Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
58 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This settles it.. Never moving down south..
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 19 of 116 (18714)
10-01-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 8:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Arachnophile

I listed the survey results to tell you why this is happening in the US. People who vote for boards are the same people who fill out belief surveys.

As for creation being science or not the point is we are talking about the origin of life. The key aspects - the actual origin of novelty - has not been solved by modern science and hence in the interim you should not brainwash children into thinking we have.

That is why I would not support teaching flat earth to 'be fair'. That has been proven beyond doubt to be untrue. Macroevoltuion has not been proven. You can teach microevolution without teaching creaiton but not macroevoltuion. That is the point you fail to appreciate.

You have jumped the gun with your extrapolation of natural selction to macroevolution.


#************************************+

We could say the same about gravity, quantum mechanics, etc.
So would you propose teaching astrology and any quack idea some uneducated bible thumper in Cobb county Georgia might come up with for gravity in public schools? There is no qualitative difference between creationism and astrology so why not? Or storkism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 8:33 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 11:36 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 32 of 116 (18813)
10-02-2002 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mammuthus

Gravity and QM work just fine. QM works to over 10 decimal places.

Macroevolution has not been demonstrated at all let alone quantitaively.

Please stop confusing macroevoltuion with proven natural selection. We have no problem with you brainwashing kids with Galapogos and finches. It's where you try and push that natural selction (or anything else) has been proven to have generated the genuine novelties that distinguish higher taxa that we claim unjustified brainwashing.


*******************************************

I am not confusing anything TB. Your second sentence is highly confusing as you claim it is ok to brainwash kids which nobody should be in favor of. Schrafinator's message 30 says basically what I was thinking so I will refer you to it regarding macroevolution. You ignore the evidence for it and then repeat that nobody has addressed the issue. Sadly for creationists evolution has more support than either QM or the theory of gravity. If kids want to learn about creation myths let them get it in church on their own free time..I would encourage them to learn lots of different ones since there are some really interesting ones...I like the Yaqui myths regarding energy. But they should not be taught in a science class anymore than alchemy or astrology should.

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 11:36 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 79 of 116 (19307)
10-08-2002 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
10-08-2002 9:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
And finally accept that creationism is not, will never be, science. No ideology springing from a religous text can be construed as science. Period.


Actually, creationism could be practiced scientifically. Of course, it would have remained the failed theory that religious naturalists abandoned long ago in the 17th century if it were scientific.

http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

"Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin?s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.

If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own ?scientific? tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists."


******************************

Try explaining that to Wordswordsman and watch the sparks fly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 10-08-2002 9:02 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 84 of 116 (19508)
10-10-2002 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

Why is any of that relevant?

All we are talking abou is using the tools of science to identify the origin of genomes and strata. Stop saying 'if this, if that'. Let's go one step at a time. If science tells us we were created by a space bunny then so be it.

Science has uncovered many evidences suggestive of creation and flood. You can sidetrack to space bunnies. I will use science to track down what happened.

The fact that I believe the Bible is only relevant if you doubt my scientific integrity. There is nothing unscientific about a believer finding evidence for creation if one has scientific integrity.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]


+++++++++++++++++++++

Hi TB,
I don't think what RV is saying is irrelevant at all. Believers have decided to believe that "science" finds or "proves" the flood or creationism. However, it is not by application of the scientific method. It is not science.

I don't think that he is questioning your integrity TB. I believe you when you say you believe in creation for example (I know, the grammar of this sentence sucks). But I do question that you came to that belief through science or application of the scientific method. In fact I deny that you could come to that conclusion via a scientific approach.

Cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 12:15 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:51 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 107 of 116 (20020)
10-16-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RedVento
09-27-2002 11:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/09/26/creationism.evolution/index.html <--- The bible belt must put the stupid in people real early for this to have happened.

********************

I guess you have to include Ohio to now....

In Brief
Ohio to teach evolution debate
15 October 2002
The Ohio Board of Education yesterday recommended that science classes in the state emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity, reports the New York Times. The months-long debate began when an independent report in 2000 found Ohio to be one of 12 states that fail to teach evolution. In its decision, the committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether "intelligent design" will be included in the curriculum.

Deja-vu for Darwinism in Ohio
5 February 2002
by Apoorva Mandavilli, BioMedNet News

The timeless debate about whether and how to teach evolution is raging again, this time in Ohio. But in this round, the opponents of evolution tout the creation theory without naming the creator - and that may make a difference.
You're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy, but it may still feel like it. Emulating the infamous evolution episode in Kansas, the citizens of Ohio are embroiled in a bitter battle between evolutionists and proponents of intelligent design - the theory that the world was created or designed by an intelligent higher being. Ohio's state Board of Education will next month host a panel debate to determine whether or not intelligent design (ID) will find a place in the state's science classrooms.

But convinced that ID is a new name for an old enemy - creationsim - defenders of evolution are preparing for a long fight. "It's a political strategy, a political issue," said Lynn Elfner, who directs the Ohio Academy of Science. "The political forces are very strong in Ohio for intelligent design."

An independent report in 2000 found Ohio to be one of 12 states that "fail so thoroughly to teach evolution as to render their standards totally useless." The curriculum as it now stands does not mention the word evolution at all, explains Elfner. Instead, it makes references to "change over time," which is "nonsense," Elfner told BioMedNet News. "The wallpaper on the wall changes over time. My shoes change over time," he said. "Change over time says nothing about evolution."

Urged by the report's "F" rating and under orders from the Ohio legislature, a 45-member panel of volunteers, including scientists, educators, parents and other community members, began revising the standards. Based on the recommendations of the Board's science advisory committee, of which Elfner is a member, and sample curricula from other states, the 45-member volunteer panel completed an early draft of the revised curriculum.

Jeffrey McKee, a paleoanthropologist at Ohio State University was on a focus group that reviewed the new standards and was "quite pleased with what they'd said about evolution," he said. But the same draft provoked some members of the Board to question the rewriting process they themselves had approved.

Michael Cochran, and 5 other representatives of the 19-member Board, now propose that the curriculum be revised to include intelligent design. At the Board's meeting last month, John Calvert, co-founder of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network, made an "unfettered, exclusive" 30-minute speech urging members to include ID as a viable theory for the origin of life.

"There is no working model to show how natural selection can produce irreducibly complex living systems," Calvert told the Board then. "The only known cause for such complexity is intelligence - the workings of a mind."

All the evidence for ID is based on "scientific investigation, scientific observation, and scientific analysis per the scientific method," Calvert said, and its study involves biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, mathematicians, statisticians, biologists, cosmologists, physicists and chemists.

The week after the meeting, Republican state representative Linda Reidelbach introduced a bill requiring that "origins science" be "taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption." The day after that, she introduced another bill requiring the state's science standards to be approved by both houses of the General Assembly.

This is not the first time Ohio has tried to introduce ID into its classrooms, says Elfner. Two years ago, Board member Deborah Owens-Fink tried and failed to include intelligent design into the state 12th grade competencies.

Ohio is not alone in grappling with the evolution debate. Across the Ohio river, in Kentucky, work has begun on a $14 million, 50,000-square-foot creationism museum. A new anti-evolution bill was also introduced in the Washington State Senate on January 18, suggesting that teaching evolution is "repugnant" to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, unconstitutional, and unlawful. The bill asks that evolution be removed from all public schools and replaced with "the self-evident truth of creation."

Proponents of intelligent design are careful to distinguish themselves from creationism, however. "Creationism is the Biblical account of genesis; we don't limit it to that," said Cochran. "We just think that there is some type of intelligence behind creation. There's too much orderliness, too much design to indicate evolution."

Cochran says he has no objection to keeping evolution in the curriculum. But while evolution offers evidence of change, he says, it offers "nothing conclusive" about the origin of life. "I don't believe that the whole debate has received enough debate, enough different opinions and ideas," he said. "As long as no one can prove how it began, why not have multiple theories expressed?"

But critics of ID look at such statements askance. "What they're trying to do is get [creationism] in through the backdoor of a science curriculum," McKee told BioMedNet News. "They came up with a new name and say silly things like 'Well we don't know who the designer is.' But it's just a thinly veiled attempt to get creationism taught in a science classroom."

The distinction between ID and creationism is critical: US federal courts have ruled that creationism is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion in schools and cannot be introduced into curricula. Introducing ID, although it doesn't align itself with a particular creator, is still a constitutional issue, says Ohio state Senator Robert Gardner, chairman of the state Senate's Education Committee.

If ID is taught in classrooms, so should theories proposed by Buddhists and Native Americans, Gardner says. "There's probably a place for [discussing] higher intelligence," he said. "But that's probably a history of religion class as opposed to a science curriculum, which is based on fact."

To resolve the debate, the Board has invited two scientists from each camp for a panel discussion at its March meeting. Representing ID will be Jonathan Wells, who holds a PhD in molecular and cell biology from the University of California-Berkeley.

"We feel [ID] should be included because Darwinism has problems with it," said Mark Edwards, spokesperson for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, where Jonathan Wells is a fellow. "At the basic level, what's being taught is simply not accurate so we just feel like students should be able to know this. That's fundamental to getting an education."

Asked why scientists like Wells have never published evidence for ID in peer-reviewed scientific journals, Edwards says such scientists have been "excluded" from the journals. "There is a degree to which things about and by intelligent-design people get snubbed," he said. "There's a self-selection at work there."

ID has never been published in peer-reviewed journals because it is simply not good science, counter its opponents. "All of us know the scientific process," said McKee. "What the ID people are trying to hide is that they have no testable hypothesis about the diversity of life. That is where they fail."

The seemingly endless point-counterpoint promises to continue well into the year. The State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on adoption of the new standards in December 2002. In recent weeks, rivaling groups calling themselves Science Excellence for all Ohioans (ID supporters) and Ohio Citizens for Science (evolution supporters) have sprung up to support their endeavors.

The evolutionists have modeled themselves after the group Kansas Citizens for Science, which fought against education standards in Kansas. Two years after it voted to drop evolution, the Kansas Board of Education last year reinstated evolution in its curriculum.

"I think we'll win this one mainly because we have the truth on our side," McKee told BioMedNet News. "We saw what happened in Kansas," he said. "Even if we have a one-year hump where it gets in, we'll get it out eventually."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RedVento, posted 09-27-2002 11:25 AM RedVento has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 10:15 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 108 of 116 (20021)
10-16-2002 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Mammuthus
10-16-2002 10:00 AM


Actually, on second thought this could be a good thing. Biology classes on the first day should review the principles of science and the scientific method. Then when they present ID/creationism they can demonstrate why it is not science and evolution is i.e. evolution presents a testable hypothesis, supporting data etc.....ID and creationism make a fantastic example of what science is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 10:00 AM Mammuthus 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 © 2020