tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14127979.post112986065949404333..comments2023-11-05T19:19:50.879+11:00Comments on Two Cents: ID yourselfbeche-la-merhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16168782094157404020noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14127979.post-1130138054664325462005-10-24T17:14:00.000+10:002005-10-24T17:14:00.000+10:00I agree with both Kay and Kevin. Engineers should ...I agree with both Kay and Kevin. Engineers should get paid more. Oh wait, I mean the other bit: there is an element of philosophy in science, and elements of science in philosophy. But what Stephen Hawking wrote was science, because it is ultimately testable and falsifiable, though it seems esoteric and arcane to those of us without Hawking's background in theoretical physics.<BR/>One thing about ID that is highlighted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster campaign is that ID is not THE philosophical alternative to evolutionary theory, it's only AN alternative, and if you admit ID into the science classroom you have to admit all sorts of other things, such as astrology.<BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=180" REL="nofollow">Bad Astronomer</A> has a good blog entry on this today.<BR/>Meanwhile, the reaction to the <I>Catalyst</I> program I was talking about has brought the predictable flood of letters to our local newspaper, trotting out the same arguments about how evolution is just a theory, and so is ID. One of the writers even questions the "theory" of the origins of the universe -- I didn't think there were any steady staters still out there!beche-la-merhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16168782094157404020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14127979.post-1129916371498990692005-10-22T03:39:00.000+10:002005-10-22T03:39:00.000+10:00I'm in full agreement, too, that creationism and I...I'm in full agreement, too, that creationism and Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes, at least not as scientific theories. Building on the above comment, though, some mixing of disciplines often makes learning more enjoyable for students. Psychology and anthropology stimulate Religion courses in obvious ways, just as philosophy and history can stimulate a Science course and make it seem more relevant and exciting to students. <BR/><BR/>Works of popular science, like Hawking's or Carl Sagan's, do that. Such books discuss science in the historical context, for example by mentioning non-scientific ideas that scientists were fighting or that were influencing their work. I would think that a school course in science could mention creationism and ID in that way, as historical context, and that students could be turned on in that way (among others) to get their science down correctly. But bringing ID into a science class in ANY way, I have to admit, is playing with fire.Kevin Roserohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561966426667018210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14127979.post-1129880501978943552005-10-21T17:41:00.000+10:002005-10-21T17:41:00.000+10:00Yeah! Absolutely! - But when I read Stephen Hawkin...Yeah! Absolutely! - But when I read Stephen Hawking, brief whatsits in time, some years ago, I couldn't decide whether I was reading science or philosophy - so I guess this is conundrum that's been around for a while.<BR/><BR/>And if we don't start to pay our engineers and scientists a better fraction of what we pay footballers, tv presenters and city whizz kids - Oh! and maybe a little adulation wouldn't come amiss - why should we be surprised when that's where the kids want to go when they grow up?<BR/><BR/>OK, I'm a little biased. I'm married to a low status, impoverished, chartered engineer!Grangryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16949099501135314987noreply@blogger.com