Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teaching the Truth in Schools
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 169 (23638)
11-22-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
11-21-2002 10:43 PM


No, no, you misunderstand gene. Evolution is a conspiracy which has deliberately and with malice aforethought produced tens of thousands of scientific papers by thousands of scientists from around the world over the last couple hundred years and published in dozens of obscure journals like "Science" and "Nature" all for the express purpose of corrupting one high school student in the US and convincing them that there is no God.
See, it all makes sense in context, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-21-2002 10:43 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 2:56 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 5 by nator, posted 11-22-2002 8:52 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 169 (23685)
11-22-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
11-22-2002 8:52 AM


Thanks Schraf - I wish I could take credit for the quip, but it's one that's been floating around for awhile. Glad it started your day out right, tho'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 11-22-2002 8:52 AM nator has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 169 (24148)
11-25-2002 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by manubeckm7
11-24-2002 3:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by manubeckm7:
There really isn't a problem with teaching evolution in schools. The real problem is that teachers really aren't teaching all aspects of it. They teach the minimal amount.
You mean they only teach the stuff that reflects the basics of the scientific concensus at the time the particular textbook was written? True - I haven't seen a lot of high school biology texts that do much more than skim the surface. Of course, they have a lot of really basic things to cover in a short period of time. Kind of the same reason they don't teach tensor calculus in high school, ya think?
quote:
They don't teach all of the parts of it that have been disproven or the problems with the theory itself.
And which parts would those be?
quote:
If they were to teach all of it, they would actually be teaching intelligent design or creationism by disproving the theory. If you were to show a biologist a high school biology textbook, they would tell you that even they don't believe most of it. The teachers have their own agendas, and that is to push their own viewpoints.
Really? And which theory of creationism would they teach. I kind of like the Finnish egg theory, or the Kikuyu giant snake. Of course, if creationism could actually develop a testable theory with real data... I really like the last bit about teachers with an agenda - interestingly enough, the only teachers I've run across with an agenda more devious than simply getting some basic points across to a bunch of kids are the ones trying to sneak their religion into the classroom. Odd, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by manubeckm7, posted 11-24-2002 3:20 PM manubeckm7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by beachboy, posted 12-30-2002 11:10 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 169 (24150)
11-25-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by manubeckm7
11-24-2002 3:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by manubeckm7:
I completely agree that this is corruption; it isn't right to force these views upon growing minds.
And which views are those - the minority views of a bunch of scientifically illiterate Protestant fundamentalists or those of the thousands of scientists from all cultures and all countries who have done the basic research necessary to allow us to begin to understand the underlying principles of nature? Hmm, tough call...
quote:
If you were to present Charles Darwin with the discoveries we have made involving the increased complexity of his original theory, he would even realize his mistake.
Although this is pure speculation: given what I've read about Darwin the man, I'd say he'd be utterly delighted to see how many of his ideas have not only withstood the test of time, but contributed substantially to our understanding of life both past and present.
quote:
The man was having a spiritual crisis at the time. Some of his ideas were right, I will admit, but he was really grasping for some new concepts to help himself out. He's not the one who came out and said that we all evolved from monkeys. He's just a poster boy for evolutionists.
True, Darwin never said we evolved from monkeys. Neither has any other evolutionary biologist since Darwin. Curiously, the only people I've ever heard say this are those self-same scientifically illiterate fundamentalists. Wonder why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by manubeckm7, posted 11-24-2002 3:27 PM manubeckm7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Philip, posted 12-31-2002 1:21 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 84 of 169 (71547)
12-08-2003 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-07-2003 11:26 PM


Re: King of the Nats
The "results," the amount of scientific understanding that has been generated by those who are basically accepting of the assumption of evolutionism (i.e., well-meaning products of our educational settings), is a result of the great numbers of people who are establishing and developing knowledge, and not due to the idea that evolutionism is actually true. People can learn factual things as they work, even though the general philosophy they ascribe to is far less than true. And, of course, even in science, people can emphasize things that tend to support a favored philosophy, and de-emphasize, or totally ignore, things that undermine such a philosophy.
I take great exception to this bald assertion. However, in the interests of allowing you to present evidence in favor of your position, I hereby offer three challenges for you to address using recourse to the supernatural, the Bible, God, or any miracle you'd care to reveal. These scientific challenges are real world examples. Two of them have been answered by evolutionary biology, and in the third case a serious and potentially dangerous error was averted by the same methods. If, as you say, evo biologists are simply ignorant, brain-washed automata who are unable to see the Truth (tm) because of their presuppositions, it should be fairly simple for you to provide a creationist response. OTOH, if you cannot, then your assertion of validity for this paradigm is falsified. Good luck.
1. Sorghum asiatica is an important cereal crop for a large percentage of Africa. The parasite Striga hermonthica destroys an estimated $8 billion of this grain annually. How would creationism solve this problem?
2. The introduced food plant cassava (Manihot esculenta) has become the staple food crop of a large portion of Africa. The cassava mealy bug (Phenacoccus manihoti), which has no endemic enemies in Africa, has devastated huge swaths of this crop throughout the continent, with losses averaging 80% per infected field. Some 300 million Africans who rely almost exclusively on cassava for food are at imminent or near-term risk of starvation. How would a creationist use the supernatural or recourse to the Bible to solve this problem?
3. The European green crab (Carcinus maenas) was accidently introduced into the Pacific coastal waters of the US where it has no known enemies or predators. It is an aggressive animal that readily out-competes endemic crabs. It has, in less than a decade, become a serious threat to coastal crab fisheries. The only known biological control for this exotic is the parasitic barnacle Sacculina carcini. Explain in detail how creationists would use their theistic non-evolutionary "science" to determine whether or not to release S. carcini on the Pacific coast in order to control this pest.
According to your own words, all that is needed is: "Exodus 15:26 says, 'If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians . . .'" Fine. Explain how the Word of God does better at solving these problems. Each problem does, in fact, need the conceptual framwork to valid before a solution can be attempted. IF evo bio is wrong, then your supernaturalism is correct. Solve the problems.
------------------
"It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use and authority of reason as to argue with the dead." -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-07-2003 11:26 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-11-2003 3:23 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 106 of 169 (72048)
12-10-2003 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-09-2003 4:50 PM


Martin,
This is all very entertaining, I'm sure. However, once again you have made the claim that creationism - or at least the inclusion of the supernatural into scientific investigation and inquiry - provides a better paradigm for understanding than evolutionary biology. Please address the three examples of the success of evolutionary biology in solving real-world problems contained in this post.
If you are unable or unwilling to at least speculate on how creationism and the supernatural can be used to solve these problems, then your entire stance can be taken as simple empty rhetoric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-09-2003 4:50 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 127 of 169 (72499)
12-12-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-11-2003 3:23 PM


Blind Hog Science
martin writes:
The "results," the amount of scientific understanding that has been generated by those who are basically accepting of the assumption of evolutionism (i.e., well-meaning products of our educational settings), is a result of the great numbers of people who are establishing and developing knowledge, and not due to the idea that evolutionism is actually true. People can learn factual things as they work, even though the general philosophy they ascribe to is far less than true. And, of course, even in science, people can emphasize things that tend to support a favored philosophy, and de-emphasize, or totally ignore, things that undermine such a philosophy.
This is almost surreal. You are literally arguing that science only progresses by accident! That a sufficient number of people stumbling around in the dark will eventually get lucky and make a discovery. IOW, science in your view operates on the premise that even a blind hog can find an acorn occasionally. This is so completely far from how science - including evolutionary biology and its sub-disciplines - operates that it's not even in the same universe. Scientists, using methodological naturalism, make observations, then develop explanations for the observations.
For example, it is observed that animals inhabiting similar habitats in widely separated parts of the world have distinct resemblance in gross morphology, but are utterly different and unrelated (c.f., Parantechnus apicalis and Mus musculus, or Dasyurus geofroii and Leopardus tigrini, or Thylacinus cynocephalus and Canis lupus). Why? Separate creations? Or simply similar adaptive responses to similar selection pressures over long time scales = convergent evolution.
For another example, it is observed that some moths of the genus Tegeticula (specifically T. yuccasella) are highly specific to a single host plant species, and in fact have a tight symbiotic (mutualistic - obligate pollinator) relationship with their host plant. Neither can live without the other. T. yuccasella even has a special appendage - a highly elongated palp - that permits carrying a large load of pollen, and serves no other function. However, the very closely related species T. intermedia doesn't have such a relationship nor a similar appendage, and is in fact phytophagous on the exact same plant. What is the explanation? Special creation of two species, one of whom eats the plant that the other needs to survive and reproduce? Or co-evolution of the plant and its pollinator?
Can it possibly be that only pure luck would allow scientists to develop explanations for these phenomena?
in response to your challenge--later, after I seek out knowledge from some others I have in mind.
Fine. However, if you are planning to use a creation "scientist" as a source, I would appreciate knowing who it is who is responding - or at least which organization s/he is affiliated with. I like to know, at least in general terms (and within the constraints of internet privacy), who I'm talking to. If the respondant is not "Martin J. Koszegi", please so inform me.
As I continually indicate, one can have an undergirding philosophy that is incorrect, and yet develop a knowledge base composed of some valid information that becomes a resource tool for problem solving in the real world. Consider, in this vein, the oil beneath the earth that is sought for; oil-drillers "A" believe the Earth is flat, oil-drillers "B" believe the Earth is spherical--that's not to say that oil drillers "A" will be unable to develop an ability to access the oil if they put their minds to it.
Your example is inadequate to illustrate your point. First, the flatness or roundness of the Earth has little or nothing to do with the presence of oil. It is conceivable (barely, and with apologies to Coragyps), that a person could believe in Flud Geology and a young earth, and still be able to recognize the geological features that might indicate the presence of oil. It isn't absolutely necessary to have an understanding of the timeline required for the formation of petroleum to find it. OTOH, knowing the processes of geology, plate tectonics, etc, can tell you where to start looking. After all, if the Earth was formed 6000 years ago, and all of geology formed in a Flud 4500 or so years ago, why drill for oil on the bottom of the ocean...
I'd be interested in knowing how nature manifests distinctions that would exclude only creation scientists. This leads to my other point that you seem to think that scientists who study the same natural world (and its laws) that nats study, but whose undergirding philosophy is yec-ish, that their efforts can't actually lead to practical application knowledge, but to only ideas about "the Bible, God, or any miracle." That sort of thinking about creationists is incorrect.
Nature manifests both regularities and discontinuities that are inconsistent with Creation - from the ordering of extinct organisms in the fossil record to the existence of relictual populations to bizarre adaptations such as the Melanodendron integrifolium (the endemic cabbage tree of St. Helena - which is actually an evolved daisy) to the distribution patterns of Anolis lizards in the Caribbean. There has been a total of zero contribution from any creationist "scientist" (and by this I'm not referring to scientists - from Galileo to Wallace to Newton, who were also believers; these are not creationists as are the likes of Morris, ReMine, Sarfati etc), solving any practical real-world problem using creation science or a presupposition of creation as a basis for their findings. If you think there are, please cite specific examples. Otherwise, this is again empty rhetoric.
Evo biologists are not ignorant, period; but I would say that many of them lack that aspect of knowledge that would enable them to admit the presumptive and philosophical roots of their belief system. What's "(tm)"?
Nice of you to say it - however your repeated insistence that evo biologists are brainwashed, blind, etc tends to render your assurance that you don't consider them all ignorant to be somewhat hollow. And as to philosophical roots - evo biologists come in every stripe and philosophy. The only thing they have in common is they use the methods of science - methodological naturalism - to obtain their answers.
Pardon? Did you think that I regarded this scripture as a panacea for all problems?
You mean you don't? That isn't immediately obvious from your postings. After all, you indict science as being a process of "blind hogism" if the scientists concerned don't include creation as a normal part of their work. Obviously, since your presupposition rests on the existence and activity of an interventionist deity which can arbitrarily modify and change the laws of nature at whim, it would seem to follow that - since the written work of your deity is the science textbook you chose to base your creationist methodology upon - you do in fact consider it the "panacea for all problems". Or are you telling us that there are problems the creation presupposition can't solve? Careful - you might get burned at the stake by your own kind...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-11-2003 3:23 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 146 of 169 (76608)
01-05-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Martin J. Koszegi
01-04-2004 11:36 PM


Re: The Nats Strike Back
Martin,
Now that you're back on-line, I hope you'll have the opportunity to respond to my post 84 and post 107 in this thread. For reference, post 84 contained three examples of the successful use of evolutionary theory to solve real-world problems. The challenge was for you to use your theistic science or creation science to provide solutions. You indicated you needed to contact other experts. Have you been able to do so? Post 107 offered specific examples of real-world observations that were inconsistent with or inexplicable by special creation. Those also remain unaddressed.
Looking forward to your response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 01-04-2004 11:36 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024