Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 211 of 2073 (733422)
07-17-2014 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:49 AM


All natural sciences are based on observation. Your use of the word 'observational' when you wrote 'observational science' is thus unnecessary. It's science.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:49 AM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 07-18-2014 9:51 AM Pressie has not replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3206 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


(1)
Message 212 of 2073 (733425)
07-17-2014 6:50 AM


teaching both
Are theists also suggesting the public schools teach both astrology and astronomy..? How about teaching both alchemy and chemistry..? One is science and the other is not. Evolutionary science is science and ID/creationism is religion dressed up to look like science. This has already been decided by the courts.

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2014 6:52 AM MFFJM2 has not replied
 Message 214 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2014 6:54 AM MFFJM2 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 213 of 2073 (733426)
07-17-2014 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by MFFJM2
07-17-2014 6:50 AM


Re: teaching both
As well as by all the major scientific organisations in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by MFFJM2, posted 07-17-2014 6:50 AM MFFJM2 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 214 of 2073 (733427)
07-17-2014 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by MFFJM2
07-17-2014 6:50 AM


Re: teaching both
Hey, be fair MFFJM2. It's only a relatively small percentage of religious people who think that creationism is 'science'. The Christian variety of those is mostly found in the US, with much smaller offsprings in countries such as the UK and Ozzie.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by MFFJM2, posted 07-17-2014 6:50 AM MFFJM2 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 215 of 2073 (733440)
07-17-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:58 PM


mram10 writes:
This is going to be fun
Yay! I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, hopefully you'll stick around. There's really lots to do around here.
Most that argue against ID or a creation moment are ignorant to what work has been put into it and the logic behind it.
If you have the motivation to try and educate others here about your knowledge, that would be fantastic.
Unfortunately... it would be off-topic in this thread. (This place is pretty strict on staying on-topic in threads... it keeps the place clean).
Fortunately... there's lots of threads where it is on-topic. You can try any of these, or even make your own:
Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Detecting Design
What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Nature belongs to ID
Evidence to expect given a designer
Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Feel free to talk about anything you'd like here. Just try to keep in mind how on-topic you are. If you're on-topic... great! Keep going.
If you're not on-topic... that's okay, just make a new thread about your new topic and go from there!
Sadly, I do not have time to respond to all of the replies aimed at me above...
Don't worry about. Anyone who expects you to respond to everything everyone says is being unrealistic. Respond to what you feel is important, and others will follow your lead.
Evolution requires faith...
I suppose that would depend on what you're thinking about when you use the word "Evolution."
What sort of evolution do you think is being taught in schools today that requires faith? Can you give an example?
Oh, and if you're wondering at all how people do all the fancy quote-boxes and stuff, you can always click on the "peek" button in the bottom-right of any message. That will show you what they actually typed in to produce the visuals you see. And that section at the bottom of RAZD's post (Message 99) gives lots of good tips, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 216 of 2073 (733442)
07-17-2014 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:49 AM


So why do you think creationism or ID have any validity if you think you should only trust things you observe?
Did you observe creation? Did you watch the intelligent designer in action?
Because if you did not,
you are saying those ideas are worthless too.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:49 AM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 217 of 2073 (733445)
07-17-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by mram10
07-17-2014 1:01 AM


Coyote,
You are obviously the closed-minded type that is against "science".
Actually I do science for a living.
The human body is complicated enough to warrant a look into "design". Life in general warrants a look into "design". THe universe is too perfect in my opinion to be a chance happening.
Your opinion has not been shown to be correct.
Observation is just a creation argument?? Not sure where you came up with that, but it is false. Observation is a building block of the scientific method. You think you have me "pegged" as a ....., and I obviously have you "pegged" as an evolutionary zealot, thus, it is probably better for you to avoid my posts. I am being respectful and wish to avoid wasting your time as well as mine.
The false dichotomy between "true" science and some other type is a creationist fantasy. Our poster Faith has often disparaged those sciences which disagree with her beliefs as not being "true" sciences. Creating a dichotomy between observational sciences and some other kind seems to be a part of the same creationist technique.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 1:01 AM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 218 of 2073 (733459)
07-17-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:58 PM


mram10 writes:
Evolution requires faith, which those that are entrenched will not admit.
Thomas didn't need faith to see the nail prints in Jesus' hands. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Since we do see evolution - and even creationists admit that - it requires no faith. QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 219 of 2073 (733524)
07-17-2014 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:58 PM


redirections
well I lost the previous version I typed up just before dinner, so I'll try to recap.
As noted by Adminmoose there are a lot of offshoots occurring, and a lot of them involve topics more pertinent to other threads. I have noted several of these already in replies to your posts, and I'll provide a few more here.
Forum administration likes to keep topics focused on single issues for several reasons, not least of which is following an argument without having to plow through distractions.
... So far, I see the "science" here is the same as my professors ...
A good indicator that they were on the right track I would think.
... I was really hoping to find an unbiased site where new ideas are welcome.
This is. I have not found any site on the internet that is more open to discussing new ideas, but what you won't find is acceptance of ideas that are not substantiated by objective empirical evidence. If you want an example of openness to ideas I suggest to do a site google on geocentric and you will find several results (such as Geocentrism).
If you expect to find a site that is favorable to your opinions, then you may have more difficulty (unless you go to a christian only mutual admiration forum, a nice "safe" place eh?).
Most that argue against ID or a creation moment are ignorant to what work has been put into it and the logic behind it. I will not try to argue them to those close minded there-is-no-evidence-for-that types. For those with a truly scientific mind, I would love to learn from and debate the differing theories, rather than argue a flat earth for the rest of all time
Having a theory does not make a concept science, for that you need an hypothesis based on known evidence that explains the evidence and makes predictions for finding new evidence, preferably predictions that would differentiate the new theory from the existing ones (already bing used to explain the known evidence and make predictions). The hypothesis that "god used evolution to make his creation" would not be distinguishable from evolution ... unless you could show how god was involved.
Thus far both IDologists and creationists have failed to do this.
For further discussion see:
(1) Is ID properly pursued?
(2) Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
Can you show evidence that would make ID scientific rather than philosophical (which is a valid approach to the ideas presented by IDologists so far, in my mind)?
Sadly, I do not have time to respond to all of the replies aimed at me above, but have read them. ...
Glad to know my efforts are not totally in vain ...
... Evolution requires faith, which those that are entrenched will not admit. ...
You realize that you have just profoundly insulted millions of living and dead biologists who have worked in this field, spending their lives studying it and increasing our knowledge of how it works. My father, for instance, taught biology at the U of Mich and ecology at Harvard, and he would be amused at your smug self-satisfied arrogant undereducated ignorance.
... I hope you know I am not being rude, ...
But you have been very rude in dismissing replies here by actual scientists (to say nothing of dismissing the whole field of evolution) simply because they don't fit in your cherished personal worldview.
... I just do not have time to waste hearing the same bashing that is all over the internet to anyone not accepting of the TOE.
Perhaps that is because your posting on this so far is just simplistic spouting of opinion insulting the work of people, and not a real discussion of what evolution and the theory of evolution are, and the evidence for it ... and because you blithely insult people that have worked hard to increase our knowledge -- perhaps it is because you are wrong and won't admit it eh?
... Observational science is my comfort zone, thus I feel without observation, I am not comfortable putting blind trust in a theory. ...
Curiously evolution is an observational science: every fossil, every strand of DNA, every lab and field study are bits of observed evidence that test the theory of evolution. Evolution is readily seen in every generation of every species in the world today.
It's not about "blind trust" it is about looking at the evidence and seeing how ALL the evidence is explained by the theory. If you are still skeptical then it is up to you to show that the theory does not explain certain evidence or to provide a better explanation. Dismissal is just a cop-out response, not a real unbiased evaluation.
Can you define:
(1) microevolution
(2) macroevolution
(3) the theory of evolution
and have you looked at how your versions compare to those of the scientists in this field?
If you mean something different that scientists when using these terms then you are causing confusion in your own mind as well as in what your responses to others mean.
See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
... . I will not try to argue them to those close minded there-is-no-evidence-for-that types
Perhaps it is you that is close minded, refusing to be corrected on mistaken concepts ... have you considered that?
Perhaps it is because all science literate people know that you absolutely need evidence to substantiate scientific concepts, and that without evidence ... you ... do ... not ... have ... science.
This isn't being close-minded, it is the defining aspect of science. Without evidence all you have is untested opinion and philosophical hypothesis.
... For those with a truly scientific mind, ...
You keep using that word but I do not think you know what it means ...
... I would love to learn from and debate the differing theories, rather than argue a flat earth for the rest of all time ...
And I'll be happy to discuss the age of the earth with you on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, as YEC is just as delusional* as flat-earthism in it's absolute failure to explain the mountains of objective empirical evidence for an old earth and the consilience (have you looked up that word yet?) between different systems that validate the process.
Enjoy
* de•lu•sion•al - adjective
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011
Edited by RAZD, : /

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 PM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 3502 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 220 of 2073 (733539)
07-17-2014 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by RAZD
07-17-2014 9:44 PM


Re: redirections
Razd,
Offended that is takes faith to get life from elements???
Offended that the human genome project has shown us to be very far from chimpanzees, etc??
Offended that I would dare question the secular science community, when simple observation puts much of it into question??
Maybe they should be in a different line of work, if they cannot handle the rigors of science and questioning theories as technology increases.
Occom's razor could agree that a Creator or ID force created or aided in our origin It does, after all, have the fewest assumptions. Creation .... creator.
ps- I never argued the age of the earth. I simply think there is more than our limited scope of knowledge. As for the meaning of science, I have a feeling you might need to take a look at the definition based on it's word origins. To know or to have knowledge sound familiar?
Edited by mram10, : No reason given.
Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2014 9:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 07-17-2014 11:41 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 222 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-17-2014 11:42 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2014 8:25 AM mram10 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2014 8:59 AM mram10 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 221 of 2073 (733540)
07-17-2014 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:36 PM


Re: redirections
Occom's razor could agree that a Creator or ID force created or aided in our origin It does, after all, have the fewest assumptions. Creation .... creator.
It is not the number of assumptions that matters, rather it is the quality of those assumptions.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:36 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 222 of 2073 (733541)
07-17-2014 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:36 PM


And your message has what to do with the topic theme?
To repeat the subtitle, and your message has what to do with the topic theme? My impression is "essentially nothing".
So, Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?. Why or why not?
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:36 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 223 of 2073 (733557)
07-18-2014 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:36 PM


in response to your continued blather without substance
Offended that is takes faith to get life from elements???
Which is not evolution but abiogenesis. What we know from the objective empirical evidence is that the earth is 4.55+ billion years old and that life is at least 3.5 billion years old -- the earliest fossil evidence found shows developed life. There has not been any record of the how life developed that has been found to date, so what we know from the available evidence is that somewhere between 3.5 and 4.55 billion years ago life began on earth.
If you are interested in what we know about how life may have begun, I suggest you look at:
(1) Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
(2) Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) - Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II
Note the dates on these threads are a couple years old now, so you can expect that more recent information is available that build on what is posted.
Offended that the human genome project has shown us to be very far from chimpanzees, etc??
You are going to have to provide more detail than a bland assertion. Certainly what we know is that the genome projects show that there is closer relationship between man and chimpanzee than there is between chimpanzee and gorilla, and that this relationship is on the same order as comparison of species in other branches of life.
What we do know is that there are markers in both genomes that cannot be explained except by common ancestry or a truly amazing high number of truly remarkable coincidences of identical mutations in both lines. And we know that there are similar markers shared by humans chimps and gorillas: if you god is directly involved in this, then he must be a prankster (don't be offended by what the evidence shows).
Offended that I would dare question the secular science community, when simple observation puts much of it into question??
Curiously, all you have done is natter on about your opinions and beliefs while being evasive about providing any actual data, information or evidence to substantiate your ramblings.
Can I be offended by someone making a fool of themselves? No, you don't offend me, you amuse me.
To question science you need to provide evidence that challenges the science, because opinion is remarkably ineffective in challenging science or altering reality. So far all you have done is shot off a bunch of blanks.
Maybe they should be in a different line of work, if they cannot handle the rigors of science and questioning theories as technology increases.
Sadly, for you, I don't think any scientist will feel in any way impelled in any degree to change their work in any way because of the opinion voiced by some smug arrogant creationist infatuated with their beliefs and unable to provide evidence to substantiate a single claim they have made -- scientists get much stronger challenges from their peers.
Occom's razor could agree that a Creator or ID force created or aided in our origin It does, after all, have the fewest assumptions. Creation .... creator.
It's Occam's razor, which is a philosophical tool, useful in science in paring down hypothesis to their most simplistic form, but no guarantee that the simplest hypothesis is the correct one.
Plus your math is wrong: creation or creation plus creator?
Now I am a Deist, and I don't confuse faith with science, I believe that god/s created the universe but I have no need to prove it with science -- science just provides me with the best explanation for how it was done.
ps- I never argued the age of the earth. I simply think there is more than our limited scope of knowledge.
So you agree that the objective empirical evidence shows the earth is old by many different methods agreeing with each other with remarkable consilience, and that what we don't know can only improve on the approximations we have developed via the scientific method. Good.
As for the meaning of science, I have a feeling you might need to take a look at the definition based on it's word origins. To know or to have knowledge sound familiar?
And philosophy means love of knowledge, so? What is important is how the word is used today by scientists -- the meanings of words do change over time you know ... they evolve.
So what should we teach in science class? How to do science? How to use the scientific method to explain objective empirical evidence? How to test theories with predictions? How this is actually done in various fields of science? Sounds good to me.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:36 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 224 of 2073 (733560)
07-18-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:36 PM


Re: redirections
Offended that is takes faith to get life from elements???
If you can get life from elements with faith, I should like to see a demonstration.
Offended that the human genome project has shown us to be very far from chimpanzees, etc??
No-one is offended by stuff you've made up. Amused, yes.
Offended that I would dare question the secular science community, when simple observation puts much of it into question??
Maybe they should be in a different line of work, if they cannot handle the rigors of science and questioning theories as technology increases.
Considering which, it's really unfair that they get the Nobel Prizes, while your genius goes unrecognized. What with them being unfit for the rigors of science, and you knowing so much better than them, you deserve more credit for your wonderful discoveries. Can you remind us what they were?
Occom's razor could agree that a Creator or ID force created or aided in our origin It does, after all, have the fewest assumptions. Creation .... creator.
This is barely written in English and has no apparent meaning.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:36 PM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 225 of 2073 (733562)
07-18-2014 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Pressie
07-17-2014 4:50 AM


Pressie writes:
All natural sciences are based on observation. Your use of the word 'observational' when you wrote 'observational science' is thus unnecessary. It's science.
I was hoping someone would say this. What creationists actually mean by "observational science" is that observations are only valid when an event is witnessed first hand. Observations of the evidence left behind after an event are not accepted as valid.
By this creationist definition of "observational science," if you observed someone shoot someone else, that's a valid observation.
But if all you did was make observations of powder burns, fingerprints and rifling marks for analysis, those are not valid observations.
But as Dr A noted, creationists are selective about when they apply their absurd definition. If you're studying a crime scene, observations of the evidence are valid. Were you there? No, but these observations are considered valid nonetheless.
But if you're studying a paleontological dig, observations of the evidence are not valid. Were you there? No, so these observations are not valid.
I'm all for teaching the creationist concept of observational science in the classroom. It would be an excellent study in illogical and contradictory thinking, and a lesson in how belief can trump rationality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2014 4:50 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2014 10:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 227 by Diomedes, posted 07-18-2014 11:23 AM Percy has seen this message but 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