So you really expect that if you can't start from basic principles and work through the entire set of work that would comprise a college graduate level curriculum of an evolutionary biologist in the time span of a high school science class, that we should take evolution out of science class? We already have people who do this kind of research and experimentation. Most people call them scientists, researchers, professors, etc. These are the people that do the work that goes into those textbooks. Otherwise, we may as well just do away with textbooks altogether, right?
The purpose of a high school science class is to introduce students to the basic concepts that all these scientists and researchers have already figured out and to do so in the limited time allotted for the school year. High school students do not have the time or even the intellectual tools to do the kind of work that you are insisting must happen before something is taught.
What are some examples of theological notions being continually challenged, and how are they overcome, and how do you know when your arguments are correct?
I agree with the spirit of your post here, thanks. However, I would still question your question on the validity of scientist's self confidence. Is that evolution happens not a fact? It happens, we have seen it. Evolutionary theory explains how this is so. To disagree with this fact in this day and age amounts to sheer willful ignorance, does it not? I would argue that scientists don't condescend to those who disagree, but to those who claim to understand when they continuously clearly fail to do so, and those who claim they have a better, more Truthful(TM) answer yet have nothing to support their assertion.
Obviously I'm talking about the anti-science religious here. They, in my opinion, are the undeserved proud that cast the dark pall upon our species while at the same time championing themselves as the light, imagining themselves to be the center of the universe and the very reason for its creation while at the same time proclaiming their humility. Imagine where we might be as a species today without the fearful spectre of religion having held us back throughout history.
I'm assuming that scientists to which you refer are the likes of Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. In them, I see not a lack of humility (indeed, what can be more humble than showing how you are NOT special, NOT the center of the universe, and espousing that you are NOT some supernatural deity's chosen purpose for the universe), but instead I see the character of an adult who is fed up with tolerating the ridiculous views and tantrums of the child that refuses to listen to reason. Creationism IS wrong, the entirety of the fields of biology, cosmology, geology, palentology, genetics and chemistry tell us so. The history of the world shows that until about 200 years ago, creationism was assumed to be right. Unfortunately, the evidence did not line up with this line of thinking and a new idea was formed that not only did make sense of the limited evidence available at the time, but has since made many predictions that have come to fruition.
You may disagree, but I believe that's something worthy of being proud of and is truly one of the brighter spots of human history.
Except that "science" doesn't do any such thing. The fact that you perceive it as such says more about your understanding of science and worldview that you realize. For all the faults of humans, the scientific method is still the best way for uncovering and discovering knowledge about the reality that we live in. Let's do this, then:
This level of self-confidence in scientists humors me so.
Since you're typing this on a computer (science - materials science, quantum physics, computational science) that's connected to millions of others, that runs reliably on well understood scientific concepts and that uses electricity, as well as all of the other millions of devices you use every day that work reliably thanks to all those same scientific principles that we've developed over the history of the human race, I hope you recognize the irony in questioning why we have confidence in the method and process of science and the people whose job it is to apply it.
Such pride, to assume that their limited human brain with it's capability for frequent and unpredictable error is the source of perfect truth(is not every human flawed?).
The fact that we have limited brains and we know that they frequently deceive us is exactly the reason that we have a scientific method and process in the first place. There's no such thing as perfect truth, but we can certainly approach modeling reality with more and more exactness thanks to a self-correcting method. Humans may be flawed, but the universe has shown itself to be consistent and that we can figure it out to more and more degrees of precision despite those flaws. I'd say that's a hurdle worthy of being proud of overcoming. YMMV.
It's foolish to think that our conclusions are flawless and equivalent to a law.
You're right. That's why we don't do this. Only you think we do.
How often have integral theories been proven wrong or incorrect?
Plenty of times. This is what makes science great: it's self-correcting. That's the entire point.
We will never reach a final conclusion.
Unfounded assertion.
Who are you to say that your opinion is the only correct one? Who are you to say that your conclusions are the only possible set of results?
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
Great men have fallen prey to pride and vanity. Don't let it cloud your judgement.
You miss the entire point of the scientific endeavor.
Your post was no so much original literature as it was the same rehashed "Hahaha! You think you're so smart, but you don't really know!!" tripe that we hear from anti-science creationists all the time and the only response it is worth of is, I repeat, "Science: it works. Bitches."
You mean the dead ones that the scientists stuck to the trees during the day because it's really fucking difficult to photograph a live one at night for simple illustrative purpose? OMG TEH SCIENCE LIES!! Fucking moron.
Moderate Christians like you are the ones who open the door to more radical and extremist views of your religion by making it ok and tolerable to believe in superstition and ancient myths. Every airplane hijacking terrorist and abortion clinic bomber believe in their superstitions just as strongly as you believe in yours. Giving legitimacy and "respect" to your superstition implies that theirs deserve the same.
By virtue of that same first amendment, we are also not subject to religious preaching in lieu of actual science. The stickers on the textbooks, having been put there at the behest of a creationist movement with a creationist agenda which is solely a religious opposition to evolutionary theory do run afoul of our first amendment freedoms, hence the double standard. Which, of course, is why there was a court case regarding them and their subsequent removal.
They rightly had a fit because the sticker only singled out the theory of evolution using obviously Creationist wording and agenda. The sticker did not also apply to the theory of relativity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity due to time-space distortion, or any of the other scientific theories that Creationists don't seem to have a problem with because they don't upset their superstitious worldview.
Likewise, the Archaeopteryx is often criticized as a particularly weak example even by the most dedicated evolutionists. Archaeopteryx may yet be accepted as an early member of Avialae, but there just isn't sufficient evidence of that yet.
I don't think it could get much worse. Sure, they aren't teaching religion in the classroom, but guess where they are going to teach it: at home. Guess where evolution and science won't be taught: also at home. These students are getting shafted just as bad, despite them not attempting to teach religion in science class. In fact, it may even be WORSE, because if it was attempted to be taught in school, at least there might be some backlash and public discussion about why this is wrong.
If you're God created everything and lies to us with false evidence, then your god is a liar and an asshole. What else might he be lying to you about? And is a lying god really worthy of your worship and respect?
Since for most of history it has been the SOP that if you don't believe in the god of most of those religions you could be killed for it, it's no wonder that non-believers constitute a minority.
According to your definition, you just rendered the creation of snowflakes impossible. Congrats!
You don't seem to really understand entropy. Entropy is the tendency for a closed system to move from order to chaos. A closed system is one in which energy neither enters or exits. Fortunately for us, the Earth is not a closed system. If you go outside on a nice day and look up, you'll see a giant energy factory in the sky: the sun. All the energy that evolution has ever needed comes from the sun. (It could also be argued that energy also comes from deep inside the earth, such as deep thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean.)
....says the retard posting his comment on a public internet forum using a computer that's connected to millions of other computers around the globe. But science, it's never done anything!
Next time, just pray your post onto/. and see how that works out for you.
Uh, that idea isn't testable. Seriously, the idea that falsifiability is the demarkation between science and non-science is no more falsifiable than an infinity of possible worlds.
Falsifiability isn't a hypothesis, it's a definition.
Do you REALLY find it questionable that people that don't believe in God can have morals? Seriously? As if without God commanding us from on high we'd have no idea what is good and bad? I always find it amazing that faith-heads seem to be completely incapable of imagining a world outside of their little collective.
I suppose then if you found out tomorrow that there was actual proof that God didn't exist, you would see no problem in going out and stealing from, raping, and killing your neighbor? I sure am glad that I'm not your neighbor.
Irreducible complexity has been shown to be baseless and nothing more than an argument from incredulity ("I can't imagine how this may have formed, therefore intelligence!" , and entropy has nothing to do with evolution.
Your citations assume that we don't know what intelligent design is, why it's bullshit, or how it was found to be nothing more than creationism in Dover vs. Kitzmiller. We're very familiar with intelligent design and its origins. It's still bullshit and there's still no evidence for it.
(unrelated note, PiCraft sounds neat! I may check it out soon.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose of a high school science class is to introduce students to the basic concepts that all these scientists and researchers have already figured out and to do so in the limited time allotted for the school year. High school students do not have the time or even the intellectual tools to do the kind of work that you are insisting must happen before something is taught.
My god I wish that had been my kid. That would have been so much fun.
What are some examples of theological notions being continually challenged, and how are they overcome, and how do you know when your arguments are correct?
Obviously I'm talking about the anti-science religious here. They, in my opinion, are the undeserved proud that cast the dark pall upon our species while at the same time championing themselves as the light, imagining themselves to be the center of the universe and the very reason for its creation while at the same time proclaiming their humility. Imagine where we might be as a species today without the fearful spectre of religion having held us back throughout history.
I'm assuming that scientists to which you refer are the likes of Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. In them, I see not a lack of humility (indeed, what can be more humble than showing how you are NOT special, NOT the center of the universe, and espousing that you are NOT some supernatural deity's chosen purpose for the universe), but instead I see the character of an adult who is fed up with tolerating the ridiculous views and tantrums of the child that refuses to listen to reason. Creationism IS wrong, the entirety of the fields of biology, cosmology, geology, palentology, genetics and chemistry tell us so. The history of the world shows that until about 200 years ago, creationism was assumed to be right. Unfortunately, the evidence did not line up with this line of thinking and a new idea was formed that not only did make sense of the limited evidence available at the time, but has since made many predictions that have come to fruition.
You may disagree, but I believe that's something worthy of being proud of and is truly one of the brighter spots of human history.
Since you're typing this on a computer (science - materials science, quantum physics, computational science) that's connected to millions of others, that runs reliably on well understood scientific concepts and that uses electricity, as well as all of the other millions of devices you use every day that work reliably thanks to all those same scientific principles that we've developed over the history of the human race, I hope you recognize the irony in questioning why we have confidence in the method and process of science and the people whose job it is to apply it.
The fact that we have limited brains and we know that they frequently deceive us is exactly the reason that we have a scientific method and process in the first place. There's no such thing as perfect truth, but we can certainly approach modeling reality with more and more exactness thanks to a self-correcting method. Humans may be flawed, but the universe has shown itself to be consistent and that we can figure it out to more and more degrees of precision despite those flaws. I'd say that's a hurdle worthy of being proud of overcoming. YMMV.
You're right. That's why we don't do this. Only you think we do.
Plenty of times. This is what makes science great: it's self-correcting. That's the entire point.
Unfounded assertion.
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
You miss the entire point of the scientific endeavor.
Your post was no so much original literature as it was the same rehashed "Hahaha! You think you're so smart, but you don't really know!!" tripe that we hear from anti-science creationists all the time and the only response it is worth of is, I repeat, "Science: it works. Bitches."
You mean the dead ones that the scientists stuck to the trees during the day because it's really fucking difficult to photograph a live one at night for simple illustrative purpose? OMG TEH SCIENCE LIES!! Fucking moron.
Moderate Christians like you are the ones who open the door to more radical and extremist views of your religion by making it ok and tolerable to believe in superstition and ancient myths. Every airplane hijacking terrorist and abortion clinic bomber believe in their superstitions just as strongly as you believe in yours. Giving legitimacy and "respect" to your superstition implies that theirs deserve the same.
By virtue of that same first amendment, we are also not subject to religious preaching in lieu of actual science. The stickers on the textbooks, having been put there at the behest of a creationist movement with a creationist agenda which is solely a religious opposition to evolutionary theory do run afoul of our first amendment freedoms, hence the double standard. Which, of course, is why there was a court case regarding them and their subsequent removal.
If you don't see the relation to the topic, then you truly are ignorant and not only have the appearance of foolishness, but you actually are a fool.
They rightly had a fit because the sticker only singled out the theory of evolution using obviously Creationist wording and agenda. The sticker did not also apply to the theory of relativity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity due to time-space distortion, or any of the other scientific theories that Creationists don't seem to have a problem with because they don't upset their superstitious worldview.
Likewise, the Archaeopteryx is often criticized as a particularly weak example even by the most dedicated evolutionists. Archaeopteryx may yet be accepted as an early member of Avialae, but there just isn't sufficient evidence of that yet.
I'd love to see a citation of this assertion.
This joke has never been more appropriate. Bravo, fellow cajun sir.
I don't think it could get much worse. Sure, they aren't teaching religion in the classroom, but guess where they are going to teach it: at home. Guess where evolution and science won't be taught: also at home. These students are getting shafted just as bad, despite them not attempting to teach religion in science class. In fact, it may even be WORSE, because if it was attempted to be taught in school, at least there might be some backlash and public discussion about why this is wrong.
Faith answers no questions. Pulling shit out your ass and making up answers does not in any meaningful way answer anything.
If you're God created everything and lies to us with false evidence, then your god is a liar and an asshole. What else might he be lying to you about? And is a lying god really worthy of your worship and respect?
-- Creatard, posted using prayer and not a modern computer.
Science: It works, bitches.
Since for most of history it has been the SOP that if you don't believe in the god of most of those religions you could be killed for it, it's no wonder that non-believers constitute a minority.
You don't seem to really understand entropy. Entropy is the tendency for a closed system to move from order to chaos. A closed system is one in which energy neither enters or exits. Fortunately for us, the Earth is not a closed system. If you go outside on a nice day and look up, you'll see a giant energy factory in the sky: the sun. All the energy that evolution has ever needed comes from the sun. (It could also be argued that energy also comes from deep inside the earth, such as deep thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean.)
Next time, just pray your post onto /. and see how that works out for you.
We can directly observe its effects and manipulate it. Electrons: 1, God: 0.
Uh, that idea isn't testable. Seriously, the idea that falsifiability is the demarkation between science and non-science is no more falsifiable than an infinity of possible worlds.
Falsifiability isn't a hypothesis, it's a definition.
Do you REALLY find it questionable that people that don't believe in God can have morals? Seriously? As if without God commanding us from on high we'd have no idea what is good and bad? I always find it amazing that faith-heads seem to be completely incapable of imagining a world outside of their little collective.
I suppose then if you found out tomorrow that there was actual proof that God didn't exist, you would see no problem in going out and stealing from, raping, and killing your neighbor? I sure am glad that I'm not your neighbor.
Irreducible complexity has been shown to be baseless and nothing more than an argument from incredulity ("I can't imagine how this may have formed, therefore intelligence!" , and entropy has nothing to do with evolution.
(unrelated note, PiCraft sounds neat! I may check it out soon. :)