Could you explain a little further to clarify. Do you consider it not right to teach Einstein's Theory of General Relativity because no one might understand or be able to explain it, or because it is a scientific Theory?Your argument, which I quoted and was directly addressing, was not on that topic...your reference to a sudden change of topic is recognized as misdirection. We are off topic, as we were discussing biological evolutionary theory, not Einstein. Now you want to start talking about Einstein's physics theory, why is that? You've just said Einstein's Theory is a distraction away from the topic, so why do you continue with it? I was trying to address your distraction. I apologize for allowing you to take me away from the topic at hand, which is the teaching of ID in biology classes in high school. But as you have done so, would you condemn everyone in school to ignorance of it, because you think it can't be understood? I would condemn everyone in school to ignorance of it? Are you sure you want to stand by that statement? I put my question to you again. Not to teach The General Theory of Relativity because you say no one generally can understand it, or because it is a scientific Theory? In public schools, teach facts so that there is a full and complete grasp of the subject matter. Where theory is not necessary to grasp facts, why teach speculations of some scientists? How many really elevate themselves to understand Einstein's theory? There I go again. Sorry for allowing you to take us off the topic of ID and evolutionary theory being taught in public schools. I would tend to agree on the whole with your first premise, facts should be taught. You would tend to agree that facts should be taught? Only tend to agree? What tendency in you is there not to teach facts? You wrote "I prefer facts be taught"...but here you seem to be suggesting they be offered. So please be clear, which is it you prefer now? If given a choice of facts over theory, I prefer facts to a degree of 100% preference. If theory is not necessary to an understand of facts, it begs the question what the teaching a theory that is controversial is going to benefit public school children. Those are not mutually exclusive in science. The scientific method essentially requires critical thinking. Yes, and such extreme critical thinking as to constantly remind us that theories lacking proof are always suspect to being false or misleading. Or perhaps you are suggesting students should be told what the ID'ers think. My position is clear, unequivocal. I prefer no theory on biological organisms that are not necessary to the understanding of biological mechanics be taught. However, if there is a pushing of one theory over others simply because the scientific community currently embraces that theory, then include ID as well. If theory must be taught, then teach them all. Full representation of all theories, even minority theories. Include them all. Let the children then see them all and make up their own minds. The children will be well grounded enough to understand what is right or wrong to embrace from a scientific point of view....or is there some fear that some children might actually accept ID theory because it makes sense to them? Are the atheistic scientists afraid of the power of ID theory? Why do they so intensely want to ban it? If 10% of scientists embrace ID theory, that means there must be something to it, something of value worth discussing. So you say facts are indeed to be taught and not offered. I am not suggesting facts are an elective, no. "The biological process that is fact" you state, but biological evolution ?... Do you say that is not a fact? Adaptive change occurs at times....fact....at other times it does not occur, but it is not known for a fact that this adaptive change is random, or by design, or that it has produced the current species we see today from lower and different species. That fact you describe as a biological process is generally known as biological evolution. Semantics. Let's change the name from evolutionary theory to the occasional factually observed minute changes of biological organisms in response to environmental changes. Evolution denotes so much more than a simple instinctual survival mechanism of biological organisms attempting to live and sustain their life. Facts form the basis for the scientific Theory - Origin of the Species. Now are you saying no Theories should be taught in case they throw up new facts, or because you don't like scientific Theories, or because you say no one will ever understand them in the way you think they should? Stick and stones form the foundation of buildings, but if not constructed properly they become useless to weather change in environment stress and pressure on a building. Why would you want to restrict teaching only to what you determine to be facts, and remove the learning process that allows scientific Theory to produce those very facts in the first place. Why restrict teaching what we know? I don't suggest restricting teaching facts. Speculative theory is a different matter. Because a young mind is impressionable, and our best job it to teach the mind how to think for itself, not to impress upon it how what a particular popular theory some scientific group thinks should be impressed on the young mind. We don't call the teaching of evolutionary theory as Speculative theories of biological organisms 101. I think we should. That in my opinion is one of the flaws of our public education, that the curriculum is not designed for a solid foundation of fact and critical thinking, but rather to promote the ideology of the majority scientific community. The scientific community has been elevated by the unscientific community to a level usually seen in primitive cultures who look at shaman and witch doctors as "possess of wisdom and special powers." Is it because of ID'ers wish to foster a misunderstanding for the word theory and the meaning of scientific Theory, and create some opportunity, as they see it, for them to try and slot in an unsubstantiated theory of their own which they want to hold above all other learning? The reaction of IDers, those far right wing Christian type is directed related to the atheist teachers who want to push their belief systems on to the children in public schools. The rise of fundamentalist IDers is directly related to the pushing of atheism by the scientific community. Rather than any attempt by the scientific community to bridge the gap, bring the value of science and religion in the lives of people and bring us all closer together, get those people to see how the value of science and religion complement each other, we see adversarial politically driven fundamentalist atheists who wish to push their agenda, their minority opinions on the majority. So this war of religion versus science continues, and sadly science will eventually suffer, as the atheist driven scientists are exposed as pushing an agenda, not seeking truth with an open mind, not seeking to bring forth children into society who are independent and able to think through issues for themselves. The fundamentalism and dogmatism on both sides is a danger, so I suggest teaching neither fundamentalist dogma where there is controversy, just teach facts to children in public schools. When children are developed enough to ask the right kind of critical questions on their own, when their curiosity is not glossed over with some theory that is accepted only because "we can't find anything better" will we have done our job of bringing youth to a point where they are not just puppets of the scientific community nor the religious community. It is this intellectual dishonesty from the atheistic community in their push of science as "scientific only" (rather than a means to an atheistic agenda, using science to try to advance that cause) that genuinely makes our greatest scientists turn over in their graves. No truly great well rounded scientist could ever be an atheist in my opinion, as great scientists would be always open and eager to the idea that there was something greater than they had previously discovered.
I do not challenge your belief system, if that's what you want to believe, fine by me. If you have fact that the world is not round, please share it. If you have fact that biological organisms are not guided by intelligent design in their behaviors and adaptations to the environment, share that too.
If you have fact that biological organisms are not guided by pink unicorns in their behaviors and adaptations to the environment, share that too.
If you have fact that biological organisms are not guided by weirdscience in their behaviors and adaptations to the environment, share that too. LMAO
Science makes no reference to religion Gods or atheists or theists. Any implication that science does have theory or statements or facts in that regard, is perpetrated by those who are not teaching science and those who want to discredit science, to insert their own agends in its place. Often that would be the "Intelligent Designers" To disallow science Theory from the classroom because some people misunderstand or misrepresent what science actually does say, is throwing the baby out with the bath water and does a terrible disservice to schools colleges and students. To implant ID which is not science or scientific, into science, is an attempt to carry out such misrepresentation as some sort of perverted counterbalance put forward by those who do not have the best interest of fact and scientific knowledge in mind. It is doing a terrible disservice to those who could learn and develop on the strength of known facts, and paints a bleak and grim outlook to the future. That people wish to decry science and scientists for no other reason that they have a theory of their own to overlay or replace it with , is obviously a discredit to any learning or educational process.
Very Merry Christmas to you Cuban and I hope you have a prosperous, scientifically educational and happy New Year! What will Santa will bring this time? Revolution, or evolution.
I've made the scientific case for evolution dozens of times in the past. You have yet to make any case for intelligent design, other than to state that it is self evident, i.e., just as it is self evident that the Earth is flat. Federal District Court Judge Jones has exquisitely detailed why your argument for intelligent design "fails completely," and I see no reason to repeat the exercise (see attached).
Postors here again miss the point; it's clear why so many here lose trading. Those who focus on the definition of "ID" and "science" miss the point. The point is why ID is being attacked. Is it true that every idea and class taught at every single school district in the entire country is absolutely consistent with the USCON? IS it true that every scientist at every top research university agrees with a single absolute definition of "science"? Is it true that every teacher of ID teaches the exact same ideas and in the exact same way? Postors who can't discern the real issue here lose in markets: they're the same traders who can't understand why a stock often sells off after the initial pop on good earnings. These are the same traders who can't understand why crude oil keeps going higher while domestic inventories keep rising. In short, they're the same idiots and scribes who can't think for themselves and allow others to define and create issues for them. ID advocates are usually Christian fundamentalists. Jews are disproportionately represented on courts at all levels. The attack on ID is initiated and executed by Jews--probably neocons.