Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Post Reply New Topic

From http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/theory.htm

What theory means in science.

Only a theory is what creationists like to say about evolution; and that seems to carry weight with some people. Such people don't understand what that word means to a scientist.

As used in science, theory does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation — it's much more full-blown, and the word is by no means a pejorative term.

A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word built is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another.

Construction of good theories is a major goal of science.

Yes, a scientific theory can be wrong, as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagrees with it; or its validity might be limited (as are some of those listed above). So in science, a wrong theory gets discarded or modified. This has happened, for example, with the caloric theory of heat in physics and the phlogiston theory of combustion in chemistry.

In physics, which is my field, theories such as classical mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism are thought to be on excellent ground in both evidence and reasoning, but each of them is just a theory. Other theories, such as in cosmology and elementary particles, are still being developed, and do get changed as new evidence and reasoning come in.

Supernatural creation is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Considered in a scientific sense, it has a fatal flaw: it is sterile. If someone asserts that there is a creator-god, one can ask “So what?” Nothing follows from it; it leads nowhere. Some religions have additional hypotheses, such as: only one creator-god, a great flood, the sun standing still, a virgin birth, a trinity, the efficacy of prayer; but no one of these is logically demanded, or even suggested, by the others. They are just added on.

Anti-evolutionists sometimes say that evolution has not been “proven”. In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field, with the possible exception of pure mathematics, since new data might come along that requires a change, and there are always details that haven't been tested. Sure, there are things not yet understood about evolution, as in many other fields; but that is why scientists do research! I have encountered the statement — meant as a put-down — that scientists don't know everything. Well of course not, but we expect to know tomorrow more than we know today.

Text ©2001 Edgar Pearlstein
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Nebraska - Lincoln

From http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Wor ... gion.shtml

Is Science A Religion?
by Richard Dawkins

Given the dangers of faith -- and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science -- I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.

Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.

From http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Wor ... logy.shtml

The Emptiness Of Theology by Richard Dawkins

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

How could the BIG BANG CREATE ITS SELF???

for it isnt possible for us to prove them scientificly, we all can make several theories.
a funny explanation that i had as a teen about the "BEFORE of the big bang" was:
"GOD WAS THE BIG BANG", but this doesnt make sense to me right now, cause man invented god(s)

right now im living with the imagination, that
BIG BANG
EXPANDING
SHRINKING (because of too many blackholes)
and COLLAPSING
are an ETERNAL CYCLE

this, imo, makes more sense than an "intelligent design" by a supernatural force

What has created though?

How can something create itself out of nothing?

To All

Even Science is flawed, why because we are the Ones doing the Science

Even the Bible has Science in it. You can find: Astronomy, Meteorology, Biology. Hydrology, and even Geology.

This was even before what We call Modern Science.

BIG BANG
EXPANDING
SHRINKING (because of too many blackholes)
and COLLAPSING
are an ETERNAL CYCLE

I argue that the science of Evolution is flawed, there simply isn't any good evidence for it, and as everyone here agrees, an hypotheses needs good supporting evidence before one can accept it as a valid theory.