Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:14:46
In reply to Intelligent Design, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 0:14:46
>I think the concept of intelligent design should be taught along with Darwinism.
Okay...
> SCIENCE is something that can be observed.
PHENOMENA are what is observed.
One offers a hypothesis and the phenomena are supposed to support the hypothesis or show it to be false.
Hypotheses fall out of theorietical frameworks.
Evolution by natural selection and creationism are such theorietical frameworks.
They explain observed phenomena with recourse to differential fitness, inheritance, mutation, and gods (or an intelligent designers) will respectively.> Since neither creationism nor evolution can be observed, neither is science.
Okay...
You sound like a verificationist.
They say that there are two kinds of terms - observational terms and theorietical terms. Observational terms refer to observable entities. Theorietical terms are not directly observable and thus they should be banished from science. They do not refer to anything (observable) and thus they do not refer to anything at all and they are meaningless.But they were wrong as the following example from the history of science shows:
Mendel wanted to explain the phenomena of pea flowers colour. I can't remember it exactly... He observed the flowers colour and then observed that the colour tended to be passed onto the next generation according to certain ratios. He came up with the theorietical construct 'gene' to dub whatever the inheritable componant was.
It took a fair few years before anybody ever observed such a 'thing' as a gene. This entity started out as theorietical and then became concrete as we discovered the 'thing' that played the functional role that 'gene' played in Mendels explanation for the observed ratios.
> Many would argue that Evolution can be observed, but you must admit that while we have watched speices change within themselves, we've never seen a species morph into a completely different species.
Thats because there is a very large time scale involved...
>Natural selection is one thing, Evolution is different.
???
How so?
Do you mean the notion that all life goes back to a common anscestor versus god made all the individual species fairly much exactly as they appear today and plopped them on the earth just so?> But if it cannot be observed, it should not be taught as science and/or truth. That goes for both theories.
You are a verificationist!!!!!
Past events can (no longer) be observed...
Future events can (not yet) be observed either...
But science gives us predictive leverage. One of the marks of a good scientific theory is predictive power.For example... Mendle could predict the ratios of observed colour via his theorietical construct 'gene'. Because this theory gives us predictive leverage it counts as a good explanation: why is this ratio observed? Because there is this thing called a gene which contains the heritable componant...
Compare to this: why are the ratios observed? Because god willed it so. Hmm. I see. And what ratios will we observe next time? Whatever god wills. Hmm. Is it impertinent to inquire into the will of god. yup. explanation has to stop somewhere etc etc.
> It seems to me, however, that many Evolutionists are very scared of the concept of a Designer/Creator. All of the evolutionists I've heard speak have been VERY defensive and turned downright ugly when questioned about the Intelligent Design theory. If it really was THAT ridiculous, I don't think it would be such a hot button subject. Hmm.
Ah. I think it is because some creationists make very persuasive use of rhetoric. And so in public debates... They slaughter the scientists, basically. Because scientists are used to working with particular hypotheses. They are used to testing particular hypotheses from within the framework of scientific theory. They aren't used to thinking outside that. Once you go into the realm of theories theory critique theory development theory evaluation then you are in the realm of philosophy.
It was the philosophers who worked out the scientific method. Then people went off to practice routine science from within that method.
Darwin himself wondered about intelligent design versus evolutionary theory.He contemplated the eye. The eye is an extremely complex organ. It has a lens for focusing the light and so on and so forth and all the parts work together.
He wonders 'what on earth could be an explanation for the eye?' He considers the intelligent design hypothesis...
And then he asks whether there could be another way. He considers there is another way... Just so... And he proceeds with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
If you teach creationism beside evolutionary theory
You might as well teach soul-stuff alongside modern atomic theory
There isn't any soul-stuff in the periodic table of elements
Should the scientists be allowed to get away with that one :-O
poster:alexandra_k
thread:551237
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050903/msgs/551281.html