Science Under Siege

[HydrogenBond]

I like the compromise between ID and Evolution; ordered evolution based on science. ID gives science a hint on how this is possible. I will share the secret. Assume for the sake of argument, that life only had 1 million years to form (start with this erroneous assumption). Can you use your ingenuity to come up with a rational scenario that would allow it to happen. Random no longer works because there is not enough time. One needs a logical and very orderred path. This path won't refect the truth of evolution because of the erroneous time scale, but it might tell us something new about the orderring principle of cellular integration that will shed light on evoluton.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

And unfortunately, what people who are advocating certain contentious issues be introduced to 13 year olds, *not* as part of a critical thinking exercise but as simply a requirement to expose them to one other wholly unsubstantiated belief system without any pointers as to its inapplicapbility as a scientific theory is tantamount to that fastball.

I think UncleAl came up with a viable solution for the younger students in our hypothetical education scenario. Also, consider my response to it.

Originally Posted by Buffy

I have a hard time believing that the best way to teach critical thinking is simply to say, as some others argue, "here's the methodology, look at all of the alternative theories and come to your own conclusions, and we don't want to give you *any* examples because that would be biased: you're smart enough to figure it out on your own."

I agree, really, even though I don't believe that all things "evolved" from a big bang of whatever substance. Students need to know the current theories of course as well as their strengths and weaknesses (as indicated by evidence.) Of course, only those with some supporting evidence should be allowed if we're attempting an evidence-focused approach.

Indeed, kids need to learn the theories more fully, believe it or not. Students should be taken through a theory's conception and evolution (think BB and relativity,) all the way to its eventual demise or acceptance. This would be a great tool in showing students the progress of a methodology based on evidence and why things are done this way.

To often, though, the only theories in the curricula are those thought to be empirical, or close to it. As soon as consensus sways, textbooks completely replace those theories with others. Then what we have is different generations with opposing educations and contrasted conceptions of "scientific truth." When the fact is that science IS a method, a method of evaluating evidence, and we should present it that way to kids. It is not a collection of laws and theories, even though it has a heaping accumulation of such.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Why bother teaching *any* math or science, its all "beliefs" right? It all might be overturned tomorrow by the next discovery since none of it is "proven", and if we told you *anything* about why most people seem to believe one of these many theories that we're throwing at you, then you'll think we're biased and you will lose all faith in anything. Just trust your brain."

Right. This is at the other end of the spectrum from theory-focused education, and equally unrealistic. Schools don't have to forsake theories to teach methodology. I think they are hesitant precisely because they assume this. But, when we venture into the middle of this spectrum, teaching both theories and evidence/methodology, the issue becomes not which to teach, but which of the two gets priority.

From here, I argue that evidence and methodology should get a supreme favor over any theory, allowing students to not only argue lesser-accepted theories, but also to use this method in some cases to re-validate some empirical theories, not to disprove them of course, but to understand them better. They kind of already do this when a teacher drops a light and heavy object at the same time to demonstrate the Equivalence Principle. We just need to carry this method of teaching to new heights. Perhaps a deeper understanding will be realized by some kid that hasn't yet dawned on scientists.

I realize I'm in danger of eliminating ID from consideration of a evidence-based curricula *applause from crowd*, but I don't think so. In fact, I'm gambling on the opposite. I'm just not yet prepared to post much in the forums, yet. I've still got to verify different things, elaborate on others, and streamline the "package." I'm a stickler for presentation. It seems all to often, poor communication does more harm than good.

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This is how science works. It IS equally valid if it is consistent with the observed, reproducible facts as demonstrated via the scientific method.

This is the crux of where I tend to see a problem with some of the ID presentations at present. They do not all prove to be consistant even if the general gist as far as an alternative has merit. But I also think they are on the right general track as far as opening honest dialog which was something the older Creation Science Research(young earth/seven day creation) position could not possible achieve.

One suggestion,and one can take this for what its worth is perhaps try not focus on the who of the Designer, but more on the plan of design, so to speak. ID's who come out of the Christian background would be hard pressed to convince most scientists of the Designer being the God of the Bible. I,who come from that background, do not see any direct evidence the Designer has to be exactly the God presented in the Bible at all. I think some of the arguments and debates we all have had here bare that out. But I have never said even though I tend towards the agnostic position that I fully reject the idea of a designer. However, I am closer to the older deistic views like some of the founders of this country held if I was to actually shift towards the ID camp.

Buffy, often mentions She in place of God. Correct me if I am wrong but the she here would be mother nature. To some the she would also be impersonal in the strict sence. But irrespective if there is some design formed via natural means perhaps then who or whatever designed such would have had enough interest to make the design in the first place. But that's still a far jump from the direct influencing God of the Bible. The only thing in common is design and purpose as far as creation goes. I tend to perfer Buffy's kind of impersonal she, which shares something in common with the older American Indian idea of Father Sky and Mother earth.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Attacking scientific explanations by finding seeming inconsistencies that seem "obvious" from a lay-person's viewpoint (e.g. arguments found in many current threads regarding the "problems" with Special Relativity), that do not withstand scientific scrutiny

Also these guys are not religious. Other than myself, the only ones to question Einstein are EWright, CraigD, Bobby, xersan, etc. I can't think of one that's religious besides me, and I only question the constant speed of light.

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Also these guys are not religious. Other than myself, the only ones to question Einstein are EWright, CraigD, Bobby, xersan, etc. I can't think of one that's religious besides me, and I only question the constant speed of light.

Well, as a researcher who has long been part of the VSL camp in one way or another I can say it is not just the religious who tend to be asking questions there. However, bear in mind most of the religious people I have seen giving reference to that idea tend to be out of the literal seven day camp. They see it as a way of getting around the age of the universe/earth which none of even the debated evidence would lend any support to something akin to a 4000 year old earth if one follows the now defunct Ussher calander. Strict, literal seven day creationism is really a dead subject with tons of strong evidence against. As for the rest, within reason, there is room for debate and examination.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Southtown

... Other than myself, the only ones to question Einstein are EWright, CraigD, Bobby, xersan, etc. ...

Not that I’m anything but flattered to be included in this list, but I’d like to clarify how I “question Einstein”.

My only serious concerns with Relativity stem from its foundations as a theory of Classical Mechanics. I believe that it is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and thus must be superseded by a QM-compatible “theory of everything”. I suspect this will be difficult.

I have misgivings with the equivalency principle for Special Relativity, which states (in my own words) that for a given inertial frame, the effect of gravitation field is indistinguishable from the effect of acceleration, because it is in a very real sense, untrue: the effect of a gravitation field can be distinguished from that of acceleration by the observation that, in the case of a gravitational field, a object some distance “above” another experiences less force than an equal mass “below” it. In the case of an object undergoing acceleration, the forces experienced by objects of equal mass are equal.

I suspect my misgivings are the result of my failure to understand a subtlety of GR. In the near future, I plan to start a thread in the hope that someone can help me resolve this problem.

Despite my own acceptance of nearly all of Relativity, I’m interested in the opinions of people who reject all or parts of it, and try to listen to them with an open mind.

I question the popular image of Einstein, because, like most popular figures, the actual person agrees poorly with his popular image. Again, this line of questioning belongs, I think, in a separate thread, not in “Science under siege”.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by CraigD

My only serious concerns with Relativity stem from its foundations as a theory of Classical Mechanics. I believe that it is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and thus must be superseded by a QM-compatible “theory of everything”. I suspect this will be difficult.

There is such a thing as relativistic quantum field theory. It is certainly fraught with difficulties but has successfully been used, through the 20th century, to sort out the phenomenology of particle physics, including the standard model. There is certainly a "tension" between QM and the local causality of SR, you might be interested in looking up the Bell inequalities and ongoing research concerning them.

Originally Posted by CraigD

the effect of a gravitation field can be distinguished from that of acceleration by the observation that, in the case of a gravitational field, a object some distance “above” another experiences less force than an equal mass “below” it.

(Grooooooooan...)

That's obvious! As stated in GR, the principle says that, for any point P, a coordinate map can be chosen to be locally inertial. Think of it along the lines of a straight line tangent to a curve. Learn differential geometry before saying GR is faulty.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by paultrr

Strict, literal seven day creationism is really a dead subject with tons of strong evidence against. As for the rest, within reason, there is room for debate and examination.

Well, I have to ask... can you point me to some sources for this? I have been under the impression that the Hydroplate Theory has a good pile of evidence. Have you read any of it?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Well, I have to ask... can you point me to some sources for this? I have been under the impression that the Hydroplate Theory has a good pile of evidence. Have you read any of it?

The hydroplate theory has MAJOR flaws. Consider that the hot, high pressurized water would poach every living thing during the flood event. Also, many of the evidences sighted by Brown (such as Setterfield's study and "flash frozen" mammoths) aren't entirely credible.
-Will
edit: fixed a typo

[Southtown]

Nice catch, Will.