Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 286 of 609 (608027)
03-08-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:04 AM


Robert Byers writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
Implicitly, perhaps.
I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???
Well, for one thing, you overlook the legal concept of secular legislative purpose. There is a good reason for at least implicitly teaching that creationism is rubbish, namely that it is. Similarly there would be a good reason for teaching that it was true if it was true, namely that it was true.
Again, I invite you to imagine a sect that taught that two twos are five. Would that sect, by its existence, make it unconstitutional to teach the multiplication table?
Not implicit and not perhaps. Its explicit that in conclusions about some origins Genesis is wrong and further being banned is a state comment that its wrong.
Any court claim can not get around this equation that in a subject about discovery of truth a BANNING is state opinion its not true.
Yes that sect would make it unconstitutional. Yes thats the law as invented in the 1900's.
Reverse. if the sect taught that two twos are four and the state taught it was five likewise the sect stuff would be banned.
This is happening today.
The law is not applied as it claims its intended.
I think you're making here the best case against creationism in science class. It seems in your mind that we should stop teaching anything in school just because your interpretation of the constitution is as dogmatic as anything else regardless of evidence (if we can't even teach 2+2=4 anymore, what could we actually teach?). You're showing that listening to creationnists may very well send us back to the dark ages (where the very computer you're using wouldn't even be possible). You seem to want to apply your interpretation of the law regardless of the insane and terrible consequences that would follow.
The law is made by humans for the benefit of society, they are not like your bible to follow blindly without any moral considerations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:04 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 287 of 609 (608028)
03-08-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:04 AM


Not implicit and not perhaps. Its explicit that in conclusions about some origins Genesis is wrong ...
Well, no it isn't. I don't think you've grasped the distinction between implicit and explict. They aren't explicitly saying "Genesis is wrong" any more than the courts are explicitly saying "Robert Byers is wrong". To explicitly say it, you have to actually say it.
... and further being banned is a state comment that its wrong.
Not necessarily (but see my next post). It would be equally a breach of the first amendment to teach the doctrine of the Trinity --- not necessarily because it is wrong, but simply because it is religious in nature and outside the scope of what public schools are supposed to do.
Yes that sect would make it unconstitutional. Yes thats the law as invented in the 1900's.
The mind boggles.
No, that is not the law. Ask any judge.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:04 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 288 of 609 (608032)
03-08-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:06 AM


Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance.
But it's both, don't you see? If there was any indication that creationism was true, then there would be a legitimate secular purpose in teaching it, and you could.
On the other hand, it is only possible to find it unconstitutional because it is not merely an error but also a religiously motivated error --- you couldn't use the same laws to prevent people from teaching (for example) Holocaust denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:06 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 289 of 609 (608035)
03-08-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:04 AM


Its explicit that in conclusions about some origins Genesis is wrong and further being banned is a state comment that its wrong.
Genesis is not mentioned in science books. It is not the fault of the government that people choose to accept religious beliefs that conflict with scientific facts.
Also, teaching evolution has a secular purpose. It is a necessary part of any education in the biological sciences. If these students go on to have a career in the biological sciences then they MUST understand the theory of evolution. If these students hope to understand the findings that biologists make then they too must understand the theory. This is not so for creationism. There is zero secular purpose for teaching creationism. It is nothing more than religious indoctrination, something the state is not allowed to participate in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:04 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 290 of 609 (608037)
03-08-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:21 AM


Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
Another lie from Robert.
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.
Creationism is banned because it is not science and is pushed solely for religious purposes. If you disagree then start a new thread and show how creationism is science, including testable hypotheses and the experiments used to test them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 291 of 609 (608060)
03-08-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:18 AM


You didn't answer me.
Robert Byers writes:
Chains of logic here are not getting your side to reach to the other side.
I'm not engaged in any such effort to reach "the other side"... I asked you a simple question, which you dodged.
Would you support the teaching of the Islamic or Hindu origin myth in science class alongside the Christian one that you have overtly said you would support?
I really would like to hear your answer to this, I'm not harassing you or trying to set you up... I'd honestly like to hear your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:18 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:01 AM Briterican has 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

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 293 of 609 (608269)
03-09-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 1:31 AM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Dr Adequate writes:
subbie writes:
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.
Despite your upright hackles, I maintain my position.
The sine qua non of science is hypothesizing. What you are talking about is the mere observation of facts. Certainly science cannot proceed without the observation of facts. But if all that science did was observe and record facts, it would be a barren field. The life of science is the explanation and the prediction.
Science doesn't prove facts. Facts are gathered by observation. Science can guide observation, and often dictates what observation tells us. But science is much, much more than just looking, counting, measuring and weighing. And it's that part of science, the essence of it, that is and must always be tentative. And that's why science never proves anything. Ever.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 1:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2011 7:54 PM subbie has replied
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2011 8:46 PM subbie has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 294 of 609 (608288)
03-09-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 1:31 AM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
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.
If you fall into the philosophical trap of course you could say that you don't have two legs, but science as I understand it, depends on both the facts of observation and the science of why. Otherwise we wouldn't get much of anywhere would we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 1:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2011 8:05 PM DBlevins has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 295 of 609 (608335)
03-09-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by subbie
03-09-2011 4:39 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Despite your upright hackles, I maintain my position ... Science doesn't prove facts.
My hackles remain erect.
When you say "science doesn't prove facts", you are not really telling the truth about science in the English language as it is normally spoken. In ordinary English, science does prove facts and that's the whole point of it.
There is a particular version of epistemology in which the word "proof" is reserved for mathematical demonstrations. When you say "science doesn't prove facts", you are not saying anything meaningful about science, you are merely subscribing to the vocabulary of Karl Popper. But in plain English, you are saying something that is not actually true. Science does "prove facts" in the plain English sense of "prove" and "facts".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 4:39 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 296 of 609 (608338)
03-09-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by DBlevins
03-09-2011 5:15 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
If you fall into the philosophical trap of course you could say that you don't have two legs, but science as I understand it, depends on both the facts of observation and the science of why. Otherwise we wouldn't get much of anywhere would we?
No, we wouldn't. That was my point.
The sense in which we can't "prove" evolution is the same sense in which I can't "prove" that I have two legs. To say so depends on a special meaning of "prove" to which in all our normal transactions in the English language we do not subscribe.
In plain English, evolution has been proved. Of course we know that it has occurred. I would bet my life against a donut on this proposition. The evidence is completely unarguable. Yes, there is proof in the ordinary English meaning of the word "proof". If anyone wishes to speak Popperese instead of English, then I think they are morally obliged to say: "There is no proof of evolution in the same sense that there is no proof that Dr Adequate has two legs". Let them say that and I'll give them a pass. But in plain English, we have proved that Darwin was right. The only doubt about it is the sort of philosophical doubt that we can have about everything and therefore in practice have about nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by DBlevins, posted 03-09-2011 5:15 PM DBlevins has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 297 of 609 (608345)
03-09-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by subbie
03-09-2011 4:39 PM


almost a fact
Hi subbie, I'll get back to our debate later.
The sine qua non of science is hypothesizing. What you are talking about is the mere observation of facts. Certainly science cannot proceed without the observation of facts. But if all that science did was observe and record facts, it would be a barren field. The life of science is the explanation and the prediction.
Science doesn't prove facts. Facts are gathered by observation. Science can guide observation, and often dictates what observation tells us. But science is much, much more than just looking, counting, measuring and weighing. And it's that part of science, the essence of it, that is and must always be tentative. And that's why science never proves anything. Ever.
Science does prove facts: there are many experiments that have proven that
  • the process of evolution has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and as a result we know that the process of evolution is a fact in those instances,
  • the process of natural selection has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and thus it is a fact in those instances,
  • the process of genetic mutation has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and thus it is a fact in those instances,
  • the process of speciation has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and thus it is a fact in those instances.
What is never proven are the theories, but even there it is not completely cut and dry: through the process of the scientific method and building on the information we already know, we develop an approximation of the facts of reality that we don't yet know. As the theories are tested and refined, either through falsification and restatement or through validation and extension of the theory, we achieve a closer approximation to the unknown facts of reality than we had before.
Einstein builds on Newton to achieve a closer approximation for the action of gravity, and all the gains in information that were derived from Newton's theory are still there, now supporting General Relativity. The next theory of gravity will build on Einstein and refine our approximation even further.
A well tested hypothesis can become a theory after peer review and replication of results by other scientists, including the replication of positive evidence resulting from predictions and the negative replication of falsification tests.
A well tested theory that has withstood many independent attempts to falsify it can be called a strong theory, or a law (coyote has a nice reference for defining hypothesis, theory and law, wish I kept the link).
Thus we can say that validated, confirmed and heavily tested theory approximates fact (~fact)
or that validated, confirmed and heavily tested theory approaches fact (→fact)
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 4:39 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 8:50 PM RAZD has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 298 of 609 (608346)
03-09-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Dr Adequate
03-09-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Well, as certain as you seem to be about your position, and your hackles notwithstanding, you really didn't respond to anything I said, but simply repeated your original point, so I don't have anything further to add at this point, and yet for some reason, unfathomable to me, I find myself unable to finish this sentence, and feel an inexplicable need to append one final clause.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2011 7:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2011 9:19 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 299 of 609 (608347)
03-09-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by RAZD
03-09-2011 8:46 PM


Re: almost a fact
Science does prove facts: there are many experiments that have proven that
* the process of evolution has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and as a result we know that the process of evolution is a fact in those instances,
* the process of natural selection has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and thus it is a fact in those instances,
* the process of genetic mutation has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and thus it is a fact in those instances,
* the process of speciation has been observed to occur during experiments and field studies, and thus it is a fact in those instances.
All marvelous examples of observation, which is a necessary component of science, but is not by itself science.
A well tested hypothesis can become a theory after peer review and replication of results by other scientists, including the replication of positive evidence resulting from predictions and the negative replication of falsification tests.
A well tested theory that has withstood many independent attempts to falsify it can be called a strong theory, or a law (coyote has a nice reference for defining hypothesis, theory and law, wish I kept the link).
Thus we can say that validated, confirmed and heavily tested theory approximates fact (~fact)
or that validated, confirmed and heavily tested theory approaches fact (→fact)
All true, and yet, any theory is always subject to modification in light of new evidence or a better explanation for the existing evidence. Thus, it is never considered proven.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2011 8:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2011 6:27 PM subbie has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 300 of 609 (608353)
03-09-2011 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by subbie
03-09-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Well, as certain as you seem to be about your position, and your hackles notwithstanding, you really didn't respond to anything I said, but simply repeated your original point, so I don't have anything further to add at this point, and yet for some reason, unfathomable to me, I find myself unable to finish this sentence, and feel an inexplicable need to append one final clause.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 8:46 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024