The scientific method is based on making a hypothesis and then trying to prove it.
Ignorant chance is not proved, it remains an assumption.
Every hypothesis is an assumption.
You start with a known, then reason toward unknown.
You don't start with an unknown and uknowable, then reason to a known.
That's why it is circular. You are using the assumption as some foundation to make the argument true. It is circular.
So if, as you suggest, science should start without assumptions, then you will have to state a new scientific method, because you are casting out the old one in favor of ____ (whatever your new definition of science is).
Science should start with what we actually know, then reason forward.
We know the observations, we guess at causes we can't observe.
However, the guesses are speculative, until such time that we can rule out the unknowns, or provide testing to rule out what we don't know.
That is why, in my opinion, people are afraid of real science, which is agnostic, as it will leave the question unanswered, i.e. the origin of man.
We simply do not know, so people have beliefs, which is fine. If your belief is ignorant chance, fine. If you belief is ID, fine.
Just don't teach that one is true, and the other false, when you have no way to test the theory to verify it to be true.
Evolution appears to be such a theory, if you accept what science has thus far obtained from the data. If you think that science hasn't obtained sufficient data, that would be a public policy decision. But it wouldn't be science.
Appears....
Seems like....
Could be....
We think....
Light years from "we actually know."
Teach what we know, not what some people think and believe in public schools...
Maybe what you want is for the definition of science to include public policy decisions about assumptions. But that would be sort of like the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. But, then I suppose that science has always operated within the control of public policy, so nothing's really changed.
When it comes to origin of mankind and life itself, teach what we know...which is we don't know.
Keep the dogmatic belief systems out of the equation when it comes to educating children in public schools.
Feel free to teach at college level, where the mind of a student is sufficiently developed to think critically...at least some have that developed.
Not in primary public school systems.
Just spreading dogma is all that it is.
This must be your way of saying, that my argument is frivolous.
Your argument is not frivolous any more than the ID arguments.
Neither belong in public schools indoctrination children into belief systems they really don't understand.
I'm not certain why you see the need to insult me, but if that's your dance, you just go right on ahead.
I don't mean to be insulting
you.
I find the pushing of ignorant chance on children funded by public money insulting.
As demonstrated above, biology, as a science operates completely on assumptions which are confirmed by experiments conducted within reason. No experiment can reasonably confirm God, so that would be out of the bounds of reasonable science.
Ignorant chance is not confirmed at all.
Agreement of a bunch of scientists is not scientific conformation. Please understand that science is not what scientists think or believe, okay?
But, not out of the bounds of public policy -- which seems to be your preference.
I favor teaching children how to think, not indoctrinating them into what to think by groups with an agenda that is really not about science, but more about a personal belief system.
That's not up to me to decide. It's up to the politicians, frankly.
It is up to the voters actually.
Well, it's known within the bounds of reasonable scientific investigation thus far conducted.
It is not a known at all. It is an assumption based on incomplete knowledge. Then it becomes a dogma.
As far as what public policy is, you can influence the results by demanding that your legislators only allow certain things be taught, and if judges rule against you, then you can ask the legislators to remove the judges until you get the result your after.
Thanks, I know the system. The problem is that Christians are pushing ID, not going after the nature of the real problem, which is pushing scientific dogma on children.
If the public understood what is really happening, then they could do the right thing, which is remove both ID and non ID from classrooms in public schools.
Eventually, you can get the result you want, regardless of what science finds or misses.
So, maybe it's not silly, if that's what you want to achieve. Seems to be pretty much in line with what Republicans have been generally advocating for several decades now.
No, republicans are advocating teaching ID.
I am opposed to teaching ID and non-ID, but if we have to teach non-ID, then we should teach ID to provide balance.
I thought you were a democrat. My mistake.
Yes, your mistake. I am registered independent.
