Slashdot Mirror
Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes
An anonymous reader writes "The Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican priest, is the education director for the Royal Society, the venerable British science institution. He recently called for creationism to be discussed in science classes, not just in religion or philosophy classes. Science journals reacted with a world of 'WTF' and the Royal Society backpedaled furiously. Now Nobel laureates are gathering to get him fired: 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.' The blogs, of course, are loving it."
I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?
I thought you were better than this. This is one American import I hope you don't accept.
Creationism is not science. Period.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The summary here is absurdly slanted. Reiss didn't advocate discussing creationism in science classes; he wrote that, if students bring up creationism, science teachers ought to be in a position to explain why creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution, rather than simply refusing to discuss the issue at all. Quote:
"If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works."
That's an eminently sensible position.
This is a great class to teach kids about what science is, and what the differences between scientific theories, and a non-scientific theory is.
For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.
It could be a great teaching tool IMHO.
Embrace, and extinguish. ;)
Honestly, why NOT teach both? Look, depending on which way your beliefs slant, you have a little bit of evidence and a lot of faith that it happened that way. Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God. How dare people say that God, being all knowing and all powerful, could not design and impliment a dynamic system but had to settle for a simple static one.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Because then you would be perpetuating the error you just made.
A "theory" in science has evidence to support it.
Where is the evidence to support Creationism?
But people are trying to get him fired over it? That's bullshit. The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion? These Nobel laureates aren't the ones being taught in his class and have very little to do with him, but they'll gang up anyway. The theist/antitheist sword cuts both ways. Both sides are capable of being intolerant assholes, and this is just more proof.
.. to be taught in science classes next year.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
It's a bit worrying that the creationist movement is starting to raise its head in Europe as well. It's not that it's new, it's that previously only US creationists were bold, loud and revered enough to take science on headfirst and actually win. It used to be that we west-Europeans, including the creationists, took it as self-evident that creationist beliefs were just that, beliefs, and hence confined to the private sphere. But from the looks of it, our fundies are getting audacious and trying to manufacture the same kind of "controversy" here. Meh, did these people not learn about the Enlightenment? Do they not care? I guess that's why we cannot have nice things.
Related Stories:
[+] Ask Slashdot: How Do You Interview A Sysadmin Candidate? 476 comments
wtf? /. editors have control over the related stories section?
doesn't
I know general principals in evolution. The only thing I have against the word evolution being thrown around so much is that people use it for different things. For example last year the news was reporting,"Over fished species are showing signs of hyper evolution." They said this because weird genes are expressing themselves. They implied that when a species gets low on population that they evolve faster. As an arm chair scientist, I rather see this as the inbred effect that when there is less DNA in the gene pool that genes are expressed strongly for several reasons. I wouldn't call it evolution as much as gene loss or genetic erosion. I just think that the word evolution is overused.
I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too? There is no end to the number of ways that the universe can be created when you use man made religions. I mean having all sorts of different theories on reality through string theory is bad enough. When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.
God spoke to me.
Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.
Yet you keep using the same word to describe evolution and Creationism.
It is that exact error that is the reason against teaching Creationism.
The columns seem reasonable. Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.
Nurse is the President of Rockefeller University, though his claim to fame is with the cell cycle, and Roberts was the restriction enzyme guy at New England Biotech. They are good speakers. All I remember of Nurse's speech was... "Check your wastebins on Friday night," as you may have thrown out an important culture earlier. Roberts was pimping a nonprofit journal article library.
Seems fair to me. Teach in science class why Creationism and ID aren't science, and in religion classes, why, for examples, Dawkins views on religion are stuck firmly in the victorian age.
Hey, I've done years of serious research/dissecting regarding the presence of the tooth fairy and would appreciate it if you wouldn't clump my serious research with nonsense like creationism, you inconsiderate oath!
As for recording my work--the police records, widespread word on the forensics of the dentist blood on my trusty axe, wanted posters and signs at the ADA are more than enough credible sources, despite what those elitist tooth fairy wiki editors say.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Honestly, why NOT teach both? Look, depending on which way your beliefs slant, you have a little bit of evidence and a lot of faith that it happened that way. Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?
We also need to teach the Indian version, Chinese, some of the Wica versions, etc...
But it's all a waste of time because Nyx created everything and this nonsense of Evolution or God is just superstition.
Anyway, I have my afternoon prayers and I need to discuss my stock purchases with the Oracle. Shit, i forgot to get my bull for my sacrifice. Boy oh boy, the gods are sure going to be pissed! Hurricane Ike came because of me! Sorry!
When you're able to shut everybody else down.
Of course, that usually doesn't mean a gag order, but with topic, we'll make an exception. That's how we maintain our status as open-minded, free thinkers.
You advocate teaching the dogma of ONE minor branch of ONE religion. Why not force kids to learn about "Mother Turtle", too? Why not force teaching of Scientology as well? Or Satanism?
All facts begin as dreams, dreamt by a wizard. If the wizard crosses the path of a scorned widow, then he shares it at the town council. Now, it is a hypothesis, and it is time to drown the wizard. If he floats, he is an evil wizard and must be burned alive. If he drowns, then the hypothesis is true! The king is told and he consults with his menagerie of birds. If the king is satisfied, then it becomes an Old Wives Tale and science is once more advanced!
Hm, this is the sort of response that I'd expect from the other side of the field on this issue. The suggestion that he put forward is reasonable and rational. The only error he made is in assuming that the public schools are rational and reasonable places. This has yet to be adequately demonstrated.
Ideally it should be discussed in the social classes, but the most likely result, at least in the US, would be chaos. Maybe it's different in the UK but I'm not optimistic.
Dr. Reiss has been repeatedly taken out of context with his comments. The media has consistently misinterpreted what he said to mean that he supports the teaching of creationism in science classes. In fact what Dr. Reiss said was that if a student asks about creationism, the teacher should be prepared to explain to that student why creationism is not science, something that I think most level-headed people would agree with. To reiterate, Dr. Reiss did NOT say that creationism should be in any way be endorsed in science classes, only that the student should be made aware of WHY it is not science.
I don't think the word theory means what you think it means...
What about the words "verifiable", or "falsifiable"? Do you think that means what I think it means?
Well, if it's verifyable/falsifiable, it's sicence. If not, it's not.
The moment you stop trying to verify/falsify a theory, it stops being science and becomes belief, because -- the name gives it away -- if you refuse to "verify", then all that you're left with is having to "believe" it...
I think creationism is nonsensical, but the reaction over this is reminiscent of the Inquisition. Calling for firing someone for voicing a heterodox opinion is getting uncomfortably close to a modern-day auto da fe.
http://www.youtube.com/patcondell
Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.
All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.
All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.
All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.
All claiming that evolution is a religion.
Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?
Stop teaching how the world started and about evolution. Then there will be no need for creationism to be taught in schools. If you want to learn about creationism go to Sunday school. If you want to learn about evolution go to Sunday school of sciences or what ever. Let the parents decide what their kid needs to learn. OMG did I just say let the parents make the decision. Whoops!!
On a related note:
Church of England to apologise for rejecting evolution
As moderate religion steps away from fundamentalism, our scientists (if only through media slant) get closer to it!
Think of the children!!
In that lot, when are you actually going to find time to teach real geology or biology?
The fact that you refer to "missing links in the fossil record" shows you know absolutely nothing about modern biology. I suggest you read the essays of Jay Gould, some recent stuff on how the finches of Galapagos continue to evolve as they are driven by a changing environment, and an account of the history of geology in the nineteenth century, and then you will know enough to know that you don't know anything and will perhaps STFU.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
> Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
i have always found it a poor choice between ONLY a) science (of the darwinian we came from frogs), or b) creationism (we came out of nowhere, with no proof, and you jus gotta believe).
why is there never any discussion of option c) d) or even something like e) the occult evolution of the cosmos?
no doubt, not many would choose option e) -- which both the creationists and scientists would think is just nuts -- but insofar as the number of possible theories examined, out of the many theories, it always only comes down to just two - ludicrous creationism, or ape science - other options aren't ever discussed, when there are other options. why are we caught in this polarity between the two ideas that have no overlaps in venn diagram...? :-P
It could take far longer than 60 seconds to read and understand what he said, after all we're talking about slashdotters and Nobel Laureates.
It's far easier to issue a fatwa on him, excommunicate him, etc.
Oh yeah and try to get him fired too :).
Meanwhile, to protest Reiss's inflamatory opinion you may wish to blow up a church:
http://www.inflatablechurch.com/
This isn't about "teaching them both sides" or "balance". It's about pushing religion into science class because of a religious culture which is hostile to the very idea of science. Creationism, Scientific Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever they're calling it today is not science. It is dogma which borrows a few scientific words. At best it's cargo-cult science. Mostly it's a fraud. We might as well teach "the other side" in Astronomy and invite in the Flat-Earthers and geoncentricists. It would make just as much sense to say that there's a "controversy" about Pasteur and say that since the germ theory is "just a theory" we need to let students make up their own minds and give equal time to vitalism, the four humors and spontaneous generation. The Royal Society stepped on its collective tallywhacker making this guy a spokesman. Let's see if they shoot themselves in the foot with their response.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
WTF!? Now, where could I find these levers for furious padalling? Not that I don't make mistakes in life, ever...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is not a news story
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
this is some hack work by a bored journo who kept one thumb permanently glued to the fast forward button.
It *could* be made science, somewhat comparable to SETI though. For example, looking for patterns in DNA such as pi and primes. However, the religious are not really interested in this sort of research. (Actually, its more like intelligent interventionism rather than creationism.)
Table-ized A.I.
Sort of what Lisa Simpson said on one episode.
so let's get this straight.
A scientist / clergyman argues that creation should be discussed in science class and 'scientists' want him fired or this?
WTF?
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
What ever happened to the notion that your scientific theories are better because they match the available evidence more closely than anything else available?
Now we have scientists trying to silence a dissenting opinion? You guys are starting to sound like the geniuses who after proving that the Earth was flat set out to imprison and torture those heretics who argued otherwise.
This attitude makes me more weary of Evolution than of any other scientific theory. no matter how may ways people try to argue ague against gravity or electricity, they are simply confronted with the evidence or simply ignored.
Only Biologists try to get heretics fired or simply silenced in defense of the sacred Evolution dogma.
This is wrong!
You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not seeing why.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Read his original article. He's not suggesting creationism be taught as science, or even as non-science. He's suggesting that, when students raise objections to evolutionary theory, even objections based on a creationist foundation, that those objections be discussed in a scientific context. He's also suggesting that, rather than try to "change students' minds", science teachers focus on simply presenting the standard scientific view of cosmology. That seems perfectly reasonable.
"Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in the City or in government." ; )
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!
There were several different scientific opinions on the origin of the universe, but when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in the 1960s, scientists agreed that the "big bang" hypothesis is the most likely.
That's why science is an absolute truth, which ultimately will prevail over personal opinions and beliefs. Science is based on experimental facts, to which logical reasoning is applied. You can believe as much as you wish on a "steady state" cosmology, for instance, but anyone with a microwave antenna and a spectrum analyzer will prove you wrong.
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!
Just callin' it like I see it.
You sir, have made me wish I still had mods points.
Goes without saying, mod parent up!
Both of those points can be scientifically proven, and thus, 'admitting' them is science, and attempting to gloss over, or ignore, those facts is antiscientific.
Taking this approach could also open to door to discussing how the biblical descriptions of creation are not necessarily at odds with creation.
for example:
Saying that God's days are 24 human hours long is creating God in man's image, not the other way 'round.
Once you acknowledge the creationist's world view, and address them from within it, you actually have some hope of getting them to seriously look at the scientific world view. At the very least, it gets them to acknowledge their creationist view as non-scientific.
Science and religion have very different purposes.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Creationism is the very opposite of Science. It is the belief that our current situation is so very improbable that it could never have arisen on its own. To support itself it denies EVERYTHING (e.g. dinosaurs) that conflict with its belief. It is founded on the very LACK of evidence supporting it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well, then at least we are evolving as a society. Two thousand years ago, they would nail the guy to a wooden cross...
Creationism's Foundation: "God Isn't Infinite Enough..."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created a balanced, self-sustaining, self-correcting Universe."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created billions of years, instead having to fake it."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created evolution, instead having to meddle endlessly to compensate."
Point out, forcefully absolutely & relentlessly, that creationism insists that god is incompetent, and that if god were REALLY infinite, then "god's hand" would be un-findable through physical evidence, and only perceivable through spiritual instruments/experiments.
Wow. WTB mod points! The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence. That is why it should not be taught in science classes.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Idiot.
I'm probably feeding a troll here, but fuck it, this subject is important enough.
The problem with introducing "creation theory" (Hint: It's not a theory, it's dogma) into science gives it more credibility than it deserves (it deserves none).
After all, it's extremely unlikely that this guy is objective enough to actually admit that there is no evidence for 'creation theory', nor are there *ANY* peer reviewed studies whom might even give it *any* credibility.
Basicly, IT'S NOT SCIENCE AND DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS
I have one word to say to your response sir: "AMEN!"
No, let's teach that the world is like a Swiss cheese: round, flat, AND hollow, all at the same time! That way nobody's feeling will be hurt.
This post is not insightful. Gravity and electricity can be demonstrated to any idiot, within seconds, and explained.
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time. This leaves it at the mercy of idiots who refuse to see this evidence as it takes too long - hence "It's UNPROVABLE!!"
Scientists are facing a fight with this one, and the creationists (who are plainly, outright WRONG) seem to be better funded. It is wholly right that the education director for the Royal Society be fired for such outlandish claims.
IAAST (I am a science teacher) and I would quit if I had to teach creationsim and frankly I expose them for the lunatics that they are whenever that 'view' is asked about in my classes.
Pat Condell's opinion is what I agree with and place high value and respect when it comes to religion...
http://www.liveleak.com/group/Atheists
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
One of the great things about multicultural societies like the UK is that all the involved parties are so busy arguing amongst themselves that religion can't get a look in on the curriculum. Actually, their efforts actually help drive mumbojubo away from schools rather than bring it closer.
Take my bog standard high school in South London. It had people from just about every faith you can think of. If one group of fundamentalist parents tried to usurp another group of equally fundamentalist parents from a different faith then there was all hell to play. The fundamentalist Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian et al parents were so busy fighting amongst themselves that any semblance of religion was kept far from sight. No one got their way, which was the best for us kids from all walks of life.
I've always thought that these ideas were nowhere neither as polar as they are usually presented.
I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.
Hey presto! Science works. Physics works. Evolution works. And God created it all, quite possibly in six days, albeit in some other frame of temporal reference. Job done. The scientist can carry on with what they do, and the creationists can carry on with their beliefs, and neither has to feel threatened by the other side's epistemology. Granted there's a bit of work needed to reconcile 200,000 years of biological human history with six thousand or so from biblical references - but then Darwinian evolution isn't entirely without flaw either. I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to reconcile the two.
Except that I don't think anyone's interested in a framework that lets both belief systems co-exist. I think this is about intellectual authority. The religious right would like to be the ones who control what we are and are not allowed to believe, just like in the good old days when they could burn inconvenient scientists and philosophers at the stake if need be. I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The West seems determined to destroy itself through earnest and dedicated revisionism no matter what. I say let's let the West implode into medieval fundamentalist superstitious ignorance. And while we're at it, let's replace civil law with religious law too. It's unstoppable so we who are objecting to it might as well pull up the lawn chairs and watch it all burn.
You contradict yourself.
The facts HAVE supported evolution so far. We've witnessed microevolution in animal populations in our own lifetimes, and evidence suggests that macroevolution does indeed take place, which also fits mathematical models as well as... well, common sense. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, works with almost all of the data we have.
The issue about teaching creationism is that the science class room should be about giving students the verifiable facts which we have. The notion of "Letting the children decide" is absurd. They don't have the foundation in logical reasoning yet, nor do they have the resources to verify claims from both sides. Not to mention that facts are not subjective. If we took a vote on which is true, natural selection, or creationism, regardless of how we voted or what we think, that does not change the facts, and that does not change which is, in fact, true.
Creationism is not a "dissenting opinion" as they would have you believe. Creationism is anti-science. Instead of trying to prove their theory right, they try to prove that evolution is wrong, thinking that if they could, it MUST mean creationism is correct. But this is simply not how science works.
Facts do not prove themselves in a classroom, they prove themselves in peer reviewed journals, with copious amounts of data, and logical reasoning. If the Creationism/Intelligent Design movements had ANY of those criteria, then we could have a discussion of its merits. But since it does not, the point is moot, and trying to force it into classrooms, on impressionable students, who have not yet fully understood how science works is simply an underhanded gimmick, and does a disservice to both the scientific community as well as the education system.
String theory isn't that kind of theory. The purpose of string theory is to attempt to unify two different theories (or really classes of theories) -- relativity and quantum theory -- each of which are based, partially, on directly observed data in an effort to provide a theory for everything. This is why string theory is called a 'unified field theory'. String theory is provable by mathematical proof.
As far as 'many religions having a concept of Creation' -- well, there are also many religions that do not have any relgious dogma regarding the creation or cosmology of the universe. You make it out like every religion has a 'holy book' with a bunch of content stating what it is you are supposed to believe. This is definitely not the case. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share a dogma and are classified as 'revealed religions.' Other religions, such as many Eastern religions and philosphy, don't have any actual dogma on what is to be believed -- beliefs are to be attained by enlightenment. These religions focus on shared practice. For example, Buddhism concentrates heavily on correct thought and correct action -- things that are to be done. There's not much written Buddhist text that specifies or attempts to describe any explanation for how the universe came into being or what it is necessarily made of.
OTOH, Christian dogma, for example, attempts to describe how the Earth was created, and, in fact what it looks like. The Bible also describes the world as having four corners and states that is being held up by pillars. Why don't you Christians start arguing with the scientists about the shape of the Earth?
My blog
All he does is post trollish, misleading, slanted, inaccurate garbage. But I guess it brings in the ad revenue, so that's all that matters.
I always found the idea of swearing on the Bible to be very amusing.
An answer I remember from school about Matthew, that he only tells you not to swear by Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, or by your own head - so swear by the book instead.
I have to admit the James version, in English anyway, is clearer - don't swear by anything.
Actually, in my school, Alchemy *was* discussed in chemistry class and although Ebonics wasn't talked about in English, Pigeon English was. WRT alchemy, it was mentioned it was a precursor to chemistry, and although some ideas were sound and are still in use today, other ideas, like converting base metals into gold weren't (at least not with chemical reactions). Areas related to it, such as mercury poisoning, were also discussed. WRT Pigeon English, it was mentioned that it was a language invented by merchants who had better things to do than learn full blown English but still needed to communicate with English merchants. Do kids in the US not have a broad education in the natural sciences and liberal arts?
Back when I was in school, the boundaries between classes seemed hazy....the history of science in math class....philosophy in history class, archeology in geology class, mechanical engineering in biology class, architecture in classics class. While teaching this way isn't "efficient", every subject seemed to connect to every other subject so that knowledge was a unified whole with various facets and various perspectives.
It seems that classes these days focus more on "efficiency" or "playing it safe political correctness". Pity. No wonder post-modernism has become so wide spread. When things are not taught to fit together, no wonder people think it seems like a mixed up world.
The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence.
Well phrased!
It isn't like most high schools offer informal logic or the history of scientific methodology as separate classes.
I don't have serious disagreement with the article. I think much of what he is saying speaks directly to the practice of pedagogy and is not promoting the creationist belief system per se. Maybe we are assuming that since he is an Anglican priest, he is being less than sincere in his objectivity?
I think GP is upset about the reaction - something that bothered me. Maybe it's because I don't live in America (hence, few(er) bible thumping nut-jobs), but isn't firing someone over merely making a suggestion a bit over-the-top? Shouldn't the scientific ideals (read: fair and empirical reasoning) encourage them to explain to this fellow why the Royal Society doesn't think that Creationism is appropriate to teach (ie. it's batshit insane)? For all we know, he may simply have been making the very same point you've been making ("some ideas are retarded, what if I taught creationism ha-ha-ha"), and someone (either him or a senior figure) took him a little too seriously.
Punishing people for their suggestions, opinions or comments seems a little draconian..[MODERATORS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD^H^H^H IRONY, MOD ME DOWN].
None of the things you mentioned would be facts proving themselves. Especially your first "example"--come on! There's absolute proof that the Holocaust happened. We don't have absolute proof of anything that happened millions (or even thousands, for argument's sake) of years ago that none of us got to witness. None of the examples you gave come even close to comparing.
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
"Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson." i think they put even less thought into the things they say than the things they think. in my science classes if a kid brought up creationism it would be discussed (and proven a folly) but there is as much reason to go out of your way to teach it as it is to teach about fairies or leprechauns. i really hope this dude gets fired as he is obviously scientifically inept and deserves no job where he is a blatantly ignorant authority figure.
The biggest flaw in the arguments of people who want creationism or intelligent design taught in schools, is that they are doing it to "back door" in their religion. However neither creationism or intelligent design are Judeo-Christian specific. That was the whole point of the flying spaghetti monster satire, to make the IDer's admit that they just wanted to teach Christianity, and not an "alternative theory".
ID supports everything from alien's doing the designing, to Vishnu, to the Great Arkleseizure.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
I The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too?
The thing about Islam (and Judaism) is that they are both part of the western religion which originated in the same tradition, and with Christianity they accept the account of Genesis with minor variations. Hence they could and would lend support to Christian creationists. Other religions have quite distinct ideas. Some eastern religions teach that the world is an illusion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion) ), or that we are all part of a dream by some great being. Such teachings are not likely to lend support to creationism.
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time.
My pure-bred pets and genetically modified vegetables (that did not exist in their current form even 100 years ago) actually make evolution one of the most observable and simple scientific concepts to explain.
Gravity and electricity are more observable, but their explanations go into more complicated roots than the basic "you only germinate seeds from the tall plants, to get tall plants" concept.
The main argument I put forth against Creationism/Intelligent Design, is that it can only be considered a religious view because it is only held by those of a particular religious background. If it's to be taught (in the US especially) in public schools, every other view on how the world was created that has representation in that country has to be treated equally. Basically, there's no way to make it a Creationism / Evolution issue, since Creationism is based solely on ONE strain of religion.
Letting the children decide is an absolutely fine point; they SHOULD decide. That's the whole point of learning to make your own decisions. I don't see how this factors into what's taught in schools, however. Children have parents, and if those parents believe in Creationism, they can pass those teachings to their children.
This is an ideal scenario to illustrate something that is the parents' responsibility rather than the school's.
So, science is open to all topics except religion, eh?
Doesn't sound very open to me, or very scientific.
You obviously should spend some time reading on the philosophy of science before spouting such utter rubbish.
Romans 1: "18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." To summarize: 1) God reveals Himself clearly through his creation. 2) Man rejects God, even as He was clearly revealed. 3) Man is left empty and alone, with no explanation for existence. 4) In an attempt to fill this emptiness and justify himself, man makes idols and invents godless myths. One such myth that scientists talk about in a very unscientific way is the idea of the early "primordial soup" from which life began from a single cell. Ask for proof, and all you will receive are stories about what 'could have' happened. That is no explanation for the origin of life at all. You have life and breath and being. You act and make decisions. You are a living soul created by a God who loves you. You have everything you need to come into a relationship with him. Don't fight it! Just come.
I'm glad to see that you are only 50% a racist.
If Royal Society students were blank slates, who were helpless but to believe exactly the words any sacred professor spilled into their brains like a blank hard drive being formatted with an operating system, then a professor espousing a controversial or even ridiculous viewpoint would be dangerous indeed.
I'd like to think the average Society student is a capable student already familiar with skepticism and the scientific who could handle dismantling the logical flaws of untenable positions.
It makes me think of an academy of legendary knights and wizards. Do they need to be protected from any and all threats? If the occaisional monster wonders in, they should be able to subdue it with their budding hero skills. In fact, one might go as far to say that occaisionally monsters should be introduced DELIBERATELY, so the students don't get too comfortable or cloistered. Diplomatically disagreeing with someone in a position to cut your funding (or GPA anyway, in this case) is actually a useful real-world skill to have.
Science is an attempt to find testable hypothesis that help us understand how the world might work. Science knows that it doesn't know all the answers and the "answers" it puts forward may turn out to be incorrect.
It is not an attempt to explain how the world works. By the very nature of the question, any attempt to explain how the world works must allow for the possibility that some particular untestable hypothesis is in fact how the world works.
The key advantages of science include:
* Testability: Even if a theory cannot be proven today, it should be provable or disprovable with enough information and technology. Big Bang and human-evolution theories fit into this category.
* Utility: Most scientific theories have or in the future will have applications which allow us to create new things, good or bad.
While you can argue that religious theories that explain the way the world works have some utility, by definition they are not testable. If they were, they would fit in the realm of science or, if and when a given religious theory is proven false, in the realm of discarded theories.
Is Biblical Creationism the correct explanation of how the universe works? Maybe. We'll never know as long as the universe is obeying the rules it is currently obeying. Of course, if rapture comes all bets are off. Is Biblical Creationism science? Not hardly. Is it wrong to teach a science course that says "according to the data we have available, the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin and tweaked by others best explains the variety of life forms found in the fossil record and on earth today"? No, it is not wrong to teach that. In fact, if you are going to teach the science of biological history, it's both scientifically incorrect and morally wrong not to teach it.
The one scientific disservice we do to our youth is to pretend that non-scientific explanations of the world are junk. They may be junk science, but as non-scientific explanations of how the universe works, they may turn out to be correct. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Evolution is supported with scientific experiments. Creationism and Intelligent design are based on faith and cannot be tested using the scientific method. Therefore there is no place for them in science class. They would fit just fine in a class called "religion." Or maybe a philosophy class debating what we are in this world.
Teaching creationism in a Science class as Science is like teaching Spanish in and English class as English. Creationism is no more Science than Astrology. It should be discussed as a different branch of Philosophy as an alternative to Science, along with Astrology and Ghost-Hunting.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Well put. Mod parent up.
My UID is prime. Hah!
We have myriad proof that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old (geology throughout the Solar System, radioactive decay, stars, the existence of heavy elements, fossils). Ergo Creationism is as de-bunked as the hypotheses involving abnormally large turtles. Heck, the Creationist story in Genesis isn't even self consistent.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Careful with the word absolute there... there isn't absolute proof of anything, including that the holocaust happened.
However, the proof we have of the holocaust is so incredibly convincing that we can safely call it truth.
Alchemy was taken to be truth during the time it was actually taught, the difference is that now we know more by using the scientific method. Making predictions, testing theories, and throwing out those that don't fit.
While we don't have absolute proof of what happened millions of years ago, what we do have is pretty darn convincing, and getting better every year. (with minor adjustments from time to time)
You'd be aware that Bugs Bunny is God,
and the Earth is shaped like a carrot.
Now begone with your novel speculations, knave.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Maybe Evolution can't be proved true... But the Creationist story laid down in the Bible can be disproved in a few minutes. The I.D. people teach a version of creationism different from Genesis, one twisted and morphed from the Biblical story so as not to be so readily disproved... but what they're left with is something with neither a scientific basis *or* a religious basis.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
What you propose is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one. Science is a branch of philosophy that limits its scope to the natural world. Supernatural theories are beyond the bounds of Science... comparing your theory to Science is like trying to compute the nutritional value of a rock... or the arithmetic sum of a frog and a flower... it's out of scope and meaningless. The fact that most Americans don't get this basic tenet of Science shows how very bad our Science education is.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.
With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.
We also don't have absolute proof that "god" even exists, let alone the idea that she created the universe and all life in it. Moreover, there's no chance that we'll ever gather evidence to support that idea, since the proposition is untestable. Saying "god did it" doesn't answer anything. It doesn't let us make new predictions, it doesn't give us a better understanding of the interconnectedness of the earths species, and it doesn't allow for further research. Saying "a miracle occurs" is the END of the discussion for religion, while it's the begging of the discussion for science. THAT is why creationism has no place in science.
So, science is open to all topics except religion, eh?
No it's not and nobody ever claimed it was.
You know, there *are* topics outside of science.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Isn't it ironic that the same folks who take the book of genesis at face value and cannot understand a metaphor even it kicked them in the ass, are in many cases the same guys that gladly interpret all sorts of phenomena as signs that match those described in the apocalypse?
FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now.
Oh, really?
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
At the high school where I teach, there is a emphasis on cross-curriculum teaching within all classes this year. It looks like we are coming full circle. in that aspect. I wonder if anyone really knows what the best way to teach is?
Another point here. Truth and science are not synonymous, the scientific method does a good job of finding out the likelihood of many things, but not all things. Learning to use the right tools to answer the right questions is the key I think.
You should teach holocaust denial, it's part of history and what has happened since. And Ebonics, what it is, etc is probably well taught about alongside other modern language oddities. Alchemy would be a valuable thing to teach to bring understanding to the history of chemistry and it's roots. And flat earth theory helps to understand the motivation of the explorers, what influenced and motivated and affected the world and history of geography. Santa Claus, the easter bunny etc are all interesting oddities of modern American culture and it's reverse spread back into the world through commercialism.
You'd read a book all about it and find it interesting, but someone suggest teaching about it to kiddies and your rock solid foundation of life's actions justified is threatened and hackles raised you bay into the wind and call the pack to shed blood.
Are you so afraid that people will believe these if they are taught about them? Most certainly they will begin to give them credence as they are persecuted and ridiculed and treated with such religious hostility. Why do you think skinheads and such continue? Hide the nature of the world, hide the truth and reap the wind of ignorance. When I see the pro-evolution rants here I can't but compare them to the pro-creation rants and the rants of every other blind bride of religious/philosophical/political thought that graces the planet. So sure, so cocky, so rock solid in their belief of how the world is and will be. How many times before has this been, how many times fallen, how many times replaced?
Fallen is Babylon the great.
When your knee has stopped jerking you might notice that Michael Reiss has nowhere suggested that creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. The RA specifically states that he does not believe that discussion of them in science would legitimise them. He also says that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time."
In other words, if there are creationists in the class, Reiss says that the teacher should be allow discussion of the subject so the pupil can learn why science rejects creationism, rather than the pupil simply being presented with yet another competing dogma just on another adult's say-so. He is for critical thinking; it is those who are trying to silence him who are trying to stifle critical thinking.
Put it this way: If a kid puts his hand up in class and says that the universe was created in six days, should the teacher just say "No, you're wrong" or "Science says that's wrong because...". It's the latter that Reiss is pushing for, and that is so unthinkable to his opponents.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
So why is the Royal Society bothering?
They're not: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
(It's one thing for the media to misrepresent them, but it's rather poor for Slashdot to post this, when it's old news, and already debunked by the Royal Society, and without even linking to their statement. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised...)
In our first A-level chemistry lesson, our teacher sat on his desk and pronounced that the world was flat. After a stunned silence, we then tried (successfully) to prove him wrong.
His point was that a lot of the things we had been taught up to that point (the structure of atoms, the nature of reactions etc) were actually incorrect, or more accurately just approximate theory. And that the stuff we were about to learn might also prove just as 'approximate'. He urged us to begin to question the things we were taught, and not just take them as fact.
We were taught to think for ourselves, and I don't ever recall one single controversial lesson. Maybe it's because we didn't have powerful lobby groups in that part of rural Oxfordshire, but I don't actually remember being taught evolution either. And very few exams were 'multiple choice' - i.e. 'answer it like we want you to'.
Children have brains. They can think for themselves
There are some who call me
My kids were taught about holocaust denial; they were not taught holocaust denial. They were taught about alchemical theories, they were not taught alchemical theories. They were taught about flat-earth theories, they were not taught that the earth was flat. Reiss says that he wants kids to be taught about creationism, not that he wants them to be taught creationism. But then, this is /., so nobody reads the RA and everybody assumes that anybody with "Revd." in front of their name is automatically wrong about everything -- and then have the chutzpah to complain about a lack of critical thinking!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
America, watch and learn. That's how ludicrous we find theories that you find worthy of debate, in our decently educated countries. The content of the debate isn't as relevant about your poor education system as is the fact that the debate itself could even survive and thrive rather than get instantly shot down and laughed off.
You just got troll'd!
Evolution only should be allowed to be taught in the classroom if they take out the part that is a lie.
The part where we evolved from a single cell organism and over billions of years we evolved from that to simple lifeforms and then
more advanced life forms to where we are today. That part is not science and it is a lie. It's not religion that says this other parts
of science itself and of course common sense.
The rest of it such as macro evolution is true.
well, santa, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny are topics for an International Relations class.
Actually I did read the FA, and I even made a comment earlier to the effect that I think the reaction was massively overblown, and that he doesn't deserve to be fired. You may have noticed that my comment was in response to another individual, and not to Rev. Reiss himself.
You were sounding pretty good until you decided to descend into stupid generalizations and shrill whining.
Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person. Now, on an individual basis, they may turn out to be quite personable, very intelligent, and highly knowledgeable about all sorts of things. But they're still not rational, and, if they truly are intelligent, they'll admit as much to you if you ask them about it.
I think this is getting out of propotion. I will give the guy the benefit of the doubt here. First all he said was "in certain classes, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue."
Sorry but "deal with the issue" is not the same as "teach creationism" to me. And he elaborated on it later after this happened, this is what he said.
"When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."
Now personally I love that idea. Stop creationism dead in it's tracks as an alleged "scientific theory"
Educate how science works and how creationism fails to meet the requirements to be scientific.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
The mathematics is not "evidence" for string "theory" at all. (Theory being in quotes because it is actually only a hypothesis; it has not earned the title of "theory" yet.)
And the reason that the mathematics is not evidence of the string hypothesis is that other hypotheses mathematically explain the same observations that the string hypothesis was created to explain almost as well, or even as well, as the string hypothesis does. For example, the MoND hypothesis arguably matches with prior math better than the string hypothesis does, since all it requires is a very slight (otherwise insignificant) adjustment of certain constants, whereas string hypothesis requires the addition of multitudes of dimensions and a great deal of other complexity.
Therefore, while the math for the string hypothesis might work out in a somewhat consistent manner, it is not "evidence" favoring the string hypothesis at all. On the contrary, if anything the mathematics favor other hypotheses such as MoND, which is approximately as consistent but much simpler. Admittedly, both hypotheses have some inconsistencies that researchers are trying to iron out.
In any case, in direct contradiction to your claim, it is clear that in order for ANY of these ideas to move from the level of hypothesis to the level of "theory", they require some kind of real-world testability. That may be forthcoming with the recent startup of the LHC; on the other hand it may not.
Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person.
There's a bullying sort of scientism around at the moment that insists that everybody takes everything on their terms but is absolutely unwilling to examine those terms or have anybody question them (the problem of induction, the question of solipsism). I agree that anybody with a "Revd" in front of their name is disqualified as a completely rational person, but I have yet to encounter a completely rational person, only some who deny their non-rational side and get upset (and start modding people down ;-) when confronted with it. Certainly science isn't a completely rational position, which is why so many scientists hate philosophers -- we point it out to them!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
First, it is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis. It will not be a theory unless and until a means of testing it is devised.
Second, it is NOT "provable" my mathematical proof. A lot of the math does work out. But some of it doesn't... quite. There are some inconsistencies in the string hypothesis that have not been cleared up yet just as there are in other, competing hypotheses.
The recent startup of the LHC may provide some evidence. Or it may provide some counter-evidence. But even that is very much up in the air, since the string hypothesis itself predicts that any such thing would be very hard to observe.
Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation. What does that have to do with science? I would like to add that the first comment is doubly specious, since you almost have to have some kind of story of creation in order to qualify as a religion in the first place.
They corrected sloppy journalism http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
Evidence has a place in science classes, but what should really be taught is the scientific method. Teach creationism in science classes, by all means! It is a fabulous example of a scientific theory that makes all possible predictions and is therefore scientific crap. Teach it, and teach why it is junk. Science class should be about teaching a thought process, not a bunch of facts.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
No, it should not be discussed as an inferior theory, because Creationism is not a theory! That is a point that a lot of people in this thread have tried to make.
Creationism is merely a "dogma", not a theory. Theories are testable. Creationism, and "Intelligent Design", have gone to considerable trouble to make sure that they are NOT testable. They are accessible only via faith, which means that they cannot be theories, according to the very definition of the term.
I am not trying to nitpick; I am trying to point out an important difference. Calling Creationism or Intelligent Design "inferior theories" is like calling a child's tricycle "an inferior airplane". They are not even in the same category, and education should not glorify them by treating them as if they were.
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
So, basically, what you are saying is that we have these two possibilities based on the exact same amount of evidence:
1.) All living organisms came about via evolution.
2.) All living organisms came about via evolution because God did it that way.
As there is ZERO empirical evidence for the existence of any such entity, what, beyond your fragile ego, makes the second option more compelling? Now, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but when faced with a complete lack of evidence, the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until such a time when evidence is available and the hypothesis can be re-evaluated.
*sits back and enjoys his smoke*
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
"Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more."
But we do teach Alchemy now. We just don't call it that anymore, because "Alchemy" is nothing but the idea that one element could be turned into another. What was once ludicrous fantasy and fiction is now science. We see Alchemy happening every day. The Sun turns Hydrogen into Helium constantly, and our earliest nuclear scientists practiced Alchemy, when you get right down to it. Modern Chemistry and Physics very much includes fields that were once considered Alchemy.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Truth is however much more complicated, and dare I said sinister. Whether we like it or not we occidentals, come from a christian background and starting our scientific models from a christian perspective of the world is not only acceptable but unavoidable.
What I mean is that argumentation between creationist and naturalist modelings for the beginning of life and the universe DID have a SERIOUSLY ACCEPTABLE place in the history of occidental science.
Ditto for Alchemy, Astrology and Geocentrism etc. Science didn't reject supernaturalism because it wanted to start from a clean slate. It did so because supernaturalism failed and naturalism won in the battle for explaining and modeling reality.
The insult in the ID debate is that creationists want to have this debate over and over and over at perpetuity. Fuckers...
But... the future refused to change.
Worse, this overreaction is exactly what creationists will use to prove that evolution is more like a religion than not, that it is the scientists who have closed minds. It plays into their hands like you wouldn't believe. Witness Ben Stein's recent production, "Expelled".
God damn, its a hypothesis that follows from what we know. This makes it the most useful hypothesis for exploring our genetic history. The only thing, the ONLY thing that science cares about is whether an idea can be useful for explaining something. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, because there is no way to certify that your senses are telling you the truth. Can we just stop using the word "true" please? It's a misleading term.
I think you'll find that's 'midgit' not 'midgets'. Heathen.
Lo:
http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg
pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!
I am a creationist, but the obvious problem with creation in a science context is that it is not testable. There are no experiments that can be done because it is not repeatable, and thanks to apparent age, there is no observable historic event. (Think about it - if the earth was created 6000 years ago in a 4 billion year old state, how old is it scientifically?)
Science is a world of logical positivism - "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless". Creationism is meaningless in that context because it cannot be verified. Intelligent design doesn't apply to the creation of the universe as a whole because it is a singular event. (It could apply to the creation of life or the earth - but requires experience with other worlds to have a better idea of just how special our world is.)
Now, where I diverge from your typical modernist is when they make logical positivism the end of the story. The problem is that the statement, "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless" is a statement that cannot be verified, and is therefore meaningless. When you try to make science the sole source of knowledge, you end up with meaninglessness: intelligence (literally "to choose between" i.e. free will) is an illusion, and all that.
And finally, intelligent design theory is *not* creationism in disguise. It is a general theory that is applied in many other fields. As a statistical analysis, it provides no absolute answers. But everyone should be familiar with the concepts, because they apply to forensics, archaeology, SETI, and many other other settings that need to distinguish (imperfectly) between intelligent and natural causes.
While a very good description of "science" indeed, you should look into the personal lives and believes of several of the "greatest evolutionist" through history. Terribly many of them haven't merely been "noble scientists", on the search for "thruth", ready to accept whatever that might be, but rather been die-hard anti-christians, searching for something to justify their believes, (and having realized better than most christians where to best attack Christendom.)
(On a side note, of course Creationism isn't "science", by science' definition. The Bible says there is a spiritual realm as well as a physical one. But science can't deal with anything beyond the physical one. As a result scientist easily conclude that as they can't "put God in a box", He cannot exist.)
I am wary of euphemisms, but yes- you make an excellent point. Learning why creationism and its watered down cousin intelligent design are flawed, including their incorrect application of the scientific method, should be something discussed- but the practices themselves should not be given merit. As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world. If this man proposes something similar, then yes- I support him. However, creationism by stealth is not something I can honestly condone.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
You're using a lot of red herrings in your response but the truth is evolutionism is such a sacred cow, and it is protected from ANY scrutiny, regardless. Anyone who dares to question the adult fairytale called evolution is met with ad hominem comments and or fired. It is a shame and I don't know why more people are outraged by this. The hokey idea that man are distant relatives of field mice is taught in schools and people are prohibited by questioning it, but something like study of intelligent design in life is forbidden from even seeing the light of day. It absolutely makes no sense.
Who claimed it was holy? Sure, feel free to argue the philosophical definitions of what science is. But saying that science includes creationism makes the word meaningless - you're not talking about science, you're talking about making up stories.
Unlike what many have said here there is an overwhelming body of evidence for an intelligent designer to anyone who is honest with themselves and has half a brain (the former requirement is the most difficult to most).
You only have half a brain?
And what is this overwhelming evidence?
Also, unlike the science community claims, acknowledging a creator does not necessarily mean weakening the fundamentals or ability of science - eg "because God made is so" does not equate to "we'll just believe that and not try to understand it how God made it so".
So why this insistence of trying to pass of religion as science?
Now they are spending how many billions more to find the "God particle" to essentially prove that God doesn't exist.. good luck!
Please tell me you're just trolling, and that you really aren't this ignorant?
As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world.
It's good teaching practice. And what's more, once you learn to spot flaws in the bad code you might start finding flaws in the stuff that's supposed to be good. I think that applies to the scientific method, too. If you understand the how and why the scientific method works you can get an understanding of its limitations (as I mentioned earlier, it's based on the assumptions that there really is a world that we're observing and that rules that have applied in the past will continue to apply for instance. Both very good assumptions for getting on with life, but it's important to understand that they're pragmatic rather than strictly rational -- that way you get people who believe in science, not in scientism).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Where is evidence for an intelligent designer? You're joking right? Open your eyes and look around... how does the Eagle know how to build its nest? How did a Venus Fly-Trap Evolve? (How did anything evolve?) How are you reading this? Even atheists should admit there is plenty of evidence (not proof) for an intelligent designer - but most wouldn't of course.
And you my friend are the ignorant one if you don't believe the scientific community, generally speaking, are desperate to disprove God.
I've come to the conclusion that science, *at least how we have today*, is just a kind of neo-religion. Take, for example, theoretical physics and regular religions: 1) Both try to build a system to supply the need to explain how human beings and the cosmos came into existence. Even though religion doesn't "believe" in God, there are also religions that doesn't believe in a greater power creating and ruling everything (buddhism, for example). 2) Both does so by creating theories that go on evolving and changing, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. For example, a long time ago *christians* accepted the idea that the universe was 10 thousand years old, but now they don't. Then, science also had his own hiccups, believing Earth to be flat, etc. 3) So both use theories that eventually change, get disproved, evolve into more complex theories or are substituted by newer, more elegant ones. But they continue to be just that, theories. 4) In both fields, religion and science, there's a great tendency of ignoring new developments in order to keep the orthodox, more comfortable understanding. For example, there are several holes with quantum physics and relativity in general that, although observed in practical terms, are ignored because they don't match the *theory*. So both fields tend to favor theories against direct observation, when the phenomena observed cannot readily be explained by the current official theory, nor explained with a new theory. 5) Both fields do so in a belief that their method is the best way there is. Religion believes they are right because of their faith, Science believes they are right because of the belief that everything can be explained and deducted away by the "Scientific Model". So, both religion and science are founded upon a theory that should work, but in practical terms, is not applied (hence the bloody wars that "loving" christians fight, hence the attachment of the scientific establishment to obviously flawed theories just because they have become commonly accepted). Just because the bible says that the planet is a sphere suspended upon nothing (if that's what it really is), doesn't mean that it's right about everything. Just because some things can be explained using the currently preferred scientific theory, it doesn't mean that the theory is wholly right and a "law", as the "laws" of physics are called (at least until disproved). Because "laws" on religion are more subjective, they cannot easily be disproven, but they are just like scientific laws, only harder to disprove. Scientific law's, because are purposedly based on objectivity, can be disproved if enough objective arguments are shown, but they are still wrongly taken as "laws". So if someone, one day, disproves the "law" of conservation of energy, the next new theory will still be called a "law" and considered a hard truth, until also disproven. Just like religion. 6) Both religion and science should be based on direct observation of reality, without judments or prejudices from either the past, from the commonly accepted model, nor from the observer's own mind. It should be ok to say "I don't know", instead of creating myriad theories to explain things away, or worse yet, taking these explanations for granted as "truth". So, if you don't know how humanity came into existence, just say "I don't know" and explore it. If you don't know how the universe came into being, just say "I don't know" and try to understand the universe, instead of creating *theories* like the big bang, for example. Get the Spaghetty monster, throw in some calculations, and BAM, you got a reasonable scientific theory for today's standards of science. Silly. 7) Even if you consider the Big Bang theory as being elegant and probable, it is still a theory, and only that. People in the past must've thought, for some reason, that the idea of one or many omnipotent, omnipresent, always-existing, never-born personal being creating the entire existence was very elegant and a good explanation, but that also is just a theory. After all, if such powerful being(s) ca
On the other hand, as an outsider to your religion I have to admit that it sounds just as crazy as Creationism. Every other word is capitalized (Kingdom, Scripture, Covenant, He, Him...). There were an awful lot of FULLY-CAPITALIZED words. It reads like a more erudite Time Cube.
The "Theory" of Evolution is to Evolution as the "Theory" of Gravity is to Gravity. They are both attempts to explain an *observed* phenomena. Creationism and "Intelligent Design" make no attempt to explain the observable phenomena of evolution. They are concerned primarily with Biogenesis (ie. How did live get started in the first place) and essentially ignore evolution If they should be compared to anything, that comparison should take place in physics classes where the Theory of the Big Bang is discusses, as *that* is the scientific theory which concerns itself with Biogenesis.
There they can be compared against an actual scientific theory (meaning a testable, and tested hypothesis) and shown to fall short of even meeting the definition of hypothesis (ie. an *educated* guess).
But Creationism and "Intelligent Design" are most appropriately taught in philosophy class. That's where untestable guesses at the *meaning* of life are discussed. Putting them in science or physics classes would be like putting novels where the characters don't need calculus to succeed in life in math class, or teaching the views of the Amish in an electronics class as an "alternate view".
Technically they are an alternate view, but they're *so* different (essentially arguing against the discipline itself) that they belong in the disciplines which discuss the merits of pursuing other disciplines: philosophy class.
All major religious deserve equal time with Plato, Socrates and Machiavelli because they address the same subject matter, take the same approach, hold themselves to the same standard, and are widely discussed. I'm sure people with other philosophies that conflict with science would like their views to be equated with it as well, but there is a standard they do not meet and thus cannot yet be granted equivalency yet. Take it, leave it, or meet the standards of the area you want your ideas discussed in.
Those who think their ideas need special treatment, to be held to a *lower* standard than anything else, clearly do not have much confidence in them. It would be an insult to those who do to, listen only to those who don't - and that goes for any idea.
I think logic and critical thinking should be taught in schools
"But the world isn't flat. Nope, it's shaped like a burrito!"
Extra points to those who catch the reference. :) And therein lies a hint as to why this is just more of the same.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
much like similar abilities in other species, such as sharks.
yeah but where does the platypus put the laser beam?
Don't cross the Orthodox Professors...
They'll have you fired; your job at (the) stake!
and been found seriously wanting as a theory. Utterly void, in fact, of any real physical evidence. So: one might conclude that it is a theory, but if so, it is an astoundingly bad one. Approximately, in my opinion, about the same quality as a theory as a tricycle makes a quality airplane.
If you are lucky enough to live in a northern climate you will see, if you go to an open field, that in the spring once the snow starts to melt there will be an acumulated layer of dirt on the top of the snow. This is dust that has dropped out of the air during the winter. Now if you are even further north, say the Greenland Ice Cap, the snow will never really melt away. So year after year you will have layering in the ice cap, in the same manner as you have tree rings. One layer of dust per year.
Now if say today we were to go down 28 layers (28 years) we would find dust from Mount St. Helens. Go down another 87 layers and you will find dust from the Krakatoa erruption, another 1816 layers and we get to Mount Vesuvius which errupted in AD67.
So we have gone down almost 2000 layers and it equals about 2000 years. Now if the world were only here since 4004 BC then there should be only 4071 layers more in the ice cap. Instead we find that there are over 100000 layers to go.
Now we have seen and can prove that since 67 AD we have one layer per year so if we have over 100000 layers the earth must have been around for at least 100000 years in order to creat those layers.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Most of what we know about the development of this universe is unverified, and unverifiable theory, completely dependent on our current understanding of things as we observe them today. That will change shortly. It always has. Don't think so? Wait until the LHC has been running a couple years. Then check what is accepted theory now vs then. This fellow is also a biologist - that makes him a scientist. Perhaps we should check the facts before we all freak out.
Current theories make a number of assumptions which we have no way of checking - that is why they are theory. One such assumption is the continuity of time. What if we discover mater is a stable form of some infinitely recursive energy construct, which assumes some fundamental frequency unique to the local system, cluster, or galaxy? What if time is relative to this local fundamental frequency? What if gravity results from the "noise" of these recursions? Time could no longer be considered continuous throughout this universe, and most everything we know about gravity could become historical belief. This of course instantly results in a lot of broken equations. These two simple discoveries could wreck much of our idea of what a universe is, and much of what we know would need to be re-computed.
Some readings of the Genesis account suggest the seven "days" are actually seven ages, and the third age is particularly interesting, in that it seems to include months and seasons - that would mean it could not be a 24 hour earth day. These ages roughly correspond to known geological periods. The Genesis story is not science, but a world view which has given our civilization a time line of where it exists in the grand scheme of things. Is it really necessary that all parties to this issue eradicate every trace of non-conformist thought? I think not.
Yay for more people talking sense. :) I agree that any talk of how valid science might be versus other possible explanations belongs in a philosophical context, possibly even as a matter for epistemology (nailing down how we know what we know).
However, you bring up belief within a scientific context, and I find myself thinking that this is exactly the problem:
This reveals a profound misunderstanding about what "science" is. Religion has its fundamentalists -- I say it's high time scientists go a similar route -- teach the fundamentals. Science is an extension of logically viewing the world. It is about observing, as objectively as possible, and then logically deriving the best possible explanation for the perceived phenomena. A very important part of this is posing a hypothesis -- a fancy word for supposing something about what you've observed -- and *testing* that in a logical manner to make sure it's the best possible fit. It is entirely about logic -- belief does not come into it.
Within this logical framework, there is *nothing* about creationism that fits.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Logically, quod erat demonstrandum, creationism is not scientific. Also, logically, it is therefore bollocks to teach it as science. Sure, it may be viewed as an alternative to the scientific view of the world, I certainly agree with Michael Reiss on that account. But then any other view at all also counts as an alternative...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I read the original article. I agree that teachers should explain why creationism isnt science. In fact, they should be proactive and explain what psuedoscience is. These issues raise a bigger question. Where did reasoning go? What happened to basic principals of logic and fallacy? These are things kids in school are no longer learning. They should mandate a philosophy class emphasizing what consitutes a rational argument, recongizing fallacy, exploiting fallacy, burden of proof, and historical progress of philosophy. Heck, throw in a segue to the scientific method as it applies to logic. Philosophy is the basis of inquisitive and rational thinking that would set a healthy atmosphere for math, science and arts.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Correct. For those screaming about how closed-minded discussing ID or creationism is they are themselves being closed-minded and not getting the point.
Step 1: Put down The God Delusion.
Step 2: Think for yourself. Mr Dawkins is terribly clever, yes, but you too have a brain. And being clever does not make him right about everything.
Step 3. Read Reiss' article. It won't hurt. You might even learn something.
As the son of a life-long bureaucrat, I say, Amen brother! ;)
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
His own title for his own article: "Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design". And then:
Sack him is right.
I would say "you should ask the devout Catholic that wrote the text book as he will probably be able to better level with you."
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
for some reason Creationism was taught in my science class (1991 sydney, australia) - about all I remember from the class was dating the Earth by tracing the number of generations in the bible.
the science teacher probably not happy about this addition to the curriculum protested the best way he could: teaching a lesson on critical thinking and "what qualifies as science?" (falsifiable claims, etc) the day before.
"...only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt..."
That would be nobody's. The way you used it here was in the plural form, as in 'a bunch of nobodies.' Oh, never mind. You got it right.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
quick guesstimate is that most will have picked it up from a parent figure earlier in their life...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
A pigeon is a kind of bird. A pidgin is a kind of language -- one that is created as a mix of others by children. It usually turns into a full-blown language within a generation or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin
Biology should probably point out that there is no human entity, just human Cubics - as in 4 different people in a 4 corner stage metamorphic rotation - never more than 1 corner at same time.
Also, mathematics could probably be reformed to acknowledge the controversy over what -1 x -1 equals. Although +1 is the "standard" answer given by secularists, I happen to be of the opinion that it's WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. Even if it's going to be taught, the alternate theory, that the natural antipodes of +1 x +1 = +1 and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres - ought to be taught alongside it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
World is not flat world is balanced on the back of turtle and We should teach "Bird and Bee" in Biology . as mentioned before in /. this not science this is sophistry
somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
Let's face it, there are contradictions throughout the bible to easily make this seem like a silly topic.
Genesis (which I've read in several interprettations as well as in hebrew as b'rashit) and even when I was younger and willing to believe what my parents believed and I hadn't even heard of evolution as of yet, I had many questions regarding the logic behind it. After all, it seemed very unrealistic to me that everythe was created so quickly.
This didn't change my faith. It just struck me as if God had provided us with a VERY short answer to a question that he himself didn't consider to be the important to what he was attempting to accomplish. He described it in a way that people who lacked education could be pasified and if you wanted the real answer, you can look deeper and figure it out. What Genesis was saying was that God created it all. He provided something similar to a childrens book version of what he did and moved on.
So, now that I'm enlightened and no longer believe in fairy tales like God, I am forced to wonder why creationism is taken so literally by religion. They constantly try to tell us that it is not our job to question Gods motives but instead to accept what he did was for our best interests in the greater picture. Yet, they can't accept that a story of creation fed to Mose's flocks might have been an extremely simplified version of what happened and that the real deal could in fact be a process that took him 13 billion years to accomplish.
So, why is the literal interprettation of Genesis so important to them? I mean really... they talk about Intelligent Design to try and make science accept the literal translation of Genesis. Why can't they assume that maybe the scientists have simply finally figured out what their God did and take credit for that instead?
After all, who would want to pray to an ever eternal God that has existed infinately, who considers a billion years to be little more that how we see waiting 5 minutes for a bus that slapped all this shit together in 7 days? I mean really, if God loves us nearly as much as they say he does, wouldn't he have spent the equivilent of one of our hours (about 13 billion years hehe) trying to actually get it right?
Don't forget that you are reading this on a computer which was made by scientific methods of inquiry. I will give equal time to Creationism when it will get me a equally good machine to read /.
and contrary to public perception iPhone is not Jesus phone so that won't count
somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
I'm an idiot, so can you explain gravity for me? Not the effect, but the the mechanism - I assume you're referring to this by saying that it can be 'explained'?
Or more worryingly, in British schools anyway, the teachers most likely won't be able to question any child who expresses creationist beliefs because to do so would not be 'multi cultural' enough.
If this guy is really asking for a open scientific discussion of creationism in the classroom then this would be a great opportunity to tackle all the children who are currently being religiously programmed by their parents and actually take them to task and destroy utterly every last vestige of religious thought with a giant science cannon weilded by the teacher.
A lot of teachers are too wishy washy and liberal to properly challenge religious nonsense in the classroom and a lot more are worried about being accused of racism or other such nonsense so in addition it needs to be made clear to teachers they not only have the right to crush religious expression in their classrooms they also have a duty to do so.
Source please.
I'd like to see an article that clearly shows evolutions FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER as a fact, with evidence. I'm not talking about CHANGES WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.
This is a sincere question.
didnt we settle this division of church and state bull like a few hundred years ago ... maybe we should burn all churches and stake all priests and let those who need God talk to her or him ... or it, directly , and hang the pope while we're at it , who needs 'im anyway?
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
A scientist / clergyman argues that creation should be discussed in science class and 'scientists' want him fired or this?
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
No. You obviously didn't read the fine article.
According to the article a scientist / clergyman is trying to teach science in science class and he's having trouble because a few of the students come in badly misinformed by the anti-evolution PR campaign. This scientist / clergyman wants "to let[] the facts prove themselves", but he says he's having trouble teaching them the facts. He is trying to adjust his teaching of the facts... his teaching of evolution... he's trying to adjust his teaching in a way to help dogmatic resistant creationist students learn the science and learn the facts.
What ever happened to the notion that your scientific theories are better because they match the available evidence more closely than anything else available?
Right. All of the available evidence confirms evolution. The problem he is having is that some students are coming in and refusing to pay any attention to the lessons and the evidence.
Now we have scientists trying to silence a dissenting opinion?
There is political controversy over evolution and there is social controversy over evolution, however there is no actual scientific controversy over evolution.
Of professional earth and life scientists, rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of them agree evolution is the one and only scientific theory supported by the evidence. If you want to look to the tenth of a percent, 99.9% are on the evolution side. And those 99.9% consider the 0.1% to be crackpots pushing idiological bogoscience. Out of about 480,000 earth and life scientists only about 700 give any credence at all to Creation Science.
And as for high school science classes, you must teach an accurate overview of the field as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. To the nearest full percent, 100% of professionals biologists consider evolution to be the one and only understanding and practice of modern biology.
There is one and only one accurate presentation of the professional field of biology. 100% of biologists practice biology on the basis of evolution, there is no dispute over that fact, there is no dissent from that fact.
This attitude makes me more weary of Evolution than of any other scientific theory. no matter how may ways people try to argue ague against gravity or electricity, they are simply confronted with the evidence or simply ignored.
If only that would work with evolution. But people dogmatically dedicated against evolution simply ignore the evidence, and we can't simply ignore them because they keep lobbying politicians and running public relations misinformation campaigns and they keep trying to seize control of public school science classes to kick actual science out and substitute anti-evolution pseudoscience.
Only Biologists try to get heretics fired or simply silenced in defense of the sacred Evolution dogma.
If a high school science teacher is teaching that the sun is powered by electricity or anything else misrepresenting science, then yes, that teacher damn well should be fired. Or at minimum transfered to be a gym teacher or something and get some proper science teachers to ACCURATELY present the various fields of science as understood and practiced by professionals in those fields.
The notion that there is any dispute over the science is pure PR fiction.
The number of anti-evolutionists is roughly comparable to the number of scientists that claim the sun is powered by electricity.
Out of about 480,000 earth and life scientists about 479,300 are on the evolution side.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It's not a theory. It's an epistemological framework that lets scientists ignore religion and get on with actual science, and which lets creationists believe in the Creation without needing to feel threatened by scientific evidence for evolution.
Indeed. You got a problem with that?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
How this guy became the voice of the Royal Society shows you how UnRoyal and UnFreemasonry this Society has become.
Joe Bloggs is getting entirely the wrong idea about String Theory, owing to the misunderstood statement that "we can't test it".
String Theory is perfectly testable. It's just not testable by us RIGHT NOW, at the energy levels we can currently generate. (Although the LHC might provide some very early hints in that area.) In due course though, we'll be testing it alright, fully, and having a good laugh if it's way off target, or dishing out Nobel Prizes if it matches scientific observations.
This contrasts markedly with alleged "explanations" such as done by religion, which are not testable ever, even if we live a billion years.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
a zealot (and good for you!), but belief in anything supernatural is irrational whichever way you try to spin it.
Who has suggested giving equal time to Creationism? Anyone can knock down straw men, but reading the discussion and responding to the points made needs a bit of thought something too many folks here seem to struggle with whenever anybody mentions religion.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"Crush religious expression", eh? So you don't have the confidence in your own viewpoint to let it stand up to intelligent debate; other viewpoints need to be "crushed"? If you "crush" religious expression in the classroom, religious parents will just take their kids out of the state system and the kids will get exposure to no alternative viewpoint. Way to defuse religious/secular tensions!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
The problem is religious people ask to be judged on a scientific basis - and then when they are say that they have not been judged on their criterion.
I have nothing against judging religions scientifically, or against saying they are non-scientific beliefs. The problem is when someone wants to say it is a scientific belief but won't evaluate the theory against evidence.
That's not strictly true. Science is very much conclusions seeking evidence, but with the requirement of falsifiability. And I don't believe that religion seeks evidence at all. It is simply conclusions, and if some corroborating evidence happens to come along, then all the better.
I think that the fact that a theory is controversial should be taught in a science class, and the reasons for it should be discussed, in the context of scientific method. You can't teach scientific method without discussing what constitutes scientific method and what does not.
same with Bible Brigade , try telling them that sun is center of universe and they will give you Hemlock , try telling pope that its impossible for a old man with white beard to walk on water and they will hang you . than question remain who contributed more to the progress of society ? Scientist or theologists (priest if you like ) . Its not fair to enjoy fruit of science while questioning he very basic premise of Science .
somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
It's not "DesCartes", but "Descartes". Do you write "ChurchHill" or "Churchhill"?
Don't take it personally, but I see this mistake far too often.
That assumes that Earth wasn't created in 4004 BCE with 95 929 layers pre-packaged. Such a thing is of course untestable and therefore not scientific, but there is room for such a viewpoint.
I'd liken it to my ability to start virtual machine instances from certain saved states. In an odd way, familiarity with computers has brought me round to the creationist way of thinking a little.
Again, who is "questioning the very basic premise of Science" (whatever that is, and I'm interested that Science now gets a capital letter like God does). I think it's perfectly fair to acknowledge the benefits of the scientific method whilst still asking whether science can necessarily answer all of the questions that are of concern to us? Note that I say "asking", I don't say "claiming blindly that it can't (or, for that matter, can). When science ceases to allow questions, it ceases to be science.
Who has contributed more to the progress of society? Well, a lot of historians of science reckon that science developed out of religion; specifically that the Judeo-Christian religion taught that the universe is ordered, and so people started looking for that order. Those who thought the universe chaotic didn't bother looking because they didn't expect there to be anything to find. And, of course, religious institutions have traditionally been major sponsers of science. On that reckonning, religion can claim that it has contributed everything of its own and everything of science, so it's a clear winner. Too many people look at a view of history that has been heavily filtered by 19th century anti-clericalism.
Oh, and on the past abuses in the name of religion -- have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? He advocates initiating an apocalypse because the destruction of humanity is better than allowing religious people to continue to exist. It's an interesting book, that comes with a ringing endorsement from Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalist extremism, anybody? It's not just the religious who will kill and die for their ideologies.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask . Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework . Newtonian Mechanics fail at subatomic level so we have theory of relativity and now there is no Ambiguity thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground
somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
From its very founding the Royal Society of Science was closely tied to the church of England. I find this not so surprising.
On Pastafari and the FSM
At the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool, Reiss said "creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view."
In much the same way as having your head stuck in your rectum shouldn't be construed as an anatomical misadventure, so much as a world view... ask almost anyone in Washington D.C. these days...
I completely appreciate that a tremendous number of people in the world are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of life and death, and that when faced with the utter immensity of eternity they feel compelled to come up with a story that saves them from the sheer terror of having to deal with their relationship to the eternal. Anything that gives one a sense of lasting peace, comfort, and solitude, by all means, have at it.
I would suggest however, that in your indulgence, you should at least attempt to remember that your spiritual thingy is housed in a biological entity composed primarily of C,H,O,N, expressed as a colony of hundreds of billions of individual cells, in an ecological community of trillions of living organisms, in a 3+1 Space Time Continuum, and that your existence obeys certain laws of physics and chemistry. For instance, if you should walk onto a busy highway, and pray fervently... I'm going to simply guess the odds are vanishingly small that you will successfully miracle that oncoming semi from splattering your earthly remains all over the scenery. If there is a deity, he made the universe with rules, and for the most part (save a couple passages in various religious texts) those rules are ignored at extreme risk to your (and others) personal well being.
As a society, we need to begin working at putting an end to what have become a riot of magical thinking. The universe is miraculous enough, filled with more than sufficient wonders and amazement, to keep our kind occupied without resorting to weird, ficticious, and superstitious, beliefs. I have no problem with spiritual endeavor, as long as one clearly understands the line between metaphysics and physics, and doesn't resort to sticking one's head a dark place to avoid the sometimes painful confrontation between what is so, and what we wished were so. The universe doesn't care, any more than that semi on the busy highway. A brief exercise in philosophical courage, should yield high dividends in building a world that works, and putting truth ahead of social expedience.
"Now personally I love that idea. Stop creationism dead in it's tracks as an alleged "scientific theory" I think its like agreeing to negotiate with a terrorist
somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
Hey who said anything about right wrong or fair. I've had it up to here with these medieval religious types, not only do they think that they have a god given right to overpopulate the planet and kill everything on it through global warming and pollution of one sort or another - but they also want to wind the clock back past the enlightenment and subject us all to their superstitious crap. So no way am I going to sit back and let these loonies destroy my culture with their backwards rubbish. In case you hadn't noticed we are living in a time when so called religious fundamentalists of one sort or another are trying to kill us all for kicks because they don't believe we are human. Well game theory says your chances are better if your response matches your opponent. So no I'm not going to sit back and whistle whilst these creepy mentally ill people change science into a cultural pursuit like sociology.
This is war, the killing is only just around the corner, just wait and see.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask .
That is the present situation, yes. It wasn't the historical situation; for much of recorded history there was a religious powerbase that dictated one specific interpretation of religious questions.
Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework .
Again, that's the situation now, but it's a view of science that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, with the development of logical positivism and Popper's idea of falsifiability. Newton did great stuff that we have been able to build on, but he didn't work according to the modern scientific method (which is why you find so much mysticism and alchemy in his writings; it's embarrasing to those who see a black-and-white "science always right, mysticism always wrong" that a religious mystic like Newton could get so much right.
A lot of the acrimony in the science v. religion arguments comes from a lack of awareness of our history. Scientists assume that the modern view of science is the way it's always been, but it's a 20th century development. Religious fundamentalists think that they're going back 2000 years but their ideas only go back to the 19th century. Reading up on the philosophy of science and its history can be really valuable. It won't change your ideas of who is right and who is wrong, but it should show you that the lines are not as crisply drawn as the Dawkins brigade would have us believe.
thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground
If there were hardly any common ground there would be hardly any territory to fight over -- Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria". I agree that there's a lot of ground that is not common -- everything metaphysical (unfortunately we need metaphysics -- even the scientific method has metaphisical foundations -- and nobody -- not the scientific, not the religious, not the philosophical -- has yet come up with a dependable way of dealing with it). But all religions that teach interventionist deities are teaching that there is common ground, if not common methodology, between science and religion and so come within the scope of scientific investigation.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I don't really see why it is so un-scientific to say that a highly intelligent life-form may have designed the physics around us.
Please don't use the term "survival of the fittest". It was not coined by Darwin, it was coined by Herbet Spencer. He was a social Darwinist. He used the principles described by Darwin and applied them (erroneously, IMHO) to sociology.
Secondly, in evolutionary biology, fitness is defined as number of offspring an organism has. To survive means to have successfully passed on genes to another generation. So if fitness is greater than zero the organism has already survived. To say "survival of the fittest" is to say "those who successfully breed successfully breed." //Took a whole course JUST on evolution.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
As someone else already pointed out, Michael Reiss is advocating discussion of creationism in class, not teaching it as fact. You can't show the emperor has no clothes unless you can get him out in public view. The same goes for other crackpot hypotheses. I am pretty sure that my kid's Holocaust class at religious school this year will include discussion of Holocaust denial, so that she and her classmates will know how to debunk the people who say it didn't happen.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
You will not be able to find such an article, as one which can conclusive show speciation will effectively end this whole debate.
Naturally, speciation as we know it takes at least (maybe about) hundreds or thousands of years, so you're not likely to ever see such a study in your lifetime.
However, if you talk to the evolutionary biology department of your local university the professors there should be able to give you a detailed explanation of how change in gene frequency over time creates differences in phenotype (I'm assuming you don't reject this, there's a million sources for it - maybe one of Grant's studies would be most convincing), and how sufficient differences in phenotype can prevent individuals of the same species from reproducing-that's about as close as you can come to showing speciation.
Additionally compounding the problem is that the term "species" is piss-poorly defined, basically as just "we know it when we see it", allowing a whole lot of wiggle-room for creationists.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
Let me get this straight.
Religion is outside the realm of science?
MMmm.....then why is it that many facets of string theory are so "religious" in nature.
(i.e. absolutely NO CHANCE of it EVER being tested, but is put forth as credible "pure science" research.)
String Theory is THE cutting edge that we have to offer in physics today about how all of the forces in the Universe relate and work together to form reality.
Even those working on the theory are concerned with it, in that it is becoming almost "religous" in nature. (Oh isn't that just so HORRIBLE?).
See: ``The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next'' by Lee Smolin; Houghton Mifflin
Sounds like there are great leaps of "faith" as it were, based on some logic that may or may not explain how reality is.
So it is OK to have faith based on a logical result of a series of assumptions, as long as it is called "science", but it is not OK to have such beliefs if it is called religion?
I am going to call your bluff, and point out that science frequently intervenes in areas it has no conclusive proof otherwise, and decrees things impossible simply because, well, "I am a scientist. You will not argue with me."
Lets take the age of the earth.
Science says....about ~5-6 billion. (If we can depend on the rate of decay being the same and constant for that length of time. Even THAT may not be the case. See: http://groups.google.com/group/libero-captivum/browse_thread/thread/de09483b3d89936d?hl=en )
Bible thumpers say 10,000 years or so.
On one side you have the decree of the scientists saying any other finding other than 5-6 billion is impossible because we said so.
(This result cannot be proven directly, only indirectly through decay estimates, which MAY or MAY NOT be constant over that length of time, probably not, see above.)
On the other hand you have the bible thumpers who say the ancestry of man can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve, and its about 4000 BC.
For Example:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~emsleyjohnson/
Now, which one is based on faith.
Answer: Both.
Which one is technically right?
Mmmm....I am not qualified to answer that question, but neither are you.
The only person who is qualified to answer that question is the person who was there when the universe was created and seen it happen, and started the clock.
I wonder who THAT would be.
Wanna take a guess?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I saw a post on here about 'testable results' and can't find it, so I'm being lazy and starting a new thread.
.1% who were strong enough to survive now have tough children just like them. Next time, your soap kills 99%... then 95%... soon those surivors are getting tougher and tougher.
Evolution DOES have testable and predictable results. The problem is you have to know every peice of enviromental factors to predict where evolution will take a species. You can't exactly say "Well, this bug will be purple in 8924 generations" because in order to know what's going to happen you have to know everything about it's situation between now and then. In the wild, that's difficult. In the lab it's still tricky, but possible.
To give an example, evolution would predict that if a large population were poisoned in a way that all were exposed but it was only killed 50% of them (weak poison for example, or only a short term exposure) then the 50% survivors would breed and their children would have more resistant children. If this repeated every generation or ten, then eventually the whole population would be resistant or immune.
We see this all the time, it's why hospitals are having trouble with super resistant illnesses. Your treatment kills 99.9% of a microbe, that
And don't give me that microevolution crap. We control evolution on a daily basis. Dogs, Cats, Cows, Horses... any number of other cases where WE chose what traits get to breed, and which ones don't. You think that pomeranians were the natural 'next step' in survivablility in wolves? When you breed dogs for a specific trait, you're altering their evolution manually... all the theory of evolution states is that this form of breeding happens naturally (the best fit for their enviroment survive to breed again) taken over a LONG ASS TIME (I think this is the part people really can't grok) cause a species to change.
crap, this is turning into a rant...
I really wish I could tie down creationists, tape their eyes open clockwork orange style, and force feed them facts untill they woke up. Most of them are good people, just overly defendent of what they grew up hearing...
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
On the contrary I have perfect confidence in science which is why I am sure once it is used effectively in the classroom to counter religious mumbo jumbo I have no doubt that the religious mumbo jumbo will effectively be crushed.
It's true some of the more extreme religious nutjobs may decide to take their children elsewhere but at least they will then become outcast from general society at large and tolerance for their ridiculous ideas will fade. At that point it may be possible to take some practical steps to eliminate them once and for all. I don't think it's going too far to suggest bringing back the death penalty for dealing with any persistant hardcore child abusers who refuse to renounce their faith, they will even enjoy the experience of becoming martyrs and meeting their God ( or not ) rather sooner than they expected.
that might work in some cases but the only info fundamentalists have to be fundamental about is what's printed in their holy text. in the case of fundamentalist christians if the bible says god did it in 6 days, then that's as good as god telling them himself.
if you try to contradict the bible with logic and evidence they just disappear down the rabbit hole of denialism and supernatural conspiracy theories, whereby any contrary evidence is either god testing their faith or satan spreading lies.
pretty much the best inroad into opening their minds is to demonstrate where the bible contradicts itself - since the bible can't be true and not true at the same time the conflict can't be explained away as satanic lies or faith testing divine trickery.
this at least forces them into a moderate position of having to take some of the bible with a grain of salt, which then opens the door for them to be more reasonable about accepting scientific evidence about the history of the world.
if you stand back and look at it, it becomes clear that fundamentalists don't worship their god, they actually worship their holy text - only once you knock it off its own pedestal are you able to open their minds to any external evidence.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Death penalty for thought crime, eh? Welcome to the brave new totalitarian world. If you want to kill anybody who disagrees with your beliefs, in my book that makes your beliefs a religion. Hope you remember to add yourself to your own list.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Back in the 1940's - 50's, when the Steady State theory still looked popular in Cosmology, some very serious scientists (Bertrand Russell and Fred Hoyle, for two), routinely pointed to the SS as a disproof of God. ... Most of these scientists, when the Big Bang theory won out, fought to find ways to use it as a disproof too.
Sorry, no. Fred Hoyle in fact never did accept the big bang theory, so it's disingenuous to suggest that he pointed to the big bang as a disproof of God.
Nor did Russell make such an argument. Famously, in his article "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?", Russell stated "I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God." So it's a little hard to say that he used the big bang as an argument to prove God doesn't exist, when he already said that no such argument exists.
...Then there's Carl Sagan:
"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to persue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" - Carl Sagan - Cosmos p.257
Before writing this, Dr. Sagan has already outlined the two main recent theories of cosmogenesis in previous chapters - The "Big Bang' theory, and the competing "Steady State" theory were both covered in the third chapter of Cosmos. He has then explained why the best evidence supports the "Big Bang" model. But, if we accept the big bang model, we can't simultaneously conclude that the universe has always existed. Dr. Sagan, by his own writing, does not really think the universe has always existed, and so he has a good reason for not "saving that final step". Why not conclude that the universe has always existed? Because the cosmic microwave background records the flash of its birth, so we are not allowed to take that step. You told us that, Dr. Sagan, so why are you asking this question like it is a rhetorical one? If the Steady State prevailed, we could save your step.
If you actually read what he wrote he said that if you ask the question "where did the universe come from" and get the reply "God created it," then you must logically ask the question "where did God come from," which is exactly as difficult a question as the original question "where did the universe come from."
There are two proposed responses to the question "where did God come from?" He points out that you can take either answer, and apply that answer to the original question, "where did the universe come from" as easily as you can apply it to the question "where did God come from."
His response is phrased using the word "if". If you are told that "God always existed" in response to the second question, then you can answer "the universe always existed to the first question.
So pointing out that "the universe always existed" is inconsistent with the big bang cosmology is irrelevant... that was an if statement. When I say "If you tell me that elves exist, then you should leave a bowl of milk on your doorstep" -- this does not imply that I believe elves exist.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
is this. in u.s., kooks who are saying world is 6000 years old run rampant, whereas anyone who dares such sh@t in europe gets the boot.
and that is coming from a turk. get a load of that irony.
Read radical news here
Teach the controversy - that is the latest tactic from the Creationists. I have a number of problems with what they propose; none of which have anything to do with talking about Creationism in a science class. After all, it is important not only to teach what science is, but also what it isn't, and what example could really be more suited that ID?
The problems I do have are centered around their driving motivations. A scientist genuinely searches for the truth; this is probably because as a scientist you are not as interested in the answer as in the quest to find it. It is quite common for a scientist to hold a strong opinion about something and then change his opinion in the light of new evidence; it happens many times every day all over the world. The Creationists, on the other hand, have decided what the truth is; or it has been revealed to them (the question being, of course, by whom?). They don't want to let evidence get in the way of their Truth, so the evidence is interpreted to fit with their conclusion.
This is why scientists so often are atheists - they say things like "if God exists, then he would probably manifest himself like thus; after all, that is what the Bible says". After a while one tends to run out of faith, because apparently God never, ever manifests himself in any way that we can detect. That is not to say that all scientists have rejected the possibility of the supernatural or even of God; but if he is real and not just a delusion, you would expect to find solid evidence of some sort somewhere. Let us see it and we will believe.
On the other hand, Creationists and their ilk will explain away the lack of evidence rather than face the logical conclusion, sometimes resorting to impressive intellectual feats of reinterpreting "God's will". Allegedly God hears our prayers and answers them, he is good and relieves our pain and cures our illnesses miraculously - so you pray for your child, who is slowly rotting away of some disease, in constant pain that no medicine can help; but to no avail. And then you are supposed to explain that away as "God's will that I don't understand"? To me that kind of "faith" has nothing to do with faith; it is simply unwillingness to face up to the truth. Truth is not something insanely complex, full of insoluble self-contradictions - this is why we call it "the plain truth"; it is generally plain and straightforward.
Apart from that whole discussion there is another, much more down-to-earth reason that Creationism should not be taught as if it were "another possibility on par with science" - public schools are publically funded. They are paid for by everybody, and it does not make sense or reason that you shold be made to pay for the religious indoctrination of your own children, unless you yourself agree with that religious view. Would Christian Creationists accept it if their children were taught Islam or Hinduism rather than the Christian religion? Of course not, and since public education is paid for by everybody, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Atheists, Satanists and what have you, the only reasonable solution is to ban religion from education; and certainly from science education.
I watched you go from a very logical scientific position to a fairy-tale in less than one sentence. You are right that we see micro-evolution everywhere, but it has never been seen that macro-evolution has once occurred on this planet. You may believe that it could happen, but that is not observable, testable, or provable and therefore is not scientific, but instead part of your religion. We have never seen a dog produce a non-dog. If they can, as you say. Why don't they do it today? Something we can measure or at the very least record. You "claim" evolution is science. I say it a religion that is only surviving off tax payer money! Don't like it. Prove me wrong. As if you could!
If nothing else, when teaching Biology and Evolution, the "idea" of creationism SHOULD be discussed - if for no other reason, than as a concrete and relevant example to demonstrate to students, how the Scientific Method works to debunk garbage.
The best part of this is that every student can be taught the basic arguments AGAINST creationism; why it is NOT a theory on par with Evolution, why it is unscientific, and why Science informs us about the true nature of our reality far better than myths and legends.
Does this waste valuable classroom time which would be better spent on teaching scientific facts?
Possibly - but Science class is not all about teaching facts. Science should be first and foremost about teaching Scientific Method and sound Critical Thinking skills. If a student forgets every scientific fact they ever learned in science class, but remembers the methodology, then they should (theoretically) be able to derive everything else for themselves. It is this fundamental concept that is far more important than the memorization of facts. The reason why pseudoscience and other crap is so dangerous, is because kids who have been taught the facts, were not taught to THINK for themselves. So when they're taught about dinosaur fossils on Wednesday, then someone else comes along on Sunday and tells them it was Satan trying to fool them, what do you think they'll believe? If they don't have those critical thinking skills, they'll believe whomever they feel is the higher authority (a logical fallacy). Well, they've already been told that their Creator is the highest authority by default, and that scripture (myth and legend) comes directly from there - so Science class doesn't even have a chance.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I would suggest that, yes, those subjects SHOULD be mentioned. And they should be used as examples of wrongness. You say that we should use critical thinking to determine what is and is not taught? Screw that! I think we need to be teaching OUR KIDS critical thinking.
(In fact, I think that Alchemy was 'taught' in my High School chemistry class - and it was taught as an example of how the ancients "got it wrong" - and how, transmutation of elements *is* theoretically possible (nuclear physics) but not by any known chemical process.
In fact, in my HS Biology classes, I remember also being taught about "alternatives" to Evolution - and even outright fraud like Pildown Man. These bolstered student's critical thinking skills, and knowledge of the Scientific Method - how it works, and why it is the way that it is.
Freedom of Speech means, Bad Ideas get the honest debunking they so richly deserve - and the listeners to that speech don't have to be bothered with people who believe in that garbage, because they'll not only know it's crap, but they'll know the reasons WHY. However, there is a certain responsibility by the defenders of the correct ideas - to have to carry the weight of being skillful enough and knowledgeable enough to call out liars and charlatans, and to resist the temptation to just silence critics and dingbats. That's the easy way out, and it serves no purpose other than to give the purveyors of pseudoscience a perceived platform of martyrdom from which to continue to spew their garbage. This lends an air of credibility to completely undeserving ideas; and does more harm than good.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!
No, clearly schools should teach what the parents want their children to be taught. Like-minded parents should be able to set up their own schools without being burdened by paying for the education of others. That way, there is more choice for everyone. Let the best education win.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
If you're going to try to use skeptical arguments to deny evolution, I reserve the right (since the putative Holocaust happened before I was born) to be equally skeptical about events prior to 1964.
Absolute proof?
Show me some.
Face it, you're just using sophistry to defend a creation myth cobbled together by some Bronze Age priests from other myths during a period of exile where justifying the existence of their religion was vital.
Compare that to the tens or hundreds of thousands of well sourced studies that all add their weight to the theory of evolution, and then tell me why it should be given equal weight.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
You and the Anonymous Coward above amaze me with your lack of reading comprehension. I never said we have SEEN new species appear from another organism, I said the evidence we have suggests that it occurs. Evidence such as fossil evidence, which shows a clear progression between many types of organisms on the planet.
And yes, as another poster above mentioned, the term "Species" really is ill-defined. As for your apparent belief that organisms can't change over time (which is pretty much the entire point of evolution, be it natural selection or artificial selection)... well, have you ever seen a dog? I don't know about you, but the variation between a Pug and a Great Dane is pretty damn huge to me. It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that they can continue changing further until they have even less in common and be considered 2 different species. And we've seen the splintering of dogs and other animals, be it due to environmental factors or factors imposed by man. To say that microevolution is real but that macroevolution is not is almost silly. Macroevolution IS microevolution, just on a significantly longer time frame, and using a more persistent environmental variable to select the survivors of each subsequent generation.
@Zashi: BTW, Darwin DID use the term, but he used it as a metaphor. Your right about Spencer, but he didn't coin the term, he simply used it far more often and named one of his economic theories after it.
Disassociate government from the school system so you have teachers of science arguing about what to teach rather than politicians and voters; most of which have no idea what they are talking about or have reasons (constituency, see "no idea what they are talking about") to disassociate themselves from the truth.
It will never be right with non-scientists directing what scientists teach.
That's because any 'real' christian (a christian that attempts to subscribe to what is actually said in the bible vs someones made up interpretation of it) cannot accept a billions of years old universe.
"In the beginning God created" doesn't exactly place creation 6000 years ago. The young earth theory is a weak extrapolation from incomplete genealogies.
OK, here you go. From talkorigins.org:
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
Many other examples there, too.
You are right that we see micro-evolution everywhere, but it has never been seen that macro-evolution has once occurred on this planet.
If you define "macroevolution" as "speciation", then yes, we have seen it happen. How do you define macroevolution? I hope it isn't...
seen a dog produce a non-dog
because that wouldn't be evolution. It would be creation.
I have one word to say to your response sir:
"RAMEN!"
There, fixed that for you.
My reading comprehension is quite fine. As for your point above, let me break this down for you so that you can keep up. I said that "micro-evolution" happens. It is stated very clearly in the Bible that animals will bring forth after their kinds. You can have a Great Dane or a Pug and they are both still dogs. To quote from you, "It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that they can continue changing further until they have even less in common and be considered 2 different species." There in lies the problem with your argument. You have to imagine and that isn't science. It's a religion. Secondly, the only difference between a fairy-tale and what you believe is that in a fairy-tale you need a kiss to turn a frog into a prince, in evolution, you replace the kiss with long periods of time. You can believe that if you want, but don't call it science. Also, fossils don't count as evidence. When you find bones in the ground, the only thing you know is that this creature died. You don't know that it had any offspring. Example, you breed a horse with a donkey and you get a mule. Mules are infertile, but if you found their bones in the ground, some evolutionist is going to consider that the precursor of somebody even though it isn't. As I have stated before, evolution sounds logical but logical isn't necessarily right!
I would say that they are really the same thing.
"macroevolution" is really just an arbitrary type of evolution that arises from mapping between the line of organisms and taxonomy.
What is a "dog" vs "non-dog". As far as I know the definition of a species is that members of that species can breed with eachother and create fertile offspring. A new species exists when there is a group that can has these properties and cannot produce fertile offspring with the other group. (I am open to correction here, admittedly I was in the bio class in HS that skipped taxonomy entirely and focused mostly on molecular biology... we talked a lot more about the crebs and citric acid cycles than evolution or taxonomy)
Anyway, its a fairly arbitrary concept. Its easy to develop taxonomies today but... thats after millions and millions of years of evolution. dogs and cats are quite different. However, at what point do you declare something a new species?
Its merely the accumulation of gradual changes over time. It doesn't happen that a "dog has a non-dog". It happens that mother has child who has child, and over time, one group ends up becoming too different from the other for breeding to work. Traits stop moving between the groups, and they continue to diverge.
The distinction between micro and macro evolution is ephemeral. What we might term "macroevolution" is simply the accumulation of smaller changes.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Firstly, species is not a well defined term as you seem to think that it is. Experts vary on any blog or scientific journal as to what exactly a species should be labeled as. I on the other hand freely admit that what I believe is a religion. I have no qualms with that statement and need no proof to back it up, even though I am fully convinced that all evidence that you consider to point solely to evolution to be just as viable for creation. You on the other hand consider evolution to be science. If that is true, then what is your definition of a species. The very argument that you are throwing at me, I can just as easily throw back at you. When you define "speciation", what do you mean. I assume you mean that various mutations gradually adding up over time will create a new creature that is biologically dissimilar from what we see today. I on the on the other hand would say that there are limits to change. And unlike your argument, I can prove that there have always been dogs and that they still bring forth after their kind today.
Actually you are not quite right there. It was not Christianity that rejected Heliocentricity (is that even a word?). It was rather fallible men who sought power and did not want to appear ignorant of the universe. There is nothing in the actual Bible that argues the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the Earth. It was actually scientists who had reached the wrong conclusion and then were being corrected when new evidence was presented.
doesn't mean it makes sense.
just because you can ask "why do we exist?" doesn't mean there has to be an answer. It's like asking "How wide is blue?"
You are welcome to believe that Steve, but it isn't science. You can't observe it or test it. Steven J. Gould a leading expert in the field of evolution believes in a concept called spontaneous generation. This is a concept that the evolution that you claim happened over millions of years happened quite rapidly instead. To me, that sounds like creation, but I digress. The point is that you as an evolutionist don't know how it happens, nor can you definitively prove that it did. You simply believe that it did. That is not science, but religion.
Not science? well no, you are right, its not science. It was actually more like semantics, since my point was simply that "micro" vs "macro" evolution is an arbitrary distinction and why that is.
It includes, as needed to make the point, my own description of evolution and definitions from taxonomy. This isn't science, its english.
Now, I was using my model of evolution to describe how the current state of things came to be. Your right, thats not science. Science would be taking this model, and devising tests which could disprove those statements (then doing the tests and publishing the results).
Now, Steven J Gould probably has more information than I do. As such, it sounds like he has come to use a rather different model than I use. I can't speak as to this, as I don't know his model.
The reason its not religion is precisely because I am willing to say that new data can modify the theory. Maybe it wasn't many millions of years, Well, we can ask what the implications of that are, and we can devise a test to see if the new model works.
Thats why I hesitate to guess that you arn't too familiar with Science. There is no proof of anything in science. Only models of how we can explain to eachother how things work, and the never ending desire to know where our model fails. No theory is ever "proven". At best a theory isn't ruled out by any currently known data.
Creationists regularly take advantage of this precision of the language of science, because science is not a relm of certainty, however, its often the relm of many "nines" of certainty.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Let ME get this straight. You are saying that a creationist should be allowed to teach creationism, a thing for which there is absolutely zero proof in the world, in a class where the object is to teach the students to use scientific methodology to come up with a hypothesis, find PPRRROOOOFFFFF to support it, and develop it into a full fledged theory? A scientific theory mind you, not a hypothesis, which is what all religion and creationism is. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe this analogy is accurate, I don't know. If you ran a business and found out that one of your delivery drivers was scooting around in your company truck doing all kinds of crazy stuff, would you fire him? This guy was scooting around and trying to teach baseless religion in a science class.
I have no problem with him teaching creationism. IN a religion class. NOT in science class. It is... not... science. Thus it belongs not in a science class. Why don't we teach culinary arts in science class? Or comparative literature. Are you getting the idea yet?
Damn I despise "fixed that for you" posts. Almost as much as "first post!" posts. Then you get really stupid ones like this, which should result in a 30 day restriction from posting on forums.
Quite the contrary. I would agree that the distinctions between "macro" and "micro" are very arbitrary. And trying to debate over something to which you cannot decide on terms is fruitless. One point you made is erroneous "There is no proof of anything in science." Really, so the human forearm doesn't have two bones? I thought that was scientific and fairly well established. However, my point was that evolution and science are two different things. People attempt to make them synonymous but they are not. You say that you are willing to modify your theory based on proof. Here is a website to a bit of proof for creation. It was submitted to a peer-review journal and has yet to receive an answer. For details, go to halos.com. This research was done by Robert Gentry in Knoxville, TN. As per the religion part, you have a dumb theory. I have no problem with dumb theories. As I stated before, you can believe whatever you want. The issue is that evolution is not provable but is taught in schools like it is. Both it and creationism should be removed as neither has anything to do with science. You may look at the forelimb structure of different animals (example: a bat and a human) and say that they probably had a common ancestor. I would look at it and say that they probably had a common designer. Neither one is provable and neither one should be taught in school.
No not really, its more like attacking the terroist rather than pretend the terroist isn't there. Explain why creationism is bullshit, shoot the terroist.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
or at least a being with a great sense of humor.
I recommend this and other books by the biblical scholar and Christian. By studying how the modern 'Scripture' that you read are arrived at, you can see why a 'Literal interpretation' is fraught with perils at best, and nonsensical at worst.
The Snake Handling Pentecoastal sects believe that THEY are following the literal words in Mark and Luke, you know.
Even worst is how some people wield the 'literal interpretation' cudgel to label as heretics others who may have different interpretations. It astounded me when I first learn of how many variant sects there are among Christians. Sometimes, they are at each other's throat. Can this truely be what Jesus wanted to have happen 2000 years after his live?
You're right, a dead organism doesn't necessarily prove it's related to anything, but we know MUCH more than "it died" and the majority of the fossil record isn't animals we find once or twice, but that we find all over the place. Additionally, even if an animal didn't have offspring, we know it must've had an ancestor, and genetic "leaps" aren't all that common. We see, as a said, a slow progression much more often. So to discount the entire fossil record, which, frankly, is ENORMOUS, because things like infertile crossbreeds exist is rather silly. But, for a moment, lets return to the Great Dane and the Pug. They are both dogs, yes, and as such, they can interbreed. That being said, there are 37 different species of deer. Many of those can interbreed and produce fertile offspring as well. So why are they different species? Again we return to the issue of the vagueness of the term. And yes, I did use the word imagine. My mistake. But again, this is only because macroevolution, practically by definition, requires significant spans of time, mostly due to the rarity of advantageous genetic mutations. We've only been playing with the concept of natural selection for about 150 years or so, and it's only in the last 50 that we've really begun to understand genetics.
As for your frog-prince "analogy"... that's not how it works either. The crux of it, which you missed entirely, is environmental factors which give a certain offspring an advantage, which in turn increases its likelihood to reproduce. All evolution says is that organisms that are better suited for their environment will be more likely to produce offspring. Over a longer period of time, these changes can accumulate to the point where we can consider it an entirely new type organism. In Darwin's age, we didn't know where these changes came from, but now genetics shows us spontaneous mutation and exactly how genetic breeding occurs. The mistake you seem to be making is that you believe that there is some goal that evolution works toward. It does not. And the changes themselves are not a product of evolution either. Most mutations cause the organism to die earlier, to be frank (just look at genetic diseases). Some, though, give them an advantage and are more likely to be passed on. There is no real mystery as to how it works, and it's certainly not magic.
I would agree that we certainly do see animals throughout the fossil record that are much the same, and again you are right that we find many of them throughout the fossil record. The difference is that you make the assumption that this happened over millions of years. I make the assumption that we have a fossil record (which is indeed enormous) because of a great flood. A flood would explain the huge fossil grave yards that we find them in and the fact that many of them are stream orientated. Look up a creationist professor named Walter Veith on google video. He has a whole lecture series dealing with this particular topic. He covers, in great detail, the geological column, radiological dating, and turbidity currents that could easily explain all of what you consider to be evidence for evolution.
On your great spans of time, I would agree that it is easy to imagine those changes over a vast expanse. It is also easy to imagine that a car can transform into a giant talking robot, but it doesn't make it true.
On your point about mutations, the book of Genesis describes man and the environment being considerably superior to what we have today. The mutations that you speak of could be considered genetic breakdown after many copy's of copy's from the original. After all, I am a programmer. If I took a program and made a copy of a copy of a copy many thousands of times, then I would be lucky that the software ran at all. I find it amazing that we can even have this conversation, so to me the original must have been amazing. I agree that most mutations are harmful. I would say that it is a good example of how far we and our environment have degraded.
On the topic of natural selection. That is just a mechanism that selects the most fit to continue. It does not add any diversity and in fact inhibits diversity. An example would be humans today. We are wiping out wild life at an alarming rate because we are the most fit to survive (or so the theory goes). It seems to be working in the opposite direction from creating greater diversity that evolutionists claim happens.
I am not trying to misconstrue what you say, but simply point out that there is equally plausible and viable alternative answers on the creationist end. As I stated before, what you say is logical but it may not necessarily be right.
Besides if your right, there are no consequences to me believing what I believe. If I'm right, you're in a lot of trouble. I am not saying this to scare or scold you, nor do I say it out of some sense of superiority. I was where you are now and I am now convinced that I was wrong. Believe what you wish, but evolution isn't science any more that my back door is a swimming pool. There are many problems that evolutionists can't deal with. One example would be the shrinking sun. Take it back millions of years in time and it is nearly the same size as earths orbit around it today. This was when the dinosaurs were supposed to be walking around on the planet! It doesn't make any sense.
Please understand that I consider you to be a very intelligent person and have had a great deal of fun with this debate today.
In my school i was taught that any debate give a certain legitimacy to a notion . so no matter how much of a stupidity this idea of creationism represent to me . but when i argue my case i can bet there will be few observer who will associate some legitimacy to the notion . this is exactly whats happening on /. with thread like this . thats why we should shoot the idea of this "Equal time crap "
Interesting article. Though, as I read it, it seemed well.... no tvery well thought out. Actually, it wasn't very convincing. Mostly because it kept saying things like "could only have".... with no mention of why that could be, and essentially makes its arguments using very bad analogy.
That doesn't make him wrong though, so I figured maybe a little reading on just what are "polonium halos" from another source... oh wait... this theory has been roundly refuted and discredited: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/
but surely you knew that.
Its not scientific, but its not the the Halos article that passes my bullshit filter. The problem here is, lets say this was true, lets say polonium DID cause these rings (as highly unlikely as it is).... scientists start asking questions and asjusting their models to the new data.
This guy seems to just be taking his old idea (creationism) and finding the facts that fit it, and then calling it proof. Its not just unscientific, its intellectually dishonest.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Time is relative. If you are omnipotent enough to create the universe, who says it doesn't take YOU 6000 years?
Remember the twin problem: One twin travels into space at the speed of light, the other stays on earth. The first twin returns to find his sibling much older than he. Relativity and time dilation make it extremely possible that the earth is 6000 years old depending upon who's clock you use. If you are capable of operating at speeds in excess of the speed of light the multiplier between time frames could be one to many. (btw: The relativity of time as it relates to God is detailed in the Bible)
However, people need to remember that the Bible wasn't created as a construction manual for how things came to be. From the Big Bang to the appearance of life, it basically got it right or at least as right as might be expected given the time that it was written.
I think that people need to accept the history of the relationship between science and religion, and to recognize that each has its place without one invalidating the other.
I will say this exactly as has been stated by Dr. Gentry on his site. "Despite what you find on various evolutionist websites, polonium halos â" actually creation halos â" are well and alive as unequivocal evidence of God's fiat creation of planet Earth. The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the internet is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims." This remains true to this day. So the refutation that you claim is so scientific can't get published in a scientific journal? Further, "First, because geologists claim that granites formed naturally, this means it should be possible to reproduce a small piece of granite in the lab under the same conditions under which geologists presume that giant granite monoliths formed. For that reason over 25 years ago, in the pages of EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, I issued a challenge to the entire geological community to reproduce just a single hand-sized piece of granite in the lab to confirm their unverified assumption that granites formed naturally. Their abject failure to do this is discussed in Chapter 15 and other places in my book, which you can access at www.halos.com. All the experiments attempting to do this always have ended with a formation of a rock that is significantly different from the texture of granite. For decades there has been nothing but failure and more failure. Moreover, and just as significantly, never have any of the synthetic rocks from such experiments contained the creation halos, as does granite itself." So they can't reproduce what they say is a naturally occurring event in a lab? That's interesting! Further, "Evolutionists also claim creation halos in granites formed naturally rather than being the result of God's supernatural creation. So again, by their own admission, it must be possible to reproduce them in the lab in the here and now. Their deafening silence about their continuing failure to do this is also discussed in my book, both in Chapter 15, and in earlier chapters. In other words, the entire basis of all evolutionary geology and age dating has long ago been falsified by experiments performed in the lab along with the indelible imprints of His Fingerprints in Earth's Genesis rocks. But evolutionists and others opposed to the distribution of these results are not only doing their best to hide from it themselves, but are surreptitiously doing all in their power to cast these results in doubt and thus dissuade Christians, especially Christian religious leaders, from taking a strong stand supporting Genesis' literal six days of creation and God's seventh day of rest. In essence, they have formed a conspiracy of silence to evade what they cannot overthrow, in spite of the fact that the Genesis record of creation is unambiguously restated in the Fourth of the Ten Commandments. " So if they know how they are created, why not go prove it in a lab? Dr. Gentry proposed not only what he claims in his thesis but a built in way to disprove it which no one has yet to meet the challenge of. I am well aware of the religious tone in this web site and there is nothing wrong with that. Otherwise, all the evolutionary web sites posting data would need to silenced as well. So here is my question to you. If it is as thoroughly disproven as you say, then why has no evolutionist ever challenged Dr. Gentry in a peer-reviewed journal like they are supposedly required to? I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't if they could. Just a thought.
Yes I read much of that right on his website.
Frankly, it still smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Afterall, isn't he criticizing those same journals for not publishing him? Why would a peer reviewed journal publish a paper thats just well, a refutation of his ideas which also don't make the cut?
This guys arguments are just bad. He keeps saying things like "if granite formed naturally, then they should be able to replicate it in a lab". Really? Thats an utterly silly claim, much like many of his claims. Just because nobody has figured out how to entirely replicate a process in a lab doesn't mean that the process is entirely misunderstood.
This guy is either intellectually dishonest, or delusional. Possibly both.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal Society. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm
Think about what you just said, seriously. So they don't understand the process entirely but they know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that it was natural? That smacks of intellectual dishonesty. As I have said before, their argument sounds perfectly logical, but it's not necessarily right. Secondly, he did get published, it's recorded very well in his book.
Just a note, he was published 20 times on this particular topic. Go here for details. http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
I doubt anyone but trolls on /. would argue for that equal time garbage. I am not saying "teach it" I am saying "teach against it" where a science teacher saying "kids, creatoinism as science is totally utter garbage"
Make SELinux enforcing again!
I think you need to look at the the facts swept under the rug list,it's a big list.
We need to look at the genetics to understand Micro and macro evolution,variation within a Kind is natural selection but it is a loss of genetic variation whereas macro needs to add information to the gene.Willful ignorance and denial are not science.
Well the thing is, there is no evidence whatsoever for anything but a natural process.
Thats the problem with the entire argument. I think Dawkins said it best. There might be a china tea pot in low orbit around the sun, somewhere beyond mercury. We have no way to detect something so small and far away. We probably never will. Even if we sent space craft there, the chances of comming close enough to detect it, infinitessimally small.
If there is a china teapot there, we will never know for sure.
However, does that mean that if I postulate that there is such a teapot that you are the crazy one for not believing me because you can't prove there isn't one?
No, there is no reason other than a few ridiculous stories that someone told.
I am in no way saying all of his facts are wrong, simply that he jumps to fantastical conclusions. From everything I have found his conclusions are thoroughly debunked, and the debunkers simply made a better evidence based case than he did.
If, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, you insist on believing the earth is only a couple o fthousand years old and formed in moments, then I highly suggest seeking psychiatric attention.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Firstly, I follow a different model for planetary change. If indeed a flood occurred on this planet, which there is plenty of evidence for (example is the cretacious layer or chalk layer or the rock layers in canyons all over the world being easily explained by turbidity currents underwater), then all the assumptions that are used in any form of radiometric dating are instantly nullified. Walter Veith has a great lecture series on this that can be seen on google video. There is also the age of most of the oldest plants such as the California Redwoods being around 5000 years old which fits perfectly into the Biblical chronology of a flood. Also, the age of most of the rivers on this planet are around 5000 years old. The saharah desert is also around 5000 years old. There are many more of these, but they do tend to take up a lot of space. As for the stories, a gentleman by the name of Ron Wyatt who is something of a rogue in archeology has found a number of locations that correspond to the exodus account as well as a structure that fits the size, shape, and location of Noah's ark. One video is called Discovering the Exodus and is quite interesting (check out the chariot wheels on the ocean floor and the solid gold covering for one). Not to mention the plethora of other archeologists who have found sites based on Biblical teachings and clues. I'm not saying that you have to believe it, but for me the evidence gets more heavily stacked for the Biblical model year after year. And don't worry, they have legislation coming down the pipe that will probably put me in a mental institution before long (just for witnessing or "manslaughter" as they are redefining it).
You on the other hand consider evolution to be science.
And so does every biologist in the world.
I on the on the other hand would say that there are limits to change
Really? What are they? What is the biological mechanism that only allows changes to pile up so far and not further?
And unlike your argument, I can prove that there have always been dogs and that they still bring forth after their kind today.
Except there haven't always been dogs. Dogs are a relatively recent species.
If you check out the fossil record, you will discover that your argument is incorrect. Even evolutionary scientist will admit that they find dogs and chordata (our phylum) on the lowest levels. Steven Gould has a great articles on this in several of his papers.
Maybe I haven't been /.ing long enough... but I was amused :)