[excon]

The Texas school board is looking to restore balance.

Hello again, tom:

Let me say again, that Intelligent Design is RELIGION.. If you think it's science, and INSIST on teaching it in SCIENCE class, you're contributing to the decline of those numbers in the OP..

That is just a fact, and I don't care if they don't believe it in Texas.

excon

[TUT317]

maybe from the outside looking in ... From here it amts to another front in a ideological war.

Yes, well if everything else fails may as well conduct a war.

[tomder55]

Well Ex ;Tut and I were discussing the founders and their beliefs .

But if the conversation is about ID ;then let me tell you AGAIN ,that ID is not Science . It is not science because it does not offer an alternate scientific explanations to the highway size holes is pokes through Darwin's theories. Instead it's fall back position is Creationism ;and as you know,there is no way to prove or falsify Creationism . Therefore it is not a science.

[tomder55]

Yes, well if everything else fails may as well conduct a war.

Tut ,they drew 1st blood.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

Let me say again, that Intelligent Design is RELIGION.. If you think it's science, and INSIST on teaching it in SCIENCE class, you're contributing to the decline of those numbers in the OP..

That is just a fact, and I don't care if they don't believe it in Texas.

excon

First of all Texas is not teaching that ID or creation is science. You guys just have a problem with alternative theories because that might actually make children think.

[speechlesstx]

P.S. Is gutting work requirements for welfare part of making America exceptional again?

[tomder55]

And here I thought the President wanted to go back to Clintoon era policies .

[TUT317]

You guys just have a problem with alternative theories because that might actually make children think.

No, I don't have a problem with alternative theories.

I have problem is with people who put forward alternative theories and fail to have a understanding of the theories they are putting forward.

[paraclete]

well Ex ;Tut and I were discussing the founders and their beliefs .

But if the conversation is about ID ;then let me tell you AGAIN ,that ID is not Science . It is not science because it does not offer an alternate scientific explanations to the highway size holes is pokes through Darwin's theories. Instead it's fall back position is Creationism ;and as you know,there is no way to prove or falsify Creationism . Therefore it is not a science.

Tom creationism is an explanation as darwinism is an explanation and contrary to popular view neither are science. What I want to know is if we have been here for millennia and some scientists think this is so, what caused our sudden development?

[tomder55]

Clete ,I said the ID people have poked huge holes in Darwin's hypothesis,and don't offer a scientific theory in return. However ,certain parts of Darwin's hypothesis have been validated as scientific theory .
My position has always been that evolution and creation are not inherently in conflict. Nor will be creationism and the apparent confirmation of the existence of a Higgs Boson (yes I used Capital letter in Boson to honor the forgotten scientist in the name ;Satyendra Nath Bose).

[paraclete]

So we have discovered yet another among the two hundred particles that make up matter as we currently know it, Hooray! We can now go on to something more important and inherrently useful because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science, have we discovered a way to make things heavier, MacDonald's outstripped that research by years.

You see there really isn't a practical application for Darwin's theories because what he really theorised was that the earth was older than we thought. Well maybe it is, our written history encompasses about six thousand years, before that who knows? But one thing I do know is that those objects we are looking at in the cosmos for the most part no longer exist and so I don't see how that fact and Darwin are related. I also know that the dinosaurs disappeared in a mass extinction event and our written history includes such an event and that if we had been here for millions of years our species, because of it's very nature would no longer exist

[TUT317]

so we have discovered yet another among the two hundred particles that make up matter as we currently know it, Hooray! we can now go on to something more important and inherrently useful because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science, have we dicovered a way to make things heavier, MacDonald's outstripped that research by years.

You see there really isn't a practical application for Darwin's theories because what he really theorised was that the earth was older than we thought. Well maybe it is, our written history encompasses about six thousand years, before that who knows? but one thing I do know is that those objects we are looking at in the cosmos for the most part no longer exist and so I don't see how that fact and Darwin are related. I also know that the dinosaurs disappeared in a mass extinction event and our written history includes such an event and that if we had been here for millions of years our species, because of it's very nature would no longer exist

Hi Clete,


These types of question would be better answer by physicists and biologists, but I will try a different perspective.

There is link between Darwin and the Higges Boson, and that link is the scientific method.

The Standard Model of partical physics has been around a long time. The problem is that you can only work with what you have. If this Standard Model is the only one available then this is what you work with.

As it turns out the Standard Model is inadequate when it comes to explaining mass. Yes, you are right the process has been for a long time smashing larger particles into smaller ones in order to get ever smaller ones.

The big problem is that when we total the mass of these particles they only can account for about 1% of the total mass. Where is the other 99%? Well that is the big question.

In terms of what is being talked about in this post- that must be one massive hole -in the explanation. I guess we can say that Darwin and Higgs (for the purpose of this exercise) have a lot in common. Large holes in the theories.

I think it is a common misunderstanding to think that science has all the answers. For some reason we seem to have this obsession with knowing 'the truth'. If something is not a total explanation then it can be discarded. I think it must be some type of psychological malaise we humans suffer from.Science would never even begin to say it has discovered the whole truth.

The reality is that science couldn't care less about the holes in their theories. They actually welcome it. The more holes the better. All science is interested in is filling in the holes using the scientific method. If the theory doesn't fit the observation then we think of a new theory. In this case the Standard Model is inadequate, hence Higges's new theory for the origin of mass.

In the final analysis Darwin is no different to Higgs. It is just that Darwin gets a lot more bad publicity because he seems closer to home. As you say, in the end most people couldn't care less about Higgs. After all it is a long way from home.

If you are interested I can have a go at trying to answer the questions in your previous post.
Can't say I will be successful though.

Tut

[excon]

You guys just have a problem with alternative theories because that might actually make children think.

Hello again, Steve:

It rains... We know WHY it rains.. But, I think it's the rain fairy... That's an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain.. So, according to YOU, we should present THAT theory, as an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain, because it might make children THINK...

In reality, what it would do, is make the children STUPIDER, and STUPIDER, and even STUPIDER than that..

Now, tom has disavowed teaching ID IN a science class, but apparently YOU haven't... I think YOU represent the right wing in that regard MORE than tom does. Therefore, I say again, the things YOU, and your right wing cohorts, want to do, and ARE DOING, in our schools is the single item that is MOST responsible for the decline in the numbers in the OP.

excon

[tomder55]

Ex ;you cannot deny the dominance that liberal progressives have had in shaping the majority of the public school agenda in our lifetime. Your conclusion could only be correct if there was a sudden drop in the last couple years in Texas only. The conservative kick back for more balance in the curriculum goes a lot further than ID and hard science .

[tomder55]

because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science,

And because you can't find a practical application means that one doesn't exist ? I bet someone has thought of one ;maybe they are already working on it. Don't forget the spin off inventions that came from the race to the moon.

[speechlesstx]

No, I don't have a problem with alternative theories.

I have problem is with people who put forward alternative theories and fail to have a understanding of the theories they are putting forward.

Fair enough, but the left here has a collective hissy fit at the mere thought of presenting a possibility other than Darwinism.

Darwinism and abortion are unassailable religious dogmas to them.

[paraclete]

And because you can't find a practical application means that one doesn't exist ? I bet someone has thought of one ;maybe they are already working on it. Don't forget the spin off inventions that came from the race to the moon.

If you are interested I can have a go at trying to answer the questions in your previous post.Can't say I will be successful though.

Tut

Tom I'll try to answer both yourself and Tut at the same time, Science for sciences sake leads us nowhere but into a great big hole. Scientists split the atom, found a practical application and we have been trying to deal with the problems they created ever since.

There are some like yourself who like to justify the space race by the spinoffs it created when in fact it was just the US and the USSR satisfying their ego and testing some weapons at the same time

Tut the questions I was asking were rhetorical, I wasn't looking for a dissertation on science and darwinism. I don't happen to think that just because we think a thought it should be explored. Like Einstein, I just want to know the thoughts of God because everything else is just the details and that is all science is doing, playing with the details

[tomder55]

Well Clete ,humans blew that chance at no curiosity when Adam gave Eve the apple.Also ,I'd argue that the splitting of the atom was a good thing and probably the key to our energy future.

"That which is impenetrable to us really exists.
behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion."Albert Einstein
Yes Einstein had it right . There is no conflict between science and religion. You should consider that .

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

It rains... We know WHY it rains.. But, I think it's the rain fairy... That's an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain.. So, according to YOU, we should present THAT theory, as an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain, because it might make children THINK...

In reality, what it would do, is make the children STUPIDER, and STUPIDER, and even STUPIDER than that..

Now, tom has disavowed teaching ID IN a science class, but apparently YOU haven't... I think YOU represent the right wing in that regard MORE than tom does. Therefore, I say again, the things YOU, and your right wing cohorts, want to do, and ARE DOING, in our schools is the single item that is MOST responsible for the decline in the numbers in the OP.

excon

You might have a point if you weren't just making assumptions. That seems to be a problem with liberals, the absence of evidence reinforces their preconceived notions.

I'm OK with leaving the ideology out of public education, but I said that already though I think you ignored it and Tal danced all around it after saying such a compromise was too difficult. That's my compromise and I'll throw in a bonus - let's leave religion out - including the religious dogma aspect of evolution.

Progressive indoctrination as opposed to critical thinking makes children stupider and stupider as your stats from this OP demonstrate perfectly.

[talaniman]

Then why don't you tell kids you don't know? At least that's the truth. Maybe they will follow their own journey to facts and evidence, without our prejudices.