"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster"

[Zygote]

[ 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?

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.

[maurile]

[ 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 . . .)

[Zygote]

[ 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."

Hi guys - The attack of the wikipedia pastes...ahhhhh!

You are both asking a lot of questions and making a lot of points. I posted a lot in another thread on this topic and made my final post there, so I'll make a final post in this thread and perhaps in a few days open another one. Some of the questions to me here are trying to get me to defend the second best position on a topic rather than the best position (in my mind anyway). My challenge with a new thread is a topic that is specific enough so that fragmented debates do not erupt (probably they will in any case).
So let me just make one final point.....

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooops - time out. I need to bring up something you said earlier......

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a fact.....

[/ QUOTE ]

back to your most recent post..

[ QUOTE ]
A scientific theory must have a dynamic nature and i doubt any scientists feel they have ever theorized any essential facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe evolution is a fact then .....??

By the way I think its possible to reconstruct what you are getting at with all of your statements here into a position that I would agree with. However that position would not include the insistance that any notion of design in nature has the same level of absurdity as a spaghetti monster. I think if I had encountered a forum full of religious creationists I'd be helping you reconstruct that argument.

I'll leave you guys with the last word on this thread.

Good luck at the poker tables.......

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooops - time out. I need to bring up something you said earlier......

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a fact.....

[/ QUOTE ]

back to your most recent post..

[ QUOTE ]
A scientific theory must have a dynamic nature and i doubt any scientists feel they have ever theorized any essential facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe evolution is a fact then .....??


[/ QUOTE ]

"FACT: A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence"

Evolution is a fact. To say a theory is an essential fact would be equivalent to saying the theory is inherently correct and unchangable at any point in time.

edit:

"In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything."