I'm a cataloging librarian who works a couple hours a week on the reference desk. This morning I had a patron come in to ask me for sources that back up the claim that the probability that life on earth formed by random chance is so small that some kind of divine intervention is more likely. [more inside]
Prebuttal materials for smart tweens/teens going to the Answers in Genesis museum
? [more inside]
Looking for recommendations for books on Christian apologetics that take seriously the reality of evolution rather than denying it in favor of the argument from design. [more inside]
What are some article length studies readily available on the internets that summarize the evidence for evolution? [more inside]
Let's see if this can be done without causing any ideological controversy.
The simplest yet most descriptive explanation of a true scientific theory is below.
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
An actual theory must be falsifiable as well. My understanding is that Intelligent design does not fit the bill as a set of empirically proven facts or pass the falsifiability test. Also, I understand that Darwin's theory may have the most facts supporting his theory (therefore it is the best explanation for the evolution of life we currently have), but that it may not be falsifiable as well.
The basic question is what is intelligent design if not a theory? I don't think it qualifies as a hypothesis either. Please explain to this scientific layman.
Bonus points if you can explain how The Theory of Natural Selection is falsifiable.
ScienceFilter: Creationists, crystals, and thermodynamics. [more inside]
Church/State, creationists, private education in the US; why don't all the "intelligent design" folk just send their kids to private religious schools? [more inside]
Is there a good reference for the standard evolution vs. creationism arguments? [more inside]
I'm on the hunt for sites and/or blogs about big
Who wants to join me? [more inside]
What exactly is the problem with the proposed change in the definition of science in Kansas?
Here's the proposed change:
"...continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
And here is what we'll all recognize as the "Scientific Method":
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Is this a joke?
Officials from the College Board, the nonprofit entity that administers the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT, have announced that they are producing a new version of the test for students who live in school districts where creationism rather than evolution is taught in science classes.
Is the idea that "we evolved because we did" different from the weak anthropomorphic principle?