If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   A half-naked witch doctor is why creationism is still being taught in Louisiana schools. No, really   (slate.com) divider line 379
    More: Stupid, Education Act, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Bobby Jindal  
•       •       •

9001 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



379 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-05 06:28:31 PM

spongeboob: So would directed panspermia fall under intelligent design?

Since intelligent design is not just 'God did it" but the scientific evidence that proves a creator designed life on Earth they are going to show all the possible ways that could happen right?


Another one of the points that winds up getting beaten to death in these threads is the dichotomy between what could maybe possibly be termed "intelligent design" and what the groups that promote "intelligent design" actually mean. The overwhelming majority of "intelligent design" material, especially as it pertains to public schools, is attempts to argue that biological evolution is not sufficient to arrive at the diversity we currently have. But I'm sure you know this.
 
2013-05-05 06:35:18 PM

SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.


No you're confusing that with the false conclusion of the intelligent design religion. Common mistake.
 
2013-05-05 06:35:47 PM

spongeboob: So would directed panspermia fall under intelligent design?

Since intelligent design is not just 'God did it" but the scientific evidence that proves a creator designed life on Earth they are going to show all the possible ways that could happen right?


Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency.  Some scientists who see evidence of intelligent design, but cannot accept God, prefer to believe that the intelligent designer could be a space alien.  Both scenarios fit into the scientific theory of intelligent design, because ID theory does not name the designer.
 
2013-05-05 06:36:32 PM

SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency


How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.
 
2013-05-05 06:38:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.


More importantly, there's no way of disproving it, which means it isn't science.
 
2013-05-05 06:40:28 PM

eraser8: GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.

Why?


Because as we all know, liberals never admit that their side does anything wrong. If someone espouses a blatantly wrong or stupid idea, either they are a Republican or the liberal lamestream media glosses over the fact that anyone can be a stupid dumbass. This means that either Slate is a sekrit conservative publication, or they made a mistake and accidentally admitted that even Democrats can be dummies too.
 
2013-05-05 06:41:29 PM

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: So would directed panspermia fall under intelligent design?

Since intelligent design is not just 'God did it" but the scientific evidence that proves a creator designed life on Earth they are going to show all the possible ways that could happen right?

Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency.  Some scientists who see evidence of intelligent design, but cannot accept God, prefer to believe that the intelligent designer could be a space alien.  Both scenarios fit into the scientific theory of intelligent design, because ID theory does not name the designer.


There is ZERO evidence for intelligent design.

Protip: The bible is not evidence.
Protip: Coast to Coast AM is not evidence.
 
2013-05-05 06:45:37 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Can you describe for the class a test that would falsify it?


If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.
 
2013-05-05 06:47:24 PM

SkinnyHead: If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.


That's not how science works.
 
2013-05-05 06:51:39 PM

SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Can you describe for the class a test that would falsify it?

If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.


Science has never "proven" anything. It does however disprove lots of things, but they have to be testable first.

If the test of your hypothesis is that the other guy has to prove his, then you have no falsifiable hypothesis, and hence have no science.
 
2013-05-05 06:52:40 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.

More importantly, there's no way of disproving it, which means it isn't science.


One could also say that if those scientists who advocated Intelligent Design were working on ways of proving or disproving their theory, rather that only advocating it as "belief" with no interest in testing it, the theory might gain at least some kind of acceptance in the scientific community.
 
2013-05-05 06:53:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.


I would be rather interested in seeing how various fundamental religious organizations would respond to the determination that life on earth was created by an intelligent alien species... but not a God.

Somehow, I think that then they would believe that there was a difference.
 
2013-05-05 06:53:44 PM

SkinnyHead: Both scenarios fit into the scientific theory of intelligent design, because ID theory does not name the designer.


The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.,

There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed.   It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer.  We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency.  And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.
 
2013-05-05 06:58:42 PM

jcooli09: Sometimes I am ashamed of my country.


Sometimes?
 
2013-05-05 06:59:41 PM
img.photobucket.com

ARISE CHICKEN! So I can fark you some more.
 
2013-05-05 07:03:09 PM

RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.


This of course is true. The inefficiences and maladaptions of the human body make sense as a product of a long evolutionary process that is inherently conservative (in the traditional, non-partisan sense). As the one-off construction of a supernatural engineer however, it just plain sucks.

So either life on Earth wasn't designed, or the designer wasn't very intelligent. Tough choice, that one.
 
2013-05-05 07:05:21 PM

BSABSVR: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

Actually, IIRC the father of the child is the one who made the test public because he was shocked that his top notch private school was so terrible regarding science.  I believe the family is pulling the child from the school next year.


I'm going to be very unhappy if I find that picture is not an April Fool's Day thing, which had been my guess until now.
 
2013-05-05 07:05:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.

That's not how science works.


"If you can prove we're wrong, then our theory is false! Until then we're totally right and you lose! What do you mean, 'that's not how science works'???"
 
2013-05-05 07:06:08 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Can you describe for the class a test that would falsify it?

If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Science has never "proven" anything. It does however disprove lots of things, but they have to be testable first.

If the test of your hypothesis is that the other guy has to prove his, then you have no falsifiable hypothesis, and hence have no science.


Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?
 
2013-05-05 07:06:16 PM

SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


The bill also says "A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education."

Which is the part people have a problem with. But of course you knew that, and you're just being an obtuse flunkie, like always.
 
2013-05-05 07:06:40 PM
ID fails to be science because, since it relies on magic, and magic can be used to explain anything, it's impossible to disprove.
 
2013-05-05 07:07:27 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

This of course is true. The inefficiences and maladaptions of the human body make sense as a product of a long evolutionary process that is inherently conservative (in the traditional, non-partisan sense). As the one-off construction of a supernatural engineer however, it just plain sucks.

So either life on Earth wasn't designed, or the designer wasn't very intelligent. Tough choice, that one.


You are clearly not the real Wolf Blitzer.  He never would have written something that intelligent.

cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-05-05 07:07:33 PM

Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.


Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...
 
2013-05-05 07:11:40 PM

Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.


I'm in Cle Elum in Washington, and those freaks are out here on this side of the mountains.
 
2013-05-05 07:12:19 PM

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.
 
2013-05-05 07:13:24 PM

RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency. And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.


The same can be said of your car.  Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?
 
2013-05-05 07:15:55 PM

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


Very easily, thank you for asking.

By the stratigraphic principle of superposition, sedimentary rock layers deposited on top of one another represent a time sequence. This is true whether the time in question is 4.5 billion years, or 6 thousand. If life did not evolve over time, we would expect the fossils that we find in these rock layers to be the same, accounting for potential changes in depositional environments. Since we find that rocks of different ages have clearly different fossils, the test is negative (i.e. it fails to disprove the hypothesis).

There are of course many other tests that one could construct, but as I'm a geologist this is the first one I would suggest.
 
2013-05-05 07:16:02 PM

SkinnyHead: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency. And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.

The same can be said of your car.  Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


That's proof that it was designed by  humans. Are you saying that everything in existence was designed by humans?
 
2013-05-05 07:16:19 PM

NateAsbestos: Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.

Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...


Western Washington state is relatively sane for the most part, but there are some really nutty groups (white supremacists, militias, preppers, etc...) in the eastern part of the state and in northern Idaho.
 
2013-05-05 07:18:19 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm going to be very unhappy if I find that picture is not an April Fool's Day thing, which had been my guess until now.


dammitsomuch!
 
2013-05-05 07:19:53 PM

Walter Paisley: NateAsbestos: Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.

Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...

Western Washington state is relatively sane for the most part, but there are some really nutty groups (white supremacists, militias, preppers, etc...) in the eastern part of the state and in northern Idaho.


True.

But, keep in mind that the Discovery Institute maintains 208 Columbia Street, Seattle as its headquarters.
 
2013-05-05 07:20:06 PM

eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.


Also, find an animal who does not use DNA as a coding for genes, or, find an animal whose DNA should be similar by say 90% to another animal we believe is related to it, and find out it's DNA has 0% similarity.  Find an animal with a true Black Box adaption.

Its is quite easy to falsify every part of evolutionary theory, from gene, to fossils, to whatever have you.  Scientists have been trying to do it for far longer that creationists.
 
2013-05-05 07:20:32 PM

eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.


This is not necessarily a test to disprove evolution itself, only certain elements of the evolutionary history we've devloped. It is entirely possible, albeit unlikely, that a relict population of australopithecines or even trilobites could exist, without falsifying evolution in general.

In addition, its important to note that there are geologic processes that can cause reworking of fossils and redeposition in misleading associations or sequences. These processes are almost always detectable with some additional observations.
 
2013-05-05 07:21:54 PM

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


That's not what the "theory of evolution" postulates. The theories of the origin of life have very little to do with the theory of evolution as it relates to more complex organisms having evolved from less-complex ones. The fact that there are some things about how the process began that we don't as yet comprehend does NOT invalidate the entire process; therefore, just because science can't prove how the very first amoeba originated does NOT mean that humans are the result of Divine Intervention.

You're conflating scientific requirements of "proof" with legal chain-of-custody evidential "proof" and it doesn't work that way in science. Science allows for gaps in the chain as long as they can be filled by inference, because the times involved are so huge (millions of years, or even billions in some cases). The law does not. Stick to your own area of inexpertise.
 
2013-05-05 07:23:38 PM
In 2008, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the "Louisiana Science Education Act" into law. This Orwellian-named bit of legislation was an outrageous attempt to allow creationism to be taught in schools.

Oh FFS, LEARN what farking "Orwellian" means before slapping it on everything that is handy, you dipshiat. The name is not "Orwellian" at all. Something like the Thinking Alignment Act, now THAT would be "Orwellain".

God, journalism has turned to utter shiat. People don't even bother to use the right version of a word anymore. The bee removal story on the Main Page said that the bees were removed from the "eve" of the house. It used to be that you only saw this type of shiat on the message boards, the articles were still written by professionals. I'm not even sure journalism degrees exist anymore... I sure as Hell know that editors don't.
 
2013-05-05 07:24:12 PM

eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.


You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.
 
2013-05-05 07:24:33 PM

SkinnyHead: Some scientists who see evidence of intelligent design, but cannot accept God, prefer to believe that the intelligent designer could be a space alien.


David Brinn finds your comments very uplifting.

*blink*
 
2013-05-05 07:26:28 PM

SkinnyHead: You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.


The idea that you think a flaw in evolution should precipitate an immediate sea change of opinion to support intelligent design clearly demonstrates you have no idea how science works.
 
2013-05-05 07:27:25 PM

SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


Stop it, el chip.  You are postulating a super intelligent designer, not a human designer. A designer with the ability to design a living creature from the ground up, with his super power.  And you think such a super designer would allow a flaw to choke on a cracker? To drown on a planet made of 3/4 water?  To burn in 10 minutes of sunlight? That's asinine.  And it's not science, as I pointed out again and again and again.

That sad thing is you probably think this asinine back and forth is somehow useful to the debate and you are just being a good devil's advocate.  But you aren't.  You just wasting time.
 
2013-05-05 07:27:56 PM

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010 - An Evolution Primer for Young Earth Creationists
Evolution 101 for Young Earth Creationists who want to know better.


tl;dr PODCAST- http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4010.mp3
 
2013-05-05 07:29:14 PM

SkinnyHead: RyogaM: SkinnyHead: Creationism isn't mentioned. And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.

Interviewed by NBC News (April 12, 2013), Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal (R) explicitly stated that the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act permits the teaching of creationism, including "intelligent design." Jindal was asked (at around 9:00), "Should creationism be taught in schools?" He did not answer the question directly, although he implied that it would be up to private schools to decide whether to teach creationism, so the interviewer asked, "So you don't think so, you don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools?"


Responding, Jindal said in part, "We have what's called the Science Education Act that says that if a teacher wants to supplement those materials, if the school board is okay with that, if the state school board is okay with that, they can supplement those materials. ... Let's teach them - I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let's teach them about 'intelligent design'." "What are we scared of?" he asked.


Huh, the guy who signed the bill says you are wrong.  Stop it, el chip.

The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design.  But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


That statement might carry more weight if the governor of the state didn't say that that is precisely what it would allow.

"I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that some people have these beliefs as well. Let's teach them about intelligent design. I think teach them the best science. Let them, give them the tools where they can make up their own mind, not only in science but as they learn and teach about other controversial issues, whether it's global warming or whether it's...climate change or these other issues. What are we scared of? Let's teach our kids the best facts and information that's out there. Let's teach them what people believe and let them debate and learn that. We shouldn't be afraid of exposing our kids to more information, more knowledge. Give them critical thinking skills, and as adults they'll be able to make their own and best decisions."
Bobby Jindal April 12, 2013

Students in a science class shouldn't be placed in a position of separating science from bullshiat. They should be there to learn science, not fantasy. Teaching them religious nonsense is just wasting valuable time.

Let's teach our kids the best facts and information that's out there.  Sorry Bobby... that doesn't include what you want to corrupt the children of your state with.
 
2013-05-05 07:29:23 PM

Bermuda59: Please tell me why we spent billions to save the people in this state after Katrina and the BP oil spill?


because not all of us are pants on head retarded.
 
2013-05-05 07:30:40 PM

SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.


Falsified hypotheses being modified is a normal part of the scientific process. A hypothesis must only be discarded, not merely modified when either 1) it can no longer be sufficiently modified without becoming untestable, or 2) another hypothesis is developed which explains the data equally or better and is more parsimonious.

Every scientific hypothesis ever developed has been subsequently modified to some extent. This is a strength, not a weakness of the scientific method.
 
2013-05-05 07:30:51 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: This is not necessarily a test to disprove evolution itself, only certain elements of the evolutionary history we've devloped. It is entirely possible, albeit unlikely, that a relict population of australopithecines or even trilobites could exist, without falsifying evolution in general.


I suppose you're right (another point that proves you're not the real Wolf Blitzer).  It is technically possible for trilobites and/or australopithecines to have survived without our noticing.  And, you're right, that that oversight wouldn't definitively disprove evolution by natural selection.

But, from all our evidence and experience, trilobites went extinct hundreds of millions of years ago.  And,  Australopithecus afarensis died out three or four million years ago.  But, quoting Carl Sagan, "in those old rocks, we don't see fossils of people or of cattle...because we've evolved only recently.  Evolution is a fact...it really happened."
 
2013-05-05 07:33:44 PM

Bermuda59: Please tell me why we spent billions to save the people in this state after Katrina and the BP oil spill?


Well for one, the amounts of material shipped via the Midwestern river network basically demands the existence of a major port at the mouth of the Mississippi. The U.S. economy would suffer massively without it.
 
2013-05-05 07:33:51 PM
An intelligent designer created humans, in all their complex beauty, and said "This needs a dash of Harlequin Fetus Syndrome?"
 
2013-05-05 07:35:50 PM
This is the most painful thing you will ever watch on Youtube, hands down.

Imagine this woman with a very skinnyhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AekFGksvuDU
Richard Dawkins debates Wendy Wright (She is however very wrong)

Total running time an hour and six mins.

For something a little shorter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6hxo1sC-dU
Dawkins: Science, it works... biatches. 27 seconds.
 
2013-05-05 07:37:23 PM
...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.
 
2013-05-05 07:41:15 PM

eraser8: Walter Paisley: NateAsbestos: Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.

Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...

Western Washington state is relatively sane for the most part, but there are some really nutty groups (white supremacists, militias, preppers, etc...) in the eastern part of the state and in northern Idaho.

True.

But, keep in mind that the Discovery Institute maintains 208 Columbia Street, Seattle as its headquarters.


It's true that there are fundies in western Washington but they generally don't have enough local support to be as influential of a political force as in other states. The Tea Party types in western Washington also tend to be very vocal but aren't taken too seriously. Kind of like that farmer's infamous Uncle Sam billboard becoming a novelty landmark. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/6002
 
2013-05-05 07:42:20 PM

SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.


Who is the "intelligent agency" and how would you test this? You cannot ever test it, so it is not science.
 
Displayed 50 of 379 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report