Education

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?

Well, no.Evolution does not make predictions about how many fossils will be found at all. Nor does it make a prediction on how many 'transtional' fossils are there. You seem to be under the misconception that things are sudden. When there are splits in species, the two species are originally very hard to tell apart. It is only through genetic isolation from each other, and many generations that distinguishing features can be seen. If you couple this with the fact fossilization is quite rare, you won't get any predictions on how many fossils would be found. What IS predicted is that there will a 'morphing' of certain features of the fossils as different attributes get selected for.It is the fossils that were part of the evidence that gave rise to the idea there was evolution (Before Darwin btw). The theory of evolution has given some predictions to the shape of fossils vs their age.. and predicts that there won't be any drastic changes, bur rather gradual changes in existing structures. It does not make a prediction on the numbers of fossils.For example.. the concept that there would be small changes and morphology vs age was developed before the whale fossils were discovered. When the fossils were found, the pattern of small changes adding up through the different ages being accumulative was confirmed with the observation of the whale skeletons vs the age of the skeletons. The same can be observed about horse evolution too.Here is an article about whale evolution The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent EvidenceAnd here is an article about Horse evolution
Horse Evolution

Greetings all,

quote:

---

Since Haeckel's drawings were generally used as one of the main evidences for evolution, despite being false, for 125 years,
  —randman

---

randman really believes this.
Even though it's nonsense.
Even after being told so many times.
Is there any realistic chance of progress at all?IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 12-12-2005 09:27 AM

I am afraid that you have taken me out of context. If you read the message you have replied to it is in quotation marks as I was quoting Randmans reply. I was using it to illustrate the fact that creationists always seem to demand rigorous evidence in support of the slightest comment about,..well anything really, I on the other hand am clearly not as educated as most of those of you who post here. I'm in it for a matter of personal interest as to why people believe in what they believe, whether scientists or christians.However I do know what you mean about time, and I think it is a fundamental problem for Creationists and ID ers. But of course they don't accept the earth is billions of years old and that that is the key to the whole question of where life comes from. It is a vast and unimaginable amount of time within which the amazing variety and complexity of life that exists on this planet has been able to develop. And I know ther is quite a body of evidence to support evolution other than fossils. And I know it is not a sudden thing/happening, it is an incredibly gradual process that happened over thousands of generations.So I hope that clears that up...This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 09:45 AM

Tsk tsk, Rand. How quickly we forget...And how quickly you mischaracterize even quotes you paste directly above your own paraphrasing.As you don't read what follows, keep in mind that I specified "acceptance of the Big Bang theory" as something you critiqued as conspiratorial and atheistic, not the theory itself.In the exchange below, you embrace your usual conspiracy theory of evolutionists as intellectually dishonest folk who intentionally use fraudulent evidence and switch their views on cosmosgyny, and their position on the logical problem of a First Mover, in order to serve their grander alliance of god-scoffing.I'll stand by my remarks as a fair summary of your position, here and elsewhere, concerning evolutionists, atheists, conspiracies, and the sinister motivations behind changing scientific theories. Your assertion:
My reply:
Your repetition.
My reply:
So, once again, you have declared that "god-scoffers" have conspired, across decades--and even generations--using evidential fraud and intellectual dishonesty to further their god-scoffing ends.Now, as I recall, you expended considerable time and energy defending those "enhanced" dinosaur petroglyph photographs as reasonable and persuasive, not just interesting. Let's go take a look shall we?See ya later.

Vertebrate embryology is irrelevant to the bulk of evolutonary evidence, because the majority of species are not vertebrate. So, as proven by the very distribution of life itself, Haekel's drawings could never be one of "the main evidences for evolution."You're obsessed with Haekel because it provides a flimsy, token justification for doing exactly what your insane ideology commands you to do - reject one of the best-supported theory ever developed by science. Haekel's drawings have nothing to do with evolution except perhaps as a historical footnote. I've just proved it.

Right, but they're demonstratably wrong. Why would I need the "complete picture" to know that creationists are hopelessly and terminally wrong? Here's a hint - you don't need every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to know what its a picture of.

schrafinator asked me..."Does that mean we cannot ever make a determination about anything at all?"..in reference to scientific evidence. Well maybe in a literal sense, no because we will always discover other things, but obviously as far as showing how things work and the theories to explain them, then we have to come to a conclusion at some point about something.You said"Science never makes concrete conclusions. They are always able to be corrected and refined"..and I am agreeing with you on that.As to whether a religious based belief in the Earth being the centre of the universe, well that is a matter of belief that someone may hold, and to that someone it is valid. Does that Bible say that? I'm not sure, but if it does it convinces me even more about how odd it is that educated intelligent people can take it as a literal history of the world.Let me say this though, I believe in observable phenomena, something that if I had the time and/or money, I could study myself and make my own conclusions, and if you can't say that you could do that for the things you wish to believe in, then you are on dodgy ground.

But the creationists are only "hoplessly and terminally wrong", if God doesn't exist. If he does then you are wrong. The fact remains that you don't know for certain that he doesn't exist. You just don't believe that he does."Demonstrably wrong"?... doesn't matter if you believe enough. You can tell them over an over and make point after point, but if they believe in the bible, which many here clearly do then it won't make a difference what you say.As I said in relation to the original point of the thread, Education doesn't matter. It's to do with upbringing and culture, most people will believe in what they have been brought up as, and all the knowledge in the world won't matter if it conflicts with their religious doctrine. And until you have a complete picture with undeniable proof, you will still have to argue the toss with them. Probably won't matter even then.You don't need a complete picture, I don't either, but many do, and the bible/koran/torah etc DO provide a complete picture because they explain everything to their adherants. Thats the beauty of a god, thats why so many people follow them, that's why we invented them.ps Here's a hint, you don't have to be so patronizing to make a point.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 11:29 AM

Not true... unless you say that god is a deceiver god that makes the evidence LOOK like something else.The YEC are demonstratively wrong about the age of teh earth, on the insistance there was a global flood, and on much that has been discovered about biology, geology, and physics.The OEC's that attack evolution can be shown to be demonstraviely wrong on the many of the basis's that they do attack evolution on.They are demonstraviely wrong about dino tracks and human tracks being side by side in pauluxy.When it comes to I.D., they are demonstraively wrong when it comes to things being 'irreducably complex', and on the 'information and complexity'.The OEC's can not be demonstraively wrong.. but then again, many if not most of them will accept evolution in some form or another. They
just feel that God had a direct hand into how evolution works. That
belief is not testable though.

I have many a friend who believe in literal creationism or a variety therof. It is interesting to note their beliefs in conjunction with their level of education or specifically science education. Without naming names I'll list the people I personally know and their levels of education.Creationist 1 - High school with some community college. Thinks platapus disproves evolution. Stunned when shown that there are other mammals that lay eggs too!Creationist 2 - Die Hard YEC. Dropped out half way through a degree in engineering.Creationist 3 - Degree in elementary education late in life. Thinks of evolution in the 'hopeful monster' sense.Psudo-Creationist 4 - This one for me is weird because this person seemed very much a creationist at first. Once we got into discussion though he seemed to get very skeptical of the usual suspects like Hovind and the like. I take his stance to now be highly critical of creation science but hopefull of ID. He has his advanced degree in engineering.Creationist 5 - Seemingly in support of creation but avoids discussion. Doesn't think it is important to religion or education. Degree in communications and foreign language.Creationist 6 - Same as above with degrees in business and elementary education.Creationist 7 - Newly saved. Degree in statistics. No research on the topic. Focus on ID not creation science. Only repeats what he hears at his new church.Evolutionist 1 - (myself) - Degree in computer science with focus on mathematics and a hearty interest in basic geology/biology. Pursuing an advanced degree in mathematics.Evolutionist 2 - Pursuing PHD in mathematics, Masters and bachelors in mathematics, minored in computer science.Evolutionist 3 - Pursuing a masters in history. Bachelors in history.Evolutionist 4 - Masters and bachelors in Speech and Hearing Sciences.Evolutionist 5 - Degree in Philosophy (theory of knowledge), minor in CS. Pursuing masters in CS.Evolutionist 6 - Degree in Computer Science pursuing a masters in Comp
Bio.Evolutionist 7 - Pursuing PHD in CS, Masters and Bachelors in CS.Evolutionist 8 - Masters and Bachelors in CS.Evolutionist 9 - Pursing Masters in CS after Bachelors.So for the creationists I know that I can think of at the moment there are 7 with 5 degrees 1 in science and he is on the fence.For the evolutionists I know all have degrees most have advanced degrees or are pursuing them. 7 out of 9 are in science and the two that are not are history and philosophy.I should note that this is based on my impression of their position based on personal discussion or relationship with them. The population of people is limited to the people I know who I have discussed the EvC issue with.For me it seems to also dispel the myth that engineers are more likely to believe in creation science than other science types.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

No.It is unrealistic to expect the entire population to fully understand the theory of evolution. For most people it should suffice that they have a broad overview, and that they have some respect for the scientific community.The problem is a willful dogmatic rejection of science. This rejection is done with enormous hypocrisy, with those who reject science still feasting on the benefits it has brought to them. I don't know of any, but they probably exist. But such studies can only show correlation. They cannot demonstrate cause. I'm all for improving science education. But that would be no panacea. It is possible for people reasonably well educated in science, to nevertheless reject that science. See Message 1 as one example.

What's not true?

Please, how can one possibly lack knowledge of science when he/she possesses higher (science) education? I.e., I'm a physician and eschew pseudo-science (hyper-Newtonian theories of evolution, oversimplified quantum-quark theories, ad-hoc inflationary-big-bang theories of the cosmos). You want to be paid for deceiving people? I view that as bigoted science-cloke of vanity. Moreover, the opposite seems true: Lack of quantum study and relatavistic study has blinded the poor hyper-Newtonian thinker(s) into flawed understanding(s) of cosmogeny. It seems (to me) you've just contradicted your first statement (1). Now it seems you're begging that creos lack science education, papers, or something. Not the current bigotted hyper-Newtonian mega-mutationalistic *science*, I hope.

The entire problem with your argument is that there is no socio-political controversy surrounding the laws of motion.The point made in the OP is that the people who are more likly to take a stance for creation science in the socio-political arena are people who also tend to be lacking in the realm of general education or at least science education.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show