Not so Intellent Discussion of Intelligent Design
There is lots of talk about Intelligent Design and Evolution...
I see two problems that are occuring here.
One is a misunderstanding of what Evolution is about. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution has nothing to do with WHY we are here. Evolution teaches about what happens as life progresses. It says nothing about HOW life came about.
In other words Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
That is one reason why Intelligent Design has no place in the science classroom.
A second reason is a basic misunderstanding of the word THEORY.
Theory in scientific terms has a different meaning then it does in non-scientific terms. One word but two completely different meanings.
In laymans terms a theory is a hunch or a guess....something that may or may not have a basis in facts.
In scientific terms though a theory is not an unsubstantiated hunch or guess...it is: Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles, capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from Maxwell's equations. This theory is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism.
The term theoretical is used in science to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment; failed predictions, however, also occur, and sometimes work to falsify a theory. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics there can also be confirmed experimental results that are not yet explained by theory.
For a given body of theory to be considered part of established scientific knowledge, it is usually necessary for it to characterize a critical experiment, namely an experimental result not predicted by any existing established theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
A case might be able to be made for including Intelligent Design in a Cosmology Class...but only if you are going to cover other Non-Scientific theories of how life began....like the theory that a giant ape sneezed and life was the result of that mucus explosion...
But you know I have a better idea...lets keep science (made up of facts and scientific theories) in the science classroom..and lets keep religious beliefs and non-scientific theories about the origin of life in religion and humanities classes...
Because science is about the HOW not the WHY.
I see two problems that are occuring here.
One is a misunderstanding of what Evolution is about. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution has nothing to do with WHY we are here. Evolution teaches about what happens as life progresses. It says nothing about HOW life came about.
In other words Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
That is one reason why Intelligent Design has no place in the science classroom.
A second reason is a basic misunderstanding of the word THEORY.
Theory in scientific terms has a different meaning then it does in non-scientific terms. One word but two completely different meanings.
In laymans terms a theory is a hunch or a guess....something that may or may not have a basis in facts.
In scientific terms though a theory is not an unsubstantiated hunch or guess...it is: Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles, capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from Maxwell's equations. This theory is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism.
The term theoretical is used in science to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment; failed predictions, however, also occur, and sometimes work to falsify a theory. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics there can also be confirmed experimental results that are not yet explained by theory.
For a given body of theory to be considered part of established scientific knowledge, it is usually necessary for it to characterize a critical experiment, namely an experimental result not predicted by any existing established theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
A case might be able to be made for including Intelligent Design in a Cosmology Class...but only if you are going to cover other Non-Scientific theories of how life began....like the theory that a giant ape sneezed and life was the result of that mucus explosion...
But you know I have a better idea...lets keep science (made up of facts and scientific theories) in the science classroom..and lets keep religious beliefs and non-scientific theories about the origin of life in religion and humanities classes...
Because science is about the HOW not the WHY.
posted by Kharma @ 8:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home