*flees thread before the shelling starts*
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
See, I was planning on getting a Ph.D and teaching, but apparently that position has no meaning anymore. Now I am going to go kill myself.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Can I get my history degree that way too? It'd make things a LOT easier.
Hopefully they'll say no. Creationism isn't science, it's religion. I would have no problem with them giving some sort of religious studies degree. Otherwise every ordained clergyman in the nation, according to Texas, will be a ready-made Science teacher.
I don't know how controversial this is. How many people really support giving out science degrees for creationism studies?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Assuming that they teach (and test) the required science topics, I don't see how it could legitimately be denied, even though they're teaching other things whose purpose is to somewhat undermine the science teaching.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From the article it looks like Diet Science. It's science, but viewed through the lens of creationism.
In other words, they have a preconcieved truth and everything in science has to fit within that truth.
I don't see how, given that mission, they could be accepted.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
"I got my Divinity Degree from IPU!"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In other words, they have a preconcieved truth and everything in science has to fit within that truth.
I don't see how, given that mission, they could be accepted.
I think you may be confused about what the job of an accrediting agency is. Unless you mean "by most other scientists" when you said "be accepted."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There's a certain segment of the population, apparently, that embraces ignorance.
The fact that this thread could be considered controversial shows just how large that group is in the united states.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm really surprised that they're teaching cosmology. We didn't get into it much in my Astronomy class except to say that the age of various globular clusters repudiates the Big Bang theory. When I asked him what happened instead, he said there wasn't enough evidence to know yet.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The way public education works here in Texas, even if these people got a degree in science education, they'd still have to pass a content TExES test in order to become a teacher. That means that they'd have to at least know a decent amount of real science. Not that I'm defending this decision, as it seems sort of stupid to me. I'm just saying that just because a person has a degree in science education doesn't mean they are going to be able to get a job teaching science.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The discussion board underneath the report is interesting (and uncannily familiar...)
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
I have a degree in Tentacleology from the Miskatonic University, and a Bachelor of Fluencing from the Unseen University (Distance Learning)*.
Anyone want to employ me?
* this is true, I sat an exam and everything. The questions were weighted:
Q1 (90%) - Do you have six pounds to pay for your certificate?
Qs 2-10 on Discworld Trivia.
I am the proud owner of a posh certificate and an alumnus badge. Hoopla.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Here's hoping that these master's degrees accredited in Texas do not allow one to teach in Canada. Yikes.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I'd like to get my Theology Degree from the University of The Flying Spaghetti Monster please, and my English Degree from the Marcel Marceu School of French Mime.
Hey, it would go good with my Ethics degree from Al Capone University (who's motto is, "You talkin to me? Al Cap U. if you'se talk'n to me.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Here's hoping that these master's degrees accredited in Texas do not allow one to teach in Canada. Yikes.
How would you go about making sure that happens? By not accepting the accreditation of U.S. Universities? Or just Texas universities? Or just disallowing people with degrees from that specific school.
Of course, if you do that, then you'll basically have to become your own accrediting agency.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
The best thing about this thread is the banner add I'm getting at the bottom: "Top-Secret Los Alamos Physicists have Opened a Gateway to Hell!"
--Enigmatic
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
This degree is not accredited anyway. They've applied for accreditation and asked for permission from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to offer the degree. Those are two different things. So far the only "green light" is that the advisory committee to the Coordinating Board reccomended that they be allowed to offer the degree. That says nothing about their acreditation status.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: The way public education works here in Texas, even if these people got a degree in science education, they'd still have to pass a content TExES test in order to become a teacher. That means that they'd have to at least know a decent amount of real science. Not that I'm defending this decision, as it seems sort of stupid to me. I'm just saying that just because a person has a degree in science education doesn't mean they are going to be able to get a job teaching science.
I suspect you're mistaken when it comes to teachers who work at private schools, such as evangelical Christian schools. Generally, private schools are not answerable to the state Dept. of Ed., but must obtain and maintain accreditation (if they want anyone to honor their diplomas). For the major accrediting agencies, it is not a requirement that teachers be certified to teach, only that they have a degree from an accredited university. Which this institute is apparently seeking to become.
[ December 18, 2007, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Icarus, that's why I said public education in the first sentence. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph: I don't think I "have to"... Although it would be *awesome*, many times I do not necessarily get what I hope for
In this case though, I suspect that the Ontario College of Teachers (or other provincial professional body) probably has setup guidelines to only allow teachers with degrees from Canadian universities and agreements with select foreign schools that they have deemed appropriate already.
I know with doctors and dentists at least, that many foreign educated immigrants have trouble getting their degrees recognized and in some cases have to do additional study before being allowed to work. While teachers would probably be less strict, hopefully their process is still good enough to catch something like this.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Gives a new meaning to B.S.
"I have a B.S. in Advanced Creation Science."
"Oh yes?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: This degree is not accredited anyway. They've applied for accreditation and asked for permission from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to offer the degree. Those are two different things. So far the only "green light" is that the advisory committee to the Coordinating Board reccomended that they be allowed to offer the degree. That says nothing about their acreditation status.
My comments have been based on them getting accredited. Because if they're not accredited, I don't see any problem, because a non-accredited degree is pretty dang worthless.
quote:In this case though, I suspect that the Ontario College of Teachers (or other provincial professional body) probably has setup guidelines to only allow teachers with degrees from Canadian universities and agreements with select foreign schools that they have deemed appropriate already.
That would really surprise me. I would have guessed that the U.S. and Canada would generally accept the judgment of the appropriate accreditation agencies in each other's countries. If you find out the answer, let me know.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Am I the only one who sees this as a serious threat?
Joe Christian gets his master's degree in Science from this institution.
He's be Evangelically raised, from his home schooling by Evangelical parents to a Evangelical college to this master's degree so he is quite indoctrinated and ready for his mission.
He goes to your local high school and tries for a position as teacher.
The school rejects him, possibly laughing at his Creation Science degree.
He sues claiming religious prejudice in the hiring practices. He claims that his Master's degree is just as valid as any other, and he wants the job.
Either the institute gets a lot of cash from the lawsuit, or the school caves in and he teaches science. He teaches ID and creates a lot of IDettes.
Or, he goes for the job, the science dept says "No." but the School Board controlled by some IDophiles over rules them, "In fear of a lawsuit" and brings him on board.
True science teachers have not worried overly about ID since they know that they would teach it as "What's wrong with ID". If they were fired a new Science teacher would take their place. Now we find that the ID people want to create IDettes to take the place of Science Teachers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: To be eligible for certification, you will still have to satisfy requirements for two methodology courses in a face-to-face environment and meet the academic and language proficiency requirements for certification.
quote: All programs of teacher education must be completed through an acceptable postsecondary institution.
There are also rules on how the program must be structured and what time must be allotted for what.
You also have to send in your academic records and transcripts, presumably there are minimum requirements in order to pass the evaluation.
Nothing concrete except that from the text it does seem like the process is *something* more than just rubber stamping degrees from foreign schools.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Nothing concrete except that from the text it does seem like the process is *something* more than just rubber stamping degrees from foreign schools.
Nobody said anything about rubber-stamping. I'm talking about accepting accreditation as valid.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Whats the difference?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It differentiates between accredited schools and nonaccredited schools.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about that from that site it seems that in addition to accreditation you also need certification and membership/a license in the Ontario College of Teachers. That process seems to list the requirements that I mentioned above, i.e. not just rubber-stamping licenses to teach in Ontario for anybody that happens to have an accredited degree
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It says that the degree must come from an "an acceptable postsecondary institution." The question is whether this means accredited, or something more (or less) than that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It also says that there are requirements for how the teaching program must be structured and "academic requirements for certification."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Right. We don't know what those requirements are.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed. I'm hoping the bureaucracy works in this case. Sigh.
I also found this hopeful bit:
quote: If you wish to be certified to teach in Ontario and plan to take your teacher education program outside the province, the program you are enrolled in must:
* equal the Ontario faculties of education pre-service teacher education programs leading to a certificate of qualification, and ...
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Oh god. oh god.
[rant] Master classes for creationist SCIENCE education???? Talk about an oxymoron!
Creationism belongs in RELIGION class, not science. Fall of the Roman Empire take two! Who needs all those libraries and museums and research centers anyway with real science! Burn them down and let's begin another 1000 years of religious darkness!
(Was that a good enough shell for you Rivka?)
Ok ok... rant over. But seriously. This is not good for civilization. These people are desperate to have their worldview take root (whether for power over the faithful or sincere belief) and they know that it's best to swallow a lie within a truth, so they disguise their myths as science to keep teaching it to the young.
Why can't they be satisfied with teaching it in religion/theology class?? "Oh no, because everyone knows that science is reality... but our stories are reality too so they must be science!" It's sneaky and underhanded and I know what they're up too...these people aren't satisfied with raising their children to believe like them...which is their right...but they are trying to fool everyone else into thier beliefs too.
Guess my rant wasn't over...
Bah. [/rant]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why can't they be satisfied with teaching it in religion/theology class??
Why is this so hard to understand?
They believe that evolution is bad science consciously designed to further a secular/atheistic philosophy. Given that belief (which I don't hold), it makes perfect sense that they don't want to restrict their version of events to religion/theology class.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yeah, I know Dag. Except science is reality. Religion is myth, philosopy at best.
I believe in the divinity of Elvis! I think schools should teach the theory of how Elvis created the cosmos with his sidburns.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:They believe that evolution is bad science consciously designed to further a secular/atheistic philosophy.
I'd say that it is more accurate that they are trying to stop evolution from being taught, because the theory is not what their religion believes happened. Whether evolution is "bad science" or not doesn't factor into the discussion, until they try and come up with reasons not to teach it.
Scientists call ID "bad science" all the time, so the IDers try and throw it right back at them. It doesn't mean they believe it's true. I certainly wouldn't grant them this belief as a starting position for their goals.
It wasn't:
Evolution is bad science --> Evolution shouldn't be taught
It was more like:
Bible is true --> Evolution contradicts the bible --> Evolution must be false --> Evolution must be bad science --> Since Evolution is bad science it shouldn't be taught
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, I know Dag. Except science is reality.
And they believe that their view is supported by science.
I'm not asking you to believe it. Just to understand that their holding of a premise you don't accept is the reason why they aren't satisfied with teaching it in theology/philosophy classes. You asked why this is so, and I tried to answer.
If you just want to play "look at the dumb creationists" let me know and I won't try to explain any more.
quote:I'd say that it is more accurate that they are trying to stop evolution from being taught, because the theory is not what their religion believes happened. Whether evolution is "bad science" or not doesn't factor into the discussion, until they try and come up with reasons not to teach it.
It must be convenient for you to think this is so.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:It must be convenient for you to think this is so.
It's a conclusion I've reached by evaluating the available evidence to me, which is more than I can say for most proponents of ID.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Except science is reality.
The vast, vast majority of science is not "reality", as it is almost always later found to be incorrect.
That's not to disparage science and its usefulness in discovering things about reality, but science is not "reality". It's an incredibly useful tool.
quote:Religion is myth, philosopy at best.
If you want to understand why people are doing this, start by remembering that they don't agree with you about this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yes, and then remember that they are also not scientists for any meaningful definition of the word scientist, and their opinion about what is and is not science should carry as much weight with us as a taxi cab driver in paris telling us the best way to get from 110th and frederick douglas to times square.
quote:Science is more correctly the measuring of reality and then describing reality based on all available measurements.
Agreed on both counts.
edit: Apparently the post I was replying to got deleted.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sorry, I was trying to decide whether it was worth posting.... I guess maybe it was But you quoted the highlights. I think I left that up there for about 2 seconds... you have a fast load on your browser Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Religion is myth, philosophy at best.
Substitute the upper quote with,
"Science is dangerous speculation, heresy at best"
And you have the same attitude that we condemn theists for having in the past. When you insist on portraying all who are religious as idiots or fools, you are one step closer to seeing them as a liability to the happiness of YOUR ideal society.
I have found that if there is there is condescension if not outright contempt for other people's positions then discussion on topics dealing with those positions are rarely fruitful.
edit: Also I have decided that Rivka is a rabble rouser Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Well, except for the fact that the truth of science is, by its very nature, verifiable and the truth religion is, by its very nature, not.
Now, that doesn't mean I think all religious people are idiots or fools, either.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'd say that it is more accurate that they are trying to stop evolution from being taught, because the theory is not what their religion believes happened. Whether evolution is "bad science" or not doesn't factor into the discussion, until they try and come up with reasons not to teach it.
It must be convenient for you to think this is so.
Do you take issue with the following "diagram" by Xavier?
quote:Bible is true --> Evolution contradicts the bible --> Evolution must be false --> Evolution must be bad science --> Since Evolution is bad science it shouldn't be taught
Just because creationists are able to come up with arguments that evolution is bad science does not mean that we can ignore the first steps in their reasoning process. I obviously can't link a study but I think it's a fair generalization to say that most creationists start from the point of view that the Bible is correct and then proceed to try to justify that view with existing evidence (as opposed to starting with existing evidence and arriving at creation).
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I'm kicking the ant hill, but a thought occurs to me..
If gay couples have to accept 'civil unions' instead of 'marriages', can we define a new type of degree for colleges like this?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Right. We don't know what those requirements are.
There is additional requirements beyond simple accredition. The teacher's college must meet specific standards in curriculum to match the Ontario College of Teachers demands. I'm not familiar with the specifics (though I could find out if anyone cares), but only certain US schools have an arrangement with the OCT for their degrees to be accepted.
I can't speak for other provinces, but I imagine it's similar.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Do you take issue with the following "diagram" by Xavier?
To be fair to Dag, I was in the middle of adding that to my post when he posted. I am an admitted post editor! So it's not like he ignored it when he posted, since it wasn't there yet.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
That is the crux of the problem.
The "Science" that this church is wanting to attack are not just Evolution, but everything from Geology to Astrophysics--because it all contradicts their core beliefs.
They do not want to teach Religion in Religion class and science in science class. They want to make sure that Religion is above Science.
Then they want to make sure that their religion is the religion taught.
Then they want to make sure that their version of their religion is the religion taught.
One or two are planning on being the first Protestant Pope.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I agree that the teaching of creationism shouldn’t be set up as an alternative to the teaching of evolution. Evolution is serious science and creationism, how it is being defined here, isn’t.
However, I admire those scientists who are open to considering how elements of creationism might influence evolution, and I agree that the teaching of evolution could be more open to questions along those lines and others.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Now see, science is a study of repeatable and observable events.
Intelligent Design holds that whoever made life on Earth has stopped making it. It is not a scientific theory, as it cannot be tested or proven. At the most scholarly level, it is an explanation equivocal to "aliens built the pyramids" - assuming something so primitive cannot have produced something so spectacular.
Evolution is testable and provable, and has been continually been supported by new scientific discoveries. We know that DNA mutates, and can therefore produce changes in a single member of a species, we know that offspring inherit traits from their parents, meaning the single member of a species can generate more members similar to it, and we know that species with traits that are most compatible with the environment are best fit to survive and therefore most likely to pass on their traits. It's a lovely cycle, I think.
I don't see any problem with the idea that perhaps what Darwin recognized is part of the means God used to make life in his image. It makes more sense to me that God would abide by the rules he invented for the universe. But that idea is not science; it's not testable and it can't be repeated. "Creationist science" is spawned by jealousy; a perceived exclusion from explaining how the world works by a theory that appears to attack their moral values and lifestyle. In short, this "science" is not based on observation and repetition, but from emotions. It should be regarded as such.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I should clarify before what I said gets taken as ID. I don’t care if creationism per se gets taught along with evolution. I do care that evolution is not taught at the exclusion of further possibilities that science has not or cannot bring to light.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I do care that evolution is not taught at the exclusion of further possibilities that science has not or cannot bring to light."
Why? We don't bring up unforeseen possibilities in ANY OTHER area, at least other then "Hey, this might be really cool..."
I mean, I don't teach string theory in my high school physics classes. If someone asks me what it is, I tell them, and then explain why its not taught in a high school science classroom. And string theory is orders of magnitude closer to science then creationism or ID.
Evolution, right now, is the only possibility that exists from a scientific perspective.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
No scientific theory should be taught that way. All science is subject to contradiction by future discoveries.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
A science class should be taught as “Here, this is what we know thanks to science, this is how the knowledge was discovered and developed, here’s what we’re able to do with it, here’s where future scientific research is headed,” etc. Not “Here, this is how to know things and this is what there is to know.” The same for a religion class, of course. Non-science doesn’t belong in a science classroom, of course, but the idea of pursuits of knowledge beyond science should not be squelched in that classroom. By the same token, trying to replace science with religious teaching is a bad misuse of religion.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Architraz Warden wins the thread!
Now if you could only Godwin it in the same post . . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also I have decided that Rivka is a rabble rouser
Lil' ol' me? O:)
Dan, the problem with your scenario is that there are already several existing accredited schools whose degrees are not accepted by many other schools -- schools that are widely known as diploma mills, mostly. As long as the school (or other organization) which refuses to accept/recognize the other school's diploma has a reason (such as not having a minimum GPA, which many of these schools don't have, since they accept all transfer credits as P/NP), there's no problem.
In this case, should the school get accreditation (which I think is relatively likely, although far from certain), I expect to see school districts and other schools insisting on degrees including specific courses or other limiting criteria. Others will simply require all teachers to pass an exam (often already required) they think will weed out the "undesirables." Either way, it won't be more than a blip.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Look, I'm not trying to defend the creationist scientists' point of view or say they are doing science.
Someone asked "why can't they just..." I responded, outlining their particular beliefs that prevent them from doing the proposed thing.
It doesn't matter how valid their beliefs are in this respect. As long as they hold them, the proposed solution will not be acceptable to them.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: I'm not asking you to believe it. Just to understand that their holding of a premise you don't accept is the reason why they aren't satisfied with teaching it in theology/philosophy classes. You asked why this is so, and I tried to answer.
If you just want to play "look at the dumb creationists" let me know and I won't try to explain any more.
Oh no. Thank you. Please do answer. Sorry I couldn't respond sooner, had to go to work. I'm just voicing my frustration at what I see as an underhanded attempt to highjack the name science, because of the respect people have for the scientific method, for their own religious agenda.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Post and run:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Evolution, right now, is the only possibility that exists from a scientific perspective.
This implies that a scientific perspective rules out a priori the existence of God. Good for science? Perhaps. True? Perhaps not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This implies that a scientific perspective rules out a priori the existence of God. Good for science? Perhaps. True? Perhaps not.
No it doesn't.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:This implies that a scientific perspective rules out a priori the existence of God. Good for science? Perhaps. True? Perhaps not.
Wrong. It just has to not include possibilities that no evidence exists for. The "existence of God" isn't any more special than any other theory with no scientific evidence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xavier, the problem with his statement is more fundamental than that - specifically, he's asserting that evolution rules out the existence of God.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought evolution merely conflicts with a belief in literal biblical inerrancy.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I interpreted the exchange something like:
Paul: "Evolution is the only possible scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth."
Resh: "No, 'God did it' is also a possible scientific explanation. Only if science starts with the assumption that God doesn't exist would this not be included as a scientific explanation."
If he's (also?) saying what you claim he is saying, then I would disagree with him there too .
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Resh- When you can find a way to measure the difference between any two ideas, one of which is "The first idea plus god," then we can scientifically start talking about god. But until the hypothesis "god" adds anything to the conversation in terms of what is measured, then its a useless scientific hypothesis. Science doesn't assume god doesn't exist... it assumes all things that don't have measureable effects don't exist, and god happens to be one of those things, to this point.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You're all wrong. I didn't say Evolution rules out the existence of God, nor did I say that "God did it" is a possible scientifc explanation. I said that if Evolution is the only possible explanation for life from a scientific perspective, then the scientific perspective rules out the possibility of God (according to Paul Goldner,who may be wrong.)
Xavier addresses this point properly at first, by saying that science rejects God as an explanation because science does not accept explanations for which no evidence exists. I say this is incorrect because Evidence for God lies in all of existence. If there is no God, how did we get here? The alternative is Evolution, and this is deemed preferable to the idea of a Creator for various reasons. Paul's statement implies (to me, at least) that the preference lies in a refusal to believe in a Creator in the first place.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul's statement implies (to me, at least) that the preference lies in a refusal to believe in a Creator in the first place."
Again, its not a refusal to believe in a creator. (Darwin believed in god, btw, and so do many evolutionary biologists, which all by itself flatly contradicts your hypothesis). Its a refusal to consider anything as scientific which we cannot either measure, or measure the effects of.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
The evidence for God is all of existence?
Hmm.
So, the mere fact that we exist is evidence that a creator exists. How, again, is it evidence for that, precisely, anymore than the pyramids of Egypt are evidence for UFO's?
Furthermore, how is it evidence for YOUR god, specifically, again?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:if Evolution is the only possible explanation for life from a scientific perspective, then the scientific perspective rules out the possibility of God
We've covered this in other threads, but evolution does not preclude God. It just isn't necessary to include God as part of the theory. God isn't ruled out, it's just irrelevant and superfluous (scientifically) to the explanation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I said that if Evolution is the only possible explanation for life from a scientific perspective, then the scientific perspective rules out the possibility of God
I know you said that. You're wrong.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's fine with me, Matt. I was just addressing Paul's staement specifically.
Megabyte, absent an alternative to Creation (i.e; Evolution), all of existence is evidence for God. Hence, Dawkins statement about the theory of Evoluton providing the means to being an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." My belief is that just becuase an alternative exists does not mean that other, less desireable (for whatever reasons) explanations must be ruled out. If Evolution were to be concretely disproven, would science stop? Or, if it were proven beyond doubt that life was the product of purposeful design, would science stop? The argument often seems to be that it would, and we would all be placed under the thumb of theocrats who want to brainwash us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Paul added "right now" to his post, presumably for a reason.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Megabyte, absent an alternative to Creation (i.e; Evolution), all of existence is evidence for God."
Sure, one could look at it that way. But thats somewhat irrelevent. Evolution has proved to be a BETTER explanation for the diversity of life on the planet then god. Even better, we can run experiments that demonstrate the principles of evolution... but we can't do that for any god that doesn't contain within the definition of god "evoltuion."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The alternative is Evolution, and this is deemed preferable to the idea of a Creator for various reasons.
The main one being the fact that, y'know, there exists at least some hard evidence for it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Megabyte, absent an alternative to Creation (i.e; Evolution), all of existence is evidence for God. "
Um, no.
It's evidence for existence.
It's not automatically evidence, in and of itslef, for a god making it. And it's certainly not evidence, in and of itself, for the Christian god making it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
It's like saying "in absence of evidence that the Egyptians built the pyramids, the pyramids' existence itself is evidence of UFO's."
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I said that if Evolution is the only possible explanation for life from a scientific perspective, then the scientific perspective rules out the possibility of God
No it doesn't.
If I say that Chicago is the only city in Illinois with more than 2 million people, that's not at all the same thing as saying that Springfield, IL doesn't exist.
Come on. This is just understanding plain English.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
It's probably worth pointing out that when Resh capitalizes Evolution he means something entirely different than what anybody else means when they're talking about evolution. He means something along the lines of "evolutionary theory plus abiogenesis, specifically ruling out a creator."
Resh, I'm reasonably confident that Paul's original statement was referring to what you (in the other thread) would call evolution, not Evolution. This is why everyone else is saying you're wrong about what his statement implies - nobody else attaches that extra baggage to the word "evolution."
--Enigmatic
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Scientific theories of abiogensis also don't rule out a creator. They just provide speculation on the fine detail of creation. A creator may still be directly or indirectly involved.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The theory of evolution doesn't rule out the Creator any more than theory of gravity does, but you'll find plenty people on both sides of the "God vs. evolution" argument who think it does.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Matt, that's why I included it inside the quotation marks. As I understand what Resh has posted in other threads "this theory means there is no creator" seems to be an inherent part of his definition of "Big-E" Evolution. I believe that to be the major cause of the disconnect in this conversation.
I could be wrong, of course, but I think my theory has explanatory power in regards to the posts.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thanks, Enigmatic. I thought we were all on the same page, since we've been over this before. I don't see the point of debating small "e" evolution, since if you allow for the possibility of God anywhere in the process, why not just allow for the possibility of God throughout the entire process?
It's funny, I'm being told I'm wrong for saying "if Evolution is the only possible explanation for life from a scientific perspective, then the scientific perspective rules out the possibility of God." I have to assume that this simple sentence is not being understood somehow. If Evolution is the only possible explanation, then I think that automatically rules out any other possibilities. Is everyone arguing with me out of habit now?
Megabyte, if Evolution never happened, then our existence has to be evidence of something, and not just itself. I'm pretty sure if you were to ask me "how do you know God exists," and I could say "because we exist," and you had no viable alternative, you'd have to concede that I have a point, I think. Notice, I didn't call it proof. Just evidence.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Resh- When you can find a way to measure the difference between any two ideas, one of which is "The first idea plus god," then we can scientifically start talking about god. But until the hypothesis "god" adds anything to the conversation in terms of what is measured, then its a useless scientific hypothesis. Science doesn't assume god doesn't exist... it assumes all things that don't have measureable effects don't exist, and god happens to be one of those things, to this point.
I just wanted to get to this. Intelligent Design assumes that all of Creation is evidence of a Creator, and so by measuring Creation, we are learning about the Creator. You may not call it science, and under current definitions of science, maybe it isn't (I'm sure you would say "certainly it isn't"). But this raises a question from an ear;ier thread: Is not science whatever we say it is? It just seems to me that science doesn't consider anything in the universe to be considered evidence for a Creator because that's what everyone has agreed to. Some people disagree, and by the established definition of what science is, these people are considered pseudo-scientists at best.
This brings me to another point that still awaits a satisfactory answer: Because science only allows for Naturalistic explanations, is it wisdom to assume that only Naturalistic explanations are sufficient?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Non-naturalistic explanations are perfectly acceptable. They are not science and should not be taught as such.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If Evolution is the only possible explanation, then I think that automatically rules out any other possibilities.
Not everybody agrees. Many people believe that the existence of God and the evolution are perfectly compatible. Evolution has nothing to say on the matter either way.
The theory of evolution doesn't require God, but neither does it require the absence of God.
quote:Because science only allows for Naturalistic explanations, is it wisdom to assume that only Naturalistic explanations are sufficient?
Sufficient for what? For building a bridge? Yes. For developing a theory of life which has predictive power? Yes. For telling me why I'm on this earth and what I can do to be happy? No.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I just wanted to get to this. Intelligent Design assumes that all of Creation is evidence of a Creator
That's not an assumption that anyone arguing agaisnt you is willing to conceed is true.
But saying that "everything is evidence" is meaningless. What specific predictions does ID make that are borne out by the data? What observations would falsify ID?
quote:and so by measuring Creation, we are learning about the Creator.
I don't know that you want to go down this route.
ID advocates have claimed that they believe that the malaria parasite and its ability to evade anti-malarial drugs, must have been designed.
So what specifically does that tell you about your Creator, that he designed the parasite to be able to avoid attemtps made by doctors to cure sick children by resisting the drugs?
quote:You may not call it science, and under current definitions of science, maybe it isn't (I'm sure you would say "certainly it isn't").
Your passive nonsense is getting old. If you are going to make a claim, then make it and defend it. This waving around of claims you know you can't defend, and the crying when people tear them apart that you didn't actually mean to make them is childish.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
quote:But this raises a question from an ear;ier thread: Is not science whatever we say it is?
A brake pad is whatever we say it is, so why pay money for real ones when you could use old newspapers instead, and just call it a brake pad??
If you don't understand that words have to mean things in order to communicate, then I'm afraid I can't help you. And if you don't understand that calling a dog a cat won't cause it to start purring, them I'm afraid I can't help you there either.
quote:It just seems to me that science doesn't consider anything in the universe to be considered evidence for a Creator because that's what everyone has agreed to.
You don't understand what it means when something is "evidence for" something. If a DNA sequence is evidence for something, it means that out of all the possible sequences it could have been, only a tiny number would be expected should my hypothesis be true. And when the real sequence matches my prediction, then I say it's evidence for my hypothesis. Simply pointing at a cell and saying "It's all evidence" doesn't make it so. Calling a dog a cat won't make it purr, and calling theology science won't make it as good at figuring out the real world as science is.
quote:Some people disagree, and by the established definition of what science is, these people are considered pseudo-scientists at best.
Well, non-science =/= science. It's right to not call things by wrong names. Why should we call a dog a cat because some dog owners feel left out of cat owner societies?
quote:This brings me to another point that still awaits a satisfactory answer: Because science only allows for Naturalistic explanations, is it wisdom to assume that only Naturalistic explanations are sufficient?
When we get to the day where the consensus of experts is that they are positively sure that natural explanations are insufficient, then you can lead the charge to start studying angels.
But not until then. And remember, just becuase YOU don't know of any sufficent natural explanations doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means there is a whole lot about the natural world that you do not know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: That's not an assumption that anyone arguing agaisnt you is willing to conceed is true.
You don't know that.
quote:So what specifically does that tell you about your Creator, that he designed the parasite to be able to avoid attemtps made by doctors to cure sick children by resisting the drugs?
It could mean many things.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:I said that if Evolution is the only possible explanation for life from a scientific perspective, then the scientific perspective rules out the possibility of God
1) You some how totally ignore those beliefs in God directed Evolution. Evolution--taking over millions of years--is God's way of Creation--that by Science's work in studying creation we have learned more about the Creator?
Hence, The Scientific perspective rules out the possibility of God--as You believe in him.
2) Are you admitting that ID is something other than the "Scientific Perspective", hence something to be taught in Theology class, not in Science class?
If the only way you can prove the existence of God, or defend him from non-existence, is by destroying the Scientific Perspective, then can you understand why we don't see people who adhere to the Scientific Perspective don't want you teaching science?
3) JoeShmoe believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the entire universe. He believe that Gravity is a myth, pushed by the Scientific community of Pasta-haters. We all could fly if we had fewer "Anti-Pasta" thoughts. That is what holds us all down. Should he be allowed to teach science? Should he be allowed to encourage kids to jump off of buildings to test their Pasta-Worthiness?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Resh, I'm glad that I was understanding your objection correctly. I hate seeing people just arguing past each other. However, the part that YOU need to understand is that your use of "Evolution" is not the common definition (by a long stretch).
By jumping on Paul's statement as you did and then later saying "You're all wrong" because nobody else is using the term evolution to mean your definition of Evolution you're essentially setting up straw men. You may not see the point of debating small-e evolution but that doesn't mean that everyone else's statements about small-e evolution can be disputed as though they meant big-E Evolution. That's the problem with your original response to Paul's post, and it's why you're wrong about what his post implies.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Enigmatic and Dan; if it wasn't clear that my criticism has always been against Atheistic Evolution, that's my fault. I've been through this so many times with these very same people that I start to take certain base understandings as common knowledge. By the same token I assume that those arguing for evolution (big or little "e') are omiting God as a necessity in any way after the first life form, and possibly from the Big Bang on. This is regardless of one's personal beliefs about God; I'm only referring to the presence of a Creator within (figuratively) the framework of the debate.
[ December 20, 2007, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
There's no such thing as 'Atheistic Evolution'.
As porter said, evolution doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god. It has nothing to do with him either way, which is the reason plenty of religious people are able to believe in both god and evolution simultaneously.
It's only the small-minded, the overly defensive, and the really poorly informed people who insist that we insist that evolution proves there's no god.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think, it's more Christians who think evolution invalidates their interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible is wrong on this point, then it is not the true word of God. If the Bible not the word of God there is no word of God, and if there is no word of God, then there is no God. And suddenly their universe needs a complete overhaul.
Obviously I think there are multiple holes in this line of reasoning but there you have it. I wouldn't presume to know the reasons behind every Christian evolutionary opponent anyway.
From Porter:
quote:The theory of evolution doesn't require God, but neither does it require the absence of God.
I don't think anyone can argue against this point. If anyone can, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I think it's more Christians who think evolution invalidates their interpretation of the Bible.
(grammar correction mine)
That's their problem; not evolution's. If their faith is so tenuous that anything that contradicts the literal truth of the bible shakes it to the core, then they're going to spend much of their lives with their hands clapped over their ears, shouting, "La-la-la, I can't hear you!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's only the small-minded, the overly defensive, and the really poorly informed people who insist that we insist that evolution proves there's no god.
Uninformed people on both sides that say that.
quote:I think, it's more Christians who think evolution invalidates their interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible is wrong on this point, then it is not the true word of God. If the Bible not the word of God there is no word of God, and if there is no word of God, then there is no God. And suddenly their universe needs a complete overhaul.
This is a lot easier for Mormons to get over than for some other Christians, as we have multiple accounts of the creation which differ in the particulars, which means that, assuming they're all True, they can't be taken completely literally.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It's only the small-minded, the overly defensive, and the really poorly informed people who insist that we insist that evolution proves there's no god.
Uninformed people on both sides that say that.
Agreed. There's a great section in Finding Darwin's God on that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Well, yeah. I didn't mean to imply that all evolutionists are beacons of integrity and infallibility -- we're certainly not immune to the hand-waving and "Nuh uh, you did!"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's more than that. There is a tendency among some (definitely not all) atheists to insist that evolution (or science in general) disproves God, or removes the need for God, etc. And then they wonder why religious people get upset . . .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There is a tendency among some (definitely not all) atheists to insist that evolution (or science in general) disproves God, or removes the need for God, etc. And then they wonder why religious people get upset . . .
Yes. I was taught that myself in school. Maybe it's just as well that I thought I was smarter than my science teachers. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:This is a lot easier for Mormons to get over than for some other Christians, as we have multiple accounts of the creation which differ in the particulars, which means that, assuming they're all True, they can't be taken completely literally.
I thought Genesis contained two non-identical descriptions of the creation.
Which I guess shoots my prior statement about Biblical inerrancy in the eye. Oh well.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good point.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's more than that. There is a tendency among some (definitely not all) atheists to insist that evolution (or science in general) disproves God, or removes the need for God, etc. And then they wonder why religious people get upset . . .
Hey, I get upset with that. Talk about missing the point of science. And god, for that matter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Preach it, brother!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's more than that. There is a tendency among some (definitely not all) atheists to insist that evolution (or science in general) disproves God, or removes the need for God, etc. And then they wonder why religious people get upset . . .
Yes this is what I was trying to say.
----
As for two different creation accounts in Genesis, I keep hearing this, but nobody has pointed it out for me.
Obviously there is the account starting in Gen 1:1
Where is the other?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Gen 1:1-2:3 has God creating the world in 7 days, including Plants on the 3rd day and Man on the 7th day.
Gen 2:4 - onward has God creating Man, then all the plants, etc following.
The wording between the two is vague enough that apologists for centuries have worked around it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: By the same token I assume that those arguing for evolution (big or little "e') are omiting God as a necessity in any way after the first life form, and possibly from the Big Bang on.
Surely in your life you have at one point trained someone to do something.
Did you train them that they can't do the task assigned unless God steps in and does some part of it?
Or did you "omit God as a necessity" to completion of that task, because you can see plain as day that the divine intervention isn't necessary?
Evolution is no more atheistic that gravity, or heliocentrism, or germ theory, or changing a fuse, if that's what you once taught someone how to do.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I had a professor in College who spent a lot of his time in Lebanon. He was still amazed, and taken aback, that the standard response to telling your cab driver where to take you, is "If God wills it."
So proof of God is the ability to safely get from the Airport to the hotel in a Lebanese cab.
Further, since God is everywhere and everything, proof of God is safely walking across a street.
However, I would not fire all the cross walk wardens and tell children, "Close your eyes and just walk across the road. It is up to God to decide if you get across or not."
The fact that I can get across the street safely by taking my safety in my own hands and studying the traffic flow and maybe even obeying the traffic lights in no way denies the existence of God.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks Dan, I'll take a look at both tonight.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The fact that I can get across the street safely by taking my safety in my own hands and studying the traffic flow and maybe even obeying the traffic lights in no way denies the existence of God.
Safely crossing the street in the manner you described does not disprove God but it does suggest that God's participation in crossing the street is minimal at best (through an application of Occam's Razor).
I think the point is that some people give their god too much responsibility for actions that are under human control. For example, it would be a little odd for someone to thank God for a college acceptance (I'm a senior ) when admissions are controlled by admissions officers. Did God somehow control the minds of the admissions officers? There isn't any evidence for that. It would make more sense to thank God for providing a life with the opportunity of going to college but that still runs into problems.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's more than that. There is a tendency among some (definitely not all) atheists to insist that evolution (or science in general) disproves God, or removes the need for God, etc. And then they wonder why religious people get upset . . .
Hey, I get upset with that. Talk about missing the point of science. And god, for that matter.
Agreed on all points. And as a theist who considers evolution extremely likely, I find such nonsense both counterproductive and incredibly frustrating.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It's more than that. There is a tendency among some (definitely not all) atheists to insist that evolution (or science in general) disproves God, or removes the need for God, etc. And then they wonder why religious people get upset . . .
This is a rather unfair criticism Rivka, because it's a "who started it?" scenario, on several levels. Darwin knew in advance that if he published his theory, it would be attacked by religion, precisely because theists themselves believed that it disproved God. The fact that atheists gravitated toward it isn't a matter of fault, it's just the only alternative to religious creation.
Further, atheists are always on the defensive, because our belief set is the minority. We are bombarded with the demand that we believe, yet when we present the reasoning behind why we don't believe, we're treated as though we are the attackers. That's not to say that we don't attack religion, I'm just pointing out that historically, the volley was initiated on the theistic side.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"The fact that atheists gravitated toward [evolutionary theory] isn't a matter of fault, it's just the only alternative to religious creation."
There you have it. Atheism is irrelevant to the truth of the theory. Atheism does, however, require the theory to be true.
I recently read a book that was unfortunately lacking in details about this part (its focus was on astrophysics), but the author believed the millions of years time frame was obviously true. He talked about how the development the earth's geology and atmosphere would have required life to to look a certain way over the eons. Billions of years ago, life forms more advanced than bacteria would not have survived (and not simply because all there was at the time was bacteria.) And so a Creator would have had to shape the development of life in such a way as it appears in the fossil record, by carefully adding new life forms over time (and in the general order that Genesis describes.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Atheism does, however, require the theory to be true.
Atheism doesn't even require the theory to exist. The Bible itself verifies that atheists existed thousands of years before Darwin.
I think what you are claiming is that if God does not exist, then evolution must be true. That statement is true, since there are no other possibilities, with the exception of life coming into existence for no reason whatsoever.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Glenn: no, evolution does not need to be true if God does not exist. It could be that, for no particular reason, the universe came into existence five minutes ago, but structured so that it looked old to everything in it and everything in it thinks they have memories of beforehand. There's nothing in science that says that can't be how it happened.
It is, however, the only reasonable scientific explanation so far discovered for the state of life on this planet. There are several non-scientific explanations which are reasonable given particular religious standpoints.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:It's more than that. There is a tendency among some (definitely not all) atheists to insist that evolution (or science in general) disproves God, or removes the need for God, etc. And then they wonder why religious people get upset . . .
This is a rather unfair criticism Rivka, because it's a "who started it?" scenario, on several levels. Darwin knew in advance that if he published his theory, it would be attacked by religion, precisely because theists themselves believed that it disproved God.
So? Wouldn't it therefore behoove atheists to do their best to separate the issues, which really are different questions?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It depends on the atheist's motivation.
I don't think that too many atheists wonder why religious people get upset about evolution. I think for the most part we understand that. There are, of course, atheists who like to get theists upset, so they rub their noses in it, so to speak.
Actually that's why I left alt.atheism. Theists (particularly evangelical Christians) tended to come into the newsgroup to try to convert us. It had been shown numerous times that if you ignored them they would go away, but most of the atheists refused to ignore them, because they liked arguing with them. So the newsgroup devolved into mayhem.
I think you're right about separating the issues, but I also think that it's essentially matter of evangelism. Some people have a need, either to be right about something, or to win arguments, or simply to get other people to share their way of thinking. Maybe all people have that tendency, to one degree or another. Atheists that are driven by that need tend to see evolution as ammunition they can use. There's not much difference between evangelical atheists and evangelical theists in that sense. Those atheists that aren't evangelistic (or less so) tend to fall into the "you can't prove a negative, so you can't place the burden of proof on atheists" camp.
I tend to have a strong desire for people to believe in evolution. Much less strong is my desire for people to lose their belief in God (although I confess that desire does exist, but I wish it didn't). With respect to atheism, I have a strong desire to not have to be told that my belief system is wrong. Or maybe a better way of saying that is that I want atheism to have equal standing as a state of belief, as compared to theism as a whole. The agnostic in me recognizes that the issue can't be proven in either direction, but society's default is theism, and I don't like having to pretend I believe so that I can fit in. I'm particularly angry about the Boy Scouts, since it affects me so strongly.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
"I tend to have a strong desire for people to believe in evolution. Much less strong is my desire for people to lose their belief in God " Me too.
I think where I come from on the evolution vs. creationism is here: The idea of evolution makes perfect sense: Things that can reproduce, do, and pass on their genetics, things that can't die, and do not. The idea that a magic entity who I've never found evidence of created the universe does not sit as well with me, and seems more or less laughable(I'm actually chuckling a bit right now). If I look at the history of the two establishments involved I find the side of evolution to be more trustworthy. scientists have frequently corrected their errors, admitted mistakes, and revised their decisions all the while making more accurate and broad descriptions and explanations of the natural world. Religions have regularly been exposed of propagating ignorance, encouraging unquestioning belief, and dismissing overwhelming evidence for scientific discovery(read: heliocentricism). On those grounds, I KNOW evolution occurs. I do not merely believe.
Resh: Comments like yours make me sigh disappointedly.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But you quoted the highlights. I think I left that up there for about 2 seconds... you have a fast load on your browser ![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)