Education

1) Not ALL Creationists lack scientific knowledge.2) I am a creationist in the sense that God created everything...including all concepts of definition. I do not care if evolution is a fact. It does not affect my belief.

---

Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.
Pensées (1670)We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart.
Pensées (1670)Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Holy Spirit--speaking through the Apostle Paul

I certainly do not want to step in the middle of a pissing contest between you and Schraf, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I don't really have a desire to read over some other message in which Schraf may have said something about research being biased opinions, as I would probably have to read through the entire thread to make sure I had the context correct.Having said that, it seems to me that when I read an exchange like:then I read this to mean that you are suggesting that evolutionary biologists do not "throw out" data or hypotheses or theories that have been shown to be false. Come on now Holmes, isn't that being just a bit over confrontational for the sake of being confrontational? You certainly know that this is not true. Scientists will disregard old ideas as new tests show them to be no longer true. And I also think that you knew that that was what Schraf was talking about, and yet still you replied in a manner that, to my eyes anyway, makes it appear as though you think scientists don’t discard false conclusions.And then later we get this exchange:it seems obvious to me that again you are simply having a personal battle with schraf while ignoring the true context of what she wrote. Or are you suggesting that you truly believe that evolutionary biologists do not design and perform experiments as tests of their hypotheses . or that creationists do as well?So, while you may have some disagreements with other posts by Schrafinator, I think it's a bit unfair to drag them into this particular thread. You're often that one talking about context, yet you seemed to ignore it here.Or, perhaps you would like to give us some examples of creationist experiments you are aware of that have indeed been performed and which support their claims. Or perhaps you will support your claim that evolutionary biologists do not subject their ideas to testing. Or perhaps you will admit that you knowingly took schrafinators comments out of context simply to piss her off.So I guess, in summary, I’d just like to say that as they relate to this specific thread, Schraf made some valid criticisms which I support. Creationists do not subject their ideas to any sort of testing while evolutionary biologists do, and the latter will also “throw out” ideas that are no longer supported by the evidence, while the former will not. Why not address just these points and let go of the personal animosity?

The point is evolutionary theory is well understood by it's critics. It's not that people are not educated. Often, it's that people have taken the time to check and see if evo claims are real, and finding they are false, decide to be objective and quit beleiving them.Basically, much of evolutionary theory is unproven hogwash. There is no empirical reason to assert, for example, that mutations are random, but evos assert that all day long and claim they are doing science, when they are just mixing scientific data into a philosophy which colors their perception of the data.

I charged evos with presenting fraudulent drawings and have proved that. Now, of all the evos doing the presenting, probably most beleived the fraud, but they still presenting a fraud as a fact, and did so for 125 years, and even today, evos like yourself have a hard time admitting it.On a deeper level, I think of evolution as fraudulent because it is presented as empirically-based science when it is more of a philosophy mixing scientific data into it.The reason is that evolution asserts mutations are random when there is no empirical proof of that.

Huh?!? This was "the point", since it was the entirety of your message: This is essentially an advocation of shutting down biology training altogether. Actually, it was "evos doing science" that revealed that mutation is a non-random process.

You guys always claim people just don't understand evolutionary theory enough, even asserting an MD does not. That's just BS.People understand it. You don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to understand it, nor to reject it with an informed and educated opinion.

Randman, you are so full of shit you attract flies(only...ha...you have to admit...that's a good one).I have friends that are in the medical profession and can tell you first hand that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory. You are constantly throwing crap like this around without any validation whatsoever.While I’m bitching, let me add this . we have all read copious threads by you in which you repeatedly bring up Haeckels' drawings and your BS has always been addressed . yet you repeat it over and over. I’m fucking sick and tired with your Haeckel nonsense...please find some new dead horse to beat. We've covered it already . it’s been addressed . for the love of fuck, knock it off.Sorry . now back to the message at hand. Some do...many more do not...like yourself. True...so what? Nobody is forcing you to accept anything Randman. However, I personally fail to see how anyone that is educated in evolutionary theory can reject it based on that knowledge unless they have religious motivations. Admittedly, I have no data to back this up, but I'd bet that in a vast majority of cases where the ToE is rejected by someone that also knows and understands the scientific method, that rejection is predicated on religious beliefs, not evidentiary.

Well, Haeckel's drawings were frauds as were his ideas, and since they were used for 125 years by evos, you can expect me to keep pointing that out as an example of how evos use data.The fact is no one has refuted this fact, except to emphasize the mistake less than I do, which is fine. If you guys just said, yea well, one mistake does not ruin the whole theory, it would be a less contentious issue, but each time you guys try a mix of disinformation, and then get angry.The facts are the facts on this though.

Actually, Holmes addresses a valid point: "It breaks down to the individual, not the side.":With the exception of the first page, this whole thread has seemed (to me) quite a pissing contest of nonsensical off-topic posts (including mine) like 'what is a good scientist (applied vs research)?'. Frankly, this thread seems to me destroyed by side-topics.Because "Individual dogmas" and "pissing" prevail by sincere and thoughtful scientists on this thread...I think it might be statistically valid to generalize this thread's sample of scientists (as scientists-that-sidetrack-themselves) unto the scientist-population as a whole ... including N.A.S. scientists here in the U.S.Few N.A.S. science-educators seem condescending to engage in quality EvC forums like this one. (note: Talk-Origins Archive is not EvC discussion; rather its ToE dogma (sidetracked-scientists).

Aye, what Flies... said...You're right about the drawings being used. But surely you have to accept that scientists have moved on since then. They always finding new info in the way that scientists do. Here in the UK my friend , who is a science teacher knows of the drawings, and the theory behind them, and now knows that it is not a relibale source. And so he teaches in a different way. That's the nature of many scientists. They accept that they don't know everything, and that's why is called a theory. When they come up with new information, they adapt. So banging on about some scientists who may be rather dogmatic seems a bit pointless.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-16-2005 03:54 PM

I think some scientists have moved on, sure, but the reason to bring this up is to illustrate the state of affairs more clearly. In the context of this thread, it is asserted that creationists just are ignorant, but in my own experience, I heard creationists showing how the drawings were wrong long before any evos chimed in. Back in the 80s, creationist scientists were pointing out that the drawings were wrong, and though I am sure some evos knew that, what I experienced and noticed over the years was that evos wouldn't admit to this, and there was even a resurgence of evos making claims of a phylotypic stage, as if they were insisting the drawings and claims were accurate.So my impression is that creationists are more educated and accurate than evolutionists. That's the reason for bringing it up. Creationists seem to understand the evo arguments well, sometimes in the case with Haeckel and the claim of a phylotypic stage, much better than evolutionist scientists.Now, that doesn't make creationist claims right in other areas, and I am unconvinced of a young earth for example, but at the same time, they have been accurate in their depictions and criticisms of evolutionary theory.

Are these your "friends" ... are they schooled? ...are they human?

Sorry I've been away, but it's the end of term, you know, Carol concerts and all. Funny going to a church and listening to it all....Ringo said;-"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."Anyway, yes you're right about controlled experiments, but unfortunately we are talking about a massive body of evidence for Evolution, which just about everybody has an opinion on, and it isn't a controlled experiment.So you see that is the prob.You also asked;-"Which is it? Do you think science depends on faith or not?"Well I never said science DEPENDS on faith. that's patently not true. You do have to believe in the results or theories on some level. Sure, we're just argueing about semantics here, and I don't think it's going to be resolved, because I'm just trying to make a point about what the word belief means, because it's important from an educational point of view. And when you are older you can choose what to believe, and then choose whichever evidence you want. So basically it comes down to choice, and you have clearly made yours.

You said;-"I regard it as accurate"and ;-"The theory of evolution is not something that I have to regard as "true","So what do you believe?I never said that you have to believe it for it to be true. Clearly you can believe something that isn't true, and disbelieve something that is proven to be true by others. I just said that if you accept it, then you have a belief in it, because that it the meaning of the word. Just as you believe that the president of the USA is Mr Bush, because you would regard that statement as true. Belief = to regard as true. It's not a huge issue really.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-16-2005 04:47 PM

Fair play, I understand , it's a very good point.As far as education goes it's possibly true that what is taught is dependent upon the teachers personal ideas to a certain extent. I know that as a teacher I have a good deal of autonomy in my classroom to teach what the hell I like. But at he same time there is always a good deal of oversight, not only from heads of department, and the head of the school, but also from school inspectors, who threaten to visit us all the time. So it would be hard, in the long run, to get away with teaching inaccurate material. Unless there was a whole school conspiracy, which is unlikely.As for creationists and accuracy, I can only speak from what I have read upon these boards , not having had the chance to debate this subject anywhere else. But it seems to me that both sides can quote, at length, as many sources as they feel are adequate, and the other side will quote another load of sources. And it obvious to me that most of the members of these boards are highly educated people, certainly post-graduates etc. But I would argue with you that one side is more accurate that the other. From an objective point of view, (although I have stated that I am an atheist, I am also an interested party who is willing and open to discussion) it seems that there is a huge body of evidence which should be examined equally.However, as I have also pointed out, despite the evidence, no one can categorically state they are right. The creationists cannot prove god exists, and the evolutionists and those who believe that life began on a previously barren planet over vast amounts of time (or whatever their favoured theory is) don't have the total picture. As they say it is a theory, with conclusions drawn based on observation, and new information is being unveiled every year, who's to say that one day we will not discover that some alien race planned it all, for example, which would contradict both theories.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-16-2005 04:49 PM