Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 609 (606337)
02-24-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by shadow71
02-24-2011 7:12 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
shadow71 writes:
I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities.
Sorry, but you are objecting to the teaching of the scientifically accepted theory of evoloution in science classrooms. The evidence that random mutation and natural selection occur in nature and that they are responsible for the diversity of species is overwhelming. Nobody cares all that much that you personally are not convinced.
You can pretend to be on-board with the position of the Catholic Church on evolution, but you aren't anywhere near being able to live with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 7:12 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by shadow71, posted 02-25-2011 2:10 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 609 (606346)
02-25-2011 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by subbie
02-24-2011 7:42 PM


"random mutation for fitness"
subbie writes:
I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that.
Based on other discussions, I'm sure shadow71 does not believe that mutations occur randomly with respect to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by subbie, posted 02-24-2011 7:42 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 198 of 609 (606348)
02-25-2011 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by shadow71
02-24-2011 7:12 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities.
They are.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings.
You could say the same about gravity, and with the same degree of correctness.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 7:12 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 609 (606350)
02-25-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by subbie
02-24-2011 7:42 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof
This sort of statement raises my hackles.
There is a philosophical point of view from which it is true to say that "science never proves anything". But if we adopt this point of view then it would be equally true to say that I can't "prove" that I have two legs, not even by looking at them and counting them. As such, it redefines the word "prove" to the point where it loses its meaning in English as it is usually spoken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by subbie, posted 02-24-2011 7:42 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 4:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 294 by DBlevins, posted 03-09-2011 5:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 200 of 609 (606456)
02-25-2011 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by NoNukes
02-24-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
No Nukes writes;
Sorry, but you are objecting to the teaching of the scientifically accepted theory of evoloution in science classrooms. The evidence that random mutation and natural selection occur in nature and that they are responsible for the diversity of species is overwhelming. Nobody cares all that much that you personally are not convinced.
I am basing my position on "natural" selection, and "random" mutation both on my view of creation and James A. Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engilneering papers on 21st centrury evolution that ,in my opinion, provide evidence that both selection and mutation for fitness may not be completely natural and random.
These issues were discussed in the now closed thread Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution.
NoNukes also writes;
You can pretend to be on-board with the position of the Catholic Church on evolution, but you aren't anywhere near being able to live with that.
I am completely in agreement with the Catholic's Church"s teaching on biological evolution, which accepts evolution as part of creation and "special creation" in re Man's soul.
Telll me where I am wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 10:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2011 3:16 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 609 (606475)
02-25-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by shadow71
02-25-2011 2:10 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
shadow71 writes:
No Nukes writes;
I am basing my position on "natural" selection, and "random" mutation both on my view of creation and James A. Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engilneering papers on 21st centrury evolution that ,in my opinion, provide evidence that both selection and mutation for fitness may not be completely natural and random.
Probably off topic to pursue this too much further. Even if Shapiro's paper did say what you believe it says, and it seems only you hold that opinion, that would still means that you object to the teaching of mainstream science in science classs on fairly paltry evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that mutations are random with respect to fitness; certainly enough evidence to teach the random mutation aspect of the thoery of evolution in a science class. On the other hand, there seems to be scant evidence that mutations are non-random.
quote:
I am completely in agreement with the Catholic's Church"s teaching on biological evolution, which accepts evolution as part of creation and "special creation" in re Man's soul.
Fair enough. I apologize for saying that you were not in agreement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by shadow71, posted 02-25-2011 2:10 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 202 of 609 (606488)
02-25-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:16 PM


Once again, unless science can prove the origin of life, how can you rule out either one?
As it pertains to science, it is question of how you rule one IN, not out. What evidence do we have that points to a supernatural origin of life? If none, then what place does it have in a science class?
Nor is there scientific evidence to suggest it is incorrect.
There is no evidence that can falsify a religious dogma. That is what it is called a dogma. You are only making it more obvious that the source of creationism is religion, not evidence.
Until there is absolute proof of the origin of life I do not belive it is proper to leave Creation out of the classroom.
Until creationism is capable of being scientific it has no place in science class. We are not talking about Possibility Class. We are talking about Science Class. It could be true that the Universe was magically poofed into being just last Thursday complete with a false history and false memories. Should we teach that too?
Why do you feel it necessary to include a religious dogma in science class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:16 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 203 of 609 (606490)
02-25-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:23 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life.
What secular purpose does this have? How does this improve a child's education in the sciences? Will they have to understand supernatural mechanisms in order to have a productive career in the sciences?
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.
No one is saying that they can not make up their own mind. Last I checked, no one is stopping these kids from entering places of worship and learning about the religious beliefs of others. However, it is unconstitutional for the government to push religious dogma as science using public money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:32 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 204 of 609 (606491)
02-25-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Bolder-dash
02-24-2011 12:53 AM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
And the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can multiply levels of complexity to form the sophisticated life forms we see today is???
There are plenty of threads discussing this. This thread is meant to discuss the legitimacy of creationism in the science classroom.
Once again we see the scientific inadequacy of creationism being hidden behind a tu quoque fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-24-2011 12:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 205 of 609 (606493)
02-25-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Robert Byers
02-24-2011 2:49 AM


Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines.
So if a religion teaches that strep throat is instead caused by the evil spirit Marklar are teachers no longer allowed to teach Germ Theory in science class? If we only taught scientific theories that did not conflict with previous religious beliefs we would have no theories to teach.
It is not the fault of the government that religious believers accept dogma that conflicts with the empirical evidence.
If the state is teaching about the accuracy of the bible on origins then its breaking the very law used to ban the bible.
They are teaching about the accuracy of scientific theories as demonstrated by the empirical evidence. It has nothing to do with the bible.
The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people.
The purpose was to stop interference between state and church.
So you think that the state indoctrinating students into a literal interpretation of Genesis is not interfering with the religious freedoms of the students? Really?
By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion.
How is the banning of religious indoctrination in public schools an establishment of religion? If they ban drugs from the schools are they establishing drug use?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Robert Byers, posted 02-24-2011 2:49 AM Robert Byers has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 206 of 609 (606589)
02-26-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Taq
02-25-2011 5:32 PM


taq writes;
Until creationism is capable of being scientific it has no place in science class. We are not talking about Possibility Class. We are talking about Science Class. It could be true that the Universe was magically poofed into being just last Thursday complete with a false history and false memories. Should we teach that too?
Why do you feel it necessary to include a religious dogma in science class?
My problem is that it appears that scientists preach the naturalist message that all is knowable by science. Perhaps to temper that hubris, the students should be told that perhaps science may not have all the answers and for more than 10,000 years religious teachings based on revelations in the Bible teach that maybe science will find answers to many questions, but not all.
I just don't like the arrorgance of "Science will deliver the answer or its not there."
I avoided this issue by sending my children to Catholic schools where they recieived execellent educations and were not reduced to robotic christian fundamentalists as many posts by scientists on this board propose may happen if we happen to mention that perhaps science does not have all the answers.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : spelling & punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 02-25-2011 5:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 02-26-2011 7:18 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 216 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2011 10:53 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 217 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2011 12:25 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2011 12:56 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:39 PM shadow71 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 207 of 609 (606591)
02-26-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM


shadow71 writes:
My problem is that it appears that scientists preach the naturalist message that all is knowable by science.
Except that is simply not a true statement. Scientists do not preach period and certainly not anything as silly as "all is knowable by science".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:35 PM jar has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 208 of 609 (606593)
02-26-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Taq
02-25-2011 5:43 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
shadow posted;
Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life.
taq repllied;
What secular purpose does this have? How does this improve a child's education in the sciences? Will they have to understand supernatural mechanisms in order to have a productive career in the sciences?
There is more to life than scientific theory. Students should be taught that science does not have all the answers, and that there are religious revelations more than 10,000 years old that propose that creation may not be a completely natural phenomen.
I don't think that information will undermine their scientific careers and I think it will broaden their horizons .
taq wrote;

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Taq, posted 02-25-2011 5:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2011 8:24 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 242 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:41 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 209 of 609 (606594)
02-26-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by jar
02-26-2011 7:18 PM


jar wrote;
Except that is simply not a true statement. Scientists do not preach period and certainly not anything as silly as "all is knowable by science".
I see a lot of scientific preaching on this board about how anyone who believes in Creation is surely on the wrong tract.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 02-26-2011 7:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 02-26-2011 7:44 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 210 of 609 (606595)
02-26-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:35 PM


shadow71 writes:
jar wrote;
Except that is simply not a true statement. Scientists do not preach period and certainly not anything as silly as "all is knowable by science".
I see a lot of scientific preaching on this board about how anyone who believes in Creation is surely on the wrong tract.
Anyone that claims there is evidence of some Intelligent Design or Special Creation should be taken to task and forced to provide a model and mechanism.
So far no one has ever presented anything relating to some model or theory of Creation Science or Intelligent Design.
The issue is particularly Christians trying to get anything like "Creation" in schools. Honestly, "Creation" as a science or methodology is worthless and does not belong in any science classes.
Religions and theology can be discussed in religious classes or philosophy classes or mythology classes or political classes or history classes or literature classes but it has no place or value in the science areas.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:35 PM shadow71 has seen this message but 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