??????
Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
In an election in Pennsylvania this week, voters tossed out eight members of the Pittsburgh school board who wanted Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside evolution in school. But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection -- be taught in public schools? In one way, the answer to this question is simple: if it's a scientific theory, it should; if it's not, it shouldn't (on pain of flaunting the Establishment Clause). The question, however, is whether Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory.
Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones. The Constitution contains no interdiction on teaching bad theories, or for that matter demonstrably false ones. As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.
To make their case, opponents of teaching ID must show not just that the theory is bad, but that it's not science. This raises a much more complicated question: What is science? What distinguishes genuinely scientific theories from non-scientific ones?
In one form or another, the question has bothered scientists and philosophers for centuries. But it was given an explicit formulation only in the 1920s, by Karl Popper, the most important 20th century philosopher of science. Popper called it "the problem of demarcation," because it asked how to demarcate scientific research and distinguish it from other modes of thought (respectable though they may be in their own right).
One thing Popper emphasized was that a theory's status as scientific doesn't depend on its plausibility. The great majority of scientific theories turn out to be false, including such works of genius as Newton's mechanics. Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth.
So what is the mark of genuine science? To attack this question, Popper examined several theories he thought were inherently unscientific but had a vague allure of science about them. His favorites were Marx's theory of history and Freud's theory of human behavior. Both attempted to describe the world without appeal to super-natural phenomena, but yet seem fundamentally different from, say, the theory of relativity or the gene theory.
What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false.
Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.
What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.
To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.
If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.
It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.
None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says.
The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Arizona.
Why do the words refer to God in the third person?
"Whatever rules I make up for myself that I think will give me an advantage in life, I must also allow other people to treat me in the same ways in their dealings with me.
That is only fair,"
And what if you don't follow your rules or what if someone does not want to follow your rules because they conflict with his rules that give him an advantage? How do you determine what's fair? certainly everone does not start out at the same place or level.
God used his proper name, "YHVH", to show that it was "YHVH" who made the heavens and the earth and all that is within them. It appears to be in the third person because "YHVH" is translated as "The LORD."
There is no break in the conversation in Exodus Chapter 20. The Ten Commandments were given to Moses without Moses putting in any commentary. Those were the words spoken by YHVH. Those were the words etched by the finger of God on the stone tablets.
Your problem is that you cannot reconcile the fact that God himself took credit for making the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. It doesn't jive with your evolutionist philosophy, so rather than accept the word of God, you reject it and cling to your evolutionist philosophy.
Well the fact is that God said it. There is not a single legitimate manuscript that does not contain that language. It was not a part of "oral history" since it was written from the time of Moses. So either Moses was a fraud, or God made the claim.
Which premise do you accept?
>Your view about who wrote the Bible is itself based on a worldview that excludes the possibility of God revealing Himself to man in written word form to begin with. Why should anyone accept your worldview?
Because, in the words of WInston Churchill; "Because I am a great man!"
You've missed where I explained that the declarative part is God's word and the explanatory part is interpretation.
"Gates has forced nobody to use his products, he has no monopoly; that's just a left-wing myth."
You might want to google "Micrsoft Anti Trust" to see how many times it has been sued for anti trust violations and how many settlements it has agreed to with the Justice Department. As much as you decry Anti Trust legislation I haven't seen you complain about Copyright and Trademark laws that give monopoly status to some or the licensing of communications or zoning or safety regulations in transportation, health care, and food services. These are all restrictions on capitalism because of the abuses of the market by I assume men who just wanted to make a profit.
"It comes out of a the moral certainty that the initiation of force is always wrong:
Self esteem, a cardinal principle of Rand's theory, is based on self pride which is a competitive vice; a negative force in relationships.
I supppose you have a hermenutical basis or textual evidence for insisting that Moses or someone has interjected commentary in the middle of the God's dictation of the Ten Commandments?
If the six day creation statement was merely commentary in Exodus chapter 20, then why did God reiterate the six day creation statement in Exodus Chapter 31?
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:12-17 KJV)
And funny thing, God used the third person reference in Exodus Chapter 31 as well. Was that interjected commentary as well? It seems to be a single statement recorded by Moses. Was Moses reiterating his previous fraudulent commentary here as well?
Why don't you just admit that you don't believe in the God revealed in the Bible?
"No, he actually hates their business practices"
No, I dislike some of their business practices, but dislike intensly, their lust for power over politics, the markets and people.
"So God changed the rules between the OT and the NT."
No, He changed the way He changed the way He did business.
What I don't believe is your personal interpretation.
And Exodus 31 is commentary, note the new death sentence.
So, you do claim to believe in the God revealed in the Bible?
Which verses, if any, are absolute truth in regard to the revelation of God? Do you accept any single verse of scripture as truth? If so, on what basis do you accept that verse and reject others?
It just seems odd to me that you would claim to believe in the God revealed in the Bible, yet you doubt the veracity of the very documents in which he is revealed. What is your explanation?
Tough decision. The Bible is not the literal word of God, or God condones slavery. The Bible is not the literal word of God, or the universe itself is a lie.
The bible is the Word of God, and God sometimes permits slavery...the same as He permits divorce.
He uses it.
The same as He uses you.
But needing to make the tough decision, I'd have to say I've seen preachers lie, but I've never seen a rock lie.
And the Koran is the last word of God.
I've got a big rock lying in my front yard right now.
??????
In my short but thorough reading of science articles on evolution and theory of; it was stated in at least two, maybe three reference articles that even the scientists who study same; quite often believe in God.
Perhaps you should listen more carefully:
And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. (Luk 19:37-40 KJV)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.