The main reason I bring up to people about why Intelligent Design (creationism for short) isn't science is a very simple one; science doesn't campaign. It never has, and although a great effort is put forth to bring science into the public eye, it doesn't enter legislation.
1. The main reason that ID has resorted to using government power to get its ideas into textbooks is because they have made the shift from a scientific idea to a philosophy. They lost horribly in the scientific arena, and now they move on to the political arena, knowing that the quality control and testing standards there are much less rigorous.
2. Evolution, as an idea and a scientific principle, entered the textbooks because it is an accepted scientific theory, much the laws of Pythagoras in geometry or Newton in physics. It never tried to sneak untested material into the academic standards, and although there was much controversy involving the early teaching, i.e. the scopes trial, scientists never put stickers in books and they never tried to circumvent the scientific process in order for their opinions to be heard.
3. The scientific method is the best and most rigorous testing process known to man, it destroys hypotheses and ruins years, decades of research and commitment, all in the name of pursuing the truth. Evolution as a concept to explain biodiversity passed this test, and creationism didn't. If life were simple, we wouldn't even be talking about it, but because of the way ID is intertwined with people's deepest beliefs, we have to keep kicking it down again and again. The proponents of ID want their hypothesis to be directly inserted into schools without any scientific grounds, the main motive being to influence young people with religious ideals.
Please comment and tell me what you think! I might follow up on this one soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Once again, the core of your arguments is there but you are missing some points. Just playing devil's advocate here.
ReplyDelete1) Pretty much correct here, except that the way that they get into the political system is 2 tier. They can either go to the textbook companies or get the state legislature to require it to be taught through the curriculum reviews that take place every few years. The latter is much less rigorous, as the former is often edited by authorities that are legally experts in their respective fields.
2) This is not entirely correct. The Big Bang Theory, for example, had entered textbooks decades before the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was actually identified, which was the original hard evidence for BBT. As well, climate change's (global warming is an incorrect term) source is hotly debated, as well as whether or not it will continue with very, VERY legitimate sources on both sides. The supporters of science are also not entirely unbiased too; Al Gore could have put a seal of approval on a way to stop global warming using Nitrogen gas, but disapproved of it because it would not bankrupt oil companies. Scientists and their supporters are people, too, and do sometimes push hypotheses before they qualify as theories.
3) Indeed, it has destroyed even millennia of research! Many Arab scholars would be disappointed to find that their "cutting-edge" knowledge was not entirely correct. Creationism does not necessarily have to be incorrect, they are not mutually exclusive. Creationism (not Judeo-Christian-Muslim-biblical story creationism) simply suggests that a God was responsible for life's biodiversity. That is the essence of creationism. There is no reason that a supreme being could not have used evolution as a mechanism for creating biodiversity. In fact, there is not even a problem teaching creationism in a classroom if it is in the proper context. The issue is that ID want their hypotheses to be put into a SCIENCE CLASSROOM instead of, say, a comparative religions class or a history class, in which learning about historical bases for religions is really important for learning why civilizations behaved the way that they did. There has never been any real research for or against creationism because it is what is known as an untestable hypothesis. A science classroom is a place to teach well documented and more or less "proven" information. If there is a scientific basis for it, teachers have every right to bring up related out of textbook material to supplement the course. If there was ever a real study as to the validity of creationism, I would love to see it. The big issue is that not only do many ideologues want to enforce their own beliefs, they also feel threatened by evolution. They think (incorrectly) that evolution negates the legitimacy of their religion by questioning the most important story of the religion, the creation story. After all, to be a Jew, according to the Rishonim Rabbis, one must believe in God and the parasha, or story, Genesis, which is better known as the story of creation. Make of this what you will.
1. The textbook companies actually hinge largely on legislation, particularly in states such as Texas and California, the places with the most people and therefore the most textbooks. I agree that the companies hire experts, but in the end the biggest factor lies in economic convenience (using one textbook for everyone).
ReplyDelete2. Your big bang example is a solid point, but your comment on alterior motives is a bit far fetched, in that you're suggesting that an entire community of scientists is only approving a theory for publication (including those textbook experts) after decades of research on the idea because they want to advance their ideals. Also, evolution is better substantiated by evidence than the Big Bang Theory, not that I deny it, but evolution has been solidified to the point of being a near irrefutable truth.
3.You are technically right about creationism, in this case it has been consistently defined as excluding the idea of evolution, at least on a large scale. Other than that, thanks for the feedback on the article and the constructive criticism.
Also, the climate change comparison kinda sorta struck me as an appeal to conspiracy, and not one especially fit for a conflict of interest example. A better example is Andrew Wakefield, an anti-vaccine researcher that adjusted data, produced fraudulent results from bad procedures, and abused subjects in the process because he was doing research with a predetermined conclusion. The other conflict of interest was his application for a patent for a competitive 'safe' vaccine to replace the one he was researching.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, your comment was informative and well-written, but a bit inconsistent at times.
1. I would LOVE to hear some evidence and hard facts that back up you theory that ID has lost miserably in the scientific arena. Do a little homework and you'll realize that ID is far more scientific and logical than any other theory. I mean, really...Big Bang Theory says that we all just happened to come about due to a huge explosion. Exactly the right ingredients happened to explode in exactly the right order to at exactly the right time to create what we see today. Say evolution is your theory of choice. Ok, so, we evolved from nothingness and are merely the result of mutated monkeys? yeah...that's not weird.
ReplyDelete2)so, evolution is an accepted scientific theory? Accepted by who? You? Yes, there are smart scientists who support it and yes it does make SOME sense. But keep in mind: Evolution was a THEORY created by a mortal, fallable, imperfect MAN. It's not a law. It's stupid to compare evolution to physics and other laws of nature. That just shows how little a person knows about the subject. What's the difference between a law and a theory? Do you know? Cause you certainly don't seem to.
3)The scientific method does, in fact, prove creationism time and time again. The problem is apparently with you. Everyone has their own personal bias which affects the way they interpret evidence. You have proceeded to twist evidence to create your own argument that is vague and lacks facts. You say the scientific community and the scientific method continue to shoot down creationism? Give me some examples. Otherwise, how am I to believe that we came from nothing rather than from an intelligent, powerful God? You people say that creationism takes too much faith, but which one is harder to believe? Think about your argument, put some bits of logic in there, give some evidence and then get back to me when you have created a solid argument.
Creationist,
ReplyDelete1. How about the Dover trial? Where the creationist leaders wouldn't show to defend their beliefs, where the one remaining prominent IDer was absolutely shown up by Kenneth Miller and Scott Pennock? Next, THE BIG BANG WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION!!!!! Really, "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago[3][4]), and continues to expand to this day"
(Wikipedia). Thirdly, this isn't my choice theory, it is the choice of the scientific community (I'll address that below)and you completely misrepresent it with your straw man about mutated monkeys.
2. I've grown tried of this argument, so here's a list of credited organizations that accept evolution; http://ncse.com/media/voices/science
You claim to dismiss evolution as a human theory, yet you accept other man-created ideas such as relativity or gravity. You CANNOT pick and choose which theories to believe in just because one contradicts your beliefs, and you also CANNOT deliberately deceive others by blurring the line between scientific theories and laws by contrasting the two and using just disgracefully incorrect language to explain what a theory is. A theory is not a guess, its "reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains" (Wikipedia).
3. It's curious that you claim that the scientific method proves creationism, and although this is remarkably false because supernatural ideas cannot be evaluated by naturalistic processes, you don't support your claim with any evidence or logic at all. Your comment about bias would be ironic because the same can be said of creationists, but sadly you don't have any evidence to misinterpret. You ask for a list of arguments that have been rebutted, here's a seemingly endless list; (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html).
Otherwise, you can chose your beliefs, but evolution isn't a matter of faith, its an explanation for biodiversity, an elegant framework under which the beauty and wonder of nature can flawlessly operate over billions of years.
I hope I've made a solid, logical argument, I'm looking forward to hearing what you have left.
~T
hey just a couple quick thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) wikipedia isn't exactly a credible source. if i used it as a reference in a paper it would make my entire argument invalid. that being said, the other sources you cited could be very credible, reliable sources. i don't know cause i haven't checked them or heard anything about them.
2) the scientific theory can only test things that can be observed or documented. creationists have the bible as their document. evolutionists have history and what has survived the times. that being said, there has never been a documented case- that i know of anyways- of any creature becoming another (aka macroevolution i.e. a bird turning into a hippo)
3) just because a participant in an argument gets destroyed doesn't necessarily prove anything. it just means that one guy knew more or is better under pressure. there are examples for both sides of the others' impotency.
my point is this: there is, in my opinion, not enough legitimate, irrefutable evidence to decisively say one way or the other which is true. i think they should both be presented as theories. just my opinion. have fun boys and girls.
Creationist23
ReplyDeleteYou are committing a MAJOR straw-man fallacy, about both big bang theory and evolution. Look up the definition of the straw-man fallacy, as well as the scientific meaning of theory, and I might debate you! And you might want to learn about the rigors of the scientific method! If evidence contradicts science, then the theory surrounding it is changed or scrapped. Dogma is the same, no matter what. If evidence was twisted in the favor of scientists, his peers would recognize that and he would be shunned, and his work dismissed. That is how science works.