play according to the rules, not according to what they believe the rules should be. There are enough nutters in positions of power already without handing more of them a mandate.

Cheers

Harry

The basis of much pain in this world:

"My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend"

Best Regards,
Mark Dunn

How true Mark.

Scientists have proved themselves unworthy and incapable of governing their own actions let alone ours. Nuclear weapons production? Germ warfare research? For whose greater good?

In what way are Konservative Kristians any different from dictators, communists, fundamentalist muslims or the mafia? They all abuse power with equal vigour. All show the same levels of corruption and manipulation of the law and the truth. They all place (or buy) positions of power put their to protect us all, not just themselves.

In my own wierd dimension the ownership of any religion or political dogma is more worthy of a visit to the shrink than any position of power. Mind you, who watches the shrinks?

It seems to me that scientists imagine that the practice of science ought to be value free - but of course it cannot be so; scientists are just as prone to ambition and the need to control as any human being. For scientists to insist that the current consensus is the only appropriate thing to teach to children - is scientists assuming a position of insisting on some sort of automatic intrinsic value to current consensus. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing; it is a matter for concern because more than a PhD ought to be necessary for somebody to assume a position of importance in society.

On the other hand, the christians see themselves as strongly valued and that this automatically places them on a moral highground in society because their system of values is the right system; and quite beyond doubt too, it would seem.

So: Scientific Imperialism; or Theological Imperialism.

Who chooses?

It would be useful if kids were taught logic, rational thinking and scientific method (which presumably they are not) alongside the isolated science subjects they are already taught. It might stop them growing up to be ministers who are happy to allow schools to pass off theology as science.

quote:

Originally posted by JeremyD:
It would be useful if kids were taught logic, rational thinking and scientific method (which presumably they are not) alongside the isolated science subjects they are already taught. It might stop them growing up to be ministers who are happy to allow schools to pass off theology as science.

There have been a few "Philosophy in Schools" programmes as far as I'm aware. Not widespread though - more's the pity.

quote:

Originally posted by JeremyD:
It would be useful if kids were taught logic, rational thinking and scientific method (which presumably they are not) alongside the isolated science subjects they are already taught. It might stop them growing up to be ministers who are happy to allow schools to pass off theology as science.

Quite.

Ooops:

It's creationism by another name. Definitely not science, and schools have no business teaching it as science. It's place is alongside the world's other myths and legends.

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
It's creationism by another name. Definitely not science, and schools have no business teaching it as science. It's place is alongside the world's other myths and legends.

Perfectly true, and all well and good, but I don't remember being taught that science was purely consensus based; rather, I was imbued with the attitude that it was the right and only way to see the world purely because it was science. I don't think it would be dangerous or difficult to educate children to make an enquiry of the world rather than accepting the received wisdom; and to value their own arguments and their own doubts.

Wouldn't make good factory workers though...

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I don't think it would be dangerous or difficult to educate children to make an enquiry of the world rather than accepting the received wisdom; and to value their own arguments and their own doubts.

There's no problem teaching about IC or ID in schools. Just not in science classes. If it has to be disussed, it must be done alongside other creation myths. IC can never be a science and cannot be compared to one. It can't be tested and can't be refuted as it's based on belief.

The proponents of IC say 'The theory of evolution has some problems so IC must be the real answer' . It's not a matter of scientists trying to stop IC being taught is schools - it's just how fundemental christians want it to be taught that is the problem. A good science teacher would point out problems with any scientific theory and get the pupils to think and debate, using logic, what may be the alternatives. Just saying 'god did it' isn't science.....

It's a very important debate. If the US administration gets it's way and IC is taught in science classes, that's the end of science in the US. Why not throw in the easter bunny too?



Stephen

There's a really interesting article 'Is economics run by intellegent design?' comparing free trade economics and evolution. It's an argument even Bush could understand.

Stephen

How old would the pupils be when (it is proposed that they be) taught the intelligent design theory? Old enough, perhaps, to include in those lessons a history of the lobby system and the lobbying that went into the curriculum they're being taught...

What about the 'intellegent president' theory which states that every new Republican in the Whitehouse must be at least 50% more stupid than the last'?

I think Bush probably thinks IC is OK because he believes 'We have all those astrologers in NASA' already.



Stephen

And it could happen here (UK)......

Scientists are alarmed by Ruth Kelly's strict beliefs



Stephen

Somebody correct me but is there anything in Darwin's work that tackles the "origin" of life, or is it just the "progression"?

From what I remember Abiogenesis and Evolution are different theories. One is how life came to be, and the other how life came to the current form. Everything I read on the ID debate seems to state that they are providing an alternate to Darwin's theory of the origin of life.

Other places seem to accept Darwin, but in the context of ID "the invisible man in the sky" set up the game, and evolution just fleshes it out.

I'm confused.....am I basically correct in my thinking? Does the the ID movement seem factured like most religions ( at least to me ) or is it basically homegeneous?

regards,

michael

Blind faith in 'god'

or

Blind faith in science

take your pick, science asks as many questions as it answers.

Matthew

quote:

Originally posted by Matthew T:
Blind faith in 'god'

or

Blind faith in science

take your pick, science asks as many questions as it answers.

Matthew

You cannot compare religion and science in this way. A scientist will accept a theory until a better one comes along. This doesn't happen in religion. A person who doesn't do this, who has 'blind faith' is not a scientist. Scientists sometimes argue their case vigerously, but (should) eventually accept better evidence.

I hear this kind of comparison a lot. Do you have a scientific background Matthew?

Regards

Stephen

Scientist or Believer ?

Lets get ONE thing straight.

Being a scientist and being a believer are NOT mutually exclusive.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by mykel:
Somebody correct me but is there anything in Darwin's work that tackles the "origin" of life, or is it just the "progression"?

You're quite correct.

quote:

From what I remember Abiogenesis and Evolution are different theories. One is how life came to be, and the other how life came to the current form. Everything I read on the ID debate seems to state that they are providing an alternate to Darwin's theory of the origin of life.

The idea with ID is (usually)to accept that evolution occurs but some 'intelligence' drives it. So it's part & part evolution and genesis (in the non-biblical sense!)

quote:

I'm confused.....

You aren't alone. It's fractured. Most people (except Bush & his cronies?) accept that life has changed and that the world isn't 4000 years old. So they shift and weave to fit their beliefs into current scientific thought. The problem is that it isn't testable and if it was, they wouldn't 'believe' the evidence. it may well be that some 'intelligence' is behind creation of life on earth. If there's evidence, a good scintist would accept it. It's just that there's no need to go looking for spooks to suggest ways that life could have evolved on earth. It's always better to go for the most likely first before deciding the world was spat out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Scientist or Believer ?

Lets get ONE thing straight.

Being a scientist and being a believer are NOT mutually exclusive.

Cheers

Don

If by 'belief' you mean a belief in some being or force that created the universe or life on earth and let it trundle on, I would, with reservations, agree with you as long as you aren't reseaching into these areas. If by 'belief' you mean belonging to and accepting the dogma of an organised religion, I would strongly disagree. Perhaps it's not a problem in 'everyday' science - but when researching the 'big questions' of life, the universe and everything....? Then I'd strongly disagree with you.

But that wasn't my point; I assume you don't agree that a belief should be taught in a science class?

Regards

Stephen

I am a Christian (not fundamentalist) and have a sound background in science. I find both sit very happily together.

I think that whatever you choose to believe, either a faith based teaching or a science based one, there is a very big danger of generalizing about the other and in turn both fundamentalist Christians and atheists can be just as bad as one another.

I would never thrust my beliefs down anyone’s throat, however all around I have atheists willing to thrust their beliefs down mine!

Now back to the subject, I would agree that ID should not be taught in one of the ‘science’ subjects but in a religious and moral education subject as we have in Scotland (sorry I don’t know about the rest of the UK or anywhere else for that matter). Where all the world’s religions are looked at and also other moral issues such as abortion etc etc are debated. This would be a far better place to put it.

Regards,

A

quote:

Originally posted by TheRedHerring:

I think that whatever you choose to believe, either a faith based teaching or a science based one.

A

I'll say again; you can't call science, or (good) science teaching a 'belief'. A belief is something that requires no evidence. Science isn't (shouldn't be) like that. You may have ideas, speculations, strong theory in science but that is very different to a belief - in that it's possible to test, reproduce and, if necessary, refute a point of view. You can't do that with religion or belief.

Proponents of religion from your good self through to fundamentalists often state that science is in some way belief based and that you can choose, or not, to 'believe' in science. This is just not so. Try believing that gravity doesn't exist and see how far that gets you!

It gets complicated when non-science is lumped in with 'true' science. I've never understood how psychoanalysis, for example, can be considered a science as it falls at the first hurdle of scientific evidence in most cases - that you cannot have controls or reproducible experiments.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by TheRedHerring:
I would never thrust my beliefs down anyone’s throat, however all around I have atheists willing to thrust their beliefs down mine!


A

Maybe they are making up for a few thousand years of persecution by religious people?

Stephen