Sat 3 Dec, 2005 09:31 pm
I have been thinking this and am suprised that this has not been brought up.
Intelligent Design is Ebonics for science.
Ironically the liberals who support Ebonics as an alternative to English are unwilling to support Intelligent Design as an alternative to Science.
The theory in Ebonics is that a cultural group was not brought up with the grammatical constructs of standard English. It was therefore unreasonable to expect them to use "correct" English (at least not right away)-- and what is correct English anyway.
Intelligent design has a cultural group that is that lacks the logic and reason of standard science. It is therefore unreasonable to expect them to use "correct" science-- and what is correct science anyway.
So what of it. Is there anyone who supports both Ebonics and intelligent Design?
Isn't it inconsistant to support one without the other?
While I do know that certain people just cannot get science, and I am tolerant of them most of the time, I still can't see allowing their misconceptions into the classrooms.
I for one do not accept Ebonics in an official way. I think people should try to speak so that the people they do business with can understand them. How they speak in their private lives does not concern me.
I feel the same way about both. Neither belong in the classroom but that doesn't mean you can't explore it on your own time.
How firm are you on the nebular theory?
"Nebular Theory?" Do you mean astronomy-- where a Sun an planet form from gasses of a nebula?
The theory of how the Big Bang supposedly happened.
Are you firmly convinced? Do you have complete faith that it happened that way?
Science (at least the kind Edgar and FreeDuck want in the classroom) doesn't have room for faith.
That's the question I am asking in this thread. Should we change science to include faith for people who have trouble with weighing evidence and using reason and logic?
So, you don't buy the nebular theory?
No. Otherwise, we might just as well set up these institutions as day care centers and forget education.
I am not biting, Lash. Your question is off topic.
Like any other topic, you can either look objectively at the evidence for any theory, or you can base your belief on a religious faith.
I have asked a very specific question in this thread. Should we allow room in "science" for thouse who reject clear objective evidence for a cultural belief?
You have to apply faith to many of the theories science can't prove.
If your theory requires faith--why is yours better than mine?
Which of the theories of the beginning of the universe do you have faith in?
Methinks you chicken to face facts.
Which theory do you believe in?
There are two views of science and each has its own definition of what "proof" means. This is the "controversy" of Intelligent design.
Mainstream science has set up a scientific method and has a set of theories that are widely accepted as correct. Mainstream science accepts evolution as "correct" since they consider supported by overwhelming evidence.
This is very similar to mainstream English which has a set of grammar, vocabulary and usage rules which are widely accepted as "correct".
There is a small minority (under 5% for general science and much less for life sciences) that don't accept this view of "correct" science. They introduce a new way of doing logic and a different way of looking at "proof".
There is a small minority of English speakers that don't accept the view of "correct" English. The introduce a new way of doing grammar and usage.
These two situations are very similar-- a minority rejecting the standard way to do science or language.
"Why is yours better than mine" is exactly the right question. This is the question being asked in each case.
I absolutely love the way you have stated this! I am really going to have to do some thinking on this one. I don't agree with Ebonics. I don't agree with it because I feel it is lowering a certain standard.
I am not sure about the other part. I really have to do some heavy thinking about it.
Excellent post ebrown_p! Excellent!
I'd have to disagree with your comparisons of English and the Big Bang theory.
English isn't as rigid as I'd like. Semi colon... maybe... comma... there? Possibly. But, for the most part, one can be assured of uniformity in the language --
Science is nowhere near as cut and dried and verifiable. There is a dependable scientific method, which is cool, but it doesn't prove eveything.
You are mistaken about the Big Bang theory--and your error is of the same vein as the people marching about with their hands over their ears saying that God made it and they don't want to hear anything else.
It is not a small minority who introduce a "new way of doing logic and a different way of looking at proof." There are several major theories about how the Big Bang occurred. They don't know. So, why belittle other theories?
Which theory do you believe?
Do you suppose maybe God created the world using the Big Bang? I don't know all the scientific meaning of the Big Bang theory, but I know God had to do it in some way. Perhaps He just said, it's there and it was or maybe He used the Big Bang?
That's exactly what I believe.
I don't shut my mind to science. I embrace proven fact. But, frankly, a lot remains unproven by science, and I think the people who go about snickering about Intelligent Design--or God--should be forced to face the fact that THEY are using faith as well in their beliefs of some scientific hypotheses.