Quote:
Originally Posted by MRiedl
Is it now?
The question was covering testability. You can in fact test the claim that the Bermuda Triangle will sink ships.
That said, I tend to think this particular site chooses something of a poor example for the second option. Abiogenesis, which covers the origins of life itself is something we do not understand.
A lot of the time people (read creationists) will try to lump this study in with the well known law of biogenesis.
However, it needs to be noted that the law of biogenesis has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.
CB000: Law of Biogenesis
Honestly, look at the testing that went on with the law of biogenesis and apply that to the claims being made.
Spontaneous generation was the hypothesis which was disproved by Redi's Experiments.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This was disproved by demonstrating that maggots would not spawn from meat that flies could not get to.
I have to ask, how such experimentation has any bearing whatsoever on modern abiogenesis research?
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It doesn't make the argument any more convincing however.
The article you list gives some basics as far as the evaluation of evidence.
Okay, so we have some standards now by which you can hold your arguments to.
Now you can try to demonstrate that your ID claims are:
Consistent:
Observable:
Natural:
Predictable:
Testable:
and Tentative:
So, please, by all means, attempt to do so. I would be happy to evaluate the arguments, as would many others here I imagine.
To my experience, ID proponents avoid such things because they know their evidence and arguments do not hold up to scrutiny when held to scientific standards.
As for this poll, there is no point in voting as it does not cover my perspective at all:
The question it asks is for the reason to teach ID in science class. Here is my answer:
The reason ID is being pushed is because creationism in its basic form has repeatedly failed to win its way back into public education. ID is an attempt to evade those protections which have foiled such attempts in the past. As for why specifically, that is simple. A lot of strongly religious people believe that their beliefs are valid and want to see those beliefs perpetuated in the school system. Actual scientific standards are not typically considered in their reasoning.
I don't believe there is any good reason to teach ID in science class, except perhaps as a shining example of pseudoscience which could be brought up when students are taught about the criteria that scientific knowledge is held to and why it is held to that degree of scrutiny. |
Again, in my opinion, another post that can't see the forest for the trees.
Look, I'm not saying a science class should be a pulpit. Heck, don't mention a 'god' at all. But please, try and objectionally read your own post. That's all I am asking.
What you are saying is that in one instance, you can take something that isn't necessarily true to prove the testability of an idea, right?
You said it here :
Quote:
The question was covering testability. You can in fact test the claim that the Bermuda Triangle will sink ships.
That said, I tend to think this particular site chooses something of a poor example for the second option. Abiogenesis, which covers the origins of life itself is something we do not understand.
|
So, we can say this idea is testable, but is it? How do you say "Class, life can not come from non-life. This is a testable scientific fact. However, we're not sure if life comes from non-life."
Please open your mind to what I am trying to say. I'm not trying to sell you Jesus Christ packaged as ID or Creationism. What I am saying is quite the opposite.
Ok...let me try this...it's hard to type what I want to 'say' out loud.
I'm asking all who read this next statement to just consider it. Just consider it. Don't have to buy it, don't have to believe it, don't even have to like me, or anything I have to say, but just consider this statement.
If "Life can't can't come from non-life" is an accurate, legitimate, testable, and predictable statement. Then based on that same logic, testability and example, Darwinism is false. Because, as stated over and over and over again, a simple City-Data field trip to the beautiful Galapagos Islands will confirm that after substantial amounts of time, Darwin's finches are still finches.
You say, no, we're talking billions of years! OK, so then life can come from non-life? Or at least possible could? Then the first statement touted as 'testable' science is false.
It's the same old argument. 'Someone' is deciding what kind of ludicrous statements are legitimate science and which ones are not. If both can't hold water, then either both should be allowed, or both should be banned.
I'm not asking you to choose.
Just to consider.