Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 74 of 609 (482141)
09-15-2008 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
09-14-2008 3:27 PM


Re: Creation Science
Think the first video is Eric, then Kent then the short preview of the movie expelled. Hovind got a phD through a correspondence class in education. Kent talks about creationists like William Dembski losing their teaching aspect of his job, others losing their jobs, tenure etc ...
Uh, I'm sorry, but Kent Hovind? Kent Hovind???
Ignoring for the moment that he's currently imprisoned for tax evasion because his ideas were totally bogus. Along with his trusting wife whose main violation appears to be having trusting the utter bullshit that he was feeding her. How could anyone believe anything that Kent Hovind says?
He continues (granting that he can no longer do so, though his poor son may be acting for him in absentia) to use that tired old Brown claim that apparently even Brown will no longer use that the addition of a leap second roughly once every 18 months means that the earth's rotation rate is slowing down by one second every 18 months. Well guess what? The earth's rotation rate is not slowing down at that rate, despite Kent Hovind's claim (which is actually originally Walter Brown's claim that Hovind continued to repeat in complete and utter ignorance of the truth and of the actual science involved -- OK, I assume that he was ignorant that that claim is false, whereas it is quite possibly that he has been deliberately lying about it. The people who actually measure that rate, the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS), will tell you that the real rate is actually thousands of times slower. I mean, the IERS directly measures that rate, whereas Hovind and other creationists who use this false claim proceed from a completely ignorant misinterpretation of what a leap second actually is and means. Dude, tell me the truth. Do you really believe that the application of a leap year every fourth year means that the earth's revolutions around the sun are slowing down by one day every four years? When it really is a result of the earth's revolutionary rate around the sun not being an integral number of days, but rather being about 365.2524 days per year. DUH??? That false claim was refuted over 25 years ago! And yet it's one of Hovind's current claims. Duh???
So why did your exhaulted Kent Hovind, the self-professed expert on math and science (based solely on his having taught those subjects in the high school that he himself was running -- I cannot help but pity those poor students of his) so abysmally ignorant of the facts? Not mere opinion, but the facts? Do you truly think that his blithering ignorance should be taught in science class? Or shouldn't the actual facts be taught?
Hovind also made completely ignorant claims about the rate at which the sun is burning up its mass (a little less than 5 million tons per second), that that would have resulted in such an incredibly large change in the sun's mass that it would have caused the ancient sun to have been so incredibly more massive that it would have sucked the earth in. Well, a little bit of simple math (remember, Hovind would repeatedly boast that he was an expert in math, so why was a little bit of simple math beyond him?) shows that the total amount of mass burned up in 5 billion years would amount to a mere few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass. Hello??? That is an insignificant change in the sun's mass. Restore that lost mass to the sun and how much would it "suck the earth in"? Less than 100,000 miles.
How would that affect the earth's climate? Hovind keeps harping on the fine balance represented by the earth's distance from the sun, but does he actually know anything about it? Obviously not. How much does the earth's distance from the sun vary during the year? Our orbit is elliptical, after all. Well, it turns out that our distnace from the sun varies every year by three million miles. That's right, 3 million miles. Guess when we're closest to the sun. You would guess in August and September, right? No, we're closes to the sun right after New Year's Day. That's right, right in the coldest time of the year for the Northern Hemisphere. By comparing mean temperatures of Europe vs Australia for both times of the year, I've estimated that a difference of 3 million miles distance from the sun amounts to a few degrees Fahrenheit difference (a better study does need to be done). If 3 million miles don't make that much difference, how much difference could less that 100,000 miles have made?
In addition, a number of statements made by Kent Hovind indicate that he believes that the sun "burns its fuel" through a process of combustion on its surface. Despite the fact that he had uncritically used the rate of mass loss due to the fusion reaction in the sun's core, simply because that is the rate that was given in a textbook. So he used a rate stated in a textbook (that 5 million tons per second) with absolutely no understanding of where it had come from. His is the kind of crap that you want to be taught in the science classroom?
OK, he should be given the opportunity to support his claims. Well, I gave him that opportunity. He responded by saying that he had gotten that rate from a textbook and he "refuted" my questions for him to support his claim by pointing out (paraphrasing, though I do have his actual emails on this) that "look at the sun; it's obviously burning!". He is also quoted by some far right religious nuts (who believed that the Galileo probe crashing into Jupiter's atmosphere was intended to further the Illuminati's Anti-Christ goals by igniting Jupiter into a second star) as believing that a sun burns through combustion. And furthermore that combustion results in the total loss of the fuel being burned -- which is in complete contradiction of the entire field of chemistry.
And his main response to my requests that he support and/or explain his claims about that solar mass loss. Guess what it was. He attacked me for my choice of email address (DWise1, which is actually based on how at work I had labeled multiple MacIntosh diskettes with my user name and a sequential number) and twice tried to pick a fight with me over my email address. In other words, he went out of his way to avoid supporting or explaining his own claims. Which clearly indicates that he was fully aware that his claims were total bullshit but he wanted to continue to deceive the people who didn't know better to ask him, "WTF?"
That is the kind of absolute crap that you want to have taught in the science classroom?
The general public is already abysmally ignorant of science. Why do you want to make the situation so much worse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 09-14-2008 3:27 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 09-15-2008 10:14 AM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 77 of 609 (482210)
09-15-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by johnfolton
09-15-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Creation Science
With all due respect, that's the biggest load of paranoid nonsense that I've read for quite a while.
The basic question is what should be taught in science class. The obvious answer is that it should be science. Sorry, but "creation science" just does not qualify. And it isn't out of rejection of other ideas as you imagine, but rather because "creation science's" claims have been examined and found to be not only wrong, but also in most cases outright attempts at deception. Not only that, but most of the claims currently in use by "creation science" were soundly refuted decades ago, making their continued use a further example of deception being practiced by "creation science".
For example, Gentry's claim was refuted in the late 1980's when it was shown that his "Genesis rock" was actually an igneous intrusion into metamorphic rock (ie, a recent addition to very old pre-existing rock). Hovind's leap-second claim was refuted in the early 1980's, a few years after Walter Brown had come out with it.
The ridicule that "creation science" receives is richly deserved. For decades we've been listening to its claims and have checked them out and found them to be utterly false and wrong in so many ways (including in how they misrepresent their sources). We have tried to discuss those claims with creationists and have repeatedly met with resistence and refusal on the creationists' part. You completely ignored what I told you about my experience with Hovind. I was honestly trying to get information on his solar-mass-loss claim and he absolutely refused to support his own claim. Well, if that's what creationists think of their own claims, why should we think any more of them?
"Creation science" claims are wrong and they've been known to be wrong for decades, so why include them in the science classroom? The only honest way they could be included and treated would be to present them and then to explain what's wrong with them. The disadvantage is that valuable classroom time would be wasted. The advantage would be that the students would be able to hear something that the creationists would never give them: the truth about "creation science" claims.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 09-15-2008 10:14 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Syamsu, posted 09-15-2008 5:26 PM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 116 of 609 (519423)
08-13-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
06-24-2009 7:22 PM


Re: Teacher on the Frontline
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Exactly! Why isn't there a theology class/elective in schools (instead of history- it's like living in the past LOL). Not only would it prevent indoctrination (or at least lower it), it would also both encourage kids to make their own choices as well as encouraging research and free thought.
It's been tried. FUNDIEs (Fundamentalists Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution) don't like it for the same reason they don't like evolution in science class - it doesn't teach only their religion. Evangelicals complained, and had the class removed from the curriculum. So much for "both sides" eh?
Similarly, for many years Thwaites and Awbrey taught a true "two-model approach" class, at San Diego State University if I recall correctly. They gave half the lectures and the other half were given by leading creationists, mostly the big guns from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR). It was in one such class that Duane Gish personally witnessed them conclusively debunk his bombadier-beetle claim (the chemicals that he claimed to explode spontaneously when mixed together in fact do not explode) and he had to retract that claim publicly, only to continue to use it anyway. The administration finally forced them to discontinue the class because of strong opposition and protests from the campus fundamentalist Christian population.
They used to publish the notes from that class. I'm not sure whether they're still available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2009 7:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 120 of 609 (524337)
09-15-2009 11:34 PM


Sample Two-Model Classes
Copied here as per Adminnemooseus' request:
NosyNed writes:
I am stuck trying to find a reference so this is off the top of an old brain. Maybe someone can help.
There has been, by my recollection, at least one case where an undergrad course did teach the facts of both sides.
Bill Thwaites and Frank Awbrey at San Diego State University. Having just pulled out my copy of the class notes (was for sale from the bookstore), the copyright is 1981. They gave half the lectures and leading creationists, mainly from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR), gave the other half. The Christian clubs on campus hated that class and kept protesting and applying pressure until the administration finally cancelled it.
BTW, that was the class where Duane Gish's bombadier beetle claim was disproven in public and in his presence, so he had to admit publically that they were wrong (he blamed somebody else's mistranslation from a German article). However, both he and other creationists continued to use that false claim.

PS
Other (in)famous "balanced-treatment" classes include Ray Baird's 5th-grade class in Livermore, Calif, in 1981. It was documented in the PBS documentary, Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom, KPBS-TV, airing 7 July 1982, and Barry Price devoted an entire chapter to it in his book, The Creation Science Controversy (Sydney, Australia: Millenium Books, 1990).
From Price's book, edited for brevity:
quote:
Finger's son Eric took the unit in 1979. On the first page of Eric's notes for the class is a statement of the Genesis account of creation. According to Eric, his teacher emphasized the mutual exclusiveness of the two models. "He said that either both were wrong, or one, but not both, could be right," Eric says.
Eric says that at the end of the unit, the teacher conducted an anonymous vote in which the students had to choose between evolution and creationism. According to Eric, six students out of a class of about 30 voted for evolution; the rest voted for creationism. The teacher presented a tally of the votes to the class.
"Most of those for evolution were among the gifted students," Eric says, who is himself among the gifted students. "I thought a lot of the others were maybe influenced by how Mr. Baird presented it. I don't know if that's true, but it could be."
Eric and the rest of the gifted students were given extra assignments in the class: They were required to view filmstrips over again in the library.
Those filmstrips were blatantly religious, according to Sheila Karlson, another of the mothers. "One of them started out by saying, and this is almost a direct quotation, that 'Either the Bible is true or evolution is true. You must make a decision.' It goes on from there to give this very distorted picture of evolution and this glowing picture of creation.
. . .
The protesting parents ... say Baird's course was slanted to creationism and his presentation of the issue conformed to the ICR's teachings, in particular its doctrine that the choice between creationism and evolution is a choice between God and atheism. The parents also contend that Baird was fully aware of the content of the materials, some of which had been in his classroom since last year. (The Independent, 7 January 1981)
The point overlooked by both Baird and parents is that these materials or their equivalents from the ICR are the only ones he could have used. They are designed and published for schools and without them there would have been no course. He would have been doing no more than standing up in the front of the class voicing his own opinion.
There is more than a little doubt that Baird gave equal time to evolution and creationism.
"I think it's true he gave more time to evolution, says one parent. "He spent 40% of the time telling the kids why creationism is good and the other 60% telling them why evolution is bad."
Another parent, whose child observed Baird teaching this subject three years ago, relates that while Baird succeeded in winning some converts to the creationist view, other students, including her own child, were so appalled that they completely rejected religion in their own lives. According to this mother, all the teacher really accomplished was to polarize the class into two camps, the believers and the nonbelievers. (The Independent, 7 January 1981)
One of the mothers writes:
quote:
The most dangerous information to the scientific creationists was the fact that the gifted students could see how bad the science was and that they were voting evolutionism which was, in the context of the course, the same as voting atheism. Some of the gifted students voted evolutionism because they could see the fallacy of the either-or approach. Some actually, in anger, did give up religious belief. (Finger, 1988)

From the PBS show, JP Hunt, one of Baird's students said:
quote:
Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it.
There's also Roger DeHart's high school class. The Discovery Institute tried to make him a poster child of discrimination against ID. From an email from a parent of one of his students:
quote:
{deHart} had been teaching creationism for 11 years before the aclu was called in and broke the news in the papers. The reason this happened was DH developed a teaching technique out of his arrogance and self-righteousness, and demonstrates his Achille's Heal. (spelling?)
When he presented his creationist portion of his class, if a student would point out it was creationism and stand up to him, he singled that person out and made the next two weeks hell for the student. Basically, he used the student to put a face on the false evolution science and got the whole class laughing at the poor person. It was the students who were so laughed at, who approached the aclu.
When the news hit the newspaper, I went to see a like-minded friend to see what he thought. He told me, I should talk to his daughter, she hated DH's guts. He said she stood up to him and for 2 weeks DH "mocked and humiliated" her.
Right after that, I contacted the aclu. I was talking to the woman in charge of this situation and she told me a story of the first student to approach them about DH. The aclu woman said the student stood up to DH and for 2 weeks he led the class in " mocking and humiliating" the student.
I said, I guess you talked to my friend, Jeremy?. She said, who's Jeremy? This student had a single mother and the child was a young man.
Two sources, didn't know each other both used the words, "mocked and humiliated". That is not a coincidence. We found a 3rd student who say it's true.
Basically, DH is a mean SOB, he's got God in his wallet.
Not only would he himself mock and humiliate the student, but he would lead the class in mocking and humiliating him/her and would even stage a "debate" which pitted the entire class against that student.
So much for creationists' claims that they want the students to question what's being taught.

PPS
While looking for something else, I found the site that had tracked the Roger DeHart case in Burlington-Edison High School. Their page is still at Scienceormyth
At the time (2002), I also read a CNN transcript on the case (still up at CNN Transcript - CNN Newsstand: Hackers Shut Down Several Internet Sites; Bush Wins Delaware Primary; McCain and Bush Exchanging Attacks in South Carolina - February 8, 2000, with the DeHart story starting about 2/3 of the way down the page). In a 2002 email to a British parent encountering creationist activities over there, I first presented the Ray Baird case and then the DeHart case, to which I provided this quote from that transcript:
quote:
COLLINS: But former student Emma Height (ph) says she was troubled by DeHart's class. She says he made them choose either evolution or intelligent design, and then defend their decision in an essay.
EMMA HEIGHT, FORMER STUDENT: A couple kids around me turned to me and said, well, I'm pretty confused. I believe in evolution, and you know, I think there's probably some evidence out there, but I believe in God, but I have to choose which one. I have to choose, you know, between God and science. And that really was the turning point for me.
The point I was making was that in 20 years, their methods and tactics had not changed. And I was specifically pointing out their persistent goal of compelling students to adopt their beliefs as a contrast to the actual goal of education, which I provided in this quote:
quote:
State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:
"Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."
(Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, 1990, pg 206)
Since the goal of teaching creationism is to compel belief, it is therefore inconsistent with the goal of education.

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 164 of 609 (606121)
02-23-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:23 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
Clearly, if creationism is taught in the public schools, it would be "creation science" or ID or whatever new deception the creationists dream up to hide their agenda from the courts.
To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students.
Presented straight out of the creationist play-book for using our schools to proselytize. The purpose goal of science education is for the students to understand the ideas and concepts of science; science education explicitly does not want to compel belief. Real-life experience with creationism being taught in the classroom has been that they "taught both sides and left it up to the students to decide which to believe", whereas actually they misrepresented evolution and made false claims and then urged the students to decide then and there between this thinly-veiled "unnamed" Creator and godless evolution.
The science classroom is for learning science, not for proselytizing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 292 of 609 (608074)
03-08-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:14 AM


The state by law is saying the bible is false on some conclusions otherwise they would only be saying they are prohibited from teaching Genesis because of law regardless of whether its true.
Actually, the law is saying that they cannot teach religious teaching because that would be an establishment of religion by the state. The question of whether or not those religious teachings are true is immaterial and is not addressed. IOW, the state does not state that those religious are false, just that the state is prohibited from teaching them and most definitely is prohibited from determining which religious teachings should be taught, since such a determination would surely be an establishment of religion by the state.
The public schools do not teach that the Bible is false, nor does science teach that, nor does the science classroom. Rather, it is the creationists who teach that science makes the Bible false. The creationists accomplish this by teaching that if the universe is as it actually is, then the Bible is a lie and God either does not exist or is a Liar who must not be worshipped -- eg, John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- arguably the creators of "creation science") stating "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." (at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism). Then, even without any knowledge of what the creationists have done, all science needs to do is show how the universe is indeed as it actually is (eg, that it is very much older than 10,000 years) and by the implacable logic of creationism, the Bible and God have been disproven.
The problem is not science nor science education (well, there are problems in science education that need to be solved), but rather the problem is creationism. Creationism needs to stop basing their faith on contrary-to-fact claims. Creationism needs to stop basing the truth of the Bible on contrary-to-fact claims. Creationism needs to stop lying to its followers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:14 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:09 AM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 323 of 609 (608462)
03-10-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 4:09 AM


Where is my reasoning wrong here???
Certainly.
Nope.
Au contraire! If you base your religious ideas on false claims about the physical world, claims that are both contrary-to-fact and refuted by the evidence, then the mere existence of that evidence is what shows your ideas to be wrong. And when science classes present that evidence, it is not for the purpose of teaching that religious ideas are wrong, but rather because presenting and discussing the evidence is a rightful purpose of science education. Indeed, if not for the propaganda and grass-roots activism efforts of the creationist movement during the past four decades, most science teachers would not even be aware that there was anyone whose religious ideas are being challenged by the evidence. When the "creation science" campaign was gearing up in the 1970's and they were doing their travelling debate shows, most of the educators they suckered in were surprised that creationists even existed.
And it is plain as the pixels on your computer's display that if you base your religious ideas on false claims that run counter to the evidence, then the evidence will show those ideas to be wrong. It is not a case of opposing your religious ideas, but rather it is a case of the truth.
remember there is a clear purpose to why the state should make no establishment about religion. Simply so no faith is made over others and no faith is made under.
A excellent purpose.
That much is correct, though it leaves out that it cuts both ways. As James Madison pointed out in his A Memorial and Remonstrance written a few years before he drafted the First Amendment, neither society nor government have authority over religion and government must be kept free of interference from religion. He goes into much detail over that last part.
There is no need for the state or the church to interfere with each other.
As there is also a great need to keep them from interfering with each other.
Though not stopping the church from shooting itself in the foot with blatantly false claims cannot be misconstrued as interference, as you insist on doing.
Then the subject of origins comes up and the state teaches ideas that mean religious ideas are wrong.
Wrong. The state teaches science, which not only includes the evidence, but requires presenting and discussing the evidence. Religion does not enter into it.
It breaks the separation. its teaching against religion in its foundations. its doctrines
Wrong. The state is not violating the separation. The state is not teaching against religion nor against religion's doctrines. The state remains neutral regarding religion.
If the church has chosen to teach religious ideas that are blatantly false, which is something that the state can do nothing about and must not do anything about, then the church must bear the responsibility for having made that choice. The state's neutrality demands that the state take no action here.
Instead, you want the state to break the separation and come to the aid of the church. The only way that the church can get away with teaching such blatant and outright falsehoods is if it can suppress the evidence. You want the state to actively suppress the evidence, to bend to the will of the church. That is not separation. That is not neutrality. That is religious establishment!
It should also be noted that "the church" being discussed here is not all religions, but rather a small set of minority Christian sects commonly (though not completely correctly) identified as "fundamentalists". So you want all US inhabitants to be made to suffer at the hands of the state on behalf of a few extremist sects? It is to guard against precisely such tyranny that we have Madison's "great Barrier which defends the rights of the people", renamed decades later by his life-long friend, Jefferson, as the Wall of Separation.
So religion comes up to defend itself and its told CENSORED.
Bullshit! Er, I mean, Wrong!
First, by trying to get its religious teachings into the public schools, religion is not trying to defend itself, but rather is trying to break separation. Their being blocked from getting their religious teachings into the public schools is not censorship, but rather necessary to maintain the Great Barrier.
Furthermore, creationists are not being censored. They are quite free to present their false teachings in any number of public forums, which they have done very vociferously and with extreme zeal. They just may not require the state to present their false teachings for them, nor to aid them in the presentation of their false ideas.
Why/ Then told the state can't teach religion. right or wrong.
Well, the state is not allowed to teach religion. That is why the state cannot act as an accomplice to religious sects' teaching their doctrine.
can't say its right. can't say its wrong.
Obviously, you are very confused. We are not. The state is not allowed to teach religion. That is why the state cannot act as an accomplice to religious sects' teaching their doctrine.
Creationism answers YOU ARE TEACHING ITS WRONG.
Then creationism is lying through its teeth, yet again. It's been lying ever since it created "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the courts after Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) had led to the striking-down of the "monkey laws" that had been in place since the mid-1920's.
Science class teaches the evidence. The truth shows creationist claims to be blatantly false.
The solution is for creationism to drop its false claims and replace them with truthful claims. Then creationism would have no need to fear and loathe the truth and would no longer need to resort to lies and deception.
Your banning is a second teaching since you claim the subject is about the truth of origins. A right and a left.
The subject is science. In astronomy, some cosmology may be covered. In biology, some abiogenesis may be covered. These subjects are covered in terms of "these are the current scientific ideas; much more needs to be discovered and worked out." As such, covering them in a science class serves a purpose in science education, that of learning about the prevailing ideas in science.
Religious mythology does not have a place in the science classroom. Presenting religious origin myths would serve no purpose in science education, since religious origin myths have nothing to do with the prevailing ideas in science, nor do they do anything to promote an understanding of science or of scientific ideas.
You should familiarize yourself with science education. A starting point could be the 1990 California Science Framework: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf . You may also wish to read California's Anti-Dogmatism Policy: http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education .
The state therefore has a opinion on religious doctrines.
Yes. Officially, that opinion is one of strict neutrality, as discussed above.
Unofficially, there is something called "public religion", to which government office-holders proffer lip service and to which they seek to appear friendly. In the US, that public religion is predominately mainstream Protestant Christianity. Appeals to or the appearance of support for that public religion are often made in order to curry favor from the electorate; eg, invoke "God" in speeches, making sure to be publically observed attending church. Public religion is a dirty little fact of political life.
its pushing its opinion onto the kids etc.
Yes, though you have a distorted view of what that opinion is. Rather, it is the opinion that the Great Barrier, termed "the Wall of Separation", is needed to prevent Religion and Government from interfering with each other. That one of the principles that our nation was founded on is religious liberty, the freedom to choose and practice whatever religion we wish to and the freedom from any interference from the government because of that choice. That the Great Barrier is needed to ensure religious liberty for all citizens.
BTW, as you read the science education resources I cited above, you will find a statement of the purpose of education, with is to promote knowledge and understanding, but not to compel belief. In stark contrast, the materials and curricula that creationists want included in the public school classrooms do not promote knowledge nor understanding and they strongly seek to compel belief -- we know that from actual cases of creationism entering the classroom.
Its brwaking the very law it invented in the 1900's.
That term "law" is here is a collective term for the entire body of law, which consists not only of legislated laws but also of court decisions -- mainly court decisions. And it did take a long time to build that body of law. One of the reasons why questions of religious establishment took so long to resolve was because of that very thing I mentioned above, public religion, and the majority's feeling of entitlement to impose their own religious beliefs and ideas on the rest of the population. It took a long time to correct that situation.
But now you are arguing to reverse that correction. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
And BTW, no, the state is not violating that body of law. OK, anti-separation politicians will try, but hopefully we can keep them from succeeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:09 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 1:59 AM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 337 of 609 (609095)
03-16-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 1:59 AM


Well it comes down to once again if IS the state in banning creationism making a statement its false and if in teaching contrary ideas , evolution, is it making a statement on religion.
But the state does not ban creationism. Nor is it making any statement on religion except to identify creationism as religious in nature and to reiterate that it cannot promote nor hinder religion.
And in teaching science, the state is not making any statement on religion. Rather, it is certain religious idiots who are making their ill-conceived pronouncements about religion with regard to science, such that they preach that the truth of their religion depends utterly on false and contrary-to-fact claims about the physical world. It is unfortunately that those religious idiots make such false pronouncements and preach such self-destructive nonsense, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so and the state does not interfere with them.
Creationism is not banned. Rather the state bars itself from promoting religion and hence also must bar itself from allowing those religious idiots to use the public schools to preach its self-destructive nonsense. Those religious idiots have plenty of other non-state venues to preach their self-destructive nonsense.
IN both cases i say the state is making a opinion on religion by its own line of reasoning and so breaking the very law it invokes to ban creationism.
You can say whatever you want. In the real world, just saying something does not make it true. That only works in magic, theology, philosophy, and demogoguery. Reality trumps what you say. You're still wrong.
The state is not making any opinion on religion. The state is not banning creationism. The state is only abiding by the wall of separate, AKA "The Great Barrier".
You are the one who keeps insisting that the state violate the Great Barrier. Why? If you honestly and truly believe that the state is making an opinion on religion, then quote the governmental sources where such an opinion is being made. If you honestly and truly believe that the state is banning creationism, then show us the evidence. The state's refusal to violate the Great Barrier in order to accommodate your narrow sectarian religious beliefs -- over the beliefs of all others, I might add, though that is legally immaterial in such matters -- doesn't count as such evidence. Instead, you need to show us that creationists are no allowed to speak in public non-state-run forums. That they are not allowed to publish any literature. That their books are not allowed to be sold. Those would be examples of the state banning creationism. When and where have such actions occurred?
Your still missing here the actual reality of wjhat is being taught and ot taught on conclusions about origins.
No, rather it is you who is missing "the actual reality" of what is being taught. I gave you government resources for learning what goes into science education. Did you read any of those official government documents? No, I didn't think so.
You can't get around my point here.
What point? You haven't presented one. Instead, you keep making the same false and nonsensical accusations against all the facts.
I think i'm right.
Then you're wrong about that, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 1:59 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 2:21 AM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 338 of 609 (609101)
03-16-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 2:22 AM


Well everone we've been around the block on this point.
someones wrong here.
And we all know who that is, save one of us. Go to a mirror, identify that person, and take corrective action.
i made my case ...
Sorry, but you didn't make any case. You kept prattling the same false nonsense repeatedly, but never actually made any kind of a case. Nor an actual point. Except perhaps the bizaare idea that in order to for the US to preserve and observe separation of church and state, then the US must directly violate that separation by presenting creationism, which has been proven to be religious in nature!
Honestly, do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Though interestingly, I keep finding certain odd and tortured phrases crop up repeatedly in your posts. It appears to follow the same kind of pattern I've seen many times in the past, where a clueless creationist just regurgitates the nonsense that other creationists had been feeding him. One of the symptoms of that situation is where that creationist cannot engage in discussion of the subject matter, but rather just keeps ignoring all replies and "responds" by just repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
Robbie, you didn't come up with any of this yourself, did you? You're just repeating what you've read or heard from somewhere else. What's your source for these "arguments"? Who's the creationist who's been feeding you this nonsense? Time to come clean now, lad.
This is my logic. Its simple math.
What is it about creationists and false claims of "logic"? True, they have a very long and colorful history of prattling on and on about subjects of which they are completely ignorant -- "Creationism is more fun than science!", purportedly said by Michael Ruse. But it's as if they believe in word-magic and believe that all they have to do is use the word "logic" and it will magically become so. And on top of it, you also invoke the magical name of "math" and expect to not have to show your work. Haven't you ever taken a math class either?
You want to present a logical argument for your position? Well then do so! But you will have to present your premises. And you will have to show those premises to be true. Not just assert that they are, but actually show them to be true. Because, logically, if your premises are false, then your conclusions cannot be shown to be true.
You really should try to learn something about logic before you try to invoke it. I don't know why you and other creationists believe that ignorance is so much superior to knowledge. It isn't. Ignorance is something that needs to be remedied, not embraced and glorified.
I have not seen the posters here articulately and logically answer my big attack here.
I think its because you can't.
That is because you are blinded by your own ignorance. We have patiently tried to explain it to you, but you block out everything that does not agree with the false little world that creationists have built for you. You are so wrapped up in those lies that you are incapable of seeing the truth. Pearls before swine.
A friend at church used to be in the same condition. A fervent fundamentalist for many years, he had to filter everything around him through his theology. That included blinding himself to everything that did not agree with that theology. The constant and ever-growing self-deception that his theology required of him finally proved to be too much for him. He applied the Matthew 7:20 test on Christianity and found that it failed that test. Now he describes himself as "an atheist and thorough humanist" and he finds that he is immensely more spiritually fulfilled now than he ever was as a fundamentalist.
Ooh! Self-deception vs truth. Gee, why should that be such a tough choice for some people?
The logic is devastating.
Thats where we stand right now.
Devastating only in your delusions. Sorry, reality trumps your delusions. And you demonstrate that you cannot deal with reality.
So that's where we stand right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 2:22 AM Robert Byers has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 353 of 609 (609250)
03-17-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Robert Byers
03-17-2011 1:53 AM


if creationism is a religious position and its banned then the state is saying its not true.
A state opinion on religion.
Another break in the wall .
it doesn't matter if creationism advances religion.
The truth is the goal of education.
Still so incredibly wrong after so many attempts on our part to enlighten you. All pearls before swine, since you are "wearing your 'Jesus Glasses' and cannot see the truth." (more on that below).
In Message 323 I told you:
dwise1 writes:
You should familiarize yourself with science education. A starting point could be the 1990 California Science Framework: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf . You may also wish to read California's Anti-Dogmatism Policy: http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education .
Which you have not done, choosing instead to wallow in your own ignorance. Here is the Anti-Dogmatism Policy, since you refuse to click on that link to read it yourself:
quote:
California State Board of Education
The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools observable facts and testable hypotheses.
Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.
From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.
Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.
Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.
Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.
Notes
1 History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools (Updated edition with content standards). Sacramento: California Department of Education, 2001.
Note: This policy statement on the teaching of natural sciences, which was adopted by the State Board of Education in 1989, supersedes the State Board's 1972 Antidogmatism Policy.
Now you know what the state's official position is and it is completely contrary to what you insist that it is. You are wrong, dead wrong.
As you are dead wrong about what science education teaches, as you would discover for yourself if you were to take off those "Jesus glasses" and read the 1990 California Science Framework (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf) as I had told you to. Of course, you will never do that, because you prefer the cold darkness of ignorance over the light of knowledge.
Now you will learn where that reference to "Jesus glasses" came from. What happens when an agent of the state actually does say that creationism is wrong? It has happened, so we know how the state (in this case, the court system) handles such a case.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capistrano_Valley_High_School:
quote:
Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District
In another case that has drawn national media coverage, on December 12, 2007 Chad Farnan, a student, represented by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, filed suit against 19-year AP European History teacher Dr. James Corbett. The suit alleges that Corbett had violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause that prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, alleges that Corbett typically spent "a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience," including criticism of Christianity and traditional Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction.[29] In response to the lawsuit, numerous former students of Corbett defended him, holding a protest at the school and forming support groups.
From a newspaper article on that incident (http://www.ocregister.com/...rbett-190338-students-high.html -- my emphasis added at the end):
quote:
Published: Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 a.m.
Student's suit over teacher's Christianity remarks ignites passion
By SCOTT MARTINDALE
The Orange County Register
History teacher James Corbett is a lightning rod in his high school classroom, questioning the merits of religion on a regular basis and forcing students to think long and hard about their convictions and faith.
Now a lawsuit filed by one of Corbett's Capistrano Valley High School students alleging a classroom anti-religion bias has ignited a flurry of debate about the role a teacher's convictions and faith should play in the classroom.
Mission Viejo sophomore Chad Farnan and his parents filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Corbett alleging the Advanced Placement European history teacher made anti-Christian remarks during class in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from promoting religious intolerance.
...
At issue in the lawsuit is whether Corbett violated the separation of church and state as outlined in the First Amendment's establishment clause. Court papers cite statements tape-recorded by Farnan such as "From conservative Christians in this country to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan ? it's stunning how vitally interested they are in controlling women" and "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."
...
But American Civil Liberties Union attorney Peter Eliasberg pointed out that statements such as the one about the "Jesus glasses" could bolster the case.
"I think the lawsuit does have a chance," Eliasberg said. "It is not the job of a public school teacher either to be promoting religion or disparaging religion."
However, Eliasberg said, comments about issues such as sexual abstinence would not be a violation of a student's constitutional religious rights, even if they were offended by them. The appropriateness of such comments would be an issue to be taken up by the local school board, rather than the courts, Eliasberg said.
"There have been quite a few cases saying that you can teach a subject even if it's inconsistent with people's religious beliefs," Eliasberg said. "Teaching evolution, for example, does not violate the rights of evangelical Christians. But saying that Christians are stupid because they don't believe in evolution might."
Even the ACLU knows far better than you do, that a teacher can't tell a student that their religion is wrong. Just as the Anti-Dogmatism Policy says. Amazing how everybody else agree with each other on these points, while you disagree with everybody. Starting to see an pattern here?
From the Associated Press report of the court's decision (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21548):
quote:
Calif. teacher's creationism comment violated First Amendment
By The Associated Press
05.04.09
Editor’s note: U.S. District Judge James ruled on Sept. 15 that although James Corbett violated Chad Farnan’s First Amendment rights, the teacher had qualified immunity and therefore didn’t owe any monetary damages or attorneys fees in the case.
SANTA ANA, Calif. A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism superstitious nonsense during a classroom lecture.
On May 1, U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled in a lawsuit filed by student Chad Farnan in 2007. The lawsuit claimed that teacher James Corbett violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs.
. . .
But Selna ruled May 1 in C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as religious, superstitious nonsense, did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.
Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is ‘superstitious nonsense.’ Selna wrote. The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
. . .
The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.
What happened when the state called creationism false? It was found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause and was not allowed to continue that conduct. The state put a stop to calling creationism false. Yet again, this is completely contrary to your ignorant assertions. Yet again, the truth reveals that you are dead wrong.
Now, from the decision of the court in that case (http://images.ocregister.com/...uit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf), we have the court's remarks about key comments that Corbett was being taken to task for, the "Peloza Comment", for which he got nailed, and the "Jesus Glasses Comment", for which he didn't:
quote:
The Peloza Comment
The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza (Peloza). (Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.) This statement presents the closest question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution. (Id.) Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense. (Id.) One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is superstitious nonsense. The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Corbett's statements about creationism were completely true, it is "superstitious nonsense", Peloza was not telling the truth about evolution, and leaving Peloza alone to propagandize the students would definitely have been the wrong thing to do -- I know that to be true because I saw him speak and everything he "knew" about science and biology came straight from the ICR. But, you see and this demonstrates, Establishment Clause questions are not based on what's true. Rather they're based on whether something either promotes or hinders religion. Religious promotion is prohibitted without regard for whether it is true or not, just as religious hindrance is prohibitted whether the reasons for that hindrance are true or not.
Yet again, the truth is completely contrary to your ignorant assertions. Yet again, the truth shows that you are dead wrong.
Now just for completeness, so that you may know how that "Jesus Glasses" comment ended up playing out:
quote:
Jesus Glasses.
For example, in one of Corbett’s lectures he stated, when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth. (Farnan’s Ex. A, p. 25.) However, this statement was made in the context of a discussion about how certain peasants didnot support Joseph II’s reforms for religious reasons, even though the reforms were in the peasants’ best political and economic interests. (Id. at 24-25.) Corbett also seemed to be making a general point that people sometimes make choices that are against their best interests for religious reasons and that religion has and can be used as a manipulative tool. (Id.) He further suggested that in order to create social change and overturn long-held traditions overnight without causing chaos you need to first work to gather support for your position. (Id. at 25.)
The Jesus glasses phrase, standing alone, could be read as a general assertion that all people who believe in Jesus cannot see the truth. However, given the context of the discussion and given that [w]e must be cautious about attributing unconstitutional motives to state officials, the Court declines to attribute such an overly-broad and improper purpose to the phrase for purposes of this motion. See Chaudhuri, 130 F.3d at 236. One cannot say that Corbett’s primary purpose here was to criticize Christianity or religion. The Court finds that, given the context, Corbett’s primary purpose was to illustrate the specific historical point regarding the peasants in the discussion and to make the general point that religion can cause people to make political choices which are not in their best interest. Although the Court offers no opinion on the validity of these concepts, the Court notes that these views are not necessarily hostile to religion and are relevant concepts for discussion in an AP European history course.9


9 Farnan concedes that the recommended topics set forth by the College Board include the development of changes in religious thought and institutions and changes in elite and popular culture, such as the development of new attitudes toward religion, the family, work, and ritual. (Farnan’s Reply p. 7.) This presumably includes the effect that religion has had over social and political choices
Robert, when we look at the facts, we can find the truth. When you wallow in ignorance, you divorce yourself from the truth. We can see the facts and we can see the truth. And you are dead wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 1:53 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Robert Byers, posted 03-23-2011 12:54 AM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 354 of 609 (609284)
03-18-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Robert Byers
03-17-2011 2:21 AM


Oh the irony!
The state is not teaching science but is teaching conclusions on a claim of scientific investigation.
False! You are making that false assertion from a position of abject ignorance. Ignorance can be cured. For starters, read the California Science Framework that I pointed you to.
the conclusions being taught are illegal.
Thats my point.
its not idiotic!!!
But it is idiotic. In part because it is so ridiculously false. And in part because that false assertion doesn't even make any sense. What conclusions? On what do you base your assertion that that's what's being taught? How are you determining that they are illegal? What the hell are you talking about?
Instead of posting jumbled and disjointed inarticulate blatherings, explain your position and the support for it in a clear organized manner. In plain English! Using paragraphs. Articulately! What's the matter? Don't you want us to understand what you're trying to say?
Show why in a articulate way!
Everyone else has come up short.
Oh the irony! We have been responding to your posts, articulately. And we have shown what blithering nonsense your false assertions are, articulately.
Rather, you are the one who is severely inarticulate. And you almost never respond to us, but rather just continue to blather the same false nonsense over and over again.
You are the one who keeps coming up short. Please correct that deficiency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Robert Byers, posted 03-17-2011 2:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 442 of 609 (611119)
04-05-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Robert Byers
04-05-2011 2:54 AM


My insistence is that the legislature determines these matters of school teachings.
State legislatures, not Congress. Though most work in determining and developing policy and curriculum is delegated down to state and local school boards. None of which can violate constitutional law, though they have tried mainly at the behest of creationists and other special-interest religious groups.
However they invoke constitutional law to censor creationism and so I strive to show this is impossible but showing that in origin subjects it can't be avoided that conclusions are made about religious ideas.
Creationism is not being censored. Never has been and never should be. Creationists are being blocked from getting it into public school science classes because to allow it in would indeed be a violation of church-state separation. You keep saying that you're in favor of that separation, yet you keep insisting that we must violate it directly.
Nor does the teaching of science involve making conclusions about religious ideas. Such an activity has no place in the science classroom, as you already know from the 1990 California Science Framework (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf) and California's Anti-Dogmatism Policy (http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education).
You had already been informed before this. You already knew better, so please stop making blatantly false statements.
The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false.
The state doesn't teach religion is false -- creationists do. The state cannot teach religion is false, nor does it allow teachers to do so: 1990 California Science Framework, California's Anti-Dogmatism Policy, and Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District (also presented and discussed in Message 353).
You already know better than to make such a blatantly false statement. Why do you persist in making false statements?
What part of reality don't you understand?
Edited by dwise1, : tense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Robert Byers, posted 04-05-2011 2:54 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 2:21 AM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 535 of 609 (612074)
04-12-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 6:41 PM


Taq writes:
Then you need to publish it and present it to the scientific community.
What do you think this form is of sorts, chopped liver?
Actually, yes, within this context this forum is indeed "chopped liver". Though it is far above your snake-oil "public debate" travesties.
It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer * that this forum is not a medium for publishing within the scientific community, so why are you so oblivious to that simple fact? This forum isn't even a forum for the scientific community, even though several of its members are also members of the scientific community. It is more of a coffee house or student union discussion.
There is a very definite mechanism for publishing within the scientific community, one with which several members here are quite familiar, and about which you are totally ignorant -- or at least that is what you keep indicating to us. Nor are we expecting you personally to try to publish within the scientific community, but rather that is for your ID big guns to do. Which they avoid doing. Just as the "creation scientists" have always avoided doing and undoubtedly for the same reason: because the scientific community would immediately see right through their lies and their bullshit. Which is why both ID and "creation science" (which nowadays are relying more on ID, since their own cover has been blown) bypass the scientific community and concentrate all their bullshit on the general public, in order to deceive the public and sway public opinion. "Creation science" and ID have both been taking that approach from the very beginning. Neither is the least bit scientific.
For ID to ever be considered scientific, your "big guns" need to do actual scientific research and then to publish within the scientific community. But it turns out that your "big guns" can fired nothing other than saluting charges, AKA "blanks." As one former creationist, Scott Rauch, wrote:
quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.
{ *FOOTNOTE: An engineering catch-phrase. }
the tenets and merits and the legetimacy of creationism, if that is what you wish to call it, have existed long before any so called scientific community. The fact that a few are so ingnorant that they cannot see the method, model and conclusion of creationism's approach, is nothing short of silly
Still dishing out the same old bullshit, Dawn? Just as you were three months ago just before you cut and ran from the topic, Intelligent Design vs. Real Science? After we conclusively showed you that you have nothing? Revisit those messages:
Message 55 -- You claimed to have a "model" and dared me to show that it wasn't a model, nor the same as what science does.
Message 64 -- I did exactly that, though Coyote had already done it in Message 61 along with providing the definition of model, which I also used. I also had to describe to you the basics of how a model is constructed and used, which is completely alien to your "model". I also pointed out where you admitted that your "model" is based on the supernatural:
DWise1 writes:
But there's another very serious problem for your "model". In your other "reply" (Message 55), you made it clear yet again that your "Designer" is your god, which is supernatural. So your "model" is based on the supernatural. That's what you want to have included in science, the supernatural. Tell me, Dawn, just how the hell are we supposed to form supernaturalistic hypotheses? And just how the hell are we supposed to test them?
You want to be taken seriously? You already know that you need to provide a methodology for detecting and determining design. Well, you also need to provide a methodology for testing supernaturalistic hypotheses.
The bottom line as we understand it is that testing supernaturalistic hypotheses is impossible. Forcing science to use supernaturalistic hypotheses will cripple and even kill it. Or worse, change it into theology. Which would make it completely useless.
In Message 65 I addressed your repeated lies about logic and taught you about what you actually are practicing, sophistry, the abuse of logic in order to deceive your audience. Only your own attempts at sophistry are so crude you have to resort to repeatedly calling them "logical". I then show you why you need to present and support your premises, which you have repeatedly refused to do:
DWise1 writes:
One form of sophism is to use a valid logical construct, but getting the victim to agree to false premises which will then enable the sophist to arrive at the desired false conclusion. In classic examples such conclusions include that day is night or that black is white. Absolutely false conclusions "proven logically".
We have been trying to get you to support the premises of your "logic", which you have absolutely refused to do. The clear mark of a sophist.
For ID to be considered science, it must do the research and publish for the review of scientists. We've been over this with you countless times. Dishonest "public debates" and PR campaigns are not the way. They cannot be voted in as science. There is no royal road. They have to do the real work. Which, of course, they refuse to do and will certainly never do.
For your ID claim to actually be logical, you will need to present the development of that logic, coherently and cogently (IOW, in non-gibberish). Including the premises, which you must present and support fully and defend honestly in discussion. All those things that you refuse to do and will certainly never do.
You know full well what it will take. If ID has any truth to it, then honest exposition and discussion will bring that out. Of course, if ID has no truth to it, then that will also be brought out, which gives you and other IDists strong motivation to misbehave in just the manner in which you have been misbehaving consistently.
In Message 69 you condescendingly bullshat:
Atleast dewise (finally) and Coyote made an attempt at responding to the argument and to which I will be responding as soon as possible
Which, three months later, you have yet to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 6:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 544 of 609 (612109)
04-13-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 542 by Son
04-13-2011 9:47 AM


Re: I Feel Your Pain
Calling their BS "science" is not their goal, Son, but rather it's their method as necessitated by the legal system.
During the big post-WWI (yes, World War One) anti-evolution movement, the anti-evolutionists did exactly what Robert Byers has been advocating: in the early 1920's they made laws to ban the teaching in public schools of scientific ideas that their religion did not agree with. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) talked a PE teacher into violating his state's "monkey law" so that they would have a test case to bring before the US Supreme Court. Although John Scopes was convicted, the appellate court overturned his conviction on a purely technical matter instead of on the merit of the law and it never made it to the US Supreme Court. The "monkey laws" remained in effect until Arkansas teacher Susan Epperson had to file suit against her state over their "monkey law": she was required by her school to teach out of a biology textbook that used evolution as its cornerstone, which would bring her in violation of state law that would require banning her from the teaching profession for life for even mentioning evolution in class. That case did make it to the US Supreme Court and, in 1968, the "monkey laws" were struck down as being unconsitutional.
At that point, barred from barring the teaching of evolution for religious reasons, the newly re-vitalized anti-evolution movement created "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the court system. It was at that point that they started claiming to be opposing evolution for purely scientific reasons and claiming that they had "mountains of scientific evidence" for creation. Even though they had absolutely zero evidence for creation and only offered false and misleading claims solely against evolution and other sciences that contradict their strictly narrow religious beliefs (AKA YEC).
And, yes, their goal is to keep students ignorant, since knowledge is their worst enemy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Son, posted 04-13-2011 9:47 AM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by fearandloathing, posted 04-13-2011 11:25 AM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 550 of 609 (612167)
04-13-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by fearandloathing
04-13-2011 11:25 AM


Re: I Feel Your Pain
It's funny how their explanation's of creation evolve,I have even seen some christians using the 2012 predictions of the Mayans as proof that revelations is upon us.
I don't know whether I would call it "evolving", but certainly they keep coming up with more claims, creating a huge self-contractory mess.
Until creation of one flavor or another can be proven with real science then it has no place in a science class.
Creationism and science are entirely different from each other. The overall goal of science is acquiring ever more knowledge and understand of the physical universe and how it works. The overall goal of creationism is to deny science, especially those parts that creationists believe conflict with their religious beliefs.
One result of this fundamental difference is that scientific knowledge forms an integral world-view in which everything is interrelated and interdependent. Creationism takes the approach of "disproving" bits and pieces of scientific knowledge -- after all, they only want to eliminate those parts that they believe to conflict with their beliefs, but not other parts because they like the technology it provides them with (Orson Scott Card: "They all like their flush toilets too much."). As they make their piece-meal attacks (eg, claiming that the speed of light has changed, thus caused radiometric dating to be wrong), they run into even worse problems, for if that one "minor" thing were wrong, then that would result in an exponential explosion of other things that would be wrong causing yet other things to be wrong, etc. Thus creationists are constantly faced with mountains of evidence that their claims are wrong, yet another fact that they need to delude themselves about.
Another major difference is in how science and creationism approach mysteries. A scientist sees a mystery and he wants to solve it. A creationist sees a mystery as proof of God and therefore wants to keep it a mystery. Thus science seeks to increase our knowledge whereas creationism seeks to preserve our ignorance. This makes creationism the antithesis of science and is yet another reason why it does not belong in the science classroom.
Finally, there's the goal of science education, which is that the student know about and understand the scientific method and major scientific ideas. Creationism not only does not promote that goal, but rather it does the exact opposite with its false and misleading claims. Furthermore, science education policy explicitly states that understanding is different from subscribing to ideas and that (from California State Board of Education
Anti-Dogmatism Policy, 1989
):
quote:
Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
However, when creationism has been allowed in the classroom (eg, Ray Baird's 5th- & 6th-grade class in Livermore, CA, 1980), its goal has consistently been to compel belief, following each presentation of misinformation with appeals for the students to make a choice, right then and there, between the "generic" Creator and "atheistic evolution". In Baird's class, the smartest children chose atheism, a choice that they never should have been forced into, nor would they have if creationism had been kept out of the classroom. See http://ncse.com/...ls-resolutions-court-cases-appear-nationw and http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1159 (Footnote 7 on page 19 -- the Price book mentioned in that footnote is my main source along with the transcript of a 1981 KPBS documentary that covered it).
Clearly, creationism does not belong in the science classroom and it would need to undergo an fundamental and extensive transformation to ever have any hope of becoming eligible for inclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by fearandloathing, posted 04-13-2011 11:25 AM fearandloathing has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024