Go Back   Science Forums > Science News, Articles, Papers > Science News
Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools
Old 08-04-2005  
Tormod's Avatar
Tormod
Hypographer

Administrator
Senior Editor
Editor
Dev Team Member

Location:
Oslo, Norway
 
Tormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond reputeTormod has a reputation beyond repute
 



Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Marvin Cohen, president of the American Physical Society (APS), has stated that that only...


----------------
Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator

Want to lose the advertisements? Become a Sponsor!

Join our Facebook group or follow us on Twitter

Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
- Carl Sagan
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
By bumab on 08-04-2005
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southtown
And hypotheses delving into the realm of "first cause" are naturally doomed to remain hypotheses, correct?
Sure, because you can't test it. Anything that deals in non-caused event chains, such as the first cause in a causal universe, will never be testable with the scientific method, which can only test causal relationships.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
By nkt on 08-05-2005
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

And further, invoking something like an "intelligent designer" naturally leads to two issues:

It is impossible to prove or disprove such a statement as "The intelligent designer designed the world so that we would not see him but by his works" by any logic or rational means, and therefore it must fall outside of science.

Secondly, it leads to the question of "What created or designed the intelligent designer?", which is again, unanswerable.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
By Southtown on 08-05-2005
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by nkt
Secondly, it leads to the question of "What created or designed the intelligent designer?", which is again, unanswerable.
Scientifically.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
By majordinkydau on 08-07-2005
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

"All lies and jest still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" Paul Simon
This sounds a little like censorship to me.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
By C1ay on 08-07-2005
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by majordinkydau
This sounds a little like censorship to me.
How so?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
By shadetreecountryboy on 05-01-2008
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

I inadvertently posted a thread under chemistry, but I intended to post under "general science".
There is a lot we can use the 4 processes of "the scientific" method to test miracles as interpreted by the ancients.
Please read shadetreecountryboy's thread under the chemistry forum.
Thanks.
1 thing for starters,"the Nile running red with blood", pissed off algae!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
By Pyrotex on 05-01-2008
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southtown View Post
And hypotheses delving into the realm of "first cause" are naturally doomed to remain hypotheses, correct?
Hypotheses form the basis of scientific discussion, brainstorming, speculation and experimentation. Many of them start out with the words, "what if..." Many of them are engaged in in an informal manner: scientists sitting around a table in the corner of their favorite bar, over glasses of wine and beer, drawing on table napkins, and making puns with the word, "entropy". I doubt that a scientist EVER suggested they go to the dictionary to determine if their conversation was a real "hypothesis" or not.

But as mentioned in other posts, the proper outcome of a proper hypothesis is at least one prediction -- and the design of at least one experiment to test that prediction.

As to "first cause" -- there is no such thing. It's a rhetorical word-structure invented by Aristotle:
Quote:
Aristotle saw the primum movens (Gr. proton kinun) as the "mover unmoved" -- the prime mover. The question he worked on philosophically was the origin of existence and motion
But "first cause" pre-supposes, or assumes, a source of god-like powers. So, you cannot use it to "prove" the existence of god. Circular logic. If all processes have a cause, then how can there be a first cause. This violates your first tenet that ALL processes have a cause. Any cause is itself a process and must have a prior cause, etc, etc. Nasty stuff, circular logic.

Many hypotheses (conversations) do not result in predictions or in doable experiments. I don't know what you call that conversation in that case. I'm not sure anyone cares. At least, not anyone whose life work is heavily involved with creating hypotheses. I'm not sure it even matters.

In any circle of serious researchers with an abiding passion to understand our universe, to suggest an hypothesis based upon "first cause" will probably elicit gales of laughter. You might as well base it upon "the Flying Spaghetti Monster". It's funny, but it doesn't forward the conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
By Southtown on 05-01-2008
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrotex View Post
In any circle of serious researchers with an abiding passion to understand our universe, to suggest an hypothesis based upon "first cause" will probably elicit gales of laughter. ... It's funny, but it doesn't forward the conversation.
Funny, that's exactly what I said to myself in high school when introduced to the big bang.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
By InfiniteNow on 05-01-2008
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southtown View Post
Funny, that's exactly what I said to myself in high school when introduced to the big bang.
That's all well and good, but does nothing... zilch... nada... to support the concept of first cause.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
By Moontanman on 05-01-2008
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by C1ay View Post
Unrepeatable and unobservable, and unscientific does not necessarily mean religous, just unscientific. Anyone's faith that such a hypothesis is true would be religous.
If you look at it like that brane theory is my religion, it nicely explains before the so called big bang quite well. No ID check is required. I reject reality and substitute anything that is weird and improvable!
Last edited by Moontanman; 05-01-2008 at 10:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
Comment

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Article Tools


Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
Science Cannot Replace Religion Antti Theology forum 50 06-14-2006 12:22 PM
Intelligent Design Uncle Martin Philosophy Forums 14 03-05-2005 12:26 AM
Intelligent design / creationism Stargazer Biology 206 02-25-2005 10:42 AM
Toward an Intelligent Design Science James Putnam Philosophy of Science 110 02-19-2005 02:14 AM
Preliminary remarks on the philosophy of science The Heretic Philosophy of Science 9 02-16-2005 11:16 PM

» Advertisement
» Current Poll
Who's the sexiest man alive? Johnny Depp or Robert Pattinson?
Johnny Depp - 30.00%
3 Votes
Robert Pattinson - 0%
0 Votes
Someone else (please specify) - 40.00%
4 Votes
I'm too macho to think a guy is sexy - 30.00%
3 Votes
Total Votes: 10
You may not vote on this poll.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:08 PM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
Copyright © 2000-2009 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network
Powered by GARS © 2005-2008