Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
32 online now:
caffeine, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,828 Year: 16,864/19,786 Month: 989/2,598 Week: 235/251 Day: 6/58 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist/ID Education should be allowed
Skulb
Junior Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 07-16-2013


Message 98 of 116 (703289)
07-17-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
12-05-2006 6:05 PM


Personally I think the topic of education is tricky either way because even if you don`t have religion poking its nose into it the government will. I have trouble seeing how political control of the curriculum is any better than religious control. It`s still irrelevant outside control of what is being taught, and whether it`s for religious or political purposes makes little difference to me.

So if you wanna stop religious ideas like ID from being taught you should broaden it to include PC ideological education too, or it`s hypocritical. I don`t really see anybody doing that though. And even though I am pretty much convinced by the general idea of evolution, I just do not see why it is such a huge deal if somebody else thinks differently. Precisely how would society be damaged if everybody believed in ID/creationism? People would be a little dumber in this particular field, but then most people are really dumb already so it`d hardly make much of an impact anyway.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : 1 blank line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 6:05 PM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 07-17-2013 3:42 PM Skulb has responded

    
Skulb
Junior Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 07-16-2013


Message 100 of 116 (703292)
07-17-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Stile
07-17-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Use Pikachu when compiling your accounts receivable
That makes sense I guess. But science has been a pretty dodgy affair all along I think, which is sometimes forgotten. A century ago it was considered established fact that races had different values, with aboriginals, native Americans and blacks at the bottom, Arabs and Slavs in the middle and eastern Asians and Caucasian at the top. I can remember that we had maps in the classrooms in the 80s showing caricatured negros next to Africa on them and lists of races after their degree of development on the sides of the map. All the teachers wanted them removed but were unable to because of lack of funds. If it wasn`t so disgusting it would be funny.

Other things considered scientific fact at various points include phrenology, alchemy and astrology. My point is that scientists have always been holier than thou with their theories, and sometimes they turn out to be wrong. A natural part of talking about the theory of evolution is what would falsify the theory. That`s science right? And what would falsify it would be to prove ID, not that I personally can see how that would be possible, but you get my point. The demand for falsification is there for a reason, to avoid scientists becoming zealots for their own pet theories, and I see very few attempts in biology to provide solid falsification criteria. Might as well have the ID people do it then

Thanks for the welcome. I have been looking for a site to discuss stuff like this where the moderation isn`t insanely skewed one way or another. Most sites have lots of conflict and little debate, but here it looks like the level is a bit more intellectual, which I definitely like.

Edited by Skulb, : No reason given.

Edited by Skulb, : Permanent PS: All my edits are to correct spelling, poor grammar or weird syntax.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : 1 more blank line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 07-17-2013 3:42 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by hooah212002, posted 07-17-2013 6:46 PM Skulb has responded
 Message 106 by Pressie, posted 07-18-2013 12:41 AM Skulb has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Stile, posted 07-18-2013 12:19 PM Skulb has not yet responded

    
Skulb
Junior Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 07-16-2013


Message 102 of 116 (703296)
07-17-2013 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by hooah212002
07-17-2013 6:46 PM


Re: Use Pikachu when compiling your accounts receivable
We disagree about basically everything then. It was scientists who held conferences last century to prove that the white race was better than the others, who insisted in the 19th century that drinking lead was healthy and any number of other things. They were just as insistent that they alone knew the truth about the world then as they are now.

If you actually read Popper he explicitly stated that without a falsification HDM approach, science degrades into pathological science where you try to prove your own hypothesis by filtering evidence so it supports the theory while ignoring the evidence that doesn`t support it. To me this makes someone like Dawkins is a real zealot because he exclusively presents evidence in favor of his own theory while claiming it as fact, even though a theory is an explanation of facts and not fact itself, without presenting criteria for falsifying the theory. This doesn`t even mean I disagree with him, but that as long as he engages in pathological, inductive science he`s undermining himself and the science of biology.

As for biologists as a whole they have recently spent 20 years or so insisting that 97% of genes are "junk DNA" instead of admitting that they have no idea what it`s for. They have just now changed their minds on this issue and are therefore saying the complete opposite of what they said last year. But we were supposed to believe them without proper scientific exposition last year and we`re supposed to trust them without proper scientific exposition now. The scientific principles soft sciences would be well advised to use were developed in the 19th century, but instead of sticking to them modern biologists have tried to engage in induction, which works fine in physics and mathematics because the principles are constant there, but not in interpretative sciences like biology.

As a result of biologists abandoning their scientific method in order to postulate undebatable truth, there really are no proper falsification criteria incorporated into the theory of evolution, and there needs to be. And if high school isn`t the place to learn about this very important scientific principle, when should it be done? Lots of people quit school for good after high school.

Edited by Skulb, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by hooah212002, posted 07-17-2013 6:46 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 07-17-2013 8:11 PM Skulb has not yet responded
 Message 104 by hooah212002, posted 07-17-2013 8:13 PM Skulb has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2013 11:04 PM Skulb has not yet responded
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 07-18-2013 12:35 PM Skulb has responded
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 07-18-2013 2:24 PM Skulb has not yet responded

    
Skulb
Junior Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 07-16-2013


Message 110 of 116 (703434)
07-21-2013 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ringo
07-18-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Use Pikachu when compiling your accounts receivable
"Yes, that's the greatest strength of science, the ability to admit when you're wrong. New evidence often makes old ideas wrong."

I know but that is what is not happening. Instead an illegitimate practise of consensus based paradigms has been introduced to replace it, specifically for political purposes, under which change is resisted for decade after decade because people have made their careers under the old paradigm and refuse to accept contradicting information. This is how modern science now works and although you all give wonderful presentations of how science is supposed to work it not how it actually works in the real world. We could discuss how this phenomenon affect evolutionary biology in particular but I don`t think there`s much point.

Unless you catch up on science practises for the past few decades you`ll obviously not understand a word I`m saying, and to be frank the level of arrogance and self admiration in some of these posts is very unappealing.

I will therefore excuse myself from the discussion and these forums. I want intelligent conversation, not scientific dogmas and an inability to think individually.

Have a nice summer.

Edited by Skulb, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 07-18-2013 12:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 07-21-2013 7:42 PM Skulb has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2013 11:22 PM Skulb has not yet responded
 Message 114 by Stile, posted 07-22-2013 9:19 AM Skulb has not yet responded
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 07-22-2013 11:48 AM Skulb has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019