Split Thread: Should creationism be taught as Science?

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why are you answering a question I didn't ask?

The question you ask can be rephrased as "Why can't we keep god as a possibility?"

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

General consensus among who?

Creationists.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it.

Wrong. If an alternative theory is equally consistent with existing data and makes the same predictions as the original theory then both theories are equally valid. Occam's Razor usually applies in a case like this.

[EaglePuncher]

Too bad that religion is never consistent with anything. So what was your point again?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

Too bad that religion is never consistent with anything. So what was your point again?

Contrarianism... its not a bug, its a feature.

That and fibbin' for Magic Sky Daddy to keep the door ajar.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

The question you ask can be rephrased as "Why can't we keep god as a possibility?"

That sums it up.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

Too bad that religion is never consistent with anything.

As usual your claim is that if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion. You have gone beyond creating strawman arguments.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

As usual your claim is that if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion. You have gone beyond creating strawman arguments.

Please quote me or retract your strawman

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

Please quote me

Did you not see the quote?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

As usual your claim is that if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion.

What a load of of horse-cock!

Firstly, biblical creation is NOT a scientific theory, its religious dogma anchored in faith, fantasy and fairlytales for which there is ZERO evidence.... None! Nada! Zip! Not a ******* skerret!

Secondly, no-one... absolutely no-one here has suggested, or even implied that scientific theories which compete with an accepted theory, are religion.... you are simply straight up, bare faced lying about that. Science doesn't work the way you are saying. It is a self correcting process that welcomes competing, theories that are supported and substantiated with evidence and facts.

Lastly, competing scientific theories happen all the time. There are plenty of examples of this, and none of them are regarded as "religion". Classical Newtonian mechanics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are good examples of this. ALL three are theories and ideas which compete to explain aspects of space and science. In fact, Classical mechanics is still used in the calculation of Ephemerides for sky observers because the additional accuracy afforded by accounting for relativistic effects is not worth the extra effort. As an amateur astronomer, I don't need to know the rise and set times for the Moon and Mercury down to the last millisecond. A planetary scientist/engineer however, calculating the orbital trajectory of a probe to Mercury WOULD need that extra accuracy.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What a load of of horse-cock!

I mention "two scientific theories". Somebody says "religion". You say "nobody says religion". You are clearly on auto pilot.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I mention "two scientific theories".

And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by abaddon

And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?

Could be one of....

Lamarckism
Catastrophism
Orthogenesis
Vitalism
Structuralism
Saltationism

...all of which have been thoroughly debunked for over a century


But, you and I both know what he's really driving at, don't we?

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Did you not see the quote?

I did but the quote did not contain: "if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion"

But whatever

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I mention "two scientific theories". Somebody says "religion". You say "nobody says religion". You are clearly on auto pilot.

Originally Posted by psionl0

That doesn't mean that contemporary theories must be regarded as sacrosanct. All theories should be subject to change if or when new data is discovered.

Otherwise, science is just another religion (Science be praised).

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by abaddon

And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?

Yeah. Let's repeat this question. What other scientific theory do you (psionl0) have in mind?

While waiting for your response I'll just reiterate that there aren't any. And in anticipation of your lying in response I'll point out that does not mean it is "sacrosanct". All the debates about evolution now are within the theory. For examples: were Neanderthals and sapiens capable of interbreeding to the point that they should be consider the same species? That's a debate within evolution. And it would be great if our science classes could get to the point that it's feasible to teach that relativity advanced concept in public schools.

Would you (psionl0) like to include outdated theories? Feel free. Explaining how they were rejected would be great. But again, that requires just getting the basics in first.

[EaglePuncher]

Right now, Psion sounds exactly like the Hydrino/BLP gang on Reddit.

Extremely educated people (some of them post on this very forum) tell them again and again and again that the math behind hydrino is faulty and they respond with "The Church of QM must not be questioned" (again and again and again)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Yeah. Let's repeat this question. What other scientific theory do you (psionl0) have in mind?

It has been mentioned before that there is no such thing as a single fixed theory called evolution (or an "official" theory of evolution).

This subject has been done to death in other threads and is OT in this thread.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.

This^

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by psionl0

It has been mentioned before that there is no such thing as a single fixed theory called evolution (or an "official" theory of evolution).

This subject has been done to death in other threads and is OT in this thread.

No, it's not OT because you said this:

Originally Posted by psionl0

The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.

What theories in what classes? Science theories in science classes please. So which theories?

Some argument can be made that creationism could have a place in a comparative religion class. But the problem in the US right now is that no one makes that argument honestly. Virtually all the people making any argument at all that creationism belongs in school are liars who want religious indoctrination in the classroom.

[sackett]

Different theories from the same data? Happens all the time in the lab. That's why experimental work proceeds so slowly: You've got to design and run experiments to test different theories.

Further, you need data to construct any theory at all. Distinguishing applicable data from noise eats up time, money, and grad assistants. And then there's the delightfully maddening phenomenon of unexpected observations. The process never stops and it never stops changing.

Don't sound very dang reelijuss ta me.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

What theories in what classes?

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

Here we go

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

No, I want you to answer this question:

Originally Posted by Darat

Originally Posted by psionl0

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

No I expect you to keep ducking the question.

Let me rephrase the question in a way that is harder to duck: Should teachers be allowed to teach creationism?

Originally Posted by psionl0

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.

No one is arguing for a polar opposite position. No one. No one.

And no one should take seriously that the filthy lying creationists are making sincere arguments. When they say the words you quoted they are lying. And we should not pretend we don't know that.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.

What if they want to bring up Santa Claus as a disproof of relativity?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Originally Posted by lomiller

Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it.

Wrong.

Well I guess the crackpots will challenge anything regardless of the data.

Originally Posted by psionl0

If an alternative theory is equally consistent with existing data

Again, because something like 10 people have already told you thins. There are no other theories that are consistent with the data in the cases of climate change or evolution.

Originally Posted by psionl0

makes the same predictions as the original theory

If they make the same predictions you haven't challenged the original theory.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.

I think what you are suggesting is is that we don't just tell children why we are certain that these things are correct, we teach them the reasons that go into that conclusion.

That's different than saying children should be taught that theories like evolution and climate change should be "challengeable". In these cases there is no viable alternative theory, nor is there data to suggest the theories are wrong, so on what basis could they be challenged?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.

And fine for them to bring up the theory of a flat earth in geography when the teacher is teaching the theory of the earth being round? Fine for them to bring up that the sky is held up by Atlas in geography?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I think what you are suggesting is is that we don't just tell children why we are certain that these things are correct, we teach them the reasons that go into that conclusion.

That's different than saying children should be taught that theories like evolution and climate change should be "challengeable". In these cases there is no viable alternative theory, nor is there data to suggest the theories are wrong, so on what basis could they be challenged?

Psionl0 has already answered that:

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

Well at least you have finally shown the courage to not lie about what you really want.

But you are still wrong. "Goddidit" has absolutely NO place in science, ever... or at least, not unless the student brings scientifically testable evidence with the claim... but theists NEVER bring evidence, they only bring fairy stories and dogma from the religious books. "Goddidit" does not belong in science any more than flat earth... similarly, it ought to be dismissed from the get go

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everything should be open to questions.

No. In science class, everything in nature is open to examination using the scientific method, the resulting validated body of knowledge is called science. It is wed to method; any theory one wishes to pursue must conform to scientific methodology to prosper and enter into the knowledge base.

Quote:

If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.

Not ostracized nor ridiculed; rather, instructed that this is science class, not religion, and to kindly save that question for home or Sunday school.

Quote:

An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

No. This is science class, not metaphysics, and "supposed intelligence" is not an observed fact needing an explanatory theory; it is speculative fantasy.

Point of order: Evolution, in the form of geologically layered progressive morphology; i.e., the fossil record, is fact. Rather, a set of factual observations. To explain it, and his differentiated finches, there is Darwin's theory of natural selection. Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it". Once a specific theistic explanation comes into play, we see no natural laws can be operable, as no universals nor models of cause and effect pertain. Not science, not for science class, not a question of openmindedness.

Category error of epic, grandeous proportions. In conceptual space, theology harks to itself, not to nature. Thus, it is untethered to fact.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces.

Nope, an honest answer would be that there is no evidence that this “supposed intelligence” exists.

You’re begging the question.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

No. In science class, everything in nature is open to examination using the scientific method, the resulting validated body of knowledge is called science. It is wed to method; any theory one wishes to pursue must conform to scientific methodology to prosper and enter into the knowledge base.

Not ostracized nor ridiculed; rather, instructed that this is science class, not religion, and to kindly save that question for home or Sunday school.


No. This is science class, not metaphysics, and "supposed intelligence" is not an observed fact needing an explanatory theory; it is speculative fantasy.

Point of order: Evolution, in the form of geologically layered progressive morphology; i.e., the fossil record, is fact. Rather, a set of factual observations. To explain it, and his differentiated finches, there is Darwin's theory of natural selection. Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it". Once a specific theistic explanation comes into play, we see no natural laws can be operable, as no universals nor models of cause and effect pertain. Not science, not for science class, not a question of openmindedness.

Category error of epic, grandeous proportions. In conceptual space, theology harks to itself, not to nature. Thus, it is untethered to fact.

I KNEW it.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Well at least you have finally shown the courage to not lie about what you really want.

But you are still wrong. "Goddidit" has absolutely NO place in science, ever... or at least, not unless the student brings scientifically testable evidence with the claim... but theists NEVER bring evidence, they only bring fairy stories and dogma from the religious books. "Goddidit" does not belong in science any more than flat earth... similarly, it ought to be dismissed from the get go

This is why I am reluctant to answer questions like these. Everybody is trying to trap me into appearing to be a religious nut and hence derail the thread.

If you don't like the idea that science is theologically neutral then that is your problem. I have answered the question. Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about anything religious. So stop trying to make this about religion.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it".

I actually stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of this notion. Stop lying about my posts.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I actually stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of this notion. Stop lying about my posts.

It’s the only alternative you have been able to present.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is why I am reluctant to answer questions like these. Everybody is trying to trap me into appearing to be a religious nut and hence derail the thread.

If you don't like the idea that science is theologically neutral then that is your problem. I have answered the question. Science has [i]absolutely nothing whatsoever[/I ]to say about anything religious. So stop trying to make this about religion.

Not true.

Science has actually actively positively directly disproved much that is religious. And what little now remains still within reach of the God of the gaps has no justification in terms of providing clear parsimonious explanation for our observations.


What a bizarre idea this is, that science has nothing to say about anything religious. I mean, how can anyone even say that with a straight face?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Science has actually actively positively directly disproved much that is religious.

And the derail continues . . . .

The phrase "much that is religious" is too vague to mean anything. If you mean that we can use the scientific method to show that many claims in the bible are wrong (such as the universe is only 6000 years old) then that is true. But anything the bible says about God himself is beyond the realm of scientific testing.

For example, the notion that God determines the outcome when you roll dice (Proverbs 16:33) is totally unfalsifiable. You can say that it is nonsense but you can't say that "science proves" that this is nonsense. There endeth any discussion of gods in the science class room because science is theologically neutral.