Ben Stein to take on Darwinism on April 18

[jcarrey4]

Uggg, I wish this movie and anyone who thinks, incorrectly, that ID is a scientific theory and should merit equal time with true scientific theory would just fade into oblivion. Look, the reason ID does not and should not "get proper time" in the scientific forum as Evolutionary theory is due to 2 things.

1) your definition of theory. The colloquially-used definition is a fallible idea that is more philosophical in nature. The scientific community starts with a theory in this manner, but after years of research years of refining the theory, years of experimentation and observation, years of...science, the theory is tested, revised, and then finally taught in order to present the results as as near fact as you can possibly get. ID, on the other hand, is philosophical in nature, as stated earlier, and not only that, it uses incorrect premises to propagate the logical debate, and furthermore is not testable. If the ID camp could put together a proposal where a committee could test their "theory," then more power to them. At that point, sure, people would test it and give it a shot against the mountains of data that evolutionary theory has going for it.

2) The other, similar theories that one could extrapolate, with similar "scientific" basis, and similarly bad logic-based arguments. This includes theories such as if an alien life seeded our planet, or the much-guffawed "flying spaghetti monster" god that created us all, or any number of other theories that could be the reason we are all here. The problem is, while science does look at possibilities, they will verily discount theories that have such a small probability as to be considered not true. No TRUE scientist will say there is no god, but any good scientist (or good thinker) would say, "While there is a possibility one exists, the probability of that being the case versus any number of perfectly logical and experimentally-provable theories and logic-based arguments is very very very very very very small. So, yes, it is a step of faith to say I don't believe in god, but it's better than taking the unrealistic leap of faith to believe in one."

There's a reason we don't teach that some people believe e=mc^3 in atomic theory classes, there's a reason that we don't say F=G*m1*m2/r^3 is a possibility in physics class. The reason is, while you might be able to get a group together and say you believe this, and while, excepting for the mathematical nature, I might not be able to disprove your theory, there is no scientific basis, and therefore I will not and should not teach it alongside the more provable theories.

Any questions?

 

Edit: Vagabond, sorry to overstep your theory argument with my theory argument. I started writing before i saw that.