Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[Meadmaker]

In the USA at least, where there is a very high proportion of practising Christians who do believe that the bible is inerrant and that every word is true, you could not possibly have school science teachers telling the class that God did not create any humans. Because if you did that you'd instantly have millions of Christian parents rioting on the streets (attacking the schools and attacking the parliament etc.). It would be utter madness to try that.

But science classes don't need to spell it out anyway. If they teach evolution (which they should), and explain how we learn things from unearthing fossils and how we can date those remains to hundreds of thousands, or even hundreds of millions of years old, then the conclusion is obvious for every pupil in the class ... it's obvious that what we have discovered from science is incompatible with what people believed 2000 years ago about gods and miracles etc.

I think if you do the second paragraph properly, you are doing the first paragraph as well.

And while we have some rather unscientific beliefs widespread in the United States, It really isn't as bad as you describe. Teaching evolution has been going on for quite some time, including teaching that Genesis is not literally true, and somehow we haven't seen any street riots that I can remember.

 

[Sideroxylon]

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.

It’s a fan dance. Last bit of titillation for a crowd thirsty for a good evolution discussion with a real live creationist was the notion of guided evolution.

 

[psionl0]

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.

Very close. I am hostile to the idea that ID can be proven (ie tested) using the scientific method.

If something appears random then it is either controlled by "random forces" or by mechanisms that either can't be identified or measured. For example, in a coin toss, we can identify a number of factors going down almost to the quantum level that would determine the result. Since we can't measure any of these factors we can just assume that the outcome is purely random and that works perfectly fine for all practical purposes.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Very close. I am hostile to the idea that ID can be proven (ie tested) using the scientific method.

If something appears random then it is either controlled by "random forces" or by mechanisms that either can't be identified or measured. For example, in a coin toss, we can identify a number of factors going down almost to the quantum level that would determine the result. Since we can't measure any of these factors we can just assume that the outcome is purely random and that works perfectly fine for all practical purposes.

What do you believe on the topic? Do you think God fudges the random mutations, selection pressures, both or neither?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Creationism is just the Religious Version of the "Smoking doesn't cause cancer" / "Climate change doesn't happen/isn't man-made" method of weaponizing pseudo-science for your own gain.
It was never, ever contemplated seriously by anyone as an actual scientific prediction model, and it was never supposed to.

 

[Meadmaker]

Very close. I am hostile to the idea that ID can be proven (ie tested) using the scientific method.

If something appears random then it is either controlled by "random forces" or by mechanisms that either can't be identified or measured. For example, in a coin toss, we can identify a number of factors going down almost to the quantum level that would determine the result. Since we can't measure any of these factors we can just assume that the outcome is purely random and that works perfectly fine for all practical purposes.

You might be mischaracterizing the (pseudo) theory of intelligent design.

Let's back up a little bit.

I think you are saying that the process of evolution appears to be controlled by random forces, and so there is no way to determine whether it is "truly random", or whehter is is controlled by some external force. (e.g, God).

I agree. That is impossible to determine scientifically, but we can assume it is purely random for all practical purposes.



So far so good.


However, that is not Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design claims that, having examined life (or occasionally some other aspect of the universe), it can be shown that it cannot be "truly random", that the agency of some sort of intelligent force is required in order to make it work. Moreover, they usually claim that this fact not only can be demonstrated through scientific means, but it has been demonstrated by scientific means.

Their claim is false. This fact certainly has not been demonstrated by scientific means.

 

[psionl0]

What do you believe on the topic? Do you think God fudges the random mutations, selection pressures, both or neither?

For all I know, an entity called "random force" is controlling the mutations. None of these speculations can be falsified.

 

[Sideroxylon]

For all I know, an entity called "random force" is controlling the mutations. None of these speculations can be falsified.

Do think an intelligent entity is fudging random mutations? Is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis? How so?


And talk about coy.

Know you are all over Occam’s Razor too since you were lecturing us on it recently. God fudging the dice adds nothing to evolution by natural selection. You are adding an entity that does no work at all. And for no other reason than the authority of the Bible.

 

[psionl0]

Do think an intelligent entity is fudging random mutations? Is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis? How so?

Why do you expect me to answer questions that can't be answered using the scientific method?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Why do you expect me to answer questions that can't be answered using the scientific method?

My expectations are exceedingly modest but, no. I am curious about what you believe in this instance. You are rather coy.

Do you think discussing god fudging randomness in an undetectable way is an abandonment of Occam’s razor?

 

[psionl0]

You might be mischaracterizing the (pseudo) theory of intelligent design.

I'm not sure that there is a single ID theory. For example, I understand that some people (particularly in the GOP) simply substitute the term "ID" for "God" (sort of an attempt to sucker people into believing that intelligence is necessary before going on to their real agenda).

If this is the case then every "goddidit" theory falls under the umbrella of "ID". This can range from a God who literally created the universe as described in Genesis (then presumably laid a false trail for scientists) to a god who wandered into an existing universe and did some tinkering around.

 

[IanS]

I think if you do the second paragraph properly, you are doing the first paragraph as well.

And while we have some rather unscientific beliefs widespread in the United States, It really isn't as bad as you describe. Teaching evolution has been going on for quite some time, including teaching that Genesis is not literally true, and somehow we haven't seen any street riots that I can remember.

I don't live in the USA, so I don't know precisely what they teach in US schools. But are you really saying that US schools teach the children that Genesis is not true (you don't need the word "literally" there) ...

... are you really saying that state schools all over the US (ie not private Christian schools or similar), officially teach the children that the bible is wrong and that God did not create any humans?

And deriving from that - you are saying that Christian parents all over the US in their 10's of millions, have been quietly accepting that without any protest?

 

[IanS]

Very close. I am hostile to the idea that ID can be proven (ie tested) using the scientific method.
If something appears random then it is either controlled by "random forces" or by mechanisms that either can't be identified or measured. For example, in a coin toss, we can identify a number of factors going down almost to the quantum level that would determine the result. Since we can't measure any of these factors we can just assume that the outcome is purely random and that works perfectly fine for all practical purposes.

Well "tested" is not by any means the same as "proven" (you are equating proof with tests in the above).

As I've said many times - strictly speaking current-day science (since our current understanding of quantum field theory) shows that we probably cannot actually "prove" anything in the sense of showing it to be a literal 100% certain fact that could never be wrong. But in saying that, we need to be clear in saying that science is almost certainly by far our most accurate method of determining all such things ... IOW, no other method comes anywhere near the accuracy of science in approaching that level of achieving "fact", proof or certainty ... that's by far the best method we have, and it appears to be the best possible by any means.

So just because we now understand from current science that we probably cannot literally prove or disprove the existence of a God (ie your intelligent "guiding hand", or your "ID"), is entirely irrelevant (because we can't "prove" anything in that ultimate sense! ... we cannot for example prove that even we ourselves exist as living thinking entities ... it might be possible, just MIGHT, that everything we experience is merely a dream-like vision somehow induced in the "mind" of a single machine/computer ... of course that seems absurdly unlikely, and afaik there is zero evidence for that idea, but strictly speaking there appears no way to actually "prove" that it is not possible) ... that means the entire idea of asking for "proof" is non-valid (you would be asking for or demanding the impossible) ...

... what is valid, and seemingly the only basis that is valid, is to ask for the evidence! What is the evidence supporting any conclusion that we make? In the case of ID or any God-like guiding hand, there is afaik zero genuine evidence; and to the contrary there are vast mountains of unarguable evidence to show that such processes do not involve any such ID, God, or guiding hand (eg, Evolution ... masses of incontrovertible evidence, and zero evidence on any guiding ID etc.).

As for schools being required to allow biology lessons to be constantly interrupted by pupils insisting that the teacher must "prove" that evolution is true or prove or show to the pupils satisfaction that it has no "guiding hand" ... I think with that idea, you are coming extremely close to the creationists such as Michale Behe who keep insisting that US schools must "teach the controversy".

 

[smartcooky]

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.

You wouldn't think that if you had read his previous form in the "Dragon in my Garage" thread or the "Louisiana Science Education Act" thread

Even in this thread, in this post...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13806494&postcount=334

When he posted "When it comes to living things, evolution is the way to go. 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."

... he could have just left it at the first sentence, but he cannot help himself, he MUST equivocate to create doubt and uncertainty so that he can sneak in a possible God/Designer.

 

[IanS]

I think if you do the second paragraph properly, you are doing the first paragraph as well.

And while we have some rather unscientific beliefs widespread in the United States, It really isn't as bad as you describe. Teaching evolution has been going on for quite some time, including teaching that Genesis is not literally true, and somehow we haven't seen any street riots that I can remember.

Just on the highlight - Yep, of course;- there is a lot of top tier cutting edge science done in the USA ... so I'm not under the impression that the whole place is drowning in crazy Christian fundamentalism (though in the US, that does seem to be far more prevalent than in the UK or in other less religious parts of the EU).

 

[jimbob]

Very close. I am hostile to the idea that ID can be proven (ie tested) using the scientific method.

If something appears random then it is either controlled by "random forces" or by mechanisms that either can't be identified or measured. For example, in a coin toss, we can identify a number of factors going down almost to the quantum level that would determine the result. Since we can't measure any of these factors we can just assume that the outcome is purely random and that works perfectly fine for all practical purposes.

We can examine the idea that such a hypothetical designer is both competent and benign.

This from 2008

as Detee has said, there are ways to determine whether something was competently designed.

Unlike Behe I can think of several features that are highly indicitive of either an evolved system or one that has been competently designed.

1) Designers can correct their mistakes
Given that Behe accepts common descent of humans and chimps, why would the designer not fix the appendix so it didn't burst, once this " obviously not-so omniscient" designer noticed the first hominid case of appendicitis?

2) Designers can reuse aspects of their designs
There are several animals that have additional eyes (e.g Notostraca). Their "third-eye" is different to their two compound-eyes, which is perfectly consistent with an evolved system, where there is no "defined function" the system just does what it does. However most competent designers, particularly those competent enough to desing one type of eye, would simply reuse that eye design for any additional ones.

Similarly, convergent evolution, where many organisms in similar environments demonstrate similar traits, is further evidence against a designer acting like this. Why are there so many diffferent plants that produce fruit? Why are there so many different parts of the flower that turn into fruit (either true-fruit, or false fruit)? This is easy to explain if they evolved seperately, but hard if you posit a designer attempting different solutions, to the same problem.

3) Competent designers don't get something right, then get it wrong later without correcting it
The octopus-retina lacks many of the drawbacks of the mammalian retina, which came later (or the same time if you are a YEC, which Behe isn't). Any human with the intelligence to design an eye would also spot the flaw in the mammalian "design".

4)Evolved systems can only get "information" from their ancestors
If a traits evolved seperately in different orgainsms, the genes that express these traits should have different sequences, whilst if they were designed, they could be quite likely to have the same genetic sequence. Should anyone find this, when there hasn't been lateral gene transfer, then this would require some explaination. But (as the world's entire news media hasn't trumpeted this discovery) this hasn't been found.

5) Evolved systems are quite likely to "throw away" traits that are no longer advantageous
Why are vestigal organs vestigal, and neither fully working nor non-existant, which would look more elegant. For example either Basilosaurus, or modern whales have the more aesthetic rear leg "solution". Why did Basilosaurus have vestigal legs?

I am sure there are more but that should show why I disagree with Behe's admission...ETA that one couldn't test for ID.

You have posited in this thread the idea that maybe some entity might be making mutations to direct the direction of evolution.

Pretty much the "noodly appendages" of the FSM but in mutations rather than isotope ratios.

That is indeed not testable, but we do know that when organisms are adapted to their environment, there would be a greater number of occurrences of detrimental mutations than beneficial mutations. Indeed, we see this in our own species with children who suffer from genetic diseases.


So we have to posit a designer with the ability to direct mutations who is happy allowing suffering due to harmful mutations, and by their very nature these first appear before the victim is sentient.

Now one might argue that it's okay because original sin* means that they have inherited sin from somewhere or that the creator can do whatever it wishes with its creation. However that's a moral code which is happy with slavery (which, of course the Bible was). Just because someone creates a sentient being, one doesn't have any ownership of it - that would include any hypothetical future sentient robots. And yes I can judge any hypothetical designer by my moral standards.

anyway this point is made in this post in the "what is Marvel's dumbest character thread.

I love Beta Ray Bill. If the goofiness of the name puts you off then call him "B'tarab'l" and run his introduction past Spider Man or Starlord to turn it into a goofy nickname he can't shake. Aside from the name, the character is a badass. Provides one of the best lines for moral atheism I've ever heard: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...er,h_900,q_80,w_1600/uvdrv144bt9mhuuefli7.png
If you want genuinely dumb characters, any of the 70s villains from when it was in fashion would work. Like the Wall.

The highlighted

​

*Only exists if you believe that Genesis is actually true.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm not sure that there is a single ID theory. For example, I understand that some people (particularly in the GOP) simply substitute the term "ID" for "God" (sort of an attempt to sucker people into believing that intelligence is necessary before going on to their real agenda).

If this is the case then every "goddidit" theory falls under the umbrella of "ID". This can range from a God who literally created the universe as described in Genesis (then presumably laid a false trail for scientists) to a god who wandered into an existing universe and did some tinkering around.

This is the kind of controversy that should be taught in classes. Let the students in religious studies classes debate the various versions of ID. Then, if they come to any kind of conclusion, they can then test the winning idea in their science classes.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is the kind of controversy that should be taught in classes. Let the students in religious studies classes debate the various versions of ID. Then, if they come to any kind of conclusion, they can then test the winning idea in their science classes.

The best BS non scientific idea gets to come to the science class. How about no?

 

[Darat]

I'm not sure that there is a single ID theory. For example, I understand that some people (particularly in the GOP) simply substitute the term "ID" for "God" (sort of an attempt to sucker people into believing that intelligence is necessary before going on to their real agenda).

If this is the case then every "goddidit" theory falls under the umbrella of "ID". This can range from a God who literally created the universe as described in Genesis (then presumably laid a false trail for scientists) to a god who wandered into an existing universe and did some tinkering around.

That isn't what is literally said in Genisis. Genisis does not state that God created the universe, that's a mistake in many of the translations.

 

[EaglePuncher]

I'm not sure that there is a single ID theory. For example, I understand that some people (particularly in the GOP) simply substitute the term "ID" for "God" (sort of an attempt to sucker people into believing that intelligence is necessary before going on to their real agenda).

If this is the case then every "goddidit" theory falls under the umbrella of "ID". This can range from a God who literally created the universe as described in Genesis (then presumably laid a false trail for scientists) to a god who wandered into an existing universe and did some tinkering around.

And this is why religion is so useless, because literallly everyone can make up their own bs and act offended when being called out..."But I strongly believe this!!!"