Teaching Science (Another Derbyshire Classic!)

National Review Online ^ | August 30 2005 | John Derbyshire

[RightWingAtheist]

Best...article...EVER!

[tamalejoe]

The guy is basically crying because a politician (Bush) has a better grasp of science issues than he does.

[mlc9852]

"Nor is it religion, except in the widest and loosest possible sense of that word, a sense that includes every kind of supernatural baloney that any clever crackpot can come up with — a sense I personally will not accept."

LOL - I won't personally accept evolution.

[andyk]

To admit miracles into a scientific theory, however, turns it into pseudoscience at once;

He makes a pretty good point.

[My2Cents]

Science is science, and ought to be taught in our public schools conservatively, from the professional consensus, as settled fact.

It's a statement of faith that science is "settled fact." I have a book at home about the history of cosmology. It relates how a series of theories about the origin of the universe were each once considered "settled fact," only to have each blown out of the water by new information.

[frogjerk]

To admit miracles into a scientific theory, however, turns it into pseudoscience at once;

He makes a pretty good point.

Then why is the big-bang theory taught in science classrooms?

[Restorer]

Why stop with Intelligent Design (the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic explanation)?

This is a strawman definition of ID. Probably most, but certainly not all, of the proponents of ID fit into this definition. This largely invalidates his otherwise excellent arguments against ID, as they do not address what ID proponents actually say, but rather his slanted viewpoint of what they say.

[orionblamblam]

> a politician (Bush) has a better grasp of science issues than he does.

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt

[andyk]

Then why is the big-bang theory taught in science classrooms?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I suppose the author would respond to you by claiming that it's consensus science.

[My2Cents]

That science can't explain the miraculous only speaks to the limits of science.

[BMIC]

Big difference. Newtonian mechanics works and is therefore basically true under certain conditions. Darwinian evolution is totally unproven in every sense and case.

[andyk]

only to have each blown out of the water by new information.

If I'm reading Derby correctly, he's saying that's okay, and to be expected.

[tfecw]

Very good article, Thanks for the post.

[jimmyray]

they do not address what ID proponents actually say, but rather his slanted viewpoint of what they say.

Nor does he state what evolutionists believe. Hows is Macro-evolution science? It is historical science at best, explaining the past based on what one sees, and HOW one interprets it. When I see fossils, I think "Must have been a very quick event to cover and preserve that many animals that quickly". Fossils are evidence of quick burial, hence my interpretation as evidence of a global flood.

[RightWingAtheist]

[Junior]

Really? In what way? Please be specific.

[Mylo]

Wrong.

It has been demonstrated replicable in the lab that members of a species have genetic diversity, and that some genes can be selected for (or against) by the environment, leading to a higher (or lower)frequency in the population in subsequent generations.

Demonstrated REPEATEDLY.

Now go on and say that up isn't up, down isn't down, and what science can show replicable cannot be shown. Go on. I expect it.

[Junior]

I won't personally accept evolution.

I won't accept that I'm growing old. My lack of acceptance has as much effect upon my senescance as yours does on the science of biology.