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.
By the way, evolution of humans should be just mentioned in schools as a theory. it is ridiculous and disrespectful for the whole specie, but since there's a bunch of making a living out of it, it should be just mentioned to kids.
The theory of evolution receives very little attention in most high school biology curricula, usually less than a week, so your wish that it "be just mentioned to kids" is pretty much already the reality.
Importance to facts should be given as priority in education.
You're taking the wrong message. People are telling you that your story about dating the penny is self-evidently wrong. No lab would radiocarbon date a penny, and the cost of radiocarbon dating, at least several hundred dollars per sample today, is beyond what a school could afford for a class of 20 or 30 students. Coyote mentioned the lab reports produced for dated samples (here's an example of what one would look like, Sample Report of Radiocarbon Dating Analyses, this one is three pages). The students in your class could not have received lab reports for any items with no carbon content, and in particular there could have been no lab report for radiocarbon dating a penny.
So either you're lying to us, or your teacher was lying to you.
The point you seem to be arguing is that we shouldn't teach subjects that some people are willing to lie about. Doesn't seem like a sound basis for constructing a curriculum.
AbE: I was moderating this thread as Admin, but there hasn't been any need for moderation in a couple weeks, so I'm returning to normal participation.
I was eleven years old in year 7...not really interested in reams of paperwork, or of large groups of men defining a history of the world, when none of them were old enough to have been there. The items tested for age were numbered and could have been mixed up. I did not care really.
But you care today, because just a few days ago in Message 557 and Message 573 you told us that you discovered a 1958 penny beneath a neighbor's demolished house, that it was radiocarbon dated to 2500 years old, and that this was the foundation of your rejection of radiocarbon dating methods:
Colbard in Messages 557 and 558 writes:
I have never believed the methods claimed for dating materials is correct, mainly because I had a coin from 1958 which dated at 2500 years old by radio carbon dating. ... The coin was an Australian penny which I found under the neighbor's demolished house,...
Having had serious (indeed fatal) doubt cast on your main objection, what do you think of radiocarbon dating now? Scientifically this calls for a reassessment, but you haven't changed your mind, right? Which is fine, that's your right, but it's not scientific.
It's interesting that if someone does not believe in evolution, that they are automatically labelled as religious.
Things that are true over 99.9% of the time are pretty safe assumptions.
Independent thought is taboo to science, as it was heresy to the church.
Scientific thinking is independent of everything but data and evidence. It would make no sense for a scientist to announce, "As an independent thinker thinking out of the box I have arrived at a theory of gravitation where objects fall up," because all the evidence says he is wrong." A scientific consensus forms around a theory only when the evidence becomes sufficiently persuasive. Thinking independent of the evidence would get a scientist nowhere, because without evidence he would have nothing to persuade other scientists. Lack of evidence is behind the failures of ideas like creation science and intelligent design.
So data and evidence (i.e., reality) form the only constraint on scientific thought, which is independent in all other ways, within the constraints of human nature.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : More grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Correctly provide source messages for the first quote.
I have not been able to respond to numerous posts, which no doubt have good arguments. When the posts grow into essays I switch off, because a good answer can be summarized.
You haven't provided any "good answers" yet. You've mostly said things that are obviously untrue, and some other things that seem hateful and ignorant, such as likening science to the Dark Ages (the blossoming of science played a significant role in the Enlightenment), and saying that science will die. You're like a caricature of a creationist.
Science only cares about what can be supported with evidence. There's no evidence for God, so science has nothing to say on the subject. Science definitely does not say there's no God, but without evidence science cannot comment, except perhaps to say there's no evidence.
In science class, why wouldn't you want to teach the most up-to-date scientific knowledge?
You could teach whatever you want but you would not be allowed to test anyone on it, or fail them because it may all be proven false in the future.
When I took my driver's test right-turn-on-red was against the law, but they tested me on the current state of the law, and somehow, amazingly, when the law changed it wasn't a problem. When I took English the word "Internet" didn't even exist, yet it somehow wasn't a problem.
Science is just like all other subjects taught in school - it isn't fixed. The current state of scientific knowledge evolves over time, so we teach and test students on the current state of scientific knowledge and let them learn new developments as they happen, just as with all other subjects.
Have there been any significant changes in scientific views that have occurred in your lifetime that you think pose a problem for science education? One significant change was the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating instead of decelerating, and that there's something causing the acceleration that we've given the name dark energy. Do you see it as a problem that as a student you were taught the expansion of the universe was decelerating and that later you learned it was actually accelerating.
At least with creationism you already have an established base, which does not change, it is only discovered in more detail.
Creationist views *do* change, different creationist groups have different views (such as on the age of the earth), its views aren't supported by the evidence, many of its views are contradicted by the evidence, and it isn't science but religion and so would be unconstitutional. Other than that I can't think of any reasons why it would be inappropriate to teach creationism in science class.
We agree that whether the universe is expanding or not, will not make a lot of difference which way you get out of bed. So there's an impractical theoretical side of science as well as an applied science which is the only one students should be tested on.
You're obviously struggling with the terminology. First there's your use of the word "impractical". Things which make no difference to which way we get out of bed are not impractical. Using a spoon to dig a swimming pool would be impractical. Using a micrometer to measure the distance between New York and San Francisco would be impractical. But there's nothing impractical about the accelerating expansion of the universe. It's just a fact of the natural world. I think all you meant to say was that it isn't useful in day-to-day life.
You're also misapplying the term "applied science" when you assume that the accelerating expansion of the universe is not an example of applied science. It is very much applied science, not theoretical science, though theory is consistent with observation in this case.
Evolution theory has 'proven evidence' to some people but not half of America, which have evidence against it.
No, half of America does not have evidence against evolution. They might reject the theory of evolution, but they have no evidence against it. They might believe they have evidence against it, but they don't. What people believe for spiritual reasons has nothing to do with science, which studies the real world.
So the evidence depends on a persons view or opinion,...
No, it really doesn't. Evidence can be ignored or rejected, something creationists frequently do, but the that doesn't make the evidence go away or disappear.
To say that creationists are all deluded is self condemning, since half of the US believe in it.
Creationist behavior speaks for itself.
I believe there is truth and method in both camps, as well as error in both camps.
Creationism has a method? That has something to do with science?
If as part of your argument for including creationism in science class you want to present the method used by creationism then please proceed forthwith.
I can back up everything I say with evidence, and I'm asking you to do the same. But instead of doing that you're just casting unsupported accusations full of references to things like communism, the Dark Ages and burning at the stake. And calling people hypocrites for asking you to support your claims with evidence is just beyond the pale.
When you run out of on-topic things to say in a thread then it's time to do more research, not whatever it is you're doing.
Are you sure? Because you're the only one here making bald statements that have no factual support. For instance here you imply Capt Stormfield believes there's such a thing as "half monkey men" when he never said anything of the sort:
Let me know when you see a half monkey man and I'll make sure you can have your medication.
In fact no one here, except apparently you, is confusing monkeys with apes.
In the mean time don't lose your hold on what others are saying, because your opinion must line up with theirs, unless of course you have a resource of knowledge that puts you on an equal footing, something like nature and revelation. I am sorry if they don't belong to you, its a pity you would turn down such a good offer for popularity and self gratification.
This is a bit confused, but it sounds like you're suggesting that people should only accept knowledge they gain themselves. Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Current discoveries build on past discoveries. If every researcher started from scratch there'd be very little scientific progress.
The current generation passing on their knowledge to the next is the practice in all fields of human endeavor, be it science, knitting, plumbing, art or football. Perhaps God's greatest gift is our ability to pass knowledge on to others, a quality possessed by other animals to only a very limited extent.
Science class is where what science has learned is imparted to students, just as all the other subject classes are where knowledge in those subjects is imparted to students. Evolution, an ancient Earth and an ancient universe are what science has learned, so that is what we teach in science class. A global flood, a young Earth and flood geology have found no scientific support, so we don't teach them in science class.