Under attack by the intelligent and educated

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Hence why you shouldn't use the Bible for any scientific matters.

I don't. It's primary purpose isn't to be a science book.

Added: That's not to say that what the Bible states isn't true with regard to science. It all has to be kept in context. It just that its purpose isn't to give "definitive" scientific answers. Its purpose isn't to break scientific problems down for us. Its purpose is to break down our personal problems with morality and selfishness and to show a way to repair our relationship with God. A secondary purpose is also to give a historical account of the Jewish people. An account of their trials and tribulations with regard to the above.

That's Cool! It's creation story and the virgin birth story are equally likely to be wrong, then.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

That's Cool! It's creation story and the virgin birth story are equally likely to be wrong, then.

No Kallend. A professor, such as yourself, should understand the difference between a scientific proof and a historical account and the differences in what's involved with proving accuracy in either.

Added: Gotta go and do more productive things now. Be back later.

[Skyrad 0]

I disagree, I think its a good thing that Muslims and Jews are tought about Christianity. I was brought up as a Muslim but I also learnt about Christianity and Judaism. I am glad I did, it ment that as I got older I had a wider base of theologies to draw my own conclusions from. I know some Muslims that belive that Christians belive in three Gods because of the Trinity!

As for Darwinisim, it is after all just a theory. True it is a complling one but a theory none the less. I see nothing wrong with teaching both Creationism AND Evolution. Some people have knoked me recently saying that I always bash the USA I don't I bash pollicies. But this is something that I belive the US has got right. Give people all the information and let them make their own minds up. I don't belive that freedom of choice is a principle that runs against the belifes that America was founded on, in fact quite the reverse.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I know some Muslims that belive that Christians belive in three Gods because of the Trinity!

Good for you! Seriously! I was raised Christian and STILL don't understand the Trinity!

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Nightingale 0]

When I was in high school, we studied various religions in world history class. When we were studying the area where Judaism sprung up, we studied the religion and culture of the region as well, including the Jewish creation myth, Ditto with India, China, the US, Hawaii, Greece and Rome, Egypt, etc... The Jewish/Christian creation myth was put right where it belonged...in the midst of other creation stories with exactly the same amount of proof.

Creationism's basis is in religion and the history of the people, not in science. Students should be exposed to the Jewish/Christian creation myth, along with a good chunk of other creation myths in history or social studies class, as well as the theory of evolution (in science class), which should be presented in its appropriate scientific context: as a theory, not a fact, because theories and facts are two entirely different things, and one, by definition, cannot become the other.

Intelligent design/creation science are not genuine scientific theories. They are an attempt to use scientific-sounding arguments to uphold a religious belief, the belief that the creation story told in the Bible is literally true. The scientific method starts with a question, like, "Why are some fossil animals so different from the animals around us today?" and finds the answer through observation and experiment. The creationist method starts with an answer, then looks for evidence that seems to fit. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3117_evolution_creation_and_scien_12_7_2000.asp)

If theories are being taught in science classes as facts, there is a serious problem with that science program, and I'd be lodging complaints with the district. Kids need to know the difference between a theory and a fact.

Theories are not just fuzzy, uncertain ideas that are a step on the path towards becoming facts. A theory is not a fact, and a fact is not a theory. A fact is an observation, something that can be seen to be true or false with little or no interpretation. A theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

A key factor to keep in mind is that the term "theory" is used by scientists in a manner different from common usage. For most contexts, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work - in fact, one which has a low probability of being true. This is where we get the complaint that something in science is "only a theory" and hence shouldn't be given a great deal of credibility. For scientists, however, a theory is a conceptual structure which is used to explain existing facts and predict new ones. (about.com)

If you only teach kids facts, and not how to interpret those facts (theories), they only get half of the scientific process. Evolution cannot be dismissed simply because it is a theory.

Here is a list of common scientific theories: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/timeline/theories.html

If all of these were removed from the curriculum, just because they were theories, there wouldn't be a science class, because there would be nothing to teach! Science is not just about observation (fact), it is about explanation (theories). Without learning theories, it is impossible to learn science.

[billvon 3,131]

>I see nothing wrong with teaching both Creationism AND Evolution.

I don't either. Teach evolution in a science class and creationism in a religion class. Just don't portray a myth as science.

[billvon 3,131]

>with the intent of implying that they are representative of the majority as anyone else, huh Bill?

I don't suggest that most people understand evolution. Heck, most people don't even know how an airplane flies. But that's no reason to teach myth instead of science in science class.

It is a fundamental principle of education that the teacher should understand the subject he is teaching very well. Hence we have science teachers who studied, and now understand, the subject they are teaching. That way we avoid silliness like "the world is flat because I can't see it curve" or "pi is equal to 4 because that's easier, and it doesn't really matter anyway" or "the world was created in seven days."

>I'm pretty sure the article posted by Billvon doesn't represent the majority of Christians.

Of course. It would be a poor school indeed that taught what the majority believed, rather than what science and math have shown us throughout the years.

[shropshire 0]

Great post, well thought out, no hysterics, no name calling, no testosterone - well done & thanks.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>That way we avoid silliness like "the world is flat because I can't see it curve" or "pi is equal to 4 because that's easier, and it doesn't really matter anyway" or "the world was created in seven days."

Or my daughter's teacher - "IN THE 3RD GRADE, a number divided by zero equals zero."

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelel01 1]

Wow . . . so when do they get to learn the truth?

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

The law in Indiana was actually that pi = 3.2, or 4, or 3.23 depending on which formula in the bill was finally voted on. The state house approved the bill unanimously; it then went on to the senate. The senate ended up discussing it, but then tabled it when a visiting Purdue professor thought it was insane. From a newspaper account of it:

"Although the bill was not acted on favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation."

Thanks to a Purdue professor that happened to stumble by, Indiana now has pizzas that fit within their circumference and manhole covers that don't fall through the manhole.

Good one Bill. Would anyone care to venture a guess as to when that actually happened? I'll save you all the trouble of running to google...1897.

While I will agree that biblical creationist theory has been proven pretty much impossible, or at the very least to have the dates and timelines all fouled up, the fact remains that evolutionary theory is a THEORY.

It is not fact, it just happens to be our current best guess. Yes, when you hold it up against creationism, it looks great, but when you examine it on its own, there are many questions left unanswered. There are some serious holes in that theory, and when you hold it up as fact, you do science a diservice.

Unfortunately, in todays climate, I cannot openly question the theory of evolution on a scientific basis without being branded as some neo-religous zealot. I am of the opinion that both sides of the intelligent design discussion have become too fanatical.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[unformed 0]

Quote

It is not fact, it just happens to be our current best guess. Yes, when you hold it up against creationism, it looks great, but when you examine it on its own, there are many questions left unanswered. There are some serious holes in that theory, and when you hold it up as fact, you do science a diservice.

No one has stated evolution is a fact, but a scientific theory is not the same as a layman's theory. (Read Nightingale's explanation above - I couldn't say it better myself.)

Quote

Unfortunately, in todays climate, I cannot openly question the theory of evolution on a scientific basis without being branded as some neo-religous zealot. I am of the opinion that both sides of the intelligent design discussion have become too fanatical.

Actually, I'm sure you could, if you went about it scientifically, showing evidence, research, etc. [Note: the bible does not constitute a scientific text.]

I would venture to bet that it would be in a scientist best interest to be able to scientifically denounce evolution, as it would one of the most important resarch done in this time.

Thing is, though, most people, who argue evolution have no scientific data to back their explanations. Generally, all they're saying is it's a theory so it's not necessarily true.

This ad space for sale.

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

No one has stated evolution is a fact, but a scientific theory is not the same as a layman's theory. (Read Nightingale's explanation above - I couldn't say it better myself.)

You're kidding right? It is presented as an irrefutable fact all the time. Google "evolutionary fact" and you'll see all kinds of stuff.

Quote

Actually, I'm sure you could, if you went about it scientifically, showing evidence, research, etc. [Note: the bible does not constitute a scientific text.]

If you think I want to use biblica text as a fact source to disprove evolutionary theory, you have seriously missed my point.

My point is, why can't I question evolutionary theory without being in favor of creationism? I challenge you to find me any scientific research out there that is aimed at disproving evolutionary theory that doesn't have the obvious intent of convincing people that creationism is where it's at. I have tried and failed.

You want facts? How about enormous gaps in the fossil record? How about a lack of intermediary species? These are facts, or a lack of them rather. I am not saying it isn't true because it's a theory, I am saying it is seriously flawed because it does not adequately explain the vast number of species on this planet nor does it explain how they arrived so quickly.

We are missing something, and it's big.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

You want facts? How about enormous gaps in the fossil record? How about a lack of intermediary species? These are facts, or a lack of them rather. I am not saying it isn't true because it's a theory, I am saying it is seriously flawed because it does not adequately explain the vast number of species on this planet nor does it explain how they arrived so quickly.

Have you read Stephen Jay Gould's "Evolution as Fact and Theory" written in 1981. He pretty much tackles the meaning of "theory" and "fact" in the scientific world. Again like Nightingale said in science "fact" and "theory" are different than what laymen think they mean. Here's a small part of Gould's essay:

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

[billvon 3,131]

>Good one Bill. Would anyone care to venture a guess as to when
>that actually happened? I'll save you all the trouble of running to
> google...1897.

Right. And pi was first calculated to three decimal places in 200BC; you would think it would have had time to get to the politicians of the time, even if they were around a long time ago.

Politicians are great at politics, not too good at science. That's true whether the issue at hand is what pi is or how to teach biology. Leave that to the mathemeticians and biologists.

>While I will agree that biblical creationist theory has been proven
> pretty much impossible, or at the very least to have the dates
>and timelines all fouled up, the fact remains that evolutionary theory
> is a THEORY.

No argument there; see Kris's post above.

>but when you examine it on its own, there are many questions left
> unanswered.

There are a great many questions left, and we are answering them. It's really pretty cool; everything is coming together really rapidly now. With the ability to easily sequence DNA we are discovering how closely we're related to all the other life on the planet. We're discovering fossils that show ever more clearly our evolution from early life, and we've even seen speciation happening during our lifetimes.

>Unfortunately, in todays climate, I cannot openly question the theory
> of evolution on a scientific basis without being branded as some
> neo-religous zealot. I am of the opinion that both sides of the
> intelligent design discussion have become too fanatical.

I have no problem with anyone questioning anything. That's how science works - people ask questions and then propose answers to them. Then they test the answers.

[billvon 3,131]

>You're kidding right? It is presented as an irrefutable fact all the
>time. Google "evolutionary fact" and you'll see all kinds of stuff.

That's because there is a lot of fact backing it up. Fact - we have watched new species emerge due to evolution. Fact - we see bacteria evolve in the lab; it's a serious health problem. Fact - we now have a relatively complete series of fossils stretching back about 3 million years, showing our gradual development from sahelanthropus tchadensis to homo sapiens.

So when you google "evolution" and "fact" you're going to get all the facts backing it up. There are still plenty of theories, too - exactly what happened along each step of the way will always be an educated guess, although we now understand how and why the steps happened.

>My point is, why can't I question evolutionary theory without being in
> favor of creationism?

?? You can. It's done all the time.

>I challenge you to find me any scientific research out there that is
>aimed at disproving evolutionary theory that doesn't have the
>obvious intent of convincing people that creationism is where it's at.

Read any book by Dawkins. You will see competing theories on the details of evolution. Did we become hairless because it became an item sexually selected for? Because it helped rid us of lice once we learned to use clothing? Because we were swimmers at one point and the better swimmers won out? So far the jury is still out.

There are very few people trying to disprove the entire idea because we have enough info now to know it's pretty much valid. It's like physicists arguing over how gravity works. You may well get several competing theories - but you're unlikely to find a scientist to say that things don't fall when dropped.

>You want facts? How about enormous gaps in the fossil record?

It would be bizarre if there _were_ no gaps and we found one of each generation going back four billion years. We live on a planet designed to recycle us. It takes a freak of nature - a volcanic eruption, a peat bog that traps animals, an ash fall - to preserve soft bodied specimens; those events happen rarely (fortunately!)

As time goes on, we will find more and more species and subspecies in those gaps. As you are probably aware, we just found a new subspecies of humans that seem to have lived as recently as 13,000 years ago.

>How about a lack of intermediary species?

?? We have about a dozen intermediary subspecies between modern man and the common ancestor of chimps/bonobos/humans. They are:

homo sapiens
homo heidelbergensis
homo erectus
homo ergaster
homo habilis
homo rudolfensis
australopithecus africanus
australopithecus afarensis
australopithecus anamensis
ardipithecus ramidus
orrorin tugenensis
sahelanthropus tchadensis


>I am saying it is seriously flawed because it does not adequately
> explain the vast number of species on this planet nor does it
> explain how they arrived so quickly.

Google "cichlid evolution." A great example of adaptive radiation within three lakes that very rapidly (within 5 million years) turned a single ancestor into over 500 separate species.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
...
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Thank you, oh thank you!

There is no such thing as an established "truth" in science. There are only theories which have not yet been falsified. People looking for "truths" should turn to theology. People wanting an accurate description of the world had better learn the chain of theory, hypothesis and experiment.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Newbie 0]

Does anyone else see the Simpsons chacrters having a "meeting of the townspeople" when reading that newspaper story?

I can't help but picture a scene like that, where, even when there are people there trying to stand up and say "do we REALLY want to follow this idea?" (Marge, Springfield monorail episode) the simpleton townfolk are like "YES! SHE SPEAKETH THE TRUTH! WE MUST FOLLOW THIS IDEA!!"

That's just how i see it in my head. For fly-on-the-wall entertainment, i really don't think you could do much to beat being in a gathering of this nature and watching the absurdity of it all.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[GTAVercetti 0]

Man I am glad I read your post! I was just about to google sources for all that stuff myself, but you posted it first.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SpeedRacer 1]

The point of the Book of Genesis is that God is the creator, and is ultimately responsible for the existence of life itself.

It is not supposed to be a science book. Nor is a science textbook suppposed to explore spiritual realities.

The problem is that some people try to frame it as a fight between the bible and science. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two have two different answers because they are answering two entirely different questions.

It is not the job of physical science to address the spiritual meaning behind the existence of things in the universe, but only to explore the mechanisms that comprise it. Nor is there any indication that God was trying to advance the physical sciences when He inspired the writers of the Bible.

Unfortunately, some "creationists" are attempting to use the Bible for EVERYTHING. And they seem to have no intellectual curiosity whatsoever about the PHYSICALLY DESCRIBABLE mechanisms that took place during creation. God made it and that's that. That is all you need to know, and to try to explore genetic and fossil evidence about the physical events is just an attack on our religious beliefs.


In reality as experienced by us human beings, there are both physical and spiritual realities to all parts of life. Suppose your friend or relative gets run over by a steam roller....

Well, the SPIRITUAL REALITIES of the event are that you will experience the grief over your loss. You will never see this person again, and you must explore how you will feel about this, what this person meant to you, and how you will go on in the future, and what death and life mean to you according to your spiritual beliefs. This is something you deal with spiritually whether or not you are formally religious.


This is every bit as real to your human experience as the PHYSICAL REALITY of what happened: The steam roller has applied a force of X thousand pounds per square inch on a human body, which lead to the destruction of the rib cage and internal organs & a cessation of life functions.

The spiritual realities and the physical realities do not cancel one another out, but both explore different aspects of the same thing according to the human experience.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,175]

Very well written response.
Quantum mechanics is also only a theory, but every computer and TV set in the world is designed using quantum mechanical principles.

Relativity is only a theory, but all GPS navigation algorithms are written to include relativistic effects.

If we didn't act on things that are only theories, we would still be living in trees.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Very well written response.
Quantum mechanics is also only a theory, but every computer and TV set in the world is designed using quantum mechanical principles.

Relativity is only a theory, but all GPS navigation algorithms are written to include relativistic effects.

If we didn't act on things that are only theories, we would still be living in trees.

Exactly. For years, Fermat's Last Theorem was unproven. And yet entire branches of math were based upon it. If it had been proven wrong, these branches (which wer being used in a variety of ways to prove OTHER theories) would have been worthless.

Being a theory (especially scientific ones) just means that it has not been proven for ALL cases. Usually though, it has been proven for many specific cases.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Quantum mechanics is also only a theory, but every computer and TV set in the world is designed using quantum mechanical principles.

Relativity is only a theory, but all GPS navigation algorithms are written to include relativistic effects.

If we didn't act on things that are only theories, we would still be living in trees.

Couldn't the same argument be made for religion though? Only difference is we won't find out until after we die.

edited for spelling

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I like rabbits.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

to pet, fuck or cook?