Education

I'm tempted to believe that thinking itself is an entirely different process for those of the creationist bent. Once an idea is in their heads, it takes root and no amount of evidence or logic can remove it. No testing is necessary. "The Truth" is the truth.And the same principle applies to their religious thinking. Whether it's in the Bible or not, it's "the Truth" and nothing will ever convince them otherwise. The mind snaps shut like a bear trap. (I'm not sure how anything gets in there in the first place. )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Sounds like the work of Jack Chick. It's hard to believe that anybody on a college campus would swallow that garbage.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No it isn't. Science does not rest on faith. It rests on evidence only. But nothing in science is ever "categorically proven". That is not the point of science. The point of science is to come up with the best possible explanation that fits the evidence without faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

What?People tell you their model can be changed and you call that a "dogmatic" attitude? Seems like the opposite of dogma to me.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

But then, you think Jack Chick is more scientific than scientists. Doesn't say much for your "knowledge" of science, does it?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Your example does more damage to the creationist cause than anything I could say in rebuttal.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

We don't know all the facts and we can not ever know all the facts. We don't "know" that the Theory of Evolution is 100% correct and we can not ever know that anything is 100% correct. In fact, we know that the Theory of Evolution is not 100% "correct". Why else would we keep studying and trying to improve it? No it isn't. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. No it isn't. The Bible does not contain any "evidence" in the sense that the word "evidence" is used in science.Evidence must be verifiable. Everybody must be able to see the same evidence, or it doesn't qualify as evidence.When everybody agrees about what the Bible says, you can call it evidence. Until then, it is a collection of individual beliefs. Beliefs and conclusions drawn from evidence are not the same thing.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

But that is where you would be wrong. The evidence for ToE is objective. Everybody does agree about the evidence, even if their ideas about evolution are not identical. It is not a "collection of individual beliefs".It doesn't matter whether or not you "believe" in evolution. You have to understand that there is a fundamental difference between belief and knowledge.A belief is not based on objective evidence. Therefore, it can be - and often is thought to be - 100% "correct". Real Knowledge, on the other hand, is never 100% correct.Case in point: the Church believed that the earth was the center of the universe. On the other hand, scientists know that it isn't because they have observed the motions of the planets. They know that the heliocentric model fits the evidence better.Please understand: beliefs and conclusions drawn from evidence are not the same thing. That's why I said back in Message 12 that knowledge and belief seem to be two different methods of thinking.As for education, it ought to be about teaching students how to think, not what to "believe". Creationism won't get very far if students know how to think for themselves.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

When I say that everybody agrees about the evidence, I mean that the experiments are reproducible. Everybody who does the experiment will get the same result. If they don't, then somebody has messed up and it's time to figure out who. But in the end, there is agreement about the evidence.That is not the case with the Bible. There are many different translations and many different interpretations of every translation. There is no body of "evidence" that everybody can agree on. In that way, the Bible is completely different from science.I repeat, belief in the Bible is in no way similar to confidence in the body of evidence behind science. It isn't "my" ToE. I haven't even said whether I agree with it or not.I'm simply trying to point out your misunderstanding of the difference between science and religious belief. My first point in this thread was that they are based on two completely different ways of thinking.Science is based on empirical evidence and religion is based on belief. It seems to me that you are claiming that science is based on "faith" in the evidence. It is not. I agree with that. I am trying to make a point that you don't seem to be affected by education, because you keep insisting that science depends on faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

By that logic, Donald Trump ought to have a whole string of Nobel Prizes.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

But you haven't "exposed" anything except your own ignorance of science. That apology doesn't sound very sincere, a mere two sentences after calling them "pompous", "proud" and "know-it-all". And one sentence before calling them "abrasive". I use my share of sarcasm, but only to the person's face, never behind their backs.You might try pondering the impact of your "Christian" witness. (You might also try applying your education to something more productive than railing against science.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If there is any deviation in the results, it must be explained. If one observer gets a slightly different result, then he must be able to explain why it was different. That is what is meant by agreement. But scientific research is a controlled environment. Experiments are specifically set up to control the environment, to reduce the number of variables to a minimum. If there is any minor disagreement in results, it is usually because the environment was not properly controlled. I haven't said one word about the "whys and wherefores". We're talking about the evidence, not the interpretation of the evidence. It is the evidence which is in agreement. Which is it? Do you think science depends on faith or not?Do I accept as true what is said by scientists? Let me give you an analogy:I don't know much about aerodynamics, but there are scientists, engineers and technicians who do know a lot about it. Do I hesitiate to get on an airplane? No. Do I have "faith" that airplanes can fly? No. I have seen airplanes fly. No faith is required.Do I trust that the airplane is properly designed and maintained? Yes. Do I trust that the pilot and the air-traffic controllers are properly trained? Yes.But that trust has nothing to do with "faith". It has to do with what I can see.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2005-12-13 05:20 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Could you translate that into English?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's exactly where your misunderstanding lies.First you talk about a "massive body of evidence for Evolution" and then you talk about opinions. Evidence and opinions are two completely different things.Everybody is entitled to have an opinion on evolution, but nobody is entitled to have an opinion on the evidence. You can't just say, "In my opinion, the earth is a cube". Opinions are worthless if they contradict the evidence. Yes, the experiments are controlled. Worthless opinions have no bearing on the experiments.We are talking about education here. The OP asked:

quote:

---

Do people see a lack of knowledge in science as a possible cause for their inability to understand what evolution truly is?

---

It seems pretty clear that you have a lack of knowledge of what science is, regardless of your education. I said in Message 12 that there seems to be a different thought process involved as well. You are an excellent example of that with your refusal to understand that "belief" is irrelevant to science. No you don't. Take my aerodynamics example again: I never have to "believe" that airplanes can fly because I can see them fly. There is a difference between belief and evidence. But belief is not important from an educational point of view. Evidence is important. NO.You can not "choose whichever evidence you want". You have to look at all of the evidence and choose a conclusion based on all of the evidence.It isn't just semantics. You seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But we're not talking about people who insist that black is white. We're talking about education. And they are wrong. You seem to think that evidence being rejected by some people actually means something. All it means is that they are wrong. But the world does work that way. Airplanes are designed that way. Airplanes are not designed by opinion. Airplanes are not designed by people saying, "I think both wings should be on one side".The people with the "wrong" opinions are a hindrance to the way the world works, not a part of it. It isn't a popularity contest. It doesn't matter one bit if some people reject the evidence. The evidence is still the evidence. Schools have to teach based on the evidence. We are having this discussion because you seem to think everybody with a hare-brained opinion has some significance to education. Education can't consider every hare-brained idea. It can only deal with facts. What people do with the information afterwards - besides using it for practical purposes such as building airplanes - is teach it in the schools. My point is that we can not allow people who reject the evidence to force their unfounded ideas into the schools. Have you been paying no attention at all? I have said since my first post on this thread that there is a completely different way of thinking by creationists. It is not based on evidence, it is based on belief. I have never said that that kind of thinking doesn't exist. I've been trying to tell you that it must be disregarded when it comes to education.Goober down t' the fillin' station is welcome to have whatever opinions he wants, but he is not welcome to poison childrens' minds with them.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC