[Tormod]

Marvin Cohen, president of the American Physical Society (APS), has stated that that only scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should be taught in the nation’s science classes.

He made this statement in response to recently reported remarks of President Bush about intelligent design, which is a type of creationism.

"We are happy that the President's recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified,” says Cohen. “As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, we believe they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world."

In comments to journalists in Texas on Monday, President Bush said that intelligent design should be taught side by side with scientific theories of evolution in the classroom.

Presidential science advisor John Marburger followed up on the President’s comments in an interview on Tuesday, stating that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and ''intelligent design is not a scientific concept.'' Marburger also said it would be over-interpreting President Bush’s remarks to conclude that Bush meant that intelligent design should be placed on an equal footing with evolution.

The APS governing Council has long expressed its opposition to the inclusion of religious concepts such as intelligent design and related forms of creationism in science classes. Two statements, passed by the Council in 1981 and 1999, can be found on the web at http://www.aps.org/statements/81_1.cfm and http://www.aps.org/statements/99_5.cfm respectively.

The American Physical Society is the world’s largest professional body of physicists, representing over 43,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US and internationally. Its President, Marvin L. Cohen, is University Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and received the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002.

Source: American Physical Society

[Fishteacher73]

This is very similar to the POV of the NAS.

[Southtown]

Any hypotheses attempting to venture before the big bang, into how or why space, matter, and energy came to be, will be unrepeatable and unobservable, and therefore unscientific, treading in the realm of religion.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Any hypotheses attempting to venture before the big bang, into how or why space, matter, and energy came to be, will be unrepeatable and unobservable, and therefore unscientific, treading in the realm of religion.

Unrepeatable and unobservable, and unscientific does not necessarily mean religous, just unscientific. Anyone's faith that such a hypothesis is true would be religous.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Unrepeatable and unobservable, and unscientific does not necessarily mean religous, just unscientific. Anyone's faith that such a hypothesis is true would be religous.

What is the purpose of a hypothesis if not to be held as true?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Southtown

What is the purpose of a hypothesis if not to be held as true?

hy·poth·e·sis

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

It can be assumed true for the sake of argument, that does not mean that it is true. Anyone who thinks that it is, does so by faith.

[Dark Mind]

Then I DO have faith . Huh, go figure...

[MortenS]

Originally Posted by Southtown

What is the purpose of a hypothesis if not to be held as true?

The purpose of a hypothesis is to generate testable predictions. If the hypothesis can not generate testable predictions, it is not a good hypothesis.

When you test a hypothesis it can either fail, or it can pass the test.

If it fails the test(s), you either have to modify the hypothesis (most often) or scrap it completely.

If it pass the test, you device new tests that can falsify the hypothesis.

and so on...

Whether a hypothesis is good or bad does not depend on whether it is true or false, it depends on whether it is testable or not.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by C1ay

hy·poth·e·sis

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

It can be assumed true for the sake of argument, that does not mean that it is true. Anyone who thinks that it is, does so by faith.

And hypotheses delving into the realm of "first cause" are naturally doomed to remain hypotheses, correct?

[bumab]

In fact, hypothesis are formally meant to be disproven, not proven.