|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
You know that is not the origination source of which i speak. Right. I use science and have found that the origin of shared DNA between humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. You use religion and find that it was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity. Two different methods. Guess which one is appropriate for science class?
After all your bantering and bluster it ends up that order and law are to design what, change and NS are to soley natural causes, scientific approaches that should both be taught The difference being that I can form hypotheses based on natural selection and evolution that can then be tested through experimentation. Not so with order and law. Therefore, evolution is scientific while design is not.
Come on taq give me something hard. I did. Show me a creationist who uses phylogenetic analyses of orthologous ERV's shared between humans and other apes as a method for demonstrating design.
All any creations or IDst 9scientist, biologist)would need to do in this instance is show the biological orderliness of these primates that produces order and purpose in the form of a monkey, to demonstrate design Then use a phylogenetic analysis to do just that.
Do the mechanisms you describe above operate in an orderly and consistent fashion, when you are conducting your experiments? Or or they chaotic and eratic? Which one? You tell me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
I believe it was Einstien that said God was the laws of the universe correct? Is that peer enough for you? Is that a testable hypothesis? No. Try again.
Would you say that there were enough peer reviewed papers to indicate that there is order and lawin the universe? You tell me. Also show how order and law are the products of design through testable hypotheses found in the peer reviewed literature.
Desgn is a conclusion of the available evidence, like "soley natural causes" is a result of, science and evo, correct?
Both are philosophical conclusions, not scientific conclusions. Science does not assume ontological naturalism. Science is methodological naturalism. Please learn the difference.
order and law carry as much weight as change and evo, for any conclusions in the science classroom, as science and to any conclusions concerning the existence of things Yet you teach it in the classroom, why not the other, when they are both scientifically derived You have yet to show an experiment which demonstrates that the order and law seen in the universe is the product of design. Still waiting for that.
taq reqesting something from me that I dont think is necessary to begin with, is just silly. Scientists do think that testable hypotheses and empirical data produced in experiments are important. It is required of any theory that is to be taught in high school science class. Every time you argue against this you demonstrate why ID/Creationism is not fit for science class.
Science, real science was around long before any peer reviewed papers were required. it was called observation, experimentation and conclusions, correct?
Where are the experiments you speak of? Where are the hypotheses?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen.
Can you point us to a peer reviewed scientific article where it was presented accurately? If not, then why should a supposed theory with zero published research to back it be a part of a high school science class curriculum?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
the've complicated what science actually is, We are not the ones arguing that science does not require testable hypotheses or testing through experiments. That would be you. You have gutted the scientific method to the point of uselessness in order to force your religious beliefs into science class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 341 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
michael behe didn't present ID accurately? okay. how would you have presented it? as creationism? that would have ended that trial a whole lot faster. It will take some time to get to posts 567 thru 574, thats alot of info and i really dont want to miss anything. I thank Percy or whoever for thier indulgence in this connection A one on one would really help, but this is good as well. Now to answer your question Behe is not an apologist, he is a scientist. He presented a case for the detail in the biological world in that connection and did a very good job. However, that setting and those participants were not condusive to represent a formal type debate. Lawyers hardly qualify as apologists. the right questions were not asked, probed and sustained, like they would have been by a true apologist, as is indicated by your misunderstanding here that ID is something different than Creationism, they are not. That simple clarification would have cleared up much But one needs to cut through all the evolutionists smokescreens and misrepresentations to get to the real truth As in this present discussion, ID takes on a whole different perspective, because the right questioned are asked an answered Over involved specification and complicated explanations, (on both sides) in my view blocked the understanding of the judge. Were it presented simply, as it is simple, results could have been different. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 341 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
If one would see a fully "designed" animal pop in to existence from nothing or mud or whatever other impossible substance. that would cast serius doubt on evolution. true but you are looking at ID and creationism from a relifious perspective. it first must be established that creo and ID are religious and not science. This is why the trial was a failure. It cannot be established that ID is nothing less than a scientific investigation to begin with. it is a simple matter of empericism and rationalisn, a look at the nature world with the natural mind. Sorry thats science
What would negate design or creation??? The samething that would negate what you explained about evo above. You would need to demonstrate that in the laws of nature complex order is not present. You could not do this anymore than Icould demonstrate change has not taken place But initially you would need to demomstrate that my process was not science, how in the world could you do this, when I am following the same investgative process any human would. Starting to see why the trial was failure?
No they dont Scientist:" i wonder how all this life came heare and how it got so diverse?" Creo/ider:" I wonder how i can prove god with life, or at least get the bible back in to schools" Scientist" well let me take a closer look at life" Creo/ider:" well let me take a closer look at the bible" Scientist" hmm all animals look like they are related, some have small diferences, some have larger ones but you still can see the resemblance Creo/idist: the bible says god made all the animals well thats that let me put this in to the schools Scientist: well lets try to form a hypothesis gradual change over time produced the variety of life we see today creo/idist:" well lets brodcast our findings allover the country call it science and make people believe" Scientist: Well lets test the hypothesis lets dig for fossils, do experiments on speciation, compare genomes of animals, look at how mutations acure, look if the time line allows for this process, construct a " tree of life" to see if all animals actualy are related, compare that tree of life to others constructed on dna, bone, and other observations ................ ......... ......... ...... ...... .... Creationist/ider: lets invent some numbers and ideas out of the blue to give our claim credibility and debunk everything else Scientist:" well all the testing i have done and all the observations fit perfectly, doing my best i could not disprove my hypothesis now its time for other scientists to look at my idea and try to poke holes in it and see if i am wrong" Creo/ider:" i know i am right i dont need no stinking godless scientists to challenge my idea" Scientist: well that went well none of them could disprove my theory they tried as hard as they could did the experiments themselves desighned new experiments and none of the experiments disproved evolution only granted it more suport in time this theory should be widely excepted as a model that best represents reality with the data availible Creo/idist:" scientist have to except my idea because i KNOW i am right, il broadcast it on every channel and the people will decide il sue them in court because it is only fair to teach my "theory" (word used by none scientist to describe a wild guess) besides their theory (word used by scientists for a model that accurately describes reality given the data available). Il scream evolution is only a theory millions of times, il have experts who do not know shit about evolution talk to the people of how improbable it is, il make up stuff how evolution leads to killing people, make it synonym with communism and Nazism, tell believers that if they believe in evolution they will go to HELL ............... None of this is true its not even my position, nor is it logicalThe trial started and ended with a misguided view of creationism and ID. No thinking person, epecially a judge would make a conclusion, that ID is not science, unless he started with the idea it was religious to begin with Change is to evolution and soley natural causes, what law and complex order is to ID, there both simple investigative process to provide possible explanations of the natural world. The outcome would have been different had it been argued accurately from an apologists position Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
It cannot be established that ID is nothing less than a scientific investigation to begin with. We have established that ID is not science on NUMEROUS occasions, A freeing supreme court judge ruled ID IS NOT science. Sreaming in to the air ID is science will not make it so. Sorry ID is not science no mattar how many times you say it is it is still not science period.
The outcome would have been different had it been argued accurately from an apologists position No the outcome would have been different if ID actually was science. It is not even close to what science is. and if you realy think lots of scientists reject evolutionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&NR=1 Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
as is indicated by your misunderstanding here that ID is something different than Creationism, they are not. Thank you for confirming what we already know and have been saying all along: ID is not something different from creationism; they are the same thing. And that is exactly what Judge Jones found in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (emphasis added):
quote:Neither ID nor creationism are science and both are religious in nature. Even the American Academy of Religion* in its April 2010 Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K-12 Public Schools in the United States (follow that link for the PDF of that document) agrees (page 21, emphasis in the original): quote: {* FOOTNOTE:The American Academy of Religion is a learned society and professional association of teachers and research scholars, with over 10,000 members who teach in over 1000 colleges, universities, seminaries, and schools in North America and abroad. The Academy is dedicated to furthering knowledge of religion and religious institutions in all their forms and manifestations.} However, that setting and those participants were not condusive to represent a formal type debate. Lawyers hardly qualify as apologists. the right questions were not asked, probed and sustained, like they would have been by a true apologist, "a formal type debate"? As in one of your snake-oil travesties? At least the courtroom would not allow the gross dishonesty practiced by creationists and IDists in their "formal debates", thus giving the truth a chance to be heard. And "apologist"? Apologetics is a religious endeavor, is it not? If ID and creationism are truly science as you claim them to be, why not simply produce the evidence that they are? The body of IDist and creationist research and extensive peer-reviewed literature produced therefrom would immediately demonstrate . . . oh yeah, that's right, there is none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Change is to evolution and soley natural causes, what law and complex order is to ID, there both simple investigative process to provide possible explanations of the natural world. Law and complex order are not processes. They are not investigations. They are undefined words you use to describe reality without any way to measure them or test them. Change in genomes is measurable. On top of that, changes in genomes can prove or disprove evolution. If the changes do not fall into a nested hierarchy then evolution is disproved. So what observations of law and complex order would disprove design? What is the null hypothesis in ID, and how does one design and experiment to test it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Behe is not an apologist, he is a scientist. Then please point to the peer reviewed papers where Behe has published his scientific work, and show us how it tests ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Son writes: Robert, do you actually want to scrap all schools? Do you really want to destroy education so everyone is equally ignorant? It may be your purpose but surely even you can understand why the state would be opposed to that. If it wasn't for education, you wouldn't even have the computer to type this on (remember that you can't make much if you teach 2+2=5). Our purpose is to demand and allow the truth and the search for tryth in public institutions of learning.This makes a intelligent populace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Dr Adequate writes: The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that. To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false. Why yes. Just as by use of maps based on a spherical earth rather than a flat one the state (at least tacitly) expresses an official opinion on the religious doctrines of flat-Earth sects. And the state has every right to do this, as the law affirms. Because there is a secular purpose in the state so doing. How many times do you need this explaining to you? i'm saying they are breaking the very law they invoke for the censorship!The secular purpose for discussion and investigation of origins is the truth. In banning creationism its a official state opinion its , and the bible etc, NOT TRUE. No way around it. The law is a fraud of invention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Taq writes: In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.
False. We are not talking about Truth Class. We are talking about Science Class. They teach the science dealing with how species change over time. Nowhere in the curriculum do they state that religious doctrines are false. Nowhere have you shown that creationism qualifies as science. Only creationists are claiming that evolution indicates that religious doctrines are false. in fact its really conclusion class. Science is just a process they say lead to their conclusions.Anyways the law is saying creationism is illegal and thats the point here being contended. Dump this fraud law and then make your case to the people creationism should not be in science/conclusion on origins class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
if religious matters didn't matter in the classroom then the state would not teach them as being false or ban them.
It bans creationism because it does matter. The claim is that the church and state must not interfere with each other. Yet the state is doing just that by teaching ideas contrary to the church. tHen banning a reply pushes all the more this as a official state opinion on religious ideas. you can't beat the logic here. Your not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Jon writes: I went back to look over Mr. Byers's previous posts; I was curious to see what his arguments for Creationism in the classroom were. Unfortunately, all I found were a lot of arguments against evolution, but none that were for Creationism, as the topic of the thread requires. I find this whole debate about whether teaching evolution is constitutional or not quite irrelevant, then, to the topic. Even if Byers is correct, and evolution cannot be taught on grounds that it violates the Constitution, how is this justification for teaching Creationism? If we get rid of evolution, why should we fill its place with Creationism? What does Creationism have to offer the science class? How would teaching creationism avoid the 'problems' that teaching evolution supposedly creates? Mr. Byers: What is your argument for Creationism? I'm giving a package deal here.My great insistence is that the founding Yankee and southern Puritan and Protestant population who gave the constitution legitimacy and so its force NEVER intended anything to ban God or Genesis in schools as the truth or options for truth on points of origin. HOGWASH. Origins, or schools, or state and school were not in any way a part of those peoples lives. There is no constitutional prohibition of ideas on origins from any direction. Therefore its up to the people through the legislature to decide. Thats self government, freedom, and common sense.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024