Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 518 of 609 (612029)
04-12-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 6:33 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
its not a matter of your opinion about what reality has to offer, but what it will logically allow, given the available evidence and information.
We are not talking about Logically Allowed Class. We are talking about Science Class. Either show that ID/Creationism is science or admit that it has no place in science class. Show us specific experiments and how these experiments demonstrate ID/Creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 6:33 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 7:14 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 522 of 609 (612038)
04-12-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 7:14 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Logic class and science class are the samething,
No, they are not. Logic is not based on empiricism. Science is.
Any examination into what is, how it is and why it is, is a logical approach to anything.
It is HOW you do the examination that defines science. You need to make a hypothesis and null hypothesis that are testable through empiricism. So please show how ID/Creationism is testable in this manner.
Now tell me why an observation of the intricices of the natural world, by way of examination of thier order, or appearent order and the conclusion of design is not a scientific approach.
Show me how it is scientific. You are the one that claims it is scientific, so demonstrate it. Describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the experimental design used to test them. If you can't, then I can only conclude that ID/Creationism is not science.
Now tell me what a so-called better scientific approach can tell me about the natural world, that wont be natural or observable, testable or verifiable.
That sentence makes zero sense. Please, use your head.
now tell me why discovering minute details in nature, such as "science" does, is some how more scientific in its approach verses a detailed examination of its order and why any conclusions on "sciences" part are better science
Science is not about discovering minute detail. It is about testing hypotheses through empiricism. For someone who claims to know so much about science you seem to get the basics wrong on almost every occasion.
this time maybe you could be specific in a logical way and exclude the idea that more research is somehow better research, since more research will only reveal more details of what is already knowable. In thier approaches what capabilites does "science" have and what can it reveal that ID cannnot.
You have zero scientific research for ID/Creationism. That indicates that ID/Creationism is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 7:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:58 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 526 of 609 (612049)
04-12-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Im telling you they are science in every sense of the word.
No you aren't. You are telling us that ID/Creationism is not tested through the scientific method. This means it is not science. It is that simple.
They are a physical observation and examination that allows very demonstratble conclusions.
What you fail to mention is that it is not a scientific examination nor a scientific conclusion.
While both of us dont agree or like the conclusions of eachothers ideologies and examinations, both are atleast tenative scientifc approaches to explanations
No, they aren't. You have spent your entire time at this forum explaining why ID/Creationism does not follow the scientific method. Every time we ask for an hypothesis and experiment you tell us that ID/Creationism doesn't need to do this. I can only conclude that ID/Creationism is not science.
The only barrier that persists in this context is the fact that most science types believe creo and Id involve the supernatural, they do not, or they dont have to
The only barrier is the one that ID/Creationists erect around laboratories that prevent them from doing research.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:40 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 532 of 609 (612066)
04-12-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:58 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
taq, if you dont like the strict word Logic, then go with rational approach.
Empricism and Rationalism are different. Science uses Empiricism. Science is informed by the sensory. This is different from Rationalism which is informed by Reason and not the sensory.
thats what Iders do, indeed if we are on the same planet with the same abilites and limitations how could our APPROACHES be any different, terms notwithstanding
The approaches are different because ID/Creationism does not use the scientific method and empiricism.
Sure there are different levels of science, but the approach is limited to a few factors, correct. while there are more things to learn, there is no need to keep studying the laws of gravity to see if the are real and verfiable
I am still not seeing an ID/Creationist hypothesis, null hypothesis, and experimental test. Where is it? If it is science then you should be able to point them out.
You can only conclude the ID is not science, because you are looking for the creator himself in the design principle, that is not required anymore than it is necessary for you to prove that the natural world is a product of itself.
Still not seeing any science.
as I stated in another post, experimentation does not need to be complicated, as in the things you describe to be science.
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to describe one.
if i am incorrect, please provide me an example of something the SM can describe outside that which we describe as the known world. the information you discover is already there for you to discover it, the SM wont reveal its initiation source, anymore than will ID.
This makes zero sense. Please, use your head.
what you just described is nothing more than observation and examination by the human mind.
False. It is examination through empiricism which necessitates a world outside of the mind.
As an example, without citing a single finding from an experiment can you use logic to describe what matter is made out of? Using pure reason, show how it is done.
Now isnt this what ID does? It examines the physical world, by means of observation and experimentation of order and complexity in order, to come to the conclusion of possible design
That is not science. You test HYPOTHESES in science, as well as the NULL HYPOTHESIS. Please describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and experimental design that would test both equally per ID/Creationism. If you can not, then you have proven that ID/Creationism is not science.
Your asking for the designer himself in your request for research.
Nope, I am asking for scientific research that backs the conclusion of design. Where is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 10:12 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 533 of 609 (612068)
04-12-2011 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 9:24 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
f enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design.
How did you test the null hypothesis, that order and law are not the product of design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 545 of 609 (612112)
04-13-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 534 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 9:40 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
What process of the human makeup do you use to carry out this process
You tell me. Show me.
Im sorry where have I spent any effort explaining that ID does not follow the SM.
So far, in every post. You keep making excuses for why you don't have an hypothesis, null hypothesis, and an experiment that tests them. You do it once again in the post I am responding to.
When i give you an experiment and a hypothesis you say it is not science because it does not meet your criteria, which is ofcourse is an inflated view of science and not an accurate explanation of science
You have never done this. You also leave out the null hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 546 of 609 (612114)
04-13-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 536 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 10:12 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
taq these are just terms they are not reality.
Your entire argument is based on terms with no relation to reality. You keep speaking of order and law without ever giving us a way to measure it in reality, a way to test for it, nor a way to test to see if order and law are the product of a designer.
Physician, heal thyself.
How in the world and reality could they be if we are both using our minds and physical properties.
You aren't using physical properties. You are using words like order and law. You are not using experiments that test the physical properties for the things you claim.
Our method of examination wouldnt be any different, we would use the same process, but how much more would our examination need to be for both of us to know it had four tires.
I use phylogenetic algorithms on homologous DNA found in different species to determine common ancestry and selective pressures. How does the same method of examination point towards design?
Since that is not my position, your query makes no sense. Please refer to what I said above
It is your position because you are rejecting Empiricism and replacing it with Rationalism.
how did you test the null hypo that evolution was not the product of a designer?
Look at the title of this thread. It has nothing to do with evolution. It is about ID/Creationism in the science classroom. Either show how the null hypothesis is tested in ID/Creationism or admit that it isn't science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 10:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:37 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 555 of 609 (612179)
04-13-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 5:11 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Order and not chaos. Continued continuity and not persistent incontinuity. organisms and life that continues to produce a purpose and harmonious function. Oh I dont know simple things like that. Sounds like order to me, unless I want to be completely unreasonable
I see a lot of words, but no hypothesis, null hypothesis, nor an experiment that would test them.
To demonstrate my point and to show the unecessary nature of your question to begin with, Ill ask you, What are the rules for differententating between that which evolved soley by natural causes and that which was designed to evolve?
Why don't you tell us, since you have concluded that life is designed. What experiments did you run to differentiate between these?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:07 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 557 of 609 (612183)
04-13-2011 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 5:37 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Can I help it if you are stupid, the way to measure it is to observe its behaviour, note its consistency and accuracy in producing things with a purpose and a function, that function accurately, your brain your eye, etc and a million other things
If you are so much smarter than me then outline how this is done. In fact, do so with my avatar to the left. Please measure the purpose and function. Make sure to list the units for purpose and function.
the way to test to it to see if it came from a designer, is to use the same method you used to decide that all of this functioning world is a product of soley natural causes.
So how do phylogenetic analyses point to design? Please explain.
tell me what your Null H, is in deciding that everything is a product of itself, when you werent there to observe its beginning, or the mechanism of its origination
Again, you are shifting the burden of proof. You claim that ID/Creationism is science. If so, then show us the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the experiments that test them.
ID and creationism employ all the same methods, for the answers to these questions, yet it is rejected because it is limited in the exact same way science is
Then show me a creationist who uses phylogenetic analyses of orthologous ERV's shared between humans and other apes as a method for demonstrating design. If the methods are the same, then this shouldn't be a problem.
yeah I believe this is called examination and experimentation of physical properties already in existence, big deal. Did this give you an answer as to its ultimatel origination source, well no
Yes, it did. It shows that the DNA shared by humans and chimps ultimately originated in a common ancestor. It also showed selective pressures for specific DNA stretches compared to neutral drift for other DNA stretches.
So where is the ID/Creationist analysis, and what were the hypotheses being tested?
We do the samething, with tenative conclusions
No, we don't. Evolutionists construct testable hypotheses and test them with experiments. ID/Creationists do not. That is quite a difference.
I see Im required to go by your rules but your not, correct.
They aren't my rules. They are the rules of science. If you want to claim that ID/Creationism is science then you must show how ID/Creationism constructs testable hypotheses, and demonstrate how the described experiments test them. If you can not, then ID/Creationism is obviously not science.
So if you cant provide a Null H, does that mean you are not doing science
I am not the one claiming that ID/Creationism is science. You are. The burden of proof is on you.
Again, you have written another long post that is nothing more than an excuse for not following the rules of science. Pathetic.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:18 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 562 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:46 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 558 of 609 (612184)
04-13-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 5:45 PM


Re: New header (finally)
here it is again what are your rules for determining that evolution is the product of SOLEY natural causes, verses the fact that they were designed to evolve
Why don't you tell us? Since ID/Creationism is science, according to you, why don't you reference the peer reviewed scientific papers that outline the experiments which demonstrate the designed nature of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:28 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 571 of 609 (612243)
04-14-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 562 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:46 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
You know that is not the origination source of which i speak.
Right. I use science and have found that the origin of shared DNA between humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. You use religion and find that it was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity. Two different methods. Guess which one is appropriate for science class?
After all your bantering and bluster it ends up that order and law are to design what, change and NS are to soley natural causes, scientific approaches that should both be taught
The difference being that I can form hypotheses based on natural selection and evolution that can then be tested through experimentation. Not so with order and law. Therefore, evolution is scientific while design is not.
Come on taq give me something hard.
I did. Show me a creationist who uses phylogenetic analyses of orthologous ERV's shared between humans and other apes as a method for demonstrating design.
All any creations or IDst 9scientist, biologist)would need to do in this instance is show the biological orderliness of these primates that produces order and purpose in the form of a monkey, to demonstrate design
Then use a phylogenetic analysis to do just that.
Do the mechanisms you describe above operate in an orderly and consistent fashion, when you are conducting your experiments? Or or they chaotic and eratic? Which one?
You tell me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 572 of 609 (612244)
04-14-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:28 PM


Re: New header (finally)
I believe it was Einstien that said God was the laws of the universe correct? Is that peer enough for you?
Is that a testable hypothesis? No. Try again.
Would you say that there were enough peer reviewed papers to indicate that there is order and lawin the universe?
You tell me. Also show how order and law are the products of design through testable hypotheses found in the peer reviewed literature.
Desgn is a conclusion of the available evidence, like "soley natural causes" is a result of, science and evo, correct?
Both are philosophical conclusions, not scientific conclusions. Science does not assume ontological naturalism. Science is methodological naturalism. Please learn the difference.
order and law carry as much weight as change and evo, for any conclusions in the science classroom, as science and to any conclusions concerning the existence of things Yet you teach it in the classroom, why not the other, when they are both scientifically derived
You have yet to show an experiment which demonstrates that the order and law seen in the universe is the product of design. Still waiting for that.
taq reqesting something from me that I dont think is necessary to begin with, is just silly.
Scientists do think that testable hypotheses and empirical data produced in experiments are important. It is required of any theory that is to be taught in high school science class. Every time you argue against this you demonstrate why ID/Creationism is not fit for science class.
Science, real science was around long before any peer reviewed papers were required. it was called observation, experimentation and conclusions, correct?
Where are the experiments you speak of? Where are the hypotheses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:28 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 573 of 609 (612245)
04-14-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 7:13 PM


Re: New header (finally)
And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen.
Can you point us to a peer reviewed scientific article where it was presented accurately? If not, then why should a supposed theory with zero published research to back it be a part of a high school science class curriculum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 7:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 574 of 609 (612246)
04-14-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:55 PM


Re: New header (finally)
the've complicated what science actually is,
We are not the ones arguing that science does not require testable hypotheses or testing through experiments. That would be you. You have gutted the scientific method to the point of uselessness in order to force your religious beliefs into science class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 579 of 609 (612311)
04-14-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Dawn Bertot
04-14-2011 4:37 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Change is to evolution and soley natural causes, what law and complex order is to ID, there both simple investigative process to provide possible explanations of the natural world.
Law and complex order are not processes. They are not investigations. They are undefined words you use to describe reality without any way to measure them or test them.
Change in genomes is measurable. On top of that, changes in genomes can prove or disprove evolution. If the changes do not fall into a nested hierarchy then evolution is disproved.
So what observations of law and complex order would disprove design? What is the null hypothesis in ID, and how does one design and experiment to test it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-14-2011 4:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:54 AM Taq 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