|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,814 Year: 4,071/9,624 Month: 942/974 Week: 269/286 Day: 30/46 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Sure, I get where you are coming from, and yes, the majority in the US who do not believe in evolution are religious. In Australia, most don't care about evolution at all, and are not religious.
I like science, I like method and the protocols with peer reviews etc, but I don't agree on a few approaches, which are based on majority assumptions.That's not the fault of science, but just the way people do things, its sociological.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22498 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Colbard writes: I was eleven years old in year 7...not really interested in reams of paperwork, or of large groups of men defining a history of the world, when none of them were old enough to have been there. The items tested for age were numbered and could have been mixed up. I did not care really. But you care today, because just a few days ago in Message 557 and Message 573 you told us that you discovered a 1958 penny beneath a neighbor's demolished house, that it was radiocarbon dated to 2500 years old, and that this was the foundation of your rejection of radiocarbon dating methods:
Colbard in Messages 557 and 558 writes: I have never believed the methods claimed for dating materials is correct, mainly because I had a coin from 1958 which dated at 2500 years old by radio carbon dating.... The coin was an Australian penny which I found under the neighbor's demolished house,... Having had serious (indeed fatal) doubt cast on your main objection, what do you think of radiocarbon dating now? Scientifically this calls for a reassessment, but you haven't changed your mind, right? Which is fine, that's your right, but it's not scientific.
It's interesting that if someone does not believe in evolution, that they are automatically labelled as religious. Things that are true over 99.9% of the time are pretty safe assumptions.
Independent thought is taboo to science, as it was heresy to the church. Scientific thinking is independent of everything but data and evidence. It would make no sense for a scientist to announce, "As an independent thinker thinking out of the box I have arrived at a theory of gravitation where objects fall up," because all the evidence says he is wrong." A scientific consensus forms around a theory only when the evidence becomes sufficiently persuasive. Thinking independent of the evidence would get a scientist nowhere, because without evidence he would have nothing to persuade other scientists. Lack of evidence is behind the failures of ideas like creation science and intelligent design. So data and evidence (i.e., reality) form the only constraint on scientific thought, which is independent in all other ways, within the constraints of human nature. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Edited by Percy, : More grammar. Edited by Percy, : Correctly provide source messages for the first quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It is apparent that you believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that there was a global flood in that period - and I don't think that it's a coincidence that such beliefs agree with a literalistic reading of Genesis. You have said: "Genuine Biblical studies are not philosophical, but the beginning of faith..." Your objections to evolution are not even the main reason you are considered to be religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Is that because evolution is a direct hit at the thought of God? Of course not and to even think that is true is simply an indicator that the person who holds such beliefs is willfully ignorant at best, possible just delusional and more likely simply a liar or conman. Many religious folk understand the earth is at least 4 billion years old, modern man appeared at least 50,000 years ago and that we are simply the result of evolution.
Independent thought is taboo to science, as it was heresy to the church. More utter bullshit. Science evolves through independent thought and to deny that is simply at best a case of willful ignorance although it could possibly be delusion. Most likely it is simply lying or an attempted con job.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
It's interesting that if someone does not believe in evolution, that they are automatically labelled as religious.
Not sure why you would state this, because obviously you are religious and you are a religious fundamentalist. Your dismissal of accepted scientific consensus is based upon religious belief and faith. Why are you trying to bullshit us?
Is that because evolution is a direct hit at the thought of God?
Only fundies beliefs about a god are threatened by evolution. Most people, religious and non-religious, do not think the two have anything to do with each other. Why don't you just accept and proclaim your christian fundamentalism, or are you a ashamed of it?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I was eleven years old in year 7...not really interested in reams of paperwork, ... The items tested for age were numbered and could have been mixed up. ... Ah, so you can't verify that it was the penny that was dated to 2500 years ago as claimed in Message 557. Not surprised. So your whole reason for distrusting radiocarbon dating (according to your claims) rests on a probable mix-up and misunderstanding of which results went with what objects. Now an open minded skeptic looking for independence in education would ask about other sources of information on testing objects for age where there was better control of the experiments\tests so that honest results could be compared and valid conclusions could be reached. For instance, a scientifically thinking person would ask:1. can the 14C/12C levels of the coin be replicated? 2. do the results mean the coin is 2500 year old? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One might also ask where the carbon14 and carbon12 came from since the Australian penny is 97%copper, 2.5%zinc and 0.5% tin.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
The analogy was only intended to illustrate a different point of view to Colbard. He seems to have taken the point but rejected the "lesson" for unrelated reasons. The analogy, therefore, is a success. What you are doing in this defense of your analogy is forcing the lesson your analogy is supposed to teach. If you don't like it, boo hoo.
NoNukes writes:
I think I already mentioned that the analogy doesn't work in an old-universe/young-earth scenario. That's a position that Colbard doesn't take (I think), so your comments are irrelevant. In Colbard's view, the nails, wood, brick, etc. were all created in the same six days, so the analogy stands.
The age of the universe is a tiny bit older than the primordial hydrogen and helium within it. But the nails, wood, brick, etc for a house may be much older than the house even without considering added on stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
You can't think "outside the box" constructively until you understand the box. People who don't understand carbon dating, for example, have no business thinking independently about it.
Independent thought is taboo to science, as it was heresy to the church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
You did not answer my questions about that "experiment". We need to know the full story. Again:
dwise1 writes: What you still need to tell us is what your teacher had taught you about radio-carbon dating. Please be very specific. In particular, did he tell you anything about how it worked and what it actually measures? And if he had told you what it actually measures, then why did you submit an object that contained no carbon? But if he had misinformed you about radio-carbon dating, then what does that tell you about everything else he had told you? Seriously, when you submitted that coin, which contained no carbon, to be dated with a test that measures the quantities of isotopes of carbon, did you not realize that the test would not work on that coin? If you didn't know any better, then why didn't you know any better? If you did know better, then why choose to submit that coin? I can think of a few different scenarios of what might have happened, but we still need for you to inform us of what actually did happen:
BTW, that the "test" came back saying that your coin was 2500 years old is further evidence that those items were never actually tested. A sample that contains no C14 would come back with the maximum age for the test, which is about 50,000 years. Being a light element, C14 has a short half-life. That also makes it only suitable for dating relatively recent samples such as are found in archeological sites, but completely unsuitable for dating geological formations. C14 has absolutely no bearing on the age of the earth. {* FOOTNOTE:Unfortunately, this happens far too often. When a school can find a teacher who is knowledgeable in the subject matter, then they will use that teacher. But if such a teacher is not available, then the job will go to an unqualified teacher. The philosophy in effect here is that a teacher has been trained to teach and should be able to step in and teach any subject matter so long as he has adequate teaching materials at his disposal. We were told of an imposter who had posed as several professionals (think of the movie, "Catch Me If You Can"); he found the role of college professor the easiest because to pull that off he only had to be reading the textbook a few chapters ahead of the students. Fortunately, this kind of situation exists mainly in smaller school districts (eg, in rural or isolated areas) which have a much smaller pool of teachers to draw from. Back around 1990 there was a case in which a creationist biology teacher, John Peloza, sued the Capistrano school district for violating his religious rights -- his entire argument was based on twisted and confused creationist rhetorics, much like what you've been presenting, and his case was not only thrown out for being frivolous, but when the appeals court reviewed the case because they were sure that the lower court couldn't have been right, even the appeals court threw it out as being frivolous. It turns out that John Peloza was actually a physical education (PE) teacher and wasn't qualified to teach biology. His college degree was in PE and his Masters degree was in Education, for which his thesis was on coaching softball. He was teaching on Catalina Island when the high school needed someone to teach biology, so he either volunteered or was assigned to that task. After that, he was classified as a biology teacher, even though in his own education he had only taken the bare minimum required biology courses. During his legal battle, I heard him speak: everything he said came straight from the "creation science" literature. This story has a happy ending, since Peloza was sent back to teaching what he had trained for, PE. Though he did have to pay all legal costs, because he had filed a frivolous lawsuit, and he swore he would not do pay; I have no idea how that turned out.}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In Colbard's view, the nails, wood, brick, etc. were all created in the same six days, so the analogy stands. What you describing above is exactly the breaking point for your analogy. The universe works that way, yes. But we never build houses that way. Every artificial house is built from external materials. The age of those materials is not the age of the house. And given that your analogy breaks at exactly the point that you are trying to illustrate, your analogy stinks.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
An idea or a belief considered to be evidence can come from a vast network of interrelated ideas and findings, so that we end up with a web of knowledge, which is undeniable - through nearby evidences, in any location,
and yet the whole thing could be based on a single falsehood that no one dares to challenge, because of its vastness, age, general alignments and most of all co-dependencies. If the whole thing is based on some falsehood, it has to have a system of defense for those living in it, and that system of defense could very well be the same means to extend its web, - logic, reasoning, philosophy, testing whatever. This ensures that those defending the web are more securely attached to it, as they defend it. But the defenders, don't believe they are threatened, even though they are acting that way. The simple mention of creation causes very long speeches, great investigations and backup, forensic analysis, interrogations even of minors, screaming "delusional" and so forth. And of course lots of reviews about other "delusionals." If the web was truly secure it would not be so alarmed at the opinion of someone who is obviously "delusional." Why would it be necessary for a whole brigade to pounce on a "delusional" with lesson sticks if the suspect is of no consequence to the system? Interesting isn't it? There is a saying "If you throw a stone over a wall at a pack of dogs, you know you have scored a hit by the ones which make the loudest noise." It seems to me that science has a bug in it which does not belong there. While claiming to be open minded etc, it is too sensitive and defensive about itself.It reminds me of the dark ages, when the church righteously torched someone who differed in thought. Who could argue with the church? Its members were prominent educators, trusted professors with honors and degrees, sound familiar? It had all the evidence for its own standing and yet it was fully evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
The oppressive and evil reign of the Papacy ended up causing the French revolution which swung into atheism, rather than at the cause of its rebellion alone, which was a false system of religion.
So now we have two false systems which are incompatible, and yet working together to keep the masses in two camps. The falsehood of science is the dismissal of God, and genuine religion, and the falsehood of religions has been to dismiss God as well, by teaching errors about God. So the argument about whether creation and evolution should be taught in schools together is endlessly spurred on by two dysfunctional systems. Creation should be taught scientifically without the theory of evolution, and without the falsehoods of established religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Colbard writes: The simple mention of creation causes very long speeches, great investigations and backup, forensic analysis, interrogations even of minors, screaming "delusional" and so forth. And of course lots of reviews about other "delusionals." That's not true. You should rephrase this; it might be closer to the truth: 'Pretending that creationism is science and religious fundamentalists forcing creationism into science classes, cause very long speeches, great investigations and backup, forensic analysis, interrogations even of minors, screaming "delusional" and so forth. And of course lots of reviews about other "delusionals".' You forgot to mention court cases. And so it should. Your carbon dating of a coin is a great example why it should be so. You don't even know the basics of the method. And I (along other on this forum) suspect that you didn't tell the truth about dating that coin for the very obvious reasons mentioned in other posts.
"Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." --- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
What a word salad, meaning nothing in the end. Lets start at the beginning. First he starts with a straw man about how science works.
Colbard starts:
An idea or a belief considered to be evidence... Wrong in so many ways. Beliefs (in a religious sense) are not scientific evidence. It seems as if his whole 'argument' is built on this. Fail. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024