Mr. Stein goes to Jefferson City

[jj]

I propose, yet again, a national standard for high school graduation for all non-disabled students:

1) The student must be able to, in the course of 1 day of school time, write a 3 page, double-spaced, 12pt type essay (standard 8.5x11 paper and margins) that explains the following:
a) What the theory of evolution is
b) What the evidence for the TOE is
c) How the TOE is an example of the scientific method
d) Where there is no better theory than the TOE that is supported by material evidence.

The student does not have to ACCEPT science and evidence, but they must absolutely be able to describe it in a positive, accurate, and correct fashion, using modern grammar, punctuation, spelling, and so on.

They may use references of their choice in writing this essay, but such references must past the muster of the American Academy of Science.

 

[ravdin]

Here is the House version (the full text)

Since Ben Stein was in the Missouri House, this is probably the version he was speaking to.

And once again, Godwin's Law is vindicated (right around 7 minutes into the video).

 

[rcronk]

The existence and observation of living things are evidence that living things are created by other living things. I can't think of a single example of a living thing coming from something not living - but that is the claim of abiogenesis, upon with both atheism and evolution rely. Is this not evidence in favor of creationism?

 

[pgwenthold]

The theory of evolution relies on abiogenesis in the same way the laws of gravity rely on the Big Bang. However, we do not have any description of what happened in the first 10^-43 sec (Planck time) of the Big Bang. Is that evidence that the laws of gravity are wrong?

 

[rcronk]

The theory of evolution relies on abiogenesis in the same way the laws of gravity rely on the Big Bang. However, we do not have any description of what happened in the first 10^-43 sec (Planck time) of the Big Bang. Is that evidence that the laws of gravity are wrong?

It does show that the big bang theory is belief-based, just like abiogenesis and creationism. Belief in the absence of objective evidence = faith.

Honestly, I don't know if the ties between the laws of gravity and the big bang are as closely related as evolution and abiogenesis in the mind of a school child.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Against most peoples belief here i wouldnt mind it being a lesson for a week in most schools. If they could put it into a logical form that would show its really just to teach whats believed in the world today as a theory then actually preaching religion i see nothing against it.

I dont think it should be totally Shunned because it is a major part of the society we live in, and kids should know whats going on in the world today.

Parents who sit and beg for it not to be in the school system probably arent real parents.
If a week long lesson on the theory of Intelligent design is going to wipe away years of your preaching logic and science to your child then your doing something wrong.

The kids should be informed of this when they are young. Parents should be informed of the lesson being taught and should then let there children know there own beliefs.

Im not slightly worried about it. I actually hope it gets taught.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It does show that the big bang theory is belief-based, just like abiogenesis and creationism. Belief in the absence of objective evidence = faith.

There is plenty of evidence that Earth went from a lifeless ball of rock to one with life. What's the problem?

 

[rcronk]

Life not existing on Earth at one time and then existing later supports both theories (abiogenesis and creationism), so it's not relevant in this case.

However, to explain how the earth went from lifeless to full of life, we have no evidence of life coming from lifeless matter by itself. We have tons of evidence (all around us all of the time) of life coming from other life.

So which theory (abiogenesis vs. creationism) has more evidence supporting it? We didn't see either happen, but based on the evidence all around us, it would seem to me that the theory with more evidence is creationism - that something living created life on earth.

 

[Jimbo07]

I can't think of a single example of a living thing coming from something not living - but that is the claim of abiogenesis, upon with both atheism and evolution rely.

Actually, abiogenesis seems like a theistic boondoggle to try to trip-up evolutionists and atheists. For both sides...

Please define life. Please define the one trait that separated the first living thing from the previous non-living thing. Please present a theory about when that thing first occurred (within, say, a 100 year margin of error).

THEN talk about abiogenesis vs. creation

Is this not evidence in favor of creationism?

Obviously not.

It does show that the big bang theory is belief-based, just like abiogenesis and creationism. Belief in the absence of objective evidence = faith.

Justified belief. The clock can be run backward from observing galactic redshift. Add in data about the Cosmic Microwave Background and you can start making educated guess about what happened. The evidence leads in a particular direction. Further evidence may change this.

Honestly, I don't know if the ties between the laws of gravity and the big bang are as closely related as evolution and abiogenesis in the mind of a school child.

I don't understand the importance of this bit. Even if not, there is a valid analogy.

There is plenty of evidence that Earth went from a lifeless ball of rock to one with life. What's the problem?

Again, now (to prevent falling into a Creationist trap)

Please define life. Please define the one trait... etc.

 

[rcronk]

Life? How about something that moves in violation of the laws of physics. Against gravity, against remaining still or remaining in motion without force being applied. Would those distinctions work or would they need refining?

 

[jj]

Life? How about something that moves in violation of the laws of physics. Against gravity, against remaining still or remaining in motion without force being applied. Would those distinctions work or would they need refining?

No.

All known life works precisely in accordance with the known laws of physics. Ergo by your definition there is no life.

 

[rcronk]

No.

All known life works precisely in accordance with the known laws of physics. Ergo by your definition there is no life.

What force causes my arm to raise up against gravity? Muscle. What causes the muscle to move? Nerve impulses. What causes the nerve impulses? I don't think science has figured out what ultimately causes me to move around in a way that's not predictable. Perhaps that has something to do with the definition. Or perhaps we can fall back to the biology class definitions of responding to stimulus, etc.?

I think perhaps your question about life is the rat-hole/red herring in the other direction.

 

[JoeEllison]

 

[Jimbo07]

How about something that moves in violation of the laws of physics.

Nothing in the physical universe moves in violation of the laws of physics.

Against gravity, against remaining still or remaining in motion without force being applied. Would those distinctions work or would they need refining?

I'm assuming that you're talking about obvious motor actions like walking or flying. What about ion-induced rotation?

 

[JoeEllison]

rcronk,

Aren't you even the least bit aware of, or angry about, the fact that people like Ben Stein lie to you and assume that you are stupid and intellectually lazy?

 

[jj]

What force causes my arm to raise up against gravity? Muscle. What causes the muscle to move? Nerve impulses. What causes the nerve impulses? I don't think science has figured out what ultimately causes me to move around in a way that's not predictable.

Now you're shifting the goalposts. Now you've introduced "not predictable".

Of course, QM shows that nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the physical universe is exactly predictable.

Now we're to "everything is alive".

As to the meaning of the question, you can't even begin to discuss abiogenesis until you define what life is. Goodness! Let's start at the very beginning, as the song says, please.

 

[rcronk]

Ok - I also offered the biology class definition - reacting to stimulus, etc. Let's save some time and you give me your definition of what's living and we'll see if I agree with it and then we can move on.

 

[shadron]

Originally Posted by rcronk View Post
I think schools should stick to teaching kids actual current provable usable truths, like 2+2=4, how to read, how fast a bowling ball and a feather fall in a vacuum, etc.

Such as ...

... skin color has nothing to do with wickedness.
... modern Native Americans did not descend from Hebrews/Jews/Israelites.
... you can't use dust to make human beings.
... the Earth is not flat.
... the Earth revolves around the Sun.
... the Moon does not produce its own light.
... the Earth is not supported by pillars.
... women are not unclean and lesser beings.
... people don't live for hundreds of years.
... the notion of a world-wide flood is preposterous.
... the pain of childbirth is due to evolutionary factors, not divine punishment.
... human conscience does not reside in our kidneys (reins).
... human thinking does not occur in our hearts.
... women have the same number of ribs as men.
... rain does not come from "the windows of heaven".
... rainbows are caused by light refraction, not divine intervention.
... the different human languages did not happen suddenly.
... goats that conceive while looking at streaked rods do not have streaked baby goats.
... hares and coneys do not "chew the cud".
... bats are not birds.
... unicorns aren't real
... neither are dragons.
... neither are cockatrices
... the value of pi is not 3.
... ostriches are not cruel and inattentive parents.
... the mustard seed is not the smallest seed.
... mustard seeds do not produce trees.

Or reason and logic? How about history, and english lit? and astronomy, geology, mythology, comparative religions? How about health, hygiene, and sex?

Draw me a line, rcronk, between what's safe and what's not, and who besides you or I decides which side things are on.

 

[rcronk]

Um, my original point was that creationism has more evidence than abiogenesis based on observable evidence we can all see today. You guys are all over the place.

 

[shadron]

You say that reality isn't a democracy - true. But abiogenesis (or even evolution) isn't necessarily reality, it's a theory. I think we can agree as a society to leave theories alone in schools until proven true or provide opposing theories for the sake of balance.

*Sigh*. Do we have to do "theory" yet again? Do this: http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evolution vs. Creationism/2..html

rcronk, you haven't been paying attention. Theories are the distillation, the inductive explanation of facts. Without them, science has no to reason to exist. Without them, all you have is a plethora of observations without any connecting thought. Its science made trivial, not worthy of being taught.

Watching an apple fall from a tree is trivial. Watching a planet through a telescope is fun, but no more, unless you can tell where to look for it tomorrow, and that requires the theory of gravitation. And in the meantime, it can be generalized to include the apple. Throw out theory, you throw out science. period.

I don't know - I'm just thinking out loud at this point, but I would like both groups to be able to see each other's points of view so they can stop arguing past each other.

I believe you are wrong in trying to believe that this is all a simple mistake in emphasis or a misunderstanding, or even an argument about science. Science is just a bystander. The argument here is whether the country will be run with god at the helm (and his chosen interpreters) or not. The law professor who started ID saw evolution as an easy target, one that had been breached before, but he certainly isn't going to stop until his god is in everyone's minds and actions, and then science *will* be trivial and of no use.