Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I'm discussing Lewis acids with a student. I am trying to explain the concept that because aluminum chloride seeks out electrons with such avidity it leads to a lack of specificity such that aluminum chloride cannot be used in a catalyst in a nucleophilic substitution reaction.

Tell me how I explain to him how he is to take into account the implications of some philosophical school of thought on science has on this conclusion.

Hmm..."seeks out" is an interesting phrase for a "scientist".

blatham wrote:

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Proud atheists
Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, America's brainiest couple, confess that belonging to one of America's most reviled subcultures doesn't mean they believe scientists can explain everything.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/15/pinker_goldstein/

But apparently Goldstein believes something equally silly.

Quote:

Of course, there could be things beyond the reach of science. But could we have any good evidence for accepting it? As soon as you have good evidence, it becomes science. So can there be good evidence for non-scientific propositions? No. Because the minute there is good evidence, it becomes science.

Well, after all, they are jewish.

But perhaps you could elucidate what Goldstein says above that is "silly". You probably ought to specify the precise logical fallacies she violates and which produce the 'silliness'

I thought that the quote I provided was pretty clear.

Her implication is that all 'good' evidence is 'scientific'.

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Proud atheists
Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, America's brainiest couple, confess that belonging to one of America's most reviled subcultures doesn't mean they believe scientists can explain everything.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/15/pinker_goldstein/

But apparently Goldstein believes something equally silly.

Quote:

Of course, there could be things beyond the reach of science. But could we have any good evidence for accepting it? As soon as you have good evidence, it becomes science. So can there be good evidence for non-scientific propositions? No. Because the minute there is good evidence, it becomes science.

Well, after all, they are jewish.

But perhaps you could elucidate what Goldstein says above that is "silly". You probably ought to specify the precise logical fallacies she violates and which produce the 'silliness'

I thought that the quote I provided was pretty clear.

Her implication is that all 'good' evidence is 'scientific'.

You avoided the specifics of my question.

blatham wrote:

But perhaps you could elucidate what Goldstein says above that is "silly".

Her implication is that all 'good' evidence is 'scientific'

You probably ought to specify the precise logical fallacies she violates and which produce the 'silliness'

Perhaps you aren't familiar with formal logic and the 'fallacies'. If not, there are many valuable educational resources available for free online.

Let's try it this way. How would you differentiate 'good evidence' from 'bad evidence'?

How would you differentiate 'good evidence' from 'bad evidence'?

Let's try it this way. How would you differentiate 'good evidence' from 'bad evidence'?

I didn't.
Goldstein did.

U. of Missouri Is Devising Database to Ease Student Complaints of Biased Professors
(Paula Wasley, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 5, 2007)

University of Missouri students who feel professors have discriminated against them based on their political or religious views will soon be able to file online complaints against the instructors, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported today.

New Web sites under construction at the university's four campuses will track and record academic-diversity grievances against faculty members for compilation in an annual report.

The monitoring system is a response to a push from the Missouri legislature, which has hotly debated "intellectual pluralism" since last fall. The debate stemmed from a lawsuit against Missouri State University filed by a Christian student, Emily Brooker, who said a professor had retaliated against her for refusing to sign a letter supporting gay adoption. (The case was settled out of court.)

At a meeting of the university's governing board on Thursday, one of the trustees, David Wasinger, said that the online database would help resolve a "deep-seated problem" at the university and demonstrate credibility to state legislators.

Some faculty leaders, however, questioned whether the tracking system might have a chilling effect on classroom discussion. "When we talk about monitoring what faculty say, people get nervous about that," said Tim Farmer, president of the University of Missouri at St. Louis's Faculty Senate. But, he said, "I think people are taking an open-minded view on it as long as it doesn't change what they teach in their class."

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Let's try it this way. How would you differentiate 'good evidence' from 'bad evidence'?

real life wrote

Quote:

I didn't.
Goldstein did.

Yes. I've asked you how you would discern or distinguish between the two.

You've said that her statement was 'silly' but you've provided no reasoning or argument to clarify or support your description of it as silly. Are you able to do this?

But the distinction of the spiritual and temporal powers, which had never been imposed on the free spirit of Greece and Rome, was introduced and confirmed by the legal establishment of Christianity.

Fine. But you've avoided this portion of my post to you

Quote:

You've said that her statement was 'silly' but you've provided no reasoning or argument to clarify or support your description of it as silly. Are you able to do this?

So, I'll ask again. Are you able to do this or can you not?

So can there be good evidence for non-scientific propositions? No.

Because the minute there is good evidence, it becomes science.

Not sure how much 'clarification' this issue can stand.

Goldstein implies that all 'good' evidence is 'scientific'.

If you cannot understand why her implication is inaccurate and makes the speaker appear foolish, then it's unlikely that I will be able to help you.

Earmark for Anti-Science Creationist Group Must Be Removed
(PFAW Press Release, October 17, 2007)

People For the American Way today called for the Senate to remove an earmark for an anti-science creationist group from the FY08 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill. The earmark, inserted by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, would send taxpayer money to the Louisiana Family Foundation (LFF), a leading advocate of creationism in the state.

"This is completely inappropriate," said PFAW Director of Public Policy Tanya Clay House. "Sending taxpayer money to a religious group whose mission is to force creationism into public schools as science is a blatant attack on the separation of church and state. Claiming that the money will be spent on improving science education adds insult to injury."

The earmark provides $100,000 to the group for the purpose of "develop[ing] a plan to promote better science education." Until recently the group's web site contained a "battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous" concept that "has no place in the classroom."

"It's a shame that some people want to try the Scopes trial over and over again," said House. "Spending taxpayer money on pseudo-science in an attempt to promote a particular sectarian belief undermines the religious liberty of all children and should not be condoned by this Congress."

Since its inception, PFAW has been particularly visible in battles over judicial nominations. It has also been active in recent years on issues including school class size, separation of church and state, civil rights, voting rights for Washington, DC, in the U.S. Congress, equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people, and promotion of civic participation.