Missouri puts prayers back in skool...

[Robert_S]

Unicorns are scientifically possible. Yet to see one. Or evidence for one. Until such time as such does appear, unicorns are nothing to me but a fiction.

So, now you're claiming that your ignorance is the metric for scientific validity?

[FBM]

Unicorns are scientifically possible. Yet to see one. Or evidence for one. Until such time as such does appear, unicorns are nothing to me but a fiction.

So, now you're claiming that your ignorance is the metric for scientific validity?

Scientific validity is built on empirical evidence and necessary inference. Absence of evidence isn't grounds for a truth claim. If you read what I wrote, I said "to me". I didn't say anything about scientific validity or absolute truth.

[Seth]

Unicorns are scientifically possible. Yet to see one. Or evidence for one. Until such time as such does appear, unicorns are nothing to me but a fiction.

So, now you're claiming that your ignorance is the metric for scientific validity?

Scientific validity is built on empirical evidence and necessary inference. Absence of evidence isn't grounds for a truth claim. If you read what I wrote, I said "to me". I didn't say anything about scientific validity or absolute truth.

Who cares what you think? This is about science. You're evading the issue.

[FBM]

Who cares what you think? This is about science. You're evading the issue.

Apparently you care what I think. I'm not evading anything, you're spinning with empty rhetoric and red herrings. I'm stating my approach to matters of uncertainty, which is to suspend belief until evidence is presented.

[Robert_S]

Unicorns are scientifically possible. Yet to see one. Or evidence for one. Until such time as such does appear, unicorns are nothing to me but a fiction.

So, now you're claiming that your ignorance is the metric for scientific validity?

Scientific validity is built on empirical evidence and necessary inference. Absence of evidence isn't grounds for a truth claim. If you read what I wrote, I said "to me". I didn't say anything about scientific validity or absolute truth.

Who cares what you think? This is about science. You're evading the issue.

And gaming the system!

[Seth]

Who cares what you think? This is about science. You're evading the issue.

Apparently you care what I think. I'm not evading anything, you're spinning with empty rhetoric and red herrings. I'm stating my approach to matters of uncertainty, which is to suspend belief until evidence is presented.

Nothing wrong with that, however are you admitting that the controversy is a scientific one, not an inherently religious and supernatural one?

That's all I'm asking.

[FBM]

Who cares what you think? This is about science. You're evading the issue.

Apparently you care what I think. I'm not evading anything, you're spinning with empty rhetoric and red herrings. I'm stating my approach to matters of uncertainty, which is to suspend belief until evidence is presented.

Nothing wrong with that, however are you admitting that the controversy is a scientific one, not an inherently religious and supernatural one?

That's all I'm asking.

Science isn't the only way to knowledge; I'd call this an epistemological controversy. Faith =/= knowledge of anything other than faith, not the object of faith itself.

[Coito ergo sum]

Unicorns are scientifically possible. Yet to see one. Or evidence for one. Until such time as such does appear, unicorns are nothing to me but a fiction.

So, now you're claiming that your ignorance is the metric for scientific validity?

Scientific validity is built on empirical evidence and necessary inference. Absence of evidence isn't grounds for a truth claim. If you read what I wrote, I said "to me". I didn't say anything about scientific validity or absolute truth.

Who cares what you think? This is about science. You're evading the issue.

And gaming the system!

And playing fast and loose!

[Coito ergo sum]

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

When an intelligent design theory that is actually a theory and not a hypothesis, vague notion or wild speculation is put forward by a person or group without a larger political and/or legal agenda, then there will be a scientific controversy.

Until then, there is no real scientific controversy.

Here's a theory: Sometime in the deep past, an intelligent designer intervened in evolution on this planet to guide living organisms down specific evolutionary pathways.

Nice hypothesis. It becomes a theory when there is evidence for it.

Here's another: Sometime in the last few minutes, an intelligent designer intervened and poofed the universe into being, complete with everything we see in the universe, and our memories already in our heads, which is why we seem to think the universe is very old, even though it is only a few minutes old.

I demand equal time.

Additionally, 65 or so million years ago, that same designer decided that dinosaurs were not proceeding down the pathway towards intelligence as the designer intended, so it perturbed an asteroid, causing it to hit near Yucatan, thereby causing the dinosaurs to become extinct and giving mammals their shot at evolving intelligence.

Since I have zero religious, legal or political agenda in mind, it's now a "real scientific controversy."

It isn't. It is a hypothesis. And, since it has no evidentiary or empirical basis, not a single observation to support it, no cohesive model, etc., it isn't a scientific theory, and as such, it is at a minimum a waste of time to teach it in school.

[Mysturji]

Does this mean if any students who believe in Discordianism take themselves to a quiet corner out of the way they can perform the Turkey Curse? If so that will really piss the fundies off.

Has anybody ever managed to enact the turkey curse ritual and keep a straight face?

Five times, in accordance with the Law of Fives.

It's basically saying that the children of fundamentalists should not be taught......science.

Which is within the religious rights of the parents involved.

Oh, I don't know about that.

The local school board sets the curriculum, and if they say that you need to take English Composition or Algebra to graduate, I do not believe that a religious person has a right to remove their child from those classes. Now, if they, start teaching religion (or atheism) in class, then I think there is a better point on your side.

However, the teaching of secular, nonreligious topics does not become unconstitutional because, say, and Amish person wants to send their kid to high school and only learn home economics. You can't just choose to send your kid to one or two classes, just because you're an Amish person who thinks that almost all education past the 8th grade is ungodly.

It's basically saying that the children of fundamentalists have the right to fail science class.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it's not, it's just a idle conjecture.

So is multiverse theory.

Nobody is teaching multiverse theory in the public schools.

However, the multiverse theories, theories of multiple dimensions, etc., these are mathematical theorems in theoretical physics.

What that means is that these things have no empirical evidence, but they are based on complex and verifiable mathematics that is internally consistent based on a set of assumptions.

This is what sets multiverse and other such theories of theoretical physics, string theory, and such, apart from ideas like ID. ID has no theoretical basis in theoretical physics. It has no internally consistent mathematics. It has no mathematics behind it at all. There is no theoretical physics of ID.

Take a look at this introduction to string theory: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0107094v1.pdf

If you scroll through it, you will see something you will never see in an ID book or publication. Math. Theoretical physics. That is why you can't compare M theory, string theory, knot theory, and such to ID. ID is just someone declaring something to be true, and making logical syllogisms based on unsubstantiated premises. Multiverse, string, M, knot, and other such theories are theoretical physics.

[JimC]

No, it's not, it's just a idle conjecture.

So is multiverse theory.

Nobody is teaching multiverse theory in the public schools.

However, the multiverse theories, theories of multiple dimensions, etc., these are mathematical theorems in theoretical physics.

What that means is that these things have no empirical evidence, but they are based on complex and verifiable mathematics that is internally consistent based on a set of assumptions.

This is what sets multiverse and other such theories of theoretical physics, string theory, and such, apart from ideas like ID. ID has no theoretical basis in theoretical physics. It has no internally consistent mathematics. It has no mathematics behind it at all. There is no theoretical physics of ID.

Take a look at this introduction to string theory: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0107094v1.pdf

If you scroll through it, you will see something you will never see in an ID book or publication. Math. Theoretical physics. That is why you can't compare M theory, string theory, knot theory, and such to ID. ID is just someone declaring something to be true, and making logical syllogisms based on unsubstantiated premises. Multiverse, string, M, knot, and other such theories are theoretical physics.

Well stated!

There is no short-cut to a deep understanding of modern physics; you do the maths, or you are a dilettante...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sneaky Republicans at it again.

[Coito ergo sum]

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

When an intelligent design theory that is actually a theory and not a hypothesis, vague notion or wild speculation is put forward by a person or group without a larger political and/or legal agenda, then there will be a scientific controversy.

Until then, there is no real scientific controversy.

Here's a theory: Sometime in the deep past, an intelligent designer intervened in evolution on this planet to guide living organisms down specific evolutionary pathways. Additionally, 65 or so million years ago, that same designer decided that dinosaurs were not proceeding down the pathway towards intelligence as the designer intended, so it perturbed an asteroid, causing it to hit near Yucatan, thereby causing the dinosaurs to become extinct and giving mammals their shot at evolving intelligence.

Since I have zero religious, legal or political agenda in mind, it's now a "real scientific controversy."

Until you have evidence for it, it's not a scientific theory, except in the peculiar usage of theoretical physics. Things that people just sort of speculate about are not theories to be taught in schools.

It would be acceptable if you were proposing theoretical physics and you had actual physics to show us (math), but you don't. So what you have, again, is speculation. That's not a scientific theory and that isn't theoretical physics.

Just to be quick and brief about this -- math is what you're missing when you compare ideas like String and M theory and such with your speculation. String theory, for example, isn't proven by empirical evidence, but there is math that works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstrin ... athematics

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it's not, it's just a idle conjecture.

So is multiverse theory.

Once again, the M Theories, like String theory, are theoretical physics, and they aren't taught anywhere unless there is working math behind it....

Moreover, MTheory and such are not taught or even proposed to be taught in K-12 public schools. It's a tad bit beyond the ken of 98% of said children...