My Condolences to the People of Kansas

[extropalopakettle]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

I hope PA doesn't follow suit.

[casinopete]

[Leptonn]

Neo and statemates, my deepest sympathies. May we all take your loss as motivation to campaign against similar inept decisions in our own geographical regions.

Fortunately, The Vatican seems to be quite firmly on the side of science in this issue.

[Courk]

Umm... Wow.

[Jedo the Jedi]

I have a feeling my science teacher might be a little appalled.

[Leptonn]

I have an appalling feeling, myself. Almost as if I threw up inside my mouth.

[alphatango]

This is all a bad dream, right? *pinches self*
_________________
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted." -- Fred Allen

Keeper of the Eternal Flame of the Inner Geek.

[worm]

i'm more surprised the vatican defended evolution. am glad, too...maybe i'm not such a heretic after all

[extro...]

A sigh of relief here in Pennsylvania: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051109/sc_nm/election_usa_evolution_dc

[Samadhi]

[worm]

yeah i know, that's why i'm one of eight

hasn't been much of an issue for me lately

[Mackay]

*blames the knee*

[extro...]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/the_major_medias_embarrassing.html

From skimming the actual Kansas Science Education Standards approved a few days ago, I couldn't find the alleged redefinition of science "so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena".

The school board's motives, to me, are highly suspect, but I'm also somewhat suspecting media distortion again.

[extro...]

Now, we all know that "Intelligent Design" is supposed to be science, and not religion, and that it's been quite careful to avoid claiming God is the designer. And yet, after the people of Dover, Pennsylvania voted out the incumbent school board that supported addressing intelligent design in science classes, televangelist Pat Robertson announced that they rejected God from their city. All because they voted against the teaching of an alleged scientific theory?

[worm]

i thought he normally waits to claim that until after a natural disaster has struck.

[Leptonn]

Nah, Pat Robertson is on the inside track with G-Man. It was Robertson's influence that opened up the two recently-vacated Supreme Court seats.

[worm]

any condolences to us virginians for having pat?

not that we claim him or anything.

[Guest]

[worm]

didn't know that. am i a heretic for not keeping up with papal communications?

guess it makes sense (to me, anyway) that teaching evolution vs. creationism in catholic schools would've come up long before intelligent design became an issue. since they taught us evolution in both of my bio classes, i should've known the Vatican wasn't against it.

will the private schools in kansas teach intelligent design?

[Guest]

Governments have much less control over private schools.

[Jedo the Jedi]

I've been researching evolution for a speech that I have to give, and I'm a little confused. Could someone help me out?

My main thing is Occam's Razor. 'Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.' Now, that is used by evolutionists to reject intelligent design because it is more complex. (That's how I understand it.) However, I myself see that I could use that to reject evolution by saying it is simpler to believe a single entity created everything rather than millions of chance occurences brought us to where we are now. Am I misunderstanding Occam? Does that even make sense? (It probably doesn't. )

[extro...]

I think "God did it" fails as an explanation because it attempts to explain something we don't yet fully understand by proposing a cause we understand even less. If we accept the "intelligent designer" as a cause, this makes the problem of truly understanding the matter a bigger one, not a smaller one. Evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life on earth, and the patterns observed in the fossil record, by proposing an explanation built on simpler concepts that we understand.

You can't measure the simplicity of "God did it" as an explanation by the apparent simplicity of the sentence "God did it". You may as well say "X did it". What is "X"? Well, in the name of simplicity, don't ask. Just accept. That is simplest.

Furthermore, it goes beyond whether or not "God did it" is a simpler explanation, or simpler predictive theory. Is "God did it" an explanation, or a predictive theory, at all? If so, why constrain it to biology? We have laws of physics that tell us how celestial objects move relative to one another. Occassionally we will observe some object in space with an unexplained "wobble" or other odd motion that isn't explained by the laws, unless we conjecture that some other object exists nearby, which we can not see. And then later, usually, we will find some other evidence of that object. Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "God did it" whenever we see anything we don't understand, and leave it at that? Drop an apple, it falls to the ground. "God did it." But wait, you say - it happens every time - I see a pattern. But remember: KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid! Pattern, shmattern - God did it! Why would we ever spend more than a millisecond trying to understand anything we observe, when we have immediately at hand a much simpler explanation than anything else that could possibly be hoped for: God did it. But, in fact, "God did it" does not explain anything, and does not constitute a predictive theory.

[extro...]

Perhaps a simple answer: Intelligent Design proposes the existence of an intelligent designer. Evolution proposes only mechanisms and processes which we already know occur (mutation, genetic inheritance, natural selection).

[Jedo the Jedi]

I get it. I think.

So, technically, Occam's Razor cannot be used to dispel Intelligent Design, just as Intelligent Design cannot be used to explain life. Is that correct?

[extro...]

[Jedo the Jedi]

My point in saying that was if ID is not a predictive theory, and Occam's Razor can only apply to predictive theories, then Occam's Razor cannot be applied to ID because it is not a predictive theory.

[Lepton]

Occam's Razor shouldn't be used, period. It is sometimes entertaining in retrospect, but has never been successfully used as a predictive tool.

For example, consider General Relativity. I can assure you that the equations of GR are much more complicated than those of any Newtonian theory. A naive scientist, applying Occam's Razor, would conclude that GR shouldn't be correct. (for the argumentative, GR at the time didn't predict any new effects, only modifications to currently-understood effects - the precession of Mercury's perihelion, the bending of light rays near massive objects) However, we now believe GR to be correct.

A correct application of Occam's Razor would recognize that GR's explanation of gravity is simpler than the Newtonian explanation, because it provides a theoretical motivation for this action-at-a-distance. However, this is something that wasn't realized at the time.

[extro...]

[worm]

the opinion page at my school's paper was littered with id discussion today. one caught my attention (emphasis added):

[Jedo]

Coupled with the fossil record? You're joking, right?

I'd like an explanation on the validity of these fossil records. As far as I can tell, there is not a single ounce of proof lying in these records. Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

(Sorry about hijacking this thread, but I figured it was the most appropriate place.)

[Jedo]

On a side note, though not altogether disconnected, how does Occam's Razor apply to the business of 'dark matter'? I suppose dark matter is the most simple explanation for why our universe does not add up?

[worm]

i wouldn't say you're hijacking. maybe it's a little redundant to have a discussion here and the making monkeys out of us thread in OT, but who cares

[Jedo the Jedi]

Yes, that was really me.

I assume by 'fossil record' you mean the business about geologic dating. Is that right? If so, then it really proves nothing at all, unless there is of course a method that I am not familiar with. As it stands, the logic behind it is faulty, as far as I can tell. *mutters something about circular reasoning and radioactive dating*

[Chuck]

Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design

[extro...]

[Leptonn]

Occam's Razor:

extropalopakettle, you are correct: Occam's razor should not be applied naively. But how does one apply the concept in a non-naive fashion to a physical theory that is not yet understood? It is a hauling-oneself-by-the-bootstraps problem: we almost never know *how* to apply the razor before we know whether the theory is correct from empirical means.

Dark matter is a good example of this: there are lots of ideas (WIMPs, MACHOs, MOND, etc - in other words, dark matter = unseen particles/unseen stars/new physics). However, which one is correct? They all offer a reasonable degree of predictive power, and many of the explanations seem to have comparative simplicity. But I am sure that, in the future, we will look back and say "why did we ever think it could be particles/planets/new physics?"

[Jedo the Jedi]

[Dread Pirate Westley]

[Leptonn]

Right, Jedo, good example. In retrospect, we could think about how much work the kid would have had to exert to order to get herself so high on the swing, and it is natural to invoke another participant. However, until we have reason to believe that the parent-pusher hypothesis is reasonable (for example, if we saw the parent pushing other kids or whatnot), this guess is not on equal footing with the self-propelled theory.

I am not sure that you have your facts straight when it comes to radioactive dating. In my view, it is remarkably accurate, and since it is based on a simple and well-understood physical principal, quite robust.

[Jedo the Jedi]

So, you are saying that until we see verifiable evidence of Intelligent Design, we can't believe it to be true, even though it may be? Scientifically speaking, that is.

I love wikipedia.

This business about radioactive dating really seems sketchy to me, regardless of how much sense it might make. How do these rocks absorb these elements? What is this business about "blocking temperatures"? Could someone perhaps summarize this stuff in laymen's terms?