Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
166 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 162 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,045 Year: 2,793/23,288 Month: 984/1,809 Week: 103/313 Day: 20/39 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 1323 (733564)
07-18-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
07-18-2014 9:51 AM


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.

A teacher would likely get fired for teaching this kind of truth in many jurisdictions. It might even be considered an infringement on the first amendment.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 07-18-2014 9:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 936
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 227 of 1323 (733565)
07-18-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
07-18-2014 9:51 AM


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.

You know, this begs the question: if observational science, as creationists allude to, requires direct observation of the event in order to classify it as fact, than how precisely can they claim with all certainty that Genesis and The Flood happened as absolute facts if they were not there to see it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 07-18-2014 9:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coragyps, posted 07-18-2014 11:40 AM Diomedes has not yet responded
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 11:43 AM Diomedes has not yet responded
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2014 12:14 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5436
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 228 of 1323 (733567)
07-18-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Diomedes
07-18-2014 11:23 AM


If observational science, as creationists allude to, requires direct observation of the event in order to classify it as fact, than how precisely can they claim with all certainty that Genesis and The Flood happened as absolute facts if they were not there to see it?

You big silly!!

Because the Bible trumps even direct observation. Demons might be influencing your eyeballs, but they couldn't possibly have influenced scribes or King James's translating team.


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Diomedes, posted 07-18-2014 11:23 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 1323 (733569)
07-18-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Diomedes
07-18-2014 11:23 AM


how precisely can they claim with all certainty that Genesis and The Flood happened as absolute facts if they were not there to see it?

God was there and he saw it, and then he told the authors what to write.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Diomedes, posted 07-18-2014 11:23 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 1323 (733573)
07-18-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Diomedes
07-18-2014 11:23 AM


how precisely can they claim with all certainty that Genesis and The Flood happened as absolute facts if they were not there to see it?

What you are describing is exactly the creationists game. The argument would be that both secular notions and the Bible have exactly the same scientific support (namely none), so why do you believe your secular, rebellious, fallen crap instead of the word of God?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Diomedes, posted 07-18-2014 11:23 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 231 of 1323 (733599)
07-19-2014 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by mram10
07-16-2014 12:11 PM


Common sense question:
Which is the safer teaching?
1. You are a chemical/biological accident. Upon death you will decompose and cease to exist as an individual.
2. You are a created for a purpose, held accountable for everything you do, etc.

Typical false dilemma. All possible choices need to be present, not just the few narrow ones you want to exploit for your own devious purposes.

3. You evolved naturally (AKA "You are a chemical/biological accident") and you are held accountable for everything that you do.

Now #3 is the most probable one.

Did we evolve naturally or were we created specially (and divinely, ie by supernatural means)? Does that even actually matter?

We exist. How do we exist? That is open to discussion, apparently. Do we exist? That is a solid fact not open to discussion, since it is firmly established (if you disagree, then you have very serious problems with reality, not that that's unusual for creationists, unfortunately, especially for them).

Are we accountable for our actions? Yeah! Does it matter for our accountability whether we were specially created by supernatural means or we had evolved by natural means? No, not in the least. At least, in reality. But our ideas about our accountability could make a difference.

Are we solely accountable to some supernatural rules-maker? That is certainly what most fundamentalists want to tell us. OK, what are the consequences of taking that approach?

In developmental psychology, we look at the various stages of development that a human neonate progresses through until it finally, if ever, arrives at adult reasoning (HINT: not everyone makes it that far!). The most notable student of these stages of development was Piaget. Before you dismiss Piaget out-of-hand, look at what he observed. Like young children's inability to understand that others do not share their own knowledge (eg, they know that something is hidden under that cup, but they think that everybody else also knows what is hidden under that cup). Or young children's inability to deal with conservation, in that a tall narrow glass of liquid is not the same amount as a short wide glass. Adults can easily see the differences, whereas younger individuals are not yet able to see that.

ALERT TO NEW PARENTS OR JUST ABOUT TO BECOME PARENTS: learn what your new-borns are about to grow and develop through. And enjoy it thoroughly. This is the most joyous part of your life!

Morality also has its stages of development. Pre-schoolers go through a stage called "rules-based morality." Basically, some authority figure lies down some rules and everybody must follow those rules. What do you do? You follow the rules. What happens if following the rules will cause someone to come to harm? You follow the rules. You followed the rules and somebody came to harm because of it. Are you responsible for that harm? No, it is the Rules-Giver who's responsible for that. That is what rules-based morality is all about. You do what you are told to do and if anybody comes to harm because of it then that's the responsibility of the rules-giver.

In the 1950's there's an infamous psychological study whose name I forget. Ostensibly, it's a learning experiment to measure the effects of punishment on the ability to learn. The "learner" (a confederate of the experimenters) is placed in a booth and strapped up with electrodes that will deliver an electrical shock of increasing intensity, up to and beyond the lethal level. The "teacher" (the actual subject) asks the questions and administers the "teaching" shocks accordingly. All the time, there's a "scientist" with a clipboard and wearing a white lab coat directing the experiment. As the "teacher" administers ever increasing levels of electrical shock (including ones explicitly labeled as "lethal" and beyond) accompanied by the "subject's" screams of pain and heart problems, the "teacher" reaches a point beyond which he simply cannot proceed, until the "scientist" informs him that the "scientist" accepts all responsibility for the consequences, at which point many subjects continue on well beyond the lethal levels.

That is the beauty of rules-based morality: you do not have to have any degree of personal responsibility for anything you do. It is the Rules-Giver who has all the responsibility. Oh, my! I have nothing at all against a gay guy, but if God decides to blast his soul into Eternal Damnation, well, I had nothing at all to do with that! Oh, wow, there's this gay guy that some homophobic straights are physically torturing. God tells me I must not do anything about that torture despite what I personally feel about it. But that's OK, because I'm not responsible, but rather God is.

Those are the consequences of Christianity's rule-based morality. You absolve yourself of any and all personal responsibility. Instead, if by following "God's Laws" you cause any kind of harm to come to somebody, then you yourself are not responsible, but rather it is the RulesGiver who is responsible, ie God. "Ich bin nicht verantwortlich! Ich befolgte nur meine Befehle!" ("I am not responsible! I was only following my orders!").

So then, when we remove "God" from the equation, to whom are we responsible? To each other!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 12:11 PM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 11:40 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 1919 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 232 of 1323 (733607)
07-19-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by dwise1
07-19-2014 1:44 AM


Typical false dilemma. All possible choices need to be present, not just the few narrow ones you want to exploit for your own devious purposes.

So, we agree All possible choices need to be present. As for chimpanzee v human dna, why don't you have questions about this "theory" based on the number of chromosome difference as well as the 600mil base pairs difference from chimps to humans.

To answer why evolution and creation should be taught; as technology increases, we see the complexity of what were once thought of as basic forms. The complexity issue alone should warrant the ID option.

As for the first cell.... is it possible it was created or came from crystals??? I have heard some off the wall explanations, yet ID is not a valid option?? You cannot argue logically that ID should not be listed as a valid option, since we have very little knowledge of our universe. Anyone saying we do, is dishonest and delusional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by dwise1, posted 07-19-2014 1:44 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2014 11:46 AM mram10 has responded
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 07-19-2014 11:58 AM mram10 has responded
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2014 12:22 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 248 by ramoss, posted 07-19-2014 11:22 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 233 of 1323 (733611)
07-19-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by mram10
07-19-2014 11:40 AM


The complexity issue alone should warrant the ID option.

So, complexity is enough to turn ID, which is simply religion playing hide-the-god, into a science?

And what would you use as a textbook, the bible?

Regarding ID as a science, see the decision from the Dover trial. That should disabuse you of that notion.


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 232 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 11:40 AM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:13 PM Coyote has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17924
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 234 of 1323 (733612)
07-19-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by mram10
07-19-2014 11:40 AM


mram writes:

You cannot argue logically that ID should not be listed as a valid option, since we have very little knowledge of our universe.


One piece of knowledge that we don't have is that any potential "designer" exists. Intelligent Design makes no more sense than Unicorn Design or Bigfoot Design.

What we do know is that living things are made of simple chemicals. There's no logical reason to think, "you can't get here from there."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 11:40 AM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:06 PM ringo has responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 1919 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 235 of 1323 (733613)
07-19-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Dr Adequate
07-18-2014 8:59 AM


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.

As would I, my friend You somehow think that a cell was formed by pure accident, by elements that just so happened to show up from a singularity. Where did that come from? (It always gets back to that point, doesn't it)

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.

I would point you to the human genome project for information on the above. Please see for yourself and research the number of dna bases for humans and for chimps or orangatuns. I would hate to "make up" anything

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.

I would hope you could see past my quick typing and see the message behind But, that obviously goes against your agenda.

It is obvious you are a brainwashed individual that is not interested in science. You are more interested in making irrational comments. It is amusing though


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2014 8:59 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 07-19-2014 12:05 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 1:26 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17924
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 236 of 1323 (733614)
07-19-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:02 PM


Re: redirections
mram10 writes:

It is obvious you are a brainwashed individual that is not interested in science.


You seem to have that opinion of a lot of people here. Are you the only one with a dirty brain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:02 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 1919 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 237 of 1323 (733615)
07-19-2014 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by ringo
07-19-2014 11:58 AM


So zombie,
Are you saying unicorns never existed? So, you are saying you are omniscient? You discount any historical documents mentioning their existence? You discount that the mass number of extinct species did not include them? That would imply you have an idea of what each of theses extinct species was

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 07-19-2014 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by ringo, posted 07-19-2014 12:17 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 1919 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 238 of 1323 (733617)
07-19-2014 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Coyote
07-19-2014 11:46 AM


The complexity issue alone should warrant the ID option.

So, complexity is enough to turn ID, which is simply religion playing hide-the-god, into a science?

And what would you use as a textbook, the bible?

Regarding ID as a science, see the decision from the Dover trial. That should disabuse you of that notion.

Complexity in any engineering area generally requires a complex design. To see a simple organism and knowing what it required for it to "live" would point to more than a "miracle."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2014 11:46 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2014 12:44 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2014 1:10 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 244 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 1:29 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2014 5:46 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17924
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 239 of 1323 (733618)
07-19-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:06 PM


mram10 writes:

Are you saying unicorns never existed?


I'm saying we don't know; we have no reason to think they ever did.

mram10 writes:

You discount any historical documents mentioning their existence?


I wouldn't teach in schools that unicorns "might have" designed the universe based on legends about unicorns.

mram10 writes:

You discount that the mass number of extinct species did not include them?


Are you suggesting that we should teach in schools that unicorns "might have" designed the universe and then became extinct? If we're going to teach every possibility that remote, we'll have to extend the school year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:06 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 240 of 1323 (733620)
07-19-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by mram10
07-19-2014 11:40 AM


just possibility ≠ science
So, we agree All possible choices need to be present. ...

If we were teaching a class on religion, then all religions should be discussed and compared ...

If we were teaching a class on philosophy, then all philosophies should be discussed and compared ...

If we were teaching a class on science, then all sciences should be discussed and compared ...

If we were teaching a class on evolution science, then all aspects of evolution science should be discussed ...

If we were teaching a class on abiogenesis science, then all aspects of abiogenesis science should be discussed ...

... within the bounds of the time-frame for the class.

BTW ... you are aware, aren't you that evolution is NOT concerned with the origin of life, just how it has evolved from generation to generation (which means you can't study it without life existing) ... yes?

I notice that you have not yet provided what you understand to be definitions for

  1. 'micro'evolution
  2. 'macro'evolution
  3. the theory of evolution

If you know what they mean, then this should be easy.

In fact I don't think you have really answered a single question of any substance that anyone has asked you ... rather poor form in a debate, yes?

As for the first cell.... is it possible it was created or came from crystals??? I have heard some off the wall explanations, yet ID is not a valid option?? You cannot argue logically that ID should not be listed as a valid option, since we have very little knowledge of our universe. Anyone saying we do, is dishonest and delusional.

Which would be a valid point in a class on comparing various theological creation concepts, or in a class on philosophical discussion of possibilities (which would also include panspermia and other means of transporting life from elsewhere in the universe, and doesn't address the question of where that life originated).

But just discussing possibilities is not science: science is based on evidence and how that evidence can be explained by theory and how that theory is tested by predictions and falsification tests.

As for the first cell.... is it possible it was created or came from crystals??? I have heard some off the wall explanations, ...

Which, alone, is not science -- the issue is whether the hypothesis in question makes testable predictions, and whether those predictions have been tested.

As noted in Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II), there are several hypothesis on the formation of chemical evolution of primitive life that are being tested ... and this is what makes the field of abiogenesis a science, and the lack of such work on ID is what keeps it from being science.

To answer why evolution and creation should be taught; as technology increases, we see the complexity of what were once thought of as basic forms. The complexity issue alone should warrant the ID option.

Again, evolution makes testable predictions regarding complexity -- that in certain conditions it will increase and in other conditions it will decrease. Evolution doesn't care about the degree of complexity, because that is irrelevant to the long term trends.

IDology does not make testable predictions regarding complexity, rather it makes the logically invalid assumption that if complexity in X cannot be explained that it must be designed by an outside agent (typical false dichotomy creationist ploy) -- a claim that has, incidentally, been falsified in every single instance that has been suggested as an example. See Acid Test and Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for example.

Enjoy

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 232 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 11:40 AM mram10 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