Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

The difference is, the ID theories will be taught as theory, not fact. So no worries about the ID side.

ID isn't a theory though, it has no scientific evidence backing up the hypothesis.

As long as it's put forward as only a theory I don't mind. I haven't got a problem with anyone looking at a list of theories and deciding which one is most logical.

I'm concerned that if ID is accepted as a scientific theory, it will open the floodgates for all sorts of bizarre notions. Science text books will be 50% science and 50% bizarre.

There are some really crazy ideas about how we started, in fact ID is the least crazy of all of them.

But if it's accepted, the others will want to be as well.

No, the issue isn't that its taught as a theory, the issue is that its taught as science.

Is there any chance you could you provide me a link to a website outlining the evidence please?

I'm honestly interested in why it's such a popular belief.


EDIT:: OOPS. sorry misread the post lol

Textbooks now teach abiogenesis as fact, although it's purely speculation, not founded in reality. That is only one of many falsehoods taught to children as fact.

If one is truly concerned with children learning falsehoods as fact, one should read the current textbooks to repair the problem at hand.

So is Evolution, at least when I went to school it was. My teachers were very clear on it being a scientific theory - not fact. A theory, however, that had mountains of scientific data behind it - something ID does not have.

It's now taught as fact. Sad, huh?

Not the last time I checked, of course your ID friends might be telling you its being taught that way - I dunno.

Check again, or ask you evolutionist friends.

They will tell you it IS fact.

What say you about gravity?

please, no strawmen

Everyone knows its a scientifc theory, Kevn - not a fact, especially the scientists and the science teachers. ID doesn't even measure up to scientific theory - which is ALOT differnent than the more informal use of the word 'theory'. A scientific theory requires that it:

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
   
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
   
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
   
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
   
5. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
   
6. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.
   

But surely the evidence we've found of mid-evolved humans proves evolution?

The only proof Creationism has is in the first chapter of the Bible, which frankly isn't proof of anything. The first chapter of Lord of the Rings says "There was a hobbit called Frodo" yet I understand, when I read it, that it's a story.

Remember Gallileo was threatened with being burned alive by the Church for suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. NASA for one will agree the Earth definately orbits the Sun.

Flat-earth creationists suggest that Columbus DIDN'T sail around the world, indeed, he used an elaborate array of mirrors and canvas to 'trick' us into believing he'd gone past the horizon. You can make anything fit and sound logical if you choose to accept the belief.

Creationism hasn't got a single shred of evidence compared to the plethora supporting evolution.

On a topical note, take Bird Flu for example. In itself it cannot affect humans, it's only when it combines with another virus that does affect us can it 'evolve' to attack it's host. Evolution happens on a daily basis.

Hardly a strawman, Kevn - or should I say only so when it supports your viewpoint.

Gravity is a theory, just as Evolution is. Funny that you'd place more value on one scientific theory than another. But, I guess gravity doesn't conflict with your Bible.

Ummmm.... I thought it's called the LAW of gravity

Atoms have a gravitational pull on their electrons and neutrons which orbit the nucleus

Stick a whole bunch of them together and you get a planet with exponentially more gravitational pull on other atoms

no, we wont.

Gravity is called a law, evolution is called a theory. That is my only point.

Sorry Tai. I agree with you completely

They are flatlanders, don't even try to broaden their minds.

It's called Newton's law of universal gravity - which is a theory. Oh, and there's also Einstein's theory of gravitation. Again, a theory.

Along with his laws of motion, Newton's law of gravity led directly to mathematical explanations of Galileo's falling object experiments (Galileo And The Leaning Tower of Pisa), and Kepler's Laws concerning the motions of the planets. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states:

F=Gm1m2/d2

F is the force of gravity, G is a constant (the Gravitational Constant) which can be measured, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects (earth and apple or earth and moon), and d is the distance between them. You can see that gravity follows the famous inverse square law that many physical phenomena follow.

Thank you for the science lesson.

Scientific 'Law' differs from Scientific 'Theory' in that a law notes that something happens while a theory tries to figure out why or how it happened.