Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

psionl0 said:
Wow. The ignorance about evolution is astounding. Natural selection occurs after the random mutations and not before.
Click to expand...

Yes, the selection is that a mutation is passed on to future generations or not.
That is the 'guiding hand'
 
psionl0 said:
Wow. The ignorance about evolution is astounding. Natural selection occurs after the random mutations and not before.
Click to expand...

The cheek on you to say such things. Who do you think you are kidding?

Talking out the side of your mouth to make sure nobody gets a bead on your god beliefs that you know don't bear scrutiny. Citing logical fallacies and undeserved condescension as you strike back. It”s the same silly game every thread.
 
psionl0 said:
Not really. If their real agenda is to get ID taught as "valid" science then sooner or later they are going to have to drop this facade and won't be able to fool anybody anymore.

In the mean time, nobody is saying "we must not have ID taught as valid science in schools". They are responding to the "carefully worded" statement and saying "we must not have critical thinking in schools". That is damaging.
Click to expand...

I didn’t realize that you have not read any news about this subject since the 70s.
Turns out that the GOP has repeatedly advocated well stated intentions that have indeed turned into explicit statements that Christian theology be taught in science classrooms.
Every. *******. Time.

But since you are totally ignorant of all events in this area for the last half century you are hereby apologized to by me.

Can I get you a cookie?
 
psionl0 said:
... Whether mutations are totally random or there is a "guiding hand" in the process is a moot point in science since there is no way to test for such speculation.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. It's observable that mutations are random. Selection pressures then act on those mutations whether the pressures are positive, negative or neutral.

You are adding an imaginary layer for which there is no evidence and claiming we can't test for it.


BTW, some Christians tried to fit their creation beliefs into a science model. They called it Intelligent Design. That hypothesis failed when no irreducibly complex lifeforms or organs could be found.
 
psionl0 said:
Stacyhs was implying that scientific theories should not be regarded as "challengeable". That evolution should be taught as a rote fact without justification.

Teaching science that way is just indoctrination.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Stacy said no such thing.
 
psionl0 said:
Since you can't argue that it a proven scientific fact that intelligence can not possibly have any involvement in evolution, you go for option B - attack anybody who dares point out that science says nothing on the matter.
Click to expand...
psionl0 said:
...
It should be quite simple. Using the scientific method, we know quite a lot about the world. But when it comes to theological matters, science has absolutely nothing to say whatsoever.

You can say that there are no gods but you can't say that science is on your side because science is silent on the matter.
Click to expand...

Not to get too far off topic but I must point out evidence to the contrary here. The scientific evidence supports the conclusion all god beliefs are human generated. There is no evidence humans ever interacted with actual gods.

That is where science is not neutral about god beliefs.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
That is a whole lotta straw right there.

It should be quite simple. Using the scientific method, we know quite a lot about the world. But when it comes to theological matters, science has absolutely nothing to say whatsoever.

You can say that there are no gods but you can't say that science is on your side because science is silent on the matter.
Click to expand...

For the larger part theology has very little to say about the world around us. Unless in a meeting in the church basement there isn't a lot of reason to discuss theology.

If no one ever again discussed theology of any type there would be one major change in the world. People would have a heap of time to do something that actually makes a real difference.
 
sphenisc said:
2012 when they found his particle.
Click to expand...

[sidenote]Fun fact. The Higgs particle was actually called the goddamned particle and the 'damned' got dropped to be less offensive.

The story goes something like this:
The story goes that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman referred to the Higgs as the "Goddamn Particle." The nickname was meant to poke fun at how difficult it was to detect the particle. It took nearly half a century and a multi-billion dollar particle accelerator to do it.

"The Goddamn Particle" was suppose to be the title of Lederman's book that came out in the 1990s and was wildly popular for a book about physics. However, his publishers weren't exactly on board with that phrasing, so the title was changed to "The God Particle."

Unfortunately the publisher's version of the nickname stuck, and physicists are not happy about it.
Click to expand...
[/sidenote]
 
psionl0 said:
I agree that they are not controversial. In fact I have pretty much stated that evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean that it is a hallowed truth which must never be challenged. In science, nothing is sacred.
Click to expand...

Literally no-one here is claiming that... but you are lying about that - falsely claiming that some do.

psionl0 said:
I know that but I don't think anybody else does. If I dare to point out that science doesn't disprove any notion of a god then it invariably results in howls of outrage.
Click to expand...

Nope. There are no "howls of outrage" at your expression of the fact that "science doesn't disprove any notion of a god".. and you are right, it is a fact, but its an irrelevant one. Science makes no attempt to disprove any notions of a god - science deals is facts and evidence - it doesn't care about gods or about any other things for which there is no evidence.

What you are mistaking for "howls of outrage" is the immense frustration at your repeated, total inability and refusal to accept, despite numerous people explaining to you on multiple occasions, that the burden of proof for the existence of gods lies with theists, the religious, and those who believe in their existence. Before you can say that anything (such as a god) exists, there has to be some precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such a thing exists. Until you can show there is such a thing, there isn't one and therefore god does not exist. It's not just that these other things can't exist without gods, it's that gods themselves cannot exist, so everything that does exist requires another explanation, one that actually is an explanation providing a mechanism (that isn't magic), that is supported by evidence (which gods aren't ) which accounts for all the facts (which gods don't)!

psionl0 said:
Since you can't argue that it a proven scientific fact that intelligence can not possibly have any involvement in evolution, you go for option B - attack anybody who dares point out that science says nothing on the matter.
Click to expand...

Another strawman... no-one is arguing that.

You are repeating the same mistake! The onus is on those who believe intelligence has involvement in evolution to provide facts and evidence in support of that belief. Again, the default position of science that it is not true unless you can prove that it is.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I know that but I don't think anybody else does. If I dare to point out that science doesn't disprove any notion of a god then it invariably results in howls of outrage.
Click to expand...


I'd point out how utterly ignorant of how science works is that POV, had I thought that comment --- or any other --- were actually made "in good faith".

As it is, I can do no better than simply enjoy this ...performance, in all its grotesquerie.
 
jimbob said:
I'm struggling to see what your criticism was in the first post of this thread then?




You attacked Stacyhs' argument against including the Genesis myth in science lessons as wanting "indoctrination".

Most readers would conclude that such an attack implies that you consider it appropriate to include that in a science lesson.
Click to expand...

Only if they didn't understand what he is saying.
 
psionl0 said:
Not really. If their real agenda is to get ID taught as "valid" science then sooner or later they are going to have to drop this facade and won't be able to fool anybody anymore.
Click to expand...

To be fair, their real agenda is to get ID taught as valid science, and they aren't fooling anyone now, except those who are already fooled.


Also to be fair, I'm assuming "they" are conservatives who think there is some doubt about evolution's accuracy. Now I'm going to ahve to at least skim the article and make sure my assumptions about it are correct. I haven't opened it yet.


For my part, I want it to remain forbidden to teach ID as valid science in American public schools, but I think we've gone too far in forbidding, at least in practical terms, any discussion of it at all.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Poor communication is a feature not a bug.
Click to expand...

Unless I have misread him completely, Psion10 is extremely and overtly hostile to Intelligent Design or any variation thereof, and wants that to be known.


If that isn't coming across, you can say that it is poor communication, but I am almost 100% certain I get what he is saying, and there is no sympathy for ID or creationism in it. Assuming I am correct, his message is at least comprehensible, so if there is misunderstanding among the readers, I think the readers have to shoulder some of that responsibility.
 
Ok.

I read the source of the quote, which was the Republican Platorm in Texas, and yes, their agenda is to teach ID as valid science.

ETA: The discussion mentioned an "article", but if it's different than the Republican Platform, I don't know which article is in question. If there is a different article, and it has been posted, I apologizing for not reading every single post in the thread.
 
Last edited:
dann said:
Creationism should be taught in school, preferably in biology classes by regular biology teachers. Otherwise, it is much too easy for creationists to spread their ideas.

<Snip>

I already had several texts and videos about eye evolution ready, so it wasn't difficult at all to 'disenchant' them again, but in my experience many people are easy prey for a skilled creationist. Believing in evolution is now enough. You have to know enough about it to be able to debate creationists.
Click to expand...

This.


With one caveat. There's only so many hours in the school year. If this doesn't make it to the top of the pile to get some class time, c'est la vie. However, teaching it should not be forbidden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom