|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
And the score is Dover, PA One - ID/God Zero
The dumbing down of America continues. Dec 20 05 04:02 pm Link jeffgreen wrote: If two are taught why not many? I am sure that all 'merican kiddies could benefit from this "theory" as well; or maybe one of the others. Dec 20 05 04:08 pm Link 41 Dec 20 05 04:09 pm Link In psychology...by definition, almost nothing is tangible. We never are able to prove a thing. We only notice that there is an "effect". We try to re-create the "effect" in a controlled situation. Evolution-- Observable in the different species and families of animals and plants. ID-- Not Observable. Evolution-- "Effect" can be attributed scientificly ID-- "Effect" is understood. Big Bang-- Observable and the "effect" can be attributed scientificly Creation-- Not Observable except through faith and reason. No way to re-create any portion to even have a science theory. The great thing about ID and my version of Creationism is that it includes the Big Bang and Evolution along with ID. My God is real enough to me. Dec 20 05 04:09 pm Link I'm sorry, but for some reason I can't directly quote anyone. However, Jeff in Texas. I never use the word 'proof' ever. No one in the scientific community would. In science, nothing is ever proved, we just attempt to find evidence to either support or refute hypotheses (untested statements) and as our collegue Marcus said, "science is not afraid of change" - 'change' is one of the very tenets of the scientific method of inquiry. Religion, on the other hand, demands we believe their dogma, without any form of evidence, except an 1800 year old history book of anecdotes. /tim Dec 20 05 04:13 pm Link I can't believe we still have to have this debate in the 21st century. Dec 20 05 04:14 pm Link No one in the scientific community would. In science, nothing is ever proved, we just find strong evidence to support theories In psych the term is "the evidence suggests". Or that something is merely "statisticly significant". Dec 20 05 04:25 pm Link Jay, yes, Google is a very useful tool in the search for information. The reader needs to beware, however. I suggest you may want to do some research using it. We used to use Nexus/Lexus, but Google is great for quick searches, however as I said, you have to disgard what is not legitimate research, which is subjected to peer review before it's ever published. Regarding contridictions in the Bible, review this site: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … tions.html Regarding not teaching evolution? Look at what just one Harvard evolutionary biologist has written on the subject in the past thirty years (Stephen J. Gould, who unfortunately passed away in 2002): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html You would have us to disregard the entire systematic structure of the discipline of biology because of a person's belief in a religion or because of some philosophy of a supernational concept called Intelligent Design? How odd. /tim Dec 20 05 04:28 pm Link A lot of what we're arguing about, regarding the theory of evolution, comes down to how do you inductively expand an observation. I.e.: How do you get from: "German shepherds are a breed of dog that was created by mankind selecting for desired traits" to "Selection of inheritable properties happens" and then to "Natural factors influence inheritance by causing some traits to be more likely to succeed" and finally "Speciation happens over geological time as a result of natural factors" and the theory of evolution. The problem is, basically, applying inductive reasoning - not proving things. Philosophers of science have been wrestling with that for a long time.  As with everything else, science uses the scientific method to refine itself. This brings up the notion of Falsification versus circular logic. It's not worth my trying to explain it here; you should http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability if you're interested. Religious people try to use logic and science to argue against logic and science. The results are never pretty, but it's usually pretty unsuccessful, since religious people are seldom good logicians and never scientists. mjr. Dec 20 05 04:36 pm Link This arguement goes to the heart of why I am a conservative. So many assume that a public school should be teaching something that should be taught first at home. There is no real science associated with the origins of the Universe. There is good science associated with the origins of man and the earth. That should be taught as science. Science by definition only suggests. So parents can suggest otherwise at home. PARENTS bare the responsibility of teaching their religion or other beliefs to their own kids. If it is not covered under the science umbrella then it falls to the parents. ID is not yet a science. If parents want it taught...teach it in the home! Don't ask for my tax dollars to go to teaching your child what only faith and reason can suggest to be real. Dec 20 05 04:36 pm Link Regarding both science and spirituality, there's only one reliable formula to ascertain the validity of any experience: repeatability and commonality over time. In other words, any experience, whether scientific or spiritual, a) must be continue to manifest itself to humans or in humans without suddenly 'non-manifesting' itself from one day to the next, either due to human or natural happenstance, and b) must manifest itself to or in a significant number of humans regardless of location, culture, achievement, etc, c) over a long period of time. Certain aspects of science (although certainly not a majority of them), and certain aspects of faith (although not necessarily any of the established religions) emerge as equally valid based on this, the only reliable test we have available. If anyone else, scientist or spiritual scholar alike, attempts to tell you anything else, there's a very good chance that a business model is not too far behind, and the REAL motivation is separating someone or a group of someones from the contents of their wallet(s). Dec 20 05 04:43 pm Link bencook2 wrote: OMG! I've been saying this for years now! I agree with you 100% Dec 20 05 04:45 pm Link Holy Crap (wait, can I say that, or is it Holiday Crap, know? - goes Google Search to find the PC Dictionary). Anyway, Ben is sounding like a liberal! Are you sure you're not "True Blue" in disguise? Dec 20 05 04:52 pm Link Damn you all...50 posts already before I even jump in. This is fertile playground for my devious mind! >  Anyhow...anyone confused about how this could possibly (!) happen should acquaint themselves with the former ID/Evolution thread that was hanging around here a while back (too lazy to dig up the link). People...PLEASE understand the following: "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." ~Isaac Asimov If were to say that you are gay, there are (for simplicity's sake) two main possible suggestions that I may be making: 1) Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2) Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. That you would probably naturally take the comment to mean the first, does not discount the nature of the second. Put simply...if you are calling into question the fairness of giving equal time to other "theories" you are gravely misunderstanding the term in the way in which it is used scientifically. Learn. And if I have to explain the value of a "theory" needing to be falsifiable...then I'm going to cry and proceed to drown my sorrows in some nice ruby port. Dec 20 05 05:01 pm Link StudioD wrote: Arrgh!!! BIOLOGISTS ARE NOT ASTROPHYSICISTS! Dec 20 05 05:02 pm Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: The evolution of our technologies far outruns the evolution of our sensibilities. Kinda scary sometimes wondering to what end it may lead. Dec 20 05 05:05 pm Link Kickfight wrote ---------------------------- Regarding both science and spirituality, there's only one reliable formula to ascertain the validity of any experience: repeatability and commonality over time. In other words, any experience, whether scientific or spiritual, a) must be continue to manifest itself to humans or in humans without suddenly 'non-manifesting' itself from one day to the next, either due to human or natural happenstance, and b) must manifest itself to or in a significant number of humans regardless of location, culture, achievement, etc, c) over a long period of time. Certain aspects of science (although certainly not a majority of them), and certain aspects of faith (although not necessarily any of the established religions) emerge as equally valid based on this, the only reliable test we have available. If anyone else, scientist or spiritual scholar alike, attempts to tell you anything else, there's a very good chance that a business model is not too far behind, and the REAL motivation is separating someone or a group of someones from the contents of their wallet(s). Tim replied: --------------------- Ever heard of experimental design. and using a control group to determine if the observations you are seeing are due to chance or not? Ever heard of the Rosenthal Effect, Hawthorne Effect, Test-Retest Bias, or the Placebo effect in research, all which are major forms of bias (not to mention the many, many others). I can socialize a group of individuals to 'believe' in God or some other form of a higher being (or spirituality, if you like) and guess what, if tested in their adult hood, a significant portion may (or may not) believe in what they've been socialized too. You certainly won't find Buddhists or Hindus believing in the Christian God. Why? They weren't socialized too. One must be very careful using absolutes in regards to science (even though all science is based on its respective form of inquiry which generally follows the basic tenets of the Scientific Method). I agree that replication is a major tenet of the scientific method; never heard of commonality. Not sure how it's being used, here, unless you are talking about a large sample of randomly choosen people. /tim Dec 20 05 05:06 pm Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: Melvin, great minds think alike. I can't understand either. Dec 20 05 05:06 pm Link Nihilus wrote: Nihilus, about time you showed up. I have tea on and my Bible over there next to the Qaran, which is next to the Buddha statue. Help you self and Happy IDmis Dec 20 05 05:16 pm Link Tim Baker wrote: One Hundered percent Conservative. Dec 20 05 05:22 pm Link Tim Baker wrote: Keeping the thread warm for me, were you Tim? Dec 20 05 05:40 pm Link Tim Baker wrote: Yup. Not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: Yup. Not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: Yup. Replace 'God' with 'science' above and it's equally valid. However, it's not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: Absolutely. They were socialized to believe in Buddhist or Hindu ideologies. This, however, is not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: That's nice rhetoric, although a) it's relatively meaningless, and b) it is not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: The scientific method is a subset of what I stated above. Repeatability and commonality over time. For an experience to be considered valid, it must be repeatable, it must be experienced by a majority of observers (indicating that it must cross geographic/cultural/educational boundaries) and must do so over the course of a great deal of time. Dec 20 05 05:45 pm Link Let us not forget that the "big bang" theory also has mathematical equations that can help explain how the phenomena may have occured. It is not all about observation, there are other ideas brought to bear and other evidence brought to the table. The Big Bang is a theory, but it is the best theory we have going, and has the most evidence to back it up. I'm sure that the physicists behind the big bang theory would be thrilled if someone came up with an even better theory that explained things even more thoroughly, so far no one has. Science is science, and faith is faith. Here are some simple links to get people started if they still don't understand: Evidence for evolution: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html http://www.evolutionpages.com/ Evidence for "Big Bang" theory: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo … BBevidence http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm Here they argue for both evolution AND the big bang. (And a great argument presented at http://www.lightandmatter.com/evolution/ ) CHECK THIS OUT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BIBLICAL TRANSCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION/OR FACT CHECKING And for those who think of the Bible as straight literal truth, an interesting thing I heard on NPR from the author of "Misquoting Jesus"... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … Id=5052156 I thought the part about "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" to be very enlightening.  Dec 20 05 06:06 pm Link BodyPainter Rich wrote: Agreed! However, it is crucial to remember that the mathematical equations in question are additional human-constructed concepts that assist in supporting a theory. The idea that mathematical equations are evidence that exists outside the realm of human intervention is... well, a non-idea. Like telescopes, they are artificial constructs that support theories via observation or analysis. The existence of mathematical equations supporting a theory means only that a certain cylindrical peg fits a certain circular gap. BodyPainter Rich wrote: No argument there. Both require the same processes to be valid: human experience. Dec 20 05 06:14 pm Link Nihilus wrote: LOL..Don't think we'll ever make it there. More fun to post to models than it is to discuss religion. Boggles the mind, doesn't it. /Tim Dec 20 05 06:14 pm Link Telescopes are artificial constructs? What do you think...they deliberately tweak the data they recieve on radio telescopes? The microwave patterns of radiation are all just figments of the imagination? This stuff is all measured and is science. You obviously took a look at NONE of the links I posted, you couldn't have and answered so quickly. This is because you CHOOSE TO REMAIN IGNORANT on the topic you are debating...so either... 1. You just don't want to take the time to see what you are arguing about 2. You are afraid of the facts you might uncover 3. You lack the intelligence to understand the pages (which I don't buy) I've read what the Bible says on the subject. After careful consideration, I've decided that it can in no way be literal truth. Did you listen to the last article link I posted? What did you think of the authors notion of the two major interpretations of Jesus on the cross? C'mon do you want to debate or not? Edit: And science needs WAY more than human experience before it is considered to be valid. Dec 20 05 06:22 pm Link That Doonesbury is awesome! Cracked me right up! mjr. Dec 20 05 06:26 pm Link You know, laughter is the best medicine (next to super strains of antibiotics anyway) Dec 20 05 06:28 pm Link bencook2 wrote: Ben, sorry but you know me ... I just have to. Let me just do a bit of editing, if itâs ok with you, to better support your argument: Dec 20 05 06:31 pm Link kickfight wrote: Um, no. Math is an abstraction humans use to describe aspects of reality. Dec 20 05 06:32 pm Link BodyPainter Rich wrote: Rich, very nicely researched and supported post. Wish we had more of these. Cheers, Tim Dec 20 05 06:33 pm Link BodyPainter Rich wrote: ROTFWL!!!!!!!!!!! Got to love Tradeau! Cheers, Tim Dec 20 05 06:39 pm Link Tim Baker wrote: Hey, guys, don't turn a perfectly good session of religion-bashing into politics. Dec 20 05 06:41 pm Link About the only 'thing' that was decided, was to present an incomplete picture to the student. Now isn't that the way to teach? Knowledge is about having ALL of the information. Dec 20 05 06:43 pm Link kickfight wrote: Tim Baker wrote: Yup. Not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: Yup. Not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: Yup. Replace 'God' with 'science' above and it's equally valid. However, it's not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: Absolutely. They were socialized to believe in Buddhist or Hindu ideologies. This, however, is not applicable to what I stated above. Tim Baker wrote: That's nice rhetoric, although a) it's relatively meaningless, and b) it is not applicable to what I stated above. Sigh. Doesnât apply here? Care to elaborate or are we just supposed to accept your opinion on this one? Do you even know what âchanceâ occurrences are ⦠and if you say yes, please explain to us who know so little about the scientific method of inquiry? Thanks, Tim Dec 20 05 06:44 pm Link tgimaging wrote: Can't disagree with that. Just leave Christian philosophy out of science courses. Put them in philosophy courses where they belong. Or, as Ben stated before, teach, counter, what you don't like your children to know in your own home or church. Conservatives talk about personal responsibility: itâs my opinion this a major responsibility for parents to undertake and not force upon the school systems. Dec 20 05 06:50 pm Link tgimaging wrote: So do you think they should teach the Zoroastrian creation myth, too? What about the Hindu creation myth? Or the Greek? Dec 20 05 06:50 pm Link Tim Baker wrote: C'mon, Tim... this is why it's sometimes a bit exasperating to talk to you. Whenever something requires a bit of real, out-of-the-box thinking, rather than making the effort, you dismiss the whole thing with that lazy, erroenous "opinion" stamp. Dec 20 05 06:51 pm Link Marcus J. Ranum wrote: Excellent point! People forget that schools need to teach the basics. Not speculation, not conjecture, not philosophy, not theory. Just the basics that we all agree are practical. There'll be plenty of time for kids to grow up into questioning, questing adults, if they're given the proper practical basics... IOW, the tools they need to get by, which is the first priority. This whole thing is a distraction of the idle, and a screw for the kids. School is inadequate as it is without all this other trivia. Dec 20 05 06:58 pm Link tgimaging wrote: Whoa...so we don't teach world history unless we can teach ALL of world history? We don't teach math unless we can teach ALL of math? So unless we have ALL information we have no knowledge? Dec 20 05 06:58 pm Link |
Cheers, /Tim
