PaulConventionWV
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 16,041
That's not part of evolution. I doubt that any school teaches that the big bang is part of evolution. So there is that.
I never said any school teacher teaches it as part of evolution. That is irrelevant to me whether they do or not. My problem is that they teach it, period. Of course, you probably knew that but are trying to avoid the issue.
Why must evolution, the theory of how life-forms are adopting over generations, explain how life came about initially? That's like saying electro-magnetism can't be right until you can explain quantum mechanics.
Again, I just warned you about telling me it's not part of evolution, and yet you find a way to do it anyway. My concern is not that evolution must explain any part of it. My concern is that it's being taught as truth, in the same textbook that then skips straight from life evolving from non-life to how that newly-evolved life-form then developed. There's no question it's part of the same story used to subvert our kids into accepting a secular view of how this world came to be.
On the contrary it can and has been observed and reproduced. Of course nobody took a paramecium and made a giraffe out of it, but if that's the level of certainty you need in order to accept the theory, than it's virtually unprovable to you. Most people would and do accept the huge body of evidence as a sign that evolution seems to explain the transformation of life-forms on this planet.
The level of certainty I need is just as much as any other scientific theory would need. Your assertion that it can and has been observed and reproduced does not make it so. What you are doing is taking your ridiculous belief and turning it around against me. It's not my fault that it sounds ridiculous to turn a paramecium into a giraffe. It's the theory's fault. You keep talking about that "huge body of evidence" as dogma and dogma only. It's an assertion that I am not supposed to question. Like I said, explain to me how small changes in an animal can be scientifically extrapolated to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions. Until you can do that, don't bother to reply with another bold assertion and no backing.
Why does it sound like a bad idea to limit the content of science classes to actual science? I mean, I'd have no problem with explaining the philosophical underpinnings of natural science per se at one point. In fact I believe that's a good idea. But to insist to teach non-scientific theories alongside scientific theories in science classes doesn't seem very sensible.
Because what you are essentially saying is that your certainty in the theory of evolution gives the government the authority to use force to prevent any alternatives from being discussed. Despite whatever you say, this is what it boils down to. Because you think evolution is scientific, that makes it okay to use government force to prevent discourse that would challenge evolution. Also, like I said, evolution is NOT "actual science". You still haven't explained that one away.
Natural science is "knowledge" aquired by a very specific method. You can argue about the epistemology of science in a philosophy class, but ID is not using the scientific method (and when some people try their results are routinely falsified, yet they continue to hold those beliefs) and can therefore not called a science.
You are making a bunch of claims with no backing. Surely you realize how dogmatic you sound, yes? Why is it that you say the epistomology of science is irrelevant to science? You are arbitrarily separating the two so that your definition of science will not be undermined. College professors develop their curriculum in different ways. Who are you to say that a high school teacher can't start with the epistemology of science as a basis for understanding science?
Your assertions are all lies. Instead of blindly asserting that ID experiments are routinely falsified, why don't you give an example?