Meat Face Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) bam! Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly. Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest. Edited January 10, 2006 by Meat Face Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 You know if science and religion both care about what's true they have to agree on many fronts. If science disproves religious arguments maybe those arguments are not spiritual truth after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 How many more nails does it need? The lid's been glued down, taped down, nailed down and welded down thoroughly - all that remains is the burial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Can we have a huddle contest to guess what the new stealth title for Creationism will be? Compassionate Science is my entry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Compassionate Science is my entry 1258670[/snapback] Healthy Science Intiative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 No Christian Left Behind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What does how a bee flys have to do with evolution or creation? I have never understood why some people of faith are at odds with science. Why must faith and science be mutually exclusive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 No Christian Left Behind 1258688[/snapback] Now that is funny on more than one level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Healthy Science Intiative. 1258677[/snapback] Going to be hard to beat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Nonsecular Evolution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 "Truth" in science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunysteelfly76 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 No Christian Left Behind 1258688[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetlips Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I love the classic Flight of the Bumble Bee. Take a listen... http://www.classicsforkids.com/music/music_view.asp?id=25 When you feel the afternoon slump take over..... play the Flight of the Bumble Bee. It does something like get your pulse going. Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 What does how a bee flys have to do with evolution or creation? I have never understood why some people of faith are at odds with science. Why must faith and science be mutually exclusive? 1258696[/snapback] i agree perch. science doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything at all. science is simply the act of recording observations and then linking the observations together into more complex observations to predict an outcome. if you observe A doing something so many times, we then say that science explains A's behavior, which is not true. we merely observe it and classify it - i.e. call it "gravity." everything can be "explained" by "science" if you give it enough effort and observe something long enough. in this case, they took a new tact on how to observe the bee and wham! they had an "explanation" (which is really an observation). whether it be photosynthesis, gravity, chemical reactions, partical physics, meteorology, or whatever "science" you want, it is all a big pile of observations and classifications. none of that gets you any closer to the question of "why?" why does everything on our planet and in our universe act in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree? you can describe the air and atmosphere, break down water into H2O, and classify every genre of tree, bush, and fruit, but you have moved no closer to the question of "why?" intelligent design is a very plausible option to consider when posing this question. why people think that introducing this option after saying the pledge of allegiance every morning will somehow infect the young minds of our nation is beyond me. what are we/you afraid of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 i agree perch. science doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything at all. science is simply the act of recording observations and then linking the observations together into more complex observations to predict an outcome. if you observe A doing something so many times, we then say that science explains A's behavior, which is not true. we merely observe it and classify it - i.e. call it "gravity." everything can be "explained" by "science" if you give it enough effort and observe something long enough. in this case, they took a new tact on how to observe the bee and wham! they had an "explanation" (which is really an observation). whether it be photosynthesis, gravity, chemical reactions, partical physics, meteorology, or whatever "science" you want, it is all a big pile of observations and classifications. none of that gets you any closer to the question of "why?" why does everything on our planet and in our universe act in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree? you can describe the air and atmosphere, break down water into H2O, and classify every genre of tree, bush, and fruit, but you have moved no closer to the question of "why?" intelligent design is a very plausible option to consider when posing this question. why people think that introducing this option after saying the pledge of allegiance every morning will somehow infect the young minds of our nation is beyond me. what are we/you afraid of? 1258879[/snapback] oh, come on. the observation is that an apple falls from a tree. the explanation is that the sun has a gravitational pull, which causes the earth and all the other planets in the solar system to circle it. to me, that's a pretty good "why." you put the word science in quotes as if all of it is a big sham. now, science may not be able to answer the big question of "why" that you brought up in your post -- i.e. "why are we here?" -- but it has answered plenty of smaller "whys." if all of science is simply "observations and classifications," then how do explain pharmaceutical drugs or space flight? and the argument isn't against intelligent design. it's against teaching intelligent design in public schools -- and in science class, no less. intelligent design is a belief system dressed up as science. if parents want their kids to learn intelligent design -- well, that's what church and private schools are for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Wombat Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 i agree perch. science doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything at all. science is simply the act of recording observations and then linking the observations together into more complex observations to predict an outcome. if you observe A doing something so many times, we then say that science explains A's behavior, which is not true. we merely observe it and classify it - i.e. call it "gravity." everything can be "explained" by "science" if you give it enough effort and observe something long enough. in this case, they took a new tact on how to observe the bee and wham! they had an "explanation" (which is really an observation). whether it be photosynthesis, gravity, chemical reactions, partical physics, meteorology, or whatever "science" you want, it is all a big pile of observations and classifications. none of that gets you any closer to the question of "why?" why does everything on our planet and in our universe act in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree? you can describe the air and atmosphere, break down water into H2O, and classify every genre of tree, bush, and fruit, but you have moved no closer to the question of "why?" intelligent design is a very plausible option to consider when posing this question. why people think that introducing this option after saying the pledge of allegiance every morning will somehow infect the young minds of our nation is beyond me. what are we/you afraid of? 1258879[/snapback] Tony, I agree with you unless you are trying to justify teaching ID as science. If I read you right, you say that science explains how, not "Why". So, let's leave "Why" to religion and philosophy classes and "how" to science classes. Okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 oh, come on. the observation is that an apple falls from a tree. the explanation is that the sun has a gravitational pull, which causes the earth and all the other planets in the solar system to circle it. to me, that's a pretty good "why." you put the word science in quotes as if all of it is a big sham. now, science may not be able to answer the big question of "why" that you brought up in your post -- i.e. "why are we here?" -- but it has answered plenty of smaller "whys." if all of science is simply "observations and classifications," then how do explain pharmaceutical drugs or space flight? and the argument isn't against intelligent design. it's against teaching intelligent design in public schools -- and in science class, no less. intelligent design is a belief system dressed up as science. if parents want their kids to learn intelligent design -- well, that's what church and private schools are for. 1258916[/snapback] pharaceutical drugs come from screening countless compounds to try and observe a repeatable reaction in the human body. through these numerous experiments and validations, we classify the compound as having a desired reaction. fits the explanation perfectly. space flight is possible because we have been able to observe and understand the properties that enable it. through a serious of attempts with unmanned, monkeys, and finally humans, we built up our database of observations to be big enough and integrated enough to enable travel into space. we are still observing and learning with each trip to make it better. again, intelligent design is a very valid OPTION to introduce as the possible cause of our humanity, especially when you consider that our planet is the ultimate example of synchronized complexity. if you stumbled upon a car, you would use scientific thought to determine that the complexity of the vehicle is such that it must have been designed to perform as it does. we are merely applying that simple concept to something that is infinitely more complex. it is as much of a logical conclusion as evolution - which is why darwin negated his own theory before his death, referring to design as a more viable OPTION (look it up). we avoid that fact in science class. i'm not saying have endless debates on the topic. i'm saying that the explanation has enough merit to be considered and presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 i agree perch. science doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything at all. science is simply the act of recording observations and then linking the observations together into more complex observations to predict an outcome. if you observe A doing something so many times, we then say that science explains A's behavior, which is not true. we merely observe it and classify it - i.e. call it "gravity." everything can be "explained" by "science" if you give it enough effort and observe something long enough. in this case, they took a new tact on how to observe the bee and wham! they had an "explanation" (which is really an observation). whether it be photosynthesis, gravity, chemical reactions, partical physics, meteorology, or whatever "science" you want, it is all a big pile of observations and classifications. none of that gets you any closer to the question of "why?" why does everything on our planet and in our universe act in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree? you can describe the air and atmosphere, break down water into H2O, and classify every genre of tree, bush, and fruit, but you have moved no closer to the question of "why?" intelligent design is a very plausible option to consider when posing this question. why people think that introducing this option after saying the pledge of allegiance every morning will somehow infect the young minds of our nation is beyond me. what are we/you afraid of? 1258879[/snapback] Tonorator, you get an F in science for demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 Tonorator, ID is untestable, because to prove it true or even plausible you have to show proof of a "creator/god". And we all know that god stopped showing his face a few thousand years ago. Thus, ID falls into religion and belongs nowhere in science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Tonorator, you get an F in science for demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method. 1258950[/snapback] if you can prove that the scientific method at it's core is nothing more than building up observations and conclusions based on observations, then i will believe you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Tonorator, you get an F in science for demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method. 1258950[/snapback] do your own homework ... "A better approach is to do experiments and perform careful observations. The results of this approach are universal in the sense that they can be reproduced by any skeptic. It is from these ideas that the scientific method was developed. Most of science is based on this procedure for studying Nature." and some more ... What is the "scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. sounds like a perfect fit to me ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 why does everything on our planet and in our universe act in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree? you can describe the air and atmosphere, break down water into H2O, and classify every genre of tree, bush, and fruit, but you have moved no closer to the question of "why?" 1258879[/snapback] Ever think it might be us that's developed to take advantage of our existing environment, as opposed to everything "acting in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Tonorator, ID is untestable, because to prove it true or even plausible you have to show proof of a "creator/god". And we all know that god stopped showing his face a few thousand years ago. Thus, ID falls into religion and belongs nowhere in science. 1258980[/snapback] i'm not saying prove it to be true. i'm saying that when the question comes up from some bright young mind about why everything works as it does ... or how did all of it start ... that ID is a viable option to discuss, along with evolution, and whatever other options any class member can come up with. if you look into the ID debate, it's not a matter of wanting it presented as fact, it is a matter of wanting it considered and not ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 i'm saying that when the question comes up from some bright young mind about why everything works as it does ... or how did all of it start ... that ID is a viable option to discuss, along with evolution, and whatever other options any class member can come up with. 1259002[/snapback] Gaia, for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ever think it might be us that's developed to take advantage of our existing environment, as opposed to everything "acting in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree"? 1259000[/snapback] sure, i've thought of that. i've thought of many things around this topic. i've wrangled with it ever since i could think straight. and when i try to consider options and give merit or weight to each, i always have the possibility of a creator/designer right up there with all of the others, as i assume most people do ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.