Jump to content

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

1) Once again, not my definition. I do not amend words or defintions to my favor. I simply state them.

2) I don't know the actual statistics on evolutionists & creationists distorting words & to me it doesn't matter as I want neither doing it yet both do.

3) Once again a play on words for those who want to distort meanings.

4) I acknowledge that it exists simply because someone had to create the term. I've read it, heard it used, it exists. Is it a bastardized amended term used shielded in vagueity? Yes.

How others interpret words does not negate it's actual meaning. The actual meaning still stands.

"Not every area of evolution is considered fact within science". Thank you. It only took that long for an acknowledgement. That was my point. "Not every area".

5) Nazi's? Holocaust? Is this what this has come to. I don't know. Well the Nazi's did have a distorted sense of evolution for their own purposes so you may be on to something. The superior race evolving into them & all that fun stuff. Case in point of science being distorted for someone's views. I didn't want to take it there but since you brought it up...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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.

1) When discussing a scientific issue? Sure. Just bring on the science part. I'm waiting.

2) I wouldn't confuse a telescope for a spatula so I wouldn't call it one. I didn't define the word "theory", just applied it's actual definition. Sorry if you're still confused.

3) The english dictionary's get the definitions wrong now? This is not disputed in the "scientific world"? Well in the actual factual real world it is. Join & become a member. You may have a long wait.

4) Once again bring on the science & you can use latin names for every variation of flower where it applies. Until then, don't distort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationism should not be taught in the science classroom because it's not science!!! Creationism is religion and religion is a part of history. When I was in school, we learned about the different religions of the world in history class, with no specific belief being imposed on us. I think it's important that people have a general knowledge of religion in general because it's part of our history, but it obviously doesn't belong in a science classroom!! In private schools, it can be taught in a religion class, and in public schools, it can be taught in a history class, as long as the teacher presents the information with a non-biased attitude. Just my two cents!

Link to post
Share on other sites

kaiser, I'm sorry, but in your view, science itself should not be taught at all in schools. There is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. None.

You mentioned to me that Gravity is an established fact.

Actually... no, it's not. The details of Gravity are still being debated in Science. In fact, no one actually knows exactly how Gravity works.

Evolution is exactly the same. Like Gravity, Evolution is a general fact, but it's details (mainly, how it works... again, like Gravity) are still being debated. I was taught Evolution in Biology because Modern Biology depends upon Evolution being true.

Let me repeat that. I already have, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Modern Biology depends on Evolution being true.

Do you understand that? According to your logic, then, absolutely no single person should be taught Modern Biology at all.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

From Here (link to download PDF)

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity,like evolution, is an accepted fact."

from Here

emphasis mine

And since, according to your logic, gravity is not yet actually an "established fact", we shouldn't be taught Gravity... or the Big Bang, or Cell theory, or germ theory, or atomic theory (imagine no atomic bombs... it's "just a theory", after all), or the kinetic theory of gases, or plate tectonics, or acoustic theory, or antenna theory, or BCS theory, or Landau theory, of M-theory, or Perturbation theory, or the theory of relativity, or quantum theory, or scattering theory, E=MC2, heliocentrism...

In fact, we shouldn't be taught Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Climatology, Planetary science...

We shouldn't even be taught Mathematics!

Not one of these... not one!... is an "established fact". The only place in this world that "facts" exist is"Laymen's English".

The definitions in the English Dictionary, BTW, are not right. All dictionaries do is record common usage. Why do you think different dictionaries give somewhat different definitions of the same word?

Here are numerous different dictionary entries (in their entireties) for the word "Theory" (I've bolded the ones that are specific to science):

Chambers 21st Century Dictionary

theory noun (theories) 1 a series of ideas and general principles which seek to explain some aspect of the world • theory of relativity. 2 an idea or explanation which has not yet been proved; a conjecture • Well, my theory is he's jealous! 3 the general and usually abstract principles or ideas of a subject • theory of music. 4 a an ideal, hypothetical or abstract situation; b ideal, hypothetical or abstract reasoning • a good idea in theory.

ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from Greek theoria, from theoreein to view.

Collins Language Dictionary

Theory

N (PL -ries)

1. A Set of ideas, based on evidence and careful reasoning, which offers an explanation of how something works or why something happens, but has not yet been completely proved, the theory of cosmology

2. the ideas and abstract knowledge relating to something, political theory

3. an idea or opinion, it's only a theory, admittedly, but I think it's worth pursuing

4.

In theory in an ideal or hypothetical situation, in theory, the tax is supposed to limit inflation

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

theo‧ry S2 W1_20__22_D8_FB_EBri_20_24_A0_22_D8i__EBri_.gif plural theories1 [countable]HP anidea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something about lifeor the world, especially an idea that has not yet been proved to be true [↪ theoretical] theory about/on different theories about how the brain works theory of Darwin's theory of evolution theory that the theory that light is made up of waves2 [uncountable]H general principles and ideas about a subject: Freudian theory has had a great influence on psychology. political/economic/literary etc theory I'm taking a course on political theory.3

in theory

something that is true in theory is supposed to be true, but might not really be true or might not be what will really happen: In theory, everyone will have to pay the new tax.4 [countable] an idea or opinion that someone thinks is true but for which they have no proof theory that Detectives are working on a theory that he knew his murderer.

Oxford English Dictionary

dag.gif1. A sight, a spectacle. Obs. rare.

1605 BP. ANDREWES Serm., Passion (1631) 365 Saint Luke..calleth the Passion theta.gifepsilon.gifomega.gifrho.gifgiacu.gifalpha.gifnu.gifa Theory or Sight... Of our blessed Saviour's whole life or death,there is no part but is a Theorie of it selfe, well worthie our lookingon. dag.gif2. Mental view, contemplation. Obs.

[1598-1611 FLORIO, Theoría, contemplation, speculation, deepe study, insight or beholding.] 1611 COTGR., Theorie, theorie, contemplation, deepe studie; a sight, or beholding, speculation. 1643 SIR T. BROWNE Relig. Med. I. §45 Norcan I thinke I have the true Theory of death when I contemplate askull, or behold a Skeleton with those vulgar imaginations it castsupon us. 1646 scemem.gifPseud. Ep. VII. xix. 385 As they encrease the hatred of vice in some, so doe they enlarge the theory of wickednesse in all. 1653 W. HARVEY Anat. Exercit. Pref. page.gifv, Alltheir theory and contemplation (which they count Science) representsnothing but waking mens dreams, and sick mens phrensies. 1710 NORRIS Chr. Prud. ii. 65 SpeculativeKnowledge contemplates Truth for itself, and accordingly stops andrests in the Contemplation of it, which is what we commonly call Theory. 3.A conception or mental scheme of something to be done, or of the methodof doing it; a systematic statement of rules or principles to befollowed.

1597 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. V. xxix. §8 If they had been themselves to execute their owne Theorie in this Church. 1643 BP. HALL Devout Soul i, It will hardly be believed, how far some of their contemplative men have gone in the theory hereof. 1674 DRYDEN Prol. Univ. Oxford 11 Your theories are here to practice brought, As in mechanic operations wrought. 1798 MALTHUS Popul. III. ii. (1806) II. 103 A theory that will not admit of application cannot possibly be just. 1832 AUSTIN Jurispr. (1879) II. 1133 Theory of what is and theory of what ought to be are perpetually confounded. 1853 BRIGHT Sp. India 3 June (1876) 4 The theory of the old Government of India was one which could not be defended. 1879 M. PATTISON Milton xiii. 219 Eventhe calm and gentle author of the Christian Year..deliberately framed atheory of Poetic for the express purpose, as it would seem, ofexcluding the author of Paradise Lost from the first class of poets. 4. a.A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation oraccount of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has beenconfirmed or established by observation or experiment, and ispropounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statementof what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes ofsomething known or observed.

1638 SIR T. HERBERT Trav. (ed. 2) 127 Or whether from subterranean fires,..I dare not conclude, but leave such theories to those that study Meteors. 1684 BURNET (title) The Theory of the Earth. 1706 PHILLIPS (ed. Kersey), Theories of the Planets,certain Hypotheses, or Suppositions about the Motions of the Heavens,according to which, Astronomers explain..the Phænomena or Appearancesof the Planets. 1727-41 CHAMBERS Cycl. s.v., We say..theory of the rainbow, of the microscope..the motion of the heart, the operation of purgatives, etc. 1812 PLAYFAIR Nat. Phil. (1819) I. 3 A theory is often nothing else but a contrivance for comprehending a certain number of facts under one expression. 1850 GROVE Corr. Phys. Forces (ed. 2) 105 Were a theory open to no objection it would cease to be a theory, and would become a law. 1879 M. PATTISON Milton xiii. 180 TheCopernican theory, which placed the sun in the centre of our system,was already the established belief of the few well-informed. 1890 A. R. WALLACE Darwinism 7 Thetruest and most complete theory would not enable us to solve all thedifficult problems which the whole course of the development of lifeupon our globe presents to us. b.That department of an art or technical subject which consists in theknowledge or statement of the facts on which it depends, or of itsprinciples or methods, as distinguished from the practice of it.

1613 R. CAWDREY Table Alph. (ed. 3), Theorie, the contemplation, or inward knowledge of any art. 1626 BACON Sylva §327 Themeans, hitherto propounded, to effect it, are in the practice, full oferror and imposture, and in the theory, full of unsound imaginations. 1660 R. COKE Power & Subj. Pref. 5 A Musitian, who Composes well, yet under~stands but little in the theory of Musick. 1795 HUTTON Math. Dict. s.v., To be learned in an art, &c., the Theory is sufficient; to be a master of it, both the Theory and practice are requisite. 1827 WHATELY Logic (ed. 2) 205 Logic being concerned with the theory of Reasoning. 1828 J. S. MILL in Westm. Rev. IX. 155 A prodigious step in the theory of naming. a1854 scemem.gifEarly Draft Autobiogr. (1961) 135, I pushed on..to try whether I could do anything further to clear up the theory of Logic generally. 1884 GROVE Dict. Mus. IV. 101/1 Theory,a term often used..to express the knowledge of Harmony, Counter-point,Thorough~bass, etc., as distinguished from the art of playing, whichis..called 'Practice'. 1885 Encycl. Brit. XVIII. 793/2 Epistemology (theory of knowledge, Erkenntnisstheorie). 1927 B. RUSSELL Outl. Philos. xxiii. 248 Descartes..inaugurated two movements, one in metaphysics, one in theory of knowledge. 1966 R. M. CHISHOLM (title) Theory of Knowledge. c.A systematic statement of the general principles or laws of some branchof mathematics; a set of theorems forming a connected system: as the theory of equations, of functions, of numbers, of probabilities.

1799 W. FREND (title) The Principles of Algebra..; or the true Theory of Equations established by mathematical demonstration. 1806 [see THEOREM 1a]. 1811 P. BARLOW (title) An Elementary Investigation of the Theory of Numbers. 1838 [see PROBABILITY 3]. 1893 FORSYTH (title) Theory of Functions. 5.In the abstract (without article): Systematic conception or statementof the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulationof it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis (cf.6): distinguished from or opposed to practice (cf. 4b). in theory (formerly in the theory): according to theory, theoretically (opp. to in practice or in fact).

1624 T. MACARNESSE in Capt. Smith Virginia Pref., That thou mightst read and know and safely see, What he by practice, thou by Theoree. 1692 SIR W. HOPE Fencing-Master (ed. 2) 164 Theorie without Practice will serve but for little. 1769-72 Junius Lett. Pref. (1820) 17 Theory is at variance with practise. 1776 J. ADAMS Wks. (1854) IX. 375 It is certain, in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is, the consent of the people. 1821 J. Q. ADAMS in Davies Metr. Syst. III. (1871) 175 A compromise between philosophical theory and inveterate popular habits. 6.In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation;hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set ofideas about something; an individual view or notion. Cf. 4.

1792 BURKE Corr. (1844) IV. 13 Whether I am right in the theory or not,..the fact is as I state it. 1794 PALEY Evid. (1825) II. 347 Theories which have, at different times, gained possession of the public mind. 1829 JAS. MILL Hum. Mind (1869) II. xxv. 403 Theword theory has been perverted to denote an operation..which..consistsin supposing and setting down matters supposed as matters observed.Theory in fact has been confounded with Hypothesis. 1864 BOWEN Logic xi. (1870) 375 A Theory, sometimes incorrectly used as a synonyme for Hypothesis. 1867 M. E. HERBERT Cradle L. iii. 95 So varied are the theories as to the origin of these wonderful sepulchres. 1880 T. A. SPALDING Eliz. Demonol. 35 This was not a mere theory, but a vital active belief. 7. Comb., as theory-making adj. and n., -building, -monger, -spinning; theory-bigoted, -mad, -ridden adjs.; theory-blind a., (a) blinded by a theory, so as to be unable to see the facts truly; (b) blind to a theory, i.e. unable to see or apprehend it (cf. colour-blind); theory-laden a., applied to a term, statement, etc., the use of which implies the acceptance of some theory; contrasted with theory-free, -neutral adjs.; theory-man (nonce-wd.), a theorist; theory-tailor, contemptuously for a shaper of theories.

1884 Q. Rev. Apr. 337 More *theory-bigoted than Mr. emem.gif. 1892 W. S. LILLY Gt. Enigma 230 You cannot help recognising, unless you are *theory-blind,..the law of correlation. 1902 Q. Rev. Apr. 359 No one who is not theory-blind--a very common form of blindness. 1780 Mirror No. 107 page.gif2 There is something..so delightful in this art of *theory~building. 1964 Language XL. 225 Spelling out..how its results have been incorporated into other experiments and theory-building. 1977 A. GIDDENS Stud. in Social & Polit. Theory i. 49 AsFeigl says, most positivistically inclined authors today..recognizethat observation statements cannot be entirely '*theory-free'. 1958 N. R. HANSON Patterns of Discovery i. 19 There is a sense..in which seeing is a '*theory-laden' undertaking. Observation of x is shaped by prior knowledge of x. 1977 A. GIDDENS Stud. in Social & Polit. Theory 12 Thetheory-laden character of observation-statements in natural sciencesentails that the meaning of scientific contexts is tied-in to themeaning of other terms in a theoretical network. 1850 E. A. POE in Sartain's Union Mag. Oct. 233/1 Hemust be *theory-mad beyond redemption who, in spite of thesedifferences, shall still persist in attempting to reconcile theobstinate oils and waters of Poetry and Truth. 1931 A. HUXLEY Music at Night 77 The *theory-making mind. 1964 I. L. HOROWITZ New Sociology 31 Problems of this kind can be multiplied..in every sphere of sociology from poll-taking to theory-making. 1727 DE FOE Syst. Magic I. i. (1840) 9 What our learned *theory-men insist to have been the causes of the deluge. 1905 Academy 4 Feb. 105/1 It is high time that protest be made..against the master's works being made the prey of *theorymongers. 1968 J. J. C. SMART Betw. Sci. & Philos. iii. 80 Observation reports can not be couched in *theory-neutral language. 1977 A. GIDDENS Stud. in Social & Polit. Theory iii. 150 The'orthodox view' has an answer which Habermas has apparently(although..not finally) rejected: correspondence to sensorilyapprehended reality, grounded in the descriptions of a theory-neutralobservation language. 1922 R. FRY Let. 6 Mar. (1972) II. 522, I don't take it to heart when you say that my pictures are the utterly dismal performances of a *theory-ridden painter. 1904 WINDLE Prehist. Age Pref. 13 There has been a vast amount of *theory-spinning in connexion with the early epochs. 1876 <a href=http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-m3.html#meredith" target="oedbib" color="#002653">MEREDITH Beauch. Career xxxvii, These men are *theory-tailors not politicians.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: the·o·ry Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·riesEtymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōreinDate: 1592 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 : abstract thought : speculation

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

synonyms see hypothesis

Dictionaries have no monopoly on what is "right" when it comes to how a word is used. They simply record common usage, and that is all. The scientific definition of "theory" is just as legit as, if not moreso than, the "layman's definition".

Link to post
Share on other sites

kaiser, I'm sorry, but in your view, science itself should not be taught at all in schools. There is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. None.

You mentioned to me that Gravity is an established fact.

Actually... no, it's not. The details of Gravity are still being debated in Science. In fact, no one actually knows exactly how Gravity works.

Evolution is exactly the same. Like Gravity, Evolution is a general fact, but it's details (mainly, how it works... again, like Gravity) are still being debated. I was taught Evolution in Biology because Modern Biology depends upon Evolution being true.

Let me repeat that. I already have, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Modern Biology depends on Evolution being true.

Do you understand that? According to your logic, then, absolutely no single person should be taught Modern Biology at all.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

From Here (link to download PDF)

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity,like evolution, is an accepted fact."

from Here

emphasis mine

And since, according to your logic, gravity is not yet actually an "established fact", we shouldn't be taught Gravity... or the Big Bang, or Cell theory, or germ theory, or atomic theory (imagine no atomic bombs... it's "just a theory", after all), or the kinetic theory of gases, or plate tectonics, or acoustic theory, or antenna theory, or BCS theory, or Landau theory, of M-theory, or Perturbation theory, or the theory of relativity, or quantum theory, or scattering theory, E=MC2, heliocentrism...

In fact, we shouldn't be taught Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Climatology, Planetary science...

We shouldn't even be taught Mathematics!

Not one of these... not one!... is an "established fact". The only place in this world that "facts" exist is"Laymen's English".

The definitions in the English Dictionary, BTW, are not right. All dictionaries do is record common usage. Why do you think different dictionaries give somewhat different definitions of the same word?

Here are numerous different dictionary entries (in their entireties) for the word "Theory" (I've bolded the ones that are specific to science):

Chambers 21st Century Dictionary

Collins Language Dictionary

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Oxford English Dictionary

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Dictionaries have no monopoly on what is "right" when it comes to how a word is used. They simply record common usage, and that is all. The scientific definition of "theory" is just as legit as, if not moreso than, the "layman's definition".

1) You're projecting... again. I stated several times science should be taught in schools & kept seperate from theory but that theory should be taught in schools as well in a seperate class. It's in the my first post, the one you projected on as well. Don't distort my words.

2) It is an established fact simply because it exists. I don't need a scientist to tell me if I let loose something from my hands it drops. I've established that many times & seen it with my own eyes. I don't need a consensus on it. Whether their theory is correct is another thing.

3) No it isn't a fact. Approach me from 20 different angles saying the same thing if you like but one fact remains, it isn't a fact. I believe I was taught biology as well, you're not unique here. My final grade was a 96 by the way.

4) Again, putting words into my mouth that were never uttered. Teach facts where they apply & theory where it applies. I've said that from the beginning.

5) Lol, are you trying to "convert" me? I have no problem with you following your faith, but sadly it's not for me.

6) How about just "biology". Then we can talk about "modern biology".

7) So you gave me the leader of your faiths doctrine. And? I'm still not going to convert to your faith & please don't bring pamphlets to my door.

8) "Established fact" is an oxymoron. The power of suggestion again. Once again, fact will do.

9) By your logic, all english language is obsolete since english dictionarys are not correct. Sorry about the projection there, but it applied.

10) Moreso? Lol, you crack me up, you really do. You should take this act on the road as The Scientist of Comedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Once again, not my definition. I do not amend words or defintions to my favor. I simply state them.

You see to me it clearly does infer what I stated, at the very least it doesnt make clear that the "hunch" was backe dup by evidense after it was made.

2) I don't know the actual statistics on evolutionists & creationists distorting words & to me it doesn't matter as I want neither doing it yet both do.

The difference to me is that evolution can be seperated from these tactics and taught in class where as creationism cannot, you lose the dishoniesty and your back to teaching genisis in relgious studies which I said I have no problem with.

3) Once again a play on words for those who want to distort meanings.

4) I acknowledge that it exists simply because someone had to create the term. I've read it, heard it used, it exists. Is it a bastardized amended term used shielded in vagueity? Yes.

How others interpret words does not negate it's actual meaning. The actual meaning still stands.

"Not every area of evolution is considered fact within science". Thank you. It only took that long for an acknowledgement. That was my point. "Not every area".

I don't think I ever claimed everything associated with evolution to be a scentific fact, many of the key areas are though and likely prooven to the same or a greater degree than of many less socially/politically charged issues most layman accept as facts. I agree some on the evolution side do seek to use dishoniest manipulation but the difference for me is that you can seperate there dishoniesty from the credible science where as creationism(again I'm talking about the movement within the US to get it taught as a science not just literal belief in the bible) minus the dishoniesty cannot exist as science.

Nazi's? Holocaust? Is this what this has come to. I don't know. Well the Nazi's did have a distorted sense of evolution for their own purposes so you may be on to something. The superior race evolving into them & all that fun stuff. Case in point of science being distorted for someone's views. I didn't want to take it there but since you brought it up...

Yeah I think its a great example of the dishoniest use of scientific credibility to backup a pseudo religious/political message which is exactly what the creationists are doing today. My point was that claiming a lack of bias and that both sides should be treated equally does not automatically mean your arguement is correct. I have a bias agenst creationism because I dislike its manilulative co opting of science and general dishonoesty just the same as I have a stronger bias agenst Nazi's because they are/were racist scum.

I certainly wouldnt blindly defend science, I'v thought for a number of years for example that while certainly cause for concern climate change research was likely being heavly manipulated for political/finanical ends by both those for and agenst(moreso the latter in the 90's but the former in the 00's) human influence. Evolution to me though seems comparatively clear of those negative influences, the science is much older and better understood while far less political and finanical capital is at stake(on the pro side at least). Unlike climate change research that may point towards a lack of human influence the barrier to creationism within science isnt political influence but rather that its hypotheses either cannot be tested or have been prooven incorrect do cannot be considered prooven theories.

Edited by greenman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are science classes teaching language as their main curriculum these days? If so the language classes must be teaching science as their main curriculum instead. Now it's beginning to make sense as I can see where this confusion is coming from. Another case of the wrong subject being taught in the wrong class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You see to me it clearly does infer what I stated, at the very least it doesnt make clear that the "hunch" was backe dup by evidense after it was made.

The difference to me is that evolution can be seperated from these tactics and taught in class where as creationism cannot, you lose the dishoniesty and your back to teaching genisis in relgious studies which I said I have no problem with.

I don't think I ever claimed everything associated with evolution to be a scentific fact, many of the key areas are though and likely prooven to the same or a greater degree than of many less socially/politically charged issues most layman accept as facts. I agree some on the evolution side do seek to use dishoniest manipulation but the difference for me is that you can seperate there dishoniesty from the credible science where as creationism(again I'm talking about the movement within the US to get it taught as a science not just literal belief in the bible) minus the dishoniesty cannot exist as science.

Yeah I think its a great example of the dishoniest use of scientific credibility to backup a pseudo religious/political message which is exactly what the creationists are doing today. My point was that claiming a lack of bias and that both sides should be treated equally does not automatically mean your arguement is correct. I have a bias agenst creationism because I dislike its manilulative co opting of science and general dishonoesty just the same as I have a stronger bias agenst Nazi's because they are/were racist scum.

I certainly wouldnt blindly defend science, I'v thought for a number of years for example that while certainly cause for concern climate change research was likely being heavly manipulated for political/finanical ends by both those for and agenst(moreso the latter in the 90's but the former in the 00's) human influence. Evolution to me though seems comparatively clear of those negative influences, the science is much older and better understood while far less political and finanical capital is at stake(on the pro side at least). Unlike climate change research that may point towards a lack of human influence the barrier to creationism within science isnt political influence but rather that its hypotheses either cannot be tested or have been prooven incorrect do cannot be considered prooven theories.

1) Im not trying to be funny but I actually didn't understand you on what you're saying here.

2) I think creationism can be taught in a class, just not a science class. It has to be clear that it's not science & I think we are in accordance here.

3) For the most part I agree. I think we both don't like words being manipulated by anyone but naturally some bias will filter through. I easily could have taken the same stance on creationism but that is so well covered. As you have seen throughout this thread that my criticism of manipulators on the scientific side that I wasn't among the few but I stood alone. Everyone must be kept in check, not just those we mainly disagree with. The facts should not be corrupted by anyone & I get annoyed when I see people accept the status quo of their school of thought blindly. Look at some of these posts. Yeesh.

4) I agree somewhat. We're not that far apart but we obviously differ. I find our approach very much the same though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Im not trying to be funny but I actually didn't understand you on what you're saying here.

Basically my point was that if you define a theory as haveing a hunch based on evidense then you define the hunch as the action, E.G. I saw a tree in my gardens leaves turning yellow so I had a hunch it was autumn. Thats basically a scentific hypothesis, observing an event and proposing an explation. To proove that hypthesis and have it become an accepted scentific theory on the other hand I'd need to find a way to test my hunch(or more likely many ways) and find it correct. In this case for example check the date, if I live in england find its the 10th of may then I'v disprooven my hypothesis and the trees leaves turning yellow must be down to some other factor.

2) I think creationism can be taught in a class, just not a science class. It has to be clear that it's not science & I think we are in accordance here.

I think this really comes down to what you consider creationism, I agree it can be taught that some christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible but the creationism thats being promoted in the US right now seeks to try and provide proofs(or to disproove evolution) of this that it claims to be scentific but are infact generally not. I don't think that kind of politically motivated dishoniesty is fit to be taught in any class the same way for example I wouldnt have a problem with Islam being taught but wouldnt like to see a version taught which seeks to condone some muslims treatment of women with dishoniest science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically my point was that if you define a theory as haveing a hunch based on evidense then you define the hunch as the action, E.G. I saw a tree in my gardens leaves turning yellow so I had a hunch it was autumn. Thats basically a scentific hypothesis, observing an event and proposing an explation. To proove that hypthesis and have it become an accepted scentific theory on the other hand I'd need to find a way to test my hunch(or more likely many ways) and find it correct. In this case for example check the date, if I live in england find its the 10th of may then I'v disprooven my hypothesis and the trees leaves turning yellow must be down to some other factor.

I think this really comes down to what you consider creationism, I agree it can be taught that some christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible but the creationism thats being promoted in the US right now seeks to try and provide proofs(or to disproove evolution) of this that it claims to be scentific but are infact generally not. I don't think that kind of politically motivated dishoniesty is fit to be taught in any class the same way for example I wouldnt have a problem with Islam being taught but wouldnt like to see a version taught which seeks to condone some muslims treatment of women with dishoniest science.

1) Ok, I get your point ;) See, that was easy.

2) A problem with creationism being taught or learned literally from the bible is that once again langauge is misappropriated, & that is just among creationists let alone anyone outside that school of thought. As far as the political motivations of some in the creationist movement, to make a biblical analogy, there are always going to be money changers in any house of worship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2) A problem with creationism being taught or learned literally from the bible is that once again langauge is misappropriated, & that is just among creationists let alone anyone outside that school of thought. As far as the political motivations of some in the creationist movement, to make a biblical analogy, there are always going to be money changers in any house of worship.

The problem is what you use to backup those claims, that christians believe the bible to be the literal word of god so also believe that events within it must have happened is a perfectly fine claim to teach in a relgious studioes class. Within creationism in the US today though theres a strong movement to go beyond that and claim scentific "proofs" for the biblical account of creation, these are generally not backed up by the rigorus scentific process that I'd expect material taught to children to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravity, I believe, is easier described than explained or defined. That dose not mean it is not existent, for if it wasn't, we would float into space. That's just the word (gravity) we use in our vocabulary to describe what is happening.

Having an definitive explanation for thing's is harder to understand that a simple description of the subject or thing.

This is where we run into bump's in the road! :D

We know, for example, that gravity is at work when we see it effecting an object that our own two eye's can see and, that it is doing something to our body when we can feel it pulling us back to earth if we jump up in the air.

Edited by BonzoLikeDrumer
Link to post
Share on other sites

No it should not. What about people who aren't Christian? Should kids learn about the Hindu creationist theory too?

Then again, I dont see why evolution is so incredibly important to teach kids. It doesn't really help them with life. How about dropping bullshit like that and making them take a class they'll actually use every day of their life like Personal Finance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it should not. What about people who aren't Christian? Should kids learn about the Hindu creationist theory too?

Then again, I dont see why evolution is so incredibly important to teach kids. It doesn't really help them with life. How about dropping bullshit like that and making them take a class they'll actually use every day of their life like Personal Finance?

Hear Hear! Keep away from that evil plastic, it will suck the life out of youangry.gif

evolution.jpg

Edited by Dzldoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is what you use to backup those claims, that christians believe the bible to be the literal word of god so also believe that events within it must have happened is a perfectly fine claim to teach in a relgious studioes class. Within creationism in the US today though theres a strong movement to go beyond that and claim scentific "proofs" for the biblical account of creation, these are generally not backed up by the rigorus scentific process that I'd expect material taught to children to be.

Like I said there is debate between Christians as to what is literal. For example some Christians believe that in reference to God creating the world in 7 days it means 7 days as how we, man, guage time. Others believe a day equals a thousand years in how God sets time. They can't agree on that so how could it be taught as science much less in theology. For the record it's a thousand years if you look at it strictly in terms of literature :D

The Bible was never intended to be a scientific instruction & it obviously it isn't. It does not explain anything in specific detail that would be satisfying to anyone, & I'm not speaking just in terms of science but in all aspects of life. The book is about taking a faith based journey & it doesn't pretend to be anything more. It's what people do with it that are suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

kaiser, watch this video:

I've been saying creationism has been dishonest from the beginning as are aspects of what is taught as science. You don't have a problem with my views of creationism, in fact you support them. It's my view of the so called infalliable scientists & their agendas that bothers you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science/scientists are certainly not infalliable(and technically never can be outside of mathemmatics) but as I said I think the area of evolution is largley free of the corrupting influences we see in climate change research. Any dishoniesty on the pro evolution side is generally coming from those outside the scentific community and isnt to the best of my knowledge being taught in class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said there is debate between Christians as to what is literal. For example some Christians believe that in reference to God creating the world in 7 days it means 7 days as how we, man, guage time. Others believe a day equals a thousand years in how God sets time. They can't agree on that so how could it be taught as science much less in theology. For the record it's a thousand years if you look at it strictly in terms of literature biggrin.gif

The Bible was never intended to be a scientific instruction & it obviously it isn't. It does not explain anything in specific detail that would be satisfying to anyone, & I'm not speaking just in terms of science but in all aspects of life. The book is about taking a faith based journey & it doesn't pretend to be anything more. It's what people do with it that are suspect.

I completely agree with you on that point. Well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone had a very good point why we can't have any religion being taught. Who is to say one is better or more right than the other? Does anyone realize that at this point there are probably more of the Islam faith in the world than there are Christians in the world? There's about 1-2.5 billion people in both religions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone had a very good point why we can't have any religion being taught. Who is to say one is better or more right than the other? Does anyone realize that at this point there are probably more of the Islam faith in the world than there are Christians in the world? There's about 1-2.5 billion people in both religions.

EDIT:

Sorry, I completely misread your post. Ignore me... :D:slapface:

Edited by Nathan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone had a very good point why we can't have any religion being taught. Who is to say one is better or more right than the other? Does anyone realize that at this point there are probably more of the Islam faith in the world than there are Christians in the world? There's about 1-2.5 billion people in both religions.

Yeah, and the highest concentration of the Muslim's is in Indonesia. More people are Christan in the USA. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all the middle east is islamic, I think more people in the US are agnostic than any religion even some of the people that say they are Christians. There's probably not an study that can really prove or disprove that though.

Edited by NickZepp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all the middle east is islamic,

Very true, but don't forget Israel.

I think more people in the US are agnostic than any religion even some of the people that say they are Christians. There's probably not an study that can really prove or disprove that though.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life did a study on this:

Religious Affiliation:

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

major_religious_traditions.gif

Here's a PDF done in a Survey in 2008:

http://b27.cc.trinco...Report_2008.pdf

Here's a Wiki on the whole thing:

http://en.wikipedia....es#cite_note-72

What scares me, however, is that, according to the Pew Forum:

Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. The wording of survey questions generally makes little systematic difference in this division of opinion.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118

40 to 50 percent of Americans are, essentially, Young Earth Creationists. After the last 150 years of knowledge, this, to me, at least, is quite saddening.

Edited by Nathan
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.


×
×
  • Create New...