Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
the point is that science doesn't teach something just because its possible. science teaches whatever model produces the best predictions. if ID ever outmodels evolution and/or produces even slightly competetive predictions, then, the model would be more than welcome in the science room

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. The thing is that ID by definition is a model that could never produce more than 0 predictions. That's why it's not science no matter how one looks at it. It might be exciting, comforting, "easier" to digest, but it's not science. It's a myth disguised as "another possible theory".

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
What the article, and many other opponents of ID fail to see is that design is aying that there may be a designer. Not who or what, just the possibility that life may have been designed.

[/ QUOTE ]
What opponents of ID have ever said its impossible that there may be a designer? All I've ever seen them say is that a designer is not necessary and ID is not science.

chez

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

Is that a picture of Bob Dobbs from the Church of the Sub-Gs?

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is that a picture of Bob Dobbs from the Church of the Sub-Gs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Church of the SubGenius > FSM worship

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
What the article, and many other opponents of ID fail to see is that design is saying that there may be a designer. Not who or what, just the possibility that life may have been designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct Jeff. The article is fine as a joke but its a misguided joke. I would disagree that design never outmodels the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution. But how to adjust a science curriculum is a tough subject. I can understand the resistance. But we still have a problem that the theory of evolution is often being taught as a set of facts.

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would disagree that design never outmodels the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not a matter of opinion! please give me one example.

[ QUOTE ]
But we still have a problem that the theory of evolution is often being taught as a set of facts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Evolution is a fact. The genetic evidence for it is indisputable and no one can deny that populations and species evolve.

Science doesn't prove truths. Science produces models. ID advocates cannot assert a hypothesis that can be tested and, therefore, is not subject to falsification. Since testing is the basis of all science, ID can be considered no more than a religious belief.

You may question why things like string theory can be taught if they aren't currently producing testable predictions. Well, the answer is that string theory heavily agrees with other scientific models that have lots of testable evidence. This is the evidence for choosing to delve further in the currently untestable thoeries.

Out of curiousity, what are your opinions on the big bang?

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

Hi zygote - To answer some of your questions....

Let me first say that the general idea of evolution is not where I focus my objections. My beef is with the teaching of the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution as essentially factual.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would disagree that design never outmodels the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not a matter of opinion! please give me one example.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Neo-Darwinian model falls apart so badly in explaining experimental phenomenon regarding evolution that I think 1. its more likely that a substantially better theory of evolution is the correct answer but 2. Neo-Darwinism to me is so weak the design argument is better. I have other areas in evolution theory where I would say the same thing.

The aurgument that you state where you conclude that intelligent design can only be a religious belief I don't agree with. I'm thinking of a new thread to clarify my position on this.

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiousity, what are your opinions on the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]
The big bang is a good theory. When I've discussed it in a science class I give it the thumbs up. Its the best theory out there for the origin of the Universe. Its the most organized body of knowledge presentable as a theory. I do not spend a whole lot of time on alternative ideas, but I do explain why the Big Bang is a better idea that alternatives in a few places. (I'm in the corporate world now so academics is in the past for me, but it could be in the future some day again)
But here's what I don't do with the Big Bang theory: I don't claim it's a fact.
If a student comes along with what I think is a legitimate different perspective I give credit for good analytical thought. If their reasoning is logical and supported by decent evidence then I'm not going to say they are preaching religion. On the other hand if I do get esentially religious challenges then I may take a strong position in the defense of scientific reasoning. Most of these kinds of discussions take place after class.
So I understand the defensiveness against the ID movement. But its the next generation of scientists that are going to improve our theories and advance our scientific knowledge. And they should be able to think clearly about what are facts and what are theories, what constitutes a religious belief and what constitues a scientific inquiry. Any notion of design is not in my book religion.

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would disagree that design never outmodels the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is not a matter of opinion! please give me one example.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Neo-Darwinian model falls apart so badly in explaining experimental phenomenon regarding evolution that I think 1. its more likely that a substantially better theory of evolution is the correct answer but 2. Neo-Darwinism to me is so weak the design argument is better. I have other areas in evolution theory where I would say the same thing.

The aurgument that you state where you conclude that intelligent design can only be a religious belief I don't agree with. I'm thinking of a new thread to clarify my position on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Zygote asked for an example, and you didn't give one -- because no examples exist. Your original statement was just plain wrong.

But if you think you have an example of a situation where "design outmodels the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution," feel free to share it. (ID hasn't produced any models, however, so it's impossible for ID to "outmodel" anything about anything. But again, if you think you do have an example . . .)

Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
My beef is with the teaching of the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution as essentially factual.


[/ QUOTE ]

No science is taught as an essential fact. A scientific theory must have a dynamic nature and i doubt any scientists feel they have ever theorized any essential facts.

Here something you should probably see:
(From wikipedia)
"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
"

[ QUOTE ]
The Neo-Darwinian model falls apart so badly in explaining experimental phenomenon regarding evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

examples?

[ QUOTE ]
1. its more likely that a substantially better theory of evolution is the correct answer

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no correct answer! There are models with better predicitions than others. The one that predicts the best wins!

[ QUOTE ]
Neo-Darwinism to me is so weak the design argument is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give some basis for this ludicrous claim!

i really hope you're not trying to say that a lack of evidence for neo-darwinism is somehow evidence in favor of design. If not, i'm curious to why you think design produces better predicitions than neo-darwinism?

[ QUOTE ]
The aurgument that you state where you conclude that intelligent design can only be a religious belief I don't agree with. I'm thinking of a new thread to clarify my position on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

based on the philosophy of science i gave to you at the top of the post, this is how ID holds up:
(from wikipedia)
"
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:

* Intelligent design lacks consistency.[12]
* Intelligent design is not falsifiable.[13]
* Intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony.[14]
* Intelligent design is not empirically testable.[15]
* Intelligent design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[16]

Critics contend that Intelligent Design cannot be said to follow the scientific method.[17]: there is no way to test its conjectures, and that the underlying assumptions of Intelligent Design are not open to change."

Now aside from the philosophical definiton of science, the supreme court has ruled on a legal defition of what is considered scientifically accepted by the federal courts:

"The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

Intelligent design also fails to meet the legal definition of science on each of the four criteria."