Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[Tod]

No, you aren't.



Nonsense. One relies upon a supernatural explanation; the other doesn't.



Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?

Science often errors, but that doesn't prevent the public school systems from presenting it as fact. A realistic curriculum will be humble enough to acknowledge that science is not the be-all end-all supreme answer worthy of worship.

 

[Mach]

My point was that, you do not have the authority to say what is and is not science. Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution.

Good thing you have the authority to say what is.....

It just interprets the science differently. In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

What a bunch of gibberish.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think questioning of AGW belongs in a science curriculum? Yes or no?

Yes, as does the questioning of Evolution.

I'll admit that Young Earth Creationism probably isn't a scientific theory, even though I accept it, since that requires several "On faith" assumptions, but I'm not sure just basic ID does anymore than evolution does.

Evolution is also really valuable to propagandists, it makes it out like we're all just animals...

 

[The Free Hornet]

Evolution is also really valuable to propagandists, it makes it out like we're all just animals...

That door swings both ways as you don't want to corner a wild animal. Nor do you wish a cornered human to realize he is one... or ought to be.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What a bunch of gibberish.

How so? What he said is accurate. Observation, testing, and repeatability are critical to the scientific method.

 

[Origanalist]

How so? What he said is accurate. Observation, testing, and repeatability are critical to the scientific method.

Beat me to it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That door swings both ways as you don't want to corner a wild animal. Nor do you wish a cornered human to realize he is one... or ought to be.

I posted quickly but I don't completely disagree with this. I'm not suggesting that everyone who accepts evolution is also a propagandist for the state, nor do I even think they necessarily believe man is just an animal. I have theological problems with evolution but I have never claimed that you can't be a Christian who believes in evolution. That said, the state schools who are teaching this certainly aren't doing so for this reason. They're doing it to destroy human exceptionalism, which is ESSENTIAL for libertarianism.

 

[Tod]

How so? What he said is accurate. Observation, testing, and repeatability are critical to the scientific method.

Unfortunately observation, testing, and repeatability are insufficient to determine the correctness of a scientific theory.

Newtonian physics taught in high schools as fact is merely an incorrect approximation for reality that meets, in many (but not all) practical situations, the above three criteria. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taught at all or does it mean that it should be taught with context?

 

[Slutter McGee]

I posted quickly but I don't completely disagree with this. I'm not suggesting that everyone who accepts evolution is also a propagandist for the state, nor do I even think they necessarily believe man is just an animal. I have theological problems with evolution but I have never claimed that you can't be a Christian who believes in evolution. That said, the state schools who are teaching this certainly aren't doing so for this reason. They're doing it to destroy human exceptionalism, which is ESSENTIAL for libertarianism.

I am not going to argue creation vs evolution with you. I believe what I do. You believe what you do. But in no way is human exceptionalism lessened by the belief in evolution. Nor is it strengthened. Id even argue that the belief that humans have accomplished what they have without the direct help of God helps argue in favor of human exceptionalism.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The evolution v. creationism dispute is just another government-created food-fight to distract people from real political issues. Government can NEVER solve this dispute. Ever. And yet politicians never stop posturing on the issue and setting the people against each other over it.

If you spend one minute arguing about what government schools should teach rather than working to abolish government education, you are falling into the trap.

^^ THIS ^^

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Unfortunately observation, testing, and repeatability are insufficient to determine the correctness of a scientific theory.

Newtonian physics taught in high schools as fact is merely an incorrect approximation for reality that meets, in many (but not all) practical situations, the above three criteria. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taught at all or does it mean that it should be taught with context?

Well, Newtonian physics/classical physics are already taught as part of standard physics curriculum. The profs I know of treat it as "legitimate" physics. As Professor Richard Wolfsen would say in his intro to physics lectures, "classical physics is very much modern physics". It makes sense to teach it in the context of a general physics class.

To answer your question, yes, context is important.

 

[jonhowe]

Very few people, as exemplified in your post, understand what science actually is. It is this widespread and stupefying ignorance that perpetuates numbskulls like you spewing your pseudo-scientific opinions about the meaning of science.

Science means every belief, no matter how "scientific" the current theory is perceived to be, is questionable. I don't expect you to be able to comprehend that, though. Keep bleating.

You are correct. Science is meant to be questionable. It HAS to be. Thats why it changes, every day. The theory of evolution has been corrected many times, and will be many more. THe same is true of continental drift; 1st rejected due to lack of evidence, then accepted as more came to light. Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Thankfully, scientific facts remain facts whether the public agrees or not. And I think it odd you appeal to the majority opinion. Would you do so if 'half the population' supported torture, gun restrictions, and the police state? Does public support legitimize any of these things?

The only reason controversy exists is because many Americans cling to the notion of a 6000-year-old Earth (which isn't even in the Bible, but whatever). That and people like Richard Dawkins give evolution a bad name amongst the general public. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution.

Can you identify some of these scientific problems. And please, no links to a personal blog or website. Either explain your ideas in full or link to a peer-reviewed article from a reputable journal.

Thankfully, most of the scientific facts are consistent with creation scenario, and remain the facts whether you acknowledge it or not. No, there will be no jumping through your carefully qualified hoops (designed to reject any authority or argument offered). Your mere refusal to simply acknowledge scientific difficulties with evolution, even when creation or ID is not considered, reveals your absolutism. The genealogies of Genesis do show a timeline of about 2000 years from Adam to Abraham (who is known to have lived circa 4000 BC), so yes, the Bible does indicate a timeline of roughly 6,000 years from creation to now.

The point behind mentioning the poll numbers was not to establish the truth, but to establish it was reasonable, in contrast with your dismissal of half the population as extremist morons. The only reason the controversy exists is the government schools are blocking at least half the scientific information (that portion favoring creation/ID) that would educate more people that it was the superior approach to accounting for the evidence, otherwise even more people would be creationists, once both views of origins were critically compared.

 

[Christian Liberty]

6,000 years just seems too short. Egypt supposedly started 7,000 years ago. A Flood in 2400 BC is not really compatible with any semblance of Civilization when Abraham left Ur. in roughly 2000 BC, yet there clearly was. Some generations have to have been skipped.

I'm a young earther, but I'm more of a 10-15K year young earther than a 6,000 year young earther.

 

[erowe1]

Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

Interesting. What do you base this on?

 

[erowe1]

..

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You are correct. Science is meant to be questionable. It HAS to be. Thats why it changes, every day. The theory of evolution has been corrected many times, and will be many more. THe same is true of continental drift; 1st rejected due to lack of evidence, then accepted as more came to light. Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

These statements are the ones unsupported by evidence. The actual truth is that the evolution side self-servingly paints itself as scientific, and paints creation as not. Modifications to a theory do not make it more scientific, just more reconciled to the account for the facts. By the strict understanding of the scientific method observation, testing and replication), neither special creation nor macro-evolution (being historical events) qualify as scientific. Scientific approaches to historical events are done bey comparing competing models for interpreting the evidence.

Under Occam, when comparing like categories of views, the concept that is modified LEAST, once exposed to the actual data, is deemed simpler, and more likely the truth. Most people who fairly approach the data on origins find creation/ID more directly anticipates the facts seen in nature (incredible and inter-active complexity at every level, lack of transitional forms, dozens of geophysical processes pointing to recent creation, etc), than does evolution, which must rationalize away all such data. When it does so, it betrays it fails Occam's test.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Who pays for the implementation and is this the correct bill you claim every libertarian and every scientist supports:



I'm not sure I support a bill to complete a legistative circle jerk. Thankfully, I don't work as a scientist or libertarian.

Now.... aside from the cost of the bill:



So if the teacher can cloak their POV in "SCIENCE!", then they have a blank check to tell the school board - even if consisting 100% of taxpaying parents of the children - to "EFFF OFF... I'M TEACHING 'EM SCIENCE!".

What does this bill accomplish that any scientist or libertarian should be happy about? Growing up, my teachers were accountable to the principle who was accountable to the school board. I'm not trying to remove discretion/authority from the teacher, rather, the give-and-take of accountability shouldn't cut the parents out of the loop. To a degree, teachers should challenge students and this will offend parents at times. It is the administration that has to look at the net effect a teacher has. Does this bill interfere with that process?

A better question is what does this bill do that we would object to? Making a decision without parents being in on it? Well, in case you haven't noticed, that is already how it works. As far as I'm concerned, this bill simply gives the teacher more freedom to examine the philosophical underpinnings of scientific thought and to question evolution. What, in your opinion, would be a good way to offer alternatives to evolution? If the only thing you consider scientific is evolution, then you have just commited the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

If not creation/intelligent design, then what qualifies as a good scientific way to question evolution? Must one always be completely secular and avoid all references to God? Why is it that a teacher should not have the freedom to suggest that maybe science is part of God's work here on earth? Why do you want to protect the monopoly on thought that evolution has? That's exactly what it is, too. It is a monopoly on thought because we are indoctrinated with it from such an early age and the propaganda never stops until we die. We are spoon fed evolution from cradle to grave. What about that strikes you as okay?

The fact that you might believe in evolution should not cause you to just assume that your view is the only scientific one.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

'People like me'
'my own best interest'

First of all, saying evolution is 'debunked' over and over again does not make it so. Sorry, that isn't how science works.

And how is it 'in my own best interest?' What difference does it make? I'm here either way.

Evolution isn't 'propaganda', it's science. Creationism is propaganda; 6000-year-old Earth is propaganda. These things simply aren't true.

If you deny the basic tenants of evolution, you are denying God. It's fine to debeat the exact mechanisms of evolution or what events may have lead to which outcomes, but to flat-out deny evolution is simply, well, wrong. Copernicus's faith wasn't shaken when he formulated the heliocentric model of the solar system, nor was Galileo as he peered into the heavens of the night sky. Isaac Newton is basically the father of physics, having been the first to describe -- in detail -- the concept of gravity, calculus, how and why objects continue or cease in motion, and Optics. Yet in his lifetime he wrote more on Christian theology than he wrote on physics. He was a devout Protestant and was very interested in how Biblical prophesy related to current events. Never once was his faith shaken.

What about Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics? He was a monk and died a devout, pious man. Yet he told us that the traits we possess are not because God is some cosmic micromanager, but because the cells in our body already have the blueprint. Now, you were no longer disabled because God was punishing you; no, it was because you inherited those traits from your parents. Think that didn't ruffle a few feathers? Sure, but it never made it any less true.

The people who cannot accept the realities of this world, deny God in the most intimate way possible. Disease is clearly caused by microorganisms and not bad air/evil spirts, yet there are some who deny this. Why? That's how God created the world for His purposes; why would they deny His Glory? They question His design not out of faith but out of pride. They believe they can create a better world than God. It is man's pride, which makes himself believe he is mightier than God.

Anyways, I didn't plan for this response to ramble on so much. These things have been debated for years of RPFs and no amount of 1s and 0s on the interwebz will change your opinion. Good day, all, and best of luck in this thread. I'm out.

Do you not recognize the propaganda that has been going on in favor of evolution? Do you not realize that it is mandatory to teach evolution in our government-run education system? How does THAT propaganda not trouble you? Before I answer anything else you have to say, I would like to get an answer on that. Why do you say creationism is propaganda when the media and the public education system are constantly propagating evolution?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

6,000 years just seems too short. Egypt supposedly started 7,000 years ago. A Flood in 2400 BC is not really compatible with any semblance of Civilization when Abraham left Ur. in roughly 2000 BC, yet there clearly was. Some generations have to have been skipped.

I'm a young earther, but I'm more of a 10-15K year young earther than a 6,000 year young earther.

I respect your view, but what you have mentioned amounts to a logical or deductive case, instead of one based on the evidence. The Genesis genealogies flat out do not indicate skipped generations. If one may counter with other logic, we can suppose ancient man was far smarter and industrious on average, and built civilizations much faster than supposed. Think about how quickly urban areas have changed in less than 120 years (in the late 1800s, Times Square was still farmland, etc), to see how fast things can be built up.