Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2017 6:35 AM
407 online now:
Faith, Pressie, RAZD, superuniverse, Tangle (5 members, 402 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,186 Year: 16,792/21,208 Month: 2,681/3,593 Week: 148/646 Day: 26/62 Hour: 2/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
363738
39
4041Next
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 571 of 609 (612243)
04-14-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 562 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:46 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
You know that is not the origination source of which i speak.

Right. I use science and have found that the origin of shared DNA between humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. You use religion and find that it was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity. Two different methods. Guess which one is appropriate for science class?

After all your bantering and bluster it ends up that order and law are to design what, change and NS are to soley natural causes, scientific approaches that should both be taught

The difference being that I can form hypotheses based on natural selection and evolution that can then be tested through experimentation. Not so with order and law. Therefore, evolution is scientific while design is not.

Come on taq give me something hard.

I did. Show me a creationist who uses phylogenetic analyses of orthologous ERV's shared between humans and other apes as a method for demonstrating design.

All any creations or IDst 9scientist, biologist)would need to do in this instance is show the biological orderliness of these primates that produces order and purpose in the form of a monkey, to demonstrate design

Then use a phylogenetic analysis to do just that.

Do the mechanisms you describe above operate in an orderly and consistent fashion, when you are conducting your experiments? Or or they chaotic and eratic? Which one?

You tell me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 572 of 609 (612244)
04-14-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:28 PM


Re: New header (finally)
I believe it was Einstien that said God was the laws of the universe correct? Is that peer enough for you?

Is that a testable hypothesis? No. Try again.

Would you say that there were enough peer reviewed papers to indicate that there is order and lawin the universe?

You tell me. Also show how order and law are the products of design through testable hypotheses found in the peer reviewed literature.

Desgn is a conclusion of the available evidence, like "soley natural causes" is a result of, science and evo, correct?

Both are philosophical conclusions, not scientific conclusions. Science does not assume ontological naturalism. Science is methodological naturalism. Please learn the difference.

order and law carry as much weight as change and evo, for any conclusions in the science classroom, as science and to any conclusions concerning the existence of things Yet you teach it in the classroom, why not the other, when they are both scientifically derived

You have yet to show an experiment which demonstrates that the order and law seen in the universe is the product of design. Still waiting for that.

taq reqesting something from me that I dont think is necessary to begin with, is just silly.

Scientists do think that testable hypotheses and empirical data produced in experiments are important. It is required of any theory that is to be taught in high school science class. Every time you argue against this you demonstrate why ID/Creationism is not fit for science class.

Science, real science was around long before any peer reviewed papers were required. it was called observation, experimentation and conclusions, correct?

Where are the experiments you speak of? Where are the hypotheses?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:28 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 573 of 609 (612245)
04-14-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 7:13 PM


Re: New header (finally)
And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen.

Can you point us to a peer reviewed scientific article where it was presented accurately? If not, then why should a supposed theory with zero published research to back it be a part of a high school science class curriculum?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 7:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 574 of 609 (612246)
04-14-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:55 PM


Re: New header (finally)
the've complicated what science actually is,

We are not the ones arguing that science does not require testable hypotheses or testing through experiments. That would be you. You have gutted the scientific method to the point of uselessness in order to force your religious beliefs into science class.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 575 of 609 (612305)
04-14-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 8:02 PM


Re: New header (finally)
michael behe didn't present ID accurately?

okay.

how would you have presented it? as creationism? that would have ended that trial a whole lot faster.

It will take some time to get to posts 567 thru 574, thats alot of info and i really dont want to miss anything. I thank Percy or whoever for thier indulgence in this connection

A one on one would really help, but this is good as well.

Now to answer your question

Behe is not an apologist, he is a scientist. He presented a case for the detail in the biological world in that connection and did a very good job.

However, that setting and those participants were not condusive to represent a formal type debate. Lawyers hardly qualify as apologists. the right questions were not asked, probed and sustained, like they would have been by a true apologist,

as is indicated by your misunderstanding here that ID is something different than Creationism, they are not.

That simple clarification would have cleared up much But one needs to cut through all the evolutionists smokescreens and misrepresentations to get to the real truth

As in this present discussion, ID takes on a whole different perspective, because the right questioned are asked an answered

Over involved specification and complicated explanations, (on both sides) in my view blocked the understanding of the judge. Were it presented simply, as it is simple, results could have been different.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:02 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2011 5:19 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 580 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 5:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 576 of 609 (612306)
04-14-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by frako
04-14-2011 7:29 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
If one would see a fully "designed" animal pop in to existence from nothing or mud or whatever other impossible substance. that would cast serius doubt on evolution.

true but you are looking at ID and creationism from a relifious perspective. it first must be established that creo and ID are religious and not science. This is why the trial was a failure. It cannot be established that ID is nothing less than a scientific investigation to begin with.

it is a simple matter of empericism and rationalisn, a look at the nature world with the natural mind. Sorry thats science

What would negate design or creation???

The samething that would negate what you explained about evo above. You would need to demonstrate that in the laws of nature complex order is not present. You could not do this anymore than Icould demonstrate change has not taken place

But initially you would need to demomstrate that my process was not science, how in the world could you do this, when I am following the same investgative process any human would. Starting to see why the trial was failure?

No they dont
Scientist:" i wonder how all this life came heare and how it got so diverse?"
Creo/ider:" I wonder how i can prove god with life, or at least get the bible back in to schools"
Scientist" well let me take a closer look at life"
Creo/ider:" well let me take a closer look at the bible"
Scientist" hmm all animals look like they are related, some have small diferences, some have larger ones but you still can see the resemblance
Creo/idist: the bible says god made all the animals well thats that let me put this in to the schools
Scientist: well lets try to form a hypothesis gradual change over time produced the variety of life we see today
creo/idist:" well lets brodcast our findings allover the country call it science and make people believe"
Scientist: Well lets test the hypothesis lets dig for fossils, do experiments on speciation, compare genomes of animals, look at how mutations acure, look if the time line allows for this process, construct a " tree of life" to see if all animals actualy are related, compare that tree of life to others constructed on dna, bone, and other observations ................ ......... ......... ...... ...... ....
Creationist/ider: lets invent some numbers and ideas out of the blue to give our claim credibility and debunk everything else
Scientist:" well all the testing i have done and all the observations fit perfectly, doing my best i could not disprove my hypothesis now its time for other scientists to look at my idea and try to poke holes in it and see if i am wrong"
Creo/ider:" i know i am right i dont need no stinking godless scientists to challenge my idea"
Scientist: well that went well none of them could disprove my theory they tried as hard as they could did the experiments themselves desighned new experiments and none of the experiments disproved evolution only granted it more suport in time this theory should be widely excepted as a model that best represents reality with the data availible
Creo/idist:" scientist have to except my idea because i KNOW i am right, il broadcast it on every channel and the people will decide il sue them in court because it is only fair to teach my "theory" (word used by none scientist to describe a wild guess) besides their theory (word used by scientists for a model that accurately describes reality given the data available). Il scream evolution is only a theory millions of times, il have experts who do not know shit about evolution talk to the people of how improbable it is, il make up stuff how evolution leads to killing people, make it synonym with communism and Nazism, tell believers that if they believe in evolution they will go to HELL ...............

None of this is true its not even my position, nor is it logical
The trial started and ended with a misguided view of creationism and ID. No thinking person, epecially a judge would make a conclusion, that ID is not science, unless he started with the idea it was religious to begin with
Change is to evolution and soley natural causes, what law and complex order is to ID, there both simple investigative process to provide possible explanations of the natural world.
The outcome would have been different had it been argued accurately from an apologists position

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 7:29 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 4:49 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 579 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2699
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 577 of 609 (612307)
04-14-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Dawn Bertot
04-14-2011 4:37 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
It cannot be established that ID is nothing less than a scientific investigation to begin with.

We have established that ID is not science on NUMEROUS occasions, A freeing supreme court judge ruled ID IS NOT science. Sreaming in to the air ID is science will not make it so. Sorry ID is not science no mattar how many times you say it is it is still not science period.

The outcome would have been different had it been argued accurately from an apologists position

No the outcome would have been different if ID actually was science. It is not even close to what science is.

and if you realy think lots of scientists reject evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&NR=1

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-14-2011 4:37 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:43 AM frako has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2799
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 578 of 609 (612310)
04-14-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Dawn Bertot
04-14-2011 4:31 PM


Re: New header (finally)
as is indicated by your misunderstanding here that ID is something different than Creationism, they are not.

Thank you for confirming what we already know and have been saying all along: ID is not something different from creationism; they are the same thing.

And that is exactly what Judge Jones found in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (emphasis added):

quote:
  • For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

  • A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

  • The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

  • The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

  • Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not teaching ID but instead is merely making students aware of it. In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

  • After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

  • [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 8687)

  • ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

  • Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)



Neither ID nor creationism are science and both are religious in nature. Even the American Academy of Religion* in its April 2010 Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K-12 Public Schools in the United States (follow that link for the PDF of that document) agrees (page 21, emphasis in the original):
quote:
Can creation science or intelligent design be taught in schools?

Yes, but not in science classes. Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.


{* FOOTNOTE:
The American Academy of Religion is a learned society and professional association of teachers and research scholars, with over 10,000 members who teach in over 1000 colleges, universities, seminaries, and schools in North America and abroad. The Academy is dedicated to furthering knowledge of religion and religious institutions in all their forms and manifestations.}

However, that setting and those participants were not condusive to represent a formal type debate. Lawyers hardly qualify as apologists. the right questions were not asked, probed and sustained, like they would have been by a true apologist,

"a formal type debate"? As in one of your snake-oil travesties? At least the courtroom would not allow the gross dishonesty practiced by creationists and IDists in their "formal debates", thus giving the truth a chance to be heard.

And "apologist"? Apologetics is a religious endeavor, is it not? If ID and creationism are truly science as you claim them to be, why not simply produce the evidence that they are? The body of IDist and creationist research and extensive peer-reviewed literature produced therefrom would immediately demonstrate . . . oh yeah, that's right, there is none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-14-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:45 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 579 of 609 (612311)
04-14-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Dawn Bertot
04-14-2011 4:37 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Change is to evolution and soley natural causes, what law and complex order is to ID, there both simple investigative process to provide possible explanations of the natural world.

Law and complex order are not processes. They are not investigations. They are undefined words you use to describe reality without any way to measure them or test them.

Change in genomes is measurable. On top of that, changes in genomes can prove or disprove evolution. If the changes do not fall into a nested hierarchy then evolution is disproved.

So what observations of law and complex order would disprove design? What is the null hypothesis in ID, and how does one design and experiment to test it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-14-2011 4:37 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:54 AM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 580 of 609 (612312)
04-14-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Dawn Bertot
04-14-2011 4:31 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Behe is not an apologist, he is a scientist.

Then please point to the peer reviewed papers where Behe has published his scientific work, and show us how it tests ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-14-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 581 of 609 (612379)
04-15-2011 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by Son
04-12-2011 3:46 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
Son writes:

Robert, do you actually want to scrap all schools? Do you really want to destroy education so everyone is equally ignorant? It may be your purpose but surely even you can understand why the state would be opposed to that. If it wasn't for education, you wouldn't even have the computer to type this on (remember that you can't make much if you teach 2+2=5).

Our purpose is to demand and allow the truth and the search for tryth in public institutions of learning.
This makes a intelligent populace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Son, posted 04-12-2011 3:46 AM Son has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by Son, posted 04-15-2011 4:14 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 589 by jar, posted 04-15-2011 9:54 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 592 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 10:57 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 595 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2011 3:04 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 582 of 609 (612380)
04-15-2011 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2011 4:01 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that.
To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false.

Why yes. Just as by use of maps based on a spherical earth rather than a flat one the state (at least tacitly) expresses an official opinion on the religious doctrines of flat-Earth sects.

And the state has every right to do this, as the law affirms. Because there is a secular purpose in the state so doing.

How many times do you need this explaining to you?

i'm saying they are breaking the very law they invoke for the censorship!
The secular purpose for discussion and investigation of origins is the truth.
In banning creationism its a official state opinion its , and the bible etc, NOT TRUE.
No way around it. The law is a fraud of invention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 4:01 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2011 10:10 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 583 of 609 (612382)
04-15-2011 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Taq
04-12-2011 11:06 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
Taq writes:

In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.

False. We are not talking about Truth Class. We are talking about Science Class. They teach the science dealing with how species change over time. Nowhere in the curriculum do they state that religious doctrines are false. Nowhere have you shown that creationism qualifies as science. Only creationists are claiming that evolution indicates that religious doctrines are false.

in fact its really conclusion class. Science is just a process they say lead to their conclusions.
Anyways the law is saying creationism is illegal and thats the point here being contended.
Dump this fraud law and then make your case to the people creationism should not be in science/conclusion on origins class.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 11:06 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by frako, posted 04-15-2011 4:57 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 584 of 609 (612385)
04-15-2011 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Jon
04-12-2011 11:37 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
if religious matters didn't matter in the classroom then the state would not teach them as being false or ban them.
It bans creationism because it does matter. The claim is that the church and state must not interfere with each other.
Yet the state is doing just that by teaching ideas contrary to the church. tHen banning a reply pushes all the more this as a official state opinion on religious ideas.
you can't beat the logic here.
Your not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Jon, posted 04-12-2011 11:37 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by Jon, posted 04-15-2011 4:34 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 591 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 10:56 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 597 by bluescat48, posted 04-16-2011 1:20 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 585 of 609 (612390)
04-15-2011 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Jon
04-12-2011 12:50 PM


Re: An Argument For?
Jon writes:

I went back to look over Mr. Byers's previous posts; I was curious to see what his arguments for Creationism in the classroom were. Unfortunately, all I found were a lot of arguments against evolution, but none that were for Creationism, as the topic of the thread requires.

I find this whole debate about whether teaching evolution is constitutional or not quite irrelevant, then, to the topic. Even if Byers is correct, and evolution cannot be taught on grounds that it violates the Constitution, how is this justification for teaching Creationism?

If we get rid of evolution, why should we fill its place with Creationism? What does Creationism have to offer the science class? How would teaching creationism avoid the 'problems' that teaching evolution supposedly creates?

Mr. Byers: What is your argument for Creationism?

I'm giving a package deal here.
My great insistence is that the founding Yankee and southern Puritan and Protestant population who gave the constitution legitimacy and so its force NEVER intended anything to ban God or Genesis in schools as the truth or options for truth on points of origin.
HOGWASH.
Origins, or schools, or state and school were not in any way a part of those peoples lives.
There is no constitutional prohibition of ideas on origins from any direction.
Therefore its up to the people through the legislature to decide.
Thats self government, freedom, and common sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Jon, posted 04-12-2011 12:50 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 10:52 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 593 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2011 3:00 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
363738
39
4041Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017