harigpotjeendeorde{r}vandetammemarspenisvanvenus?!
'haagse post & de order van venus'!
WHY
are scientists
so upset about
the growing movement to
'bring ID {"Intelligent Design"} into
science classrooms and public education venues
such as science museum, zoos, and theme parks?
The pressure to teach ID as a scientific alternative to evolution has been gaining ground in many states!
There is also increasing ID activitu in Latin America: are scientists so insecure that they are afraid to subject the core concepts of evolution to public scrutiny?
Not very likely!
They're
accustomed to that.
Scientific theories and principles are routinely subjected to close examination and systematic testing.
Moreover, scientists are notoriously argumentative
and enjoy debating theories
with one another?
THE
problem is
that ID advocates
attempts to dress up
religious beliefs to make them
'look like science'!
BY
redefining what
is and isn't science,
they also put the public ~ particularly young people ~
at risk of being inadequately prepared to make decisions about issues that have heavy science- & technology-related content, such as medical care, personal security, shopping choices, and that their children should be taught
in school!
TO
make those
choices wisely, they
will need to distinguish
science-based evidence from pseudoschientific claims?
There is an important distinction between a belief and a theory!
ID is cast by its proponents as a scientific theory, an alternative to evolution,
but it fails the criteria for achieving that status.
In our business, a theory is not an educated guess not, emphatically, is it a belief?
Scientific theories attempt to explain what can be observed,
and it is essential that they be testable
by repeatable observations
and experimentation!
IN FACT,
"belief" is a word you alomost never hear
in science
...
WE
do not
believe theories: we
accept or reject them based
on their ability to explain natural phenomena,
and they must be testable with scientific methodologies.
ID advocates often attempt to denigrate evolution as "just a theory."
In one sense that's true: evolution IS only a theory,
but so is gravity!
PEOPLE
often respond
that gravity is a fact,
but the fact is that your keys fall to the ground when dropped.
Gravity is the theoretical explanation that accounts for such observed facts.
Scientific theories such as evolution and gravity are accepted only after they have been subjected to validation through repeated observation and axperiment,
vetted extensively through the peer review process.
ID can pass none of these tests.
Its proponents assert its scientific standing without undertaking
the scientific processes that are required
to establish it
...
AT
the same
time, it is
important for scientists to
acknowledge that not all questions can be answered by science!
Scientific insights are limited to the natural world?
For reasons of their own, some scientists argue with some passion
that there could not have been an intelligent designer behind the process of evolution?
In fact, we cannot answer that question scientifically,
because it is a matter of belief
that is outside
our realm!
BY
keeping ID
out of the science venue,
are we attempting to stifle it?
On the contrary!
I believe
it is appropriate to teach about belief-based concepts like ID in humanities courses,
in classes comparing religious points of view, or in philosphy courses taht contrast religious and scientific
approaches to the world.
However,
what is taught in science class should be limited to science.
Redefining science to get a particular belief into the classroom simply isn't sound.
Just as the scientific community has broad responsibilities to monitor the integrity with which its members conduct their work, it also must take some responsibility for the uses of science and belief systems,
in schools and in various public venues
devoted to science.
Otherwise,
we will fail in our obligation to our fellow citizens
and to the successor generations of students
who will depend on science
for their future.
WHY
are scientists
so upset about
the growing movement to
'bring ID {"Intelligent Design"} into
science classrooms and public education venues
such as science museum, zoos, and theme parks?
The pressure to teach ID as a scientific alternative to evolution has been gaining ground in many states!
There is also increasing ID activitu in Latin America: are scientists so insecure that they are afraid to subject the core concepts of evolution to public scrutiny?
Not very likely!
They're
accustomed to that.
Scientific theories and principles are routinely subjected to close examination and systematic testing.
Moreover, scientists are notoriously argumentative
and enjoy debating theories
with one another?
THE
problem is
that ID advocates
attempts to dress up
religious beliefs to make them
'look like science'!
BY
redefining what
is and isn't science,
they also put the public ~ particularly young people ~
at risk of being inadequately prepared to make decisions about issues that have heavy science- & technology-related content, such as medical care, personal security, shopping choices, and that their children should be taught
in school!
TO
make those
choices wisely, they
will need to distinguish
science-based evidence from pseudoschientific claims?
There is an important distinction between a belief and a theory!
ID is cast by its proponents as a scientific theory, an alternative to evolution,
but it fails the criteria for achieving that status.
In our business, a theory is not an educated guess not, emphatically, is it a belief?
Scientific theories attempt to explain what can be observed,
and it is essential that they be testable
by repeatable observations
and experimentation!
IN FACT,
"belief" is a word you alomost never hear
in science
...
WE
do not
believe theories: we
accept or reject them based
on their ability to explain natural phenomena,
and they must be testable with scientific methodologies.
ID advocates often attempt to denigrate evolution as "just a theory."
In one sense that's true: evolution IS only a theory,
but so is gravity!
PEOPLE
often respond
that gravity is a fact,
but the fact is that your keys fall to the ground when dropped.
Gravity is the theoretical explanation that accounts for such observed facts.
Scientific theories such as evolution and gravity are accepted only after they have been subjected to validation through repeated observation and axperiment,
vetted extensively through the peer review process.
ID can pass none of these tests.
Its proponents assert its scientific standing without undertaking
the scientific processes that are required
to establish it
...
AT
the same
time, it is
important for scientists to
acknowledge that not all questions can be answered by science!
Scientific insights are limited to the natural world?
For reasons of their own, some scientists argue with some passion
that there could not have been an intelligent designer behind the process of evolution?
In fact, we cannot answer that question scientifically,
because it is a matter of belief
that is outside
our realm!
BY
keeping ID
out of the science venue,
are we attempting to stifle it?
On the contrary!
I believe
it is appropriate to teach about belief-based concepts like ID in humanities courses,
in classes comparing religious points of view, or in philosphy courses taht contrast religious and scientific
approaches to the world.
However,
what is taught in science class should be limited to science.
Redefining science to get a particular belief into the classroom simply isn't sound.
Just as the scientific community has broad responsibilities to monitor the integrity with which its members conduct their work, it also must take some responsibility for the uses of science and belief systems,
in schools and in various public venues
devoted to science.
Otherwise,
we will fail in our obligation to our fellow citizens
and to the successor generations of students
who will depend on science
for their future.
12 jul 2007 - bewerkt op 11 aug 2008
- meld ongepast verhaal
-
TammieJ
donderdag 12 juli 2007 13:44
En dan wil je een kaartje kopen voor de film van harry en is die uitverkocht ><
-
Asih
donderdag 12 juli 2007 13:49
Geeft niks: je kunt alle pottertjes & ettertjes nog de rest van je leven blijven zien in eindeloze herhalingen [als je lang genoeg blijft leven] ...
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 17 mei 2026 In de afgelopen jaren is de aandacht van het ver-
- O 16 mei 2026 Afremmen: Andrea Maier richt haar wetenschappelijk
- O 16 mei 2026 Tegen het einde van de 12de eeuw leidden die hoge
- O 16 mei 2026 Nergens in Europa waren Joodse geldhandelaren alzo
- O 15 mei 2026 Door verdere kerkelijke e.d. maatregelen werden de
- O 15 mei 2026 Nooitmeer stelen/sterven & steeds maar verouderen?
- O 15 mei 2026 Net zoals nu bijna overal in de kastelen
- O 15 mei 2026 Door verdere ambtelijke & “kerkelijke” maatregelen
- O 14 mei 2026 In 1231 stelde Paus Gregorius IX de “inquisitie”
- O 14 mei 2026 39/40 Voor alle diverse universele joden zouden de
- O 13 mei 2026 Weken eerder was de Joodse koning Aristoboulos aan
- O 13 mei 2026 Theoretisch kan zowel Tiberius Julius als Yesj@NL
- O 13 mei 2026 Rome had ook hem ‘n heffing opgelegd & gebied ont-
- O 12 mei 2026 Joden&Romeinen: Rome leek al oppermachtig te zijn
- O 12 mei 2026 Drie waarschuwingen dus nog: om te beginnen is die