Missouri bill redefines science....tries to implement "intelligent design"

[JustAlex]

More stupidity on the war on education and science from the religious NUTS!

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...ligent-design/

According to the Missouri bill....this is what 'Scientific Theory' will now mean:

[Hilariously FAKE IDiot definition] "'Scientific theory,' - an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy."

^I really don't have enough hands to do the proper amount of facepalms needed for this stupidity.

Here's the REAL definition of scientific theory:

[Real definition] 'Scientific Theory' - A Well substantiated explanation of a certain aspect of the natural world, based on the body of FACTS that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiments.










But wait......there's MORE.

The bill also changes the definition of "Hypothesis" to the following:

[Insane definition by the religious nuts] "hypothesis" - a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular."

[Real definition] "Hypothesis" - A proposed explanation to a phenomenon.....note, a hypothesis is NOT a scientific theory.


Of course this is done to try to impose "intelligent design" (AKA "creationism") into science.

They just can't help themselves, their religion must be stuffed down our throats and if they have to LIE and literally change the definitions of words to do so...than that's what they'll do.

[shrewsbury]

where did you get your definition from?

please don't say wikipedia

[Zimbow]

More stupidity on the war on education and science from the religious NUTS!

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...ligent-design/

According to the Missouri bill....this is what 'Scientific Theory' will now mean:

[Hilariously FAKE IDiot definition] "'Scientific theory,' - an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy."

^I really don't have enough hands to do the proper amount of facepalms needed for this stupidity.

Here's the REAL definition of scientific theory:

[Real definition] 'Scientific Theory' - A Well substantiated explanation of a certain aspect of the natural world, based on the body of FACTS that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiments.










But wait......there's MORE.

The bill also changes the definition of "Hypothesis" to the following:

[Insane definition by the religious nuts] "hypothesis" - a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular."

[Real definition] "Hypothesis" - A proposed explanation to a phenomenon.....note, a hypothesis is NOT a scientific theory.


Of course this is done to try to impose "intelligent design" (AKA "creationism") into science.

They just can't help themselves, their religion must be stuffed down our throats and if they have to LIE and literally change the definitions of words to do so...than that's what they'll do.

Just wanted to take the time to thank you for bringing more ideas to this site. You have enlightened me with your beliefs, reason and logic. I enjoy coming to work and getting a chance to read your posts. Thanks!

[JustAlex]

where did you get your definition from?

please don't say wikipedia

Shrew, let me explain how wikipedia works, because there's a big misconception.

The misconception is that anyone can edit it and put literally whatever they want, that's not so.

You need to properly put your references and it is constantly being moderated and the few people who try to troll the site are handled with.

With that being said, my definitions are from here:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

[shrewsbury]

alex, let me explain something to you. No college or institution of higher learning will allow any student in any class to use wikipedia as a source reference, none!!!

your definition of hypothesis is not even close and would earn you a big fat zero in any educational institution. it is obvious you did not use the source you just provided, this is from your source;

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

which is correct

here is what you posted;

[Real definition] "Hypothesis" - A proposed explanation to a phenomenon.....note, a hypothesis is NOT a scientific theory.

this would earn you a big fat "F"

here is wikipedia;

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

so it is obvious you did not use the source you are telling me you did and you used wikipedia


though I agree with the idea of your post, I think that perhaps you have shown that your sources are as legit as the proposed new definitions, which neither are legit.

the funny thing is either could be used to explain God without any change.

[Wickabee]

Busted!

[JustAlex]

First of all, forgive me for responding so late....Unfortunately, I was very busy...ok, let's go!

alex, let me explain something to you. No college or institution of higher learning will allow any student in any class to use wikipedia as a source reference, none!!!.

Really?

NONE?

I'm crass enough to say that Wikipedia is not a good source....it's a GREAT source of information!

And the reason (if it's true) why a college would not want you to refrence wikipedia is because they will feel that you didn't do any work, you just did copy paste.....it's not because the information in wikipedia is bad or anything.

your definition of hypothesis is not even close and would earn you a big fat zero in any educational institution. it is obvious you did not use the source you just provided, this is from your source;

Oh Shrew....unfortunately for you, words have MULTIPLE definitions, the one I chose is the most simplistic one.

Want to know why?

Because I didn't need to go into further depth into what a hypothesis is, it's EMBARRASSING that the legislators in Missouri NEVER took a 6th grade science course, but that's apparently the case since they literally made up their own definition to "hypothesis".

And no Shrew, I wouldn't get a big fat zero, because I would never use such a simplistic definition.

Although to be absolutely fair to you, I guess I should've used the definition to "Scientific Hypothesis"....which is the following:

Well actually....instead of writing it out, i'll just link you to my source directly to what a scientific hypothesis is: http://www.livescience.com/21490-wha...ypothesis.html

so it is obvious you did not use the source you are telling me you did and you used wikipedia

Wrong shrew.

I used BOTH sources, the one I listed AND wikipedia.

I like using wikipedia, it is by far one of the BEST reference sites on the web, and despite your criticisms, it is indeed a well moderated site which cares about the content that is placed on it.

I think that perhaps you have shown that your sources are as legit as the proposed new definitions, which neither are legit.

No, not at all.

I have LEGIT sources, and if you don't like wikipedia (I have a feeling why, but I don't want to be presumptuous), then that's too bad.

When I did my "Evolution thread" I used a lot of references from talkorigins.org....which I got from.....WIKIPEDIA!

Furthermore, unlike MOST sites, you will often NEVER see what wikipedia does....and that's footnotes to link you to the original quote or reference.

I'll say it again....Wikipedia is not a good site....it's a GREAT reference site.

[Wickabee]

No, you did exactly what he said. Gave the definition from Wikipedia and sourced it as something else.

[deansayso]

None of my professors let us use wikipedia...we could use the sources of information, but not wiki itself. Why? Because anyone can edit it! Yes you need a source, but who knows where that source is from?

Here's my date...he's a french model.

[gladdyontherise]

shrewsbury is right, all through high school and now college, every teacher I've had says don't use Wikipedia and they won't take that as a source. Some will fail you automatically if you use it as a source.