Hang on a sec while I tie one hand behind my back...
First the Gimmick Idea: "The Intelligent Designer" Claims to have created the fans, the building, the ring and even his opponent. His fans try to get rules changed to have him named champion without having to defend himself. No one can understand him, and that's fine with his supporters.
"TripleW864" <billmartin2@SPAMGUARDcox.net> wrote in message news:150520052234558995%billmartin2@SPAMGUARDcox.net...
I don't see why scientists get all pissy about alternates to evolution> being taught, when there are viable, scientific alternatives, including> intelligent design.
Repeat after me: "ID is *not* scientific." Science tries to describe and explain the natural world and natural phenomena within the framework of the natural world. Positing an "Intelligent Designer" (admit it, you mean "God") removes the process from the natural world. "But the ID'er is part of the natural world," I hear you say. Science would then *require* the question, "Where did the ID'er come from and how does he/she/it operate?" to be asked. "Well, if we can't understand the natural world and processes he/she/it designed without positing the ID'er, we certainly can't be expected to understand the nature of the ID'er itself. We'll just accept it. No more questions" Scientists wouldn't get all "pissy" about alternatives to evolution being taught if said alternatives actually had a scientific basis and not an air of mysticism.
Yes, I know of the difference of levels of> scientific fact, in regards to the law/theory/hypothesis situation.
You have shown you understand it incompletely, at best.
I have an idea, I'll form a hypothesis and test it. If it can> withstand certain tests, it will graduate on to a theory.
It has to do more than "withstand certain tests", it has to explain, within the framework of the natural world, a certain aspect of that world, and can be used to make predictions about that world. Here it is useful to note the difference between the scientific use of the word "theory" (as above), and the common usage, meaning, "a guess or conjecture." ID'ers like to paint evolution as this kind of a theory ("It's just a guess, right?") and not in the scientific sense. In the scientific sense, evolution is a robust, observable, testable way of explaining the natural world without resorting to outside causative agents.
Now not all> theories are true.
Theories aren't meant to be true, false or judgemental in any way. They are explanations of phenomena, or haven't I said that before?
There were scientists that said cars would explode> if they went over a certain speed back in the early 20th century, but> we've moved on, it was a theory, and was later disproven.
That is what is wonderful about science: it is self-correcting. Scientists review each others work, both for internal consistency and for consistency with new data, and what stands the test gets to hang around and what doesn't gets discarded. That makes scientific arguments stronger, not weaker
If a theory> can be reproduced in a laboratory under any circumstances, and is> valid, it will eventually be raised to a scientific law (i.e. Law of> Gravity).
First of all, laboratory conditions aren't required, or else the realm of science would be sorely limited. Theories exist in the natural world and are observable and repeatable in that world, not just a lab. Secondly, as far as "raised to a scientific law", there is no formal mechanism for "raising". Many things that go by the name "law" really aren't. The example you give, in particular. There are laws about gravity, but they are based mathematical models, such as that the force of gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance. "Gravity" as a whole is still a scientific theory: a set of explanations for events and phenomena in the natural world. Many "laws" break down at the quantum level and no longer explain phenomena, but that doesn't make them any less valid at the macro level.
All I see are the scientists that want the Theory of> Evolution taught as if it were the Law of Evolution with absolutely no> counterpoint.>
Again, counterpoint is fine, as long as everyone is speaking the same language. Since evolution is a scientific concept, consistency requires that the common language be science. ID'ers aren't speaking that language. Look, if the Kansas school board wants to teach kids ID, let them, that's their decision, but not in a science classroom. Teach it in philosophy, or world religions or some other milieu. By the reasoning of the ID'ers, every branch of science would be required to teach whatever criticism of it any group of people can muster. Flat earth, astrology, heck, even Scientology, would find their way into the curriculum. People have come to the agreement that science is something that is desirable and necessary to be taught in school. Science shouldn't be diluted in the name of religion and fear.
