Science under attack in Texas

[Immanuel]

You are not understanding my position exactly. I will try to clarify. Approach this from a practical standpoint. The reason I mentioned astrology, christian science, geocentrism, etc.. is to illustrate the point that there are lots of ideas that are not science- not just ID and creationism. There is a lot of science information a teacher has to cover to provide a student with a good education. It would be impractical and impossible to discuss all the things that are not scientific in science class and still be able to teach science. As a matter of fact, if we discussed why homeopathy is bunk, crystal healing is bunk, how most products with the vague claim that they remove unnamed "toxins" is junk, plus all of the various creation stories from around the world, aliens, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster, we probably would not have time to teach any actual science.

I believe that if one does an effective job teaching scientific thinking, methodology, and facts, then the students will be well prepared to consider and discuss all of those ideas on their own without any need for discussion and analysis in the classroom reducing precious time needed for teaching actual scientific discoveries.

I don't have time to do this post justice so I should move on, but I wanted to acknowledge your comments.

I believe that students learn from openness not the hiding of information (note I did not say facts). As I stated earlier in another post, the teacher need not bring up the subject of Creationism, but should it come up, let the discussion flow as long as it is productive. That is all I am saying.

ImmanuelReally, then show me the missing link!

When a comment is made that is nonsensical from a scientific persepective, I try to assume that it is due to a lack of exposure to information, rather than rejection on ideological grounds or intentional ignorance, and I am extending that same benefit of the doubt to you. So If you will bear with me, I will try to explain why this is nonsensical so that you will have the benefit of being better informed.

I had hoped you would understand that was said as a joke. I did not actually expect you to come through with a missing link.

I often use linguistic evolution as an analogy for biological evolution. Even though it is not a 1:1 correlation, it is very similar in many respects and useful for demonstrating certain concepts. Consider if you had a document from England dated from 850 C.E.. It would be written in Anglo-Saxan and would be illegible to anyone without training. Now, on another display is a document from England, 1100 C.E. You would notice striking differences. There is still a great deal of anglo-saxon, but the words have altered and some are completely different from early forms. Also, there are new Norman French words incorporated into the language. The next document you have is a copy of Chaucer's Cantebury Tales as it originally appeared. It can be read without special training albeit perhaps with difficulty in places. Next is Shakespeare. Obviously it can be understood by almost any English speaker today, but no doubt the words and phrases are sometimes a little obscure or unfamiliar. Certainly they would not be mistaken for modern English. Finally, you have modern English, with which you write your posts.

Obviously all of these represents points in the evolution of the English language. However, there are sizable gaps between them. Now what would it take to satisfy a request for missing links between these? What if we searched until we had a document from every other century spanning from 800C.E. until today? That would give us a very good picture of the evolution of the English language, but there would still be missing links. Well, what if we have a document from every century? Better, but there are still missing links. Every 50 years? Terrific! But there are still missing links. Every decade? Even better, but there are still missing links. Are we going to demand discovering a document from every single year from 800 C.E. to the present? Even then, the picture would not be complete. Language can change if a new word comes into use or a new name, etc... even within a year.

I hope that this illustrates why asking about missing links when discussion of continuous change over time makes little sense. It asks for specific points which are arbitrary on a continuum. It's a bit like a line in geometry. A line is made up of an infinite number of points. However, we need only two data points to draw a line. Asking for a missing link in evolution is similar to demanding an infinite number of points before you can draw a line. If you would like information about some of the data points we have, you can go here. And consider that we are lucky to have even these. Fossilization is not a common occurence. I would also suggest that genetics makes common ancestry as certain as any conclusion in science, but that is another discussion, one which I will be happy to have if you request it.

This was a very well written example. Thank you.

But, I do not have a problem understanding (in layman's terms) the Theory of Evolution.

We can see by simply opening our eyes how the theory works in today's life.

I do, however, balk when I am told that a whale can become a dog or a chimp a human being. I have to put my hands up right there and say... prove it. I find that to be impossible to accept.

Your example though would lead me to think that what your point of the missing link would be is jumping from English to Chinese without translation.

I don't see that I have become closed minded. I have looked at all of the evidence carefully and the conclusion is inescapable if considered objectively in my opinion. Additionally, I did not say it was absolute even in the post to which you are alluding. I have to say I feel a bit disheartened that you would quote me and take it out of context. I stated that common ancestry is correct science- which you quoted. But my very next sentence stated it may change one day, but as of now, common ancestry is the correct scientific interpretation. And I think that statement, acknowledging it could potentially change with new information, refutes your claim that I have a closed mind.

My apologies for taking you out of context. It was, trust me, not intentional. I understood that you stated that it could change. I was refering to your dogmatic statement about common ancestry. In your mind, maybe it has been proven, but as far as I know, it has not been proven.

As far as evidence, I have mentioned my willingness to discuss it with you. Finally, I would say common ancestry has been hypothesized as part of the evolutionary theory. Just trying to avoid the confusion over common usage of the word theory vs. scientific usage.

I can live with that better than... the conclusion is inescapable if considered objectively

I do not deny evolution exists today. But, I find it impossible to believe the abiogenetic belief that says we all started as a single cell in a primordial muck hundreds of billions years ago. Talk about requiring faith to believe!

Are you familiar with logical fallacies- specifically, the argument from personal incredulity? If not, here is a link. It is a common fallacy. But the first step to more clear logic is awareness of fallacies.

Skipping because I simply don't have time.

ImmanuelScience may be neutral regarding religion, but many scientists are not.

This is true, but their personal beliefs should have no weight on their scientific discoveries. No one is free from bias, but that is why science has error correcting mechanisms like peer review and gives authority to consensus rather than individual views. Your logic and facts must be strong enough to convince a wide range of individuals with a variety of beliefs- thus working to weed out personal bias. That is why two of the most vocal advocates on behalf of evolution are Richard Dawkins- a very outspoken atheist, and Kenneth Miller- a very devout Catholic. I mean, imagine a theory so strong that Richard Dawkins and the Pope agree on it.

Why do I get the feeling that you have branded me as anti-Evolution?

I am a Christian. That does not mean I have to believe that Christian doctrine of Creationism is entirely correct just as scientist are still working on the Theory of Evolution. I may not believe the "common ancestor" part of which you seem to be convinced, but I have not closed my mind to it either. I simply have not accepted the "proof" given, but neither have I rejected it.

On another site I am known for being very cynical and anti-politician. I don't take a polticians word for nothing. Nor do I accept "You are descended from an ape because I say so", from any scientist. I believe the Theory of Evolution is on the right track, but I also believer there are more questions to be answered. I'll wait for those answers.

We don't throw out Dawkins ideas on evolution based on his belief any more than we throw out Francis Collins discoveries because he is a protestant. We don't throw out the big bang theory just because it was suggested by a catholic priest and mathematically predicted by Einstein, a jew who was agnostic. So I guess I don't understand why that matters?

I'm trying to figure out what that last question means. It doesn't matter to me.

I think what I was trying to portray was that religion and science do not have to be antagonistic. They can work together rather than against each other.

For me, it simply doesn't make sense for fundamentalists to deny all things evolution simply because they think they have God's word under their belt, but neither does it make sense to me that scientist have to throw out all things religious simply because they don't have the answers yet.

And once again, thank you for your respectful comments and the respect you dealt me in your reply. /salute

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

If a student believes that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog named Spiny Norman, do you think that warrants 15 minutes of discussion in a classroom? I do not. If teachers have to address every wild thing that people can dream up, there will be no time left for science. There should be SOME evidence for an assertion if a teacher addresses it and uses up classroom time.

Absolutely the teacher should point the student in the right direction. Maybe the problem is that our public schools don't point students in the right direction.

Immie

 

[KittenKoder]

If a student believes that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog named Spiny Norman, do you think that warrants 15 minutes of discussion in a classroom? I do not. If teachers have to address every wild thing that people can dream up, there will be no time left for science. There should be SOME evidence for an assertion if a teacher addresses it and uses up classroom time.

Absolutely the teacher should point the student in the right direction. Maybe the problem is that our public schools don't point students in the right direction.

Immie

Which direction do you think is the "right one"?

 

[Immanuel]

If a student believes that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog named Spiny Norman, do you think that warrants 15 minutes of discussion in a classroom? I do not. If teachers have to address every wild thing that people can dream up, there will be no time left for science. There should be SOME evidence for an assertion if a teacher addresses it and uses up classroom time.

Absolutely the teacher should point the student in the right direction. Maybe the problem is that our public schools don't point students in the right direction.

Immie

Which direction do you think is the "right one"?

In a science class? If you are teaching Evolution, in this case the teacher should teach what the curricullum says and based upon the subject of the thread, that would be the Theory of Evolution.

A teacher in a public school is hired to teach the curricullum presented by the school board regardless of his or her particular biases. If he is hired to teach Evolution and he wants to remain employed by the School Board then he will teach the Theory of Evolution. If he believes that aliens brought humans to Earth and left them here AND he doesn't care whether or not he gets a paycheck next week, then he can teach that "theory".

I would like to revise and extend those remarks as well, if the teacher were in a private school that taught creationism as well as evolution then he should teach what the curricullum states.

Immie

 

[N4mddissent]

I do, however, balk when I am told that a whale can become a dog or a chimp a human being. I have to put my hands up right there and say... prove it. I find that to be impossible to accept.

Your example though would lead me to think that what your point of the missing link would be is jumping from English to Chinese without translation.

Actually, that is another concept I use the language analogy to explain. If I presented you with something written in Anglo Saxon, it is effectively another language. Here's a picture from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle.

Now, that language, later called Anglish and then English is the ancestor of modern English.
Here's a sample of Chaucer:

'Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe
I knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,'
Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon other mo
That wedded been.​

Understandable, but not very easy to read. The point is, that throughout the evolution of English, there was no point at which parents could not understand their children. The changes in language were so slight as to be barely noticed in consecutive generations. I mean I can understand my parents perfectly and I can understand my daughter perfectly. It seems almost inconceivable that this tranmission of speech, so nearly perfect with generations above and below me, could accumulate enough change to be a completely different language centuries in the future. But it happens. It has happened, as Anglo-Saxon documents illustrate.

Similarly slight changes perhaps barely noticable between generations in organism will accumulate over long enough period of times. Just like in 10,000 years or so we've went from a wolf-like animal to all the varieties of dogs we see today, from Chihuahuas to Mastiffs. Now consider those accumulated changes over 100,000 years. Now 1,000,000 years. Even consider them over 1000 million years (or a billion if you prefer). That's a lot of change accumulating.

Common Ancestry is not intuitive. Why would it be? Our brains evolved to deal with our world. Few humans, even with modern medicine, manage to live for 3 billion seconds, so why would our minds need to evolve an ability to intuitively grasp 3 billion years worth of change. But luckily our minds evolved logic and reason which can act beyond intuition. I use the example of folding newspaper or doubling a penny for a month to illustrate that our intuition doesn't always serve us well. Exponential effects are not intuitive. Tell most people that you bet them $100 they cannot fold 1 single sheet of newspaper in half 10 times and they will jump at it. But they can't do it. More familiar is the choice between $100,000 right now, or taking a penny on the first day of the month and double it every day until the end of the month. Of couse by taking the penny, one ends up a multi-millionaire.

I was refering to your dogmatic statement about common ancestry. In your mind, maybe it has been proven, but as far as I know, it has not been proven.

Dogmatic would imply that I accepted that conclusion handed down to me from authority. I believe I stated I looked at the evidence and made a conclusion. That is anything but dogmatic. If you want a good all-in-one resource to examine at your leisure, here is a link.

 

[Immanuel]

I was refering to your dogmatic statement about common ancestry. In your mind, maybe it has been proven, but as far as I know, it has not been proven.

Dogmatic would imply that I accepted that conclusion handed down to me from authority. I believe I stated I looked at the evidence and made a conclusion. That is anything but dogmatic. If you want a good all-in-one resource to examine at your leisure, here is a link.

Thanks for the link. I'll have to pass for now.

From dictionary.com dogmatic:

asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

I'd say we are using a different definition of dogmatic. Maybe mine is incorrect, but the way I see dogmatic would be asserting your position as if it were doctrine. Note: You WERE NOT arrogant by any means.

And further:

Doctrine

doctrine   /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dok-trin] Show IPA
–noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

I see nothing in those definitions that implies you accepting a conclusion handed down to you, but maybe extending your comments would indicate that you expect the rest of us to accept the doctrine as it is without question.

I hope you see what I am trying to say here.

Quite simply it appears to me that you have spoken the doctrine of evolution and you expect the rest of us to simply accept it as it is.

Immie

 

[JohnStOnge]

Of course it doesn't mean that I would be willing to bet it will not. Saying something is not absolutely guaranteed or absolutely certain is not the same as say that I don't think it is likely or probable. I could believe it is 99.999999999% likely to happen (and that would actually be underestimating). Why would I bet against those odds? And for practicality's sake, I operate as if it is certain to happen. However, the equation I posted means that it is not 100% certain.

It is 100% certain. If the equation you posted says that it is not 100% certain, there is some problem with the equation. And I don't care how revered the equation is, though maybe I should add a condition that the system is moving at the speed that our system is or something like that. There has never, ever been a case in which water failed to freeze under the stated conditions occurred and there never will be. I am very confident in predicting that. Let me know when I'm proven wrong by an actual occurence.

 

[JohnStOnge]

One individual can be ancestor to a number of species according to evolutionary theory. It sounds like you are also making an argument from personal incredulity. The ERV insertion does suggest common ancestry between humans and other species. Common ancestry is the only reasonable explanation I have ever encountered for the commonality of pseudogenes in general.

I have no problem with the idea that one individual can be "an" ancestor to members of a number of species. What I'm talking about is that, as I read the ERV insertion case, it is that one individual is an ancestor to all members of a number of species. As I read it, the idea is that a retrovirus affects the gentic material of a gamete. That change is reflected in the genetic material of all cells of the resulting individual. Then it is passed on. All of the other members of that individual's species eventually reach reproductive dead ends so that now, looking back. that individual is a single common ancestor for all of the members of our species as well as for all of the members of other species such as chimps, orangutans, and Rhesus monkeys.

Anway, the conceptual model is that that you can point to an individual organism that was an ancestor of every single human being, every single chimp, every single Rhesus monkey, etc. In fact you can point to several single indivduals like that. I just don't buy it.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Given the present knowledge of the genetic structure of both single celled and multi-cellular organism, it is known to be a fact. Were you speaking prior to the decoding of the genetic RNA and DNA, you might have a case. Today, with the knowledge of the genetics of life on earth, you have none.

Rocks, if and when somebody conducts a controlled experiment during which a population of single celled organisms gives rise to a population of multicellular organisms then that experiment is reproduced by other investigators or, at least, such a transition is directly observed to occur, it will be known to be a fact. Until then, it is not.

What you call "knowledge" of genetics is largely obervational assessment leading to reasoned hypotheses about what seems plausible given the observations. It is not the same as actually observing populations of multicellular organisms arising from populations of single celled organisms or, even better, conducting controlled experiments demonstrating that to occur.

If it can actually occur it should be possible to design an experiment during which it occurs. And it may be. But it hasn't been done yet.

I must say that this exchange provides an example of what I'm talking about in terms of certainty levels. I can say that if I put water in my freezer overnight, as long as my power doesn't go off and my freezer functions as it should, that water will be ice when I wake up in the morning. It is 100% certain. I can bet my life on it with no qualms at all.

But if I say I will set up conditions under which a population of single celled organisms will give rise to multicellular organisms and bet my life on that, I am probably going to die.

 

[YWN666]

If a student believes that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog named Spiny Norman, do you think that warrants 15 minutes of discussion in a classroom? I do not. If teachers have to address every wild thing that people can dream up, there will be no time left for science. There should be SOME evidence for an assertion if a teacher addresses it and uses up classroom time.

Absolutely the teacher should point the student in the right direction. Maybe the problem is that our public schools don't point students in the right direction.

Immie

So you would seriously discuss the merits of the "Spiny Norman Theory"? It is one thing to debate over a questionable theory that has only some support but it is quite another to waste time debating a "theory" that has NO evidence to support it whatsoever and goes against known physical laws.

Did you look up the wedge document yet?

 

[Immanuel]

So you would seriously discuss the merits of the "Spiny Norman Theory"? It is one thing to debate over a questionable theory that has only some support but it is quite another to waste time debating a "theory" that has NO evidence to support it whatsoever and goes against known physical laws.

Did you look up the wedge document yet?

Please see post #164. I think that clearly answers how I would handle the "Spiny Norman Theory".

I missed the wedge document link. Which post are you referring to?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[18] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[19]

Though Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the institute is the source of the document,[20][21] the institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspircay [sic] theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document"[22] and portraying the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia."[23] Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the artwork chosen by the Discovery Institute for the Wedge Document's original cover is Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam. Meyer once also claimed the Wedge Document was stolen from the Discovery Institute's offices.[20]

Origins of the movement and strategy

According to Phillip E. Johnson, the wedge movement, if not the term, began in 1992:

"The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of my book Darwin on Trial. The conference brought together key wedge and intelligent design figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself."[24]

Oh really YWN, this strategy proves that the entire debate about evolution is a scam to promote religion?

If you want to see what Creationism/ID is REALLY all about, Google the phrase "wedge document" and you'll see that creationism/ID is all a scam to promote religion.

I'm sorry YWN, but I was born a slight bit before the early 1990's and I remember having taken part in discussions about evolution and creationism long before then. This debate didn't simply spark up at the creation of the Wedge Document. Believe me, this debate has been going on a lot longer than the early 1990's. The Wedge Strategy came about as a response to the debate not as a precursor to it.

As for ID "theory" and I put theory in quotes because I realize it is not a scientific theory, some people may have used it to

"defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

and that is the ultimate goal of the Wedge Strategy, but that doesn't disprove Creationism or ID.

And as a further note, simply because I believe that God created the universe does not mean that I agree with those who wrote the Wedge Strategy.

Immie

 

[Red Dawn]

Because I don't believe Creationism should be "taught" in the public schools. I do believe that God created the universe but I cannot prove that even enough to make it a hypothesis. I take it on faith. Faith is personal and not something that in this day and age can be quantified or proven in any way at all.

Creationism is not science. But, I believe it takes more faith to believe in the primordial ooze theory than it does to believe in ID/Creationism.

I do NOT think Creationism should be taught in a public school unless it were done in a comparative religion course or one on creation stories. However, I am opposed to the idea of censoring any students points of view or questions.

Also, I never said it "should" be mentioned. I did not say the teacher should bring up the discussion point. I said it should be allowed to be discussed. If a student brings it up, let it go on and teach science from the opposing point of view. Incorrect examples are great tools for teaching.

I sort of answered you question about medieval alchemy when CMM mentioned different examples earlier. Medieval alchemy could very well be a point of discussion in a chemistry class... in fact, after my chemistry classes, I would think maybe it would have added a level of interest that I never received. But, it could be used to point out how we came to understand modern chemistry and the steps that were taken from such a point.

So your contention is that creationism should be brought up in a science class, in the same context that meideval alchemy is in a chemistry class?

That's its a discredited relic of thought from the dark ages?


I don't think thats really what creation science backers want. I remember alchemy being mentioned in chemistry class, as a historical curiousity from the dark ages that was discredited in favor of modern science.

Is that how you want creationism discussed in a biology class, relative to evolution?

 

[YWN666]

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[18] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[19]

Though Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the institute is the source of the document,[20][21] the institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspircay [sic] theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document"[22] and portraying the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia."[23] Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the artwork chosen by the Discovery Institute for the Wedge Document's original cover is Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam. Meyer once also claimed the Wedge Document was stolen from the Discovery Institute's offices.[20]

Origins of the movement and strategy

According to Phillip E. Johnson, the wedge movement, if not the term, began in 1992:

"The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of my book Darwin on Trial. The conference brought together key wedge and intelligent design figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself."[24]

Oh really YWN, this strategy proves that the entire debate about evolution is a scam to promote religion?

If you want to see what Creationism/ID is REALLY all about, Google the phrase "wedge document" and you'll see that creationism/ID is all a scam to promote religion.

I'm sorry YWN, but I was born a slight bit before the early 1990's and I remember having taken part in discussions about evolution and creationism long before then. This debate didn't simply spark up at the creation of the Wedge Document. Believe me, this debate has been going on a lot longer than the early 1990's. The Wedge Strategy came about as a response to the debate not as a precursor to it.

As for ID "theory" and I put theory in quotes because I realize it is not a scientific theory, some people may have used it to

"defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

and that is the ultimate goal of the Wedge Strategy, but that doesn't disprove Creationism or ID.

And as a further note, simply because I believe that God created the universe does not mean that I agree with those who wrote the Wedge Strategy.

Immie

Let's just say that the wedge document confirmed the existing goal of creationism/ID. Why do you think, when it became clear that creationism wasn't going to be accepted in public school science classes, that they retooled it to become Intellignt Design by removing the overt references to God??? It was nothing but an attempt to dress up religion to look like science to advance their selfish agenda. As they say, if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig. Now that ID was embarrassed on a national level at the Dover, PA trial, they are making more attempts to disguise their intent.

 

[YWN666]

Because I don't believe Creationism should be "taught" in the public schools. I do believe that God created the universe but I cannot prove that even enough to make it a hypothesis. I take it on faith. Faith is personal and not something that in this day and age can be quantified or proven in any way at all.

Creationism is not science. But, I believe it takes more faith to believe in the primordial ooze theory than it does to believe in ID/Creationism.

I do NOT think Creationism should be taught in a public school unless it were done in a comparative religion course or one on creation stories. However, I am opposed to the idea of censoring any students points of view or questions.

Also, I never said it "should" be mentioned. I did not say the teacher should bring up the discussion point. I said it should be allowed to be discussed. If a student brings it up, let it go on and teach science from the opposing point of view. Incorrect examples are great tools for teaching.

I sort of answered you question about medieval alchemy when CMM mentioned different examples earlier. Medieval alchemy could very well be a point of discussion in a chemistry class... in fact, after my chemistry classes, I would think maybe it would have added a level of interest that I never received. But, it could be used to point out how we came to understand modern chemistry and the steps that were taken from such a point.

So your contention is that creationism should be brought up in a science class, in the same context that meideval alchemy is in a chemistry class?

That's its a discredited relic of thought from the dark ages?


I don't think thats really what creation science backers want. I remember alchemy being mentioned in history class, as a historical curiousity from the dark ages that was discredited in favor of modern science.

Is that how you want creationism discussed in a biology class, relative to evolution?

The arguments presented o support Creationism/ID have gotten so utterly ridiculous that AnswersInGenesis is suggesting that creationists pull in the reins on those arguments so that they don't look like the absolute clowns that they are.

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

 

[N4mddissent]

I was refering to your dogmatic statement about common ancestry. In your mind, maybe it has been proven, but as far as I know, it has not been proven.

Dogmatic would imply that I accepted that conclusion handed down to me from authority. I believe I stated I looked at the evidence and made a conclusion. That is anything but dogmatic. If you want a good all-in-one resource to examine at your leisure, here is a link.

Thanks for the link. I'll have to pass for now.

From dictionary.com dogmatic:

asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

I'd say we are using a different definition of dogmatic. Maybe mine is incorrect, but the way I see dogmatic would be asserting your position as if it were doctrine. Note: You WERE NOT arrogant by any means.

And further:

Doctrine

doctrine   /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dok-trin] Show IPA
–noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

I see nothing in those definitions that implies you accepting a conclusion handed down to you, but maybe extending your comments would indicate that you expect the rest of us to accept the doctrine as it is without question.

I hope you see what I am trying to say here.

Quite simply it appears to me that you have spoken the doctrine of evolution and you expect the rest of us to simply accept it as it is.

Immie

I'm afraid I still don't see dogmatic as an appropriate description. When I first read the phrase "dogmatic statement" I thought you were implying that I was dogmatic in my acceptance of evolution but you have clarified that you were instead indicating that I was being dogmatic in my assertions. I referred to having things handed down from authority, but in my mind doctrines are a type of authoritative statement that adherents must accept, and srolling down the dictionary.com site you referenced reveals three more definitions with include the idea of authoritative assertion of information.

Merriam-Webster and several other sites (allwords.com, yourdictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com) all had definitions very similar; the unifying element being assertion without proof, as characterized in definition 1.

In any case, I hope our understanding of dogmatic statements is in general agreement. But I fail to see how you can earnestly characterize my statements as dogmatic when I have offered information and explanations about my position as well as links to information with lots of evidence and information. If I was asserting the position dogmatically, then what is the purpose of all of these explanations and information? Rather than asserting you simply accept evolution, I feel I have done a great deal of work to provide you with good reasons to accept evolution, offered to explain or try to answer questions, and encouraged you to go to sites and consider the evidence in reaching your conclusion. A dogmatic assertion, I believe, would be one that asserts that because science accepts evolution as true you should unquestioningly accept it as true without any proof. If you do question evolution, and supporters of the theory are willing to provide you with evidence and explain their reasons, then their actions demonstrate this is not the case.

 

[Red Dawn]

Because I don't believe Creationism should be "taught" in the public schools. I do believe that God created the universe but I cannot prove that even enough to make it a hypothesis. I take it on faith. Faith is personal and not something that in this day and age can be quantified or proven in any way at all.

Creationism is not science. But, I believe it takes more faith to believe in the primordial ooze theory than it does to believe in ID/Creationism.

I do NOT think Creationism should be taught in a public school unless it were done in a comparative religion course or one on creation stories. However, I am opposed to the idea of censoring any students points of view or questions.

Also, I never said it "should" be mentioned. I did not say the teacher should bring up the discussion point. I said it should be allowed to be discussed. If a student brings it up, let it go on and teach science from the opposing point of view. Incorrect examples are great tools for teaching.

I sort of answered you question about medieval alchemy when CMM mentioned different examples earlier. Medieval alchemy could very well be a point of discussion in a chemistry class... in fact, after my chemistry classes, I would think maybe it would have added a level of interest that I never received. But, it could be used to point out how we came to understand modern chemistry and the steps that were taken from such a point.

So your contention is that creationism should be brought up in a science class, in the same context that meideval alchemy is in a chemistry class?

That's its a discredited relic of thought from the dark ages?


I don't think thats really what creation science backers want. I remember alchemy being mentioned in history class, as a historical curiousity from the dark ages that was discredited in favor of modern science.

Is that how you want creationism discussed in a biology class, relative to evolution?

The arguments presented o support Creationism/ID have gotten so utterly ridiculous that AnswersInGenesis is suggesting that creationists pull in the reins on those arguments so that they don't look like the absolute clowns that they are.

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

I'm not making any sense of the arguments either. Some of them want ID taught alongside Evolution. That's ridiculous. Only science should be taught in science clases. Others want creationism "mentioned". I don't get that either. They want them "mentioned" in the same way alchemy and astrology are mentioned? As discredited relics of the dark ages? I don't think thats really want creationists want either.

Look, the best science teachers I had always made sure we understood the scientific method. Its a way of looking at the natural world, there is no 100% guarantee that any theory or tenet of science is 100% accurate and perfect. If they were good teacher they made clear that the point of the class was to teach the current state of knowledge in modern science, and that if someone wanted to believe that the earth was 6000 years old, that was their perogative. But, the only way to pass the class was to learn the theories of modern science, because we don't teach creationism in science class, anymore that we teach mythological fairytales in history class.

 

[N4mddissent]

Of course it doesn't mean that I would be willing to bet it will not. Saying something is not absolutely guaranteed or absolutely certain is not the same as say that I don't think it is likely or probable. I could believe it is 99.999999999% likely to happen (and that would actually be underestimating). Why would I bet against those odds? And for practicality's sake, I operate as if it is certain to happen. However, the equation I posted means that it is not 100% certain.

It is 100% certain. If the equation you posted says that it is not 100% certain, there is some problem with the equation. And I don't care how revered the equation is, though maybe I should add a condition that the system is moving at the speed that our system is or something like that. There has never, ever been a case in which water failed to freeze under the stated conditions occurred and there never will be. I am very confident in predicting that. Let me know when I'm proven wrong by an actual occurence.

That equation describes the fundamental basis of nature as described by quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a field which provides the most accurate descriptions of the universe of any scientific idea in history. Its predictions have demonstrated accuracy proportional to measuring the correct diameter of the solar system to within the width of a human hair. It is the engine that has allowed the dawning of the digital age. It also brings some troubling conclusions.

The uncertainty which you seem to so reluctant to embrace also bothered Einstein, so you're in good company (although his ideas were a major part of the revolution in physics which mathematically led to the foundation of quantum mechanics). It is the origin of Einstein's famous, "god does not play dice" comments. After general relativity, Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to find some way to avoid the conclusions which his own theories predicted. His theories predicted an expanding universe, but he did not accept it until hubble. His ideas predicted black holes, but he did not think they were a real object in the universe, rather they were just an artifact of the mathematics. He did not live long enough to see that one confirmed. And finally, he did not trust the idea of quantum uncertainty. However, he did finally conclude that it was accurate, and instead of wrong, began to feel it was incomplete. It would have been ridiculous to deny it at that point, since the field was exploding with excitement. Physicists had never seen anything that predicted the fundamental forces of nature with such amazing accuracy. Bohr and Einstein often debated and argued over uncertainty (but remained friends). After Einstein made a statement about god not playing dice (he did many times), Bohr snapped back, "Einstein, stop telling god what to do!"

Uncertainty is inherent in the universe. We cannot assign certain rules like in Newtonian physics to fundamental particals. They truly are random, and the best we can do is assign probabilities. The probability that atoms of gas in a certain space will randomly move to a point where they form a liquid is very remote. But not absolutely impossible. Certain things like your example are virtually certain. But the core of modern physics is based on the idea that nothing is absolutely certain.

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.”
Ashley Montagu

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd”
Voltaire

"The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice”
Bertrand Russell

 

[KittenKoder]

I still don't get it.

Evolution doesn't explain how life originated, only how the variations came to be, so it really has nothing to do with ID. Now if there was a science class on the "Origin of Life" (to which there are only theories as yet) then I could understand the complaint, but then again, teaching all creation myths would be ... well .. impossible.

 

[donttread]

While evoultion has some "holes" it is by far the best explaination for life on earth. Carbon dating alone pretty much calls creationism into question.
When science and religion finally meet they will be one step closer to the truth