Education

Part of the problem is how poll questions are written and framed.If people are asked "Did humans descend, like all life on Earth, from a common ancestor", for example, they will likely feel a twinge to their religiously-based ego, which combined with their ignorance of science and Biology, and refuse to believe it.However, if the poll were to ask questions such as:"Do you accept that DNA tests are able to determine heredity between people.""Do you believe that using animals in medical and drug testing and research is useful to humans."...in order to lead people to the same logical conclusion that those who have been educated in science have reached 150 years ago, then I think we would return a better, less scary number.

quote:

---

The statistics show that college graduates are more apt to believe in evolution, this may be from the constant barrage of majority opinion, evidence, and data while in school. When you drop out, or go on to work, you don't have to fight for your beliefs against anyone, but in college, those few that arrive with beliefs against evolution are finally molded by the majority of people there, it's rather disturbing really. Because the evidence is really part of a system that will be gone anyway, when you die, when this world is gone.

---

The statistics show that college graduates are more apt to believe in the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, this may be from the constant barrage of majority opinion, evidence, and data while in school. When you drop out, or go on to work, you don't have to fight for your beliefs against anyone, but in college, those few that arrive with beliefs against The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System are finally molded by the majority of people there, it's rather disturbing really. Because the evidence is really part of a system that will be gone anyway, when you die, when this world is gone.Yeah, it really is stupid that we waste any time trying to use scienct to cure disease or anything.The time could be much better spent studying the Bible and praising God.HEY!!We should follow the lead of the radical Islamic countries that don't allow their schools to teach any modern science, history, geography, or anything at all other than a literal interpretation the Koran. They have done away with all of that meaningless science, as you suggest we all should.I think you would find some kindred souls in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, Chris.

quote:

---

I know there are many benefits to science, and math, but as hypocritical as it may seem, none of it will matter someday, don't you agree?

---

It may not matter to me, since I will be dead.But it matters to me now, and that fact that it mattered to many thousands of people in generations past (who are dead now) means that you and I can reap the benefits now.Likewise, because many thousands of people continue to care, many people who live hundreds of years from now can benefit from the knowledge of science and nature we continue to accumulate now.Don't you care at all about future generations? Do you only care about your own little world?

quote:

---

If you want to believe that God made the world 6000 years ago, and that the bible is an historical document, then you can twist anything to fit into what you believe, the same as you can attempt to explain how we grew from primitive species to a complex one. The fact is, that none of us really know.

---

Since none of us have ever viewed the entire solar system at once, we can only infer that the sun is at the center.Would you say that people who have a religiously-based belief that the sun orbits the Earth hold just a valid a belief as others who accept the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System?

quote:

---

For not only is there not a complete fossil record which Substantiates the evolutionists claims,

---

As I said, no one has ever viewed the entire solar system at once, so we do not have complete knowledge of a Heliocentric Solar System, so do you doubt that the sun is at the center?Also, why do you reject all the other evidence besides fossils which point to evolution having happened, such as genetic evidence and direct observation of new species forming?

quote:

---

The attitude of evos is they are asserting a proven fact, and they assert this with more dogmatism than any other area of science I know of. The idea they consider it scientifically, as something not proven, is demonstrably proven wrong by the inherent and unreasonable dogmatism of evos.

---

...and yet, I have been waiting for weeks for you to educate me, and possibly change my mind based upon the evidence I have been begging you to provide, regarding your assertions on the effects of the ADC program on the birth rates of poor single women.You have the "attitude that you are asserting a proven fact", to use your own words, yet you refuse, when asked, to provide a single shred of credible, verifiable, substantive evidence to support it.Methinks you need to take your own advice, randman.

quote:

---

I think when a group of scientists rely on faked data and claims for over 100 years, despite repeated evidence the claims and data are faked, then yes, I think they are probably less rigorous than Jack Chick in their fact checking.

---

Well, sir, this is a perfect opportunity to show us all how much better you can check YOUR facts than all of those lazy, imcompetent, slacker, fraudulent scientists!!Why not go check your own stated "facts" you claimed were true regarding the ADC program and then post them at the thread that's been waiting for you?

quote:

---

Schraf, I already told you due to your behaviour, I would not participate on that thread any longer. Maybe you didn't realize I was serious.
I did note though that someone else provided a link as you were demanding, and you still ignored it.

---

My behavior? I don't recall any behavior problems from me in that thread.Certainly, no moderator saw fit to point out any problems. Perhaps you would like one of the other mods to examine the thread and make a determination regarding who, between the two of us, are following the forum guidelines?Personally, I think you are derelict in your duty as a moderator to set a good example in that thread regarding Forum Rule #4: You made an assertion which you have refused to back up with evidence, yet you also refuse to withdraw it.In this thread, you have also flung about very grave accusations that thousands of professional scientists are either moronically incompetent or complete liars, again without providing a bit of evidence to show that this is the case.Shameful.

quote:

---

I am sure your wife is honest, honorable and doing good work, but that doesn't change the overall field, or how it seems particularly resistant to abandoning what some call the icons of evolution.

---

No, randman, according to you she is most definitely NOT honorable and doing good work.According to you, she is "mythmaking" because he work is based upon the idea that the ToE is the best explanation of the data we have to explain the origin of species on Earth.You have repeatedly made your opinion of Evolutionary Biologists abundently clear. You believe they are moronic incompetents or fraudulent deceivers.You can't have it both ways. You cannot indict the entire field as worthless and then pretent to not be saying that about individual scientists and their work as well.So, you are surely calling Crashfrog's wife a liar and an incompetent.

quote:

---

First of all I don't reject all of the other evidence of evolution. I was just pointing out that since there is no complete record of fossils, it is a fact that science doesn't have the whole picture.

---

Right.Science will never have the whole picture.About anything.Does that mean we cannot ever make a determination about anything at all?

quote:

---

Just as the evidence about the sun and the solar system. A person could believe in a heliocentric theory because that is what they observe. As indeed have you.

---

The point is, a Heliocentric Solar System is not what is casually observed. We need to make inferences from the observations of the movements of other planets to figure this out. What is cassually observed is that the sun and the other planets orbit a stationary Earth. Galileo got arrested by the Chursh for suggesting that the sun, not the Earth, was the center, remember?We have a pretty good idea, through inference and despite incomplete data, that the Sun is actually the center of the Solar System, not the Earth.

quote:

---

You believe the solar system goes around the sun because that is what you have learnt from other sources, and you have accepted that information.

---

Yes, and there have also been repeated tests of that theory by NASA and other space agencies in my lifetime that I have directly observed. But the question was, is a religiously-based belief that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System just as valid as the acceptance of the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System?

quote:

---

But again it proves my point that unless you have the complete picture, you cannot make concrete conclusions.

---

Science never makes concrete conclusions. They are always able to be corrected and refined.But the question was, is a religiously-based belief that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System just as valid as the acceptance of the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System?

quote:

---

Please, how can one possibly lack knowledge of science when he/she possesses higher (science) education? I.e., I'm a physician

---

Sorry, but physicians are not scientists. The training doctors get is not very much at all like the training that scientists get.That is, unless they are MD/PhD's and do research for a living.Physicians do get some science in undergrad but they are generally sorely-lacking in research and theory-testing skills.They are practitioners--they apply practically what scientists have learned.

quote:

---

Shraf, someone kindly stepped up and provided you with a link.

---

That's nice. What does that have to do with your particular claims?

quote:

---

That doesn't satisfy you because you want to waste my time debating with you after I told you I would not be willing to discuss the topic with you if you did not do some research and make an effort to substantiate your points as well.

---

But randman, for the millionth time, you made the claim.The thread in question is my request to you to support that claim.Forum Rule #4 requires that you support it with evidence or withdraw it.It is really very simple.It is incumbent upon youyou to support the claim or withdraw it.I'm still waiting, and so are others in that thread.

quote:

---

Since you showed no willingness to do that, I decided not to participate on the thread,

---

But you are the one who made the claim, randman.I made no claims in that thread. I asked you some very narrow questions regarding your claim that I am still very curious to learn the facts of that you must have based your claim upon.I would like for you to show me the basis for your facual claim so that I might make a more informed opinion reagrding ADC, yet you refuse to help me, and all the other people on this board out by refuing to show all of us the facts and information upon which you have apparently based your opinion.Why so stingy? Why do you refuse to show me up, at the very least, by supplying that thread with the links and evidence that would leave no doubt that you are right? You yourself said that it would be a simple matter to look up the facts, right? So why not be a true educator in the best sense of the word and, well, educate me?

quote:

---

and in general, I'm not as interested in participating on new thread that try to call me out on something, and the rules do not require someone participate on a new thread if they do not want to.

---

Well, I can certainly understand that.All you have to do, then, is withdraw the claim.

quote:

---

Maybe if you change your tone and behaviour, I would consider it down the road sometime when I am less busy.

---

Hey, I'm not the one who calls people liars and frauds every other post. I've also never needed to be suspended for dishonest debate tactics, either, so I really don't think I need a lecture on "tone and behavior" from the likes of you, thanks.I've been at EvC for over 5 years and have over 7,000 posts. You have been here less than a year (with some suspenstions in there, too) and have almost half that many. I think you are clearly here all the time and a single post in a single thread is but a drop in the bucket of your very prolific posting rate.The thread is waiting.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-12-2005 02:59 PM

quote:

---

"Science for science sake" vs. "science as just a means to the practitioner's end" ... which is important here?

---

Both are important.Some of the most important practically-applied science ever done has come out of basic research with no other motivation but the wish to understand something about nature.

quote:

---

Also, plumbers (like physicians) seem to me to require ongoing research and theory-testing skills, albeit, just on a more macroscopic scale...

---

No, they do not develop and test theory like a scientist does.A scientist develops controlled experiments to test theories, and analyses the data gathered under strict methodological systems.Plumbers and Physicians "trouble shoot" based upon informed experience. There is no controlled experiment and there is no strict methodology, and there is no analysis of data.At least, not anywhere near at the level of detail a scientist does.Plumbers and Physicians are not trained to do any of this.

quote:

---

Looking in a typical plumber's van I've seen a hundred or so tools, several thousand types of materials and fittings, etc.

---

So what? I have a lot of tools in my kitchen, too, and I know how to use each one well, but that doesn't make me a food scientist.

quote:

---

They, too, have experimented and tested materials and techniques, and employed ongoing of scientific methods and research to design, construct, and/or fix hydro-mechanical phenomena.

---

No, they don't.They trouble-shoot.

quote:

---

True, a humble toilet-scientist may not be as proud as a slime-scientist (AKA, micro-biologist). Yet both have advanced degrees of education.

---

Education levels are not the issue.It is the training and expertise that is the issue.Doctors and plumbers are not trained to test theory. They are not scientists.

quote:

---

Thus, it seems silly to me that a master-plumber need be ... "sorely-lacking in research and theory-testing skills".

---

That is not their training. That is not their field of expertise.I mean, how many plumbers do you know who regularly use advanced statistical anyalysis techniqes in their daily work?

quote:

---

If evolution is so complicated that medical doctors are not educated sufficiently to understand it,

---

Wha??I said nothing at all of the sort and have no clue how you got that from what I wrote.I said that doctors don't have the same skill set and expertise as scientists.I never said they were not capable of understanding science, but that they do not do science on a daily basis.I do not study the chemistry of food and cooking, even though I am a food professional, yet I am sure that if I were to study food chemistry, I could understand it just fine.But just because I do not know a great deal about it at the moment doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught in college food science courses, or even in home ec in high school.

quote:

---

The forum rules require that a topic be responded to on the thread it started on. The thread closed, I believe, and so the option of responding there is over.

---

The subject of if poor single women's birthrate exploded after the introduction of ADC was off-topic in the thread in which it first came up.That is why I started a new thread in the coffee house to allow you the chance to provide evidence for your claims in an appropriate place, since straying off topic is also against the forum rules:

quote:

---

But regardless, right now and right here, I offer the link and the post given by another on that thread answering your questions, and so have now fully complied with whatever you think was required.

---

Well, then, judging by that link, you have based your factual claims upon only a single, very poor analysis that was shown by Zhimbo to be rather pathetic and biased in this post in that thread.So, if that's all you've got, then I can only conclude that you have never done a real, objective, careful study of the issue and that it is highly likely that you are basing your factual claims upon nothing but politically-based bias and your swallowing whole the popular myths about ADC promulgated by the Neocon scapegoat-making propagandists.Of course, I am more than willing to examine any substantive, good quality analysis of the issue if you ever find any.

quote:

---

True, most plumbers keep their "advanced statistical techniques", inventories, etc. at somewhat of a more phlegmatic level.

---

Or, thay actually don't use any advanced statistical analysis at all.At least, not to analyse any data. Like I said, like doctors, they troubleshoot based upon experience and knowledge.And thay don't collect data under strictly controlled methodologies, either.Right?So, they don't have any training in what scientists do every day.Right?

quote:

---

But "advanced statistical techniques" have been so mis-employed by individual "research" scientists as to oft become suspiciously invalidated.

---

Oh, which techniqes are you referring to, exactly, and which individual scientists have misused them?Perhaps you have some examples of papers that you can cite?

quote:

---

I never place much credence in my American Podiatric Journal stats, especially with new procedures and techniques by research scientists.

---

Is that because you do not understand the statistics?I'll bet you didn't have to take but one course, if that, on statistics in college, and I'll bet it was in undergrad, am I right?Anyway, perhaps you can cite a paper from that journal and give a brief explanation of why that article's statistics are being used in a misleading manner.We have several professional scientists here and also several mathematicians who would I'm sure be happy to examine the stats to see if they are appropriate and correct.Anyway, your claim was that physicians and plumbers do basically the same thing as research scientists, and you have not shown that this is the case. You have in this latest post started to denigrate what scientists do, which is strange considering a moment ago you were trying to put yourself, and plumbers, on the same level as research scientists.Do you now concede that physicians and plumbers do not do what scientists do (and vice versa), because they do not have the same training and expertise?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-14-2005 08:05 AM