Sir Realistic Settles the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

[sirrealistic]

It has always been my opinion that schools should present facts, not matther how unpopular they should be. When the facts are in dispute, both sides should be presented and students should be encouraged to make up their own minds. Instead of running away from controversy, schools should embrace it; it makes learning a lot more interesting

Comments

[cat_incarnate]

To me, teaching evolution automatically leads to teaching intelligent design. You say: "Hi kids. This is the Theory of Evolution. These are the holes in this theory that lead some to believe it is not plausable. Instead, they support the Intelligent Design Theory for these reasons, and the these differences and similariites of the two theories."

Either way is humans trying to explain the universe and get to the bottom of things, and to me that's what science is all about.

[sirrealistic]

I have no problem with your approach. The only quibble I would have with your comment is I don't think intelligent design is a scientific theory. Can it proven? If you can, it's a scientific theory. But if it's only true because you think the evidence for evolution has holes in it than it's merely a criticism of evolution. I don't have any problem with those criticisms being brought up. I just have a problem with saying those are two equal scientific theories and changing the definition of what science is so you can do that, which is what they're trying to do in Kansas.

Yes, it's a matter of semantics, but I think the meaning of the words are important in this issue.

[cat_incarnate]

I'm going to be picky, but I don't think scientific theories have to be proved. Hence "theory." Am I wrong?

[sirrealistic]

Um, well, you probably know more about this than I do, so I may be wrong. But I would say that although theories don't have to proven, they have to be in some way proveable and those results need to be verifiable and be able to be reproduced by others. No?

[cat_incarnate]

Hm. Ideally you would want to be able to prove them, but according to dictionary.com:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This means a theory can be wrong, but still be believed. So far we have found no evidence to prove OR disprove either evolution or intelligent design, and they still explain how we got here, so technically both are theories. Of course, intelligent design is a bugger to prove or disprove, so it automatically is more shady.

[sirrealistic]

I see that definition and I raise it by including another one. According to Wikipedia:

In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

Evolution is a theory, intelligent design is a hypothesis as it can't be tested, which you yourself admit.

[cat_incarnate]

Excellent argument! I concede. :) Take a bow!

[sirrealistic]

\0/

[sirrealistic]

. . . which is the position of the National Academy of Sciences:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief.

This sounds like an accurate statement to me.