That isn't really true, there are many other lines of evidence. Genetic mutation analysis, microevolution (antibiotic resistance) and many other things point to evolution. Cats and dogs aren't two completely different things when you look at their genetic similarity. In evolutionary terms they had a common ancestor comparitatively recently, though not as recently as say dogs and wolfs (which by some definitions are the same species). I agree their are certain limits to testing the theory, after all it would probably take several human life times to see two populations of a species diverge in to different speices. There are many lines of evidence to shown how species divergence would occur over a long period of time though

It really is true. Lines of evidence are NOT testing anything. And as far as your dogs and cats theory goes.....you're wrong there too. Look at the latin name for each:
dog (Canis familiaris) and cat (felis domesticus). Notice how the genus is different for each? Lupas (from wolf ancestory) vs felis (from a "feline" ancestory which would include all the big cats)? "If" they had a common ancestor their genus would be the same. The ONLY things they hold in common is that they are both carnivores and invertebrates.

"Good point."

Thanks Ziggy.

"ID/creationism is NOT in anyway a scientifically testable theory"

That was my point.

"it shouldn't be presented as viable theory."

Sure cos you know better than every religious person that has ever existed before your God, Science. Very multiculturally tolerant view there, Canberra boy (sorry, I'm being harsh for the sake of JU ;> )

"They are only valid within itself, as in if you believe it they are valid TO YOU but they can't be proved to be valid by any "objective" logical test. It is funny because you were the one who was arguing to me that you can only use logic to prove stuff. "

No, no, I argued the opposite. Logic is merely a body of philosophy, and scientists used to learn that at Uni. Science deals with material proofs. It is based on observation of material occurrences. It works on certain philosophical assumptions such as that all material effects must have a material cause. That was simply a philosophic assumption that Descartes adopted because he wanted to show that you could believe in God based on Faith + Scientific Reason, whereas the Church advocated using only Faith. However, many people say Descartes was really an atheist, and personally I think ID is the greatest potential threat to the Church since Descartes, but if the churchies wanna go with it, let 'em.

For instance, an atheist will point to there being no proof of God. They often rely on science to explain everything. Yet why should there be any material proof of God? Why would an immaterial force act according to material laws? It doesn't make sense.

"Really if there are scientists that have a problem with becoming dogmatic it isn't a science problem. It is a human problem"

Agreed and that was funny.

" I think if it is explained to you well it doesn't cause any problems and is quite easy to understand."

I agree, but I still think it should be open to question and debate if students have questions.

"Its first premise is also its conclusion "

I would say the same of science. The search for a beginning to the Universe based on the linear time model it has adopted and the cause and effect principle lead to an endless search that can never be logically answered. Therefore it is circular, but it is a practical way of operating within the world (as is not believing in the Evil Demon Theory, but it doesn't make the Evil Demon Theory wrong).

There were practical lessons where you took a concept you learned in theory and applied it in the lab, but as far as expanding knowledge or looking at alternatives, that wasn't the objective. So you have core classes where they present one approach to the subject based on generally accepted guidelines. That's their objective. They give you a foundation of knowledge to work from.

Hopefully this is becoming more and more old school. The Science Unit I just finished writing is almost entirely hands-on. Some of the students have a hypothesis that clouds are made of cotton wool ( a common misconception in Year 1), so we're going to make cumulus and nimbus and stratus clouds out of cotton wool and then throw the into the air to see if they float up to the sky. Then we're going to discuss what do the students know that floats into the air (eg smoke, steam) and test that theory.

there are many other lines of evidence.

Yes, but you couldn't really say it's a proven law could you. Certainly there is strong evidence that evolution is very likely. Many people consider it the most likely theory. Yet some,even scientists are unconvinced. The main reason being that until it is observed directly, we will never have the complete picture to be able to prove that it happened, we have to use a bit of assumption and very well-educated guesswork. Even then, there is nothing to say that evolution isn't one of God's tools, which as I understand it is the main tenet of ID theory. (Which is why I think it's a threat to the Church because I don't agree that you can base your Faith in God on a combination of Logic as a true body of philosophy and Faith).

Look at the latin name for each: dog (Canis familiaris) and cat (felis domesticus). Notice how the genus is different for each? Lupas (from wolf ancestory) vs felis (from a "feline" ancestory which would include all the big cats)? "If" they had a common ancestor their genus would be the same.

Wrong. Just because two species don't belong to the same genus does NOT mean they didn't have a common ancestor, anymore than not sharing your last name with your maternal grandparent means your not related to them. Remember a genus is just a convienient way of catagorising things not an indication of a line that actually exists in nature. There are several levels of catagories kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. As you said that are bot carnivores which puts them in the order carnivora (incidently they are vertabrate not invertabrates) and they are in the same family Mammilia.
Remember that animals were original categorised by morphology (looks) so these category are arbitary. Recently genetics has helped us determine true relationships through genetics which often turns up suprises.

It really is true. Lines of evidence are NOT testing anything.

Not all tests are direct physical tests. Some are tests of predictions made by a theory(note ID makes NO testable predictions). Evolution predicts certain things about the ancestors and cousins of species. For instance genes don't just come out of no where. So if you find a gene there should be some form of that gene or components of it in ancestors (or closely related descendants of those ancestors), or cousins of that animal. For instance we find genes responsible for embryo formation in coral (a "primative" animal) in insects as well (a more complex, more recently evolved group of animals). Genes don't usually don't just diappear either. One thing you find in animals including humans is DNA sequences that resemble (or are nearly identical to) working genes in other animals but aren't genes called psuedo-genes. In evolution these are easily explained by saying that they are genes that have become non-functional. For instance humans have psuedo-genes for an organ called the VNO which in other animals detect pheromones. Humans don't have a functioning VNO but we do have VNO genes. ID can't explain the presence of psuedo-genes or vestigal organs. Why would a creator design an animal and put in non-functional genes? In evolution however you would predict the presence of these things because as the lifestyle of an organism changes you would expect some genes to become unecessary and become non-functional. So many lines of evidence although not direct tests of the theory of evolution (like observing a new species evolve) are tests of the predictions of the theory which lends support to the theory itself. You cannot conclusively prove a theory that is just a limitation we can't avoid because for that you would need perfect knowledge. You can only test a theories predictions and see if the theory matches reality. A theory is a best fit, and evolution is a far better fit in terms of a theory that can be tested. Sub-theories of evolution are changing all the time because of new evidence. The only way you could prove intelligent design is to prove the existence of the creator and perhaps talk to it. Since it doesn't propose TESTABLE theories it isn't science, it is psuedo-science and hence should not be taught in science class.

Yes, but you couldn't really say it's a proven law could you.

That's the whole point, you CAN'T fully prove a theory in science (as Zoomba stated above). The closest you get to a proven theory is a theory that is a very good fit.

Even then, there is nothing to say that evolution isn't one of God's tools, which as I understand it is the main tenet of ID theory

Whether evolution is tool of God is essentially irrelevent.

Yet some,even scientists are unconvinced.

Yeah the ones that proposed ID.

"it shouldn't be presented as viable theory."Sure cos you know better than every religious person that has ever existed before your God, Science. Very multiculturally tolerant view there, Canberra boy (sorry, I'm being harsh for the sake of JU ;> )

It has nothing to do with whether I know better or not. Presenting ID as a viable theory would be like forcing someone who practices Judaism to believe in the divinity of Christ. It is simple incompatible. ID is worse than wrong (even assuming it is right), it is useless. A theory that makes no testable predictions also makes no useful predictions. The predictions made by evolution help us in fields like genetics and medicine. In ID you can't make useful predictions unless you know the mind of the creator. Oddly enough Einstein said he was trying to undstand the mind of God. The point is in terms of science it is a non-viable theory because it doesn't have any predictive power except perhaps in a reality inaccessible to us.

Science isn't my God. I have a God quite seperate from science. Science doesn't prove the non-existence of God but it is up to other people to keep the faith not scientists.

That's the whole point, you CAN'T fully prove a theory in science (as Zoomba stated above). The closest you get to a proven theory is a theory that is a very good fit.

Yes you can.  It is difficult, but it is done all the time in mathematics, probably the purest form of science there is.

Yes you can. It is difficult, but it is done all the time in mathematics, probably the purest form of science there is.

Agreed that is true with mathematics that some things can be conclusively proved. Interestingly though mathematics has also proven that some things are unprovable/uncalulatable because they would take an infinite amount of time to calculate. One is example is a type of number called an omega. I don't pretend to understand it though, I suck at math. That's why I studied biology and not astrophysics : )

Typically things proven out absolutely through mathematics become scientific LAW.

Whether evolution is tool of God is essentially irrelevent.

You're going to have to explain why. It is the main premise of ID I think. It may not be useful for making predictions about the world, but suggesting that religion is useless to people is silly.

It is simple incompatible.

How? If God creates evolution, then surely that is the whole point ID is making! That evolution is such a complex thing to happen that only an intelligent creator could have done it (I think that's a silly argument mind you, but why crush it?).

The point is in terms of science it is a non-viable theory

It's certainly not a scientific theory, but there's no reason that can't be made clear to the students.

You're going to have to explain why. It is the main premise of ID I think. .

Why is it is relevant what started evolution if it results in the same thing? I mean assuming we can never tell if god exists the cause of it does not matter as long as we are fairly sure it exists. If people want to believe it is god fine, but that is a religious belief and it is their choice to believe that. Science doen't make a point of teaching that evolution ISN'T caused by god so why should they make a point of saying it MIGHT be. Besides it is just a part of the principle of keeping church seperate from the state and religious fundamentalists away from science.

It may not be useful for making predictions about the world, but suggesting that religion is useless to people is silly

I never said that religion was useless to people you are puting words in my mouth (figuratively speaking). They can get religion outside of science class, I'm NOT saying religion should not be taught. I'm not saying religion is useless to people in general but it is useless to scientists for making predictions. As I said before it is like forcing priests to read the Origin of Species along side Genesis.

It's certainly not a scientific theory, but there's no reason that can't be made clear to the students.

So why waste class time on it. It is like spending a whole class on teaching defunct sciences such as phrenology (feeling bumps on peoples head to determine things about their character). If we had to teach every hokey fundamentalist psuedo-scientific theory we'd never get through it all. Why should ID get a hearing just because it happens to have a good (yet deceptive/ignorant) set of publicists.

As I said it is fine to use these things as a comparison to show why the excepted theory is the accepted (are you happy now Champas?) theory. It is another to show the deceptive literature (and other media) created by a bunch of fundy Christians that want to brainwash kids with misguided crap (or get a few more dollars in the collection plate come Christmas time). The stuff they send schools is essentially advertising and just as well factually and ethically grounded.

There was a great story on the sort of materials these fundys send out on Catalyst last night.

creationism=theory

evolution= theory

teach them both.

creationism=theoryevolution= theoryteach them both.

That's simplistic and you know it. There are all sorts iof theories around but you don't teach them all.

excepted theory

I hate to nit-pick, but I'm a teacher...you mean "accepted".

Why is it is relevant what started evolution if it results in the same thing?

Because we live in a multicultural society which means a multi-religious society and many people arre offended by the way, as George Pell says, evolution is sometimes taught in an anti-God way. I'm sure you recall the times I used to laugh at naive fools who believed in God because I supposedly had some superior scientific explanation to justify my atheism. How arrogant and philosophically unsound. I'm not suggesting wads of time, just a brief outline. Sorry to hijack, but I've just posted an article proposing how to do this.

The UK went partly down this route - albeit not as far as total student driven choice. In effect the education systemn became dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and the benefits or principles of academic rigour in its non zealot incarnation were lost. 30 years later we have the spectacle of employers now ignoring any Degree unless it comes from the hard core traditional University, and now by in large, depend on psychometric testing for initial filters and even a major in the second interviews

Theorise as much as you like, employers are not interested, they want and need a means of differentiating those who excell from those who dont. No amount of satisfying theory will ever get round that fact whatever you may think. Employers dont have the luxury of theorising, they have to face the reality of esoteric thinking - not just end up saying "opps got that wrong, oh well on to the next theory". Nor do the students caught up in it - they have leant a harsh lesson that grand Debating Society theory lays the groundwork, but much effort is always needed to make things practical, and sometimes you never will.

Communism is acknowledged to be the most perfect system ever devised - problem was it took no account of practical realities such as human aspiration and human greed, and became a horrible monstrosity that eventually, predictably, destroyed itself.