Scientists as Kings?

An interesting aspect of the Darwin/ID conflict is that Darwinism would be 'true' regardless of whether there was an ID because it describes a process, an algorithm.

ID on the other hand is a conspiracy by Christian Fundamentalists to subvert the US Constitution and is interesting for all sorts of sociological reasons, but not scientific ones.

Paul

quote:

Going back to IC, it's proponents suggest that, because evoluntionary scientists can't decide exactly how evolution occurs then it must be wrong and IC, thus, right. quote]

I am no supporter of IC. I would rewrite the above quote as follows :- "evoluntionary scientists can't decide exactly how they believe evolution occurs. The concept of evolution might be wrong. Then again, it might be right. The evidence todate isn't conclusive. The existance, or otherwise, of an Almighty isn't affected by our understanding of evolution, or whether evolution has ocured." I would also add, there is precious little evidence for or against an Almighty - hence the use of the words "faith" and "belief" etc. There's an awful lot of people making a living out of telling people how "god" wants them to behave in this life. And a lot of awful people making an even better living at the expense of "believers" who they keep telling will have "their turn" in the next life, thus giving them "hope", while existing as 'slaves'in poverty in this life.

[quote]...a scientific background gives one an open mind - not, as you seem to suggest, exactly the opposite!

nope, I was suggesting that many scientists don't have an open mind. How that has happened is more difficult to explain. Fred Hoyle seemed to be in that category, as an example.

Cheers

Don

OOpps

The last post seems to have mixed my response in with Stephen's quote. I think you scientists will manage to sort out which bits are mine and which bits aren't.

Apologies

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Fred Hoyle seemed to be in that category, as an example.

Cheers

Don

That's because he was northern. It was nice to hear him say 'ey up 't big bang were reeet bruggly' though.

(nothern) Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
OOpps

The last post seems to have mixed my response in with Stephen's quote. I think you scientists will manage to sort out which bits are mine and which bits aren't.

Apologies

Cheers

Don

Well, I have a theory.....



Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

You've obviously completely misunderstood my postings. I agreed that Deane was talking about scientists and or teachers. I went on to suggest that you can't blame science itself for their failings. Deane was suggesting that something is wrong with science because he was taught badly. I disagree that makes 'science' a bad thing in itself. What on earth is the problem with that statement?

I think that science itself can be blamed, at least in part, for the failings within the education system. After all, investigation into human development and other fields which contribute to theories about education are made according to the scientific method.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
After all, investigation into human development and other fields which contribute to theories about education are made according to the scientific method.

I still don't see how you can blame a concept! It's always the human interpretation of the thing that's at fault.

Are you taking about psychology? That's barely a science IMHO. It often apes scientific research, but the results and conclusions are often circumstantial. Obviously, some psychological research could be said to be science (shine a light and watch the brain spark), but interpreting human motivations? I don't think so.

And don't get me started on psychoanalysis and Freud.....

Regards

Stephen

quote:

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.....

written by Stephen on page 1.


Stephen,

I think that the four-paragraph statement, read out by the Dover School Board Administrators, did just what you are suggesting. The third paragraph suggested the kids might like to read and discuss an alternative book (ok, a biased choice of a book) and the other three paragraphs just pointed out that Darwin's Theory about evolution might not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that the school was obliged to teach the Theory anyway, and the pupils were free to challenge it. I can't remember whether the statement mentioned anything about creation. A pity therefore, in my opinion, that the biology teachers weren't prepared to do what, in effect, you are suggesting. They might have argued strongly against including paragraph three in its final form, but I couldn't see much wrong with the other three paragraphs. BTW, nobody was suggesting that ID should be TOUGHT at the school, whether as a science-based subject or as a stand-alone subject.

Of course, the suggestion has been made that the Board WERE trying to peddal religon through the 'back-door'. If that is true (and ISTM that it might be true) then it's bloody disgraceful.

Cheers

Don

FYI

quote:

Text of the intelligent design statement Dover, Pa., teachers were instructed to read to their students:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

The clue to this being about religious fundamentalism is the mere mention of ID. ID isn't a theory, it's an ideology.

I see an analogy between wanting ID discussed in science lessions and wanting Holocaust denial to be offered as an alternative in history. There are striking similarities in the arguments. On the one hand we have a large number of facts and a story that fits them, on the other we have a belief which can only be supported by misconstruction and selective interpretation.

Paul

Paul

Thanks Paul,

So,

who would object to paragraphs one and four being read out at the begining of each and every science lesson. (substitute Einstein/Bhors/Newton for Darwin etc)

Who would object to paragrapgh two being included in the readout (similar change of reference of course)

and who would object to paragraph three (in principle), assuming the alternate book/theory wasn't biased.

If science and scientists can't accept this sort of 'health-check' they aren't worthy of the title.

I would also advocate classes in "the practical and economic use of science" and at the begining of each and every class I would tell the kids that they'd better believe and learn eveything they are taught, because our future survival in the rat-race depends on it. And they'd better re-double their efforts in the pure science class to learn what we already think we understand about our universe, keep an open mind, and push the bounds of scientific understanding further back, to make sure we win the rat-race.

But I might then be accused of being a fundamental scientist......God forbid...

Cheers

Don

PS BTW I object to para three in its current form, even though its not teaching ID, mearly inviting kids to condider it and discuss it at home.

I have spent my entire life since my teenage years trying to debunk religion. I detest religion and have done for as long as I can remember. Call it a vocation if you like. But I am not evil and go out of my way to help people wherever I can.

I was listening to an interview with a very bright chap (a writer and broadcaster) who had suffered several awful family tragedies. He offered some useful advice:

Life is shit for most people. Most people carry hurt around with them all their lives. It's not your responsibilty to hurt them more just because you hurt too. Give a smile or a word of encouragement to ease their pain, when you can.

The interview was followed by a programme about types of evil involving an interview with a professor of psychology. The discussion centred around a mature student who shot several fellow students because he was isolated and lonely. One wonders whether a simple smile in his direction might have changed history?

There is a philosophy (religion?) which suggests that all coincidences are important. You never meet anyone who hasn't a message for you, or can help you. Once you start looking for odd coincidences they begin to fall around you like an avalanche. Not very scientific of course but very, very odd. I suppose the cynical could call it networking. Pay attention to coincidences for while and see what I mean. It could be The Matrix in action.

quote:

Who would object to paragrapgh two being included in the readout (similar change of reference of course)

I think I would. It's a statement of the obvious, if it needs saying then it's an indictment of the teachers, and by implication the School Board.

There are many more controversial theories than evolution taught as fact in schools, in Geography, History, Economics etc. It would seem to me more important that American school children get a balanced view of world history than be subjected to health warnings on one of science's better theories.

IMO of course...

Paul

I cannot believe some of the stuff that's appeared in this thread since I last visited. Science is not just another belief system, i.e. another religion. Science is question, answer, question, answer, etc. It's based on observing reality, putting forward explanations for the observations, and adjusting the explanations if they don't match the observations. It's about being totally open minded which is not the same as being gullible.

Another good read by Ben Goldacre about science journalism and the MMR vaccine in today's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1606598,00.html

Regards

Stephen

It strikes me that most of the discussion being put forward here is not based on well considered and well researched opinion. Scienctists often put forward a view that they are objective in their beliefs and views, and as a result will give unbiased and well reasoned ideas and views on the universe and it's histroy. However, there are clearly distinct camps in the scientific world which are not so much trying to get to the basis of this universe but are trying to support, justify there chosen belief system. They are generally unwilling to give any credence to people who oppose there own views, especially true in the creationist versus naturalist issue. The fact that well respected scientists full into both camps suggests that the jury remains out on this issue. It is also clear that what is taught in schools and even universities is far from the most upto date views and expectations. With respect to evolution there is limtied supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution and many of the text book evidence has been debunked decades and even over a century ago though it is still in circulation. With respect to the origins of the Universe the naturislist movement initially pushed a eternal, infinite universe and therefore despite the overwhelming odds against it life had a chance to form somewhere at some point. However, the Big Bang theory points to a start of the universe, currently a causless start though this doesn't hold well with the naturalist view. This results in a finite universe which is not eternal and makes the chance of life starting randomly more difficult to justify (the reasoning is it must have happened as there is no creative force, sounds familiar?). However, naturalists now hold up the Big Bang as proof of there being no creative force (sounds familiar again?).

The diffiuclty as I see it and where the scientific community fails is that people (scientists too) who belief one thing or another try and push on others often seeking for evidence to justify there beliefs. The evidence of Darwianian evolution is not that strong, but if you take the position that there was no creative force then you currently have no alternative. The suport for the Big Bang theory (a non eternal universe) is growing but with repsect to the origin of the singularity all science can say is that some cause brought it into existence, but determining what that cause was, or more significantly what the origin of the cause was, brings us back to similiar issues as we started with, we drift into purely speculative pan-dimensional discussions which line up more closely with philsophy then science.

If you setup your life around a set of beliefs you are going to be very hestitant to shift those beliefs and will intepret what you observe in a way that validates your belief system, whether a theist, pantheist, agonosic, aethist etc. I know I do it and it appears from this thread that so do most others.

If the world of science had been more proactive in debunking dubious theories with regards to the origin of human life and the universe maybe we would have never reached a point where ID was being promoted as science. I suspect that moving Darwinian evolution discussions into religious education might be more appropriate then the other way around.

Just my view

Matthew

Cambridge Science Graduate

quote:

With respect to evolution there is limtied supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution and many of the text book evidence has been debunked decades and even over a century ago though it is still in circulation.

and

quote:

The evidence of Darwianian evolution is not that strong

and

quote:

I suspect that moving Darwinian evolution discussions into religious education might be more appropriate then the other way around.

Can you back these statements up at all? Without simply referring us to an ID proponents web site? The last one you pointed us at was inept. I don't see how you can claim to be a science graduate and then expect to make an argument with platitudes...

It would probably help if you would outline your view of the scope of the 'creative force'.

Paul

quote:

However, there are clearly distinct camps in the scientific world which are not so much trying to get to the basis of this universe but are trying to support, justify there chosen belief system.

Of course there are, this is how natural selection operates, and it operates everywhere. It's pervasive. And here's an example that doesn't even challenge your Creationist beliefs.

Paul

Paul,

I was in no sense trying to present this is in scientific way. I do not have the time, inclination or knowledge to do that. There are a lot of very intelligent scientists who have already raised numerous questions for which I can not seem to find good answers, they are valid scientific questions which do undermine the validity of Darwinian evolution as scientific fact and suggest that it would be better considered as a theory.

I also find it hard to understand why scientists have grabbed hold of a theory, treated it as fact, and are not prepared to see open minded debate with respect to the subject.

Matthew

Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Who knows where next!

quote:

Originally posted by Matthew T:
.

I also find it hard to understand why scientists have grabbed hold of a theory, treated it as fact, and are not prepared to see open minded debate with respect to the subject.

Matthew

!

I assume you mean natural selection? Which scientists? Can you point to a better theory that can be supported by evidence? No scientist I know is so blind; it's simply the best explanation we have until something better turns up via research and enquiry. Do you believe IC fits that criteria? Or any belief-based idea?

The underlying principle of natural selection can be seen in a petri dish or a viral spread. Organisms change their genetic structure in response to environmental pressures over time periods of hours as well as millions of years. This is why most scientists accept natural selection as the best explanation we have at the moment. Sure, there's debate on how life originally came to be, the precice steps of how how species adapted and changed. But there's not much scientific debate on whether living things have changed over the millennia.

Non-scientists and religious people often point to argument among the scientific community as ‘evidence’ that certain theories must be wrong. But that’s because they don’t understand the mechanism of scientific debate.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

There are a lot of very intelligent scientists who have already raised numerous questions for which I can not seem to find good answers, they are valid scientific questions which do undermine the validity of Darwinian evolution as scientific fact and suggest that it would be better considered as a theory.

You should be able to at least name some.

Paul

quote:

There are a lot of very intelligent scientists who have already raised numerous questions for which I can not seem to find good answers, they are valid scientific questions which do undermine the validity of Darwinian evolution as scientific fact and suggest that it would be better considered as a theory.

A theory is not the same as a belief. Again, the mistake is made that theory and belief are one and the same thing. However, a theory, by definition, must contain evidence-based information, otherwise it's just an idea. A theory looks at empirical evidence (not supposition) and tries to place it into some kind of context in an attempt to explain natural phenomena.

I assume they taught you that at Cambridge, Matthew! What degree did you do?

This may seem to be picking at semantic straws, but it is in fact essential to understand this difference. I'll say it again. A theory is not the same as belief.

Regards

Stephen

FWIW much of the testimony in the ongoing Dover School Board case is available via http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/

Paul

quote:

......Can you point to a better theory that can be supported by evidence? .....it's simply the best explanation we have until something better turns up via research and enquiry

Stephen,

Lets assume (for the moment) that scientists don't have a better explanation at present. Does this make Darwin's theory true. Of course it doesn't. And the same applies to many other scientific theories. So why do they all get taught at school and in first degree classes, as if they were fact.

I am unhappy for the "Big Questions" to be presented in school, without the 'health warning'.

These include (for me - I think I once saw a book titled 'the 20 Big Questions')

Is there a god?
How did the universe begin? (by universe i include everything before, beyond and after the present universe - but unfortunately don't know the scientific name for it).
How did life begin?
What are the REAL Big Questions? (ie I don't think we even know what the right questions are!)

I think Darwin's theory about evolution is (unfortunately) too closely linked, by too many people, to the unconnected question of How did life begin? such that it needs a "health warning". I also consider that anything in school to do with religion, also needs a health warning.

Naturally, everything I write, is IMHO.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
So why do they all get taught at school and in first degree classes, as if they were fact.

They don't at university. Well not any university I've been to.

quote:

I am unhappy for the "Big Questions" to be presented in school, without the 'health warning'.

I agree.

quote:

I think Darwin's theory about evolution is (unfortunately) too closely linked, by too many people, to the unconnected question of How did life begin?

Again, not by evolutionary biologists or scientists in general. This is another public misconception bred by media confusion. People working on the chemisty of the origin of life are, mostly, not the same people working on evolutionary biology. The subjects are linked of course - all science is.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
I cannot believe some of the stuff that's appeared in this thread since I last visited. Science is not just another belief system, i.e. another religion. Science is question, answer, question, answer, etc. It's based on observing reality, putting forward explanations for the observations, and adjusting the explanations if they don't match the observations. It's about being totally open minded which is not the same as being gullible.

And those who take that position either don’t know the first thing about science or have an agenda – what a surprise.. Engaging scientists in argument is an attempt to give ID some pseudo credibility. There is no scientific debate over ID.

Cheers

Hurry