SkinWalker Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 Lets all meet at the Eckerd's in Denton and toilet-paper it... I'm bringing the beer. *except for Insane... He's too young Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 whoa, well this has never happened before... The End This thread was brought to you in part by the letters B, Y and the number 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker Lets all meet at the Eckerd's in Denton and toilet-paper it... I'm bringing the beer. *except for Insane... He's too young Son of a... . <_< *purchases his own liquor* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 I can totally see why Georgia is thinking this. As a general rule, it's one of the highest populations of fundamental Christians. But - being a Christian myself, as many of you know - this is the wrong way of going at something like this. I've been thinking about this for a while, and really, this is the kind of thing that gives Christians a bad name. Regardless of the validity of evolutionary theory - which, contrary to popular opinion, is not as sure a thing as has been argued (sorry, Skin, but you know I'm going to argue that one...) - the point is that Christians should welcome science. If it ever ends up proving beyond the shadow of the doubt that our faith is false, then so be it. But first, I don't think that'll happen, and second, we need to deal with science as science. A better way of going at this kind of thing is to be inclusive, not exclusive. Instead of trying to get rid of evolutionary theory - which certainly isn't going to happen in the next few years, regardless of its actual truth or not - it would be better to teach alternative theory: Intelligent Design. Now, before I get really yelled at (as usual ) I'm just going to say that any teaching of Intelligent Design would have to be very carefully done. It is entirely possible, though to teach it without ever stating who or what the "Intelligent Designer" was/is, etc. Moreover, it's a good idea to point out the flaws in any theory - something that science books in particular seem incredibly hesitant to do. Despite the fact that scientists always claim to like debate, any external disagreement is quickly shut down. Instead, it would be good to show everything, good and bad, and let students decide for themselves. It promotes good critical thinking. I'll be back, but I've got to go do some work in my Engineering class... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 7, 2004 Author Share Posted February 7, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Regardless of the validity of evolutionary theory - which, contrary to popular opinion, is not as sure a thing as has been argued (sorry, Skin, but you know I'm going to argue that one I actually agree with the majority of your post, particularly what you said in the first couple of paragraphs. Evolution isn't a sure thing, but it is the best, most complete explanation currently available. That's the whole point of science. That it has the status of "theory" means that it is testable and has been tested. So when you say it "isn't as sure a thing as has been argued" I must disagree. I've always argued, as have others, that it is the "surest" thing when compared to the "alternatives." Originally posted by Master_Keralys A better way of going at this kind of thing is to be inclusive, not exclusive. But when you are talking about teaching science to students, one cannot include the metaphysical or supernatural as it violates all that science relies upon: testable hypotheses. Originally posted by Master_Keralys would be better to teach alternative theory: Intelligent Design. Now, before I get really yelled at (as usual ) I'm just going to say that any teaching of Intelligent Design would have to be very carefully done. So careful as to not do it at all. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory nor is it alternative to natural selection or any other theory. Intelligent Design relies on using the "whys" of the universe to describe what we see rather than taking what we see and attempting to infer the "how" from it. "Why" is the business of metaphysics and has no place in science. Originally posted by Master_Keralys It is entirely possible, though to teach it without ever stating who or what the "Intelligent Designer" was/is, etc. You don't expect that in bringing up the metaphysical "whys" of Intelligent Design, students won't ask "who?" Originally posted by Master_Keralys Moreover, it's a good idea to point out the flaws in any theory - something that science books in particular seem incredibly hesitant to do. Then you've been reading the wrong science books. In nearly every book of science, whether it be biology, genetics, chemistry, anthropology/archaeology, etc., the faults of hypotheses and theories are thouroughly discussed. It is through the understanding of these faults that we can see the progress that is made in the sciences. By simply stating a theory shouldn't be given credit because it's only a theory and can't be proven severely understates the process of creating a "theory." One doesn't simply observe something and come up with a theory. First you have to have a hypothesis. Upon forming a hypothesis the very next thing you should do is form more hypotheses. Then, one by one, each is tested and most are falsified. There are many, many hypotheses that comprise the "theory of evolution." There are many, many more that have been falisfied. Falisification of hypotheses is the core of scientific method and it is how we arrive at the final hypothesis to form a theory. If a hypothesis has no chance of being falisfied, it cannot be considered and is therefore discarded from the lot. So when you are reading a science textbook intended for the junior high or high school level, chances are you are only going to get the most current information available at the time of publication. Odds are good that something in that text will need updating as science is an on-going process and better, more complete explanations are continuously forthcoming. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Despite the fact that scientists always claim to like debate, any external disagreement is quickly shut down. This is because the "external disagreement" as you put it is often 1) from those who are not fully educated in the field and haven't bothered to educate themselves prior to voicing their disagreement. If they had, the answer would be apparent. 2) the disagreement involves the metaphysical, which is irrelevant to the business of science. 3) the disagreement is from the pseudoscience realm, which involves untestable, non-falsifiable hypotheses. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Instead, it would be good to show everything, good and bad, and let students decide for themselves. It promotes good critical thinking. The problem is, that before a student can understand the data, he/she must be educated in the subject. Then the student is able to see what the data are implying in, say, a journal article that outlines the methodology and the results obtained. But my definition of everthing and yours are likely two different concepts. Mine definition is inclusive of all data, current and previous on a given topic from credible sources. It excludes pseudo-data from metaphysical, supernatural, and pseudoscientific sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 So where are they suppose to learn about where they came from... Outta a kid's book. That is a important part of education, what if your looking to become an archieologist (can't spell it) First guy:This is a rock 2nd guy:No it's a skull First guy:Look my school never told us about this, they said I came form the storke, and it's true 2nd guy:..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Despite the fact that scientists always claim to like debate, any external disagreement is quickly shut down. That's sort of one of the points of a debate, to use logic and facts to back up your argument and so tear apart the other person's argument. I'm a little curious as to your idea of teaching intelligent design in class......what exactly would the curriculum entail? "Today we will begin learning about the theory of intelligent design. According to this theory, there is SOME supernatural being that created everything. The test will be tomorrow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 lol...I agree with you, ET - creationism curriculum doesn't really fit into a science class, especially in a public school (maybe in a religious school...maybe). If these people want some kind of religious teachings to "counter" evolution theory, maybe they should cut out this PC nonsense and take their kids to church - that's where I learned about creationism, and ain't nothin' wrong with me (at least as far as I'm concerned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 I actually agree with the idea behind the proposal, although it seems silly to implement it. The word "evolution" has several different meanings. Only one of these is "biological changes over time". "Evolution" is a buzzword for anti-religion. Is the idea of replacing it silly and overly PC? Probably. Is the idea of replacing it indicative of "Ignorance [...] taking over this country and replacing good science in the classrooms"? I don't think so. Religion is not an indicator of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Imagine the pharmacist from Eckards was instead a teacher in the Georgia school system. Would she, given the choice, willingly teach evolutionary theory to her students. If she did it would almost surely be a very sparse lesson even though it may be her job to fully cover the subject. The point behind this assumption is that there are almost certainly already teachers around the world, not only in the south, who change the curriculum of their classes, or at least tweak them, to fit their own moral or cultural beliefs. Also I dont believe this is simply an issue of changing a public policy so that it will be more politically correct, contrary to the well worded assertion of rccar. At bottom it seems the underlying motive is to further diminish the power invested in this word "evolution" because they either hate or fear it. They despise this word, they abhor it to the point in which they find it necessary to wage war against it, and that is either very Christian of them or extremely unchristian of them. At this moment I cannot really discern which. On the whole I dont have anything against Georgians except for one thing. There is no other state in America which I dislike driving in more, although this might in fact mean that you are the safest drivers in America. Just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 At bottom it seems the underlying motive is to further diminish the power invested in this word "evolution" because they either hate or fear it. They despise this word, they abhor it to the point in which they find it necessary to wage war against it But that's exactly what political correctness is - some group of people hate or fear a word or find it offensive. They hate or fear their percieved meaning of the word (in this case anti-Christian), so they try to change the word. The problem is, just changing the word "evolution" does nothing to the meaning of the word. If this change goes through, after a while, "biological change over time" will become the "anti-religion" buzzword. The problem with this kind of thing is that they don't really hate or fear the word "evolution," they hate or fear the theory itself. But just changing the name doesn't change the theory. If they really wanted to do this right, they'd go about trying to debunk evolution theory, but since that's too difficult, they've opted for the easy way out, not realizing that PC simply doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I concede. I was absolutly wrong. My mistake stems from the term political correctness itself (a term that I have never liked much), and the fact that I failed to read the article which this thread had been spawned from. And that definately was not wise of me. I have since read that article and coupled with your reiteration of the point you made in your previous post i now see the irrefutability of your logic. I can find no argument left open to me that I could pursue without taking the stance of an irrational fool. But I would like to say that although superintendent Cox was acting in an attempt to dull the offense that some people feel from the theory of evolution her actions were just the effect of a list of complicated causes, and that is what I was trying to point to because I find it far more interesting. It is amazing to me the walls that faith can create when it is in greater abundance than objective truth, and reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 I think it SHOULD be removed. Altogether. Here's why: No one knows exactly how we got here. No one was around to see it. So, how do we know it is true? There are no documentations to represent it. Burgess Shale, anyone? The Evolution Theory has a severe lack of evidence to prove it's case. Granted, so does the religious point of view, but it isn't tought in school at all. "Man's unfailing ability to believe what he wants to be true rather than what evidence shows to be likely and possible will never cease to astound me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, we shall pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts: God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist." - Academician Prokhor Zakarov, "For I have tasted the Fruit" Oh yea- Don't call us ignorant because we do not believe the same things you do. That's preposterous. It's not about belief. It's about evidence. Mountains (litterally) of it. rccar328 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apparently, they feel that if they substitute “biological changes over time,” there will be less flak from the ignorant since evolution is a buzz-word that means "anti-religion." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But you have to admit, "ignorance" is the main driving factor in many beliefs. Whether it applies to this case or not is but a hypothesis, but one that can be tested. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I find these comments to be offensive, and they show a total ignorance on the concept of faith. No, they show a complete understanding of the concept. Besides, I think that Skin was very tactful... Considering the amount of mind-boggling rubbish your average priest can say in less time than it takes for me to run away screaming, he's being diplomatic. Very diplomatic. Religious beliefs and faith do not amout to ignorance, they amount to a belief, possibly even a psychological longing or understanding that there is a greater power out there. That this belief is not always founded on cold, hard facts does not amount to base ignorance, it shows a person's willingness to submit to a higher standard and to a higher power that we cannot prove or obviously percieve, but can feel, can sometimes hear, and can sometimes see the effects of. Please clarify how "a person's willingness to submit to a higher standard and to a higher power that we cannot prove or obviously percieve" does not amount to ignorance. As a Christian, I believe that there is a Creator and that He plays an active part in our lives if we allow him to. "If we allow him to."??? Isn't it supposed to be omnipotent? My faith is not based on ignorance, it is based on what I have seen and heard. And hence is, by way of definition, not faith. Your overrated terrorist-prophet said so himself somewhere (beginning of Matt, where Lucifer (or some unknown narcotic substance) takes our 'hero' into the desert, and asks him to perform a miracle). It is true that many believe that evolution theory is contrary to religion - I believe that the two may go hand-in-hand, but seeing as I am not a scientist and have not studied this at all, and am not God that I would have seen such things first-hand, I cannot say for sure. Evolution is not opposed to Christianity per se, but it is opposed to the fundamentalist variant (the only variant that I consider 'real Christianity', the others are more or less diluted from being beaten severely over the head with a blunt instrument). I acknowledge that your comment may have been an innocent generalization, and while I will not dissillusion myself into thinking that I have given you anything slightly resembling an understanding of faith, I hope you realize that we don't all believe out of ignorance, and that faith is by no means synonymous with ignorance. Actually, I think that what Skin was saying was that belief is ignorant, but a believer may not be. Nonbelievers tend to make a destinction between belief, which is an alltogether disagreeable action, and the believer, who may be an alltogether agreeable person. Also, I reccomend that you read a book called The Language Police. It details a list of words and terms that have been removed and are being removed from textbooks and curriculum due to political correctness in an effort to enforce the mythical right not to be offended. Like "sex", "condom", u.s.w.? When it comes to censorship, Christianity has a long and not-so-proud history... toms But they aren't talking about no teaching it i guess, just rephrasing it in an attempt to get the southern religious nutjobs off their back. I'm torn on whether it would work or not, but from what i have seen it would probably confuse them enough to buy the school system a few years of peace.... Couldn't have put it any better myself... I've not seen you around before, have I? obi-wan13 @Prime- Most of these observations are done in controlled labs, sparking "evolution" of certain animals. But that is what the labs where designed to do- spark it. Considering the sheer number of tests done, I'm moderately surprised that you claim to know such a thing. Would it be possible to qualify you claim with some numbers? SkinWalker What about the bacteria that are only left to their own devices and a suitable environment that mutate and evolve almost right before the eyes of those looking through the microscope. Because of the nature of the bacterial lifespan and reproduction periods, many generations can be observed in a few hours, many, many more in a few days. Then you have the fruit fly, where many experiments have been conducted that show an adaptation through generations to changing environments. It's true that human evolution cannot be observed directly, but it is easily inferred through the fossil record as is that of other species of animals. Evolution is as much a fact as atomic theory or germ theory and as much a reality as landing people on the Moon. I believe that the word here is... Touché! _PerfectAgent_ However, mutation is not good. The only suitable environment is one controlled by humans. There are no mutated bacteria outside of laboratories. It shows that the mutated bacteria is at a disadvantage when it does not have antibiotics. Mutating flies take longer to develop and therefore is less fit than the original strain. The "evolved" strain is infact inferior to the original. You make the classical error of assuming a stable environment. If you want to take a look at 'real-life' elvolution in action, read the studies of English butterflies changing colour due to air polution. Or take a look at any of the hundreds of species evolving to cope with global warming. But the root of your misunderstanding is that you look at the ratio of 'errors' to 'successes' when it comes to mutations. When you see that the number of 'errors' is far greater - by orders of magnitude - to the number of 'successes', you infer that mutation is disadvantageous. This conclusion is wrong. Fundamentally wrong. In fact the theory of evolution predicts the observed ratios. The catch here is that the aforementioned ratio is fundamentally irrelevant, because mutations are so comparatively rare, that the loss due to mutation does not significantly effect a particular strain's survivability, whereas the gain due to the odd advantageous mutation is very nearly immeasureable. rccar328 Personally, I think this argument is taking the wrong turn. In my mind, at least, this issue is not about the viability of evolution theory - there is too much evidence to disprove it, and not enough evidence to prove it entirely (unless the time travel thread takes an unexpected turn). I think that I'll refrain from commenting on this... I'd hate to use nasty words on a public board. SkinWalker has explained why you are wrong. At lenght. With diagrams. So I'll just drop it. The reason political correctness does not work is because: 1. It only lasts for one generation. [...] 2. Removing events from historical texts does not mean that they did not occur, and does not allow future generations to learn from our past. We could look on the past through rose-colored glasses and repeat history's mistakes, or we can learn the hard lessons and allow future generations to better mankind in the process. I only wish that dubya would tell some of his christio-fascist friends this... Sieg Halleluja, and bow to hypocicy. Master_Keralys interesting... I can totally see why Georgia is thinking this. As a general rule, it's one of the highest populations of fundamental Christians. But - being a Christian myself, as many of you know - this is the wrong way of going at something like this. I've been thinking about this for a while, and really, this is the kind of thing that gives Christians a bad name. Gives Christians a bad name? Gives? Moreover, it's a good idea to point out the flaws in any theory - something that science books in particular seem incredibly hesitant to do. Probably 'cuz the textbooks that most people read concern topics like Newton's or Darwin's laws of nature, which are so well supported by so much evidence from so many fields of experimental Physics, Chemestry, Biology, Astronomy, and simple common sense that there is very little left to point out. Despite the fact that scientists always claim to like debate, any external disagreement is quickly shut down. This, in the main, is due to the fact that public fora are largely unsuited for scientific debate. And the fact that scientific debate is... well boring... at least to the layman. And by 'layman' I mean anyone not posessing the relevant, extremely long and equally specialized education. If two high-energy particle physicists start debating the particularities of their latest experiment in front of a material physicist, the latter wouldn't be able to catch the significant details that decide the conclusion of the discussion. Scientists debate. Everyone else just reads the Executive Summary. SkinWalker So when you are reading a science textbook intended for the junior high or high school level, chances are you are only going to get the most current information available at the time of publication. Odds are good that something in that text will need updating as science is an on-going process and better, more complete explanations are continuously forthcoming. Nah. If your High Schools are anything like the Danish ones (and I really don't expect yours to be better, no offence), they teach at a level so basic that there will be no scientific progress significant enough to mention. Mine definition is inclusive of all data, current and previous on a given topic from credible sources. It excludes pseudo-data from metaphysical, supernatural, and pseudoscientific sources. Which, for really obvious reasons is impossible. taoistimmortal They despise this word, they abhor it to the point in which they find it necessary to wage war against it, and that is either very Christian of them or extremely unchristian of them. At this moment I cannot really discern which. Very Christian, no doubt about that. It's very, very Christian, and has been throughout history. rccar328 But that's exactly what political correctness is - some group of people hate or fear a word or find it offensive. They hate or fear their percieved meaning of the word (in this case anti-Christian), so they try to change the word. The problem is, just changing the word "evolution" does nothing to the meaning of the word. If this change goes through, after a while, "biological change over time" will become the "anti-religion" buzzword. The problem with this kind of thing is that they don't really hate or fear the word "evolution," they hate or fear the theory itself. But just changing the name doesn't change the theory. If they really wanted to do this right, they'd go about trying to debunk evolution theory, but since that's too difficult, they've opted for the easy way out, not realizing that PC simply doesn't work. This bears repeating. I so wish that dubya would figure that out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 And hence is, by way of definition, not faith. Your overrated terrorist-prophet said so himself somewhere (beginning of Matt, where Lucifer (or some unknown narcotic substance) takes our 'hero' into the desert, and asks him to perform a miracle). Not necessarily. I have seen and heard these things, but I believe that they were caused to happen by God. Can't prove it, but I believe it, and that, my friend, makes it faith. And by the way, your flagrant insults toward Christianity are pathetically childish and show a total ignorance toward what real Christian faith is all about. How you can be so hypocritical as to blame Bush for hating Islam when you hate Christianity (and Bush) as much as you oviously do is beyond me. You judge Bush for supposedly hating Islam based on extreme fundamentalists who compose the minority of the faith, yet you hate Christians based on the fundamentalist viewpoint which, similarly, makes up a minority of the faith. Your base hypocracy and willingness to libel a faith that you understand so very little (if at all) makes my skin crawl. You will be in my prayers. And about "The Language Police," it's not about removing 'sex' or 'condom' or pushing a Christian agenda - it talks about such nonsense as removing 'ice-cream' or 'pizza' from curricula because they might encourage obesity, or removing historical events such as the Trail of Tears because they might be offensive to American Indians. I think that I'll refrain from commenting on this... I'd hate to use nasty words on a public board. SkinWalker has explained why you are wrong. At lenght. With diagrams. So I'll just drop it. SkinWalker provided very strong evidence in support of evolution theory. But if evolution theory had been proven as fact, it would not be a theory , now, would it? Gives Christians a bad name? Gives? Once again, that complete ignorance on true Christian faith. It is quite simply ludicrous to judge an entire religion based solely on the extreme fundamentalist side of it, which you openly admit to doing. Yes, things like the case in Georgia give Christians a bad name - because many people are like you, judging Christianity solely based on some fringe element that they had some bad experience with or heard about on the news. Very Christian, no doubt about that. It's very, very Christian, and has been throughout history. And here we see the same again - no, it's not "very Christian" of them, it is very un-Christian of them. You only assume that Christianity is all about hate by looking at past Christians who have warped and twisted the Christian religion to suit their own purposes. I only wish that dubya would tell some of his christio-fascist friends this... Sieg Halleluja, and bow to hypocicy. This bears repeating. I so wish that dubya would figure that out as well. Personally, I don't see how "dubya" even figures into this debate. I'm sure these comments were meant to disparage the President somehow...but they don't really make any sense, unless explained simply by your hatred for the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 SkinWalker provided very strong evidence in support of evolution theory. But if evolution theory had been proven as fact, it would not be a theory , now, would it? yes and the essence of christian religion or any other has been proven fact, right? hmm. and still, replacing "evolution theory" is an attempt to "get rid" of the evolution theory itself in a silent way. sure, it wont change the theory itself nor anything else but the fact that there is no need to talk about it anymore. no talk about, no questions, no evolution theory. quasi. its easier to conciliate "god" and "biological changes over the time" than "god" and "evolution theory". political correctness? ayayay. only if there's no "evolution theorist minority" who feels discredited then. maybe they could check that before changing it. i mean.. ALL those books that has to be printed.. all those trees which are going to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 yes and the essence of christian religion or any other has been proven fact, right? Now you're putting words in my mouth - I said myself that Christianity is based on faith, which is the belief in something that cannot be proven. and still, replacing "evolution theory" is an attempt to "get rid" of the evolution theory itself in a silent way. sure, it wont change the theory itself nor anything else but the fact that there is no need to talk about it anymore. no talk about, no questions, no evolution theory. quasi. its easier to conciliate "god" and "biological changes over the time" than "god" and "evolution theory". political correctness? ayayay. only if there's no "evolution theorist minority" who feels discredited then. maybe they could check that before changing it. i mean.. ALL those books that has to be printed.. all those trees which are going to die. I agree - and one more reason that political correctness doesn't work (thanks for pointing this one out, I didn't think of it earlier) is that we can't please everybody - what appeases one group may offend another. And what is political correctness, if not an attempt to make everybody happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 @Prime- Most of these observations are done in controlled labs, sparking "evolution" of certain animals. But that is what the labs where designed to do- spark it. Yes, because in a lab environment is much esaier to control the variables. However, observations are by no means limited to the lab: Researchers track Fruit Fly Evolution That being said, it is of course still a theory. But as a theory it currently answers the questions posed by what has been observed. As has been mentioned, this is how science works. If new evidence comes to light, the theory will be modified or thrown out all together to reflect this this new information. An scientist worth his salt will accept and incorporate this new information, and not cling to ideas that have been proven to be incorrect. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Moreover, it's a good idea to point out the flaws in any theory - something that science books in particular seem incredibly hesitant to do. Huh? Quantum Mechanics came about because many laws break down on a molecular level. If science was hesitant to look at flaws in theories, quantum mechanics wouldn't exist at all. Heck, not only that, but we would still be teaching that the stars are connected to a series of spheres and the earth is flat. So I don't think that it can be said that science is overly hesitant to accept changes in theories. I think you will agree that religous groups (no exclusively Christianity) throughout history have been much more hesitant to review/accept changes to explanations of the way things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Now you're putting words in my mouth - I said myself that Christianity is based on faith, which is the belief in something that cannot be proven. i would prefer to say "to believe something that hasnt been proven yet". somehow everything we do not know for sure, even religion, is a theory. because it is not proven that something CANNOT be proven. and if something is proven (no matter if right or wrong) it becomes a fact. if its part of religion or whatever theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 i would prefer to say "to believe something that hasnt been proven yet". somehow everything we do not know for sure, even religion, is a theory. because it is not proven that something CANNOT be proven. and if something is proven (no matter if right or wrong) it becomes a fact. if its part of religion or whatever theory. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 10, 2004 Author Share Posted February 10, 2004 Georgia isn't the only state in the Union to have subtle moves by fundamentalist christians to introduce creationism or "intelligent design" into the classrooms of our children. Creationists seeking subtle entrance to science classes in Ohio. A number of Ohio science teachers were asked recently by the Ohio Department of Education to review lessons it is developing to assist teachers and their students to prepare for the Ohio Graduation Test. Some board members advocated inclusion of intelligent-design creationism in those standards And The Missouri State Pseudoscience Bill The state commissioner of education shall appoint a temporary committee of no fewer than five individuals who are knowledgeable of science and supportive of intelligent design to serve without compensation. That Missouri bill goes so far as to provide a spurious definition for hypothesis: (8) "Hypothesis", a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular. This is from lawmakers in a modern American state! In case anyone is wondering, the definition for "hypothesis" is not a "theory!" I honestly quit reading at one point because I was getting very pissed. The people of Missouri should feel very embarrassed about the competence of those they elected to office to lead and represent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Okay, I'm back again, but only for a few minutes... First: Skin, no offense, but your "fact of evolution" thing gets really old after a while. Sure, we see horizontal evolution all the time. But first - what kind of a designer (God, aliens, whatever else you want to believe) would build a situation with organisms that couldn't adapt? Adaptation - and thus, horizontal evolution, that is, within the range of variation that an organism has anyway - doesn't prove macro- or vertical evolution, contrary to what Skin is implying. We do not have evidence that suggests the contrary. Actually, there are a number of things that suggest otherwise - but Skin won't tell you that, I promise. Again, this isn't a personal thing, but it gets really old after a while. A perfect example is the case with the moths (sorry, not butterflies...): besides the fact that those were faked photographs (as in, they were dead and glued to the trees, as that species doesn't actually land on trees like that), that's still within the variation that the species already possesses. With fruit flies or even bacteria that we have that are "new" species: first, those are intelligently induced mutations, not naturally occuring. Secondly, even that they are new species, there is no real change that (a) has not been specifically induced with that purpose in mind and (b) is greater than prezygotic barriers. (a) I already explained. (b) Simply means that they are now physically incapable of mating, or eat different food or whatever. If those barriers could be overcome, most of the "species" created could still produce viable offspring. We're not seeing the kind of changes that evolution requires. Now, everyone's going to jump on this and start another debate; I don't want that and I'm just trying to point out that evolution, as a theory, isn't nearly as foolproof as many would have us believe. I'm not using a HS textbook. It's a college-level bio book I'm referring to, and - just like Skin - it fails to acknowledge any possibility that anything besides Darwinian mechanisms is a possible source of the variation and incredible complexity (don't even think about getting me start on irreducible complexity, people) that we see in the world around us. I've actually written a bill on the topic of Intelligent Design for government class, I can post an abstract sometime in the next few days hopefully if it's something you want to see. Just because kids ask why, though, doesn't mean that you have to say "God, or aliens, or whatever" We can just explain that, like in every other area, we don't know a definitive answer. Finally, on that note, I'd like to point out that science does nothing but ask the whys of the hows. Sure it asks how, but doesn't it also ask why about everything? Why does gravity work the way it does? Not just how... Why's lead to hows and vice versa. In the case of ID, let me point out that some of the top evolutionary biologists in the world have made comments about needing to "remember that the things we see are evolved, not designed" and that "biology is the study of things that give the appearance of being designed" - since Skin will want the sources, I'll have it for you by next post in a couple of days. But those were guys like Mayr in status (don't remember if one of those is actually from him...) My point is that if science sees things like that yet steadfastly refuses to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that reality actually conforms to the appearance of something - since that is, after all, what science goes off of, the appearance, whether that actually be visible or not - then something is fundamentally wrong with the process of science. For further reading on the subject... Seriously, though, a good read for anyone who's actually interested in seeing the problems with modern evolutionary theory, Philip Johnson is the author to go to. He's getting comments from guys like Gould, so... In particular, anyone who's truly interested in seeing why ID people think the way we do should read Darwin on Trial. Christians have certainly had their issues throughout history. However, that actually conforms with what Christianity itself says about the nature of man: every thing on earth is corrupted, and as such even the "right" religion - I do believe it's right, but that's another debate for another thread - can be used by corrupt men for currupt purposes. Lawmakers are not scientists, but Skin definitely has a point. I obviously think ID should be taught. Biblical Creationism - no. It's not verifiable in any way. ID is, that's why it's a growing movement among men who aren't Christians... which is very interesting, I think. Just because you disagree, Skin, doesn't make you right. In fact, just because a major part of the scientific community believes something doesn't make it right; I think that's one of the major flaws in our thinking right now. Most of the scientific community disagreed with Copernicus when he first introduced his theory of a heliocentric solar system, though we now know it to be true. What I find disappointing is the steady refusal to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that Darwinian macro-evolution is false... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys First: Skin, no offense, but your "fact of evolution" thing gets really old after a while. I don't think I used the word "fact" in conjunction with evolution, but it is the most likely reason for life on our planet based on the preponderance of evidence that exists. What gets old, is the primitive religious attempts to subvert scientific explanations that threaten religious doctrines. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Adaptation - and thus, horizontal evolution, that is, within the range of variation that an organism has anyway - doesn't prove macro- or vertical evolution, contrary to what Skin is implying. What i'm implying is that there is evidence that suggests that biological and morphological changes over time can be seen in the fossil record. As an Anthropologist, I can comment quite readily on human evolution and, looking at Australopithecus robustus from about 2.5 million years ago on through Homo Sapiens of modern day, clines can be noted in many biological and morphological features. Changes in dentition, mandibles, mastoid processes, foramen magnum, cranial shape, cranial size, morphology of lliums, phallanges, etc. This would clearly demonstrate a high probability for what you refer to as "vertical evolution." But evolution is evolution... horizontal or vertical doesn't seem to matter much, since the population that evolves or adapts, if it continues to find advantage with it's adaptations, will flourish. Originally posted by Master_Keralys We do not have evidence that suggests the contrary. Actually, there are a number of things that suggest otherwise - but Skin won't tell you that, I promise. If you get time, put those contrary bits of evidence here or perhaps in a new thread... I'd like to refute them. Originally posted by Master_Keralys I'm not using a HS textbook. It's a college-level bio book I'm referring to, and - just like Skin - it fails to acknowledge any possibility that anything besides Darwinian mechanisms is a possible source of the variation and incredible complexity (don't even think about getting me start on irreducible complexity, people) that we see in the world around us. There doesn't appear to be any other explanation that doesn't involve metaphysics or supernatural... therefore Darwinian mechanisms are valid for explanation. Originally posted by Master_Keralys I've actually written a bill on the topic of Intelligent Design for government class, I can post an abstract sometime in the next few days hopefully if it's something you want to see. Sure.. perhaps that could be the central focus of a new thread? I'd like the opportunity to debate the fallacies of Intelligent Design in contrast to the scientific method model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys First: Skin, no offense, but your "fact of evolution" thing gets really old after a while. Originally posted by SkinWalker What gets old, is the primitive religious attempts to subvert scientific explanations that threaten religious doctrines. Personally, I think the whole debate just gets extrodinarily tedious after a while. But then, I believe that it's possible for creation and evolution to exist within the same system. Who's to say that God didn't create all creatures in a way that they can evolve and adapt to new condidions? (SkinWalker'll probably try. I'd almost bet money on it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Lawmakers are not scientists, but Skin definitely has a point. I obviously think ID should be taught. Biblical Creationism - no. It's not verifiable in any way. ID is, that's why it's a growing movement among men who aren't Christians... which is very interesting, I think. Just because you disagree, Skin, doesn't make you right. In fact, just because a major part of the scientific community believes something doesn't make it right; I think that's one of the major flaws in our thinking right now. Most of the scientific community disagreed with Copernicus when he first introduced his theory of a heliocentric solar system, though we now know it to be true. What I find disappointing is the steady refusal to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that Darwinian macro-evolution is false... basicly you are right, but why replace evolution theory then? why not teach BOTH, intelligent design and evolution theory? Copernicus didnt came in saying "HEYA, HERE my new theory. screw the rest!!!" and whoooosh everyone was like "cool, lets screw the rest." i think he probably just came up with this new idea/ theory and if i remember it right, it was the CHURCH which mainly put his ideas aside as err .. crap. too bad for them that the theory of copernicus was "provable"/ proven right and the others not proven right (yet)/ proven wrong. now they are trying to go one step farther then copernicus and try to just "wipe" or "overwrite" the existing theory with another and complain if others refuse to accept this. but they forget that they did not even accept a parallel existing theory based on another concept then theirs. i see no reason why not teach or inform about both theories in an OBJECTIVE way, as long as it's verifiable there is not really something to say against, except it been proven wrong.. but even then it still mustnt be put away as crap. it is just proven wrong. no one really claims anymore, that the earth is a plate. but due to the great work of history-writers, we still can "remember" that and can say "hey, in the past thought the earth was a plate, isnt that blahblahblah..? how could they think that .. ?" we only can learn from that. .. Originally posted by rccar328 I believe that it's possible for creation and evolution to exist within the same system. Who's to say that God didn't create all creatures in a way that they can evolve and adapt to new condidions? yes, thats also one possibility. also possible is, that "god" created just the "stuff" which "everything is made of", i mean the "stuff" faaar below the levels of quantums and such. "god" may even not know what "he" may have "created" .. perhabs "he" isnt a god, but simply some sort of scientist? and still there is a always a chance left that there is no intelligence behind it, no purpose, just "something", some kind of event or whatever. what of course we still could name "god", but rather not, because it would not be a "classical god" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 well, not wanting to simplify too much, but: If you believe in god then either (a) God created everything as in the bible and then must have put all this evidence of evolution (dinosaur bones) out to fake us out or (b) god created life in such a way as to evolve. So you either believe in a tricky god (a) or a much more impressive, foreward seeing one. (b). I'd think most people would rather believe in a god who isn't trying to decieve them. If you don't believe in god then © evolution is pretty much your only bet. So i'd think that for almost everyone (whether they believe in god or not) Evolution would be what they would want to learn. Personally, i'm not particularly keen on organised religion, but some of the discoveries of the incredible complexities and odds of life evolving are so impressive that it DOES make you think that there might well be some sort of plan behind it. So i don't see evolution as in anyway anti-god, infact i would think it was a good way to reveal how impressive life really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.