Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer

quote:

---

Since any theory of evolution eventually boils down to the necessity of abiogenesis, which is impossible, there is only one credible theory left.

---

Really? That's a bit of a staggering leap - they do teach basic science where you are from?

quote:

---

If there were any way of testing the accidental formation of everything theory, then it probably wouldn't be regarded as a theory, would it?

---

Oh dear, they clearly DON'T teach science where you are from. If someone is not regarded as a theory - what does it become?

quote:

---

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when you eliminate the other possibilities the only one left must be the truth.

---

no he never said that at all, Holmes said "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."So have we elimated the impossible? most of the stuff in the bible is impossible so to a christian, the atheist position (which they find improbable) must be correct.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 15:14 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 15:15 AM

now now don't be a dodger - you answer my question and I will then answer your question.You stated:

quote:

---

If there were any way of testing the accidental formation of everything theory, then it probably wouldn't be regarded as a theory, would it?

---

This suggests that if you test a theory and you can prove it, it becomes........So you answer my question and I'll then tackle your.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 15:28 AM

My apologies it seems you did have a stab at answering the question:

quote:

---

If evolution were in fact testable and there actually was evidence of it then it would become a fact.

---

Oh dear, this is very poor, you mention popper in another post, but clearly you don't understand his work or anything that followed it. Do you actually understand what a "fact" is in science?Would you like me to recommend a basic primmer?

quote:

---

Sorry, I guess I stumbled into the wrong forum, I was just wondering why any opposing theory was ridiculed when evolution seems so ridiculous to me. I'll go away now and not question your accepted line of thought. I guess this is what happened when Sir Karl Popper made the mistake of questioning the validity of evolutionary theory. No wonder he recanted.

---

Dear oh dear - you are having a poor day on here. Don't tell us half a story, why don't you tell us why Popper recanted on his viewpoint that evolution was a metaphysical research program?

quote:

---

I actually thought that if something were proven that it would become known as factual. Obviously, I'm way over my head here and I'll go back to the books.

---

Good idea! I think the problem is that you are trying to apply a layman's understanding of terms to science where the means are very different. One of the main problems is the use of the word "fact" in general use people use it to mean "something that is true/proven"; in science, we generally use it to describe something that we have observe on such a repeatable basis that it we all generally agree with what what we see*. The other problem is that we never prove anything in science - we disprove anything. It's not that evolution has been proven to be "true" but rather than it has never been disproved.* and I don't mean just with our eyes, it can cover any number of measurement methods.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 15:46 AM

I'm sorry about that - it's just that when you've been at this site for a long time, it's very difficult hearing the same misunderstandings over and over again.Popper? basically after he made that statement, he looked at evolution in greater details and realised that he had misunderstood it.

quote:

---

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (Dialectica 32:344-346).

---

All very true Ned - however I think that the problem (or rather the point) is that many of use feel hedged (?) in terms of what we outline to some of our creationist chums before we get onto slightly more complex takes.

Are you being obtuse? or do you really not get this?The U.S.A has seperation of Church and State - you cannot use public funds to promote one religion over another.Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

quote:

---

Of course in Europe these kind of things are much worse even. After USA children leave highschool, and get to more private education institutions, the educationlevel of the USA pupil surpasses that of the European in a few years, simply because they actually learn what they want, and not what the government tells them to learn.

---

I too would like to see evidence for this claim - can you explain to me where in the UK system (and the irish for IRH), the govt. tells us what to learn.

Just so we are clear - the UK has no graduation requirement, in fact you just leave when you finish.Between the ages of 14-16, a student will take a number of GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Educations). A number of those are taken by everyone - such as Maths and English* and a few others. The students then pick a number of electives such as ICT, Business Studies, Drama. Generally a student will take between 6-10 of those (depending on the school and the ability of the student).A GCSE is awarded in eight grades from A* to G but in reality people only assign worth to grades between A-C (in terms of employment and further study).Your GCSE grades will determine the A-levels that you can take and the standard of the school that you can get into. Those A-level (taken between 16-18) grades are then used to offer places at university.So if you want to be a doctor - they may want 3 a-levels in X,Y,Z at A (the grading is basically the same as GCSEs).* it's slightly more complex that this but it gives you the idea.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 15 February 2005 18:32 AM