Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missouri Anti-Evolution Bill
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 16 of 50 (173205)
01-02-2005 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joralex
01-02-2005 7:57 PM


Re: Deception disguised as "science"
And Naturalism isn't a "biased religious idea"? Just who do you think you're kidding?
No one, because it isn't. Naturalism in the context I was using it means the idea that science must be done on that which is observable, testable and falsfiable. That is in no way religious.
Yet I don't hear any complaints about the falsehoods being fed to our kids to promote Naturalism/evolution. Why is that?
Because there aren't any. Evolution is one of the best supported theorys out there. It is the best explanation available for how the world works. That is why it belongs in the science classroom. The fact that a very vocal minority doesn't like it for religous reasons is immaterial.
Uh, huh ... and materialistic Naturalists don't want any "greater truth" unless it's their "greater truth" -- that the material universe is...
Again, no. Science wants to know the facts about how the world works and to construct theory to explain the facts. That's all. The prevalant mythology in America has parts that disagree with the findings of science. This offends those who believe in it. Too bad. I'm sorry science bothers them, but I really don't care. The only time I care is when they try and get something other then science in the science classroom.
Another good distiction is that science looks at what is and works from there. Creationists look at what they already "know" and try to support it. Creationism is thus flawed from the get-go.
I'm willing to bet that I know far more creationists (I'm a YEC myself) and I know not a single one that says this and yet you know "lots of them". I find that particularly interesting.
You should find it interesting. The alignment of the creationist movement with the religious and political right is an ominous and troubling development. Beware that bet. You may just loose it.
FYI, the "vast majority" of the foundations of modern science was laid down by people believing in God. To name just two, Isaac Newton and J. C. Maxwell (Maxwell's Equations). Newton's writings in Christian theology far exceed his work in math and physics combined.
Absolutely irrelevant. These men, and other christian scientests right up to today, keep their faith and yet do their work within the standards of science. The personal beliefs of those working in the sciences is irrelevant. Only the product is important.
You're simply lost.
and,
'Clueless' is the only word that comes to mind.
Meaningless drivel that says nothing. I am neither lost nor clueless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joralex, posted 01-02-2005 7:57 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 17 of 50 (173216)
01-03-2005 12:07 AM


This should be easy to get
Its all about showing all the students the different sides to the story of life. What Joralex is trying to say is that we don't want evolution to be taken out of the classroom but instead just add the other side or sides of the story and have them all be taught neutrally by the teacher or instructor. That way students can excersise their right to choose what makes sense to them and what doesn't. Doing this we avoid discriminating one view or the other and the students get a better education because they learn from all the theories. Its as simple as that. Why do you evos have such a big problem with this when you appear to be so confident about your "science". If our views are so stupid why not expose the people at an early age to them so that you guys can fight "ignorance"

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 12:34 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 19 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 12:36 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 25 by Steen, posted 01-03-2005 3:14 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 50 (173220)
01-03-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Itachi Uchiha
01-03-2005 12:07 AM


Re: This should be easy to get
jazzlover_PR writes:
quote:
...we don't want evolution to be taken out of the classroom but instead just add the other side or sides of the story and have them all be taught neutrally by the teacher or instructor.
Depends on what you mean by "neutrally". I think Ned has made the point before, and I tend to agree, that schools should teach things like ID and creationism alongside ToE provided that students are informed of the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence exists to support ToE while virtually no scientific evidence supports ID or creationism. So long as the kids aren't lied to and told that such nonsense is supported by any evidence I would have no objection to dealing with such "theories" in the classrooms.
Any other approach to ID and creationism in a science classroom would constitute lying to the students. We atheists are opposed to lying to school kids in science classrooms. Even when it's for Jesus.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 01-03-2005 12:07 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 12:43 AM berberry has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 19 of 50 (173223)
01-03-2005 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Itachi Uchiha
01-03-2005 12:07 AM


It's extremely easy
jazzlover_PR writes:
quote:
Its all about showing all the students the different sides to the story of life.
But there is no other side. We don't "show all the students the different sides to the story of celestial mechanics," do we? Of course not. The earth goes around the sun, we know it does, we can show that it does, and there is no argument on the subject no matter how much the Flat Earthers may whine.
You seem to have this bizarre notion that simply because you don't agree with something, that automatically means you have a valid objection.
You have a right to your opinion, but you do not have a right to the facts and the facts are that the "story of life" on this planet is one of evolution. There is no other story. There is no question about it. No matter how much the creationists may whine about it, they have no evidence.
Tell you what: Why don't we divide the classroom's time up according to the percentage of journal articles published. If we find that 90% of the articles are based on evolution, 7% are based upon god, and 3% claim some other method, then we will spend 90% of our time on evolution, 7% of our time on god, and 3% of the time mentioning those other methods.
But wait...there aren't any creationist articles published in any of the journals. Surely you aren't going to whine that it's a conspiracy against Christians and creationists, are you?
quote:
What Joralex is trying to say is that we don't want evolution to be taken out of the classroom but instead just add the other side or sides of the story and have them all be taught neutrally by the teacher or instructor.
But when there is no "other side," why do you insist that we must look for one?
We don't teach that 2 + 2 = 5, do we?
We don't teach that there really is a Superman who can defy gravity and fly through force of will, do we?
Of course not. There is no "other side." The only information we have is evolution. Every single experiment, every single datum, every single observation, all have come down in favor of evolution once all the analysis was carried out.
Are you seriously saying that we should make science a popularity contest?
Science is all about discrimination. You discard the stuff that doesn't work and keep the stuff that does. Creationism was found not to work a long time ago and was discarded. Why haven't you figured this out yet? Why are we still fighting a battle that was resolved hundreds of years ago?
It really is as simple as that. Are you seriously saying that if enough people complain that two and two really equal five, we ought to adjust our curriculum to accomodate them?
quote:
Why do you evos have such a big problem with this when you appear to be so confident about your "science".
Because when somebody insults you, it is a problem.
The claim that there is "another side" to the field of biology is an insult.
quote:
If our views are so stupid why not expose the people at an early age to them so that you guys can fight "ignorance"
Because we don't have time to go through every single wrong example. Science history is a wonderful thing, but the main point of a science classroom is to teach you actual science as we understand it to work right here and now.
Why do you want us to waste time debunking creationism when we could spend that time more productively showing the students just how far-reaching evolution is?
The more time we spend arguing over something for which there is no argument, the less time we have to spend on actually learning science.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 01-03-2005 12:07 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 12:52 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 50 (173225)
01-03-2005 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by berberry
01-03-2005 12:34 AM


Re: This should be easy to get
berberry writes:
quote:
schools should teach things like ID and creationism alongside ToE provided that students are informed of the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence exists to support ToE while virtually no scientific evidence supports ID or creationism.
We don't do this with any other field of science. Why are we picking on evolution?
We teach students that Aristotle was wrong in his idea that objects in motion tend to come to rest.
We teach students that the 19th century people were wrong in their ideas of "spontaneous generation."
We teach students that Ptolemy was wrong in his claim that the earth was the center of the universe.
Why on earth would we suddenly treat creationists with kid gloves? It would only lead people to believe that we don't really think they're wrong, that we can't actually prove them wrong, that they actually just might have something.
The only neutral approach to creationists is to put them through the same ringer of peer review that we demand of everyone else. And if they can't live up to that standard, then they are ignored until such time that they can.
Science is not fair. There is no such thing as "equal time." There is no justice. It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can prove.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 12:34 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 12:56 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 23 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 1:02 AM Rrhain has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 50 (173226)
01-03-2005 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Rrhain
01-03-2005 12:36 AM


Re: It's extremely easy
Rrhain writes:
quote:
Because we don't have time to go through every single wrong example. Science history is a wonderful thing, but the main point of a science classroom is to teach you actual science as we understand it to work right here and now.
No, we don't have time to go through every single wrong example, but I should think that some time could be set aside in science class to help kids learn to debunk shady science notions themselves. Prevailing contemporary "theories" like ID could be used as examples.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 12:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 3:15 AM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 50 (173227)
01-03-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
01-03-2005 12:43 AM


Re: This should be easy to get
Rrhain asks me:
quote:
We don't do this with any other field of science. Why are we picking on evolution?
Because kids aren't as likely to encounter wacky ideas about other fields of science outside the classroom. What's more, they aren't as likely to encounter wacky ideas that are taken seriously by large numbers of people.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 12:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 3:39 AM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 50 (173229)
01-03-2005 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
01-03-2005 12:43 AM


Re: This should be easy to get
Sorry, Rrhain, I missed this comment from you:
quote:
The only neutral approach to creationists is to put them through the same ringer of peer review that we demand of everyone else.
That's more or less what I'm saying. Let's do it as a group, in the classroom.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 12:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 3:48 AM berberry has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 50 (173262)
01-03-2005 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joralex
01-02-2005 7:57 PM


Re: Deception disguised as "science"
quote:
FYI, the "vast majority" of the foundations of modern science was laid down by people believing in God. To name just two, Isaac Newton and J. C. Maxwell (Maxwell's Equations). Newton's writings in Christian theology far exceed his work in math and physics combined.
And?... You are not going to claim that those who accept the science of the Scientific theory of Evolution are somehow atheists or against God, are you? because that would be a lie.
So exactly what is the relevance of whether people believe or not? Evolution is not about whether the person has religious faith or not; it is solely about the data, regardless of people's professed faith.
So please drop the red herrings and deal with the issue, thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joralex, posted 01-02-2005 7:57 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 50 (173267)
01-03-2005 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Itachi Uchiha
01-03-2005 12:07 AM


Teaching science is not about the most "popular" argument.
quote:
Its all about showing all the students the different sides to the story of life.
No, it is about teaching them science; about teaching them factual data.
quote:
What Joralex is trying to say is that we don't want evolution to be taken out of the classroom but instead just add the other side or sides of the story and have them all be taught neutrally by the teacher or instructor.
There is no "other side." Science is not about popular opinions; it is about the scientific data. And per the science, evolution is the model that best explains the biosphere. On the other hand, there is no scientific evidence that supports either creationism or ID. So if you want that taught in school, then it needs to be done in some class other than science class.
quote:
That way students can excersise their right to choose what makes sense to them and what doesn't.
Ah, yes. They can chose between scientific chemistry and "earth, fire, water and air."
They can chose between scientific evolution and "god did it because the Bible says so."
They can chose between scientific gravity and "an angel sits on your shoulder and flaps the wings so you don't fall off the planet."
They can chose between scientific geology and "the Earth is flat."
Nice going there. Where did you get the warped idea that FACTS somehow were subject to faith or religious beliefs? Is math next? Is 5+2 = 7 or is 5 bread and 2 fish = infinite amount? Since when is factual information based on what the students prefer the answer to be?
quote:
Doing this we avoid discriminating one view or the other and the students get a better education because they learn from all the theories.
Yes, I agree. All SCIENTIFIC Theories should be taught in Science class.
Oh, wait. As creationism and ID have not been evaluated and confirmed through the application of the Scientific Method, they are not Scientific Theories, and as such they are completely irrelevant to your talk about "theories" (By which I hope you mean Scientific Theories, right? I sure hope you know the difference).
quote:
Its as simple as that.
As that science is science, and that creationism and ID are not and therefore have no place in a Science class anyway? Yes, it is as simple as that.
quote:
Why do you evos have such a big problem with this when you appear to be so confident about your "science".
Oh, in quotation marks and everything. Aren't you are trying to say that a Scientific Theory generated through the application of the Scientific Method is invalid? It sure looks like that is what you are saying here. Either that is based on extreme ignorance as you are also saying that all other Scientific Theories are invalid, or you just didn't have a clue about how science worked in the first place, which is at least as distrubing for somebody who want to speak out against a Scientific Theory because it means that your opposition is not based on the Scientific Theory, but solely on your perception that it somehow is against what you have already decided is wrong, regardles sof the evidence.
So either you are ignorant or you are merely dogmatic fundamentalist. Which is it?
quote:
If our views are so stupid why not expose the people at an early age to them so that you guys can fight "ignorance"
Why should we teach lies to kids? That is essentially child abuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 01-03-2005 12:07 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 50 (173268)
01-03-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by berberry
01-03-2005 12:52 AM


Re: It's extremely easy
berberry responds to me:
quote:
I should think that some time could be set aside in science class to help kids learn to debunk shady science notions themselves.
We already do. It's called teaching them the scientific method. But again, that isn't really the point of a science class. That's the point of a logic class. You should already have these skills before you make it to a full-fledged, bunsen burners and test tubes, air rail and wave machine laboratory class.
And given the consumer culture we live in, I'd say that teaching them how to debunk shoddy science should start with those stupid commercials trying to get you to take herbal this and herbal that as if any of those things actually do anything. Creationism may be an insult to the intelligence, but unless you get hoodwinked into sending the ICR a donation, it isn't going to raid your pocketbook. Spending hundreds of dollars on crap that doesn't do anything is an actual drain on people's finances.
quote:
Prevailing contemporary "theories" like ID could be used as examples.
But then you'd have to eventually say that somebody's vision of god is wrong and you'd never get past the lawsuit. Personally, I should think the various religious nuts who are so upset over the lack of any other theory being taught should be on their knees, kissing our feet, and praising us to high heaven for treating them so nicely. We had the good sense to simply ignore their claims rather than actually turning out attentions on them and dismantling them piece, by agonizing piece.
The reason why we can get away with it when it comes to Ptolemy and Aristotle and "spontaneous generation" and the "luminiferous aether" is because there are very few people in this day and age who could raise a stink about being told that they're wrong and no, they don't really get to have any more say about it, please go away. But with evolution, we understand that there are enough people who can scam enough other people to howl like they were being a colonoscopy without anesthesia by pointing out the same thing. They have the right to their opinion but not to their facts. Therefore, we'll just concentrate on the facts, see where they lead, and just make no mention of any other foolish mewlings out of respect.
We are trying to be polite by not discussing the matter. They haven't taken the hint.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 12:52 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 3:35 AM Rrhain has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 50 (173273)
01-03-2005 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
01-03-2005 3:15 AM


Re: It's extremely easy
Rrhain writes me:
quote:
That's the point of a logic class. You should already have these skills before you make it to a full-fledged, bunsen burners and test tubes, air rail and wave machine laboratory class.
Absolutely, but that's an ideal. My high school didn't have logic classes. The closest thing I had to any kind of instruction in critical thinking during high school would have probably been senior lit, where my teacher was well versed in textual criticism and taught us quite a bit about it during our segment on 'Hamlet'. I don't remember learning anything that would have prepared me for the kind of lunatic "science" theories we discuss here at evc.
quote:
But then you'd have to eventually say that somebody's vision of god is wrong and you'd never get past the lawsuit.
I see your point and must admit that I hadn't thought of it. But what is a right-minded science teacher to do if he or she is required by law to teach ID as a competing theory to evolution? Is there anything in these laws to prevent him or her from teaching the "theory", then teaching how to shoot it down (doing so in the process)?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 3:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2005 3:56 AM berberry has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 28 of 50 (173277)
01-03-2005 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by berberry
01-03-2005 12:56 AM


berberry responds to me:
quote:
quote:
We don't do this with any other field of science. Why are we picking on evolution?
Because kids aren't as likely to encounter wacky ideas about other fields of science outside the classroom. What's more, they aren't as likely to encounter wacky ideas that are taken seriously by large numbers of people.
Oh, really?
It's a common enough opinion that the oil companies have suppressed automobile engines that get 100 miles to the gallon in order to maintain their oil profits. It's a common enough opinion that aliens have come and visited earth. That they helped the Egyptians build the pyramids. That the government is suppressing anti-gravity technology (again, to keep the oil companies happy). And so on and so forth. All of these are quickly discarded with a thorough understanding of kinematics, thermodynamics, and astronomy (and not very difficult bits of physics, at that), but we have utterly failed our children in this manner.
How many of you were required to take a high-school level, college-prep course in Physics? I certainly wasn't and I was on the college track for a degree in Mathematics. You only needed two semesters of a science course in order to graduate and most people took the "easy A" Earth Science course. People simply aren't taught this stuff. It's "hard" and you have to "think."
You really think people would be buying "Cortaslim" if they actually knew what cortisol was? After hearing the sales pitch that it "just sucks it all up"?
I know someone who went to a "holistic healer" who did the ridiculous claim of making him hold vials with nothing in them but the "essence" of various things and found out he was allergic to serotonin. Serotonin! One of the primary neurotransmitters which is apparently involved in regulating mood. Low levels of serotonin are connected to depression which is why the SRIs ("serotonin reuptake inhibitors") like Paxil and Zoloft actually work when treating depression. And here's someone telling him he's allergic to his own brain! And he's not a stupid person, but how do you get past that?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 12:56 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 3:59 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 50 (173279)
01-03-2005 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by berberry
01-03-2005 1:02 AM


Re: This should be easy to get
berberry responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The only neutral approach to creationists is to put them through the same ringer of peer review that we demand of everyone else.
That's more or less what I'm saying. Let's do it as a group, in the classroom.
But we don't do that with any other field of science. Why are we picking on evolution? A high school science class is not the place to analyze journal articles. They are typically so advanced and specific that there would be no hope in trying to get through them. And since there is no mention of ID or any other variation on creationism anywhere to be found in the journals, what sort of "discussion" were you planning on having?
Instead, you do the same thing with biology that you do with physics and chemistry: You get in the lab and run experiments. You teach them the equations and make them do their homework. There are simple experiments that can be done in the bio lab that show evolution happening right in front of your eyes. Forget the dissection experiments. There's very little point to them since very few of the students are ever going to need to dissect anything in their lives and anatomy can be taught with pictures. Why not show them something more useful that shows them the big picture of the history of life?
Time for the field trip to the museum of natural science in order to see the actual bones that have been found. Make them take careful study of the bones and see if they can figure out how they ought to be ordered. Make them tell you why they come in that order and not some other order.
Why waste time on crap that doesn't even have a shred of evidence to justify itself? At least with the geocentric universe, you can understand why someone might think it to be true. But when you show people how massive the force of gravity is, make them run the pendulum experiment which proves the earth really is rotating, show them the impossibily complex calculations that become frighteningly easy when you switch from the earth to the sun, and they come around.
What possible observation is there that the diversification of life was "designed"?
Which immediately raises the question: And who is this designer, anyway?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by berberry, posted 01-03-2005 1:02 AM berberry has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 50 (173281)
01-03-2005 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joralex
01-02-2005 7:57 PM


Joralex writes:
quote:
people believing in God. To name just two, Isaac Newton
You're not really claiming Newton as a wonderful Christian, are you?
Hie thee to a library and start reading up on your hero, Newton. Brilliant man. Complete whackjob. If he hadn't been so emminent and had his physics not been so bloody accurate and useful, he would have been locked up and excommunicated for heresy.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joralex, posted 01-02-2005 7:57 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024