Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
40 online now:
Captcass, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,608 Year: 16,644/19,786 Month: 769/2,598 Week: 15/251 Day: 15/23 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist/ID Education should be allowed
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 116 (367978)
12-06-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
12-05-2006 6:05 PM


Anyone have major objections to a high school biology curriculum that involves and only involves natural selection, mutations, and speciation (with no mention of God or origin of species)?

Well, there is the minor logical impossibility of teaching about speciation without teaching about the origin of species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 6:05 PM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by platypus, posted 12-06-2006 3:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 116 (673197)
09-16-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Genologist
09-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Yeah, I wanted to say pretty much what PaulK said. If you just want to use this as an argument against evolution, then it's a bit of special pleading. If, on the other hand, we are going to use your argument generally:

* Then we can't teach anything in biology, because all facts in biology are historically contingent on the origin of life.
* We couldn't teach any chemistry, 'cos we don't know the origin of chemical elements (of course, scientists think that they do, but a creationist such as yourself will dismiss their opinion as "fanciful", since it conflicts with your dogma).
* We can't teach the theory of gravity unless we know the origin of mass.
* We can't teach about electricity unless we know the origin of electrons.
* We can't teach languages until we know the origins of language.
* We can't teach history unless we know the origins of humanity.
* We can't teach geology unless we know the origin of the Earth.
* We can't teach astronomy unless we know the origin of stars.
* We can't teach the germ theory of disease unless we know the origins of germs.

If we can't teach anything until we have an origins story for it that creationists can agree with, then we cannot, in fact, teach pretty much anything, and civilization would collapse within a generation.

I probably needn't mention it but it is my conviction that there is a Creator God, and I for one would object to my child being taught theories that exclude a God and have no plausible beginnings

But I don't hear you making any such general objection. I don't hear anyone doing so. When your child is taught how stars burn through nuclear fusion, do you actually object to this because (a) God doesn't come into it (b) you don't consider the scientific account of the origin of stars to be plausible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Genologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 09-16-2012 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 116 (673207)
09-16-2012 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
09-16-2012 10:29 AM


Re: re-tracing "the steps" in evolution
Well it would appear that we could still teach mathematics and logic.

Because those are purely human creations? Well, in the first place many Christian apologists don't believe that (see my debate with sac) but in the second place even if they were, who invented counting, eh? You don't know. We have no origin story for mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 09-16-2012 10:29 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by saab93f, posted 02-08-2013 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 65 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 63 of 116 (690933)
02-18-2013 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 7:48 AM


Re: Does stupidity really know no bounds?
We seem to know a lot about what electricity can do, but we do not know what it is.
All we KNOW is that if a charged particle is moved, two fields apparently appear, one magnetic and the other electrical as we have come to detect and call them.

And then we have this thing called quantum electrodynamics, which can predict the behavior of electrons to ten decimal places.

Or we can listen to "creation scientists" telling us that: "Some scientists think that the sun may be the source of most electricity".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:48 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 7:09 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 116 (703306)
07-17-2013 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Skulb
07-17-2013 8:04 PM


Re: Use Pikachu when compiling your accounts receivable
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 ...

Has it occurred to you that maybe that's all there is?

I have a theory that all pigs are wingless. If I only ever present evidence in favor of this theory, that's not because I'm "filtering" all the winged pigs. The absence of evidence against my theory is not actually a mark of "pathological science", it's a sign that I'm, y'know, right.

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.

No, this is something you made up.

As a result of biologists abandoning their scientific method in order to postulate undebatable truth ...

Doesn't it strike even you as strange that you wrote that immediately following a paragraph devoted to angrily accusing scientists of changing their minds?

You can't have it both ways. Are scientists evil because (a) they hold up their conclusions as undebatable truth or (b) because they are willing to revise their opinions?

... there really are no proper falsification criteria incorporated into the theory of evolution.

No, this is something you made up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Skulb, posted 07-17-2013 8:04 PM Skulb has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 112 of 116 (703445)
07-21-2013 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Skulb
07-21-2013 7:09 PM


Re: Use Pikachu when compiling your accounts receivable
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.

Oh look, someone making sweeping and extraordinary claims without offering a shred of evidence to back them up is lecturing us on the scientific method. Oh, and complaining about "arrogance" while he does it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Skulb, posted 07-21-2013 7:09 PM 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