Aug 012005
 

President Bush favors exposing people to different schools of thought. see story here

0 0 vote
Article Rating
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
inunison
inunison
15 years ago

I think it a mistake. ID should be focused on science research and stay away from politics. Once scientific dimension is well defined, of course cultural and political issues need to be explored and addressed.

teleologist
15 years ago

If all things being equal, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, Darwinian evolution is not science at all and it is being indoctrinated to our children. There are 2 components to ID. One of which is to dispel the myth of Darwinism. That part of ID should at least be taught in schools.

Pimothy
Pimothy
15 years ago

SInce ID fails to have any scientifically relevant theory, and since darwinian evolution so far has withstood many attempts to disprove it, shows why Bush’s comments should not be seen as endorsing teaching ID as a scientific view but more as a ‘school of thought’.
That some do not understand Darwinian theory and call it a myth is one reason why we should increase the teaching of Darwinian science.

teleologist
15 years ago

Pimothy I can only assume you don’t understand Darwinian evolution at all. Darwinian evolution cannot be disprove as a theory because it is not a theory. If you have any falsifiable evidence for your Darwinian evolution please present it. You would be the first.

Contrary to Darwinian propaganda and Atheism’s Trojan Horse, Intelligent Design is a more viable theory than Darwinian evolution. ID says that the diversity of life on Earth is designed and bears the signature of intelligence. ID also asserts that the gradualism of RM&NS cannot produce all the diversity that exists in living organisms. The premise of the design theory is to distinguish and separate what organisms are the results of random processes and what are the results of intelligence.
These definitions are not to be confused with the actual empirical science to support these two theories. Both ID and TOE can be thought of as inferences. The difference is that TOE does not rely on empirical evidences to support its inferences. ID seeks to quantify the boundaries of these inferences through the study of existing empirical evidences. Macroevolution is in direct conflict with the premise of the theory of ID, which naturally should receive criticism from ID. ID critics have often mischaracterized ID as nothing more than anti-evolution. That is the logical outcome, but it is not all that ID entails. This is what Darwinism fails to recognize. ID is just trying to quantify evolution and bring it inline with empirical science. ID claims that intelligence can be detected. The epistemology that ID uses to detect intelligence in our observable universe (including Earth) is also applicable in living organisms. The common analogy of this method is SETI. The ID critics are ruling this out a priori, because their alternative is to admit that TOE is built on a fairy tale with no supporting empirical evidence.

edarrell
edarrell
15 years ago

Teleologist appears never to have studied evolution.

Here are the five facts (here called “observations”) that undergird evolution theory, with the inferences of evolution theory which explain how the entire framework sticks together:

Observation 1: Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

Observation 2: Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

Observation 3. Food resources are limited, and are constant most of the time.

Inference A: In such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.

Observation 4: No two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.

Observation 5: Much of this variation is heritable.

Inference B: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the “best” characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring. This is natural selection.

Inference C: Natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species.

None of these is a fairy tale. Each is an observable fact which could be falsified, were it false.

(This understanding of evolution is well known among scientists, and is included in several high school texts. It was most clearly listed this way first n Ernst Mayr’s 1982 book The Growth of Biological Thought — the heart of evolution, according to Donald Johanson and Maitland A. Edey in Blueprints.)

Moreover, each mechanism necessary to create a new species from an old one has been observed in the field, and in real time, and is known to work. In fact, dozens of new species have been observed to arise, and the science is well enough understood that new species may be created either by substituting human selection for natural selection, or by more direct intervention in genetic engineering.

Since 1859, none of the major tenets of Darwinian evolution has been seriously challenged on the basis of existing data; to this point the theory stands despite tens of thousands of challenges.

Darwin presented several issues upon which evolution could be falsified in his most complete explication of evolution theory, Origin of Species. It is widely available in paperback, and it is available on-line in at least three different editions.

If ID uses “epistemology” it keeps such use secret; there is no methodology proposed by advocates in any science forum; there are no ID hypotheses proposed for research in any science forum; there is not a single laboratory on Earth doing research into intelligent design, or using an intelligent design paradigm.

teleologist
15 years ago

edarrell, I will give you credit for at least admitting that Darwinian evolution is inferential, which is better than many Darwinists like Eugenie Scott who declares Darwinian evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact. Unfortunately, you have gotten everything else wrong. There are 2 main flaws to your assertions. First, Your observations do not support your inference. Your inference A & B of differential survival is meaningless. Where and how do you empirically quantify the affects of population genetics and selective pressure to differential survival? For instance, this paper illustrates the contradiction between population and the expected and obvious result for humans.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction “.. For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

It is easy for you to make generalities and speak in fairytales. Science is a much more rigorous pursuit to understand the world. We know that the majority of nonsynomous mutations are deleterious. The problem for Darwinian evolution is not to make sweeping generalities and empirical test and demonstrate the cost of evolution. What is the cost of substitution in terms of mutation, segregation, balance and randomness.

Second, your observations are not direct evidential results of your theory. Darwinian evolution posits an unbounded mutation to create novel forms. This has never been observed in the wild or in the lab. Darwinian evolution fails as a rigorous empirical science. You appeal to authority is vacuous. Scientific knowledge should not be based on the faith of proclamation of Darwinian scientists. You claim that dozens of new species have been observed to arise. Please provide specifics. As far as I know that has never been an observed instance of macroevolution.