|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9219 total) |
| |
swooptaxi | |
Total: 920,732 Year: 1,054/6,935 Month: 335/719 Week: 123/204 Day: 0/15 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
You obviously have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Are willing to research what the term Scientific Theory means or do I have to spoon feed you?
Until you understand the meaning of the terms you use maybe you should refrain from posting. After we deal with the word Theory we can move on to the word Evolution. We will take small steps to not overwhelm you.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A Theory is an educated guess and ... a scientific theory is based on evidence and predictions to test the validity of the theory. So yes, it is not just a random made up guess, but one educated by the evidence and validated by passing the tests ... and the education can be graded by how it passes the tests.
... and Evolution is a term of observation, "we watched the play evolve." ... You are employing -- probably unwittingly -- the logical fallacy of equivocation, where different meanings\definitions of a word are used in different parts of the argument. You are confusing "evolve" with the meaning "unfolding" (a flower unfolds as it blooms, a butterfly unfolds as it emerges from a cocoon) with the meaning used in biology (where it has a specific meaning within that field) for the process by which species change. Let me help you:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Now it is a FACT that this process has been observed and documented to occur in virtually every living species ... and this is often called "microevolution." As should be readily seen, this definition of evolution does not apply to how a play unfolds. Rather the unfolding of the play is more analogous to the unfolding of evidence as it is discovered from the natural history of life on earth -- a grand play indeed eh?
... We don't know the plot so we make an educated guess about what is happening. We can certainly form an hypothesis about what is going to happen, and we can test that against evidence as the play unfolds -- making modifications when needed -- and this additional (new) evidence will either confirm or invalidate the hypothesis by the time the play ends. That is part of the scientific method and a valid approach to investigating new phenomena.
So the T of E is "the guessing of guessing" Well you are confusing your hypothesis as both the beginning and the ending, and you used different definitions of evolution (equivocation fallacy) to arrive at a rather fatuous result -- not because the ToE is at fault but because your logic is invalid. Let me introduce you to a couple more terms: The theoretical evolution of all species involves what is called "macroevolution" by scientists (and often misunderstood by creationists) -- the effects of microevolution over multiple generations. Such macroevolution falls into two categories:
Thus there are two long term process in macroevolution -- linear evolution that affects the whole breeding population, sometimes call phyletic speciation, and divergent evolution that divides the original breeding population into two or more isolated breeding populations, sometimes called divergent speciation. Now, just as the process of evolution has been observed and documented, it is a FACT that these two macroevolutionary processes have been observed and documented to occur. Now just like the unfolding play we can form an hypothesis of how the natural history of the earth unfolded, and because we want it to be a scientific theory we base it on known processes and known objective empirical facts; thus we can define the Theory of Evolution as follows:
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis (phyletic speciation), and the process of cladogenesis (divergent speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. AND we can test that theory against the new knowledge and evidence that occurs as the play unfolds. So far there is not one instance from "the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us" that cannot be explained by the two processes listed above. Thus the theory has been tested an incredible number of times (every fossil, every genome, every field observation, etc) and it has passed those tests with flying colors. Makes it a pretty intelligent theory doesn't it?
"Not knowing what is not known" Where should we begin in such a study? You start by learning what you don't know from the information available to you. In this case I can recommend (strongly) Evolution 101 -- a teaching aid from Berkeley University ... Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The Theory of Evolution. A Theory is an educated guess and Evolution is a term of observation, "we watched the play evolve." We don't know the plot so we make an educated guess about what is happening. So the T of E is"the guessing of guessing" No. Really, you shouldn't involve yourself in this discussion if you don't even know the meaning of the terms.
So the T of E is "Not knowing what is not known" Where should we begin in such a study? Looking up the terms "theory" and "evolution" and finding out that neither of them is a synonym for "guessing" would be an excellent first step.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3714 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
In other words "if you want to pass school you'll have to guess the way we guess, and not do your own guessing."
That's what school is anyway I suppose. Edited by Colbard, : add
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2429 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I posted a nice list of definitions on the other thread in Message 91.
Take a look, you might learn something. Edited by Coyote, : Added linkReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In other words "if you want to pass school you'll have to guess the way we guess, and not do your own guessing." That is not in fact the same thing in other words. You seem to have a real problem with finding out the meaning of words. This may kinda disqualify you from discussing things on internet forums, because people on forums use words quite a lot. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3714 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
I made a comment on the basic English meaning of those words, not necessarily your version or a scientific term.
I know the scientific terms and how they are used. I was showing that in choosing those terms they have a misnomer if they are going by the plain text. In school we use the terms in their basic form first, so if the T of E is taught in schools it should come under better terms to describe the horrid thing. Edited by Colbard, : yo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I made a comment on the basic English meaning of those words ... No, you made shit up. There is no "basic English meaning" under which "evolution" is a synonym for "guessing". No-one ever said "I'm evolution you're a Pisces", or "The fossil record tells us a lot about the guessing of mammals".
I know the scientific terms and how they are used. And it is no excuse to say that you knew you were making shit up.
In school we use the terms in their basic form first In school we are taught the proper meaning of scientific terms, rather than being taught that scientific vocabulary should be subordinated to vulgar errors.
But you all got busy with straightening me out, and labeling me to a lower category, in which case you would not be suitable to comment on what should go on in schools. Right? Well, that was gibberish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2429 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I made a comment on the basic English meaning of those words, not necessarily your version or a scientific term. You are treating a scientific subject using generic terms? That's like bringing a pea-shooter to a gun fight. (An apt analogy for creationists.)
I know the scientific terms and how they are used. I was showing that in choosing those terms they have a misnomer if they are going by the plain text. No, those who are choosing the generic terms are either ignorant or deliberately trying to confuse things. (Either fits creationists.)
In school we use the terms in their basic form first, so if the T of E is taught in schools it should come under better terms to describe the horrid thing. No, any time you try to teach science, you have to include the terms as scientists use them. Science has a need for precise terms, and these definitions have been worked out over decades or centuries. We have no need for creationists to try and obfuscate the findings of science by altering the terms to fit their beliefs.
But you all got busy with straightening me out, and labeling me to a lower category, in which case you would not be suitable to comment on what should go on in schools. Right? That's gibberish. Teaching in schools should include accurate information, which it seems you are lacking. I suspect it is deliberate. Creationists who are inherently anti-science really have no business teaching science in schools. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3714 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Your red faced vein popping speeches does the evolution cult justice.
Are you sure you are not religiously in love with this thing called evolution?You know - the dogma that tells you that you are nothing but swill in pond of bacteria? And that every time you eat a chicken burger you have an underdeveloped human being in between two slices of bread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your red faced vein popping speeches does the evolution cult justice. Are you sure you are not religiously in love with this thing called evolution? You know - the dogma that tells you that you are nothing but swill in pond of bacteria? And that every time you eat a chicken burger you have an underdeveloped human being in between two slices of bread? Once again I would suggest that you find out what evolution is. Otherwise you will look ignorant and delusional. Or dishonest. Or just really really stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3714 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
I take it that you are a vegetarian now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I take it that you are a vegetarian now? I thought your phase of florid screaming twitching lunacy was more amusing than your current descent into surreal non sequitur. But don't get me wrong, it's not bad. It's just not the absolute grade-A crazy of your previous posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3714 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
"florid screaming twitching lunacy"
That's more like it, but belongs in good prose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"florid screaming twitching lunacy" That's more like it, but belongs in good prose. Again, this gibberish is ... well, it's still gibberish, but it's rather flaccid, rather jejune, it doesn't have the genuine batshit-crazy quality that we've come to associate with you. Try again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025