you're a long way from home yuppie boy. i'll start a tab.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
rest easy
all you haters of intelligent design, rest easy. that school in lebec, gorman, grapevine, where ever, has decided to pull the plug on thei philosophy of i.d. class. they couldn't afford the legal fight.
from dictionary.reference.com, definition one of seven. theory, n. 1. 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. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
so, yes, adam, based on this definition offered by the american heritage dictionary, it is a theory.
out of curiousity, have you read the actual i.d. material? i haven't, but have read a complaint from supporters that opposition is frequently based on conjecture of what is in their material rather than what is actually present there. i realize it may be difficult to give a black/white, yes/no answer to that question as there may be several different i.d. theories or curriculi out there.
Well, I'll have to wait until I get home from work to properly respond. I have neither the time nor the materials I'd like to reference here at work. But yes, I've read some materials and some actual transcripts from the trial in PA as well as other detractor's opinions.
no need to do more work. it's not really a defend your argument question. you've answered that you've read some of their materials, which is what i asked.
and as for it's theory-ness, i have already decided, based on the definitions, that it is. you may assert that it is not a scientific theory that is testable and duplicatable, and i'm fine with that. i'm just saying it's a theory under the broader defination of the term.
Well, yes, I suppose, that it may be a theory in the broader definition of the term, but scientific inquiry is based on a much more narrow definition of the term, much as you described it to be, a "testable" theory.
Ed, here is one particular site that refutes ID fairly concisely and in understandable terms.
Also, if you're interested in some not so light reading, I suggest tracking down the transcripts that my brother linked on his blog. It's about 100 pages of PDF of Behe's testimony in the PA trial. The lawyer did a very good job of exposing his lunacy.
see, i might be interested in reading their actual curriculum. but, i think that it may not be any unified curriculum/idea. or, it could be and i'm completely wrong.
well, i mean i.d. in general. mainly because it's such a hot topic. and i can imagine the sort of things it says or is based on, but i would just be assuming. or going off things i've heard.
like, i hear that it's based in literalist reading of biblical text. but, then i read quotes from propponents that say, no, we don't believe in 5000 year old earth.
That's because it's more political and religous than scientific, so several different groups that don't necessarily agree with each other are all lobbying for it. That's why the issue is so convoluted.
since the school is really close to bakos, it was all over the news. there was a radio station that was talking about it in the morning, and i hardly ever listen to it, the dj is a complete moron, and i didnt really remember what he said, but he was an idiot about it.
13 comments:
don't get me wrong, i'm not a lover of i.d., just not wholeheartedly opposed to differing theories of life being taught.
It's not a theory.
from dictionary.reference.com, definition one of seven.
theory, n.
1. 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.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
so, yes, adam, based on this definition offered by the american heritage dictionary, it is a theory.
out of curiousity, have you read the actual i.d. material? i haven't, but have read a complaint from supporters that opposition is frequently based on conjecture of what is in their material rather than what is actually present there. i realize it may be difficult to give a black/white, yes/no answer to that question as there may be several different i.d. theories or curriculi out there.
wikipedia also has an interesting entry on theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
of course, i like it because it affirms my usage of the word theory in relation to i.d.
Well, I'll have to wait until I get home from work to properly respond. I have neither the time nor the materials I'd like to reference here at work. But yes, I've read some materials and some actual transcripts from the trial in PA as well as other detractor's opinions.
no need to do more work. it's not really a defend your argument question. you've answered that you've read some of their materials, which is what i asked.
and as for it's theory-ness, i have already decided, based on the definitions, that it is. you may assert that it is not a scientific theory that is testable and duplicatable, and i'm fine with that. i'm just saying it's a theory under the broader defination of the term.
Well, yes, I suppose, that it may be a theory in the broader definition of the term, but scientific inquiry is based on a much more narrow definition of the term, much as you described it to be, a "testable" theory.
Ed, here is one particular site that refutes ID fairly concisely and in understandable terms.
Also, if you're interested in some not so light reading, I suggest tracking down the transcripts that my brother linked on his blog. It's about 100 pages of PDF of Behe's testimony in the PA trial. The lawyer did a very good job of exposing his lunacy.
see, i might be interested in reading their actual curriculum. but, i think that it may not be any unified curriculum/idea. or, it could be and i'm completely wrong.
You mean the ID people or the school's curriculum for the class that got pulled?
well, i mean i.d. in general. mainly because it's such a hot topic. and i can imagine the sort of things it says or is based on, but i would just be assuming. or going off things i've heard.
like, i hear that it's based in literalist reading of biblical text. but, then i read quotes from propponents that say, no, we don't believe in 5000 year old earth.
That's because it's more political and religous than scientific, so several different groups that don't necessarily agree with each other are all lobbying for it. That's why the issue is so convoluted.
since the school is really close to bakos, it was all over the news. there was a radio station that was talking about it in the morning, and i hardly ever listen to it, the dj is a complete moron, and i didnt really remember what he said, but he was an idiot about it.
so, theres that.
Post a Comment