I know the scientific terms and how they are used. I was showing that in choosing those terms they have a misnomer if they are going by the plain text.
So you are claiming that education on evolution should necessarily involve intentional misuse of words and intentional misinformation to confuse students.
Sounds more like religious teaching to me ... is that the kind of teaching you had?
In school we use the terms in their basic form first, so if the T of E is taught in schools it should come under better terms to describe the horrid thing.
Curiously in the schools I attended we learned the meanings of the words as they were applied in the various courses of study. This may be why I had a good education ...
... to describe the horrid thing.
Again it seems you are talking about religion rather than science or actual information.
You do realize that attempting to denigrate information is a sign of cognitive dissonance behavior -- what happens when you try to resolve untenable beliefs with reality. It is an emotional response instead of a rational one.
Evolution (actual biological evolution) happens every day. It is an observed fact. Get use to it.
Facts are like that, and science education should teach concepts based on facts rather than beliefs, it should teach how to test concepts with objective empirical evidence rather than acceptance based on pretend authority - which is the way religion is taught.
If you want to rationally address the issue of evolution, you would do it with argument based on terms as used in biological evolution, and you would do it with facts, evidence and logic to show any actual errors in this field.
That this is not your present pursuit on this thread indicates - to me - that you do not have any fact, evidence or logic to support your bias and so you flail away with silly self-defeating arguments.
RAZD said, going independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree?
Try this next time:
type [qs=RAZD]Doing independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree?[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
Doing independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree?
You can also copy and paste what you are quoting rather than retyping it -- I did that in orange -- that avoids typos and accusations of misrepresentation.
Absolutely, but not too independent, it's a balance of self and others. I like your reply.
And what do you do when the independent research shows your opinion to be faulty?
For instance, if you believe the earth is young, and you ran across the evidence in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ... would you accept the evidence of old age or reject and ignore it?
In other words, do you use independent study to correct your opinions with better approximations of reality or just to reinforce your beliefs by rejecting contrary evidence?
Enjoy
ps -- you can use the peek functions to see how formating is done.
Re: How to teach Evolution: not like religion is taught, not by misinformation ...
Sermonizing on Evolution is a contradiction.
You can present what one regards as fact, but to be emotive or moralistic maybe leaning towards the dark ages. We don't want to be preaching evolution.
Correct, so the proper way to teach evolution is the same way all sciences are taught, via the scientific method and how the theories were derived from the known facts, how newly discovered facts augment or contradict previous knowledge and how this affects the theories; what the theories predict should be found that is new knowledge and what they predict should be found if the theories are not true.
Curiously that is the way evolution is taught in science classes in public schools.
Making me out to be of the religious stock is untrue and unfair, since I have only been arguing the case that if the T of E is going to be taught, then it's basic name and philosophies should be scrutinized. Not all who oppose evolution are bias towards the church's agenda.
There are many churches and many beliefs, many beliefs are independent of churches, but all beliefs are -- by definition -- not supported by facts, just by faith. Science -- including evolution -- is based on facts, and further they are based on testing our knowledge against empirical objective evidence that shows how well that knowledge approximates reality. Belief cannot do that, not on faith alone.
Another category I have considered falls into this type of behavior --
Now delusion(1b) is similar to ignorant with a level of "bullied or brainwashed" added -- the person is not so much ignorant and misinformed, told something that is not true. This results in conflict when confronted with proper information and this can lead to cognitive dissonance
Like ignorance this level of delusion is curable with education, but there is the added burden of unlearning the false information. In these cases it is best to start by discarding everything you have been taught on the subject and then learn the valid information.
Delusion(3) would be the same as insane.
Evolution explains the diversity of life, it has been validated by study after study, test after test, for over 150 years, and it has been intensely attacked without perceptible affect on the validity of the science.
Then it's the independent v's the majority. What does history show about individuals who stand out from the majority? It' not a criterion for truth but often the case.
If it's the individual against overwhelming facts accepted by the majority then it is the individual that has a problem -- they have to show that the overwhelming facts are wrong and that there is a better explanation for all the evidence and why there is so much consilience from different fields of inquiry.
To be, in the same way that the purpose of rocks is to be.
Message 369: Should we teach evolution and religion at school? We should teach neither.
There is no problem with teaching about religion in classes on religion -- as long as many religions are compared and contrasted, which is the LAST thing fanatic believers want to see. This would however allow students to be open-minded and apply critical thinking to what they believe.
Or in classes on human history and the contributions pro and con from the various religions in the development of modern society.
Science should be taught in science class, and whether you like it or not, evolution IS science.
It is strange that you single out evolution, when geology, physics, astronomy, and other science disciplines also show many religious beliefs to be invalid. Galileo showed that the earth was not the center, yet religion survived. There is massive evidence that the earth is old, very very old, yet religion survives. There is equally massive evidence that evolution is an ongoing process that explains the diversity of life on earth, and religion will survive this knowledge as well.
Message 375: All the strange theories of evolution will not enter education.
You want critical thinking but you want to restrict it to fit your beliefs? What a strange idea.
Most religions in the world, most believers of religions in the world do not have a conflict with evolution or sciences.
Coyote, your remark about the talking snake, it is part of an old text, which if the students want to read, they can make their own minds up whether it is true or not.
That would be approaching the topic with a skeptical open mind.
If they want to delve into Darwin, they can. But to make another person's ideas a a criterion for getting a career is not appropriate.
Darwin is neither the beginning nor the end of evolution science. He is not the god-father\figurehead\icon of evolution, and his work was paralleled by Wallace, and built on work by his father as others have built on the findings of others in the field -- the way science grows.
... But to make another person's ideas a a criterion for getting a career is not appropriate.
Not to worry one can always flip burgers. Or be a banker. But if you want to be a biologist you need to study the fields of biology, ecology and evolution.
Addressing the title of this thread, isn't the clamor for equal treatment for religious topics such as creationism simply an admission of failure on the part of parents and churches to teach these subjects?
No, it is a symptom of fanatic fundamentalists wanting to make the world conform to their narrow beliefs rather than accept reality for what it shows.
That this problem only comes up with fanatic fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu) and that the reaction of different sects is different shows that the issue is one of religion and not one of reality or science understanding reality.
Message 405: However, most modern religious organizations have officially recognized Evolution and accepted it as part of their curriculum. That is because they do not consider the Bible as an authority any longer.
OR they recognize that belief that is contradicted by the evidence of reality is wrong, and that maintaining that belief in spite of evidence contradicting it is delusional.
Message 403: I think some things like the age of the earth, don't matter when you have to get up for work Monday morning, ...
Again I suggest you look at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for the evidence that the earth is significantly older than any YEC scenario from a number of different sources that reach the same results: the earth IS very very old.
Message 405: I suppose some OC people would find it irritating that they cannot classify and categorize every thing and test people on it.
This phrase doesn't make sense to me. Can we classify and categorize things by age? Usually, by many different methods. Can we test people on the age of the earth? Yes.
Message 403: ... and there does not have to be a majority consensus on these issues.
You don't get to vote on facts, you can accept them or be delusional.
Message 406: Or they could have been lumped together in a global flood?
Not really: there are different species in different layers and there are thousands of these sorted layers that occur one on top of the other without the jumbling\mixing that would result from a single event. The different shells are basically the same sizes overall, but each layer has different sizes that would be separated out by one settling event.
Teaching this simple fact in schools would be an easy to understand argument for age.
No, not at all. If you want to come to the topic unarmed with what creationists teach on floods dynamics, don't expect a catering service.
It appears you assume that this is new information, something that we have not been through before, but you will find that this is a false assumption.
Please start with your "best" piece of information, a single argument that you find compelling, unencumbered by other issues ... and check first that it is not listed on
... don't waste time, bandwidth, etc -- these arguments are losers out of the box.
Message 424: I think you may be too patriotic towards what you see as mainstream science. ...
LOL-- I didn't know science was a country now ...
Curiously, I would admit to being "patriotic" (devoted) to the founding concepts of this country, freedom, justice, equality and the inalienable rights of ALL people ... ... to the scientific method, but not to science per se -- I don't need to be devoted to facts, they exist whether you accept them or not.
When you say that a person is delusional because they Q whatever is passed down from the unquestionable gods of science, ...
No they are delusional when they hold beliefs that are contradicted by facts. It's in the definition:
Color added for emphasis.
... it is not scientific or even cool to think like that. ...
It is irrational to believe that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that everything orbits the earth ... that the earth is young and that a flood covered the whole world ... these are all beliefs that are falsified by objective empirical evidence.
... Science is a collection agent for whatever people want to learn, ...
No, it is a methodology to collect knowledge of what works, and a methodology to dismiss ideas that are contradicted by facts no matter how much "people want to learn" them.
Science is an impartial feedback system:
Each cycle adds new information -- the results pro or con from the testing -- to the knowledge available before. Once the results are published they are reviewed and tested by other scientists to check that they can replicate the results, and science never rests after any results, but continues to test and evaluate and review.
... and it is a progressive changing thing ...
Because it continuously adds new evidence and information and corrects invalid concepts and builds on valid concepts. This is WHY science works, this is HOW it provides better and better explanations of the objective empirical evidence.
... to which it is never wise to bow down and begin worshiping as the truth. ...
Amusingly that only occurs in dogmatic absolutist doctrine belief systems, such as religion.
Science does not even claim that "truth" is knowable, let alone worshiped. At best science approximates reality by the scientific process, eliminating concepts that are contradicted by evidence no matter how "popular" they are (lamarkism for instance) and building on the tentative knowledge of previous experiments and studies.
Re the deposits in Dover, just because there was one massive flood does not mean that it cannot deposit and erode in segments continuously for over a year, which is how long it lasted.
One layer every hour 24 hours a day for 365 days does not produce enough layers OR the depth of deposits necessary to build the cliffs of Dover.
Each layer would be sorted by size not jumbled as they are, and you would need to evolve the next generation in each hour for the next layer, a rate of macro-evolutionary change faster than anything observed by science.
... While I am sure of a global flood, I don't know how these deposits took place.
That is a good Q, and I struggle with it, because what we believe does come first.
Yet you were not born with the belief ... just as you were not born knowing how the Cliffs Of Dover deposits took place.
Example, a philosophical outlook seems to be the backbone of observation. We see what we believe. If we believe the earth is flat, our eyes confirm it, but if we believe it is round, our eyes also confirm it because we don't see an endless horizon. So what we believe affects what we see and how we see it.
Yet science does not rely on belief, it relies on objective empirical evidence and explanations of how objective empirical evidence came to be (theories) which are tested by predictions and any new evidence uncovered.
Example: going into space you can SEE that the earth appears spherical, that you can orbit around it and not see any edges, so you can SEE that it is NOT flat. We also know this from many airplane trips that continuously travel around the earth and by the fact that ships disappear on the horizon, not because of distance but because of the curvature of the surface of the ocean, the hulls are out of sight before the superstructures.
After seeing all this evidence from several sources we rationally conclude that the flat earth is an invalid concept and the round earth is a better concept for the shape of the earth. We can further test this shape with instruments (gps etc) to see if the theoretical oblate spheroid shape is a better explanation than a perfectly round sphere shape due to the spin of the earth causing it to flatten slightly. This too has been validated.
We know the earth is spherical, but there are a lot of things we don't know, and that's where our guiding philosophy takes us further. ...
We know the earth is an oblate spheroid because of a preponderance of evidence, not because of any philosophy.
... I expect that if the philosophy were true, that we would not have a string of rejected theories. ...
You are confusing philosophy with dogmatic belief AND you are confusing science with philosophy. Both of these are incorrect depictions.
The reason that there is a "string of rejected theories" is because that is how science works: it tests theories against objective empirical evidence and throws out the ones that are contradicted. We threw out the theory that the earth is flat because of the evidence that contradicts it.
Or is the philosophy wrong?
Any belief, philosophy or scientific theory that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is wrong.
For instance the old age of the earth is not a belief but a conclusion reached from a preponderance of evidence. A young earth concept is just as invalid as the flat earth concept, because of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts a young earth.
There is a single tree that is over 5,000 years (and there was no flood during it's lifetime).
There are four timelines of trees that reach back over 5,000 years, of which three that reach back over 8,000 years two that reach back over 10,000 years and one that reaches back over 12,000 years.
There are lake varves that reach back over 35,000 years.
There are ice layers that reach back over 200,000 years.
These are countable annual layers that do not require radiometric dating, and their annual character can be confirmed by additional information in the layers. I'll be happy to discuss this in greater detail on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 if you are interested.
... But they say this is all part of the process of learning. ...
And if you don't have a methodology that can show what beliefs are false then you are not learning about reality are you?
What we have in mind affects our conclusions. And if something is repeated for long enough people accept it as truth or whatever.
That is how brainwashing works, and (curiously) how religion works: repetition of belief (opinion not based on fact or reason).
Such has been the progress of science, an accumulated pile which now is moving on its own impetus.
Still wrong. It appears that your only way to conceive of learning is based on this dogma model used by religious teaching, that the power of the argument lies in how it massages your beliefs not whether it can be tested and validated by objective empirical evidence.
And there is no arguing, with this interconnected fur ball, except when it becomes too much, it will finally be hocked up and out of this world.
A rather apt description of what happens when cognitive dissonance overwhelms belief and the belief is rejected because of the contradicting evidence being too overwhelming.
Also an apt description of the epiphany people go through when they realize their YEC beliefs were wrong ... as evidenced by testimony of many people that have visited this forum.
So yes enjoy while it lasts.
Oh I do enjoy the debate, but I also enjoy the thanks I get for helping people see what reality has to say.
... an accumulated pile which now is moving on its own impetus.
Yes the knowledge gained by the scientific method is snowballing, knowledge we gain leads to new theories that lead to new knowledge of how the universe works: that is why science overturns beliefs and opinions as it gets closer and closer to reality.
But it is also the consilience of results from entirely different sources of investigation that is best explained by each one finding the same underlying reality.
If you believe in creation, then the real bible is that creation, and understanding how that reality works and came to be is a truer act of faith. The obverse to that is to believe that the contradictory evidence was created by god/s to fool and delude people, to trick them.
Genuine Biblical studies are not philosophical, but the beginning of faith, whereas science is a study of doubt, hence everything needs to be documented and dissected and approved by a board.
That's not quite right, let me correct it:
Dogmatic Biblical studies are not philosophical, but the beginning of blind faith, whereas science is a study of doubt, hence everything needs to be questioned, documented, and dissected and tested via peer review by other scientists that test results and replicate tests.
The student of faith watches the frog by the pond catching insects and eating them. He examines the poop and discovers parts of insects in it, so he concludes that the frog eats insects and has proof.
That's not quite right, let me correct it:
The student of ecology watches the frog by the pond catching insects and eating them. He examines the poop and discovers parts of insects in it along with worms and some other aquatic critters, so he concludes that the frog eats insects, worms and these other aquatic critters and has evidence. (Faith has nothing to do with this scientific study.)
The student of science, kills a hundred frogs and has a hundred scientists from different parts of the world cut them open and document the gizzards as well as write up an essay to a recognized peer reviewed magazine.
That's not quite right, let me correct it:
The high school student of biology, takes a dead frog, just as hundreds of high school biology students from different parts of the world do, cuts it open and documents the gizzards and muscles and ligaments and bones, as well as write up an essay to report their findings. They compare these finding with similar experiments on other animals to see the homologies between species. Examining the contents of the stomach they see bits of insects, worms and other aquatic critters, confirming that they are digested. This was first done in the 1800's and repetitions of this study only confirm the initial findings: that frogs bear many similarities in bone structure and organs and that these homologies are best explained by evolution from common ancestors. (Faith has nothing to do with this scientific experiment.)
After some years, students will be allowed to buy text books containing this information, and know that frogs eat insects. And be tested on it, and if they fail they will have a mundane career.
That's not quite right, let me correct it:
High school students can readily buy many existing text books (or get them from the library) containing this information, and know that frogs eat insects etc. And be tested on it, and if they fail they will have no career in biological science. (Faith has nothing to do with this scientific field.)
The student of faith still has a pond and is now studying tadpoles.
That's not quite right, let me correct it:
The student of ecology still has a pond and is now studying tadpoles, observing how their numbers decrease due to predation, and their interactions with other life in the pond, including older frogs. (Faith has nothing to do with this scientific study.)
The students of science are sitting in class, hitting each other out of boredom, because the frogs were killed off and there is a plague of insects outside.
That's not quite right, let me correct it:
The students of faith are sitting in class, hitting each other out of denial anger, because they think frogs were killed off and there is a biblical plague of insects outside.
Curiously it seems that dogmatic faith has everything to do with denial of reality, and that the cognitive dissonance caused by evidence that contradicts belief results in reactions that include anger, 'dissing' the messenger/s and further attempts to insulate one from contradictory information via willing ignorance and cherry-picking of only evidence that supports belief, and withdrawing into groups that support the belief/s.
But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.
Here's a curious thing. Part of my house was built in 1795 +/- 5 years. Another part was built around 1860 and a third part some time before 1930.
One of the clue for the latter part is that a plat map in 1895 shows no road and no building in or near my current house location, but one in 1930 shows the outline of the whole house and the street and other neighbors.
But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.
If I start with a single bristlecone pine tree in the white mountains of California ... I can count the growth rings and find out that it is currently (2014) 4,846 years old.
quote:Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 2: The "Methusulah" specimen was sampled (by boring) in 1957, the estimated germination date is 2,832 years BCE, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,839 years (in 2007 ... and counting). See "Wikipedia: Methuselah Tree"(2) for additional information on this one tree.
Would you agree that this evidence shows that the earth is at least this old and probably older?
My argument is that true science and true religion are the one and same study ...
They are congruent as long as objective empirical evidence is taken as evidence of creation.
... and that they can and should be taught together.
Science is properly taught in science classes where investigations are necessarily limited by what can be observed and tested. Religion is properly taught in philosophy or comparative theology classes -- such classes can refer to scientific evidence and knowledge as foundational arguments, ie -- beliefs that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence are more likely "true" than ones at odds with the evidence (such as age of the earth).
Science is a tool for acquiring knowledge related to reality; just as math is a tool to help understand science, science is a tool for understanding the reality of creation.
see Is ID properly pursued? for my position on the relation of science to philosophy & religion.
But the prevalence of false religion and false science ...
In your not so humble opinion.
Science disproves the false aspect of religion, ...
With objective empirical evidence that contradicts those aspects.
... and false science disproves the true aspect of religion.
(a) Do you have any examples of this?
(b) How do you KNOW that it is false science and
(c) How do you KNOW that it is 'true' religion?
The subjects of religion and science have large areas of overlap, they can agree on many points. And they can agree even more as religions give up their stance on creationist views, which has been happening on the official level.
Just as religion evolved to accept that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe around with all other objects orbit, religion is evolving to accept that the earth is old and that there was no noachin flood event in the looooong natural history of the earth.
We observe this by observing all the religions and different sects that already accept these facts of reality ... facts determined by multiple consilient areas of scientific investigation.
That's what all the objective empirical evidence says ... we can look at various stages of "building the house" and know that the earth is at least as old as those events.
... Personally I go with about 6000 years old. ...
There is a single tree in the White Mountains of California that is over 5,000 years old and still kicking. Standing nearby is a dead "sentinel" that was over 7,000 years old when it died, there is evidence from other trees and remnants that show the world is over 8,000 years old, and there are tree chronologies in Germany and Ireland that show the earth is over 12,000 years old, ... there are lake varves in Japan that show the earth is over 35,000 years old ... and ice layers that show the earth is over 200,000 years old
What you believe is your problem. The earth is old -- very very old -- regardless of your belief or your opinion.
... I have never believed the methods claimed for dating materials is correct, ...
Again this is your problem, reality will continue to exist without your "approval" ... because opinion and belief have shown a remarkable inability to affect reality in any way.
... mainly because I had a coin from 1958 which dated at 2500 years old by radio carbon dating. ...
Curiously I wasn't aware that coins were living organisms. Can you tell me what part of the coin consumed atmospheric carbon during it's life?
Funny how one can always count on creationists to misuse science to make up fake information that doesn't hold up to scrutiny ... but can fool the gullible.
... Apparently the mistakes in readings are exponential after a few decades back in time. ...
Decay is exponential. We gave known annual layers that anyone can count and use against 14C measurements and find that this validates 14C decay over the period of time where it is applicable -- ~50,000 years.
If "mistakes" were exponential then there would be increasing disagreement between samples with time. Curiously this does not show up in the actual results.
... But there is no sense in arguing here. I'm just letting you know where I'm at.
Ignorance is curable.
Fortunately we don't need to listen to you when we apply scientific knowledge to determining the age of things.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
