|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
Message 152 of 609 (606106)
02-23-2011 7:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by shadow71
02-23-2011 7:10 PM
|
|
Should we teach the children that there is no plausible explanation of how life began, but .... but what. A brilliantly executed "god of the gaps" argument. Well done. In science class rooms, they are supposed to teach science. If there is in fact no plausible explanation for the beginning of life (a question I will not look to creationists to answer), then we should teach that there is no plausible explanation, but here are the lines of research that show some promise. What we absolutely shouldn't do is say, we don't know, so goddidit.
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 146 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 7:10 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 155 of 609 (606109)
02-23-2011 7:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 153 by shadow71
02-23-2011 7:51 PM
|
|
Re: really? really?
I was commenting that Dr. Adequate was stating that it was a religious dogma and therefore could not be true. He actually didn't say that. He noted that it was once plausible, but now is only religious dogma. In the context of this thread, it is obvious that what he was saying is that there is no scientific evidence supporting it. This is fact.
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 153 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 7:51 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 187 of 609 (606290)
02-24-2011 3:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 180 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:30 PM
|
|
shadow71 writes: subbie writes;
A brilliantly executed "god of the gaps" argument. Well done. In science class rooms, they are supposed to teach science. If there is in fact no plausible explanation for the beginning of life (a question I will not look to creationists to answer), then we should teach that there is no plausible explanation, but here are the lines of research that show some promise. What we absolutely shouldn't do is say, we don't know, so goddidit. That is a policy I could live with in the schools. I just do not agree that there should be a negative response to Creation. For example to teach the students that the origin of life must be from natural causes, would be a derogation of religious teaching. Too bad. Science is the search for natural explanations for what we see in the real world. Science doesn't teach that the origin of life must be from natural causes, but it only searches for natural causes. If you don't want science to teach in derogation of religious teaching, then religious teaching needs to stop saying things about the natural world that science shows are not so.
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 180 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:30 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 191 of 609 (606322)
02-24-2011 7:42 PM
|
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. 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. Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof. Science is about the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. As such, the ToE and natural selection are among the most successful scientific theories ever devised in the history of science. I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that.
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 190 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 7:12 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 192 by jar, posted 02-24-2011 7:48 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 194 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2011 8:18 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 197 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2011 1:06 AM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 1:31 AM | | subbie has replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
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
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
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
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 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 |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
Re: Shadow71s Objection
Dr Adequate writes: 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. If you had nothing more to add than simply repeat your original point, you could have refrained from replying at all.
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
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
Re: Shadow71s Objection
Dr Adequate writes: If you had nothing more to add than simply repeat your original point, you could have refrained from replying at all. I supposed that you had not understood my original point, and needed it explaining to you again. If it is simply the case that you object to my point but can't think up any counter-argument, I'm fine with that too. If you are having trouble understanding my counter-argument, perhaps you need to read it again more carefully.
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
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
Re: Shadow71s Objection
Dr Adequate writes: If you are having trouble understanding my counter-argument, perhaps you need to read it again more carefully. If you mean post #293, it bears no relation whatsoever to any statement that I made, and I am at a loss to think why you thought it was a reply to my post. You were wrong in the first place, and then you were wrong again, but the way in which you were wrong in the second place does not seem to support the way in which you were wrong in the first place. Nuh uh! Perhaps you might refer to my exchange with RAZD for a fuller explanation. My message 293 is an amplification of my original point. If you felt it was non-responsive to what you said, perhaps your point had nothing to do with mine. I would suggest that fruitful discussion would be more likely in the future if instead of simply telling me I'm wrong, you'd actually explain why you think I'm wrong.
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
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
Re: Shadow71s Objection
And as I thought I made clear, the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is a result of observation. Science is much more than just observation.
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
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 308 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 3:09 AM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 328 of 609 (608757)
03-13-2011 1:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 324 by RAZD
03-12-2011 6:27 PM
|
|
Re: almost a fact
RAZD writes: Neither is theory by itself science, as you seem to be claiming. subbie writes: 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. Well, I can certainly understand how you came away with impression, but only if you completely ignored the part of my previous post that I've bolded. As I said, science absolutely is a combination of observation and theory (experimentation is nothing more than a specific type of observation), but theory is the more important part. Observation alone gets us nothing but a collection of facts. Facts are necessary before theory, but facts by themselves are trivial.
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 324 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2011 6:27 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
Robert Byers writes: If teaching the earth is round is against some religion then it must banned. Whatever merit your suggestion might have, it's clear that it is not the law in the United States. In 1968, the Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas, held:
The Supreme Court writes: The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment. It is much too late to argue that the State may impose upon the teachers in its schools any conditions that it chooses, however restrictive they may be of constitutional guarantees. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 385 U. S. 605-606 (1967). In the present case, there can be no doubt that Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens. [Footnote 15] It is clear that fundamentalist sectarian conviction was and is the law's reason for existence. [Footnote 16] Thus, not only is there nothing wrong with teaching science that contradicts a religion, it's unconstitutional to refuse to teach science just because that science contradicts a religion. Edited by subbie, : Fix linky thing
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
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
Yet likewise banning creationism is illegal, by same law , since it means the state is making a opinion on God or Genesis. Wow, stupid and illiterate, all rolled up into one. Epperson says absolutely nothing to support your position, either in the part that I quoted or any place else. To repeat, whatever merit your ideas have, they are contradicted by what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
They back then were simply stop censorship one way. yet this law only has legitimacy if it stops the censorship both ways. Again, a really, really interesting idea, but nothing to do with the law. Epperson wasn't a censorship case, it was a First Amendment Establishment Clause Case. Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm wasting my time, arguing with a brick wall. Your response, if any, to this will answer that question.
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
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
This is fine for details but misses the great legal point I'm talking about. You're not talking about a great legal point. You're talking nonsense.
Its about the establishment clause or separation concept in the law being used to censor God and Genesis as options for origins in public schools. Yes, because there's no scientific evidence for either one, so neither belongs in science class.
They are saying its constitutionally illegal for the state to allow creationism as a option in origin subjects . No, so far all they have said is that it's unconstitutional in science classes. I really have no idea what you mean by "origin subjects." That's usually an IDiot code phrase for anything that contradicts Genesis, but I'm not inclined to speculate on your meaning.
I argue that since origin subjects in schools are taught from a position of accurate conclusions and processes to those conclusions then in FACT the state is making a opinion that some religious doctrines are false. Schools teach science. As I showed you above, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mere fact that science might teach a subject that contradicts some religion is no reason to ban that subject. You have not responded to that, but simply parrot back the same gibberish over and over again. As has been pointed out to you, this is not debating; this is preaching.
This by teaching opposite ideas to Genesis and second by banning genesis. This is not English. I'd suggest more ESL classes.
The state is not neutral here on conclusions touching on religion. Other than your own peculiar opinion, do you have any authority to support this claim?
Therefore its breaking the very law it invokes to ban creationism. Just in case you might still be reading, I'll repeat the question. Other than your own peculiar opinion, do you have any authority to support this claim?
no one here has made a case to me of why my reasoning is wrong. Here's a suggestion. It's best not to review a thread by reading only your own posts in it. Of course, if you're only reading your own posts, you won't read this one. What a conundrum! Not only have you not provided any reasoning, everyone here has made a case showing why you are hopelessly wrong.
I predict my reasoning will become the idea that overthrows the present censorship. I predict that you will never understand or substantively respond to anything that anyone says here, and that this thread will soon be closed for lack of any legitimate discussion.
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
|
™ Version 4.2