In a couple of sentences, Unproven parts of evolut...

2005-11-14T07:31:00.000-06:00

In a couple of sentences, Unproven parts of evolutionary theory should be taken out of science classes and new textbooks. It would be a mistake to add something admittedly supernatural like ID to the science curriculum, by changing the definition of science. This should fairly answer the main question from the ID movement. No more false naturalist dogma.

I fail to see this is as a battle between supernaturalism/naturalism or philosophy/science worth changing the definition of science over. It's a little too late to start questioning the naturalistic endeavors of science, and for good reason. Science can only remain objective because it deals with natural explanations and phenomenon. Is there anything objective about the supernatural? Future explanations of natural history will have to be naturalistic to be taught in science class. The societal impact of evolution being taken out of new textbooks can only be speculated at best.

There's really no need to read past this.

Here is the dilemma, ID proponents disagree with and at the same time rely on (pointing out the scientific challenges) the unproven parts of evolution being taught in schools, to teach ID.

You said "The challenges raised by proponents of Intelligent Design are often philosophical, but to assert that it "isn't about science" is simply false. Great care has been taken by many ID advocates to present scientific challenges where appropriate."

Until the disagreement with evolution comes second to a theory supported by scientific evidence, especially for atheists, ID can't seriously be introduced into the classroom. A one line statement read about ID does no good to any student. ID must be a viable theory on it's own, which takes time.

The last paragraph is a loaded one, because ID, is admittedly a supernatural explanation and requires faith on some level. It should not be taught in science class.

Therefore, unproven parts of evolution should be removed from science class. Printing new textbooks, reflecting the new things that might or might not support macro-evolution and biological mechanisms, should solve the problem of removing unproven evolution theory from science class very easily, without changes to the definition of science, and adding religious dogma. Books can be wrong, and all scientific theories are fallible. Which I've pointed out before. There are numerous examples of this in history. Newton's laws were held to be universaly true until Eintein. There is still some modified newtonian theory around.

What I have seen until now of the ID movement, has been the pinnacle of christian fundamentalism. Even after reading on the CSC, and things on godandscience.org. At times it isn't even worth refuting an ID propenents argument because it becomes a futile thought excercise leading only to more of the same.

I really didn't mean to repeast myself...

Firstly, let me repeate myself in response to the ...

2005-11-13T21:27:00.000-06:00

Firstly, let me repeate myself in response to the comment you left:

"With all respect, you're grotesquely mischaracterizing the debate, and failing (again) to answer the questions from the ID movement, instead resorting to useless and inaccurate invective. The challenges raised by proponents of Intelligent Design are often philosophical, but to assert that it "isn't about science" is simply false. Great care has been taken by many ID advocates to present scientific challenges where appropriate.

Asserting that Intelligent Design is purely a Christian Fundementalist movement likewise shows either a sincere willingness to misrepresent the facts of the debate or simple ignorance of them. Many members of the Discovery Institute- the largest and most prominent organizational advocate of ID- are, in fact, aethists, and had you read their literature, you would see that they take great pains to disassociate themselves from the Christian evangelical movement. This does not mean thet Christians do not support their ideas, merely that asserting that the movement is made up only of Christian fundementalists is [wildly] inaccurate."

Your physicalist pressuppositions are at the heart of the debate itself. This is as much a debate about the definition of "science" as it is about anything else- that you seem to reluctant to allow any questioning of the naturlist dogma is evidence of your misunderstanding of much of the debate.

Attacking a supernaturalist position (or, in this case, attacking the very suggestion that supernaturalism may, in fact, bring significant challenges to the table) in a rational manner is certainly fine- I welcome debate on supernaturalism/naturalism- but to unilaterally declare victory simply becuase your opponent is not a natuarlist is to create a premise built on your conclusion- namely that supernaturalism is not true. This is the very thing Intelligent Design attempts to question, and it would seem, their claims that naturlistic explanations have become so ingrained in the scientific community- or even society itself- as to become dangerous dogma are exemplified in your writing. You're proving one of their points for them by refusing to deal with their arguments on terms not built upon your own pressuppositions.

Science is built upon philosophy: evolution is built strongly upon naturalism, and ID on the idea that supernaturalism may be true. Simply put, we're teaching the very thing you deride as "unscientific" whether we like it or not- the question is whether or not we are going to be fair about the kinds of philosophy we are teaching, not if we are teaching philosophy at all.

Comments on The title conscious blog: Umm...

In a couple of sentences, Unproven parts of evolut...

Firstly, let me repeate myself in response to the ...