Posted on 06/17/2011 5:37:57 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) – Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design. Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota, also proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s education system and said state administrators should be able to decide how they spend money allocated to them by the federal government. "I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."
By CNN Political Reporter Peter Hamby
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
And Blaise Pascal's withering critique of Cartesian dualism essentially destroyed it.
The two have been split for centuries. Just because some people blended them, doesnt make them the same thing. If you have a problem with the definition of science, take it up with the people who defined it. But as of today, that is the definition of science.
The law of non-contradiction is a reasoning argument. The theory of gravity is scientific. Both reason and science use mathematics and both can be held to be reliable, but that does not make them the same thing. Football is not baseball, even though both use players, balls, and a defined scoring method.
Ah, the old "because we said so" argument. Which brings us back to begging the question. Assuming by definition that which they seek to prove. Modern academics narrowly define the concept in a manner so they don't have to deal with those things they don't personally like and can't deal with or respond to. They also freeze out of the field those who would point out that the emperor has no clothes.
The subject of origins is entirely unnecessary in public schools. Stick to basics of science.
I can drop a red ball 100 times and record that it falls 100 times. Until it does not fall, the theory of gravity holds.
For identity, the idea that “A” is “A” is logical. The fact that a red ball is a red ball is measurable. For non-contradiction, the idea that a red ball cannot go up at the same time it goes down is logical. The fact that the red ball fell 100 times is measurable.
Logic and reasoning is often used to derive a question and form a hypothesis, while science is used to test the hypothesis. Logic may be the starting point that a scientist uses for an idea, but the basis of science is testing.
What was his critique?
Again, if you dont like the definition, take it up with the people who defined it. You are still free to practice philosophy, and still free to study logic.
And the scientific method consists of applyig logical inferences to the results of those tests. It is an essental element of the construct - the two cannot be separated. Baseball consists of pitching a ball and swinging a bat at a ball but unless you combine the two you don't have baseball. Science consists of logical concepts applied to observable data and if you attempt to separate the two you don't have science.
Interesting you say that "the fact that a red ball is a red ball is measurabale". But the redness is merely a result of certain bandwiths of light bouncing off the ball and refracting through the lens of the eye. If someone has a irregular lens (what we call color blindness in humans and normal in other animals) the ball may appear gray. And for him it is a gray ball. Thus, the "color" of the ball is purely a function of the entity percieving it and really isn't subject to an absolute, objective measurement.
Thus, your best explaination of why ID is not science is "because we said so" in that we abritrarily choose to define science to exclude it for no defensible reason that you've been able to offer.
So, as I have enjoyed reading your conversations with the others on this thread, you must admit that they must deny mind, logic (some actually have done this), rational thought, and even their own consciousness. As yet they adher only to their a priori commitment to a rather thick view of physicalism, which has long ago fallen on the asheap of inexcusable dishonesty regarging science.
Keep up the good work.
Most of the people I know believe in ID and evolution, and not one of them believes the earth is only 10,000 years old. ID is not Creationism.
To those reading this that believe in Creationism, I respect your point of view and have no problem with my kids discussing it in a science class or anywhere else.
You say ID explains EVERYTHING - I reply that anything that purports to explain everything, in fact, explains nothing.
I described to you the supposed “gap” that God left in reality that HE, according to ID and their ideas on biology (what is under discussion here, not geology, astronomy, physics, etc), has to fill.
That is why ID is a “god of the gaps” argument.
It proposes a weak and shoddy god who left gaping holes in reality.
Proposing a natural force to explain natural phenomena is science.
Proposing a supernatural force to explain natural phenomena is not and never will be science.
Proposing natural forces to explain natural phenomena is testable and replicable and has led to all the technological and scientific advancements of the last few centuries.
Proposing supernatural forces to explain natural phenomena is an intellectual dead end that leads nowhere and creates nothing of any value.
I missed where that happened. I've seen some Creationist site articles claiming to have proved it using mathematical probabilities, but they fail the obvious test of having accounted for all the possibilities in their mathematical models, because no one knows what all the possibilities are yet.
Officially, ID is not supposed to be theistic, and there is nothing in the theory that disallows the possibility that life could be designed with the ability to evolve. The tell is that the proponents almost invariably present ID and evolution as being mutually exclusive theories - it must be either one or the other.
I agree with you. Guaranteed the media will run with this to paint her as a kook.
I never said that at all. Please show me where I said that. But you did say, "Proposing supernatural forces to explain natural phenomena is an intellectual dead end that leads nowhere and creates nothing of any value." Which is quite interesting in that your "science" proposes a supernatural "big bang" singularity to explain the natural world. Thus, you empiricists have no problem incorporating the supernatural when it serves your ends but rejecting it when there's the possibility of a moral component. The ultimate hypocrisy of empirical science, which by its own definition cannot quantify empiricism itself.
It no more removes God as the cause than the fact that stars are formed via nuclear fusion and gravity means that God did not create them.
I was created by God from “dust”, and to “dust” I will return. But I was also created via cellular processes involving DNA.
You seem to think “the designer” of your cdesign proponentists had to work by magic - or it just wasn't “the designer”. The idea that “the designer” might actually create a competent design doesn't seem to enter their primitive theology.
What does “encompasses every aspect of the observable universe from the quantum to the cosmologic.” mean to you, if not EVERYTHING that could possibly BE explained?
You said ID explains everything - it is a nothing explanation - a hammer in search of a nail - a lower case ‘god’ in search of a gap.
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.