Teaching the Truth in Schools

quote:

---

Is it scientific to leave the conceivability open that nature itself could yield evidence that could suggest a supernatural origin (complexity, order, etc., seemingly beyond statistical explanation for the time alotted), or more scientific to, at the onset, predetermine that the vehicle we must use to establish our ideas, i.e., nature, is all there is?

---

Science does leave open this possibility. It has not yet shown itself to be necessary. Each new gap that we have probed down into has revealed not a god, but more rules, each of which are consistant across application. Even quantum physics, in which particles do not have certain values as specific and predictable as we would like, fall into a statistical curve of their ranges of values.

quote:

---

And, as Phillip Johnson asked (in Darwin on Trial), "Does non-science necessarily mean nonsense?"

---

To a layperson who has not taken the time to understand it? Probably. To anyone willing to invest a few years of their life into an in-depth education in the particular science, taught by people knowlegable about the subject? Never.If you go to college and major in something - and put forth the effort needed to succeed - you'll understand the What, Why, and How, regardless of the subject. If you don't? Don't expect to just be able to listen in and follow what took people years of school and often decades of experience in the field, analyzing millions of discoveries and experiments (past and present), to learn.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-01-2003]

Martin,Contrary to what Phillip "Half Truth" Johnson would have you believe, methodological naturalism actually does leave that possibility open, and is not merely institutionalized atheism run amok. Things that are undetectable, unverifiable, and untestable today (and therefore qualify as 'supernatural') may become detectable in the future due to advances in scientific tools. How would Pasteur have proved his points without Van Leeuwenhoek's microscope to aid him? Who could empirically detect atomic radiation prior to the invention of the Geiger counter?However, there's a difference between anticipating advances in technology and assuming that supernatural forces are present with no justification. Scientific methodology demands that mechanisms be testable and verifiable, and the successes of science are due to this constraint. You can call it dogma if you'd like, but your point would be more forceful if you could point to scientific progress that we owe to assuming the presence of supernatural forces. You won't find an example anywhere in Johnson's writings, believe me.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

As for something being categorized as theory and fact and existing only in peoples' minds, I'm sure you can think of examples of this from your own knowledge of history, right(?): erroneous ideas that became established beliefs (theory/fact), but that were later found to be erroneous (existing only in peoples' minds from the earlier time). That was all I meant.

---

And they were found out as such by scientists, through the scientific method. Take the phlogiston theory (disproven by mass measurements of burning objects), or the theory that the sun's energy was from gravitational collapse (contradictory evidence was given by radioisotope dating and abnormal measurements, and finally a method that works (fusion) was discovered).Here, you're arguing against something that is not at the forefront of a new science; it is virtually universally accepted, apart from a few hundred people (if you assume that there are 10 times as many who remain silent as the ones who are vocal, a few thousand), among the world's millions of biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, etc. While refinements to theories that have lasted for a long time do occur (for example, Newtonian phyiscs to relativistic physics), to survive to the present day requires that an incredibly huge amount of evidence need to be better reconciled by an alternativee theory.Such a replacement theory for evolution has not been postulated. Not only have most creationist publications been based on bad (often deliberately bad) and outdated information (check the dates on papers referenced by, say, the ICR), but their reports often contradict each other. For example, for years creationists pushed that the world is young because there is too little helium in zircons. Now they've been circulating a paper postulating that the world is young because there is too much helium in zircons. There is no theory, just a mishmash of bad information that not only contradicts itself, but the very book it is supposed to be defending. They typically do it by abusing areas of research that haven't received much study (or hadn't at the date of publication) or are problems that have huge, complex calculations behind them (such as helium retention rates in zircon crystals at different temperatures and pressures, the propagation of oscillations through the sun, Earth's dynamo, etc). At the same time, they ignore the copious amounts of data gathered in the past several hundreds of years by millions of people, instead looking for their god in the next gap.

quote:

---

I don't think that mutations are very good vehicles to look to in order to explain the development of life. Is the net result of mutations, improvement and expansion of genetic possibilities?

---

No. The net result of mutations *and* selection (and often other factors) is "improvement" (which is only relative in a given context, and contexts change across this planet and through time) of genetic possibilities.Read, for example, about Galapagos. Mutation alone would not have created the artwork. Mutation *and* selection created it.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-01-2003]

MrHambre,I don't know about that. I mean, I don't get a sense from any of the evolutionism material I've ever been exposed to that supernatural explanations are left open as possibilities. Of course, in forums like this, I can understand why folks would admit a place for it. (As indicated, if it was automatically discounted at the onset, I suppose any honest person would have to admit a rational flaw.) If the writing style that is used in textbooks, the rhetoric that is used in nats-ic TV documentaries, etc., actually displayed the spirit of what you say in the midst of your first paragraph of Reality on Trial, I'd have no problem, and I dare-say that a lot of other people would be satisfied also.You indicated that science leaves the possibility of the supernatural open. Is it worse to assume that supernatural forces exist and are responsible for the existence of the physical world, or to assume that they do not exist? I think science occupies a channel that runs through the midst of these two assumptions, and that it should be taught as such so that students walk away from science classes understanding this. Both beliefs use the physics of the universe as the means to formulate ideas that relate to origins (or whatever). Since science occupies a nuetral position amid these ideas, peoples' perceptions about what science is are misguided to the degree that they think science belongs more to one side than the other. Both sides can make the assumption that the others' fundamental assumption(s) are without justification. So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.

Martin J. Koszegi writes:

quote:

---

Is it worse to assume that supernatural forces exist and are responsible for the existence of the physical world, or to assume that they do not exist?

---

You're not thinking of the issue correctly.It isn't that science assumes they don't exist. It's that science deliberately ignores such action.Supernatural things are capricious and arbitrary. You, too, are capricious and arbitrary and science ignores you, too. The point behind science is to study things that happen all on their own...not to study things that happen because somebody made them happen. If you can make it happen, then it is up to your whim how things will be. That doesn't help us.Take, for example, the question of what you had for breakfast. Did I have anything to do with it? Did I plant it? Raise it? Harvest it? Process it? Transport it? Package it? Ship it? Market it? Select it? Sell it? Buy it? Prepare it? Serve it? Feed it?No?Does that mean I don't exist?Or does it simply mean that I have nothing to do with what you had for breakfast?Question: Is there anything that happens all on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

Both beliefs use the physics of the universe as the means to formulate ideas that relate to origins (or whatever).

---

Incorrect. Science gives you experiments that you can perform yourself to verify the information. Nothing is ever taken on faith.Religion, on the other hand, has no such ability. There is no way to verify the claims and everything is taken on faith.

quote:

---

Both sides can make the assumption that the others' fundamental assumption(s) are without justification.

---

But science says, "Don't take my word for it. Run the experiment for yourself and see what you get. Be sure to let everybody know if you come up with something different...you might win the Nobel Prize."Religion requires you to take someone else's word for it. Nobody can duplicate your results. And if you come up with something new, you get excommunicated.

quote:

---

So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.

---

Show me an example. Where is there a single textbook that says, "Since god does not exist," or, "Thus, god does not exist"?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.

---

Shouldn't science textbooks simply tell a person what methods have been used and what models have been generated using those methods?In going through histories of specific disciplines one will encounter mention of theories that once were held and the evidence that did it in.I am uncertain why a science textbook should deal with possible realities and entities which have yet to fall "under the microscope". That would seem to be something for a philosophy textbook, or more specifically a philosophy of science textbook.I'm all for kids learning more about the philosophy behind scientific investigation as well as pure logic. But again, that seems to be outside the scope of classes focusing on what does X say right now about natural phenomena 1, 2, and 3?------------------
holmes

MartinIn response to this. One has to wonder what the evidence would be of a supernatural aspect of evolution and how we would recognize it as such.If you postulate the existence of a supernatural entity[as seems to be the case in most discussions of such things] then unless you wish to be less than truthful on the matter you need explain the means by which the supernatural operates.Over and over the arguement on the forums has been that such an entity is beyond time and space or is omnipotent{What does that mean?Hmm...I smell a new thread topic.Etc.This simply is avoidance of the issue for whatever purpose and the avoidence of inquiry is not science.------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-03-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-04-2003]

I have composed a response to your reply. My response is saved on a disk, and I tried to paste it to this forum reply window, but my Edit/paste window goes into the dormant mode when my evc forum window is up--how can I get around my trouble? Please, anyone really, assist with some instructions. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin
In response to this:
I don't know about that. I mean, I don't get a sense from any of the evolutionism material I've ever been exposed to that supernatural explanations are left open as possibilities. How about a supernatural aspect of a creation that has nothing to do with the myth of evolution? Evolution is not science. It is a philosophy, a hypothesis about the universe. Just like the philosophical aspects of creationism. Naturalist and creationist scientists agree on vast amounts of things. At least roughly speaking, those agreed upon things are scientific (as opposed to, or in comparison to, the unprovable philosophical beliefs that undergird creationism and evolutionism).

Martin Ok.Let us speak of the "supernatural" aspect of creation.Exactly what do you percieve the "supernatural" to be? Are we to speak of the God of the Bible as being supernatural? In what way would you say he is supernatural and what level of certainty do you assign to this? Why? It has been my impression that faith or belief is an easy phrase to trot out and yet when pressed for explanation I am asked to trust that you or others are not fooling yourselves and that you are genuine?I will try yet again to bring this issue to the table.How do you explain the mechanism by which the "supernatural is accomplished and what is the evidence for such? What do you mean by creation. The common thread that I percieve is that creation was accomplished by a "being",God,by means that require the use of inexplicable ability,for instance,{Gen 1:3} "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Here in this instance the author is of the impression that God spoke [vocal capabilities in an entity that is incorporeal?] and this allowed the phenomena of [I assume] visible light. Ignoring the fact that this is in direct conflict with the Big Bang theory[but that is only science after all]
we wonder how the mere speaking of a phrase with no one around to hear{and no medium in which for sound to transmit} makes for all the properties of light such as interference, diffraction, reflection, refraction, quantum entanglement etc,etc.On now to your statement that evolution is not science. Please inform us of how you back up this statement by showing how you would explain the enormous body of evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines that all agree on the establishment of evolution as the best avalable form of reasoning for bringing the expeimental and observational data into cohesion and clarity. Show us the creationist model that better predicts events that we can monitor that show actual evolution taking place. What is the creationists theory behind the ability of viruses to adapt to antibiotics? How do you explain the existence of fish at ocean depths that possess fully formed eyes that are nonetheless blind?
Do you have evidence? Can you demonstrate it?Please understand that these are not unfair or harrassing questions. These are the meat of scientific inquiry. Science is its own best critic.As an ending to this I am going to include this little excerpt from the book, "surely your joking Mr. Feynman." [This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-07-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-07-2003]

quote:

---

If by "the fact of evolution is true" you mean that sociologiical (and other like) forces have established the belief in peoples' minds to the point that such affected people actually accept evolution as the accurate assessment of WHAT IS, then I would agree.

---

Gee, and here I thought that the evidence from many life science disciplines and the Biology courses I took at University had convinced me!Thanks for letting me know that I didn't actually think or analyse anything at all during my college years but had been brainwashed instead.However, how do you explain predictions that the Theory of Evolution has made which have subsequently been borne out?I know."Godidit", right?

Sidelined,
Thanks for your latter response. Here goes: Yes, as you suspected, I am refering to the one God (or, to be quite specific, the God of the Bible). I believe that the supernatural is a reality that co-exists with the natural world, but that cannot be directly perceived by natural beings (unless the natural beings are empowered for a time in order to perceive such things, as the Bible teaches). I believe that the Biblical God is supernatural because all things depend on him, he transcends the natural--he created nature and, of course, its laws that scientists study. I suppose I assign a level of certainty to this at least as high as the level of certainty that died-in-the-wool nats assign by faith to their belief that nothing caused everything. Why (you asked) do I believe the Bible? Well, for the same reason that x-athiests, x-nats, etc. (who considered the product of the Bible, honestly, sincerely) have believed. It's not because I was raised that way. I'm aware of the rationalizations that people use to discount apologetical research, but, at the end of the day, I find that Biblical faith wins out by a long shot over all other options that are out there. While I'm not "searching" (because once one finds THE answer there's no need), I do gladly continue to learn. When pressed, nats too have an opportunity to be honest about their own supernatural beliefs: I don't claim that I have a crowd pleasing answer to that--any more than nats have such for their unprovable philosophical assumptions that are inherent to their faith. My point is that textbooks and other media should be based on science, and not upon one particular philosophical creed (such as evolutionism or creationism). Of course an all powerful God can do inexplicable things. He transcends even the laws of nature he created. One of the differences between you and I is that I believe in a power that is capable of getting the job done. C'mon, God is all powerful. If he has the ability to create the universe and such, don't you think he could interact with it according to the physics that relate to it? God's omnipotence questioned because it's in direct conflict with something? That seems like the amazing thing to me. There's plenty of non-science things that are a part of the belief in evolutionism also, so one could continue the above jibe in keeping with the various scientific challenges to those things ("but 'that' is only science afterall"). Evolutionism is an undergirding philosophy that colors the affected peoples' thinking. Creation scientists and Evolution scientists agree on vast amounts of things. These things, at least generally speaking, are science. Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief.
I'm talking about such things or processes that nats-ic scientists believe in that they can't see or experiment on in the direct sense. Why do they believe in such processes? Because the postulation of such processes provide what they call the best theoretical explanation for large bodies of data, as you alluded to. But in my view, the naturalist dilemma exists in the fact that nats are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical. The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism. Again, we disagree about the stuff that isn't actually proven. Also, evolutionism has become a social phenomenon, a vortex of sorts whose power can be resisted only by those who care to make distinctions between science and philosophy (or mythology, modern or otherwise). Is this what you intended on asking, or did you mean for me to show something that demonstrates actual creation taking place? Since both beliefs, as they relate to this particular issue, are unable to produce either actual thing happening, I'd just be satisfied if the textbooks taught the sort of perspective I'm suggesting so that instead of students being brainwashed into the nats mindset, they'd understand the issue more objectively. If I understand you correctly, the issue has to do with both the way life was created to interact in order to accommodate the whole operation of life on the planet, as well as "to do with" the fall of man, which brought about a negative effect on both the world and mankind. Interesting. My first conjecture (admittedly so) is that there's more to these fish than meets the eye. (Oh, sorry.) But blind fish don't do anything for evolution either. To me, blindness suggests a degeneration, a losing of ground, not an improvement. As a creationist, I don't see a problem with this. Not taken as such. And I agree that science is its own best critic--that's why creationist and evolutionist scientists compare their philosophies and too the science that each tries to appeal to in order to advance their beliefs. I also read the excerpt and enjoyed it--it should be read and applied by both creationists and evolutionists.

Could you list those things? And perhaps to make your position clear you could list some of the most important things that they disagree on? (Sorry, about asking for the extra work, but so far it seems that no two creationists agree as to what has and has not happened).Could you also specify the "unprovable" things? Perhaps you need to review some of the threads that discuss the concept of "proof" as well. Hmmmmm, from this one might guess you disagree with most creationists. Certainly, you can't be a young earther. Again, this would be clearer if you listed some very specific examples.

MartinYou have not answered the question here. You have only answered that you do believe in the bible and that you do so for the same reason as x-atheists and x-nats. You say that the bible wins out by a long shot but not why.We obviously have a paradox presented here in which you say you believe in God because the bible says so but if the book is wrong then so is the christian concept of God. No problem,you say, since to believe one looks to the bible for confirmation. So the bible teaches you how to percieve God in order for the God of the bible to exist.Do you not see the circular reasoning here?On another note you have this statement. You mention the reason for believing in processes that we cannot directly experience is that they provide the best theoretical explanation.This is not the only reason, they also allow us to predict phenomena that we have not yet found.This happens over and over again which is how a theory gains a greater certainty.The machines we are using here are a result of making assumptions and test them against the real world.Check out this sight and tell me what you think of the way it challenges your thinking. It is a fun sight that makes some twists that are quite unexpected.http://www.explorepdx.com/feynman.htmlLet me know what you think. But only after you have spent some time traversing the mazes it presents.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-07-2003]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the textbooks didn't depend upon the validity of a metaphysical philosophy that is unprovable, I'd be more inclined to see your point. Exactly my point. See again my latter reply immediately above.------------------