Originally posted by benzene
Oh, I agree. I know evolution occurs. All living organisms are required to adapt. The ones that can't die off. This sort of adaptation can been seen, tested, and predicted ad nauseum. There really is no question whether or not "evolution" (i.e. genetic change in a species over time) occurs. That's fact. The current problem (as it seems to me), is what level of evolution occurs. Is it responsible for all the genetic information? Only half? (etc).
Your opinion is tangential to the issue of education. When I pointed out that almost all scientists support the theory of evolution, it was not to convince you of the validity of the theory; it was to show you that it was the only theory on the origin of life that has credibility within science. In fact, it is one of the three core theories of biology (the other two being cell and genetic theory). If you teach biology, you teach these three theories.
Your aknowledgement that evolution occurs, while weaseling in a false issue of at what level, is NOT an issue in the theory of evolution (or in education) its an issue for anti-evolutionists. The evolution that nearly all scientists support is the only theory: that all life came from a common ancestor, that all species that exist today are from previous species, and that life first occurred on earth at least a billion (or two) years ago.
This is the theory that is, and that should be, taughtits called teaching science in science courses.
Again, I agree. What we're actually discussing borders on the edge of philosophy. That doesn't mean, however, that there are not possible traces of the supernatural (as we think of it), or that science, in some yet-unforseeable mechanism, can learn about dimensions beyond our understanding. (ex: imagine trying to explain relativity to a 15th century peasant.). Science should stand on what is known, but reach for what is unknown. If the current understanding of biological & chemical processes is unable to explain evolution in its entirety, wouldn't it be fair to say so?
I cant help but think this is more weasel speak. It is not a matter of what science should do, its a matter of what science is and does. Science presents what is known, what is theoretically supported, what avenues of further research is likely, what the major outstanding issues are, and what remains unknown. Our understanding of any theory, including evolution must be always be incomplete, as there is always more to be discovered, that is what makes it science.
And that is also what is, and what should be, taught.
Well, it is not inherently antiscientific to talk about "God", because science has not disproved the existence of God. Now, if people were clamoring to reintroduce phlogiston as an scientific theory, I'd be pretty upset. Science definitely has problems explaining some pretty key things. While on one hand we can have faith that science will eventually fill those gaps, we also have to take into account the possibility that it can't.
Of course it is antiscientific to talk about gods and hobgoblins. The existence (or non existence) of such things are irrelevant to the scientific method and every scientific theory I know of. There always have been, and always will be, gaps in knowledge. Five hundred years ago, when crops failed, people filled their gaps with an assumption of witches to be rectified by burning the local spinster and her black cat.
Today, we are comfortable with the fact that understanding of natural events is not complete. It is almost certain we will never know everything, but today we dont need to fill in our gaps with witches, or gods.
I'm assuming you're implying that IDers never publish intelligent design articles. This is true, for several reasons:
1. The scientific community thinks it's highly illogical to invoke any sort of "supernatural", and therefore the few articles that are submitted to journals are immediately rejected. This is understandable, if not slight reactionary, for the reasons I covered above.
2. There are actually several peer-reviewed ID journals out there. They're not big, but (from what I know about them), they do cover a lot of topics.
3. There are many ID proponents (or variants) who do publish in journals. It's just that they are publishing works that pertain to their immediate field. They're just not using those works as soapboxes. (Yes, you can be an ID proponent and a perfectly good scientist.)
1. Im sorry, it does not follow. I cant see how rejecting articles that add an unnecessary and non-falsifiable supernatural element to a scientific theory is reactionary.
2 & 3 ID journals, peer reviewed by whom? Fellow IDers? Every scientific discipline has a number of nationally respected publications that are reviewed by those equally qualified. For example, I know the Dembrnski (I think it was him) actually did publish his ID theory in a credible journal of philosophy. Beyond that, I know of no IDer theory published in the biological or physical science journals.
I have no doubt that one can believe in the supernatural and be a good scientist, and I have no doubt that anyone who adds spiritualism to a scientific theory is not a scientist (good or otherwise).