|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
truthsearcher
Evolution is scientific because it is testable and falsifiable, and has been tested and confirmed In this one sentence from the website you have given is this statement. The people actually type the words out and in the same sentence completely get it wrong.Let us take them by the hand shall we? "Evolution is scientific because it is testable and falsifiable," They nailed it on the head. We can make models that explain what we see in Nature and use the model to determine what things nature should reveal to us as we go along. In short it allows us to test the model and eliminate possible scenarios as the information becaomes available. As we press on we refine the model to fill in details that were not known before. Now in the second half of the sentence we immediately recognize that they did not understand the implications of the first half. "and has been tested and confirmed" Before I go along do you see what the contradiction is here? Read what the first half actually says and then read what the second half actually says and you will see for yourself the contradiction. This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-04-04 05:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dare-to-question Inactive Member |
Stop spamming us with links to your site Anyone following the debate between creationists and evolutionists might care to visit Index of / “The Weeping Redwood Tree” is an allegory that might contribute to a harmonious and deeper understanding between science and religions. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-09-2006 09:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dare-to-question Inactive Member |
Stop spamming us with links to your site Anyone following the debate between creationists and evolutionists might care to visit Index of / “The Weeping Redwood Tree” is an allegory that might contribute to a harmonious and deeper understanding between science and religions. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-09-2006 09:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
quote: Says who? Some peabrain with a religious agenda and a lousy M.A. degree ?
quote: Not in the 'academic circles' I travel in, that's for sure.
quote: From whence this sweeping conclusion? Just because it has not yet been replicated experimentallly doesn't mean it cannot occur.
quote: Actually, their assumption is merely that an intelligent communication would be *recognizable* if they could detect it - and they haven't.
quote: Oh yeah - there's a great example. This is not an example of 'testability' in the scientific sense. IQ testing is merely a rather primitive attempt at intelligence *quantification* - in very relative terms, I might add - nothing is being 'tested' in the sense of falsifying or supporting a hypothesis. What total bunk.
quote: It certainly withstands this pathetic attempt at criticism.This article is just a load of missleading religious propaganda masquerading as some kind of science argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I just was being quick about things Are you going to put up any answer for the rebutals posted already?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dare-to-question Inactive Member |
Sorry. I didn't realize a link to my site (which I thought relevant to the debate) was SPAM. I will look again at your protocol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lupin Inactive Member |
This whole topic is very frustrating for people that are interested in having students well educated in science. Intelligent Design is not science because the only experimental data used to validate conjectures of Intelligent Design proponents is the supposed lack of evidence for evolution theory. If Intelligent Design was science, then people would publish there views in scientific peer reviewed journals and let the information disseminate from there to highschools. Instead proponents of intelligent design are high jacking the system by having frustrating battles with highschool science boards. The Kansas highschool science board members worked hard on writing science standards for not only biology but also chemistry and physics. Now since this 'controversy' hit no attention has been given to any of the work going on in fields besides evolution research.
I study mainly chemistry and physics, so I don't have a lot of the experimental data available to me that several posts have mentioned. But I do think that science is often severly misunderstood. Many people on this board talk about how evolution will never ba a scientific fact, how abiogenisis is a scientific fact, or about other things that are or are not scientific facts. Evolution, abiogenesis, and other scientific theories will never be facts. Scientific theories are always falsifiable by definition. A scientific theory and the assumptions that the theory makes are accepted if the theory is consistent with current scientific facts. Evolution and abiogenesis are consistent with current experimental data ( and lack of data is not inconsistent ). There should not be a controversy. Only science should be taught in science classrooms. I don't agree with some of the ridicule that is sent towards people of faith in higher powers. Science is often misconstrued as being composed of ultimate truths. That is simply not the case. Science is generating theories that are consistent with experimental data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5860 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Not in the 'academic circles' I travel in, that's for sure. What's funny is that I work with a bunch of engineers in the software/computer industry and no one I know believes this junk either. AND WE AREN'T EVEN BIOLOGISTS or anything close to biologists for that matter. I'm still waiting to find someone who supports this garbage who actually knows anything about evolution (and it's not like I am any sort of expert on evolution). EZ, you should read an essay called "Welcome to Idiot America" by Charles Pierce. (you can google it). He addresses this modern phenomenon where everyone thinks they are an expert on everything. For example, look how many people on here think their opinion on geology is as valid as scientists with DSc and Phds in geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Thanks SNC, I will be sure to check for that article.
It sounds consistent with a lot of what we are seeing lately. AbE: I found that article and it was so good I came back to post a direct link to it.
Greetings from Idiot Amercia Everyone interested in the topic of this thread should read this excellent article. It certainly puts the OP question in the context it deserves, one of contemplation by idiots only. This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-11-2006 01:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Hi Lupin - welcome to EvC.
Kansas needs all the science defenders it can get...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I agree to a degree. I think creation should be taught. That's one out of two. People have different beliefs, and where knowledge is intertwined with belief, the majority belief should be represented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
whisper writes: I think creation should be taught. That's one out of two. That's not one out of two - its zero.Pray tell what would you teach? "Goddidit" - that's it? That's supposed to be some sort of explanation? You are constitutionally free to spout that pathetic tripe in Sunday School, but you are not constitutionally free to label it as SCIENCE.Thankfully we still reserve that right for actual acredited scientists, although its questionable for how much longer that will remain the case in "Idiot America". Creationism is a simple-minded myth for simple-minded people - its not an explanation of anything. It's an excuse for NOT thinking hard about anything, ergo it appeals to those who have difficulty thinking hard about anything... They naturally gravitate to the simpleton's non-explanation. This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-12-2006 08:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Just got Panda's Thumb for the library since it is what caused so much consternation. A quick perusal indicates some people should be embarassed, it is just a dumbed-down anti-science book, kind of like a bunch of Chick tracts strung together.
{abe} speling This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 10:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Surely you don't mean Gould's book?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hopefully he's referring to Of Pandas and People, Davis and Kenyon's anti-science screed. Not Gould's book.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024