flynn23 wrote:
I find it interesting that people will spew forth about string theory (even using the word theory to describe it), and then write 10 page diatribes about how intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools.

I don't think that ID should be taught in schools. I think that its OK to discuss String Theory in schools. (Whether it SHOULD be taught is a different matter which relates to the importance and suitability of the material that I don't have an opinion on. ) The reason is subtle, but critical.

Intelligent Design is not a mathematical model. Neither is the Theory of Evolution. String Theory is. Bringing String Theory into a discussion about Evolution and ID is really an Apples to Oranges comparison. Physics is a completely different pursuit then zoology, which has different constraints and methods.

Mathematical models provide a way of thinking about processes that cannot be observed. They are accepted to the degree that they explain experimental evidence, and they are useful for correctly predicting results of future experiments and phenomina related to the model. Almost all of the "knowledge" that we have about physics and chemistry consists of mathematical models designed to fit experimental results. Very few of these things are referred to as Laws, and only in the context where mathematical proofs can be presented which eliminate alternative possibilities.

Quantum phenomina are hard to understand. Ultimately it is not something that we can ever know anything about, because the phenomina are too small to directly observe. All we have are experiments, and models that fit those experiments. This is true even of 100 year old ideas like what atoms consist of. We really have no idea what atoms consist of. There is no way to know. However, we have experiments, and models.

One such model is the Bhor Model. The Bhor model has been taught in school for nearly 100 years. At the time it explained all of the experimental evidence available. It is also totally wrong, and everyone knew that from the start. The model includes this number called the Bhor Radius that Bhor literally pulled out of his ass because it balanced all the equations. There are newer experiments that invalidate the Bhor Model, and there are more mature models that explain those experiments. We're still asking questions.

There is no one the in world of physics who actually thinks we know what atoms consist of. We don't. We will never know. But we have models that work. We have vast Chemical Engineering and Materials Science industries that produce lots of real stuff that actually works that rely heavily upon mathematical models like the Bhor Model and String Theory.

Now, Quantum physics is strange. We have a lot of trouble with it primarily because the experimental results seem completely preposturous. Information moving across vast distances instantly. Particles that behave in response to events which have not taken place yet. Particles that simply appear on the other side of a wall without moving through it. I've seen a perfectly reasonable explanation of Quantum phenomina that was rooted in Wicca. It fit all of the experimental evidence. It could be true. However, its not a mathematical model, and so it really isn't of any use to physicists, and it should not be taught in school.

The great thing about physics is that you can do math with it. There are a lot of fields of human endevour, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and zoology that do not lend themselves to mathematical modelling. They are simply too complex. However, this doesn't mean we can't develop models that help explain phenomina in these fields... even phenomina that, like atoms, cannot be directly observed. But you must look at these fields with the understanding that the rigor of our knowledge is lower because the subject matter is so complex. We are way way better at physics then we are at sociology. Thats because sociology is a lot harder then physics. But, that it doesn't mean we can't pursue a scientific understanding of these subjects and must simply throw our hands up and claim we must accept every idea as equally valid unless we can prove otherwise.

Pursuing a field like this requires a high degree of objectivity with respect to the results of the questions that you are asking, and a high degree of care in terms of the results you are willing to accept.

If you want the answer to come out a certain way your perspective is going to poison your explanations. Thats exactly what Intelligent Design consists of. These are people who have started with a conclusion that is based in the dogma of their favorite religious beleif, and attempted, like the Wiccan physicist I mentioned above, to craft an explanation of observed phenomina that fits their preferred conclusion. This is not science. Its sophistry.

We must, and do, have a way of evaluating the resonableness of hypothesis in an environment where mathematical models aren't possible. We do this through long term critical analysis, a preference for utility, and experimental verification. We cannot teach every hypothesis in school, and we must not choose a favorite hypothesis because we like it or because its popular. We choose ideas that have withstood the test of time and provide explanations that we can actually apply to solving real problems.

The idea that a brand new conception of biology that is rooted in a religious beleif and was specifically crafted to fit today's existing experimental evidence should be accepted on equal footing in our society with a much simpler theory which has withstood over a hundred years of new experimental results and critical analysis, is rooted in observed phenomina, and provides practical predictions and applications, simply because people like it better, is dangerous. It suggests that Wiccan quantum physics should also be taught in school, and it suggests that we should prefer ideas that are hard to disprove rather then ideas which make specific, testable predictions that survive the test of decades. It, frankly, suggests a willy-nilly attitude toward the truth that will ultimately result in producing people who can't think critically.

I will take exception to the phrase "Evolution is a theory that has scientific evidence behind it." That's not true. There's very little 'evidence' to back up evolution (as a likely concept of how human beings arrived at their current state), which is typically what people refer to when they say "evolution theory"... That doesn't prove that we 'evolved' from primates, or that any species has migrated along a continuum over millenia, which is typically how this theory is misused. There's not been one fossil or anecdotal observation which has yielded anything that substantiates that aspect of the theory.

Sorry, you're wrong about that. What you are calling the Theory of Evolution in this post is not actually the Theory of Evolution. You are describing what Intelligent Design people conceed about evolutionary biology. ID and Evolution are not consistent. ID conceeds that certain observable phenomina which exist in short time scales are real. This is because it is insane to suggest, as many Fundamentalists do, that phenomina I can actually show you in a lab aren't real. The ID people are attempting to keep their hypothesis consistent with directly observable phenomina in the current experimental data.

The Theory of Evolution goes far beyond directly observable phenomina. It does argue that human beings evolved from primates. This is not a "misuse" or a confusion. It is strongly suggested by the fossil records and the chemistry of genetics. Darwin writes:
"Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species—that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species: or, again, between subspecies and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage."

Furthermore, the idea of universal common descent is actually what Darwin suggested in Origin of Species. Darwin writes in his conclusion: "Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form." Today this idea is also widely accepted by biologists.

It is possible in some limited cases to formulate alternative hypothesis which completely fit the existing evidence and clearly explain it. These things should not be taught in schools accept perhaps to illustrate the difference between a hypothesis and a theory (which is not what the ID people are trying to do). Evolutionary Biology is accepted as a theory because it is the simplest conclusion suggested by the chemical and fossil evidence and because it makes very specific practical predictions that over 100 years have survived ever increasing knowledge about the mechanisms and nature of organisms while many other explanations have fallen by the wayside.

RE: Dark matter highlights extra dimensions