Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Dual Model Fallacy
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1 of 4 (47774)
07-28-2003 5:03 PM


Creationism in all its forms presents itself as the sole scientific alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection. As in many aspects of American life, a seemingly simple polarity tries to stand in for an extremely complex set of issues. This either-or mentality benefits the creationist by allowing him to use negative evidence against evolution as supporting evidence for creationism. If the choice is between x or not-x, by definition x's loss is not-x's gain.
How realistic is this dual model in the case of science and scientific education? Aren't creationism and intelligent-design creationism obliged to put forth positive evidence for their theories and research programs instead of relying on evidence that supposedly falsifies evolution?
It aims to replace the evolutionary paradigm, but the creation model doesn't have the explanatory power of the evolutionary model or serve as the basis for further progress as does Darwin's theory. It's unfair to make students believe that creationism has the same scientific foundation as the theory of evolution.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2003 5:12 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 4 (47776)
07-28-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
07-28-2003 5:03 PM


The two-model approach was the invention of the YEC "creation science" movement. The ID movement does not offer a model because they don't want to get into issues like the age of the Earth (because they disagree amongst themselves - and their own political needs come first). Another reason may be because the "two-model" approach has failed to get onto the curriculum more than once - it is too obviously based on a literal reading of Genesis and too obviously contradicted by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 07-28-2003 5:03 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 3 of 4 (48258)
07-31-2003 8:27 PM


I still can't see how you can be Fed religion and not ever Question it....... to me its like how can you not question? and then how can you question and come up that creationism happened? it hardly makes any sense. there are Creationist that will come up with excuses for how it can be true(mainly thats the way god did it) ,others that just Plain do not care they where told to believe so they do, and there are those who don't want to listen. I contacted TrueAuthority.com - All Science News - environment, health, electronics, dinosaurs, cryptozoology about there False Claims and how they are wrong. I told them that they are wrong there are many more transitions then Lucy. I did get an E-mail back stating that if I gave them Examples they would be happy to discuss them with me. so I mentioned creatures like Archaeopteryx , Australopithecus and Eusthenopteron. I also brought up many other problems with there page. and they won't respond OR update there page(I told them to find new arguments to replace the old). I still E-mail them all the time and never get responses anymore.... but I keep going. My last few E-mails have said "you don't care if you have false information all you care about is converting People to your way of thinking even if it means feeding them false info." I am just waiting for one more response all they had to say is that they don't want to discuss it anymore and I would stop... sigh....

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 4 (49784)
08-10-2003 5:52 PM


Applying the creationist method of pairing present-day orthodoxy with a now-heretical historical view yields:
The shape of the Earth: round vs. flat
The luminosity of the Moon: illuminated by the Sun and the Earth vs. self-luminous
The motions of the Earth and the Sun: heliocentrism vs. geocentrism
The motions of the planets: inertia+gravity vs. angels pushing them
The orbits of the planets: approximately elliptical vs. being embedded in crystalline sphere
The stars: scattered over space vs. embedded in a single crystalline sphere
The influences of the celestial bodies: astronomy vs. astrology
Mechanics: Newton/Einstein/quantum vs. Aristotelian (objects seek their "natural" locations, etc.)
The chemical elements: the modern ones vs. earth, air, fire, and water
Manufacture of gold: nuclear reactions vs. alchemical techniques
Clouds: high-altitude fog vs. solid objects
Recent origin of some living things: never vs. spontaneous generation
Disease: microbes, genetic defects, etc. vs. demonic possession
Heredity: Mendelism (genes) vs. Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics)
How living tissue works: mechanism (biochemistry, molecular biology) vs. vitalism (some "vital force")
Think of what would happen to science curricula if we applied the creationist method to most other subjects.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 08-10-2003]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024