|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ken Ham is ... EXPELLED | |||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4660 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I take a different view on these things. What I always wonder about is all of the great future biologists that were scared away from science by homeschooling. I will agree that one does not need to understand evolution that well in order to score well on high school standardized tests. I think this speaks more to the awful state of standardized tests and high school education as a whole, but that is a topic for another day. So even if kids are not taught evolution and pass tests with high marks it still does not change the fact that parents have told their kids that the evolution boogey man is lurking out there in biology classes. This boogey man can lead you to atheism and a rejection of God if you let him get his fingers into you. What else is a kid supposed to think other than to stay away from further education in the biological sciences? How many great future scientists have been scared away from a great and rewarding career because their parents threatened their everlasting soul with damnation if they did so? Is this really what happens ? Do parents really present evolution as ''the boogey man'' ? Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is it just your personnal feeling about this ? Because from my point of view, at least from my own personnal experience this is not the approach taken at all, and in fact christians have no problem studying in biology related subjects. My brother is in med school, and I have another friend who just finished her PhD in neurobiology and is now doing her post-doc partially at Harvard. Both christians and YEC ...
Also, one of the philosophical tenets of science is that there are no sacred cows. There are no questions that should not be asked, or hypotheses that should not be considered. From the time of Galileo science has given the religious aristocracy the middle finger time after time. IMHO, science should have an air of being crass, anti-establshment, and daring. This shouldn't be taken too far, don't get me wrong. However, science doesn't work if it is kowtowing to unsupported religious beliefs. Learning science should be a slap in the face. It should open your eyes and tell you that whatever you believe is wrong, and this is why. And yet, when someone saying he doesn't believe in the ToE is equated to him being ''against science'' or other such outlandish claims, does it make it seem like the ToE has itself become a sacred cow, albeit a scientific one, that no one can question ? When you publicly declare of a theory that anyone who disbelieves it is either ignorant, fool or wicked, does it not become an attempt to put this theory beyond questioning, is this not an attempt to discourage doubts about it ?
I'll leave it there, but there is plenty more to the rant if you want to hear it. You could write a paper about it, but my guess would be it wouldn't pass peer-review.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
They are free to think something else with good reason, not just because the theory conflicts with their superstition. Creationists are not replacing the Theory of Evolution with an alternative explanation at all, so their rejection of the theory is not valid.
... a theory isn't an absolute truth; it is a human construct to try and explain the data, and if someone feels it does not adequatly do so he is free to think something else. slevesque writes:
Of course. But you're acceptance and/or rejection of theories is supposed to add to physics, not just say, "Nuh uh," to the bits and pieces that you don't like. In my own field, if I ever go on and actually become a physicist, it will be expected of me that I accept and reject certain theories. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You are misrepresenting what is happening here. They are learning the evidence, but openly reject the explanation of the evidence, ie the theory. You are misunderstanding what is happening here. The theory is the science. If all they are learning is a series of (to them) unconnected facts that have no theory holding them together, then they aren't learning science. Science isn't merely a series of facts. It's the theories that are built upon those facts, and the subsequent further investigations that follow from those theories. If science merely learned facts but didn't put them together into a cohesive framework we'd still be living in the dark ages.
This is perfectly legitimate I have no idea what you mean by "legitimate" so I have no idea if it's legitimate, but it isn't science.
in that a theory isn't an absolute truth No, it isn't. It's science.
it is a human construct to try and explain the data, and if someone feels it does not adequately do so he is free to think something else. Why must you creo types keep trotting out the same strawmen over and over again? Nobody is saying you can't believe whatever you like. The only thing you can't do is teach it in schools and call it science, because it isn't. Science certainly isn't about merely accepting whatever the prevailing paradigm is. But it is about challenging that paradigm with new facts or better explanations. Neither creationism nor intelligent design do either.
I think so too, but it was only to highlight how equivocating ''the theory of evolution'' and ''Science'' was poor logic. It has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with the definition of science. The ToE fits it perfectly. (BTW, I'm pretty sure you mean "equating" rather than "equivocating" because "equivocating" makes absolutely no sense in that sentence.)
But, if we take me for example, I am not rejecting ''science'', I am not rejecting the scientific method, or even methodological naturalism. I am simply rejecting a scientific theory. You are rejecting a scientific theory that is the best explanation for the evidence. (Actually, at this point in time, it's the only explanation.) This means one of two things: either you don't understand what the evidence is or you don't understand the scientific method.
In my own field, if I ever go on and actually become a physicist, it will be expected of me that I accept and reject certain theories. But it will be expected of you that if you reject a theory that you provide either evidence undermining it or an alternative theory that better explains the evidence. Can you do that for the ToE? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2882 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
I have nothing worth adding to this debate, except this:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Over here, my experience is that they make up the majority of homeschooled children; however, I don't exactly have great knowledge of the area. The Christian's Homeschool thing doesn't have traction over here (yet?).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ringo writes: Learning to regurgitate onto a test paper while secretly rejecting the evidence is faking it, yes. Is someone who understands a now falsified but formerly accepted scientific theory to the point where he could "regurgitate" it accurately faking it? Anyway, accepting the label for the sake of discussion, I don't think there are too many creationists out there "faking" an understanding of evolution. Most creationist rejections of evolution that we see here are based upon profound misunderstandings of evolution, and it isn't even unusual for some prominent creationists to share these misunderstandings, such as those of banana and crocoduck fame. Dover has had a profound influence on how informed the average creationist is on the details of the creation/evolution debate. Creationists coming here today well exceed their predecessors in their ignorance of both scientific and creationist interpretations of the evidence, and of course of the evidence itself. Even if "faking it" is the correct label, I see little evidence of any faking. Most creationists have an incredible amount to learn before they could even hope to attain what you call "faking it". --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Most creationist rejections of evolution that we see here are based upon profound misunderstandings of evolution The thing that always seems weird to me is that this is the case even with those who have PhDs in relevant areas. The crazy stuff Jonathan Wells, such as the polar ejection model of cancer and claiming that genetics don't affect morphology, comes up with always surprises me. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given. Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: I see nothing 'unscientific' about someone not adhering to a theory. Of course, this person must also have valid reasons and evidence to back-up his disbelief, which I think I have. There is nothing wrong with skepticism about established theories, but you aren't merely skeptical about the theory of evolution. Evidence that would persuade any scientist won't convince you. Can you even conceive of evidence that might convince you that does not require time travel? That's not scientific. It seems to me that your reasons for rejecting the theory of evolution include your religious beliefs. In my opinion, that would be a handicap for a biologist. There might be subjects in physics that will be similarly problematic for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
subbie writes:
But it will be expected of you that if you reject a theory that you provide either evidence undermining it or an alternative theory that better explains the evidence. Can you do that for the ToE? There is a need for objective people like Slevesque who are knowledgeable and objective about all science PoVs. Not all are stuck on our way or the highway in their class rooms. My advice to Slevesque is to continue learning all he can about everything. He will be able to teach effectively in both creationist and ToE classes and do it more objectively than someone who has learned only one science view. If more of our educators, in both camps, were as knowledgeable as Slevesque is going to be when he graduates, perhaps, the best of both PoVs will prevail in the minds of the young impressionable minds of students being taught when they graduate. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Wounded King writes: Most creationist rejections of evolution that we see here are based upon profound misunderstandings of evolution The thing that always seems wierd to me is that this is the case even with those who have PhDs in relevant areas. The crazy stuff Jonathan Wells, such as the polar ejection model of cancer and claiming that genetics don't affect morphology, comes up with always surprises me. TTFN, WK Money talks and Bullshit sells well. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: subbie writes:
But it will be expected of you that if you reject a theory that you provide either evidence undermining it or an alternative theory that better explains the evidence. Can you do that for the ToE? There is a need for objective people like Slevesque who are knowledgeable and objective about all science PoVs. Not all are stuck on our way or the highway in their class rooms. My advice to Slevesque is to continue learning all he can about everything. He will be able to teach effectively in both creationist and ToE classes and do it more objectively than someone who has learned only one science view. If more of our educators, in both camps, were as knowledgeable as Slevesque is going to be when he graduates, perhaps, the best of both PoVs will prevail in the minds of the young impressionable minds of students being taught when they graduate. Slev will not remain a YEC very long. He really does seem intelligent and will soon realize that YEC and Creationism are but lies. I give him maybe a year more, certainly not much longer than that, particularly if he studies physics. Once he realizes that at least one Uranium Halo exists, YEC goes out the window. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Buzsaw writes: subbie writes:
But it will be expected of you that if you reject a theory that you provide either evidence undermining it or an alternative theory that better explains the evidence. Can you do that for the ToE? There is a need for objective people like Slevesque who are knowledgeable and objective about all science PoVs. Not all are stuck on our way or the highway in their class rooms. My advice to Slevesque is to continue learning all he can about everything. He will be able to teach effectively in both creationist and ToE classes and do it more objectively than someone who has learned only one science view. If more of our educators, in both camps, were as knowledgeable as Slevesque is going to be when he graduates, perhaps, the best of both PoVs will prevail in the minds of the young impressionable minds of students being taught when they graduate. You speak so highly about him as if you know him personally. You know nothing about him or his intelligence or capabilities. Do you think so highly of him and praise his abilities so much just because he is a creationist christian? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Is this really what happens ? Do parents really present evolution as ''the boogey man'' ? For some of the families I grew up around, yes. This is exactly how they presented it. By the age of 10 they were being taught the most famous PRATT's in the book and being told that evolution was a tool used by atheists to make people hate God. I remember sitting in one time during "biology" class at one of my friends house. The first topic was Nebraska man and how atheists were using a tooth to tell lies to children.
Because from my point of view, at least from my own personnal experience this is not the approach taken at all, and in fact christians have no problem studying in biology related subjects. My brother is in med school, and I have another friend who just finished her PhD in neurobiology and is now doing her post-doc partially at Harvard. Both christians and YEC ... I don't view medical doctors as biologists. I have had to completely retrain medical doctors so that they wouldn't start the lab on fire. From my own experience, doctors and biologists think quite differently. As to neurobiology, I wonder what your friend has to say about the human accelerated regions (HAR's) that are related to human brain evolution.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Someone might be able to be a physicist and not believe in Evolution, but don't see anyway someone could be a physicist and believe in a young earth. I also can't see anyway someone could be a biologist and not believe in evolution or a geologist and believe in a young earth. There was a case like this a few years back. My memory is a bit hazy, but I believe there was a technician that agreed to work in a lab. At the time the PI was working off of a grant that was looking that the evolutionary history of a certain fish. The technician refused to use evolution in the work, and was summarily fired. When the tech filed suit for wrongful termination it was quickly thrown out of court. It was obvious to all that one should not enter a workplace that requires the use of evolution if you refuse to use it. Hypothetically, let's say that your boss wants you to take some of the currently unannotated genes from a recently sequenced genome and try to figure out their function. As it turns out, one of the best tools currently is SIFTER. This is an algorithm that uses evolutionary distances and history to infer protein function, and the results it kicks back are 96% accurate. If you reject evolution what will you tell your boss? Sorry, I know that it works but I refuse to use it on religious grounds?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024