posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No scientific theory should be taught that way. All science is subject to contradiction by future discoveries.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, the problem with his statement is more fundamental than that - specifically, he's asserting that evolution rules out the existence of God.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like saying "in absence of evidence that the Egyptians built the pyramids, the pyramids' existence itself is evidence of UFO's."
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Non-naturalistic explanations are perfectly acceptable. They are not science and should not be taught as such.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!"
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
