Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
76 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,321 Year: 4,433/6,534 Month: 647/900 Week: 171/182 Day: 4/47 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist/ID Education should be allowed
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 46 of 116 (659510)
04-16-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:19 AM


Lots of mistakes
If they teach evolution they need to keep the big bang part out. If we evolved from the big bang then why are there still bangs on earth today? If they are going to teach the theory, they at least need to teach that maybe god, or "a god of some type which science can't figure out" made the bangs. I just wish science class was all about what science knows for absolute sure (just the laws not the theories), not what they think they might know but aren't sure.

You are making some fundamental mistakes in your descriptions of science and how it works.

For example, evolution is a biological or life science, and does not deal with cosmology.

But even more fundamental is your use of "theory" and "law" --absolutely incorrect.

Here are some definitions that might help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:19 AM OpticalIllusions has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 79 of 116 (693240)
03-12-2013 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by anglagard
03-12-2013 8:51 PM


"Critical thinking" and other propaganda
In these anti-evolution laws, "critical thinking" is a creationist code word that is applied to evolution and anything else that contradicts their religious beliefs. In practice it means letting their particular religious beliefs, and any ideas they can find to support them, no matter how contrary to evidence, be accorded equal weight when offered in opposition to agreed-upon scientific theory.

In other fields of science creationists really have no interest. Its not as if they were fighting for better science education!

Letting creationists dictate how science is conducted and taught is like letting first graders dictate their curriculum.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by anglagard, posted 03-12-2013 8:51 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 03-12-2013 10:45 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 116 (693246)
03-12-2013 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anglagard
03-12-2013 10:45 PM


Re: "Critical thinking" and other propaganda
I don't mean to rattle your cage, or set up straw men.

I'm just venting against the inherent dishonesty of creationists pretending to improve science by the various things they come up with to destroy it.

"Teach the controversy" and "critical thinking" are two of my pet peeves.

Under the guise of improving science, creationists are really trying to destroy it and to peddle their particular brand of woo in its place.

That is dishonest from start to finish.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 03-12-2013 10:45 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by anglagard, posted 03-12-2013 11:17 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 85 of 116 (693252)
03-13-2013 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by anglagard
03-12-2013 11:17 PM


Re: "Critical thinking" and other propaganda
Yes, I realize we are on the same side.

Critical thinking really is being pushed by creationists. It is a core part of the Discovery Institute's model law.

Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution. Texas’s science standards require that students “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations … including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking.”

http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

The second strain does not purport to be concerned with student rights, and cites the need to help students develop "critical thinking skills" on "controversial issues." To this end, it permits teachers to discuss "the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories." The listed "theories" often cover several topics of concern to the religious right: primarily evolution and abiogenesis, but also global warming, human cloning and stem cell research. One example of this strain is 2008’s Louisiana Science Education Act.

http://ncse.com/...nism/general/academic-freedom-legislation

Good Academic Freedom Bills: MT, AZ, MO, OK

Following Tennessee's example, Montana's HB 183 would free K-12 public school science teachers from fear of administrative reprisal to teach objectively both sides of scientific controversies as such matters arise during the normal course of curricular instruction. Wait. What? What does that mean? How about an example.

Helena, MT, is considering, say, whether to protect at law, for the sake of advanced critical thinking instruction, a lesson plan on the biology unit on mutation and selection that involves questions (but no force-fed answers!) like those raised here. Teacher-led memorization by students of the statements in the textbook is a banal, unexciting and ultimately ineffective way to learn. And it is completely protected. What needs protecting, and a bit more press, is a less deferential approach to the textbook writers: open inquiry. That's the policy end that academic freedom law serves.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/...2/state_of_the_un069091.html

Creationists are not pushing laws around the country that would help science. Quite the opposite.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by anglagard, posted 03-12-2013 11:17 PM anglagard has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 111 of 116 (703435)
07-21-2013 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Skulb
07-21-2013 7:09 PM


Re: Use Pikachu when compiling your accounts receivable
I want intelligent conversation, not scientific dogmas and an inability to think individually.

More likely you want people to ignore the scientific method and accept, uncritically, your own particular brand of woo.

Sorry, try elsewhere.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Skulb, posted 07-21-2013 7:09 PM Skulb has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022