Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
65 online now:
DrJones*, jar (2 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,105 Year: 4,853/23,288 Month: 1,758/1,286 Week: 72/353 Day: 19/53 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 11 of 283 (648149)
01-13-2012 12:38 PM


From the text of the bill:

endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution

endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies.

Toward this end teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

Given this text, it is up to the teacher. A fundie science teacher (a contradiction in terms) could create all sorts of mischief.

A real science teacher could demolish creationism even more effectively.

Looks like they are counting on the former, not the latter.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 23 of 283 (648454)
01-15-2012 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
01-15-2012 8:46 PM


It continues to happen because a large percentage of the U.S. public believes the Dover decision was the wrong one, “hiding a performance” would have little or nothing to do with it. It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents, or by the powerful financial interests of the atheistic scientific community. Probably a combination of both.

I suspect the percentage is nowhere near as large as you imagine.

And who to better represent ID than Behe? His "performance" made it clear that ID had no scientific basis, but was religion in disguise. This was supported by a lot of other testimony, and with no evidence to the contrary what else was the judge to decide?

And if ID is science, as it is claimed, the public has no say in the matter. It is up to scientists to determine what is science and what is not.

Another question would be if the scientific community has made any advances concerning the origins of life which would render the Dover decision right.

Science has some hypotheses concerning the origin of life. They fit within the body of known science, but at this point I don't believe that there is any single widely accepted theory explaining that origin. However, none of the hypotheses involve supernatural events, nor should they.

When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that “ID is a thin veil over creationism”, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. They may not have the critical thinking skills to realize that, and many of their parents feel that it’s important for that fact to be taught in schools.

I don't believe that students can be told that genesis is wrong. What they can be told is what science has established, and then the chips fall where they may. If that goes against some religious belief somewhere, that's too bad. Can you image if science had to kowtow to each and every religious belief? You'd still be sitting in a cave.

And your claim that "evolution is a thin veil over atheism" would come as a surprise to Catholics, who are the worlds largest religion. Catholics accept evolution.

And it doesn't matter what parents want taught in public school science classes. Those classes have to teach established science, not the personal beliefs of one segment of a multi-cultural population.

I think your problem is that you want your particular beliefs taught as science, truth, Truth, TRUTH, and even TRVTH. And you want to mandate that those beliefs be taught without the need to provide any empirical evidence that they are accurate (e.g., young earth, global flood, and created kinds).

Sorry, not going to happen. We've had the Enlightenment and those days are gone.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2012 11:49 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 283 (648718)
01-17-2012 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by marc9000
01-17-2012 8:00 PM


"Cdesign Proponentsists"
"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts.

The scientific community keeps winning because it brings facts and evidence to the courts, while IDers keep bringing religious belief thinly disguised to mimic scientific facts and evidence.

"Cdesign Proponentsists" was the smoking gun at Dover. There was no way the IDers could explain away the change in their book from "creationists" to "design proponents" without changing any other parts of their book. Doesn't that really make it sound like the two are the same? (The court thought so.)

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 8:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 86 of 283 (649128)
01-20-2012 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:30 PM


New subtitle
Christians believe that God is beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions. Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out.

Could the reason that science does not consider deities be that there is no evidence for them?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 105 of 283 (649148)
01-20-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:36 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Science is controlled by people with a naturalistic worldview. It’s equivalent to religion. Its establishment in public education makes it in violation of the First Amendment.

Sorry, no. Not even close.

A naturalistic worldview is the opposite of religion.

Religion relies on dogma, revelation, faith, belief and other similar non-empirical sources.

Science relies on the scientific method, which requires that ideas be tested against real-world evidence. Ideas which do not measure up are discarded.

This is the opposite of religion, in which apologetics is used to keep ideas alive in spite of evidence to the contrary.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:36 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:30 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 118 of 283 (649166)
01-20-2012 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:30 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
A naturalistic worldview is the opposite of religion.

It is practiced by imperfect humans, just as religion is.

That is an absolutely useless argument against my point. You are probably relying on the myth of "the fall" for this, but that's just another bit of scripture you are using in place of evidence.

Religion is based on squishy subjects, "divine revelation," dogma, scripture, and the rest. The last thing religion wants is to be tested scientifically against evidence. Over the decades it hasn't fared too well.

Science is based on evidence--which exactly the opposite of religion. If you can show where any particular part of science is incorrect--using real evidence, not revelation, scripture and the rest--then that part of science will be changed.

Science changes a lot, but this doesn't happen because some creationist posts his beliefs on a creationist website somewhere. If creationists have something, then peer-reviewed scientific journals are the place to submit. But again, that's the last place creationists want to be as their beliefs will be judged against real-world evidence.

Science relies on the scientific method, which requires that ideas be tested against real-world evidence. Ideas which do not measure up are discarded.

Science does, but the imperfect humans that practice it rely on dogma, revelation, faith and belief just the same as religious people. They make just as questionable political decisions as anybody else. Seems like I remember you to be a conservative. Surely you should know how imperfect liberal evolutionists political opinions are.

"Liberal evolutionists?" I am a conservative, but I have taught evolution at the university level! So much for your argument.

And no, science does not rely on "dogma, revelation, faith and belief just the same as religious people." Science relies on evidence, which is the opposite. And this will be the case no matter how often you post this misrepresentation.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 138 of 283 (649362)
01-22-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo, and there’s plenty of common sense evidence that makes that clear. The cartoon that I’ve been shown…..what, three times in this thread, supposedly shows an orderly, well defined process that an idea must follow to be included in science education. The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of “the fall” from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect. Organizations are often ‘special interests’, and the scientific community is a special interest.

The fact that the process is imperfect does not mean that just anything can get in. Otherwise, your argument for including ID applies equally to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff. This is pretty much what Behe had to admit under oath at Dover; a definition of science sufficiently loose so as to include ID would also include astrology.

I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.

Currently SETI is a process, a means of looking for data. It has no positive findings as of yet. When it does, those findings will be checked by other scientists, as is the norm.

I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple.

Believe all you want, but until you can bring evidence to the ID efforts, and apply the scientific method, ID isn't going to be accepted as science.

Claims by evolutionists that “we’d all be living in caves” without constant thought and application of evolution is blown out of proportion by a special interest, as common sense and verification by some non-politically correct scientists shows.

The problem you have here is that you want to overturn the scientific method because you're outraged by what evolution, paleontology, radiometric dating and some other related fields have discovered. You don't seem to realize that the scientific method is common to all fields of science, and if you disallow it in one place because you don't like some of the results then you are hurting all of science. Sounds like you would be happy with a "Science Board" composed of creationists who would get to pick and choose what could be done as science. Sorry, not going to happen. (Ref: the Enlightenment.)

Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision – a decision made by ONE judge – deserves a second look. If that makes evolutionists angry, it doesn’t change the fact that that’s how things are.

The folks who lost the Dover decision had the right to appeal to higher courts, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. They didn't. They, and the rest of you, lost your rights to second-guess that decision when it wasn't appealed.

Science isn’t the only source of knowledge, and it doesn’t have special rights to make political decisions in the U.S.

Oh, we're back to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?

Sorry, you can have all those. I'll stick to the scientific method. It produces results.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 144 of 283 (649449)
01-23-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Artemis Entreri
01-23-2012 12:40 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I do not really see what is so anti-evolution about the bill.

Compare with the Discovery Institute's "Model" bill:

http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/another-discove.html

You don't think the Discovery Institute is actually promoting science, do you?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-23-2012 12:40 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 209 of 283 (650544)
01-31-2012 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 4:03 PM


Anti-science
Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?

And we're going to get that from creationists?

Creationists are anti-science. They have to be as science not only fails to confirm their beliefs, but flatly contradicts many of them.

Rather than change their beliefs, creationists are out to cripple those parts of science they disagree with and to "wedge" their beliefs back into the school systems by increasingly dishonest means.

And you think they are going to provide "an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?" What a laugh!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 216 of 283 (650597)
02-01-2012 11:03 AM


The bill states:

shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

This means that science teachers are now free to rip ID and creation "science" a new one.

Occam's razor cuts both ways.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 220 of 283 (650621)
02-01-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
coyote writes:

Creationists are anti-science. They have to be as science not only fails to confirm their beliefs, but flatly contradicts many of them.
Rather than change their beliefs, creationists are out to cripple those parts of science they disagree with and to "wedge" their beliefs back into the school systems by increasingly dishonest means.


I would not consider you a poster who is a fan of blanket statements and generalizations. Especially one conservative to another, when I am sure you receive your fair share of generalizations around here for being conservative. Creationists may be against evolution but that doesn’t make them anti-science, I am surprised you do not understand the difference.

Sometimes generalizations are accurate.

How can you believe that creationists are supporting science with all the goofy stuff they make up? And with all of the science they ignore, misrepresent, and flat out lie about because of their religious beliefs? And with the attacks they make on the scientific method itself? Attacking the scientific method, as they do, strikes at the heart of science.

Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science.

Look at the Wedge document from the Dishonesty Institute. One of it's statements is, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I can only interpret that as forcing the removal of the scientific and naturalistic approach used by science and replacing it with a theistic approach. ("You vill do science our way and you vill like it! Das is alles! Hallelujah!")

And you think they are going to provide "an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?" What a laugh!

Dang what is with all your assumptions today? I think the bill could provide an objective review in the science classroom, as per the bill as is written, I am not even talking about creationists with regard to this bill.

You might not be talking about creationists with regard to this bill, but they are the ones pushing the bill for religious, not secular, reasons. They are following a very well-known pattern. You don't really think they care about improving science, do you?

If they cared about improving science there are a lot of things they could do, but what you see is the opposite--trying to arrange things so their myths and other religious beliefs are given equal footing with empirical science.

And they figure they can get away with it through peer pressure from the community on teachers. I suspect that any teacher who teaches science as opposed to belief wouldn't last long. And I suspect that is the main intent of this bill.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:17 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 238 of 283 (650780)
02-02-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:17 PM


Creationist websites are anti-science
Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science.

That is not necessary, I work with a good number of them, I can just ask them in person rather than read some website. And since we do science here at work, I guess I have IRL examples of creationists supporting and working in science.

I contend that creationist websites are anti-science and can provide some good examples. You seem to disagree somehow.

This is not the proper thread for such a discussion--do you want to start a new one or shall I?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:17 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:13 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020