ID/Creationism challenge

[Dinwar]

But physics classes in high school to at times discuss alternative theories on how gravity works. In physics, it's acceptable to challenge basic theories and even encouraged, including just about everything whether gravity, time, the nature of space, etc, etc,.....

When someone learns basic, classical physics, for example, they are told also that this is incomplete and doesn't work for quantum mechanics, etc, etc,....

Right, and I've always advocating teaching Creationism as part of the history of science. It was proven wrong 250+ years ago, and it's useful to know the arguments which proved it wrong. However, Creationism IS NOT a valid alternative to evolution. It does not meet the criteria for science, and Creationists do not submit their "theories" or hypotheses to peer review. Creationism is a social movement, and ought to be treated as such--meaning we can discuss it all you want in social studies, but NOT in science, for the very same reason we discuss Women's Lib in social studies and only mention it in passing in science classes.

If you think trying to shoehorn a fledgling idea into children's classrooms by political means when it's been roundly panned in the grown-up science world is a "scientific approach to data", then you have forfeited your standing to judge what is objective.

randman forfeited that a long time ago.

 

[ehcks]

No government ruling ever said religion could not be taught in schools, to the best of my knowledge. But perhaps I just don't know enough about the law. What is not permitted is to force kids to recite religious texts or to impose a requirement for religious activities, such as prayer, sectarian displays etc.

Why can't the evangelicals get this straight? It is not a difficult concept.

I enjoyed my Comparative Mythology class. I preferred the Epic of Gilgamesh over Genesis, but they were all being read as fiction and then compared.

The government, and most of the population, is against using public schools to teach any one religious text as true, expecially in a science classroom.

 

[Dinwar]

I just found an interesting article that I thought I'd share:

Laws, R.A. and D. E. Fastovsky, 1987. Characters, Stratigraphy, and "Depopperate" logic: An essay on phylogeneetic reconstruction. Paleobios No. 44, pp. 1-8.

It's interesting because it shows, in 1987, that science was considering the issues that randman believes we've never considered. It's also interesting as an example of how to properly criticize the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective.

 

[randman]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true. They'd welcome ID to be taught because their ideas would be so clearly superior in a factual level but since that's not the case, they resort to the courts and seek to indoctrinate kids rather than to teach them to think critically.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true. They'd welcome ID to be taught'[...]

We do welcome ID being taught. Just not as a science. Because it's not one. If it were, you'd have been able to actually provide some scientific evidence for it, or demonstrate predictions it makes, or illustrate how it's falsifiable when asked, instead of avoiding answering those types of questions by either ignoring them or posting irrelevancies and hoping that nobody notices, all the while hiding behind a shield of answering any criticisms with "you just think that because I know more about the subject than you do", even when the person you're engaging in dialogue with actually makes their living doing what you're talking about.

Of course, I could be wrong. Prove me wrong. Actually provide some scientific evidence in support of ID as a theory. Show how it's falsifiable. Even going back to the "The Facts" thread and supporting the assertion you made about phylogenic groupings would be a start.

Of course you won't. Because you can't. Because ID is not a science. So thanks for helping to prove us "evos" right - ID shouldn't be taught as a science. Because it's not one.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true. They'd welcome ID to be taught because their ideas would be so clearly superior in a factual level but since that's not the case, they resort to the courts and seek to indoctrinate kids rather than to teach them to think critically.

The Dover school board wanted ID textbooks available to the students and deliberate well-poisoning about mainstream science. They didn't want to "introduce" critical thinking (as though it were lacking in science instruction!), they wanted to introduce distrust about the underpinnings of science (materialism).

The effort to "teach the controversy" and the court case that responded to it were both about politics, not science.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true. They'd welcome ID to be taught because their ideas would be so clearly superior in a factual level but since that's not the case, they resort to the courts and seek to indoctrinate kids rather than to teach them to think critically.

Exactly what is teaching kids evolution indroctrinating them into? Do you feel the same about algebra vs numerology? How about chemistry vs alchemy?

 

[dafydd]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true. They'd welcome ID to be taught because their ideas would be so clearly superior in a factual level but since that's not the case, they resort to the courts and seek to indoctrinate kids rather than to teach them to think critically.

They have to go to to court to stop the creationist nonsense being taught.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They have to go to to court to stop the creationist nonsense being taught.

Any time a person uses legal channels, they are wrong, I guess....
Randman's problem is that he knows the truth, that's why his arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. He's started to ignore those who destroy his arguments, isolating himself from these dangerous ideas. Cultists feel very insecure when challenged, and Randman is showing theses signs.

 

[Wowbagger]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true.

You're assuming people (especially students) would be able to recognize genuine science from pseudoscience.

One has to be trained in the art of critical thinking, in order to effectively do so. The type of rationality humans are born with should not ordinarily be expected to do so, since science is a relatively new invention in our history.


Have you actually read the court findings of these cases? If you had, you would see the arguments from the I.D. side were a house of cards: Completely unsuported by any evidence.

Science is not determined by the courtroom, but the courtroom can help in matters of setting policy acording to findings of fact.



Besides, the I.D. crew only get to spend their resources on court battles. They don't build labs, and even if they did, they wouldn't know how to extract the Designer from them - Not even in theory.

 

[dafydd]

Any time a person uses legal channels, they are wrong, I guess....
Randman's problem is that he knows the truth, that's why his arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. He's started to ignore those who destroy his arguments, isolating himself from these dangerous ideas. Cultists feel very insecure when challenged, and Randman is showing theses signs.

They would have to teach every creation myth in the world,there would be no time for real lessons.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They would have to teach every creation myth in the world,there would be no time for real lessons.

I doubt that he cares.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Randman's problem is that he knows the truth, that's why his arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. He's started to ignore those who destroy his arguments, isolating himself from these dangerous ideas. Cultists feel very insecure when challenged, and Randman is showing theses signs.

You can definitely see a change in the way he's posting from when he first joined. Remember all the teasing he did in his first thread, where it took him several pages just to get to the first statement he wanted to make? Now see his thread on time - he makes one comment then, when asked questions, declares "no one seems interested and so no need to elaborate further".

I give it less than a month before he's posting OPs with parts highlighted in large red text and then not even opening those threads again.

And all from someone who once declared that he wanted honest discourse about science.

 

[randman]

You're assuming people (especially students) would be able to recognize genuine science from pseudoscience.

One has to be trained in the art of critical thinking, in order to effectively do so.

Of course, and part of that is the way you teach them. You don't use faked pictures known to that way for decades (haeckel). You present very clearly the criticisms of the theory. That way from the start they get the idea that approaching data with critical thinking is the right way to do it in science.

Your question suggests that if we are unsure if they think critically about evolution, then we should just teach them as if it's a fact, always has been, not worry about criticisms of it, etc,.....and that's indoctrination.

The truth is whether they believe it or not, or believe what you think of as pseudo-science or not, is unimportant. What is important is to teach them how to approach and evaluate data for what it says and what it does not say. If they get that right, the rest will follow. If they do not, regardless of what they believe whether evolution is a myth or the gospel as you guys think of it, they will have failed to understand and learn real science.

 

[randman]

The Dover school board wanted ID textbooks available to the students and deliberate well-poisoning about mainstream science. They didn't want to "introduce" critical thinking (as though it were lacking in science instruction!), they wanted to introduce distrust about the underpinnings of science (materialism).

The effort to "teach the controversy" and the court case that responded to it were both about politics, not science.

So teaching kids to look at something from a different angle and so question a theory is NOT critical thinking, but teaching them to never question evolutionism and insist it's a fact and always has been, etc, etc,....and refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of the theory, well, that's actually helping them develop critical thinking?

I understand you are an evo and so don't know the difference. But what you think of as critical thinking is actually indoctrination. Teaching students to question or question details of a theory is teaching them critical thinking, not indoctrination.

 

[ehcks]

So teaching kids to look at something from a different angle and so question a theory is NOT critical thinking, but teaching them to never question evolutionism and insist it's a fact and always has been, etc, etc,....and refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of the theory, well, that's actually helping them develop critical thinking?

I understand you are an evo and so don't know the difference. But what you think of as critical thinking is actually indoctrination. Teaching students to question or question details of a theory is teaching them critical thinking, not indoctrination.

So... Teach the Controversy?

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

 

[Wowbagger]

Of course, and part of that is the way you teach them. You don't use faked pictures known to that way for decades (haeckel).

We don't use Haeckel's photos to teach them, anymore. Your news on the subject is waaaaay outdated.

I think we agree, to a certain degree, that critical thinking skills need to be taught. So, why the comment about evo's theory being "so obviously and reasonably true"? We agree that it is easy to fool people into thinking something is true.

You present very clearly the criticisms of the theory.

I agree with this. But, this point is critical: YOU don't have any valid, scientific criticisms for the Theory of Evolution.

Nothing you've told us will make us pause about using the theory to help us solve scientific problems.

Nothing you've told us would serve as an adequate alternative, for helping us solve scientific problems.

You have no positive evidence for the Designer: The very thing this thread keeps asking you for!

What part of those statements is still not clear to you?

Your question suggests that if we are unsure if they think critically about evolution, then we should just teach them as if it's a fact, always has been, not worry about criticisms of it, etc,.....and that's indoctrination.

If so, then that is not what I meant.

I suggest we improve students' sense of wonder about the world. Let them figure out which ideas will help them get firm answers.

What is important is to teach them how to approach and evaluate data for what it says and what it does not say. If they get that right, the rest will follow. If they do not, regardless of what they believe whether evolution is a myth or the gospel as you guys think of it, they will have failed to understand and learn real science.

I suggest you take your own advice, then.

 

[randman]

I've given you a ton of evidence contradicting Neo Darwinism; for example genetic drift reducing genetic variation for starters.

 

[A'isha]

I've given you a ton of evidence contradicting Neo Darwinism; for example genetic drift reducing genetic variation for starters.

That has nothing to do with selectionsm, randman. Start using your terms correctly, or don't bother using them.

And I've given you a ton of evidence about how neutral changes combined with gene duplication and epigenetic silencing offset that and increase genetic variation. And not just "theory predicts this ought to happen" evidence, but "we've actually gone out and done this with actual gene sequences".

 

[randman]

That has nothing to do with selectionsm, randman. Start using your terms correctly, or don't bother using them.

And I've given you a ton of evidence about how neutral changes combined with gene duplication and epigenetic silencing offset that and increase genetic variation. And not just "theory predicts this ought to happen" evidence, but "we've actually gone out and done this with actual gene sequences".

So when you guys said evo theory had already been proven by Neo darwinian means, that was wrong, right?

Now, you need non-selectionist mechanisms and epigenetics, just as your critics stated, and yet evos still pretend their critics aren't doing real science.

Face it. Neo Darwinism is dying because it was never a good explanation for macroevolution. It was and is "the myth of evolution" as Pierre Grasse called it so long ago.

Considering the horrible track record evos have, we will have to see if these new mechanisms fill the holes in their theory or not. Prematurely insisting they do rather than presenting them as a theory that might work (because the old theory does not) is the hallmark of bogus science.

Admit the weaknesses in evo theory fully. Embrace it and then maybe you can hope to take a more objective view of the facts.