The point of view from proponents of ID might be; "if the Big Bang, which is simply a theory is shoved down people's throats - then why shouldn't this be mentioned as an alternative?".
To an extent I agree with that, but I wouldn't put it in the classroom as it won't help anyone. If you have an open mind in the first place you'll take things from all points of view, so...
Anyhow, my 2p.
My arguement isn't to stop you from having religious beliefs. As I've said, you can believe whatever you like. Firebar, since I haven't seen you post on a previous ID thread, I'll explain. The Big Bang, right or wrong, is a scientific theory. Alternative scientific theories are and should be taught in science lessons. ID is not a scientific theory, and so has no place being taught in science lessons.
Did you know that all it takes to become a prof in the US is to get a teaching job in a uni.
Not all profs are equal.
ID is not a scientfic theory.
I know that, I wasn't saying otherwise. Hence my stance on keeping it out of the classroom.The Big Bang, right or wrong, is a scientific theory. Alternative scientific theories are and should be taught in science lessons. ID is not a scientific theory, and so has no place being taught in science lessons.
I'm meerly commenting and perhaps bringing a neutral voice in to look into both sides of the argument.
This thread has gone off topic a little I think
show me. show me how these speakers on the podcast are not scientific in their methods, their hypotheses, their logic. go on.Originally Posted by TeePee
you can show me too. show me how these speakers on the podcast are not scientific in their methods, their hypotheses, their logic.
show me how the deduction that it is scientifically RATIONAL to believe that something beyond mere chance is responsible for life, and all the phenomena these scientists observe, is irrational.
I think the point is that it can be made scientific if you read into it that way, but for most people materialistic methods are required. There is a lot of stuff God has done which can't be proven through materialistic physical means, or means by which people WANT. It's such a tricky subject
The problem being is that most people don't want to believe, and hence will go ape trying to push anything like this away. Don't dwell on it too much, whats the point in arguing about it? it doesn't achieve anything.
I like the pun
no argument, agreed. My purpose in the original post was, ultimately, to share that resource with whoever was unaware of the podcast.
I knew debate would arise as a consequence, as it usually does, but that was not enough reason to avoid posting the linkage
Quote, er, ME:
Science is based on the laws of nature. If something breaks those laws, the scientific method is to look for new laws. To rely on a supernatural explanation (as in ID) is to pre-judge that such laws do not exist. Since it is the very business of science to look for laws of nature, giving up and saying something is supernatural means giving up science.
If the people in the podcast are saying unexplained phenomena have a supernatural cause, they are not scientists.
Which theory says it's chance again? I know it's not evolution...
um, life on the planet? any kind of life - the first life forms. the planet forming in just the right circumstances to provide the chance for life to develop.
go back a step.
as has been attempted many times, scientists have thrown everything they know of, into a cauldron (so to speak), in an attempt to replicate the first life forms, and failed. Can't argue about life being seeded from another planet - same problem.
is all about random chance.
yes, as you say, you're quoting yourself. Awesomely authoritatative source.
I asked you to quote those scientists, or illustrate their failure of logic. Again you avoid investigating that which has been thrust under your virtual nose by reverting to the tired arguments.
you are attempting to refute MY arguments instead of theirs. I already know what you think of mine, and of me. I want to hear you argue someone with a tad more knowledge and scientific rigour.
Last edited by fuddam; 27-03-2006 at 04:38 PM.
And you think that's chance? I'd say it was inevitable.
How many stars are in the sky? How many have planets? How many have planets at the right temperatures? How many have the right amino acids floating around?
Nasa say the answer is uncountable, but if you start with the 200 billion stars in our galaxy, then work your way through the 80 or so other galaxies, you end up with a statistical certainty.
You say scientists have tried everything they know of, but you can't assume they've tried everything they'll ever know.
It's a basic logical arguement. I'm the definative source of my own logical arguement. No-one is better qualified to state my arguement! Which part do you have a problem with?
I don't need to quote these 'scientists' to show the failing of ID.
why? could be just as reasonable to posit that the circumstances will never be right.
ok, so you're quoting statistics? GOOD! Because then we have common ground. Those scientists know a little more about the figures involved than you or I, a little more about probability, and they are saying the chance of it all coming together in such perfect sync, across all fields / spheres / planes, is so incredibly fantastically remote, that it requires a ludicrous FAITH in chance..........How many stars are in the sky? How many have planets? How many have planets at the right temperatures? How many have the right amino acids floating around?
Nasa say the answer is uncountable, but if you start with the 200 billion stars in our galaxy, then work your way through the 80 or so other galaxies, you end up with a statistical certainty.
agree totally. Maybe one day they'll be able to create life in that bubble. Have no problem with that. So far they have failed, and that was in spite of human intervention, ie consciously creating the most creditable cirumstances, deliberately, humanly. To simply appeal to chance is a massive copout. Is like saying it's inevitable those infinite monkeys will write all the works of Shakespeare (the internet has definitely put paid to that idea).You say scientists have tried everything they know of, but you can't assume they've tried everything they'll ever know.
you could reply that infinite monkeys + infinite time = 100% they will create Shakespeare. well, you can say that all you want. It does not have any scientific credibility, just speculation.
well, maybe you don't understand how they view ID, n'est pas? your (limited) understanding is not necessarily shared by them.
all you're doing is refuting your perception of a concept.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
