Kansas moves to faith-based science

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

or all those that teach that the Earth was created by God, I have one question:

Who created God?

Of course, the same kind of thing can be said about the natural creation of the universe, like the Big Bang theory:

Where the hell did all that matter come from?

No one created God. You are making an assumption that everything has to come from something before it. And that is true in this temporal universe.
We are temporal creatures, and our brains are geared temporally, and it is therefore the only way we can picture things happening.

But God is non-temporal. God exists outside of time. Before there was matter and energy and space, there was no time. The Big Bang, or whatever the beginning was, was probably created by Something outside of the constraints of time.

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

[billvon 3,132]

>OTOH, someone has to be the greeter at Wal Mart.

I have often wondered if the good people of Kansas have considered whether or not they want certain professions (say, geologist, or physician, or research biologist) closed to their children. On the other hand, perhaps they see some value in steering their children into degrees in Medieval English Literature, where science isn't very important overall.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

I think the fact that they feel a need to re-evaluate the definition of science is a little scary, unless they're doing it to prevent the teaching of "creation science." Given what it's changed to, I don't think that's the case.

In my mind, this "new definition" supports the teaching of creation science.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[AggieDave 6]

Yeah, Bill, lets prosecute people for their religious beliefs! Don't you feel that things should be taught in a manner not to persecute people and their beliefs? For instance, I for one am for teaching evolution as well as some of the other major theories about life.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,132]

> Yeah, Bill, lets prosecute people for their religious beliefs!

???

>Don't you feel that things should be taught in a manner not to persecute
>people and their beliefs?

No. Teach the science even if someone feels like they are being persecuted. If you teach a biology course, and a man feels persecuted because he is told that one of his chromosomes is incomplete - well, that's just too bad. It would be absurd to claim that both men and women have XX sex chromosomes just to keep men from feeling bad, eh?

> For instance, I for one am for teaching evolution as well as some of
>the other major theories about life.

I have no problem with teaching whatever religious material you want in a religion class. Teach evolution in science class, and creationism (of whatever flavor you choose) in religious studies. I am particularly partial to one of the Norse myths, where a giant cow licked some salty ice blocks for days, eventually uncovering Buri, who was the first man.

[AggieDave 6]

You're missing my point Bill.

I don't disrespect science and if I was a gambling man I would bet that the large majority of folks aren't trying to disprove proven science and replace it with pure religious beliefs. I'm saying that presenting some major theories, some of which may not be inline with a liberal's definition of science, isn't a bad thing. Or would you rather students be only taught a single idea? I'd rather see students taught and learn about other theories so to make an educated decision. Remember, the one thing that has brought this discussion to the forefront is evolutionism. Its still a theory as a whole. The nitpicking you've shown thus far has been shown examples with scientific facts that you've choosen to use to belittle other people's beliefs. In an attempt to make those who may believe in a theory other then evolution appear less intellegent then yourself. Talk about a stereotypical libearl arguement approach.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[tmontana 0]

Quote

I for one am for teaching evolution as well as some of the other major theories about life.

There are no other major SCIENTIFIC theories about life's origins.

Quote

'm saying that presenting some major theories, some of which may not be inline with a liberal's definition of science, isn't a bad thing

Science isn't liberal or conservative.

Quote

..would you rather students be only taught a single idea?

So should we teach students that 5 - 2 = 100, because it seems the enron/tyco/WorldCom/Global Crossing /Adelphia/etc. types have a theory on how it does.

Quote

Its still a theory as a whole

This is one of those statements that many people use all the time and it really upsets me.
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.


There is no debate about the above statement that is what it is.

Let me give some definitions for everyone, since everyone has great misconceptions about science

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity. One interesting thing about the laws of gravity is that they don't work all the time. They breakdown when you start speaking of black holes and singularities, but they are still used all the time.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Quote

The nitpicking you've shown thus far has been shown examples with scientific facts that you've choosen to use to belittle other people's beliefs. In an attempt to make those who may believe in a theory other then evolution appear less intellegent then yourself. Talk about a stereotypical libearl arguement approach.

As i said before there are no other scientific theories on the origin of life other than evolution.
More like a typical radical conservative arguement tactic. When all else fails ignore the facts and attack the person presenting them by calling him a liberal.

___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[AggieDave 6]

There are so many times in SC that I feel like I'm simply talking to a wall, in which it simply bouces back echos and soundbites of others instead of reading and understanding an arguement and weighing other's opinions.

Oh well, thus is the norm for most debates that take place over the internet.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[livendive 8]

Quote

>then please tell me why the new definition is not acceptable.

Because science is the study of natural, not supernatural, phenomena.

Am I misreading the new definition? I saw the words "natural phenomena" and I didn't see anything about the supernatural.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,132]

>I'm saying that presenting some major theories, some of which may
>not be inline with a liberal's definition of science, isn't a bad thing.

Science does not respect one's political affiliation. Planck's Constant is not different if you are a conservative or a liberal, and true scientists do not base their arguments on their political or religious leanings.

Now, the IMPLICATIONS of discoveries are certainly grist for the political mill, and as such are debated ad nauseum in this forum and in many others. But in such cases the science is not the political issue - the implications are.

Again, teach science in science class, religion in religious studies, and conservative/liberal views in a poly sci class.

>Or would you rather students be only taught a single idea?
>I'd rather see students taught and learn about other theories so to
>make an educated decision.

Would you really rather your children were taught that 2+2 can be 3, 4 or 5 depending on how their parents vote in an election? Should they be taught that Ohm's Law is just one possible explanation for electricity, and that "God's almighty power" might flow out of outlets as well? Perhaps weather is caused by God's wrath rather than the sun heating the earth. If it is really true that children should be taught alternative ideas, then such alternatives make good sense. If you wish instead to teach children the most accurate view of the world possible, stick to science.

Creationism is a religious myth, one of many taught by various religions. I am all for teaching them about creation myths in religious studies classes, but such myths have no place in a science curriculum.

>Remember, the one thing that has brought this discussion to the forefront
>is evolutionism. Its still a theory as a whole.

Nope. Feel free to read any of the several hundred books on the topics. We have seen evolution, speciation, natural selection, and mutation all happen within our lifetimes. We now understand that simple mutations can cause massive (and often functional) phenotype changes within living organisms; google homeosis. We can trace the molecular clocks that show how closely we are related to people of other races and animals of other species. We have seen the string of fossils that connect man backwards through dozens of subspecies to the closest common ancestor of man and apes.

There is no question that evolution happens. We have seen not only the evidence of it happening; we have seen it happen.

>In an attempt to make those who may believe in a theory other then
> evolution appear less intellegent then yourself.

Someone may be quite intelligent and not know how an elevator works. That doesn't mean he's dumb. It most likely means that he either never educated himself on how an elevator works, most likely because he doesn't really care how it works, or would rather do other things (like, say, jumping out of airplanes.) As long as the elevator comes when he pushes the button, he's happy.

Now, someone else could come along and say that elevator cars are made in heaven, then go down to the basement where they are destroyed by Satan. I have no problem with them believing that - as long as they don't try to teach our children that. We would have a serious elevator-repairman shortage if we did that.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I don't disrespect science and if I was a gambling man I would bet that the large majority of folks aren't trying to disprove proven science and replace it with pure religious beliefs. I'm saying that presenting some major theories, some of which may not be inline with a liberal's definition of science, isn't a bad thing. Or would you rather students be only taught a single idea? I'd rather see students taught and learn about other theories so to make an educated decision. Remember, the one thing that has brought this discussion to the forefront is evolutionism. Its still a theory as a whole. The nitpicking you've shown thus far has been shown examples with scientific facts that you've choosen to use to belittle other people's beliefs. In an attempt to make those who may believe in a theory other then evolution appear less intellegent then yourself. Talk about a stereotypical libearl arguement approach.

Don't waste your fingers, I've been trying to explain this exact thing you wrote in a very similar thread about intelligent design, and I was eaten alive.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

If you wish instead to teach children the most accurate view of the world possible, stick to science.

Do you really think evolutionary "[theory]" sticks to true science rather than basing their all their deductions already on the idea that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and everything evolved from a rock. This is a religion in itself that takes a lot more faith to me than believing in a creator. Just because you believe in creation isn't going to change the way science is collected or necessarily conflict with any fossil records. It will however conflict with the origin of the earth and life on earth which the evolutionary theory has absolutely zero evidence on.

[billvon 3,132]

>Do you really think evolutionary "[theory]" sticks to true science rather
>than basing their all their deductions already on the idea that the earth
>is 4.6 billion years old and everything evolved from a rock.

Yes, it sticks to true science. Conclusions are judged purely on their supportability from evidence and from experimental results, without regard for people's beliefs or desires for specific results. No, life did not evolve from a rock any more than we evolved from contemporary apes. Both are statements that indicate a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

>It will however conflict with the origin of the earth and life on earth
>which the evolutionary theory has absolutely zero evidence on.

If your religious beliefs result in a preconception of how life began, and you cannot ignore that preconception in the face of new data, then science (at least, study of early life) is not for you. Fortunately, there are plenty of other pursuits (like theology) that one can engage in where such preconceptions are pretty much prerequisites.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I shall use a less accurate ruler and prove that pi=3. Since it is mentioned in the bible, that's two bits of evidence against your one.

Here's what the bible says "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1 Kings 7:23. Do you think that maybe the brim was lillied a little bigger, or maybe the 30 cubits was inside diameter, or maybe because a cubit was a just the measurement from the elbow to the fingertips that they had to round up instead of saying 9.549296586 cubits across. Anyway, the bible does not come out and say pi is 3.
Also if you want to start talking about the bible's scientific accuracy. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22(The hebrew's did not have a word for sphere).
"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" Job 38:16. Keep in mind scientists have only recently discovered that there are springs in the ocean.
If you are interested I can find more. If you think you may know of more scientific contradictions in the bible please let me know.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

If your religious beliefs result in a preconception of how life began, and you cannot ignore that preconception in the face of new data, then science (at least, study of early life) is not for you. Fortunately, there are plenty of other pursuits (like theology) that one can engage in where such preconceptions are pretty much prerequisites.

Do you honestly think that scientists that firmly believe in evolution don't have their own preconception of how life began, while ignoring any other possibility. I've studied both evolution and intelligent design(separate from church or any religion class) and, the ID theory is based on fewer preconceptions. There is still no scientific evidence that can date or explain the "origin" of the earth or life. I have an interesting video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" I would reccommend it if you would like to get even a slight glimpse of what I'm trying to say. This is not a religious film and it is put together by professors from "STATE" Universities that question Darwinian theory.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

>OTOH, someone has to be the greeter at Wal Mart.

I have often wondered if the good people of Kansas have considered whether or not they want certain professions (say, geologist, or physician, or research biologist) closed to their children. On the other hand, perhaps they see some value in steering their children into degrees in Medieval English Literature, where science isn't very important overall.

I'm rather partial to Chaucer, especially the Miller's and Reeve's Tales.

...

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

[billvon 3,132]

>or maybe the 30 cubits was inside diameter . . .

(and several other reasons why the bible probably isn't 100% accurate)

I agree; they probably didn't mean the bible to be a math (or science) book, so scientific accuracy wasn't high on their list.

>"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22(The
> hebrew's did not have a word for sphere).

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." Sorta hard to do on a sphere. Almost makes you think that the Bible's stories are more parables meant to teach than scientific truth, eh?

>Do you honestly think that scientists that firmly believe in evolution
> don't have their own preconception of how life began, while ignoring
> any other possibility.

Not at all. Everyone has preconceptions. Good scientists discard them when the evidence suggests their preconceptions are incorrect. Creationists (and ID proponents) instead discard evidence that disagrees with their preconceptions.

>I've studied both evolution and intelligent design(separate from
> church or any religion class) and, the ID theory is based on fewer
> preconceptions. There is still no scientific evidence that can date or
> explain the "origin" of the earth or life.

There is plenty of evidence as to how the earth was formed. Condensation of the earth from a protosun/debris disk is pretty well demonstrated by geological evidence, and is backed up by what we've seen on the moon, asteroids, mars and the moons of jupiter and saturn.

Evidence of how life was originally formed is still largely hypothetical. We have reproduced most of the steps in the lab, including formation of amino acids and lipid membranes (i.e. cell walls) and there are several competing theories as to how replication began, all of which have valid theoretical underpinnings.

Whereas creationists have . . . the bible, which is the mother of all preconceptions. Heck, people have been executed for daring to question it. It's not that it's not a good book - it is an excellent guide to morality and a good history of a people and many religions. It's just not a science book.

[diverborg 0]

I agree with you that the bible was not meant to be a science book, I was only trying to make the point that It did not contradict science.

Quote

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." Sorta hard to do on a sphere. Almost makes you think that the Bible's stories are more parables meant to teach than scientific truth, eh?

Even a mortal person, bound by the laws of nature, can produce a flat two-dimensional map of the world on a letter-size piece of paper. Surely a supernatural being who is trying to tempt the Son of God could also find a way to present the kingdoms of the world. Plus, if this verse was meant to intepreted in a geographical way, I think any person in then and now would realize that even if the world was flat you wouldn't be able to see the whole thing even from a tall mountain.

Quote

We have reproduced most of the steps in the lab, including formation of amino acids and lipid membranes (i.e. cell walls) and there are several competing theories as to how replication began, all of which have valid theoretical underpinnings.

I would have a hard time considering this most of the steps.

Quote

Condensation of the earth from a protosun/debris disk is pretty well demonstrated by geological evidence, and is backed up by what we've seen on the moon, asteroids, mars and the moons of jupiter and saturn.

I guess I can't quite understand this sentence.

Quote

Everyone has preconceptions. Good scientists discard them when the evidence suggests their preconceptions are incorrect. Creationists (and ID proponents) instead discard evidence that disagrees with their preconceptions.

I know that ID proponents would switch this sentence around the exact opposite. Oh well, what's the use.

Quote

Whereas creationists have . . . the bible, which is the mother of all preconceptions

I'll admit if you firmly believe in the bible, you'll definitely have some preconceptions. But the ID theory is not based on the bible nor refers to any bible teachings. If anyone arguing with me actually took the time to research true "ID SCIENCE" or watch the video I mentioned, they would have a little different conception of what is actually being taught.

[tcnelson 1]

no, you're not; that's why this is so funny. although, we're in speakers corner afterall.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Zenister 0]

Quote

But God is non-temporal. God exists outside of time.

and your evidence to support this bit of mythos comes from????

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,132]

>I agree with you that the bible was not meant to be a science book, I
>was only trying to make the point that It did not contradict science.

Agreed there. Saying it does is like saying that Newton's Principia contradicts a Better Home and Gardens article on sprinklers. They're not intended to describe the same thing.

>I guess I can't quite understand this sentence.

Sorry. We have a pretty good idea how the earth (and indeed all the planets) formed from a disk of gas and dust. We see other systems in this state now. Evidence we've gathered on the moon, from the asteriods and comets, and from the surfaces of mars and the moons of jupiter and saturn support this.

>I know that ID proponents would switch this sentence around the
>exact opposite.

Well, the difference there is that if you told an ID proponent "there's no evidence that a higher intelligence was involved" he'd reply "why not?" instead of giving concrete evidence that there _was_ one involved (beyond faith, that is.) Paley's argument has been shown to be false many times over.

>But the ID theory is not based on the bible nor refers to any bible
> teachings. If anyone arguing with me actually took the time to
> research true "ID SCIENCE" or watch the video I mentioned, they
> would have a little different conception of what is actually being
> taught.

While I'm not much for watching TV, I have read Behe's, Meyer's and Berlinski's work. As I'm sure you are aware, Meyer's paper in Nature is probably the most widely referenced work on the subject of ID. Most of his work seems to devolve to the 'argument from personal incredulity' - "I cannot fathom how X happened, therefore God did X." This is, I believe, a poor way to do science.

Creationism was dealt several severe blows in the past century. Most reasonable people now agree that God did not wipe out every human except for Noah and his family, that all land animals did not come from a boat, that the first human woman was not really created out of a man's rib, and that talking snakes tempting people was not really all that fundamental to our development as intelligent human beings.

For most people, this was not much of a challenge to their faith. They understood that the value of the story was not undermined by it being only a story. But some felt uncomfortable with new relevations; they felt that by "selling out" to evolution, the christian faith was "losing the battle." And they seemed destined to lose, since science (and social progress) was steadily whittling away seemingly inviolate biblical ideals like the flatness of the earth, the earth being the center of the universe, the placing of men over women etc.

Then, in the 1950's, creationists were dealt another set of blows. Through a series of trials, they were shown to have no scientific underpinnings for their theories, and indeed it was ruled that any government-mandated teaching of the Genesis story violated the first amendment. Creationism was also coming under attack from the general public, who began to fear that they were losing the space race to the Russians, and that they needed schools to produce scientists and engineers rather than theologians.

ID offers a way out of this losing battle. By adopting the garb of science, creationists can hold onto some version of creationism, and keep a place for God in the story of human development, a place they think has been eliminated by science. I have no doubt that some researchers place a great deal of faith in ID, honestly believe it to be true, and work in good faith to prove it so. The problem is that science really doesn't care what people believe in. Lysenko proved this when he nearly destroyed the agriculture of a country with his Lamarckian theories on evolution. He had his heart in the right place, he fervently believed in his social ideals, and he worked mightily to make them so. But all the lenghty tomes and scholarly papers he wrote on the subject failed to make winter wheat into spring wheat, and it failed to turn wheat into rye. ID will fail to turn evolution into creationism in the same way. Let's hope it does not take a disaster of Lysenko proportions before that happens.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

They're not intended to describe the same thing.

see here is the problem... 'they' were!

the bible as it exists today, was written, edited and designed to show the faithful EVERYTHING they needed to know. The fact that many of the 'facts' as presented are not just 'myths' but bad mythos and blatently ridiculous beliefs with culturally unacceptable underpinnings in the light of modern science has forced the 'faithful' to rewrite history in order to avoid looking like fool clinging to bronze age mythology in the face of scientific facts...

in order to really adapt Christians need to re edit their holy book... it could use it, and it wont be the first (or even the fifth) time, but they would have to admit that the continual assertion that it is the "indisputable word of God" is simply wrong and that there might be more to "Truth" than is written inside.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[shropshire 0]

Random Thought ..... isn't this exactly how the Dark Ages started?

i.e. People raming religion down other peoples throats and ignoring Good science?

If you believe that some mysterious, omni-potent being created all of this [waves arms around] - then fine - I dont' happen to agree with you and I'll wait for something more realistic [by my standards] comes along. I dont need a spiritual argument like ..."It's turtles all the way down", a mold in which I class most religious stories.

If, religion has any connection with science, it's the Science of Control not rational thought!

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

[diverborg 0]

Quote

the bible as it exists today, was written, edited and designed to show the faithful EVERYTHING they needed to know. The fact that many of the 'facts' as presented are not just 'myths' but bad mythos and blatently ridiculous beliefs with culturally unacceptable underpinnings in the light of modern science has forced the 'faithful' to rewrite history in order to avoid looking like fool clinging to bronze age mythology in the face of scientific facts...

in order to really adapt Christians need to re edit their holy book... it could use it, and it wont be the first (or even the fifth) time, but they would have to admit that the continual assertion that it is the "indisputable word of God" is simply wrong and that there might be more to "Truth" than is written inside.....

This is where I'm just going disagree. I've read thru the bible and I have been taught evolution for the past 10 years thru school and college. I've yet to honestly find any concrete scientific findings other than simple theory that contradict what the bible says. Obviously, you feel differently. Both sides are obviously going to have more faith in what they believe already than open up to another theory. I'm not saying that evolution should be taken out of the schools. All I'm saying is that If one theory can be taught, so can the other, then let the students decide what they will believe.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

If anyone arguing with me actually took the time to research true "ID SCIENCE" or watch the video I mentioned, they would have a little different conception of what is actually being taught.

ID mythology is NOT science. It is faith. There is NO evidence for it, there is no way of testing it.

...

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