David Clounch said:
"The theory was accurate at the time Fischer's statement was first
made, and it was also accurate later after macromolecules were
discovered (the theory having been revised). It was also factual in
both timeframes. But scientific facts change over time (unlike common
facts) because science is tentative and subject to change as new
information becomes available.
I don't think so. First, theories are never proven- they can only be
disproven. They only stick around as long as they aren't disproven or
until a better one comes along. Some science changes completely, some
gets modified, and some is exact and will never change.
Exact science example: heliocentricity (not likely to ever change)
Modified science example: the nature and operation of some sub-atomic
particles (quarks, for example)
Changes completely: Origin of life hypotheses, and origin of the
big-bang (multiverse, inflation, etc.)
________________________________
From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:44 PM
To: j burg
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ID is not "scinece" because...
How about this one?
3. Should public schools require the teaching that there are no carbon
molecules with more than 40 units.?
(Based on Emil Fischer's statement at one time that there are no larger
chains)
"No. Instead of mandating the dogma that carbon chains can be as large
as anyone wants, Discovery
Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on
teaching students more about current theories in organic chemistry,
including telling
them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in
peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, the dogma that all
all carbon molecules are smaller than 40 units should be taught as a
scientific theory that is open
to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students,
teachers, and parents."
At the time Emil made his claim it was both a scientific theory that
there are no large organic molecules, and it was a scientific fact. The
reason of course was biochemistry had yet to be discovered.
Later, after the discovery, the scientific facts changed. As did the
scientific theory. The theory was accurate at the time Fischer's
statement was first made, and it was also accurate later after
macromolecules were discovered (the theory having been revised). It was
also factual in both timeframes. But scientific facts change over time
(unlike common facts) because science is tentative and subject to change
as new information becomes available.
The argument over "facts" is actually nonsense. Scientific facts can
and do change. Most do not, but some do. I just gave one example.
Others come to mind.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:24 AM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/6/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote (quoted)
from the DISCOVERY website:
>
> 3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
>
> No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute
recommends
> that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about
> evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's
> problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals.
In
> other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is
open
> to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
We
> believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students,
> teachers, and parents.
>
> This is what the DI is selling:
Interesting. Let's see if the above can be expanded into other fields:
3. Should public schools require the teaching of gravity?
No. Instead of mandating gravity, Discovery Institute recommends that
states and school districts focus on teaching students more about
force theory, including telling them about some of the theory's
problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals.
In other words, gravity should be taught as a scientific theory that
is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be
questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will
benefit students, teachers, and parents.
and
3. Should public schools require the teaching of an old earth?
No. Instead of mandating an old earth, Discovery Institute recommends
that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about
evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's
problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals.
In other words, an old age for the earth should be taught as a
scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred
dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense
approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.
and
3. Should public schools require the teaching that all races are equal.?
No. Instead of mandating the dogma that all races are equal, Discovery
Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on
teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling
them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in
peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, the dogma that all
races are equal should be taught as a scientific theory that is open
to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students,
teachers, and parents.
Other examples come to mind ...
Burgy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 14 20:15:20 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 14 2008 - 20:15:20 EDT