"Teach the Controversy!" Facepalm*

[Amarok]

I don't have any contentions about what has been observed in the field or in the lab, in regards to evolution.   I don't think the predictions, models, and evidence (from which inferences are made) are as strong as is often made out however.

Well there's no accounting for your inability to understand fact. Here's a site which barely scratches the surface of what evolutionary theory has predicted, and has been subsequently been found to be right.

The models  predictions and evidence for evolution are without doubt some of the strongest in science It's the stupidity the ID and creationism that fails because it has none of the above

Road your denial doesn't change that

As for teach the controversy it's just a back door way to sneak religion into schools without admitting it's religion it has nothing to do with critical thinking and never has been and even it ID fanatics were censer (which they are not) there is already a means within science if ID wants respect it should use it

[Asmodee]

[RoadRunner79]

  And there is only ONE scientist qualified to speak on it academically who I know of who supports intelligent design.  That is Michael Behe.  During the Dover trial he was forced to admit on the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science.  The study of what kind of day I would have based on the stars in the sky on the day I was born is science.  Intelligent design is textbook special pleading.  We need to lower scientific standards to allow this to be a science because evolution hurts my feelings.

I realized that I forgot to comment about this.

I had not heard this quote;  I have browsed over the conclusions and generals of the Dover case, but haven't really reviewed it all in depth.  Most of it, I didn't find pertaining to Intelligent Design; but the individual case, and I would likely ruled against the school in this case as well.  


However; as to your quote.
Welcome to the problem of the demarcation of Science.   

I was curious, so I looked up the definition that he gave.

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.

  I would largely agree with that definition.  (I would encourage you to look up dictionary definitions and compare as well).
But then again, I don't define "science" as what works, or what is true, or based on it's conclusion.   I think that science deals with the method and subject of inquiry.

I don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists.   I also don't think that what was once considered science, because of consensus, suddenly becomes not science, as new information is.  Perhaps the definition may change and things need to be re-evaluated;  but whatever it was, hasn't changed at all.

There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

So in saying that it meets the definition; does not mean that it is good science.   I think that the contention could be made, that the inferences made by astrology also don't meet that definition (Behe was mistaken in saying that it did).
In light of this, I find your argument "the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science" to be a little self serving and not entirely accurate.

[Asmodee]

  And there is only ONE scientist qualified to speak on it academically who I know of who supports intelligent design.  That is Michael Behe.  During the Dover trial he was forced to admit on the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science.  The study of what kind of day I would have based on the stars in the sky on the day I was born is science.  Intelligent design is textbook special pleading.  We need to lower scientific standards to allow this to be a science because evolution hurts my feelings.

I realized that I forgot to comment about this.

I had not heard this quote;  I have browsed over the conclusions and generals of the Dover case, but haven't really reviewed it all in depth.  Most of it, I didn't find pertaining to Intelligent Design; but the individual case, and I would likely ruled against the school in this case as well.  


However; as to your quote.
Welcome to the problem of the demarcation of Science.   

I was curious, so I looked up the definition that he gave.

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.

  I would largely agree with that definition.  (I would encourage you to look up dictionary definitions and compare as well).
But then again, I don't define "science" as what works, or what is true, or based on it's conclusion.   I think that science deals with the method and subject of inquiry.

Scientists don't define science as what is true either. The problem with the definition is that he snuck in "logical inferences" and changed "physical explanation" to "physical data". He took out the part where the study of "nature" has to have a "natural" explanation, the part which says anything "supernatural" is not science.

I don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists.   I also don't think that what was once considered science, because of consensus, suddenly becomes not science, as new information is.  Perhaps the definition may change and things need to be re-evaluated;  but whatever it was, hasn't changed at all.

Nobody is saying that is the case. You are confusing the issue here. In the case nobody said anything was "no longer science". They mentioned the ether theory of light as a "discarded" theory, not something which used to be science but isn't any more. There is no definition change needed, so long as we change the definitions back to what they were and from what you just changed them to.

There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

So in saying that it meets the definition; does not mean that it is good science.   I think that the contention could be made, that the inferences made by astrology also don't meet that definition (Behe was mistaken in saying that it did).
In light of this, I find your argument "the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science" to be a little self serving and not entirely accurate.

This is where "logical inferences" get us into trouble. You are rewording everything which was said to make it say something entirely different. Nobody was talking about "good science" here, they were talking about just plain "science". And unless you have a PhD in something better than biochemistry I don't think you're qualified to determine that Behe was mistaken, nor am I. That's why I count on the opinions of just about every other scientists everywhere to form my own opinion.

You seem to be purposely confusing discarded scientific theory and astrology, something which, before Behe's redefining what "science" is was NEVER, EVER considered to be any form of "science". Astrology is not a defunct scientific theory. It is a belief system. It has never been held as being scientific in any way. So to suddenly change the definition of science to include what has ALWAYS been known as a pseudoscience, that is very, very significant, a significance which you are doing quite the dance to downplay.

[Amarok]

don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists

BS

One group is examining the evidence and coming to unbiased scientific conclusion the other are religious fanatics in lab coats manipulating and deceiving with ideological goals in mind

There is no comparison

[Asmodee]

don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists

BS

One group is examining the evidence and coming to unbiased scientific conclusion the other are religious fanatics in lab coats manipulating and deceiving with ideological goals in mind

There is no comparison

I completely missed that the "two groups" he was referring to here were "almost every scientist everywhere" and "totally not scientists".

[RoadRunner79]

BS

One group is examining the evidence and coming to unbiased scientific conclusion the other are religious fanatics in lab coats manipulating and deceiving with ideological goals in mind

There is no comparison

I completely missed that the "two groups" he was referring to here were "almost every scientist everywhere" and "totally not scientists".

I missed it too!   I thought I was just talking in general!

[Asmodee]

I completely missed that the "two groups" he was referring to here were "almost every scientist everywhere" and "totally not scientists".

I missed it  too!   I thought I was just talking in general!

My mistake.

[Aristocatt]

If you haven't seen this, get ready to rage:

 I'm embarrassed to admit how much of this I actually got through, considering the entirety of the conversation can be summed up as a reoccuring cycle of "show me the evidence"  ... "here's the evidence" ... "nope not evidence, show me the evidence".... "here's other evidence"  ... etc

[Jehanne]

 I'm embarrassed to admit how much of this I actually got through, considering the entirety of the conversation can be summed up as a reoccuring cycle of "show me the evidence"  ... "here's the evidence" ... "nope not evidence, show me the evidence".... "here's other evidence"  ... etc