Found at the reDiscovery Institute, a tongue-in-cheek spoof of Discovery Institute (which espouses Intelligent Design [wiki]).
Found at the reDiscovery Institute, a tongue-in-cheek spoof of Discovery Institute (which espouses Intelligent Design [wiki]).
:D
All ideas should be taught. Whether or not you like them.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on the subject. I don't want this comment section to turn into a raging debate better left to a real forum.
" A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
So, when something is proven by science (or has not been proven false despite many, many decades of repeated testings), it's a "theory." When scientists are guessing, they call it "hypothesis."
It is written by Francis Collins, one of the most famous and influential geneticists on the planet today. Here's a story about it on the Sunday Times.
Rob - there's a big difference between Evolution and Creationism. Would you accept the Anasazi, Norse or Pastafarian creation myth being taught to your children as science? your child comes home with "scientific proofs" (no doubt the same as the Christian scientific proofs) telling her that we all live on the back of an invisible intergalactic turtle?
Also, clever wording there, about disproving the existence of God. Try this: I believe there's a nice china teapot somewhere between the orbit of Mars and Jupiter. it's been there since the beginning of the universe, well before man. Sound irrational and even a little crazy? fine, prove it doesn't exist. you can't.
The burden of proof is on me to prove the teapot exists. Just as the burden of proof is on you to prove God's existence.
In regards to burden of proof - yes and no. Strictly speaking the First Law of Thermodynamics has not been proven (and cannot be mathematically proven). So, despite of being supported by experimental evidence, it has never been proven and this law remains axiomatic in nature.
And I'd really, really like to see this "decent amount of real science" you're talking about.
What amazes me is that the ID people seem so proud of having these superstitious beliefs. And the modern culture of "freedom of religion" tolerance means the rest of us are expected to respect their right to have this belief, as if religion were exempt from criticism. A father prevents his child from attending school, and he goes to prison. If he were to cite religion as the reason, we'd be expected to understand and respect his wishes. Likewise, if someone were to say "I believe that there is a giant chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter", I would not be reasonably expected to respect this belief. Someone says "I believe the world was created 6000 years ago by an invisible, psychic being" should I be expected to respect that? No. I'ts barmy.
But as I said in my last comment, I'll not discuss this issue any further here on Neatorama.
And that, folks, is the root of the problem: too many people who believe that because it is in a book, it must be true. Why, creationism has a great deal of evidence -- I've read it in a book! Why, the bible is without error -- I've read it in a book!
Oh, internet.
Indeed, the world would be a much simpler place if only no one disagreed with each other. Maybe all of us believers of logic should get together and kill all of the Christians off. Then we'd all agree and the world would be great.
In general, if someone else's argument does not seem sane or reasonable to you, it's generally because you don't understand it.
Why evolution has a great deal of evidence -- I've read it in a book!
Your argument collapses on itself...
http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/