Teaching the Truth in Schools

Martin J. Koszegi writes:

quote:

---

Is it worse to assume that supernatural forces exist and are responsible for the existence of the physical world, or to assume that they do not exist?

---

You're not thinking of the issue correctly.It isn't that science assumes they don't exist. It's that science deliberately ignores such action.Supernatural things are capricious and arbitrary. You, too, are capricious and arbitrary and science ignores you, too. The point behind science is to study things that happen all on their own...not to study things that happen because somebody made them happen. If you can make it happen, then it is up to your whim how things will be. That doesn't help us.Take, for example, the question of what you had for breakfast. Did I have anything to do with it? Did I plant it? Raise it? Harvest it? Process it? Transport it? Package it? Ship it? Market it? Select it? Sell it? Buy it? Prepare it? Serve it? Feed it?No?Does that mean I don't exist?Or does it simply mean that I have nothing to do with what you had for breakfast?Question: Is there anything that happens all on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

Both beliefs use the physics of the universe as the means to formulate ideas that relate to origins (or whatever).

---

Incorrect. Science gives you experiments that you can perform yourself to verify the information. Nothing is ever taken on faith.Religion, on the other hand, has no such ability. There is no way to verify the claims and everything is taken on faith.

quote:

---

Both sides can make the assumption that the others' fundamental assumption(s) are without justification.

---

But science says, "Don't take my word for it. Run the experiment for yourself and see what you get. Be sure to let everybody know if you come up with something different...you might win the Nobel Prize."Religion requires you to take someone else's word for it. Nobody can duplicate your results. And if you come up with something new, you get excommunicated.

quote:

---

So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.

---

Show me an example. Where is there a single textbook that says, "Since god does not exist," or, "Thus, god does not exist"?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Martin J. Koszegi,A response to Message 65 as you promised, please.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Martin J. Koszegi,A response to Message 65 as you promised, please.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Martin J. Koszegi responds to me:

quote:

---

If everything came into existence on its own and somehow developed into the universal
product that is before us, then the biggest beef I have with nats (i.e., that if existence is beholden to a Creator, their definition of science would never be able to
recognize evidence of his work) is irrelevance personified.

---

This sentence makes no sense.Are you saying that there needs to be a "purpose" to something in order for it to exist? If so, why?

quote:

---

Creationists study things that happen all on their own.

---

How can they when they are studying god, who does not act on his own but on his whim? Didn't you read my post? Not only does science ignore supernatural entities, it ignores natural ones, too, when they act in capricious ways.If you are responsible for personally, consciously, and deliberately knitting two atoms of hydrogen to an atom of oxygen in order to make a molecule of water, then there is very little point in trying to extend that action to anything else or making any prediction about it because it is all dependent upon you. If you don't do it, it doesn't happen.Science is the study of things that happen without the interference of conscious beings deliberately and personally interfering with the process.

quote:

---

If things are studied from a creationist perspective, it doesn’t mean that planets and such will whirl out of their orbits in a train rhythm to the Somba or something.

---

Sure it does. If god wants them to do that, then they will. God makes them move, so if god wants them to move, they move.

quote:

---

From the creationist perspective, God made physical matter to operate according to the laws that science studies.

---

But that's irrelevant. Are those laws maintained by god or do they function all on their own?If I toss a handful of coins on the ground, do they land in their final position all on their own does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously make them land that way?My computer needs me to turn it on, but I become irrelevant to its boot process after that. I'm not the one making electrons move through the wires, powering up the hard drive, sending signals through the cables. It's doing that all on its own completely independent of me. That doesn't mean I don't exist and it doesn't mean I can't interfere with it. But it does mean that it does what it does all on its own.

quote:

---

Definitions of science that favor one such supernaturalist (creationism) or metaphysical philosophy (naturalism) over another represents an irrational bias.

---

Incorrect. Definitions of science that rely upon outside conscious forces deliberately and personally intefering with process are necessarily not science. Science studies things that happen on their own without the interference of conscious entities.Besides, you have made a logical error of equivocation. You have confused the methodology called "naturalism" with the metaphysics called "naturalism." There is a difference between saying, "There are things that happen on their own," and saying, "Everything happens on its own."

quote:

---

If I’m reading you correctly, you’re suggesting that even if God exists (just as you exist), He didn’t have anything to do with the universe coming into existence (just as you have nothing to do with what I have for breakfast).

---

No.What I am saying is that the existence of beings that are capable of making things happen does not mean they are omnipresent and acting in every single instance.God might have had something to do with the creation of the universe, but that doesn't mean god had anything to do with anything else. That doesn't mean god doesn't exist. It simply means that god is only involved in some things but not others...other things that happen all on their own without god.And science seeks to understand those things that happen without god.

quote:

---

Anyway, to answer your latter question, God sustains all things, but he made dependable, predictable laws of nature that allows us to study how He made things to be.

---

That doesn't answer the question.If I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, do they land in their final position all on their own, or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously make them land the way they do?You keep talking about how "dependable" the universe is...that implies that god has no choice in those things. Even if god wanted to, he couldn't change the nature of the universe because those things are "dependable." Is that what you're implying?

quote:

---

The fact that He’s free to step in on occasion and interrupt those laws (to do a miracle, such as make a shadow caused by the sun to go in an unnatural direction for a time), doesn’t throw science into an exercise of capriciousness.

---

But it does mean science has to ignore it just as it ignores you.So the question is: Is there anything at all that isn't being deliberately, personally, and consciously made to happen by god? Because if it is, then it is a capricious whim of god and doesn't help us to know what things are like when they behave all on their own.

quote:

---

Translation: you don't agree with me

---

Ah, but the difference is that I actually give you a reason why. You simply assert that I'm wrong without justification.

quote:

---

Please verify the following, thus alienating the following from the realm of mere belief (or faith):

​

--chemicals have an observable tendency or ability to form living cells, and single-celled organisms have an observable tendency or ability to form complex plants and animals;

---

Define "living."You seem to be heading down the path of claiming that evolution requires abiogenesis and that abiogenesis is something more than an hypothesis.As for the second part, all one needs to do is watch sexually-reproducing species reproduce. You, for example, started from a single cell and progressed through purely chemical means to become a complex, multi-cellular animal.

quote:

---

--reproduction can produce radically new organs or organisms one tiny step at a time or all at once;

---

That's been observed over and over again:Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation EventsIshikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.
Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.
PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.
Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.
Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.
PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.
Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

quote:

---

--"simple" life forms can be transformed into the highly complex organisms that inhabit the planet today; natural selection in combination with random mutations, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of much simpler predecessors.

---

Again, observed all the time. Here's a page from a professor of biology: Can new genetic information and complexity evolve by known biological mechanisms? Yes.

quote:

---

Science doesn't "say" (imply, or support the seeming absolutes) that I listed above that belong to the metaphysical creed of naturalists who excommunicate those heretics from their abbeys who don't fit into their box.

---

This sentence no verb.Could you rephrase, please?Could you show me a single scientist who, when shown to be correct, wasn't accepted by the rest of science? Do not confuse the brou-ha-has that surround the overturn of a paradigm with the actual overturning of it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Show me an example. Where is there a single textbook that says, "Since god does not exist," or, "Thus, god does not exist"?

---

​

I borrowed two high school Biology texts in response to this challenge.

---

Good, but you still didn't show me any such thing.Your argument is akin to saying that because you believe the earth is flat by fiat of god, then having a textbook that says the earth is round is tantamount to saying that god does not exist.The evidence points to a conclusion that DNA and RNA evolved. There's still more work to do, yes, but that doesn't mean we ignore the data that we have.And here's a hint: The general consensus in science these days is that the first life wasn't based upon DNA or RNA. So even if god created life, that doesn't mean god created DNA. You still have a gap to put your god in.

quote:

---

OK, I'll bite. What does --RTFM stand for?

---

You don't know?RTFM is a common acronym used by tech support types to refer to what they want to say to those who ask questions that are easily answered if only the person had bothered to consult the documentation:Read The Fucking ManualSome other utterances of frustration are the "I-D-ten-T" problem (which, when written out, spells "id10t" which looks an awful lot like "idiot," don't you think?) and "PEBKAC": Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair (which is where the user typically exists).

quote:

---

I really hope, though, that you aren't going to get blasphemous.

---

I've got an idea: Why don't you let me worry about my relationship with god. You won't be able to help. If god thinks I'm being blasphemous, I'm sure god will let me know.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Martin J. Koszegi responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

I'm sure you thought and analyzed, but if much of what goes on in such classes these days is itself colored with a not-so-indirect bias favoring the natsian framework, then the thinking and analyzing is about "how did evolution occur," and not at all about "did evolution occur"?

---

So you're saying that schraf is an incompetent boob?Besides, there are simple experiments that you can do that show evolution happening right before your eyes. Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.

quote:

---

Evolutionism

---

Definition, please. You seem to think that there is some sort of "belief" in evolution in the same way that there is a "belief" in god.

quote:

---

virtually any blank check imagination would be hard pressed to come up with any sort of scenario that would disprove the theory

---

Incorrect.In fact, it requires very little cogitation to come up with a plethora of scenarios that would disprove evolution:1) Show an ostrich being hatched from an alligator's egg.
2) Show a rabbit fossilized in Pre-Cambrian strata.
3) Show that all organisms are genetically equidistant.
4) Show that the genome never mutates.That's just four off the top of my head. I'm sure other people can add to the list. There are plenty of ways to show that evolution isn't accurate...it's just that nobody has ever been able to do so as of yet.

quote:

---

Could this scenario undermine the theory of evolution? The truth: not in the least bit--not even if multitudes of such magnitude were discovered.

---

Incorrect.That scenario would be the death blow of evolution. If it could be verified that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, there would have to be a huge restructuring of our understanding of biology.You're basically claiming that scientists are zealots who are incapable of recognizing valid data when it is staring them in the face. You're basically claiming that there is a Worldwide Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth and that scientists are engaged in a massive coverup or at the very least are incompetent fools.

quote:

---

I think I'll close this thought with another valid point that can be summed up in a phrase I picked up from Phillip Johnson

---

But isn't it the case that nothing Philip Johnson says is valid?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Martin J. Koszegi writes:

quote:

---

I challenge you to tell me about something that is genuinely empirical in nature that creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree about

---

Evolution.For example, creationists claim that "no new kinds can be created." For all intents and purpose, it appears that "kind" is just another word for "species." And yet, we have seen new species and even higher orders of taxa appear:Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation EventsIshikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.
Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.
PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.
Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.
Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.
PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.
Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

quote:

---

They disagree about how to interpret and evaluate empirical findings

---

Indeed.But the question you need to ask yourself is this:Just because two people disagree, is that reason enough to conclude there is justification for disagreement?You seem to be stuck on this idea that there is such a thing as "fairness" when it comes to analysis; that in order to be a valid study, one needs to be "balanced" and consider all points of view no matter how unjustified.Science doesn't work that way. Your right to your opinion does not lend it any validity. The only thing that science cares about is whether or not it works. Can you show that your process actually produces results? Does your model explain everything that we already see and make predictions that are validated? And does it do so with more accuracy than other models? If so, then you have a place at the table. Mere disagreement is insufficient.

quote:

---

the empirical findings themselves do not actually validate evolutionism, i.e., metaphysical philosophy.

---

But there is no such thing as "evolutionism." Nobody "believes" in evolution. It is merely a scientific theory just like all other scientific theories: The best explanation we have at the moment but accepted with the agreement that it will be discarded as soon as we come up with something that works better.You seem to be stuck on this Massive Conspiracy to Supress the Truth put forth by incompetents who have an agenda to turn everyone into an atheist as if evolution requires the non-existence of god.

quote:

---

The left, so questionable scientifically, so questionable politically.

---

Ah, see, now I know you don't know what you're talking about. "The left"? You think this is a political debate? Oh, there is plenty of politics in science: What to study, what to fund, what is considered an ethical experiment, etc. But the work of science, the actual scientific method, is profoundly apolitical: You go where the data lead you without hesitation, without bias, without question. Alas, scientists are human and humans make mistakes, but do not confuse the scientist with the science, itself.Is it possible for you to make your argument without calling people names?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!