Creationism infecting universities

[Recliner Pilot 61]

In a scientific context, the word "theory" is interchangeable with the word "fact."

 

Is this anything like when Owlgore says "the science is settled" when it comes to the "Man made global warming" myth?

[Stopper 0]

Is this anything like when Owlgore says "the science is settled" when it comes to the "Man made global warming" myth?

 

Yes it is.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yes it is.

 

Glad to see you agree man made global warming and evolution are myths.

[Stopper 0]

Glad to see you agree man made global warming and evolution are myths.

 

Your inferometer is quite obviously broken. Made in China, perhaps?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Your inferometer is quite obviously broken. Made in China, perhaps?

 

Never heard of that. Did the same people who sold you that throw in a "Theoryfactometer" with it?

 

[Stopper 0]

You're inferring that since science is wrong about man-made global warming, they're also wrong about evolution. The reality is that evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in the history of science.

 

And of course, it must be said that science could certainly be wrong about evolution, but it won't be religion who'll prove evolution wrong, it'll be science.

[VikesFan 1]

When you are teaching the history of of established religious groups, sects and cults, it's perfectly acceptable to bring up intelligent design. In a history lesson, you can bring up intelligent design, along with Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Jim Jones, and even Charles Manson. Religious groups, sects, and cults are a fact. They are a part of culture. But just because there are alot of members in a group or cult, doesn't mean the belief system of that group or cult replaces scientific theory. It's too bad that so many people in the United States think Intelligent Design should be an option in science class along with evolution. Intelligent design is just another form of creationism and has been outlawed from the school systems because it's been thoroughly debunked. From Wikapedia, "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion."

 

Many different viewpoints in science are argued , but creationism isn't one of them.

 

I have a few things to point out.

 

First off, intelligent design does not advocate a particular religion. There's quite a bit of divergence within the ID crowd both on religion and God. While most of them are religious, I'm fairly certain most would take offense to the idea of ID pushing a certain religion.

 

Second, ID has not been outlawed because it has been thoroughly debunked. Creationism was outlawed because it is religious in nature. ID came along after creation, and it has never had a chance. I'd also note that the reasons for not including it in any sort of science discussion are kind of odd. Simply put: Science assumes that all things must be natural. God is not natural. Therefore, there is no God. I understand that science cannot assume the supernatural, but the rest of the reasoning is rather dumb. These are apriori assumptions that have no business being apriori. I have no problem with science assuming everything is natural and attempting experimentation to figure out how things work, but when science goes beyond what it can observe and recreate, it goes into the realm of philosophy. Once you are dealing with a philosophical discussion, ID has every right to be there, as does creationism, the flying sphaghetti monster, the force, and whatever else you want to toss in there.

 

Third, while you don't go here, I will. Irreducible complexity is a fact that science needs to deal with. Thus far, it has failed in doing so.

[VikesFan 1]

In a scientific context, the word "theory" is interchangeable with the word "fact." As someone explained above, the common usage of "theory" does not. Creationists often employ the common usage when saying, "Evolution is only a theory," but in a scientific context that's like saying a basketball is "only a sphere."

 

The scientific method would and should disagree. You start out with a hypothesis. You test it. The hypothesis becomes theory (or reworked based on testing). More testing/observation is done. The theory becomes scientific law. The real issue with both evolution and creation in this method is that there's no way to get beyond theory, as there's no way to replicate evolution or creation.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And of course, it must be said that science could certainly be wrong about evolution,

 

Crawfish much?

 

How do you prove a "fact" wrong?

 

 

In a scientific context, the word "theory" is interchangeable with the word "fact."

[Stopper 0]

Evolution is observable in the reproductive cycles of bacteria, who are capable of "generating" within a matter of days or weeks (I forget which). Evolution has been observed.

 

One of the most informative sites on the web about evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

"Evolution has never been observed" is just a short scroll down the page.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Evolution is observable in the reproductive cycles of bacteria, who are capable of "generating" within a matter of days or weeks (I forget which). Evolution has been observed.

 

One of the most informative sites on the web about evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

"Evolution has never been observed" is just a short scroll down the page.

 

 

That could just as easily be called a result of intelligent design.

[Stopper 0]

Crawfish much?

 

How do you prove a "fact" wrong?

 

I'm afraid I don't get the "Crawfish" reference.

 

When a hypothesis is accepted as true, it becomes theory and treated as fact. However, science must always be open to further evidence which may prove a previously accepted theory incorrect. So, I guess my answer is you prove a fact wrong by discovering further evidence which does so, and then it's back to the drawing board using the scientific method.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm afraid I don't get the "Crawfish" reference.

 

When a hypothesis is accepted as true, it becomes theory and treated as fact. However, science must always be open to further evidence which may prove a previously accepted theory incorrect. So, I guess my answer is you prove a fact wrong by discovering further evidence which does so, and then it's back to the drawing board using the scientific method.

 

You are creating your own definitions of "theory" and "fact" in a lame attempt to prove your point. Miriam Webster doesn't buy into your position.

[Stopper 0]

That could just as easily be called a result of intelligent design.

 

A designer isn't necessary, as positing the existence of one adds nothing to the science. As LaPlace said to Napoleon, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

[Recliner Pilot 61]

A designer isn't necessary, as positing the existence of one adds nothing to the science.

 

You take the development of that bacteria and attribute it to "evolution", one could just as easily attribute it to "intelligent design" and have just as much supporting evidence as you.

[Stopper 0]

You are creating your own definitions of "theory" and "fact" in a lame attempt to prove your point. Miriam Webster doesn't buy into your position.

 

I'm forced to agree with you in a dictionary sense, but I'm perhaps more guilty of oversimplification than pulling a "Crawfish," if you will. What definition of "theory" shall we be using, then? Theory as the best explanation for observable phenomena?

[Stopper 0]

You take the development of that bacteria and attribute it to "evolution", one could just as easily attribute it to "intelligent design" and have just as much supporting evidence as you.

 

How does one measure design?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What definition of "theory" shall we be using, then? Theory as the best explanation for observable phenomena?

 

Let's use the word correctly, and not equate it to "fact".

 

The "best" explanation for observable phenomena is subjective, and can easily be attributed to different causes............hence the fact evolution is still a theory.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How does one measure design?

 

How does one measure evolution?

[Stopper 0]

Let's use the word correctly, and not equate it to "fact".

 

The "best" explanation for observable phenomena is subjective, and can easily be attributed to different causes............hence the fact evolution is still a theory.

 

Here's a better explanation than I could slap together: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Here's a better explanation than I could slap together: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

From your link:

 

However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

 

I think the "intelligent design" crowd suggests that ID is the mechanism for any evolution observed.

[Stopper 0]

Fair enough. The next step would be to propose a hypothesis by which ID as a mechanism for evolution could be tested.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Fair enough. The next step would be to propose a hypothesis by which ID as a mechanism for evolution could be tested.

 

I'm not sure what that would be............that is above my pay grade (to borrow a phrase from Obama).

 

Good discussion though. I'm gonna go chill with a few more cold ones and watch the end of the Texas game. Stop by the Geek club more often, Stopper.

 

[MLCKAA 401]

We have opportunities to introspect because we, as a species, have currently solved the survivalist Food-Shelter-Clothing thing. Much you call introspection would go away if they were threatened.

 

 

I beg you to think about this a bit. Your soul is much more than merely our natural intellect freed of survivalist thought. Besides, we're not free of that survivalist thought any way. Very hard to believe that we have the depth of intellect and character we do because we've "over-evolved." The sheer number of beneficial mutations need to move a species forward even marginally is staggering to consider.

[Stopper 0]

Perhaps I will! Thanks heaps for the discussion.

[MLCKAA 401]

Speaking of ridiculous,

 

the entire premise of this thread is ridiculous. Ray Comfort is not distorting Darwin's original work (which by the way, modern evolutionists don't really follow. Compare the idea of punctuated equlibirium to what Darwin had to say in Origin). Comfort is simply adding a 50 page rebuttal. Why is there an outrage? Do we honestly believe that we shouldn't be teaching children how to critically analyize things? Isn't the point of a University to teach them how to think, as opposed to simply spitting out what we want them to say? Isn't that the point of education in general?

 

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm a firm believer in teaching people that there is more than one viewpoint out there. My faith is strengthened by having to study opposing views. I do that in the theology classes I teach, and I expect that from anyone who claims to be a teacher, especially those who will be teaching my children. You certainly have the right to share your opinion, but you can do that without compromising education. If the pro-evolution crowd is so sure of what they believe, why are they against Intelligent Design being taught as an option? The same goes with the creation crowd (who in the past was no better).

 

 

Punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary cop-out.