Slashdot Mirror
South Carolina Education Committee Removes Evolution From Standards
Toe, The writes "The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee approved new science standards for students except for one clause: the one that involves the use of the phrase 'natural selection.' Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, argued against teaching natural selection as fact, when he believes there are other theories students deserve to learn. Fair argued South Carolina's students are learning the philosophy of natural selection but teachers are not calling it such. He said the best way for students to learn is for the schools to teach the controversy. Hopefully they're going to teach the controversy of gravity and valence bonds too. After all, they're just theories."
So, if a State chooses to not teach their children what is accepted in the scientific community, should this be their prerogative? At the same time, a decade later, when their students do not fair well at college, or professionally, they should be comfortable with that aspect to their decisions.
There aren't enough jobs for kids anyway. If one or three states choose (on their own accord) not to prepare their children to compete in the job market the rest of us should be happy. If you live in one of those states, vote the idiots out or move. Case closed.
I have no problem with presenting creationism as an alternative, as long as you include ALL creation myths in the curriculum. It wouldn't be "teaching the controversy" unless you teach them all.
I mean, sure, we all really KNOW that the world began when Udu the Space Tortoise shat out the earth and His godly flatulence created the sun, but we have to let the kids decide for themselves.
Hitchens yelling "for shame!" rang into my ears, straight from the 2009 "is the catholic church a force for good" debate.
Available here
Creationism is not a theory. They can discuss any issues with evolution as it currently stands (and any science course worth its salt will teach any student how to think critically)
The government needs to get out of the business of policing ideas.
Actually, it's the "law of gravity," not the "theory." As it should be with something that can be demonstrated by experiment, is reproducible and despite centuries of effort hasn't been refuted by experiment.
Please don't compare experimental science with historical evidence science. Their conclusions don't have the same level of confidence and shouldn't be taught as if they do.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Teach religion in religion class and science in science class. If you can't test it, it's not science. If you CAN, even if it's something you find distasteful, it IS science...
There's no controversy here, merely people who don't like the fact that the sun doesn't come up in the south.
Anybody who says is is a fact is just as dishonest as theses people. Evolution is a very well supported theory, far in advance of any competition. It is incomplete, and there is a residual possibility of it being completely wrong, but anybody that has even a bit of understanding of Science will accept it as very likely true unless exceedingly strong evidence to the contrary shows up. As such evidence has not turned up so far, Evolution is the way to go.
Unfortunately, most people cannot deal with non-absolutes or very small probabilities. That is why so many hope to win the lottery or are afraid of being harmed by terrorists. Both events are so exceedingly unlikely that for all practical purposes they cannot happen to them. But there is a small, insignificant residual chance that they may happen and that confuses many, many people.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Because there are no other competing scientific theories.
Do you have a scientific theory that explains what we see, makes prediction, and is factual verified 1000's of time?
No. This is a politician shoving religion down are throat under a very thin vale. He should be tossed out for violating the constitution.
Creationism is not science. Not my any stretch. It is a belief made on biblical literalism.
Maybe you should learn what science is?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, why don't we teach astrology along side astronomy, and alchemy along side chemistry! Present both sides! When you give every crackpot idea the same footing in the classroom it's detrimental to students ability to determine what is likely to be true. Creationism is not science and should not be taught along side science.
the problem comes that only a few religions believe in the biblical creation story as fact. Even then it is not agreed between those religions exactly how much of that creation story should be taken as a literal. If we decide to teach creationism in schools we need to cover each religions views (Hindu belief is vastly different than Protestant and they both do not fit with Catholic teachings) as well as the current evolutionary views. This in turn would mean the entire day would need to be spent covering just this one topic. Considering our own constitution states we are to keep religion and state separate ,religious views should be taught at home or in the educational facilities of the religion and not in public schools.
You'll never hear a school teaching my faiths creation story so why should any other religions story be taught?
The Controversy:
Fundamentalist religious people don't like the fact that natural selection (and the time frames required for evolution to have produced life on Earth) conflict with what the bible says. So they've made up a Creation 'science' to create 'controversy' about whether evolutionary science is in fact correct.
They've found scientists to amplify the aspects of evolution that we don't fully understand and then used that 'uncertainty' to pretend that it's evidence for their religious beliefs.
Any question? Okay, now class, lets teach the other side of the controversy. Get out your biology textbooks, please.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I honestly don't see the issue with presenting all sides of an issue. I think going all evolution and excluding creationism is as bad as forcing only creationism to the exclusion of evolution. That said, I can only hope they use the Darwin Awards as the best proof we have of natural selection.
I'll assume you're not a troll, and I'll also assume you understand the concept of the "scientific method": observations -> hypothesis -> new observations -> modified hypothesis, etc.
One (evolution/natural selection) is a theory based on multiple observations by many scientists in different fields over many years. It's the "best" explanation that fits all the observed data.
Creationism is based on what's written in a single book (which some consider "the word of God" and others consider a fairy tale), as "interpreted" by those who can't even agree among themselves. It also conflicts (young earth) with geologic observations.
If your object is to teach science in schools, creationism has no place, ecept, perhaps, as an example of "what's not science" and why.
It is when one theory is exceedingly well supported by the available evidence and the other is really just a theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Creationism is not a theory.
Sure it is. It just isn't a *scientific* theory.
A scientific theory makes testable predictions. Experiments can be devised whose results confirm or refute the predictions. Knowledge can be collected from the environment which either fits or refutes the predictions. That's what makes it science.
Creationism and it's stepchild Intelligent Design make no testable predictions. Therefore they are not science. Therefore they do not belong in a science curriculum.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Creationism actually is a theory. It is just not supported by evidence at all and quite a few established facts contradict it. So it is a theory with a very low probability of being a model for reality and hence not worthy of study.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If it is never tested, it's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis.
Only when there are other theories worthy of discussion. As far as scientific credibility goes, creationism is ridiculous. I'm all for silencing any discussion of creationism in schools - alongside astrology, palm-reading and other fields of nonsense.
Yeah, but the problem is very few public school science classes are worth their salt. Very rarely do students actually learn critical thinking skills.
What gets me about this is that it's specifically talking about natural selection, which has been demonstrated to be true in countless observations. Natural selection doesn't make any conclusion about the origin of all life, it just says "things that are better suited to an environment are more likely to outnumber things that are unsuited to that environment". Whether you want to teach evolution or creationism, natural selection still demonstrably exists. See also: the peppered moth.
Further erosion of the American education system means less competition for those of us (and our kids) living elsewhere in world.
There are other theories that should be taught as well, such as the round earth theory, the theory that we exist outside of "the matrix", and indeed the theory that god did not create us a tenth of a second ago.
How about just not re-electing him?
Is pretty clear that that comitee members descended from monkeys... and kept descending.
It should be taught as science.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Sigh.
Theory's and laws are different things.
There is the law of gravity F=mg, and gravitational theory, aka the theory of gravity.
So yes, you have the law of gravity and the theory of gravity.
A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena.
To teach creationism as an 'alternative theory of evolution' is the exact same as teaching magic pixie dust pulls things down.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The government needs to get out of the business of policing ideas.
Get the government out of the public school system!!!
Congress really needs to get hands-on with educational standards. There's a stronger commerce interest in all states producing only their fair share of idiots than in most of the crap Congress has regulated through the Commerce Clause. Really wish they'd do a study comparing college performance in people that weren't taught evolution versus those that were. If nothing else, the non-evo's probably have to spend more time in otherwise optional science classes to catch up. That assumes a pattern of educational control that hasn't completely retarded their ability to think critically, of course. Everyone behind these standards changes, every self-righteous blowhard and bigoted soccer mom, need to have their names inscribed on a wall somewhere, so their great great grandchildren can feel shame.
If I were a teacher in a little town like Lord's Mudbucket, South Carolina, I'd teach the theory of evolution of religion, as a means of gaining insight into why there is a controversy in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Ref: "Evolution for Everyone" David Sloan Wilson"
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Ah, yes? Is there a problem here?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
My chemistry taught me alchemy, my biology teacher taught me creationism. They both said that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of that stuff is true, while they also taught me that evolution has strong evidences and that many alchemy "magic" can now be scientifically demonstrated by chemistry.
I agree - teach the contraversy. We have seen enough things fall by the wayside in the history of science that we should not consider anything with reverance, e.g. flat earth, sun circles the earth, etc.
Teach the scientific method and let the kids sort it out!
You do realize that all the theories you mentioned were originally held and taught by religious fanatics, right? Not sure if that was your point or not...
What the hell is a "kind" of animal? That doesn't fit in the taxonomy at all. A theory is not a theory if you don't define the terms.
I read the internet for the articles.
How can one test a random event, such as mutation? There really isn't a large enough "lab", short of another planet.
Breed bacteria or viruses. They have very short reproductive cycles and mutate quite a bit. And it's pretty easy to see them evolve... i.e., develop drug resistance.
There is no "controversy". No. There isn't. So there is nothing else to teach, other than credible scientific theory, when it comes to how we got here. No, your beliefs do not come anywhere near to the definition of "scientific theory". Get over it and stop trying to make your children stupid.
http://www.universetoday.com/4...
Sounds legit. Teach the Controversy!
Koans and fables for the software engineer
It's also already been falsified; artificially created environmental pressure on fast-breeding insect populations created divergent species that could no longer interbreed. To the extent that you can claim "alternatives" to evolution make testable predictions, those predictions have been tested and found false.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
That's a good point. Are there other predictions? Because that one has been falsified, repeatedly, for a very long time. Now it's up to creationists to modify their model to account for that, and make a new prediction.
( or, actually, two ) : intellectual rednecks
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
If take the Bible literally, you have to accept an enormous amount of logical contradictions and cognitive dissonance. Evolution is where they start to have a problem? Any time there's discrepancy between the Bible and common sense the answer is always "magic"(God). Why can't evolution fall under that too for these people? Would a literal interpretation of the Bible really be that much more absurd if in addition to talking snakes and magic apples that the universe is 14 billion years and simultaneously 6 thousand years old?
The distinction between what is and is not "science" doesn't mean much to those who want to make sure that their kids are not taught lies in school.
Some people turn to religion to gain certainty where there is none. In order for this psychological device to work, they must honestly believe that the points of their religious teaching are inarguable fact, and that any evidence to the contrary is a result of either incompetence or deception. People who believe this don't give a hoot what is or is not "science," since they only care about what does or does not agree with their forgone conclusions.
"Teach the controversy," is the second-best stance that they take only because they know that "teach our religion as fact" is already a lost battle (but would still be the best option).
Trying to get logical consistency on these points is futile, since the basic motivation has nothing to do with challenging kids to think critically, and everything to do with ensuring that their kids don't lose their faith by going to school.
Only when filthy garbage like this is ejected from the union will America be a country worth existing. Kick these bastards out.
The two are the same. You seem to have a problem with understanding natural language....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
While I don't have the reference, I would imagine that things like the Galapagos finches and the like show one definition of "macro-evolution" - the species has bifurcated, yielding members that are no longer fertile.
I assume you discount the fossil
record, DNA comparisons and other retrospective analyses as well?
How Does the U.S. Compare to Other Countries in STEM Education?
The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 52nd in the quality of mathematics and science education, and 5th (and declining) in overall global competitiveness
The United States ranks 27th in developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering
There are more foreign students studying in U.S. graduate schools than the number of U.S. students [vii] and over 2/3 of the engineers who receive Ph.D.’s from United States universities are not United States citizens
And the government will wonder why?
Indeed. Ideas can have tremendous power, even if they are wrong. Just look at what the US government currently does with the idea that everybody has to fear "terrorists".
Still, Creationism is not religion. It is a theory. (But an exceedingly bad one, i.e. one that has far more evidence against it than for it.) However stating that Creationism is right is religion. Religion often involves ignoring clear evidence and claiming not-supported ideas are the "truth". As people that believe in such things already suspended their rationality, they are easily manipulated and that is a thing every government loves dearly.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory not only ties together a wide range of observations, it makes testable predictions that have gone on to be tested and verified. In science, 'hypothesis' is closest to what people commonly mean by the word 'theory'. For example, it's still the "Germ Theory of Disease" in science, but that's been, er, rather thorougly confirmed.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
A lack of anything being quantifiable makes a theory completely unsound. That's not to say it can't be a theory, but the "probability" is 0. That's not "very low", it's zero.
There is no fundamental difference between the two. But Creationism is actually a theory, even by your standard. A test _can_ be by thought experiment and the Creationists have certainly supplied that. What they have not managed is to balance the overwhelming evidence against Creationism.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Up until a few decades there was a controversy around gravity. There were some discrepancies between the current model for gravity and observations. 2 leading hypotheses emerged. One proposed to change the model, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (or MOND), and the other proposed to change the observations, the existence of dark matter. In recent years it seems the dark matter hypothesis has the clear advantage.
The "controversy of gravity" is not *that* gravity exists, but rather with the correctness of the explanation for gravity as demonstrated by the ability to make accurate predictions. The dark matter hypothesis is currently "winning" because it is making better predictions than MOND in circumstances where the predictions of both models diverge (e.g. galaxy collisions).
I would also like to point out the difference between the two concepts of "evolution" (*that* life evolves), and "the theory of evolution by natural selection", originally proposed by Charles Darwin and later improved by others which is an explanation of *how* life evolved. There really isn't any controversy regarding "evolution" (*that* it happened). Evolution by natural selection is also on very firm ground, although there are lots of holes to fill in, to improve our understanding of the specifics of evolution by natural selection. Maybe there is some controversy somewhere in the study of evolution, but hypotheses that are unfalsifiable (e.g. creationism, and intelligent design, etc) are not valid as opposing hypotheses in any controversy.
So we should absolutely *not* "teach the controversy" of evolution in regards to intelligent design, because it is just fabricated. However, we should not attempt the reductio ad absurdum of "teaching the controversy of gravity", given that ther actually *was* a controversy regarding gravity in the recent past, and this controversy probably should have been taught given that it was legitimate.
Also, gravity is the last of the 4 primary forces yet to be made compatible with quantum mechanics. because of this, our understanding of gravity is currently known to be incomplete. There absolutely is controversy in our understanding of gravity, and I think teaching it would be a great way to show the scientific method in action.
obvious troll is obvious.
And natural selection isn't a philosophy, any more than the inverse square law is a philosophy.
It goes to show you that just because you can pronounce a word does not bequeath upon you any understanding.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://biologos.org/blog/ham-o... when you have a body of Christian doctoral professors that do not agree with you about your own interpretation of scripture you can not force the debate on children. If you are an adult you can read up on what these issues are and make your own decision. Children do not have that luxury. To force a religious belief on a child that can not even be agreed upon within that religion is equatable to child abuse. Public schools should teach No faith, faith is up to the parents to teach. This is more of a problem with parents expecting schools to do it all for them than it is about religious over scientific view points. Guess what, raising a kid is hard. It is not the job of teachers to teach religion that roll is on the parents and religious leaders of the community. Do you think schools teach the about Native American history or our spirituality? As a native man I can say they absolutely do not. So should I petition the school or should I just sit my child down once and a while and teach it to him myself and help him form his own opinion on the conflicts that arise from being taught booth views. Don't be a lazy parent and teach your kid your faith and let others do the same for their children. If you don't fell like raising your child is your responsibility then maybe you should not have had them.
No one said anything about "provable" above. You seem confused between "provable" and "testable". Evolution as an origin of species is certainly testable, as we have built models from fossil records into which archaeological findings seem to fit nicely. Intelligent Design is a lost cause from the get-go, as it relies on the absence of evidence to insist upon the point that "you gotta believe" that we were created in our present form, and evolution from ape to human never occurred... because you know... some people find it threatening to think their ancestors might have been apes.
Crimey
First of all, evolution is simply the observation that the genetic makeup of a population changes over time. It is not an attempt to explain the origins of life, any more than geology attempts to explain the origin of planets or astronomy attempts to explain the Big Bang.
Second of all, evolution is testable by every meaningful scientific definition of test, and so is abiogenesis for that matter.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Which means, in a science classroom, it is not a theory.
Unfortunately for you, no one is under any obligation to debate you using your private definitions of words. Science and scientific theory have well understood definitions, and what you're demonstrating is either an unwillingness or an incapacity to accept them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Evolution as an "origin of things" is not not provable either. You canot test it, nor can you confirm it - no more so than Creationism or Intelligent Design.
So please, don't teach it as an "origin of things" either. Fair's fair.
That's ridiculous. Evolution (natural selection) is not taught as an "origin of things." It explains the origin of humans. I guess one could make the (idiotic and scientifically disprovable) assertion that the origin of humans coincides with the "origin of things." But, that gets us right back where we started...
Ken Ham's Creationism which says Noah's flood dropped the fossils has been proven false as far back as the 19th century, by Christians. This is not to say Creationism or the flood is impossible, just Ken Ham's version of the flood is. I don't think we should be changing education. Evolution in its many forms has been observed. Maybe just have a foot note saying,"It isn't the only origin theory and there are also problems with abiogenesis.", but anything past that and you're changing education too much. What are you going to start teaching every known religion's origin theory? That'd be pretty redic.
God spoke to me
There are not enough hours in the day to teach children the scientific method to the degree that they could, say, adequately test neutral genetic drift. You can teach children basic scientific concepts, but at some point, if you're going to teach them any actual science at all, you're going to have to teach them what scientists actually say.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Is what we do when we breed cattle or dogs or the like for the traits we want.
We already do "natural selection" ourselves!
Amazing that the very people arguing against teaching the science are oblivious to this fact.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
It is possible to turn lead into gold. It just takes a lot of energy, and you wouldn't like the result, because it would glow even in the dark :D
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
does this make South Carolina the bottom 2%?
The real question is, do you want your children educated through a system designed by majority vote? (and/or designed by people elected by majority vote) Do you really want everyone in your community weighing in on your children's education or not?
If you really believe in democracy, I don't see how anyone can fault this. Personally, I do not believe in democracy, and think it's a terrible way to educate a child. But if you really believe in the whole electoral process, I don't think you have room to complain: you have to take the bad with the good, and vote for someone better next time.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Sure, we can't observe the early Earth (at least not until or unless we discover time travel.) But we can simulate conditions on the early Earth and see what happens. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiments and others have done and are doing this, and they've found some very interesting results. It'll be interesting to see what would or will happen if such an experiment were done on a larger scale and left undisturbed for a longer period of time.
It may be worthy of study. Just not in a SCIENCE class.
How is Abiogenesis? I'm just curious.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
Creationism is based on what's written in a single book (which some consider "the word of God" and others consider a fairy tale), as "interpreted" by those who can't even agree among themselves. It also conflicts (young earth) with geologic observations.
I'm not going to argue the merits of creationism vs. evolution. But it is rather obvious that you have failed to look at both sides with any sort of objectivity or even at all for that matter. Which is perfectly fine in and of itself. But please don't pretend to act like there is only one text in the world that teaches creationism, It is in the Torah and the christian bible. You can make a case for the old testament and Torah being the same or similar. Mormons believe the earth was created by the coalescence from existing matter and that god once lived on another planet with an even higher god. The Quran also indicates that god created the universe. Chinese mythology states that the universe came into existence through the coalescence of chaos into the cosmic egg. The Babylonians had the seven tablets of creation in which Marduk slays Tiamat and uses her corpse to create the earth and sky. Hinduism has the universe on a 4 billion year big bang cycle in which everything is recreated and destroyed over and over again. Buddhists believe that there are essentially an infinite number of universes at any given time and they are all influenced by our karma as to whether or not they exist(or not) at the present moment.
The "young earth theory" is often trotted out definitive proof of how stupid creationism is. The funny thing the only people I have ever known to bring it up are atheists or people who need to show anyone of faith just how stupid they are. It was based on flawed assumptions from a very long time ago. How about we take a look at what science had to say from back in those times? It would be just as stupid. That being said, I'm sure you can find some crazy person claiming to be a christian who believes in the young earth. But I could just as easily find someone claiming to be a Pagan who worships a tennis ball and claims it's the all mighty creator of life the universe and everything too. There are plenty of quacks (and frauds) who claim to be scientists. That doesn't mean that anyone in a lab coat is batshit crazy, does it?
Regardless, this belongs in a philosophy class at best. And all creationism beliefs should be discussed. Not simply the Judeo/Christian ones. Including natural selection/evolution in this type of setting would make sense to me. But not in the same context as biology, chemistry, physics, etc. It's rather sad to see this type of thing occurring, and does not bode well for South Carolina in my opinion.
I'll take a moment to answer several responses to this.
To call Creationism a theory is to miss the correct definition of the word theory. Many people seem to think of theory as a neat idea to explain nature, but that falls far short.
In this case, the key differentiator is that a theory is testable, typically by experimentation. When you claim to have a theory, you'd also better define some sort of experiment or other set of measurements that can prove, disprove, or modify that theory.
From what I've read, Creationism is at the (stoner voice) "Wow Man!" (/stoner voice) stage.
Of course the downside is that there may be no such thing as "string theory", because there seems to be no way to prove or disprove it. To be fair, from what I can see, those who call themselves string theorists are quite upset about that, and would love nothing more than a real experiment.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Sure it is. It just isn't a *scientific* theory.
No, it is not even a theory. Creationism or the belief cannot be a theory for it comes from an act of faith which is not testable outside one's own perception. IT is not even a hypothesis since its basis is found on the "Word of God" which cannot be tested, just accepted or not. Let us stop giving creationism any foot hold on the notion is is more then a belief created by one religious sect and irrefutable by any rational means.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
It is a red flag when anyone presents their view and then refuse to allow any other theories to be discussed.
The Devil's Advocate in me wants to say, "But isn't that what evolution supporters are doing, by saying alternate theories don't belong in a science class?"
To which my Logical side replies, "You realize 'sky fairy did it' is not a testable hypothesis, right?"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
No, creationism is not a theory. It is a belief. It is a belief based on one sect of religious belief. While many religions have a variation of the beginning of man, only one is trying to shove it down the throats of rational humans. That group cannot set up experiments to test the hypothesis, they cannot perform any test to give credence to such a supposition so creationism does not even come close to being honored with the word theory.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
South Carolina is now the latest entry on my list of states to never live in.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I doubt they taught you very much about alchemy or astrology, other than skimming over some basic claims. In reality, while both systems are utterly absurd, they both had a considerable body of literature behind them, and to actually *TEACH* you alchemy or astrology would require a considerable amount of time. What they likely taught you was simply that these non-scientific theories existed, were once prevalent and that most of their claims were supplanted by actual scientific disciplines like chemistry and astronomy, cosmology and physics.
When you see a book like Pandas and People, you are seeing Creationists attempting to foist a rather thick pseudo-scientific set of claims on school children that would be effectively no different than someone slapping down the Emerald Tablet in a chemistry class and going in some detail through its claims as if it actually was a legitimate theory of materials.
It's one thing to mention some falsified claims like Ptolomaic cosmology or phlogiston, as examples of theories that simply failed to actually explain observations. It would be quite another to treat them as legitimate alternative explanations. Creationists (and yes, Intelligent Design advocates are Creationists, simply Creationists with an extra layer of dishonesty and duplicity in the hopes of getting past the Establishment Clause) want Creationism taught much like a flat Earther might want Ptolomaic cosmology, as an actual competing theory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Is anyone else horrified by my "theory" that the movie Idiocracy is actually a future historical documentary produced by Ken Burn's great-grandchild?! Good grief.
Pass the Brawndo. I'm low on electrolytes!
It was created as a method of control and manipulation over the masses.
There's no empirical evidence to back up this claim. Even those religions which were used as a form of control were usually not created for that reason. Sure, it could be argued that Confucianism fits your model, and probably a few others, but I sincerely doubt Jesus of Nazareth went around preaching about peace and love so Constantine could use his ideas as a form of control ~300 years later.
Religion is not a thing that was invented in one part of the world and spread from there. Many religions throughout the world developed completely independent from each other at different times. Personally, I think most of them were inspired by something good. But many ideas can be warped and perverted and turned into something terrible -- I doubt Marx would approve of Stalin's version of Communism just as I doubt Jesus would approve of American Evangelicals' version of Christianity.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
You come up with potential theories of how organic molecules could become self replicating, and you test those theories. You may very well never find out how precisely abiogenesis happened on Earth, but you do come up with possible explanations that make predictions. Science is satisfied at times with "we don't know", even if scientists themselves are never satisfied.
An equivalent in forensics might be that we can't find out who killed Subject C, even if Subject A and B's murderers are identified. That we can't find Subject C's murderer doesn't mean we can say "angels killed Subject C".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Creationism actually is a theory. It is just not supported by evidence at all and quite a few established facts contradict it. So it is a theory with a very low probability of being a model for reality and hence not worthy of study.
My recollection of the scientific method from 7th grade says that an idea you have no evidence for and wish to test is a hypothesis, not a theory.
Who did what now?
While I think your contention that "Very rarely do students actually learn critical thinking skills" in public schools has legs, I'm not sure I would lay that entirely at the doorstep of the science classes / teachers. US school seems to consist largely of the process of learning facts to be regurgitated on a test, then learning more facts before being tested again. There's just not much room for critical thinking in the curriculum.
What makes this scary is if someone slips mysticism (bad information) in with the facts we end up teaching lies to our children.
Wake up folks. We still treat those creationist fanatics as silly curiosities and ignore fact that they are danger. They're real deal folks. In a system where legislation is bought and paid for, someone is putting gobs of money to push this crap down our throats. They are clearly trying to blur distinction between someone's beliefs and verifiable facts. This is power game. Maybe they see how much power do radical islamist clerics wield over undereducated, poor middle eastern people and they're trying to play the same book - and it seems to work almost as well in poor regions of USofA. Think of all those mega-churches and shady characters behind these, trying to put their their fingers whenever power is (army in particular). If we don't stop those fucks, they'll destroy everyone standing in their way using the same terrorist methods Saudis are using today in Syria or Chechenya. Future fascism will born in the US and use Holy Cross as its emblem the same way nazis were using swastika. Instead of just laughing at it, we should stop it in its tracks at all costs - in order to save both us and (honest parts of) Christianty. And no, corporate estabullshitment won't help us. Corporations will be as happy profiting from this as they were happy profiting from nazis in 1930-s.
The Torah is the Bible. http://www.jewfaq.org/m/torah.... well genesis at least
Hey, it could be worse - they could be teaching Common Core.
sad_trombone.wav
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And that would give random mutation which is fine. Most scientists don't have the patience to enact that kind of mutation that they want. My wife is a microbiologist. They will target specific portions of the genome and replace those parts with specific sequences and then grow the bacteria. Pretty much the same thing as random mutation, but lacking the random part of it. It would pretty easy to imply by transitivity that if all genes are equally likely to be mutable over time, then there is no reason that the targeted mutation is no less different than the random mutation.
You might want to take a poll on the members of the education boards that favor creationism, and count the number of young earthians among them. The result will shock you. The political creationists in the US are absolutely insane.
What your high school didn't have a relativistic partial accelerator?
Time to offend someone
Good thing all those scientists love nothing better than to wipe out consensus whenever they can.
Oh, I get it, the idea is that a theory that is well-supported must somehow be wrong. That way whatever bullshit worldview you want to support but which has been wiped out by actual science can somehow be viewed as true, because, you know, having the majority of researchers in a discipline find that your worldview is utter bollocks makes them wrong.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm about sick of people engaging in these debates with "Creationists" over evolution. Each and every time, the person supporting evolution argues the completely wrong argument. Instead of arguing the validity of Evolution, they instead try to argue that there is no God... or that Evolution means there is no God. Meanwhile the creationist simply has to lean on his Bible and say "Well see? It says right here... God did that bit, that's how!"
It's pretty much impossible to prove some omnipotent being didn't just make everything the way it is. How can you argue against that other than its statistical unlikelihood?
So, the correct argument... It's simply: There is nothing about Evolution that contradicts a belief in God. You can believe in Evolution and Believe God, just as a belief that Egg Noodles are tasty would have no baring on your belief in God either. The Bible doesn't mention egg noodles, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time.
But oh! you say, the bible says the earth is 6000 years old, so obviously it contradicts Evolution.
Well, no, on all accounts. First off, we didn't decide the Bible is the word of God yet, there are lots of religions out there after all. But lets assume so... nowhere in the bible is the age of the earth mentioned. You'd think that if this was something God was particularly concerned about, he' have stated something like "The earth was created on January 1 3995 BC" but no... instead we have biblical scholars that have added up the dates between different events in the bible and declared the age of the earth as 6000 years. To me, this isn't at all clear. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to find flaws in the bible here, I'm trying to get things right. If the Bible is the real word of God and he really wanted us to be arguing over how old the earth really was... Don't you think he would have put it in there? He wasn't sneaky about Murder... or stealing... but the entire natural history of creation he made a riddle? That doesn't make sense to me.
There are lots of other facts and figures that are mixed up in the Bible. Again, I'm not looking for flaws. I personally believe in God and think the Christian bible is indeed his work. I just do not think the Bible is the white-papers for the earth. I think it's poetry (and in fact, a lot of it really is poetry) and like poetry needs to be accepted as a whole work, not dissected and fiddled with to find hidden meaning. The truth of the Bible is obvious. Those things that seem questionable, we should leave that way. Make your own decision about what they mean and don't force it on others.
That being said, I'm sure you can find some crazy person claiming to be a christian who believes in the young earth.
A 2012 Gallup poll showed that 46% of Americans agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". That's a lot of crazy.
47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every-- every four years. And-- and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives.
?
My point isn't to bash Mitt Romney but it is to point out that these people don't actually believe the bullshit they say publicly. Mitt Romney really believes that almost half the country are free-loading pieces of shit that know nothing of personal responsibility.
Does anyone really think Sen Fair thinks evolution is bullshit? Seriously even the Pope realizes evolution makes more sense than Genesis, probably because you would have to be brain dead to think the Bible or any scripture can be interpreted literally. No, Mr. Fair only says this shit to get Cleatus and Maud all hot and bothered and voting for him. It's a distraction from real issues, like that Mr. Fair would gladly help ship Cleatus' job to China if it means he gets a campaign contribution. It's not an (R) thing and its not a (D) thing, it's a political thing. Politicians realized that there are a lot of single issue voters out there, it would be stupid to ignore them.
So whats the solution I would propose? Don't get mad at them for playing the game. Change the game: Fix primaries. Fix gerrymandering. Restore a free and critical press. Mandate public financing of campaigns. If you remove all the bullshit and Cleatus and Maud still really really want evolution removed from the school curriculum, fine. Thats OK, but the way things are now there really is no choice, just the facade of one.
Actually, the federal House of Representatives is being run by the class of '75 (average age of 57 years) and the federal Senate by the class of '70 (average age of 62 years).
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Bullshit. There are plenty of species that breed fast enough, in large enough numbers, that we can observe huge numbers of generations of them in a controlled environment. Typically insects are used, simply because they are easier to observe than bacteria, but we actually observe it in bacteria *all the time* in the wild; drug-resistant strains, or new variants of things like bird flu, or so on. It's also been observed in the lab, though; take a colony of insects (like fruit flies), separate them, apply an environmental pressure that selects for different traits, wait, observe adaptations. Eventually the adaptations lead to new, non-interfertile species.
It's those final points - the arising of adaptations and their spread throughout the population, and the speciation - that are the directly testable aspects of evolution by natural selection. There are others, of course; things like the ability to predict the presence of species bearing particular characteristics at certain chronological points in the fossil record (which we have later found), the presence of vestigial organs which are no longer used or needed but were in evolutionary ancestors, the parallel nature of the morphological classification trees (classifying life based on observable characteristics) and genetic classification trees (based on DNA), which was predicted, and found to be true, even when the species would have needed to diverge hundreds of millennia ago... So many things.
I think your problem is that you don't understand what a prediction means in this case. Genetic modifications to produce specific changes has nothing to do with evolution. That's just testing genetic theory in general, which nobody seems to have any problem with. Evolution doesn't predict the specific random mutation that will occur, and nobody who knows anything about it would suggest it does. In fact, the random nature of evolution by natural selection means that two different populations, both subjected to the same environmental stress, may adapt *differently* to it. This is observable even in human populations (which are only a few hundred thousands of years old), where different groups of humans that adapted to high-altitude environments (low oxygen) did so in different ways.
What the "theory of evolution by natural selection" predicts is that there *will* be mutations (directly observable and tested), that a mutation (not *the best mutation" because all it needs to be is good enough to increase the chance of successful reproduction) which better adapts the organism to the environment will become widespread within a population (also directly observed in the lab), that this process will continue over time as environments change and new, superior adaptations occur in the usual course of random mutation (observable from the fossil record, with predictions about what will be found in the "holes" in the fossil record also found to be accurate), and that over time this leads to speciation (also observed in the lab).
It is in every way a scientific theory, and one that has had its predictions tested and verified time and again. Comparing it to an Earth-centric universe model just further shows that you don't understand science at all; there was plenty of evidence which didn't fit that model, and the predictions that would have arisen from it (for example, that "anything which orbits the earth at different speeds, such as the sun and the planet Venus do, must at some point in their orbits come to be on opposite sides of the Earth") are easily observed, even with the instruments of the day, to be false. No scientist actually concerned with accuracy, rather than the importance of appearing to be accurate, would have seriously defended such a theory. In fact, this is much the same situation as concerns creationism today; people want to believe that they're important and special, and they have an old book that tells them so, and they therefore oppose anything which appears to conflict with the aforementioned book for the sake of upholding the appearance that the book is right (and therefore that they are right about their superiority in the other ways the book mentions) rather than concerning themselves with any form of scientific evidence.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I think you are playing fast and loose with the term "theory" as it means in science. A "theory" in science is not a hunch or hypothesis. This is a major problem of the creationists is that they don't understand this point.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What drug are you on. Oh it's called I can't or won't read scientific papers. The theory of evolution has mad a large number of predictions about what the in between missing species would be like. The lake of evidence makes it hard to find one of these predictions but every few years a new fossil discovery is very close to one of the predictions. It happens you just can't or won't recognize it. Darwinian evolution is shown to be true on the micro level with direct evidence. It has been shown to be a good predictor on the macro level but that takes time to find the evidence.
Your analogy is BS.
In general, I think Physics would be very much diminished if the theorists could not conjure up mathematical spaces and structures that might have some physical bearing. It tells physicists where to look if not necessarily what to look for. In that sense, I think it is perfectly okay to have "theories" of this sort.
The problem with creationism is that it isn't a theory of this sort. It does not tell scientists where to look unless they expect scientists to go about ferreting for G-d.
In Islam, Allah is so ineffable, He doesn't communicate directly with humans. The escape clause (there's always one of those) is he gets to use angels. The Jewish G-d is one weird dude, smiting this, smoting that, and not real pleasant towards women. Selling one's daughters He's okay with...unless the Bible writers got that one wrong, in which case the Bible would be...hmm....what's the word I'm looking for...what's the word....
In the New Testament, Jesus claimed he'd be a'coming back 'round the mountain before the crowd hearing his words passed away. He's a bit late which would make him...damn, what's the word for that....
So this G-d fella is a bit hard to pin down, a bit weird when you do, and not entirely reliable. My guess is that scientists, were they to meet G-d, would find the issues surrounding Him insurmountable for use in Science.
Probably, but Republicrats have built up many decades of precedent that it would fall under "Interstate Commerce" and can therefore be a federal power, if the feds want it.
Who would oppose it falling under Interstate Commerce? Libertarians? In the voting booth, 99% of people say they strongly disagree with Libertarians.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Unfortunately, it will take the child until they are 20 or so to feel the full effects of being poorly educated, worse, being denied the tools of critical thought. At that point bringing that person up to the capability to deal with the technology of the workplace that will face them in 2030 will be nearly insurmountable.
Quite often, it's not the (then adult) that feels the full effects but rather anyone around who is subject to his/her ill-taught legacy.
Actually, I read in a report on bbc that scientists are testing how combinations of amino acids form into cell like structures with some success just last year. So the testable and probable portions may be done sooner than you think. It's just that we may not be able to say with 100% certainty that it occurred just "so".
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Imagine that your a high school or junior high school biology teacher. Several times a day you are in a classroom in a rural southern state with an audience of 20 to 30 students. You know that more than half of the students in your class have been told by their parents and their pastors, that when the subject of evolution comes up, they should just tune out. Many of you keep saying that there's no controversy and nothing to gain by teaching the controversy. Well, for this class room full of skeptical students there's a lot of controversy. I guarantee you won't break through to them by ignoring it.
Evolution has been observed in the lab: E. coli long-term evolution experiment
Bill Nye is a media construct, not a scientist. He's not particularly skilled at debate, either.
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
Science deals with what is at least theoretically testable.
Science can be wrong.
It might be the case that the universe began "In medias res" 5 minutes ago or 5000 years ago or 10 (not 13+) billion years ago. These are all theories of how the universe works, and any one of them might actually be correct. But they aren't testable, and therefore have no place in "science."
Such a theory is also not useful, in that it doesn't tell us anything of practical value. At least the Bible's creation story (and other religious creation stories) provide practical utility: If they are correct, they show us that 1) we are not alone in the universe, 2) we are created beings, 3) animals, plants, and the Earth (and sky and sea) are created by the same Creator. The "In medias res" theory doesn't even provide that much. If it happens that the universe is 5 minutes old, "so what."
Most of the various flavors of biological evolution of life on Earth and the smaller-scale theories that follow from it are at least in principle testable without time-travel, but only if we "get lucky" and the evidence is not lost forever. Some, such as a theory that such-and-such long-extinct animal evolved from another long-extinct animal, may prove to be un-testable if we don't find proof by the time the sun engulfs the planet Earth. When that happens, that theory will no longer have a place in Science either.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but it's complete and total nonsense. It's not only completely useless, it's laughably incorrect given a modern understanding of philosophy of science from which such definitions must necessarily be formed.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I wish it was just restricted to America. I saw a survey this morning from the Australian Christian Lobby looking to have Creationism added to the National Curriculum in Australia.
I despair for the current generation of children being exposed to this lunacy.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
evolution != abiogenesis
evolution is the change in allelles observable over generations.
abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.
Please quite using that tired strawman argument.
thanks
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
... I do think that there are certain fields that a strong believer wouldn't find any reason to study. An extreme view of that would even include something like biology or astronomy.
The Big Bang Theory and the dating of the universe at approximately 14 billion years old was proposed by a Catholic priest, Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre.
There are probably well over 10000 creation myths. How exactly do you picture this class that teaches all sides without regard to scientific merit? How much time do you give to the 'earth sits on a giant turtle' theory? How much time do you give to the creation myths of the Cherokee, the Choctaw, Creek, Australian aborigines? And at the end of the day, all you have is 10,000 stories and 1 scientific theory. Let's skip the stories and just teach the science.
Don't forget that observations aren't objective. They are, necessarily, understood in terms of theory. Such evidence can in no way "prove" a theory -- regardless of the quality of the observations -- they can only be neutral to an hypothesis.
To the AC's point, scientists don't go rushing around looking for evidence -- that would be horrible, directly introducing harmful bias.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Baloney. We are observing species evolving all the time. Currently English Sparrows from North America have diverged enough in their behavior that they refuse to breed with English Sparrows from Europe. Their genes are noticeably different now, and since they won't be interbreeding will only continue to diverge. They'll probably be mutually infertile within another century or at most two, at which point one of the major definitions of species will have been crossed. That's one example, there are scores of plants and animals large and small that we are observing evolve.
To deny that we have observations of evolution's progress is to deny the existence of the entire fossil record. There are many species that we can observe changing over time, the horse is a particularly good example because there are so bloody many examples. The camel could be another. Eohippus was pretty obviously the predecessor to horses, burros, and zebras, and the changes are gradual, obvious, and easily documented.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Fly Airbus? Good question. White Christians in Europe stopped having children. They leave the fertility stuff to the Muslim immigrants.
So, a generation from now, Hillboingy or Air-Quaeda? No thanks.
I think I'll go with the Chinese. (I'm surprised they haven't taken over the aircraft industry yet)
sigo ergo sum
So you disagree that genetic changes over a long time can result in an incompatible species from another divergent ancestral line, yet remain internally viable? Seems like a quite arbitrary limitation, given that mutations can result in non-viable populations in as short as one generation.
Some religious schools teach science, catholics and many protestant denominations. They seem to teach science in their science class and religion in their religion class. This includes teaching evolution and cosmology.
How can we get through to these people that religion belongs in church, and not in our schools, courts or government?
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
By that logic, we could use any of several dozen mythological creation stories that have no evidence. I find the Christian myth really unexciting, can we please instead examples of Scientology, Hindusim or DungeonsAndDragons ?
You miss my point entirely. Evolution is a scientific (hypothesis based on observations and testable) theory. Creationism is not based on observations, it's based on a book (or books) and a very few observations which are made which "fit" the story written in the book(s). Creationism is not open to debate or revision (God said it, I believe it and that's that). That's not science, it's religion. If you can't see the difference, it's not important.
No, I'm objecting to the specious logic of spazmania. Show the experiments and conclusive results showing evolution of divergent species and I'll happily concede the point.
Meanwhile, we believe in evolution without the type of evidence demanded by spazmania of creationists/IDers. Almost like a religion in own right.
Arguing this stuff is like winning the special olympics until the theory is properly tested which IIRC nobody has done yet.
$
When I took basic biology in high school, they taught us Lamarkism and Spontaneous Generation as alternative theories. Then we went on to show that these formed testable hypotheses that were easily disproven. That is how you teach scientific controversy. With alternative scientific hypotheses.
"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
At my secondary school in the UK (between 1966 and 1972), not once was evolution taught in my science classes. In science, we measured, weighed, cut, burned, exploded, dissolved, attached weights, electrocuted, and stuff like that. Understanding evolution is not that important in most areas of science. The only time it was taught was in the Religious Education class by a Church Of Scotland minister. He explained it simply and in a way that made sense. It somehow seemed more relevant in that class, which covered 'big' topics such as existence, consciousness, morality, war, etc. I don't recall him saying that not everyone believed the theory of natural selection, but then again, he probably didn't tell us that not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation.
I don't think we got taught much about "theories" of gravity in science either. We learned that it causes falling objects to accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s, and that it causes a mass to have weight. We even verified those things. (Oh, experiments! How great you are!) But no one explained whether it was caused by magic magnets or gravity fairies or anything like that.
In 1983 T.H Bell, the Secretary of Education, proclaimed the Class of 83 as the dumbest graduating class in the history of his department. The Class of 83 is now running the local, State, and Federal government. Wow, Bell was right. They don't know science, they don't know math, they don't know civics.
On the upside, I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If there's far more idiots around than people like you, it's futile.
As to why it's wrong or a better definition? The first will take a while (it's pretty awful) and requires a lot of background that is seriously lacking on this forum.
As to the second, the "bumper sticker" version I like to offer is "a predictive model". Popularly, the conclusion of an inductive inference -- but people seem to have trouble with that one even though it eliminates all of the confusion about the difference between theory and hypothesis that infects "discussions" like this.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Truly teaching the controversy would be the creationists' worst nightmare, as the controversy actually happened in the nineteenth century and ended in a complete rout of the creationists.
The history of the real controversy can - and should - be taught without any changes to laws or regulations.
You miss my point entirely. Evolution is a scientific (hypothesis based on observations and testable) theory. Creationism is not based on observations, it's based on a book (or books) and a very few observations which are made which "fit" the story written in the book(s). Creationism is not open to debate or revision (God said it, I believe it and that's that). That's not science, it's religion. If you can't see the difference, it's not important.
No, I understood your point. If you read my entire post you would see that I also agree with you.
What I didn't agree with was you narrow minded definition of creationism. You continue to show a complete lack of understanding with your post above as well. There is no single text which creationism comes from as you stated in your initial post.
For the most part the words used to explain creationism (in what ever form) are from someones observations. In many cases "visions". These may have been drug induced, "gifts from god(s)", or whatever. While most religions state these texts are the word of god, I've yet to see one that has claimed that the divine being him/her(self) went through the menial task of physically penning these things to paper (papyrus, stone). It's accepted by even the most rigid believers that there is room for interpretation as the human writer could have been ambiguous in their choice of phrasing. Or changes in language over time, translational errors, etc.
There are scholars for all major religions and they don't all agree. It's not "God said it, I believe it and that's that" Creationism is a hotly debated topic in many religious circles. As I stated, It is not a topic that has any place with physics, and biology. It belongs in a philosophy class. However I think that evolution and natural selection should also be added into that mix. Unfortunately you are in too much of a fervor over how unquestioning religious people must be, you failed to comprehend what I was saying to begin with.
While I think your contention that "Very rarely do students actually learn critical thinking skills" in public schools has legs, I'm not sure I would lay that entirely at the doorstep of the science classes / teachers. US school seems to consist largely of the process of learning facts to be regurgitated on a test, then learning more facts before being tested again. There's just not much room for critical thinking in the curriculum.
This is what you get when you use standardized tests and base school funding on the results to those tests. There is a pretty good quote on this in The Wire: "You don't teach math, you teach the test". (if you haven't see that series, wach this entire clip about education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...)
What makes this scary is if someone slips mysticism (bad information) in with the facts we end up teaching lies to our children.
Bad information has been taught in school since school was invented - and not only because of religion. It was not religious people who came up with the flat earth theory, it was scientific people (the religious believed earth was standing on a turtle or something) and generations of captains took to the sea based on that information. Being wrong is a constant possibility in science as knowledge and tools evolve.
The danger is in becoming dogmatic; this always was a pattern with religious people, but this is also becoming typical in the scientific community as raising even the smallest issue with some pillars of the modern thinking such as the theory of evolution leads to ostracism and suspicion of a pro-religious agenda.
lucm, indeed.
Evolution is the observed fact. Natural selection is the scientific theory. Why do you think it is called "theory of evolution by natural selection" ? Evolution is what is observed. Natural selection is the explanation we came up to explain the observation. Damn it, get it right.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's as much of a theory as the Earth being the centre of the Universe with epicycles to explain retrograde orbits of planets and stars being painted on the firmament. And just like that theory it has been thoroughly rejected.
In the case of creationism, it was rejected at the beginning of modern science. Geologists went out to study the aftereffects of the flood and it pretty quickly became obvious that the flood did not explain the Earths history and in the course of studying they came to our current theories of the origin of the Earth.
Meanwhile the study of astronomy has led to our current theory of the beginning of the Universe.
As a failed theory, creationism belongs right besides the theories such as everything rotating around the Earth, spontaneous formation of life, as in maggots just appearing in rotting meat, fresh air making people sick and such.
They all served as early points in science and as theories they fell really quick as they were so divorced from reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
There's no empirical evidence to back up this claim.
There's plenty of evidence that Scientology was created exclusively for control and manipulation. I'm not even going to bother fetching relevant links. They're not hard to find, despite Scientology's persistent attempts to run them off the net.
Creationism makes predictions. Young Earth where the major geological event was a global flood. Geology discounted it as a theory centuries ago by showing much evidence for an old Earth and periods of glaciation being much better explanations for observations. So what creationism is is a very good example of a failed theory, but it was the leading theory in the west until actually tested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
No one said anything about "provable" above.
Wait, so you're saying the Theory of Evolution is provable? Okay, smart guy, prove the theory of evolution. I'm waiting. There are two kinds of science, there's the kind where the results can be duplicated, like with the Laws of motion, and then there's the legal/historical stuff, where you look at history and draw conclusions. I'm sorry, but the Theory of Evolution is the second kind. You're welcome.
You watch this video and then attempt to disprove one or more of the claims.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Have a look at the definitions some time.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You obviously have never worked as a Scientist. Scientists go "rushing around looking for evidence" all the time. It is called the "Scientific Process". The question is what directions they are looking in, and credible theories (such as Evolution) obviously get a lot more time than crackpot ones such as Creationism. The thing that makes a scientist a good scientist is that the observations made are described as objective as possible and get peer-reviewed. Same for the conclusions. The meta-theory behind this is that things observably to others so that these others typically arrive at the same or similar conclusions have a high probability of being repeatable and mostly unbiased by the observer. And while it is a flawed process, it works exceedingly well if carried out competently.
Incidentally, there is no way to "prove" or "disprove" a theory that has any physical object or effect as its subject. That is reserved to elements mathematical theories and they do not have any direct absolute applicability to physical reality. The only thing you can do with a theory that deals with physical reality is to accumulate observations and conclusions from those observations that make it more or less credible and then make a judgment call. There are things like predictive value, independent verifiability, etc. all used in good science.
So while observations must necessarily be subjective, a good scientist manages a good approximation to objectivity. One test is that other good scientists will independently arrive at the same description of the observation. Another is that predictions on basis of those observations work. Occam's Razor (in CS called "KISS") is important. There are other things involved.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"Origin of species" is what Darwin's claimed. "Origin of life" is what creationists heard. Many creationists simply don't understand the word "evolution" and get very confused and aggitated when others talk about (say) "the evolution of the cosmos". Evolution simply means "changes over time". What creationists are really disagreeing with is more often than not a half baked strawman from someone else who also has difficulty comprehending plain english.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
A belief is a theory accepted despite the absence of good supporting evidence or even in the presence of overwhelming negative evidence. Creationism is a theory of this nature. Do not hand the Creationists ammunition by claiming they do things wrong which they are not.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Indeed. But a rejected theory is still a theory. Even a completely ridiculous theory is a theory. It is in fact important to collect and document such theories to prevent that further effort is wasted on them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is plenty of empirical evidence. Sure, there may always be small parts that are more random, but even when people with good intentions do it, they are trying to manipulate others.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No, it is "very low". No theory about physical reality ever has zero possibility of being accurate, no matter how bizarre. Read up on the theory of science.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It is eminently worthy of study in a SCIENCE class. It is a perfect example of a theory that has overwhelming evidence against it. It is also a perfect example that some people are willing to believe things that are not rational to believe in.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The term "theory" is dual use: "a theory" is just a documented idea. A theory that has no or not much evidence for or against is known for a hypothesis. "The Theory of XYZ" is a distinction given to theories with significant scientific evidence for their validity. There are subtleties in here.
As applied to the discussion at hand, proper use is "The Theory of Evolution", but "Creationism" (which is just "a theory"). Incidentally, Creationism is not a hypothesis. It is a theory with very low credibility, as it has overwhelming evidence against it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No, I do not. Creationism is a theory with a lot of evidence against it. That makes it a "disproved theory", a "theory with low credibility" or the like. It would only be a hypothesis if there was no or very little evidence either way.
And of course, a "hunch" becomes a hypothesis (which is a state a theory can be in) as soon as it is documented.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually current Catholic teachings are that God caused the big bang which led to evolution and our current world. Not something that science can currently have a say in as it just describes the process.
The strange thing is that all these other religions so limit God that he couldn't spend 13.5 odd billion years at creation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
No, the comparison is correct: gravity is not being denied, despite multiple theories vying for the explanation. None of those theories go out and say "gravity does not exist". With evolution, the fundamental notion of evolution is being challenged; we're not at the same level at all. This would be more like multiple theories for how, say, traits are passed along were to arise: a specific element of the greater theory being put into question, but not entirely changing the premise.
Your entire description is, just like the random and totally unresearched example I gave, also way too complex and specialized for the context. We're talking about high school level stuff here. The gravity you see at that level is F=mg, which is entirely uncontested.
Wrong. A hypothesis is a theory with very little or no positive or negative evidence for it. Once the scientific process is applied successfully, it loses its status as a hypothesis. What Creationism is is a discredited theory or (with some level of inaccuracy, as there are no absolutes possible here) a disproved theory.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No, the comparison is correct: gravity is not being denied, despite multiple theories vying for the explanation. None of those theories go out and say "gravity does not exist". With evolution, the fundamental notion of evolution is being challenged; we're not at the same level at all. This would be more like multiple theories for how, say, traits are passed along were to arise: a specific element of the greater theory being put into question, but not entirely changing the premise.
My point is that when people say "Evolution is just a theory", the appropriate response is not to say "Gravity is just a theory too" really sarcastically. This is for a few reasons. 1. "Evolution" is not a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a theory. 2. When you say "Gravity is just a theory too", it is almost implying that if you disagree with the theory of gravity, you are denying that gravity exists, which is not true. You would actually be denying the correctness of Newton's theory of gravity (i.e. Newton's explanation of gravity). I think this comes because most people, including science advocates, don't really understand science or the scientific method.
The gravity you see at that level is F=mg, which is entirely uncontested.
The formula for gravity is actually F= G * m1 * m2 / r^2, and it is exactly this formula that was contested by Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
I learned about relativity in high school physics 18 years ago, I don't see how MOND or dark matter are harder concepts to understand than relativity. More importantly I think it is important to teach the [real] controversies of science to show children the scientific method in action. It would be so much more valuable to see competing hypotheses surviving and failing observational tests, than to just see a bunch of correct information presented as if it's gospel.
Maybe Einstein would disagree with you and probably the all scientists in the world would as well
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"Creationism actually is a theory" -
bollox, look up definition of theory in a scientific context.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
oh what bollox, creationism is religion based as is all the other religions belief on how the human race became into being. Cretinists always forget that every religion has a delusion of how humans started.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
you need to read more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"Creationism is an excellent example for a theory with very low confidence in it, use it as such."
No it isn't, i will just correct that statement for you.
Creationism is an excellent example of complete bollox promoted only by the Abrahamic based religious "
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
no they are not, you really need to go back to school and read, read, read until you comprehend the difference. Finding any evidence is a small part of the process, it needs to be tested as well. Here is a very simplistic example, if i found a coconut laying on the sand near a beach, i could just assume it grows on the ground if i didn't test the hypothesis of "found coconut on ground therefore they grow on the ground"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
sometimes answering these trolls/creationists can enlighten others that might fall victim to their shit so in a way the trolls are defeating themselves
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
oh fuck off you trolling idiot. best be thought a fool than open you mouth and prove it - which is what you have done and always do
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The nonsense in question:
a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
Yeah, unless "all the scientists in the world" suddenly turned in to drooling morons I think that it's unlikely that they'll disagree with me here. It's a laughably bad nonsense definition. I'm amazed on how often this is repeated by the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders. They're not the brightest, or the best educated, but I thought even the slowest among them would recognize at least a few of the many problems from which it obviously suffers!
Can you defend *any* part of that nonsense?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Incomprehensible bullshit, eh? If you don't understand it, it must be wrong. Gotcha.
Out of curiosity, what, exactly, did you fail to understand? It's not complicated. I'm amazed that so many people have difficulty with such basic things.
Required reading for internet skeptics
A hypothesis is a theory with very little or no positive or negative evidence for it
No. Not even close.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Here you go. Testable, duplicatable example of evolution. http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
Marklar, these marklars want to change your marklar. They don't want Marklar or any of these marklars to live here because it's bad for their marklar. They use Marklar to try and force marklars to believe they're marklar. If you let them stay here, they will build marklars and marklars. They will take all your marklars and replace them with Marklar. These marklar have no good marklar to live on Marklar, so they must come here to Marklar. Please, let these marklars stay where they can grow and prosper without any marklars, marklars, or marklars.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
In order to preserve their cherished notions about the "origin of mankind", creationists screw up pretty much everything about science. That's the "issue" you're not seeing.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
To both me and gweihir below, your comments both boil down to, "You're wrong!" (Though if we include tone, perhaps it should be "Nyah-nyah, you're wrong, sillybutt!") Even if you're correct about either of us being wrong, absent the slightest argument or indication why we're wrong, I can't see why I should care about your contention.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
By that definition, creationism is not a theory. At best, it is an untested hypothesis.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Dog can't change into cat, that's for sure. But it was never a part of evolution theory, right?
Infantile.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It seems that there is fairly strong sentiment on the issue, and if so, there should not be a State legislature voting this crap in.
It is very hard to relocate, and pick up a family, but if the State I were in, the true majority of the people believed this, I would think it time for a permanent field trip.
I think though, that those that feel strongly on the issue are getting to the polls in stronger numbers and tipping the balance in favor of these laws.
It is a tested hypothesis. The test were just negative in result. This is really the definition they give? It sucks badly...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No, it is not observable. What is observable are things that are consistent with Evolution, but Evolution itself is not observable. For that you would need to do several different experiments with exactly the same starting conditions, just one thing changed. That is obviously not possible.
Also note that "unnatural selection" is not Evolution at all, but something quite different.
You have no clue what an observation is or what a fact is. Stop confusing Science with Religion! Science is NOT religion! Stop attacking Science in this underhanded and dishonorable way! Absolute "truths" is what religion sells, not what Science has to offer.
You also seem to have a reading comprehension issue. I am arguing for the Science-side here.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This betrays are rather huge ignorance of what is meant by "testing" in science. Testing doesn't just mean having pictures or video of events. It means making predictions about what we ought to find if we go looking, and evolutionary theory makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil and molecular data.
And fuck, pal, even Darwin himself came up with a perfectly utilitarian theory of sexual selection. Read a fucking book by a fucking biologist and quit aping long debunked Creationist crap. It only makes you look like an ignorant fucktard.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No. I looked it up to be sure
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
Creationism is not testable so it cannot be a theory. It is a good story, it is a anecdotal way to try and explain our origins, but it is not a theory. Creationism cannot explain, nor establish tests to show here. As this link mentions, you can look at the question of Cain's wife from either a literal (were did she come from other then incest) or interpretive which really cannot be tested. God wiped out humanity after the flood and from just the loins of Noah;'s son came all of humanity? Not even possible or testable. So how then can Creationism be a theory? it is a set of stories meant to interpret the origins of man (and do so poorly). We might as well say that these stories are alternative theories about the creation of man and the world.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
That may be true, but that doesn't make your post less absurd. This is ridiculously basic stuff here.
The whole "Creationists think [incorrect thing] it's really [incorrect thing]" drives me crazy. It's done more to harm the public understanding of science than all the Hovinds of the world could hope to achieve on their own.
Youtube isn't a substitute for a university, nor livejournal for a library. Stop spreading nonsense.
Required reading for internet skeptics
rarefied take on commonly understood shit
Try an educated take on commonly misunderstood shit.
attitude of intellectual snobbery
How dare I be educated!
Sorry to ruin your autodidact circle-jerk. I know how proud you were of regurgitating that nonsense you read on a blog somewhere. I'll bet it made you feel proud. If you weren't actively harming the public understanding of science, I'd even give you a pass.
Look, it's clear that you didn't understand my post. It's a shame as it was as simple as I could make it. Simple enough, I'd hoped, for even the thickest scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders to understand.
Stop spreading nonsense! You are part of the problem!
Required reading for internet skeptics
That's one problem with most people, they use "theory" synonymously with "hypothesis". They are not the same. A (scientific) theory is supported by certain facts and accepted by consensus. A hypothesis is as yet untested. Way to many people misuse the terms just like they most often misuse "faith" by equating it with "trust". It would greatly improve understanding if people had clear understandings of the terms they use (or misuse).
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Sure it is. It just isn't a *scientific* theory.
Not it isn't. Creationism is a HYPOTHESIS. There's a big difference between theory and hypothesis, which Bill Nye didn't even raise.
Bill Nye didn't even challenge Ham's assertion that "all dating methods are fallible" and there's "nothing in science to contradict a short age Earth". Nye didn't do a very good job at all. Anyway, point is Creationism is FAITH BASED, simple as that. Science is not based on faith, it is based on observation, experiment repeatability and prediction. The Vatican has no problem with evolution (another thing Nye failed to mention).
Evolution is based on many, many observations and reinforcing studies. Creationism is based on faith in words written in a book.
The problem here is the science community has failed to communicate WHAT IS SCIENCE. Even Nye failed to do so, in terms anyone with half a brain can understand. "Teaching controversy" has little place in the science classroom. Teaching "critical thinking", creativity and problem-solving are different things. Every science classroom teaches the difference between hypothesis and theory, and not making too many assumptions - that's controversy enough for kids just trying to pass their exams and have a life for fucks sake.
Creationism belongs in Literature & Religion classes. Kids shouldn't be made the battleground for political ideologies. It's fucking shameful. And Nye failed to mention that as well.
I happen to be a scientist. I am defending science against cretins that misrepresent it here.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I seriously doubt that. Well, unless your a graduate of Oral Roberts University.
No one with any science background would say something this stupid:
A hypothesis is a theory with very little or no positive or negative evidence for it.
Yeah, you actually said that. I copied it directly from your comment above.
It's okay if you feel foolish. All I ask is that you stop spreading nonsense.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Oh, yes, I said that. It happens to be accurate. Maybe do a bit of research yourself?
Incidentally, I have a PhD from one of the best Universities on the planet.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
By your definition, everything is a theory when it is not, thus a theory really has no discernible difference to guesses, hunches, and hypotheses. I could call a bicycle an automobile but it is not.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
OK, kids. Today we're going to learn all about where humans came from. So it was either xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx o rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx etc
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Oh, yes, I said that. It happens to be accurate
Wow, no. It's not even a little bit accurate. It's laughable. You must have puzzled this out by now!
I suppose you also think Popper is a device for making a popular snack, Hempel is for hippies, and Kuhn is that masked critter that lives in your back yard.
What did they teach you at Bud's Discount University anyway? I hope you kept the receipt.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Still waiting? See above. Though it was a definition of theory, not "the scientific method".
Ugh... The last think science needs is illiterate "defenders" like you...
Required reading for internet skeptics
Ah, okay. Gotta call Poe's Law on this one. It doesn't really matter if you're serious or not - either way, you're just cherry-picking passages to respond to and not addressing the salient points (e.g., the economic question). So, um... have a nice life, I guess.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Well, staying ignorant and arrogant is certainly your right. Mine is to ignore you from now on.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Not at all. Your skills at logic suck.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You're welcome to stick your head in the ground and ignore reality if you want. All I ask is that you stop popping out and shouting ridiculous nonsense!
Just for fun, try to find a real-world example of your silly definition. That should be sufficient for you to recognize how incredibly moronic your assertion truly is. With a bit of luck, it'll inspire you to do some reading. You'll find some important authors mentioned in my earlier post.
Required reading for internet skeptics
No, your understanding of what a definition is suck badly. By your definition, theory==hunch. It does not no matter how you want to spin it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.