science education

As we continue to mark up the Wiki article on ID, the next thing to notice is how the anonymous contributors have projected unto ID,  an accusation of trying to redefine science and its methods in service to supernaturalistic creationism: Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute . . . . Scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science. It puts forth a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity.[5] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include Read More ›

Yesterday, we saw how Wikipedia is one of the most influential sites on the Internet, how it vaunts itself on its commitment to NPOV, a neutral point of view: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. “Neutral point of view” is one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies. The other two are “Verifiability” and “No original research“. These Read More ›

News has just put up a post with the Meyer lecture on intelligent design (with a close focus on the pivotal case, origin of life, the root of Darwin’s tree of life analogy).  I responded here, in light of the history of ideas issues raised by the lecture as well as the question of why origin of life  is so pivotal tot he whole question at stake, but in so doing I had occasion to visit the Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design. I saw that it had further mutated and evolved under intelligent direction into an even more strident tone than the last time I bothered to look or comment, and so I think it instructive to contrast two introductions Read More ›

As I have just noted, the AHA has put up a blog promoting its brand of evolutionary materialist naturalism to children: . . . the AHA has a web site that promotes its brand of naturalism — in effect, atheism rooted in evolutionary materialism, but with the attempt to promote human values and being “good without God” — to children (here) with a section for teens (here). The sneering, condescendingly sophomoric tone and dismissivenes of the site is clear right from its declared (and very familiar-sounding) theme: Welcome to Kids Without God, a site for the millions of young people around the world who have embraced science, rejected superstition, and are dedicated to being Good Without A God! Noted Christian Read More ›

This morning, I ran across a news item on the “undiscovery” of Sandy Island off Australia: Most explorers dream of discovering uncharted territory, but a team of Australian scientists have done the exact opposite. They have found an island that doesn’t exist. (vid at the linked) This led me to think about the institution of an award for exposing scientific fraud and a NewScientist interview with Shi-min Fang, its first recipient: What prompted you to start challenging dubious pseudoscientific claims in China? In 1998, after eight years studying in the US, I returned to China and was shocked to see it was deluged with pseudosciences, superstitions and scientific misconduct. . . . (This one is disturbing, NS even speaks of Read More ›

  In an interview with Playboy, September just past, Dr Dawkins made some dismissive remarks  on the historicity of Jesus, in the context of having made similarly dismissive talking points about Intelligent Design.  As UD News noted: PLAYBOY: What is your view of Jesus? DAWKINS: The evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky. The earliest books in the New Testament to be written were the Epistles, not the Gospels. It’s almost as though Saint Paul and others who wrote the Epistles weren’t that interested in whether Jesus was real. Even if he’s fictional, whoever wrote his lines was ahead of his time in terms of moral philosophy. PLAYBOY: You’ve read the Bible. DAWKINS: I haven’t read it all, but my knowledge Read More ›

Okay, the thread of discussion needs to pick up from here on. To motivate discussion, let me clip here comment no 795 in the continuation thread, which I have marked up: _________ >> 795Jerad October 23, 2012 at 1:18 am KF (783): At this point, with all due respect, you look like someone making stuff up to fit your predetermined conclusion. I know you think so. [a –> Jerad, I will pause to mark up. I would further with all due respect suggest that I have some warrant for my remark, especially given how glaringly you mishandled the design inference framework in your remark I responded to earlier.] {Let me add a diagram of the per aspect explanatory filter, using Read More ›

On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad. As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no. Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside: Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument. This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog. Zachriel’s response reminds me, all too strikingly, of the cogency of  what Philip Johnson had to say in reply to Lewontin’s claims in his Read More ›

Yesterday, following up from recent comment exchanges, I posted about the electron as an example of how we routinely deal with the invisible in science, and on how inductive — believe it or not that is now a fighting word — inference on sign is vital to science. This morning, I followed up on a remark by Joe in the UB thread that extends the same theme. I think this should be headlined, so let me clip (quickly, as I do have a draft to follow up on): ____________ >>I have a draft speech to follow up on, but could not resist this: [Joe:] the [Darwinist/Evolutionary Materialist] response is always “Eons of time cannot be reproduced in a lab and Read More ›

The Tektronix 465 Cathode Ray Oscilloscope is a classic of analogue oscilloscope design, one based on deflecting electron beams electrostatically to observe and measure electrical oscillations: But, wait a minute, are we ACTUALLY seeing electron beams? Nope, we are seeing a TRACE on the screen, where light is emitted by the phosphor as it is hit by the beams. Wait, again: are we actually seeing the electron beams? And more particularly, the electrons in the beams? Nope. No-one has ever actually seen that strange wavicle, the electron. It has never been directly observed. Never. So, why do we so confidently portray how a CRO works, if we cannot actually see the electrons that it is built around? Because, the invisible Read More ›

Over the past several days, I have been highlighting poster children of illogic and want of civility that are too often found among critics to design theory – even, among those claiming to be standing on civility and to be posing unanswerable questions, challenges or counter-claims to design theory. I have also noticed the strong (but patently ill-founded) feeling/assumption among objectors to design theory that they have adequately disposed of the issues it raises and are posing unanswerable challenges in exchanges A capital example of this, was the suggestion by ID objector Toronto, that the inference to best current explanation used by design thinkers, is an example of question-begging circular argument. Here, again is his attempted rebuttal: Kairosfocus [Cf. original Read More ›

The illustration to the right is a Hertzprung-Russell diagram of two star clusters, and is used to infer ages for these clusters. How is that done? Stellar clusters are gravitationally bound and so the stars seem to be of the same general age and composition, also they are at about the same distance from us. So, on the physics of collapsing Hydrogen-rich gas clouds (in turn based on relativity, atomic physics, spectroscopy etc), star formation, and the resulting life cycle, in particular the model timeline for main sequence turnoffs to the giant band, we can estimate the age of the cluster. In this case, M67 is estimated at ~ 4BY, and NGC 188 at ~ 5 BY. (SOURCE: Wiki CCA, Read More ›