Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Nathan

Should Creationism/Intelligent Design Be Taught in the Science Classroom?

Should Creationism/Intelligent Design Be Taught in the Science Classroom?  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Creationism/Intelligent Design Be Taught in the Science Classroom?



Recommended Posts

This is the kind of thing I have a problem with. You can't just rattle off the word "god" or "God" and assume everyone else has the same idea of what those two words mean. In fact no one has the same idea of what those words mean, so they're actually meaningless words that we use to describe a vague concept which we can't define let alone prove or disprove.

Many people believe there is a god, that's why I used the word. I agree they describe a vague idea that some people call it god, some people call it nature or whatever, so for the sake of simplicity I used the word god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To end my rant/defense my whole point a page ago was that leave the factual science to the science class, anything that is a theory move to a theory class or what I sarcastically called "my fantasy agenda is better than your fantasy agenda 101". That means teaching the individual facts that are the basis of the Theory of Evolution to the science class, while making the teaching of those facts to link into the Theory of Evolution a theory class. Have creationist theory taught in a seperate theory class as well. It could be that simple. The knowledge & theory would still be taught. Somehow I think the higher ups in the scientific community would have a f@*kin' coronary if that were even suggested. It boils down to their ego's, not about expanding the minds of the youth. That's why I would love it if a class on both theories being taught as theory were combined together. The bloodshed, oh the bloodshed.

Can't we all just get along ;)

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we all just get along ;)

I've wanted to say that all along. Why can't we just agree to disagree?

And you're right, put the proper lessons in the right classes.

Edited by pagemccartney95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wanted to say that all along. Why can't we just agree to disagree?

And you're right, put the proper lessons in the right classes.

Put the proper lessons in the right classes would be ideal but that would take the scientific community to acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is a "theory" & not pushing it as "fact". As I said all the actual "facts" that are some of the basis of that "theory" could still be taught as science because individually they are "science". No one is disputing that, not even most creationists unless they're insane. What the scientific community doesn't like is when you remove time estimations (which always vary to one extreme to the other depending on faulty carbon dating) & what they "think" might have happend, their "theory" doesn't hold up very well as it is not fact. Classes like I suggested won't happen because there are those in the scientific community who can't afford for that to happen. When it's no longer "science" but "theory" the funding stops. Since when did scientists become the last bastion for honesty lol? Are they somehow different that in their ranks that they don't have mass corruption like the clergy, politicians, doctors, lawyers, the military & law enforcement? If so I would think to achieve that kind of perfection one must have been genetically created in a laboratory... by Marty Feldman & Gene Wilder. Abbie Normal was his name.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put the proper lessons in the right classes would be ideal but that would take the scientific community to acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is a "theory" & not pushing it as "fact". As I said all the actual "facts" that are some of the basis of that "theory" could still be taught as science because individually they are "science". No one is disputing that, not even most creationists unless they're insane. What the scientific community doesn't like is when you remove time estimations (which always vary to one extreme to the other depending on faulty carbon dating) & what they "think" might have happend, their "theory" doesn't hold up very well as it is not fact. Classes like I suggested won't happen because there are those in the scientific community who can't afford for that to happen. When it's no longer "science" but "theory" the funding stops. Since when did scientists become the last bastion for honesty lol? Are they somehow different that in their ranks that they don't have mass corruption like the clergy, politicians, doctors, lawyers, the military & law enforcement? If so I would think to achieve that kind of perfection one must have been genetically created in a laboratory... by Marty Feldman & Gene Wilder. Abbie Normal was his name.

Very much correct, kaiser/kakdaddy. Different beliefs are different beliefs, that's all. Put them where they belong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A theory is basically a scientific fact or as close as you can get to one in science. Science always leaves itself to be proven wrong or different because it's all about testing it over and over again. Gravity is a perfect example. Nobody can perfectly explain why Newton's laws of gravity really work, he basically used math to come up with his theories, but why does his theory work nobody knows almost 400 years later. The theory of evolution is the same as gravity the closest thing you can think of when to fact in science are theories, because science is all about trying to prove and sometimes disprove things using facts.

Faith is completely different it's about believing no matter what a fact says. Someone can tell you the sky is blue if you just look you can see it, but you don't have to believe that if you don't want to. That's faith.

Edited by NickZepp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Flat Earth was stupid, just wrong. It was taught & accepted as FACT by many at the time even though it was a theory. There was "mountains of evidence" saying it was so. It was a logical deduction... 400-500 years ago. Fast forward 400-500 years from now... where will you & your so called "FACTS" stand in the future? You're a very intelligent person Nathan but don't let your ego blind your vision to the FACT that you know something that you in FACT don't. I accepted some time ago not to speak in absolutes when I in FACT know very little about this universe like everyone else. Once I accepted that, hell, more knowledge came my way because I became open minded to things I may not have fit my world view before. That is the spirit of an explorer & any scientist worth his salt is an explorer & not someone bound to his own personal beliefs.

The earth being round was proven long before Columbus sailed the Atlantic.

The Greek Philosophers Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle and later Eratosthenes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes knew that the world was indeed round. Aristotle said it was round because of how it's shadow looked during an eclipse, Eratosthenes figured it out from how the sun cast shadow's at different angle's on the the ground at different spot's on earth at the same time.

Any one who was on a ship in the open water could see for them self, just by how a passing ship would seem to sink as it moved away from you.

Thing's are observed, then opinion is formed and then if you can prove it (physically), then it is a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earth being round was proven long before Columbus sailed the Atlantic.

The Greek Philosophers Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle and later Eratosthenes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes knew that the world was indeed round. Aristotle said it was round because of how it's shadow looked during an eclipse, Eratosthenes figured it out from how the sun cast shadow's at different angle's on the the ground at different spot's on earth at the same time.

Any one who was on a ship in the open water could see for them self, just by how a passing ship would seem to sink as it moved away from you.

Thing's are observed, then opinion is formed and then if you can prove it (physically), then it is a fact.

Most intellects knew the earth was round when Columbus first set sail, but most normal people thought the earth was flat. The thing is that some things are probably never completely provable. Things like evolution take millions of years. People have only been around for half a million years so you can see why it's hard to believe in such a thing like evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To speculate on a group of facts into a cohesive unit. More simply, a hunch.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

Including...

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Your simpley wrong if you believe your definition is the only acceptable one for the word theory, creationism plays off this lack of knowledge from the public.

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earth being round was proven long before Columbus sailed the Atlantic.

The Greek Philosophers Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle and later Eratosthenes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes knew that the world was indeed round. Aristotle said it was round because of how it's shadow looked during an eclipse, Eratosthenes figured it out from how the sun cast shadow's at different angle's on the the ground at different spot's on earth at the same time.

Any one who was on a ship in the open water could see for them self, just by how a passing ship would seem to sink as it moved away from you.

Thing's are observed, then opinion is formed and then if you can prove it (physically), then it is a fact.

I already pointed that out. As I said it was already in the book of Genesis for example & the Hebrews subscribed to the world being in the shape of a circumference even before the Greek philosophers. It was later, during the Dark Ages where Science & the Catholic Church were both in accordance with the world being flat. That's a fair amount of time after the Greek philosophers & ancient Hebrews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

Including...

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Your simpley wrong if you believe your definition is the only acceptable one for the word theory, creationism plays off this lack of knowledge from the public.

I don't see where that definition is different from the one I posted. Also the word "accept" or "accepted" does not equal "fact" anymore than the word "theory" does.

I love getting the latest Farmer's Almanac every year but I "accept" or "recognize" that it's not "fact" but "prediction" & "estimation". Some of those predictions turn out to be correct & some are wrong, every year. As a cohesive unit those predictions did not add up to fact. So far the Theory of Evolution has done the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but it should not be taught that God did not create the earth either. I beleive that God should not be a part of public schools, but that includes, of course, teaching that a God does not exist.

Teaching children about evolution and then telling them how the Christian God (I guess that's what you mean) 'created' the world will only confuse the children. The theory of evolution does not say this directly, but of course it denies what's written in the Bible.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that's constantly being proven and supplemented by tangible proofs.

The Bible on the other hand offers only 'ultimate truths' but does not offer any proofs. Therefore, evolution, unlike religious doctrines, should be taught at school - as a theory, which it is, and not the ultimate truth, which it is not. Christians generally tend to perceive the theory as an alternative 'ultimate truth' and often accuse its supporters of clinging to it as if it was a new scientific religion; only because it denies one particular religious dogma. But as Nathan already said, evolution does not offer an answer to how the world was created, but only how it seems to work since then. It does not negate other potential spiritual theories, only the one that's already completely illogical when read literally. So, evolution does not teach that God or 'god' does not exist. It only seems to imply that blind adherence to the content of one very old book is rather foolish.

We should teach our children how to think. Let them make their own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaching children about evolution and then telling them how the Christian God (I guess that's what you mean) 'created' the world will only confuse the children. The theory of evolution does not say this directly, but of course it denies what's written in the Bible.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that's constantly being proven and supplemented by tangible proofs.

The Bible on the other hand offers only 'ultimate truths' but does not offer any proofs. Therefore, evolution, unlike religious doctrines, should be taught at school - as a theory, which it is, and not the ultimate truth, which it is not. Christians generally tend to perceive the theory as an alternative 'ultimate truth' and often accuse its supporters of clinging to it as if it was a new scientific religion; only because it denies one particular religious dogma. But as Nathan already said, evolution does not offer an answer to how the world was created, but only how it seems to work since then. It does not negate other potential spiritual theories, only the one that's already completely illogical when read literally. So, evolution does not teach that God or 'god' does not exist. It only seems to imply that blind adherence to the content of one very old book is rather foolish.

We should teach our children how to think. Let them make their own conclusions.

:goodpost:

Would have added something in if there was something to add but you've hit the nail right on the old proverbial head !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said "yes" with the qualification that children are also taught the ancient Indo-European tradition that the Universe was created by the primordial orgasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where that definition is different from the one I posted. Also the word "accept" or "accepted" does not equal "fact" anymore than the word "theory" does.

I love getting the latest Farmer's Almanac every year but I "accept" or "recognize" that it's not "fact" but "prediction" & "estimation". Some of those predictions turn out to be correct & some are wrong, every year. As a cohesive unit those predictions did not add up to fact. So far the Theory of Evolution has done the same.

To "speculate" and have a "hunch" about a group of facts obviously implies that the facts are secondary to the persons reasoning and possible bias, your defintion is closer to a scentific hypothesis than a theory. Creationsim clearly seeks to play off of the difference in the these definitions, the layman's use of the word follows your defintion more closely so claiming that "its only a theory" obviously seeks to belittle the evidense behind evolution in a dishoniest manner.

I'd definately accept that the pro envolution side(although generally not scentists themselves) has sometimes used the same play in reverse with the word "fact" but not to nearly the same degree. That to me is the clear difference, the creationist movemnet consistes of nothing but dishoniestly. As I said I'm not agenst christianity being taught in schools but creationism specifically differs in that it seeks to dishoniestly use the legitmancey of scienece to back up its case. Just because a persons knowledge of science may damage the case for relgion does not mean that relgion should be able to do anything it likes to "even the score".

I'd say that the real problem with this debate is that people often view "evolutionary theory" and those that back it as a monolithic whole. Creationism represents only a small part of christianity and a better comparason on the pro evolution side would be athesists who seek to use evolutionary theory to directly attack relgion/christianity. I'd agree that such direct attacks(that I wouldnt be supprized to find also contain some dishoniesty) may not be fit to be taught in school but I'd guess they arent much in the first place. I'd also guess that this confusion is very deliberate on the part of the creationists, seeking to damage the whole of evolutionary theory by painting it all as the extreme more political end while trying to have there own side represent the whole of christianity and thus more worthy of being taught within schools.

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already pointed that out. As I said it was already in the book of Genesis for example & the Hebrews subscribed to the world being in the shape of a circumference even before the Greek philosophers. It was later, during the Dark Ages where Science & the Catholic Church were both in accordance with the world being flat. That's a fair amount of time after the Greek philosophers & ancient Hebrews.

Yeah you maybe right,but the Greek's had so much more going on than the pre-Greek Hebrew's did, the Greek's where, at least the Phosphors where more open minded and where not staying stuck in there currant way's.

The old testament is more of a poetic description than a fact based one. In other words it was written to be read and not studied.

I do admit that there is a lot of history in it but the way it is presented, is again more of a script than a guide. And the Hebrew's where after all among the greatest astronomical studying people in that day, being the Egyptian's. And there is a lot of similarity with much of there two religion's writing's.

Edited by BonzoLikeDrumer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kaiser seems to be somewhat confused about what a theory is. The truth is that a theory is a hypothesis that has repeatedly been shown to make correct predictions. It proposes tests that, if the wrong results came in, would falsify (disprove) the theory. But a theory can never be proved; only disproved. To say that it's unproven is not a criticism; it's an indication that you don't understand the definition. Nothing is proven outside mathematics. It's only a theory that gravity is holding you down, but it's a theory with a lot of supporting evidence. Evolution is the same way--of course it's unproven, by definition, but it's got a mountain of evidence.

To call gravity a fact is wrong and right at the same time. The force of gravity is a fact: objects falling near the earth accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second. That's a fact. WHY the force exists is still a mystery. Nobody knows what gravity is made of or where it comes from. Scientists are still arguing about this. Similarly, the results of evolution are not in dispute among scientists, though they still debate the details of how it happened.

Creationism/ID doesn't make any testable predictions, and they are not falsifiable, and therefore are not science and should not be in the science classroom. Evolution makes very specific predictions about the age and distribution of fossils, and so far they are found according to that prediction. For example, the tiktaalik (the fish-with-legs) was predicted to exist in strata of a certain age according to evolution. Scientists found a layer of rock from that era, and dug there, and found it as predicted. You can argue about where specific fossils were descended from, but the fact is that they are predicted in advance and then found, and it adds up to supporting evidence for evolution. If evolution was completely wrong, it wouldn't keep making correct predictions. If you find a precambrian rabbit, or a human in the same layer as dino bones, it's over for evolution. If the fossils were created in a big flood, they'd be distributed according to bouyancy or weight for the most part, but they're not. Plus, you'd expect to find examples of dinos and humans in the same layer at least sometimes, but you never do. They're sorted by age and species, which is just what evolution predicts.

It's a crazy idea that students should decide for themselves what to believe. Science is about examining the evidence, not one's own personal preferences. You don't bring in Holocaust deniers and give them equal time during a WWII lecture, and then let the kids decide whose story is more comforting. The world wasn't designed according to our personal preferences, and science shouldn't be organized that way, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaching children about evolution and then telling them how the Christian God (I guess that's what you mean) 'created' the world will only confuse the children. The theory of evolution does not say this directly, but of course it denies what's written in the Bible.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that's constantly being proven and supplemented by tangible proofs.

The Bible on the other hand offers only 'ultimate truths' but does not offer any proofs. Therefore, evolution, unlike religious doctrines, should be taught at school - as a theory, which it is, and not the ultimate truth, which it is not. Christians generally tend to perceive the theory as an alternative 'ultimate truth' and often accuse its supporters of clinging to it as if it was a new scientific religion; only because it denies one particular religious dogma. But as Nathan already said, evolution does not offer an answer to how the world was created, but only how it seems to work since then. It does not negate other potential spiritual theories, only the one that's already completely illogical when read literally. So, evolution does not teach that God or 'god' does not exist. It only seems to imply that blind adherence to the content of one very old book is rather foolish.

We should teach our children how to think. Let them make their own conclusions.

This is a good post. You don't post often but when you do it's always well thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To "speculate" and have a "hunch" about a group of facts obviously implies that the facts are secondary to the persons reasoning and possible bias, your defintion is closer to a scentific hypothesis than a theory. Creationsim clearly seeks to play off of the difference in the these definitions, the layman's use of the word follows your defintion more closely so claiming that "its only a theory" obviously seeks to belittle the evidense behind evolution in a dishoniest manner.

I'd definately accept that the pro envolution side(although generally not scentists themselves) has sometimes used the same play in reverse with the word "fact" but not to nearly the same degree. That to me is the clear difference, the creationist movemnet consistes of nothing but dishoniestly. As I said I'm not agenst christianity being taught in schools but creationism specifically differs in that it seeks to dishoniestly use the legitmancey of scienece to back up its case. Just because a persons knowledge of science may damage the case for relgion does not mean that relgion should be able to do anything it likes to "even the score".

I'd say that the real problem with this debate is that people often view "evolutionary theory" and those that back it as a monolithic whole. Creationism represents only a small part of christianity and a better comparason on the pro evolution side would be athesists who seek to use evolutionary theory to directly attack relgion/christianity. I'd agree that such direct attacks(that I wouldnt be supprized to find also contain some dishoniesty) may not be fit to be taught in school but I'd guess they arent much in the first place. I'd also guess that this confusion is very deliberate on the part of the creationists, seeking to damage the whole of evolutionary theory by painting it all as the extreme more political end while trying to have there own side represent the whole of christianity and thus more worthy of being taught within schools.

1) To speculate or have a hunch does not imply that the facts are secondary. The facts are the basis of the speculation, without the facts you have nothing to stand on. It's what is not fact that is secondary. You were projecting that I implied that the facts were secondary which I never did. Stick with the facts, don't project. Your projection is secondary. And I never belittled the theory as I support the theory. I don't support the theory as fact because, well, it isn't it. Simple.

2) To make this absolutely clear, I'm not making a stand for creationism if anyone thinks that I am. I already gave my views on it in my first post as well as the theory of evolution. I don't support theory as fact. Explore it, keep working on it, but don't say the race is won when it isn't. Once again, what's the rush?

3) There is no "layman's" definition. There is only the definition. When I see "layman's fact" or "layman's theory" that's a new word invention, an amended bastardized term. The original definitions will do.

3) "Scientific fact" is a play off the word fact. I've stated it before & I don't want to keep repeating myself because it's becoming redundant.

4) I don't have a bone to pick with creationism or evolutionism one more than the other. You clearly do. There are enough people who will be critical of creationism & their methods of wordplay, as they should. The same should, by unbiased people, be applied to evolutionists & their wordplay. That does not happen as it becomes an us against them thing, like political parties, if one is even being critical of one's affiliation. Cooperation is not a factor, it's about whose idea seems to be better even if it's still highly flawed. Us against them clearly does not work in ANY aspect of life. You don't have to be a scientist or a man of God to figure that out because the "overwhelming evidence" suggests that they haven't & most of their followers haven't either. Knowledge & the pursuit of knowledge suffers for it.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kaiser seems to be somewhat confused about what a theory is. The truth is that a theory is a hypothesis that has repeatedly been shown to make correct predictions. It proposes tests that, if the wrong results came in, would falsify (disprove) the theory. But a theory can never be proved; only disproved. To say that it's unproven is not a criticism; it's an indication that you don't understand the definition. Nothing is proven outside mathematics. It's only a theory that gravity is holding you down, but it's a theory with a lot of supporting evidence. Evolution is the same way--of course it's unproven, by definition, but it's got a mountain of evidence.

To call gravity a fact is wrong and right at the same time. The force of gravity is a fact: objects falling near the earth accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second. That's a fact. WHY the force exists is still a mystery. Nobody knows what gravity is made of or where it comes from. Scientists are still arguing about this. Similarly, the results of evolution are not in dispute among scientists, though they still debate the details of how it happened.

Creationism/ID doesn't make any testable predictions, and they are not falsifiable, and therefore are not science and should not be in the science classroom. Evolution makes very specific predictions about the age and distribution of fossils, and so far they are found according to that prediction. For example, the tiktaalik (the fish-with-legs) was predicted to exist in strata of a certain age according to evolution. Scientists found a layer of rock from that era, and dug there, and found it as predicted. You can argue about where specific fossils were descended from, but the fact is that they are predicted in advance and then found, and it adds up to supporting evidence for evolution. If evolution was completely wrong, it wouldn't keep making correct predictions. If you find a precambrian rabbit, or a human in the same layer as dino bones, it's over for evolution. If the fossils were created in a big flood, they'd be distributed according to bouyancy or weight for the most part, but they're not. Plus, you'd expect to find examples of dinos and humans in the same layer at least sometimes, but you never do. They're sorted by age and species, which is just what evolution predicts.

It's a crazy idea that students should decide for themselves what to believe. Science is about examining the evidence, not one's own personal preferences. You don't bring in Holocaust deniers and give them equal time during a WWII lecture, and then let the kids decide whose story is more comforting. The world wasn't designed according to our personal preferences, and science shouldn't be organized that way, either.

Another good post. However, I am not confused as to what a theory is :D A "theory" can be proven or disproven. If all the seperate facts in the theory don't add up it does not become a whole intact fact. Simple. "Scientific theory" explains as best as possible the theory at hand but by the use of a few well placed words can create loopholes that can be used conveniently that the theory should be accepted as fact, rather than "scientific fact".

Lol, other than that I enjoyed your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good post. However, I am not confused as to what a theory is :D A "theory" can be proven or disproven. If all the seperate facts in the theory don't add up it does not become a whole intact fact.

No, a theory can only be disproved. You can't name a single theory that has been proved, because none of them have been. You can accumulate evidence, but all the evidence in the world doesn't add up to absolute proof. You're definitely confused about what a theory is, because the definition you gave earlier is wrong.

You're also confusing "facts" with "proof". Facts are the data that the theory is based upon. The fossils and the genetic evidence are facts, unless you're making the argument that the devil put them there!

Edited by PhxHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a theory can only be disproved. You can't name a single theory that has been proved, because none of them have been. You can accumulate evidence, but all the evidence in the world doesn't add up to absolute proof. You're definitely confused about what a theory is, because the definition you gave earlier is wrong.

You're also confusing "facts" with "proof". Facts are the data that the theory is based upon. The fossils and the genetic evidence are facts, unless you're making the argument that the devil put them there!

The problem is is your speaking the scientific language where once again I'm speaking the english language. Scientists have created their own language in their own image to suit their own purposes. In the english language all the evidence in the world does add up to absolute proof if you let the facts stand on their own. By projecting or estimating on the facts does not necessarily add up to a greater fact. If scientists did not amend words already in existence for their purposes a lot of their theories would fall flat. The scientistific community cannot have that obviously. It's scientific legalese. The definition I gave earlier is not wrong. It's straight out of an english dictionary & corresponds with the definition in other english dictionary's. You must have gotten yours out of a scientific dictionary thus the confusion because the words "fact' & "theory" has not been rendered obsolete to my knowledge but applied to certain scientists agendas, well it seems they believe it has. Once again this is why we have amended bastardized terms. I certainly have not confused the words "fact", "theory", & "proof" with the amended terms "scientific fact", "scientific theory", & "scientific proof". The power of suggestion is at work here.

When a prosecuting lawyer builds a case the building blocks of his/her case are the facts. Through evidence gathered he/she knows that the defendant did this, that, & the other thing but there happened to be no witnesses to supply further evidence leaving a time gap. However the lawyer still must persuade the jury in his/her favor to win his/her case. Sometimes the facts are not enough to persuade a jury so the lawyer must be creative with language & the power of suggestion through "what if" scenarios. The defense lawyer does the same in reverse but also through facts & persuasion. Through that the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. There are many innocent people sitting in jail due to this process. Obviously the evidence put the defendant behind bars because there must have been enough evidence to support it being so. It doesn't have to be a fact, just enough evidence & a persuasive arguement & an innocent person is behind prison doors. How could that have all added up to that outcome if the man is truly innocent of the crime he's been accused of? Does this sound familiar at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) To speculate or have a hunch does not imply that the facts are secondary. The facts are the basis of the speculation, without the facts you have nothing to stand on. It's what is not fact that is secondary. You were projecting that I implied that the facts were secondary which I never did. Stick with the facts, don't project. Your projection is secondary. And I never belittled the theory as I support the theory. I don't support the theory as fact because, well, it isn't it. Simple.

It implies that the spectulation is the activity thats been undertaken, the information has been obtained previously and I'v spectulated as to its meaning. As I said thats basically what a hypothesis is within science where as a theory is designed specfically be to be falseifiable and then tested, that testing provides legitmancey which your definition does not mention.

2) To make this absolutely clear, I'm not making a stand for creationism if anyone thinks that I am. I already gave my views on it in my first post as well as the theory of evolution. I don't support theory as fact. Explore it, keep working on it, but don't say the race is won when it isn't. Once again, what's the rush?

As I said I agree evolution as a whole is sometimes reffered to a "fact" by laymen or those with an agenda incorrectly, it just happens much less freqnetly than creationisions use of theory which is a major part of the movement.

3) There is no "layman's" definition. There is only the definition. When I see "layman's fact" or "layman's theory" that's a new word invention, an amended bastardized term. The original definitions will do.

Yes there is, these and many other words can have different defintions within different contexts.

3) "Scientific fact" is a play off the word fact. I've stated it before & I don't want to keep repeating myself because it's becoming redundant.

You see your acknowledinging the different defintions with this post, to some the word "fact" means absolute certainy(even if in reality it rarely or never is), to others it means an observable event and to yet more a theory with multiple and overwhelming proofs is a fact and to yet others a fact cannot exist. People using words in different contexts and dictionarys listing different defintions is suring proof that this is the case? personally I'd say the word fact is less confusing than theory since the difference in defintions(the degree of certainy) is as much down to the acknowledgement of probability as anything else.

I'd add that not every area of evolution is considered a fact within science, there are many areas(generally the mechanism that drives it) with competing theorys.

4) I don't have a bone to pick with creationism or evolutionism one more than the other. You clearly do. There are enough people who will be critical of creationism & their methods of wordplay, as they should. The same should, by unbiased people, be applied to evolutionists & their wordplay. That does not happen as it becomes an us against them thing, like political parties, if one is even being critical of one's affiliation. Cooperation is not a factor, it's about whose idea seems to be better even if it's still highly flawed. Us against them clearly does not work in ANY aspect of life. You don't have to be a scientist or a man of God to figure that out because the "overwhelming evidence" suggests that they haven't & most of their followers haven't either. Knowledge & the pursuit of knowledge suffers for it.

So if I "had a bone to pick" with the Nazi's I'd be incorrect in stating they were more in the wrong than the jews for the holocaust? Again I spose its down to your definition of creationism but in this context I don't think its unrreasonable to relate creationism to the movement within christianity in the US to use a flawed and dishonist application of scentific method to try and back up the biblication story of creation. My post made it pretty clear thats what I believe should not be taught in schools rather than simpley the biblical story of creation, it doesnt matter whether it takes place within a sceience class or a relgious studies one, such politically motivated dishonisty should not be taught in schools.

Has evolutionary theory/fact been used for political ends? certainly but its also the product of decades of honiest scentific study snd its that which to the best of my knowledge is taught within schools. The creationist movemenet in the US on the other hand has a dishoniest political motive at its very core.

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is is your speaking the scientific language where once again I'm speaking the english language.

Well, when discussing a scientific issue, one might want to use scientific terms instead of laymans' terms.

Scientists have created their own language in their own image to suit their own purposes.

You mean scientific terms have specific meanings in order to avoid confusion? And you're deliberately causing confusion by trying to assign the wrong meanings to the word "theory."

The definition I gave earlier is not wrong. It's straight out of an english dictionary & corresponds with the definition in other english dictionary's.

The point is that even english dictionaries get it wrong. This is not something that is disputed in the scientific world.

You must have gotten yours out of a scientific dictionary thus the confusion

Right, we wouldn't want to use actual scientific terms when discussing science.

To sum it all up, you seem to give the same meaning to the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory', when in fact a theory is a hypothesis that has consistently made correct predictions and which has supporting evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...