Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 4:43 PM
453 online now:
jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Rrhain (6 members, 447 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,990 Year: 6,596/21,208 Month: 2,357/2,634 Week: 20/525 Day: 20/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Creationist/ID Education should be allowed
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 46 of 116 (659510)
04-16-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:19 AM


Lots of mistakes
If they teach evolution they need to keep the big bang part out. If we evolved from the big bang then why are there still bangs on earth today? If they are going to teach the theory, they at least need to teach that maybe god, or "a god of some type which science can't figure out" made the bangs. I just wish science class was all about what science knows for absolute sure (just the laws not the theories), not what they think they might know but aren't sure.

You are making some fundamental mistakes in your descriptions of science and how it works.

For example, evolution is a biological or life science, and does not deal with cosmology.

But even more fundamental is your use of "theory" and "law" --absolutely incorrect.

Here are some definitions that might help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:19 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 47 of 116 (659512)
04-16-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:47 AM


If the big bang didn't happen, then how could evolution happen?

Science is about understanding the universe. Trouble is, the universe is a big, complex place. It's not possible to study everything at once. That's why scientists take smaller subjects and examine them in detail. Biology is one of those subjects and evolution is a part of biology. the Big Bang is not biology. In trying to force an understanding of both the Big Bang and biological evolution as if they were one subject, you're making both of them harder to understand, not easier.

Does science have any theories other than the big bang about how the universe started that do fit with evolution?

Well yes; creationism, although I would hesitate to call it science. Evolution is perfectly compatible with many forms of creationism. One could simply assume that a god (or gods) created life and that then, that life proceeded to evolve.

Now I don't think that's a good idea or anything, but certainly evolution is compatible with that scenario. One could posit any number of scenarios whereby life came to exist. It doesn't really effect evolution. All we need know is that life began to exist, then began to evolve.

I would also note that we can observe evolution taking place in the here-and-now. No amount of speculation about origins could possibly trump those real-world observations.

I think if the theories do not fit together, then at least one of them is wrong.

Or our understanding of them is wrong.

I can accept that the term "big bang" may not be accurate and is simplified, but if science just uses labels to help describe things (and those labels are not the whole theory) then why not accept the label of "God" to help use understand things. It doesn't mean it has to be my personal God or anything like that.

Well as Crashfrog notes, it's not a very helpful label. It's actually pretty unhelpful. Further, the Big Bang theory goes a lot deeper than just a label. It is built upon multiple observations and a very profound understanding of physics. Don't confuse the label with the theory itself.

Doesn't the theory of God fit better with creation science then the big bang theory fits with evolution theory?

Both of those pairs fit each other well. Only one pairing has the advantage of being true.

I don't get it though; what is it that you think makes evolution and the Big Bang a poor match for each other? Where's the beef?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:47 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Genologist
Junior Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 8
From: Kadoma, Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe
Joined: 09-15-2012


Message 48 of 116 (673187)
09-15-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Granny Magda
04-16-2012 11:55 AM


re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Unfortunately an enquiring mind will always want to start at the beginning of a story or in this case theory. A building naturally starts with its foundations. For this reason, for the idea of evolution to stand up in the mind of a student, he/she will expect the theory to have a solid foundation, root or beginning.- This is where it becomes dodgy to justify teaching only evolution in its present form as anything more than an idea, and a bad one at that. When one re-traces the "rivers" of evolution they end up at their source which is this fanciful puddle of primordial soup which is where all life was supposed to begin. This is where many thinking people are left completely dumbfounded and beyond incredulous at the ridiculousness of it all. We are taught about the amazing intricacies of the DNA of a simple uni-cellular amoeba- (when I was doing biology at high school (1992), we were taught that an amoeba was the simplest of creatures and may have been the first life form) yet it's genome is massive and highly complicated- to call even this "simplicity" a random event is insulting to even the meanest intelligence. My feeling is that if we cannot agree on the origins of life then we cannot teach evolution, we need to teach on issues where we have common ground, ie on the facts that we currently observe from current evidence that can not be open to conjecture in any way. It is merely speculation and arguably and ironically religious in itself (because through evolution some "seek" to obviate religion) for "evos" to push ideas/agendas on such fanciful ideas as the big bang theory and primordial soup for the origin of life, etc as theories when in fact they are just ideas that defy common sense. Would it not be more ethical albeit a compromise, to include a separate subject (or as a subject within a subject) of beliefs, hypotheses and even theories that could be studied to embrace ideas from all quarters. I fail to see how spending so much time and resources fighting over the past can be of use to man or planet. I probably needn't mention it but it is my conviction that there is a Creator God, and I for one would object to my child being taught theories that exclude a God and have no plausible beginnings
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 04-16-2012 11:55 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 09-15-2012 6:12 PM Genologist has not yet responded
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2012 10:12 PM Genologist has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 09-16-2012 3:43 AM Genologist has not yet responded
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2012 4:31 AM Genologist has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2012 8:22 AM Genologist has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 49 of 116 (673188)
09-15-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Genologist
09-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Hi Genologist,

The topic of this thread is whether creationism/id should be taught in science class, not whether evolution should not. I think most here would agree that what we teach in science class should have a strong evidential foundation. For the sake of argument let us grant that evolution does not have that foundation. What would you replace it with in science class that *does* have the necessary foundational support?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Genologist has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9323
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 50 of 116 (673190)
09-15-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Genologist
09-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Would it not be more ethical albeit a compromise, to include a separate subject (or as a subject within a subject) of beliefs, hypotheses and even theories that could be studied to embrace ideas from all quarters.

No, that would not be ethical. Evolution is the only theory of the origin of species that is supported by all scientific evidence. It would be a lie to pretend otherwise in a science class. I cannot agree with this rationale for teaching creationism in science class.

I for one would object to my child being taught theories that exclude a God and have no plausible beginnings

It would be unconstitutional in the US to revise a science curriculum for this reason. Perhaps a compromise would be for you to teach your child religion at home or in Sunday school.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Genologist has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 51 of 116 (673192)
09-16-2012 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Genologist
09-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Genologist writes:

I for one would object to my child being taught theories that exclude a God and have no plausible beginnings

That, of course, covers the entirety of science. Why pick on a single branch of biology to omit?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Genologist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 52 of 116 (673193)
09-16-2012 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Genologist
09-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
quote:

A building naturally starts with its foundations. For this reason, for the idea of evolution to stand up in the mind of a student, he/she will expect the theory to have a solid foundation, root or beginning.- This is where it becomes dodgy to justify teaching only evolution in its present form as anything more than an idea, and a bad one at that. When one re-traces the "rivers" of evolution they end up at their source which is this fanciful puddle of primordial soup which is where all life was supposed to begin.

Of course you are confusing intellectual foundations with historical foundations. Interestingly enough tha confusion only seems to apply to evolution. I've never seen anyone argue that we can't say that the planets orbit the sun because we don't fully understand how the planets form or that we can't say that Jesus existed because we don't know where or when he was born.

quote:

My feeling is that if we cannot agree on the origins of life then we cannot teach evolution, we need to teach on issues where we have common ground, ie on the facts that we currently observe from current evidence that can not be open to conjecture in any way.

Which would seem to either allow the teaching of evolution or rule out very large amounts of science - perhaps all of it. The fact of the existence of transitional fossils, for instance, depends not at all on how life began. Indeed, none of the evidence for evolution depends on that, so obviously that is not the real problem.

quote:

It is merely speculation and arguably and ironically religious in itself (because through evolution some "seek" to obviate religion) for "evos" to push ideas/agendas on such fanciful ideas as the big bang theory and primordial soup for the origin of life, etc as theories when in fact they are just ideas that defy common sense.

On the other hand I'd say that the idea that your uninformed opinions have anything like as solid a basis as a strong consensus of expert opinion is an expression of pride, and nothing more. I don't think that your pride is a sound basis for educational policy.

quote:

Would it not be more ethical albeit a compromise, to include a separate subject (or as a subject within a subject) of beliefs, hypotheses and even theories that could be studied to embrace ideas from all quarters. I fail to see how spending so much time and resources fighting over the past can be of use to man or planet.

I'd say that dishonesty is rarely ethical. And it would be dishonest to pretend that science is on the same low level as the religious apologetics of creationism. Putting both in your hypothetical class would do just that. The current status is fair and ethical- and yet you wish to keep fighting about it. Why should those who disagree surrender just because you say that the fight isn't worth it - when you clearly don't believe what you say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Genologist has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15474
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 53 of 116 (673197)
09-16-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Genologist
09-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Yeah, I wanted to say pretty much what PaulK said. If you just want to use this as an argument against evolution, then it's a bit of special pleading. If, on the other hand, we are going to use your argument generally:

* Then we can't teach anything in biology, because all facts in biology are historically contingent on the origin of life.
* We couldn't teach any chemistry, 'cos we don't know the origin of chemical elements (of course, scientists think that they do, but a creationist such as yourself will dismiss their opinion as "fanciful", since it conflicts with your dogma).
* We can't teach the theory of gravity unless we know the origin of mass.
* We can't teach about electricity unless we know the origin of electrons.
* We can't teach languages until we know the origins of language.
* We can't teach history unless we know the origins of humanity.
* We can't teach geology unless we know the origin of the Earth.
* We can't teach astronomy unless we know the origin of stars.
* We can't teach the germ theory of disease unless we know the origins of germs.

If we can't teach anything until we have an origins story for it that creationists can agree with, then we cannot, in fact, teach pretty much anything, and civilization would collapse within a generation.

I probably needn't mention it but it is my conviction that there is a Creator God, and I for one would object to my child being taught theories that exclude a God and have no plausible beginnings

But I don't hear you making any such general objection. I don't hear anyone doing so. When your child is taught how stars burn through nuclear fusion, do you actually object to this because (a) God doesn't come into it (b) you don't consider the scientific account of the origin of stars to be plausible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Genologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 09-16-2012 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9323
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 54 of 116 (673202)
09-16-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2012 8:22 AM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
If we can't teach anything until we have an origins story for it that creationists can agree with, then we cannot, in fact, teach pretty much anything, and civilization would collapse within a generation.

Well it would appear that we could still teach mathematics and logic.

But yeah, I'd come up with a pretty similar list of things Genologist logically should protest against being taught. I'll note that most creationist don't have any problem using the technology for which that infernal science creates the basis.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2012 8:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2012 10:45 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15474
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 55 of 116 (673207)
09-16-2012 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
09-16-2012 10:29 AM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Well it would appear that we could still teach mathematics and logic.

Because those are purely human creations? Well, in the first place many Christian apologists don't believe that (see my debate with sac) but in the second place even if they were, who invented counting, eh? You don't know. We have no origin story for mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 09-16-2012 10:29 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by saab93f, posted 02-08-2013 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 65 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 56 of 116 (690047)
02-08-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2012 10:45 AM


Does stupidity really know no bounds?
I stumbled upon the webpage which had excerpts from a Christian "Sciencebook". I was appalled - the adults who write and feed this kind of crap to children should be...in search of a better term, ridiculed.

I am truly sorry for the kids who have to endure that; "Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it ... We cannot even say where electricity comes from."

http://www.11points.com/...om_a_Creationist_Science_Textbook


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2012 10:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2013 9:33 AM saab93f has not yet responded
 Message 58 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:41 AM saab93f has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9323
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 57 of 116 (690054)
02-08-2013 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by saab93f
02-08-2013 8:17 AM


Re: Does stupidity really know no bounds?
Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it ... We cannot even say where electricity comes from."

There is a place and a plan for people who would write such a textbook for children. I cannot say exactly where and what, but the location is somewhere in Ring 4 (perhaps ditch 8??).

Just sad. What the @#$% happens if the child ever finds out that we know exactly what electricity is?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by saab93f, posted 02-08-2013 8:17 AM saab93f has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:48 AM NoNukes has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 58 of 116 (690874)
02-17-2013 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by saab93f
02-08-2013 8:17 AM


Re: Does stupidity really know no bounds?

I am truly sorry for the kids who have to endure that; "Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it ... We cannot even say where electricity comes from."

There must be something more in the book which brought you to criticize the rather correct ttempt to say that we STILL can not explain what Energy actually is, beyond saying that "It is that entity that makes things move," or hardly any better, "Energy is the ability to do work."

Focusing on just the one form of the seven different forms of Energy is less than desirable, but the writer's point is valid.

And, what we do KNOW about energy is that The Law of Conservation tells us that the material Universe appeared when whatever this Energy may be trasformed itself into the material Universe.

So, in a sense, this thing we call Energy IS the creator of the Cosmos and IS the Cosmos, transcending and interpentrating it, however, i.e.; panentheism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by saab93f, posted 02-08-2013 8:17 AM saab93f has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2013 8:34 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 59 of 116 (690875)
02-17-2013 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
02-08-2013 9:33 AM


Re: Does stupidity really know no bounds?

What the @#$% happens if the child ever finds out that we know exactly what electricity is?

We seem to know a lot about what electricity can do, but we do not know what it is.
All we KNOW is that if a charged particle is moved, two fields apparently appear, one magnetic and the other electrical as we have come to detect and call them.

We have learned to use this to perform Work for us, and we can measure that work and say how much electrical power has been consumed.

But what this mystery is, exactly, defies our explanations.
Whatever it is, we observed what it can do, called it electricity, and have studied what it can do extensively, speaking in a way that hides the fact we never explained what it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2013 9:33 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by saab93f, posted 02-18-2013 3:00 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2013 5:50 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2013 8:19 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 60 of 116 (690919)
02-18-2013 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 7:48 AM


Re: Does stupidity really know no bounds?
When I thought that things could not go any worse than allowing Michelle Bachmann into the Intelligence Committee - I was proven wrong.

There are absolutely no limits to the stupidity -
The chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology said today that the committee would hold hearings next week to settle the question, once and for all, of whether meteors exist.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/...ce-of-meteors.html#ixzz2LEfEcAUa


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:48 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2013 3:15 AM saab93f has responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017