codemage wrote: Gravity is a theory because it falls in line with the existing scientific laws we know of. We know it will always happen; the theory/sketchy part is about why it happens (based on relativity - also a theory).
Not so, the theory of gravity predates relativity by a substantial time frame. Relativity simply also deals with what the theory of gravity does (and in a slightly better way). The Theory of Gravity, and The Theory of Relativity are competing theories.
codemage wrote: Evolution, on the other hand, has only been proven on the micro scale - predominalty within species. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. When I took university science, we discussed the massive flaws with major scientific theories, particularly evolution - and most people involved agreed that the theory has some good points, but is kind of half-baked overall.
Evolution is a theory, and thus cannot be proven at all. There is substantial evidence for the theory, however that proves nothing it simply makes it more plausable. Evolution in the large scale has lots of supporting evidence as well, for example we can trace the evolution of most of the dinosaur species, and we can trace the evolution of humans from apes; there are many other examples too. Evolution is not nearly as full of flaws as some would have you believe, and it's most certainly not half baked.
codemage wrote: Macro evolution, as it's taught, is exclusive of religious beliefs - and that pisses off the religious. I think they're angry that evolution is taught as an alternative to God, which means it's overstepping the bounds between science and philosophy/religion.
Not at all, evolution as taught in schools is exactly what the theory states. Yes the theory leaves little room for a God/Gods, but that is entirely errelavent to it's being a worth while theory which represents the best knoledge we have.
codemage wrote: ...and then there's the ultra-fundamentalist crackpots, but those don't need to be included in any debate, regardless of their doctrine or lack thereof. (Atheism is a doctrine too).
The thing is though that the cristian ultra-right are a powerful group in the states right now and they are the ones who are trying to push the "theory" of intelligent design.
Intelligent design is not a theory, putting the word in front of it's name does not make it so. A theory is a statement based on certain fundamental scientific facts. First, it must say something definite (objects fall towards each other at a rate related to their mass). Second it must be possible to make predictions from this statement (an apple will fall at 9.8m/s^2). And finally it must be possible to show that these predictions are true (an apple does indeed fall).
So let's take a look at the theory shall we? Note that I haven't read it's actual tet anywhere as it's not available freely as far as I know, another strike against it... From what I understand though the theory goes that "life is to complex to have evolved entirely unaided." That's it. Does it say something definite? Yup. Does it make any predictions, or can any be made from it? Nope. So can these statements be shown true? Err... what statements... Which leads me to conclude that it is indeed not a theory at all.
Ahh, so now the debate can really be stripped of all religion entirely. We have two competeing "theories", one really is a verifiable Theory, the other is simply a statement of belief. Now... should schools be teaching a verifiable Theory, or should they be teaching a completely unverifiable statement of belief? Leaving aside the fact that the later is illegal due to the seperation of church and state, one would think that a reasonably intelligent person could see that teaching a belief adds nothing to one's understanding of the world, whereas teaching a theory does; and certainly the goal of learning is to better understand how and why the world works.
Intelligent Design is a attempt by the cristian ultra-right to push religion back into the school system. It's disguised a little, but it's fairly obvious if you know what the theories are. The problem is that many american school boards do not teach the theories in their entirety, in fact the teaching of evolution is a relatively new thing in the united states. Thus people find it harder to accept because they don't understand it, and they are more willing to accept a religious view (80% of americans believe in an all powerful god).
The thing about spliting church and state is that there are very good reasons for it. Without it the majority religion can suppress the minorities. Indeed this is exactly why the pilgrams came to america in the first place, and why they seperated church and state; because at one time they were the ones being suppressed. Now however they are the majority, and they have power. And of course now they want to oppress those who think differently from them. That's all this is, an attempt to gain more power plain and simple.
So yes, on the surface it seems like this is an open debate between two "theories", once you actually look at it you can see all the cracks and through those cracks you can see the real agenda.
I've got nothing against religious people (except I think that they have the wool pulled over their eyes), many of the cristians whom I've met are actually intelligent people who are willing to explain why they believe what they do, and listen to your view point. My problem is with fanatics, and it's unfortunately the case that the fanatics are the most vocal, and even seemingly the majority. And the worst part is that the leaders of the fanatics are themselves not nearly as right wing, they just say they are to control the mob. Power is what it's all about; God was lost a long time ago. |
