/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2385777]

Why is there still a debate over whether or not intelligent design should be taught in science class?

The easiest and most effective way is just to go through the basic steps of the scientific method. This is the first thing I learned in every single science class from 5th-12th grade, and I took a shiiiiitload of science in high school. Even in AP classes we still went over the scientific method.

Observation:
Lifeforms exist

Hypothesis:
An intelligent designer created them

Experimental testing:
????????????

There is no way to test it or go beyond testing unless you ARE the intelligent designer. I guess that "irreducible complexity" argument could be used here, even though it has been proven wrong every single time it is used. Intelligent design is non-falsifiable, non-testable, and not natural. Why isn't this the first argument against an anti-evolutionist?

I feel like if you just go through the steps of the scientific method and show how ID doesn't fit into them, you should easily be able to prove that it absolutely does not belong in a science class. I feel like people will just give examples of evolution working rather than just showing how evolution fits the scientific method and ID does not. I dunno.

[Anonymous No.2385782]

there is not debate, only idiots disturbing with that shit

[Anonymous No.2385790]

You can't talk logic to the people who debate that. They think an invisible magic man made everything, tell them otherwise and the devil is making you speak blasphemy.

[Anonymous No.2385808]

I know that you can't get through to people with logic if they hold irrational beliefs, but I feel like if it were a debate over creationist textbooks being put into public schools, pointing out how ID doesn't follow the scientific method would at least have SOME merit!!

Trust me, I know there's no REAL debate over evolution.

[Anonymous No.2385815]

not a christfag here. nor Aetheist either

the scientists here that totally beleive there is no god are stupid also. always ask 'prove there is a god'

is say prove there is NOT a god.

and dont say 'coz there's war n shit' maybe the GOD was western society just isn't right.

maybe god does like war.

maybe god is an alien.

are there aliens, probably.
could one be superfucking evolved probably.

also would like to see a ghost. that proves there's Something.

[Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU No.2385821]

While I agree, that means children should not learn quantamn physics, or anything beyond basic math and sciences in school either. Most sciences go well beyond the spectrum of experimenting.

But what a novel idea. That school should be teaching people more basic and practical skills that could help them find work rather then crap they're never going to use unless they specifically want to study that field further.

[Anonymous No.2385825]

Atheists always site the "burden of proof" for the lack of existence of god.

>are there aliens, probably.

I can with one hundred percent surety tell you there are aliens.

[Anonymous No.2385834]

>>2385815

It's been fucking said before. We don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for them. We don't believe in santa because theres no evidence for him.

Why don't you go bring me proof of unicorns and santa before you start spouting off that they don't exist, because according to what you just said, it appears "we dont know".

[Anonymous No.2385835]

>>2385821
Most sciences have identifiable falsifiability, whereas creationism has none.

[Anonymous No.2385851]

>>2385777
> mon visage quand I'm from a theocratic country and we have both.

[Anonymous No.2385889]

>>2385777
> An intelligent designer created them
This can actually be tested, thus such a theory is falsifiable.

If you design something, you will follow design/engineering principles that eliminate uncertainty where possible, you'd make your creation robust and error-proof/resistent, you'd design reusable components and principles and you would apply them in a consistent manner, you would not rely on complex system dynamics to give you all kinds of special effects which make your system, and so on. It's not that you can't do those things, it's just that they are not good design practices and will result in unexpected/unpredictable things.

On the other hand, biological organisms' programs (DNA) have ZERO evidence that they were designed, the traces of evolution and the direction it took are incredibly obvious. The interplay between dynamic systems created by the genetic code is again obvious and way too stochastic. There's countless obvious signs that all biological life on this planet evolved, and we can construct a clear tree of life from this to show how. The changes are gradual. Reproductive mechanisms, chemistry and natural selection explain them well. Evolution just works fine based on its chemical (and of course, physical) basis. There is no clear need for a designer. If there was a designer, I wouldn't expect death, cancer, all other kinds of diseases, I'd expect to be able to back up my brain, easily replace defective parts/modules and so on. It'd be great. However, this is not the case here.

Thus we can say is that we are not the product of an intelligent designer with a high degree of confidence. It doesn't discount a deistic god, but it doesn't show the need for one either.

[Anonymous No.2385920]

>>2385889
God works in mysterious ways. Those stupid design flaws that evidently are from a gradual process of adaptation and selection over thousands of years are actually put there by god on purpose to test the faith of those who will go to heaven and those who will not.

And OP, you've forgotten one big thing; This IS the arguement used first and foremost, however, the thing is that the relgious simply don't care or understand.
The fact that it's unfalsifiable is actually proof that it's true! Aha! You can't disprove it so it must be true! Checkmate atheists, etc.
Then they go on the counter offensive, and say 'WHERE'S YOUR PROOF, WE HAVE OURS'.
At which point they drown in a mountain of various bits and bobs, and yet still never bother to visit a natural history museum.

[Anonymous No.2385999]

>>2385815
>WHARRRGARBL