I would say the following would be a more accurate description of the situation:

At present, string theory is the most developed idea (after 30 years of continuous research) for how one might go about doing this (uniting gravity with the other forces), which has not run into fundamental inconsistencies (though it comes with a host of fundamental "issues" which get debated on here from time to time). There certainly does not exist, for example, a string theory which reproduces anything realistically close to the standard model.

I think this is true. It is the only version of quantum gravity that I have seen that we know is logically consistent and reaches to other parts of physics that we know is correct, QCD and black hole thermodynamics.

None of this really matters when we are talking about high school, or even undergrad physics for that matter. In high school, if a teacher wants to pop in a video on string theory thats great, but making an entire course on it is silly. I think within the last two years they just started offering an undergrad class in string theory at MIT. I have no idea if it is actually useful or much too simplified.

Nothing in science class is ever taught in the same way that Intelligent Design would be presented, so this thread is pointless. Teach string theory, and every other scientific theory out there if the kids can internalize it at all.

None of these theories require there to be a supernatural force out there for them to work. If they're shown incorrect in the future, then that's great, but the kids will at least have been up to date with the best guess we had now.

Intellegent design from a thiestic evolution point of veiw makes all the same predictions as evolution. By your reasoning its ok to teach intelligent design as long as it includes theistic evolution.

Stu

Intelligent design makes a prediction that some organisms will have attributes that are irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.

ID also argues that that one can rigorously show by applying no free lunch theorems the inability of evolutionary algorithms to select or generate configurations of high specified complexity.

You claim ID depends on the words of Jesus. Now is your chance to tell us what, if anything, did Jesus have to say about the No Free Lunch Theorem or Irreducible Complexity

Stu

Intelligent Design is an attempt to apply the scientific method to creationism. Its hypocritical to criticize creationist for not backing up thier claims with science and then in the next breath criticize them for attempting to back up their claims with science.

Stu

For the record, I don't want Intelligent Design taught in science class either.

Stu

Intelligent Design is a hoax. There has never been a genuine attempt to make creationism scientific. It's just a hoax to try to evade US law and get creationism into schools.

Yes it is creationism which is why it has been tossed out by the courts. However how do you back up the claim that thier hasn't been an attempt to make creationism scientific?

There was a time when if you were a physicist and you wanted to work in string theory, well you weren't able to find a job and your career was ruined before it began. During that time I doubt anyone in this forum would have objected to string theory being taught in a science class even though it was considered laughable science without a future. Thats why I think your all hypocrits.

Stu

Theory - elves cause the rain.
evidence - there are raindrops.
scientific test - capture raindrops, test for h20 content in the lab.

Can't get more scientific than that.

How is your example different from

Theory - Strings of pure energy are the fundamental unit of matter.
Evidence- Matter exist
Scientific test - capture matter and test if E divided by C(squared) = M.

Come on Luckyme, its so fricken easy to attack ID, but its obvious you have know clue what ID entails as evidenced by your ridiculous statements.

Stu

I assume you mean explained.

Are you really asking people to show why ID is fundamentally different from String Theory? You see the word theory twice and think it means the same thing in both cases? You're asking for this thread to turn into a microcosm of ID at its root.

There is a reason that the P=NP problem is still open. It's basically because we don't know if they're distinct classes of problems, or if we just haven't figured a way to solve the NP ones yet. See, nobody will honestly assert that NP is not equal to P, unless someone devises a clever proof by contradiction and uses that as the base assumption.

Any assertion of Irreducible Complexity is going to be indefinitely open, and while sounding scientific it's really just a fancy name tagged on a way to get a "gap god" tossed into the science classroom.

The No Free Lunch whatever is yet another way of attacking open questions and asserting that the lack of an answer right now implies a designer.

So we have the same concept from 2 angles. If you don't have an answer, propose a designer. Surely you see that the 2 theorems you just tossed out are the exact same thing in different guises. Every single theorem of ID can be boiled down to the same. I'm not patient enough to step through every other potential ID assertion and explain why they, too, are saying exactly the same fundamental thing.

So, much like you claim that you don't comprehend the fundamental difference between ID and String Theory, and I take the bait and explain it, ID is attempting to do the thing on every level imaginable.

"The eyeball is irreducibly complex."
"No it isn't, here's why."
"Crap. OK, the elbow is irreducibly complex."
"Nope. Here's why."
"OK, here's another body part that is irreducibly complex."
"OK, I don't know that one yet, but we're working on it."
"IT MIGHT BE A DESIGNER!"

The same holds true for every single aspect of ID, and is precisely why it's worthless. To ever prove that there is a designer, you must first prove that we kow everything that there is to possibly

No it doesn't. Intelligent design makes no predictions whatsoever. In order for a hypothesis to make a prediction, the hypothesis must be falsifiable, which ID isn't. ID is *compatible* with evolution, but all that means is that ID doesn't make any predictions that contradict evolution. Which is true, because it doesn't make any predictions at all.

Theistic evolution isn't a bad class subject - but it isn't for science class.

Neither of these things are predicted by ID. They are arguments used by creationists against the viability of natural evolution, but ID on its own does not require either of them. Its shocking how deeply rooted the false dilemma fallacy is that you actually think ID predicts irreducible complexity (or in other words that an intelligent designer couldn't possibly create life in a way that is not irreducibly complex).

I've found that it's much easier to give people whatever bones they ask for and still show them why they're wrong. What you just did could easily turn into a semantics argument which is precisely what an ID proponent wants. It almost legitimizes it and begins discussion. Once that's started, obfuscated language and lack of intellect will keep the argument raging for ages.

It's amazing at how people can't see through things when you add a few more words to them.

ID doesn't "make" that prediction, ID is that assertion.

You are wrong.

The only assertion that Intelligent Design makes is that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent Design only asserts an intelligent cause.

If that assertation is true, examples should exist that are simply too complex to have arisin via a natural process. Those examples are described as Irreducibly Complex. The effect of intelligent design is objects and systems which are Irreducibly Complex.

CAUSE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO EFFECT. But that is what you are suggesting and you are dead wrong.

What really strikes me as foolishly inconsistent is that some here believe that Creationism=Intelligent Design and Intelligent Design=Irreducible Complexity. If this true Irreducible Complexity should equal Creationism. However its extemely easy to see that they are all completely different concepts.

Stu

Your mistake is you believe Intelligent Design asserts the existence of a Supreme being. It does not. It only asserts the existence of an Intelligent Cause. You are making the mistake of confusing ID with Creationism.

Stu

well, go easy on him. Maybe he's a judge.

I just think people are inconsistent.

String theory is a neat and elegant idea, but thats all it is until you can perform experiments. It hasn't moved from the realm of being an idea to science. Yet many of you would have no problem with it being mentioned in a science class. Your rationale, "well its got potential"

Intelligent Design is also just an idea. So, shouldn't the criteria for allowing it to be mentioned in a science class be to show that it also has the potential to move from the relm of being an idea into science?

Stu

Of course people are inconsistent, that's one reason it took so long for the scientific method to gain a foothold. ID doesn't meet any.
"snowmen cause sunspots" is an idea too.

This is a bacterial flagellum. It spins like a boat prop on bacteria. Its composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function. The removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. IDist use it as an example of Irreducible complexity.

Its claimed it could not have arisen through numerous, successive, slight modifications. And it is hopelessly improbable that the proteins making up the flagellar motor could have come together all at once, by chance.

I don't think this proves the ID case because people have been able to come up with potentially viable evolutionary pathways to explain the flagellar motor. Viable enough to cast reasonble doubt.

The point is IDist have so far shown more potential than string theorist in making their case. Stringers haven't produced anything yet, but you people are still willing to give them a free pass into science class.

Stu

They could have used you in court.
......... well, maybe... perhaps they used your argument and that nasty republican judge didn't buy it. It sounds familiar, but it's been a while since I read anything on it. I'm pretty sure your specific example has been shot down, but it's good enough for the gist of your argument here, anyway.
Main problem is it looks like the Argument from Ignorance in full array, "I can't explain it, therefore ..."