The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Evolutionary science isn't a closed book > Comments

Evolutionary science isn't a closed book : Comments

By Hiram Caton, published 2/9/2005

Hiram Caton argues as part of the debate on natural selection, maybe introduce intelligent design at tertiary level.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 30
  8. 31
  9. 32
  10. All
I've got no problem with ID being taught in history classes and religous studies but not science class. The basic trust of science is to find natural causes for the world we see not the supernatural.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 2 September 2005 9:38:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The theory of evolution began as just that - a theory. Darwin at the end of his life was disturbed that it was presented as proven fact. Darwin never intended that it be presented as fact. No true searcher places a predetermined paradigm on genuine research. Evolution begins equally with a paradigm that life mutates from basic forms to emerge as higher forms. A fact still unproven, it is based upon asumption. Intelligent Design has equal validity as a theory and the intimate details of life have dependent purpose.

The very fact that the human species has such complexity and a brain that is capable of evaluating design is not beyond reason that a non metaphysical design / designer predetermines the formation of living species.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 2 September 2005 10:07:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Philo, but that's plain wrong.

Darwin was not the beginning and end of evolutionary theory. He wasn’t even the beginning (but that’s too complicated to get into here). Yes, much of what he said was flawed and evolution has since…well, evolved, and many more questions have been answered. Therefore criticism on Darwinian theory should never be confused with criticism on evolutionary theory.

That’s another thing. People think the word ‘theory’ implies evolution hasn’t been proved. But in scientific terms, "theory" doesn’t mean "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer any reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. A ‘debate’ in schools about evolution would make as little sense as debating the ‘theory’ of gravity (theonion.com poignantly commented on this with an article on ‘Intelligent Falling’ theory).

There is much controversy on many topics that aren’t discussed in the classroom, simply because they are irrelevant. For example, some religious groups deny that micro-organisms cause disease, but there is no reason to mention this in a biology class, because these claims are groundless and false. While intelligent design theory may be a little more thought out than creationism, it could never be justified as being a legitimate alternative to evolutionary theory, nor should the controversy (that is no doubt intentionally stirred up by the proponents) be given attention.

My reference (a website designed to combat the push for teaching creationism, but relevant nonetheless): http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 2 September 2005 10:12:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on spendocrat, whilst I disagree with ID I am primarily a scientist. Any theory, be it evolutionary, ID, relativity, super string or whatever is merely a theory until proved otherwise (that is, that it does not hold completely). Never FACT. Darwin's theory has vast amounts of supporting evidence, and so is the most effective theory to be plugging in high school biology, but in teaching science a far more important aspect to be teaching is an open mind. This includes the possibility of inherited traits (which I was taught), and ID.

However, equally important is only teaching a theory that has supporting evidence. ID support that "gee we're complex so there must be a God" just doesn't seem to cut it.
Posted by Jude, Friday, 2 September 2005 10:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ID proponents have set up their straw man (Darwin) and are intent on beating his theories into submission. However, I cannot take ID seriously when the best they can come up with is, as Jude says, "gee we're complex so there must be a God".

Or, as the summary of a fairly typical recent "scientific" paper by Dr. Stephen Meyer states:

"An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate - and perhaps the most causally adequate - explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa"

Dr. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, and has a PhD from Cambridge [I suspect Massachusetts rather than PhD Cantab]. He makes his living from writing books, articles and giving lectures on Intelligent design. Yet the best he can come up with is a "suggestion" that ID might be worthy of further investigation.

The article is here:
http://tinyurl.com/5n3kh

This is fairly typical of the articles I have seen and read on the topic - lots of Darwin-bashing, followed by "so, if evolutionary theory is wrong, ID must be the answer". This one cites 145 references to show that it is scholarly, and therefore its conclusion has to be suitably circumspect.

My question is, why are they doing it? When the best they can do is point out flaws in previous theories, but offer only an unprovable metaphysical pandect to take their place, there just has to be a subsidiary purpose.

(One of the references in Dr Meyer's article was Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead", which must be the least credible scientific reference provided in a professedly serious paper, ever.)

But by all means "teach" it in schools, but in General Studies, next to Comparative Religion.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 2 September 2005 11:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My immediate thoughts about this is that teaching it to children would be a waste of their time.

I still think that, but as an argument against teaching it it comes up against the problem that a lot of other stuff taught in schools is arguably just as much a waste of the children's time. Most people seem to remember little of what they were taught at school, beyond the three Rs, and even what they do remember is not applied to their lives in any apparent way.

So why do we teach science? I think it's because in the hands of a minority of the population, science has proved immensely valuable to society. By teaching it at school, we are able to discover the people who will fill the scientific roles in the future.

Science is valuable because it is predictive. It allows scientists and engineers to understand how the world works, and exploit that knowledge for the benefit of society as a whole.

If ID is judged by this criterion, then it obviously fails. It makes no predictions. Teaching it schools would simply use time that could be used for teaching the much more beneficial science subjects.

And, yes, I do realise that the same argument could be applied to some other subjects taught in schools.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 2 September 2005 11:40:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 30
  8. 31
  9. 32
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy