Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saw strange butterfly the other day...It had irregular white spots on the tips of it's wing. On the other wing were the exact same irregular white spots...also there were exactly four tiny uniform black dots...the exact set of dots placed exactly in the corresponding position on the other wing also. This insect was absolutely perfect as far as balance...perfect. My older brother commented "Don't tell me there is no such thing as an intelligently designed life form"
The first things that creationists had better do is explain what creation is...Science has given lots of thought as far as evolution..but creationists have not explored creation. That kind of gives the evolutionists the edge...They have done their homework...creationists are lazy and all they did was read a couple of verses out of scripture and never explored what they read...never expanded on the concept...never fully understood it...Was it six days...or six seconds or was it six trillion years? Time must be explored in order to figure out creation. It is about the measurement of time...that causes the division between creation and evolution...they just might be the same thing and we argue over nothing?
PanTerra, you obviously haven't read Popper and I think you should. <channeling PanTerra>The scientific method can only weed out erroneous FALSIFIABLE beliefs. Beliefs that aren't falsifiable are simply outside the domain of science.</channeling PanTerra>
Now isn't that peculiar. Maybe it would be best if you respond to my post after you've read it (some really good stuff in there), because you go on trying to explain where and how SM works as if you are correcting me (silly, I know), and then you ostensibly reiterate what I just wrote. Yes, very peculiar, are you sure you were responding to mine? Obviously you didn't read my post correctly and evidently inferred something completely different. Maybe it was the part about Flood Geology that threw you. Maybe you aren't familiar with it. But Flood Geology made many very falsifiable claims, and those claims were readily falsified by other observations. It was put to the test, and failed, so it was rejected, weeded out, or whatever word you want to indicate that it was found not to be a bona-fide science and would be more in the category of a folk-science.
Quote:
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taught. Every subject in school besides science and math is not rigorously falsifiable.
But we are talking about what is to be taught IN the science class. So no it shouldn't be taught. Only science in the science class.
Quote:
Evolution itself is a borderline case. How does one construct an experiment to falsify evolution? This isn't easy.
Maybe it isn't easy for you. But yeah, it is easy. Evolution makes a lot of claims, doesn't it? Those claims can be tested, right? Plenty of observations can be conceived of, which would falsify evolution. That is what makes it falsifiable. It is so detailed that it puts its proverbial neck on the line, just sticking it out there for anyone to find an observation that would obliterate it. You've heard of finding a rabbit in the Cambrian, right? Well that just might do it. Find a bunny fossil in the Vishnu Schist and you could make a name for yourself, turning evolutionary biology on its head. Go ahead.
Quote:
"Creation science" is a misnomer about as bad as "social science". But creationism itself is fine as long as it doesn't call itself science.
Which brand of creationism? The orthodox one that i mentioned in the previous post? Of course not in a science class, it's not science. In a religion class, of course. But, as the thread title puts it, you would not want it taught alongside evolution, since one is science and one is religion.
Quote:
I could construct scientific theories about what I like for dinner and then test them, but I don't bother. What I do is haphazard and unscientific, but it works well enough for me, so my dinners will remain unscientific.
Call it what you will, all you are doing is subjective lab work. ;-)
It has taken me a while to articulate the similarity between creation and evolution...My compromise began when I read a bit of scripture...that to God a thousand years is but a second and a second a thousand years" - That got me thinking about time...and how the ancients had a clue on quantum mechanics. Biblical explanations were put in simple terms for what was then simple people... For instance the term firmament...I forget the spelling means a dome...to me it was the making of an atmosphere...Studying creation briefly _ I saw that there was more to it than what was written...There also seemed to be an awareness of outer space by the ancients...I really don't think there is such a divide between the creationist and the evolutionist camps.. In time they will join together...after all everything is a creation and us creations adapt and evolve.
There is nothing in social science that is more scientific than religion itself is.
On my website, I give logical reasons based on science for the various commandments in the Bible, but I don't call this science and I don't see why "social science" should be called science either.
And I can give you scientific reasons for following almost all commandments in the Torah (though some need to be updated to modern conditions).
Huh? Science does not give reasons to follow commandments! Where does that come from?
"Science" per se is a PROCESS, not an accumulation of approved knowledge. That comes from deductions based on the results of The SM, which again is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT A PROCESS for determining what is the most rational reason for something happening or reacting or for whatever reasoning question you choose to ask. As in your original hypothesis (often colloquially referred to as the "guessing part of The SM...")
Anything in the bible's traditional but scientifically illiterate determination of why or how things really work was and is always based on superstition, faith and ancient mythologies. In fact, anything of a rational explanation is fervently denied, no matter how logical it is, since to go deeper into such thinking will inevitably kill off religion.
In other words, it's not EVER to be discussed based on rational ideas, processes and so on. Rationally, The SM has determined those ideas and reactions to be the results of natural effects, interactions and reason. Nothing else.
In other words, it's a 99.9% knowledge versus 0.01% hand-waving "I'll out-yell-your reasoned debates!" dispute, and it's our side [i.e.: scientific reason!"] that has the big part. It's not ever an equal argument any more, and from now on, it never will be.
Not only are atheists against critical thought, but they are the most dishonest, intolerant, immoral religion in existence.
I thought your last post was ridiculous. This one is even worse. You really do fit the XKCD cartoon. Atheists are merely people who have heard the proposition that there is a god, have consider that proposition, and have rejected it due to lack of even a modicum of substantiation.
No more. No less.
All the stuff you just wrote about them above you have simple pulled out of thin air, but haters gotta hate I guess.
This is a thread about Teaching Creationism alongside Evolution. Let us stick to the topic here. The fact is that Evolution is substantiated. Heavily. Creationism is not. Even a little bit. There is nothing fundamentalist, dishonest, intolerant, or immoral about suggesting that therefore they do not belong anywhere near each other on a curriculum.
Again: Keep unsubstantiated nonsense out of school curriculum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
I think it would be great if schools would mention alchemy, astrology, and witchcraft. This would show students how easily people believe all kinds of nonsense.
That I would actually agree with. I do think we need to teach the history of nonsense, how and why people fell for that nonsense, and how we developed a list of fallacies and the scientific method to help avoid the human penchant for falling for those fallacies. I would love to see such a course explore things like how to actually read, understand and most importantly INTERPRET statistics. And I would love to see some of the procedures and ideas behind epidemiology included heavily in it too as it is one area that touches on ALL of the above.
But your previous post was about teaching those conflicting beliefs. Not about teaching ABOUT them. The latter is a __great__ idea and I would entirely agree with you and fight with you for it. The former however is one of the most ridiculous notions I have ever seen espoused in my time on this forum.
You would do well to be clear which you are actually espousing therefore as it is by no means clear to a reader of this post and the one I replied to previously.
NoCapo, you do realize that you are the only Atheist here who isn't a fundamentalist?
No, that isn't really true. For the most part we are in agreement about our approach to education, to knowledge,etc... The only real difference is I am a nitpicking, meticulous sort of guy when it comes to talking about issues, because I find otherwise I get misunderstood.
This goes back to your distinction between "non-theist" and "atheist". I don't think such a distinction exists. I think what you are sing is the difference between atheists who are still making the effort to discuss and connect with people who claim to hate them, and who have claimed they deserve to die, and those who have written them off as not worth the effort. The core lack of belief is identical, it is just the presentation you are quibbling about.
Why not? And how is this different from "social science" which is nothing more than liberal secular dogma?
There is nothing in social science that is more scientific than religion itself is. On my website, I give logical reasons based on science for the various commandments in the Bible, but I don't call this science and I don't see why "social science" should be called science either.
What exactly are you referring to here? In a High School Curriculum what subjects do you believe are not based in fact, and how would you remedy this? Is it History you don't like? Economics, Geography, Psychology? You keep throwing out a blanket indictment of social sciences, but no specifics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
I don't know what you consider a "religious" question, but the core question that is dealt with in the Old Testament is whether or not the commandments in the Torah should be followed. And I can give you scientific reasons for following almost all commandments in the Torah (though some need to be updated to modern conditions).
Well, if we use your view of religion, it does turn into a social science question. You specifically deal with a humanist concept of religion, where the actual existence of gods is irrelevant. In this case you are simply dealing with cultural rules and norms. You assert that this set of norms produces an objectively better result. These are things that can be evaluated and tested. Because you specifically reject the use of the supernatural as an explanation, you have essentially sidestepped the religious aspect of religion.
The questions of, "Is there a God?", and ,"What does it want?" are religious questions that require supernatural answers. Relying on a specific set of texts as divinely inspired ins a religious question. I want my children to understand what Christians and Jews and Muslims believe, but clearly it cannot be taught as fact in a public school.
What exactly are you referring to here? In a High School Curriculum what subjects do you believe are not based in fact, and how would you remedy this? Is it History you don't like? Economics, Geography, Psychology? You keep throwing out a blanket indictment of social sciences, but no specifics...
Of this list, History, Economics, and Psychology are all social sciences.
Quote:
Well, if we use your view of religion, it does turn into a social science question. You specifically deal with a humanist concept of religion, where the actual existence of gods is irrelevant. In this case you are simply dealing with cultural rules and norms. You assert that this set of norms produces an objectively better result. These are things that can be evaluated and tested. Because you specifically reject the use of the supernatural as an explanation, you have essentially sidestepped the religious aspect of religion.
Many religions are not based on the supernatural. Confucianism has no supernatural part. Buddhism and core Taoism have very little. The Old Testament has a few supernatural stories but its core message is not supernatural. It uses the literary technique of personifying ideas to get the message across. For example, Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom and has Wisdom "speaking". Is this to be taken literally? I don't think so. So why can't God be thought of in the same way?
The real point of religion is morality, of how to live. Because Christianity is the dominant religion in the West, and Christianity has lost its morality, this point seems lost. Christianity today barely qualifies as a religion and it is doomed because it has become so immoral. True moral religions will replace it.
Quote:
The questions of, "Is there a God?", and ,"What does it want?" are religious questions that require supernatural answers. Relying on a specific set of texts as divinely inspired ins a religious question.
I answered this inModerator cut: delete Basically God is that aspect of Natural Law that promotes morality. As for what God wants, I could say that Gravity wants to pull objects of mass together, and in the same way, God wants morality. Good religious texts are inspired by God in the same way that Newton's law of universal gravitation is inspired by Gravity.
Quote:
I want my children to understand what Christians and Jews and Muslims believe, but clearly it cannot be taught as fact in a public school.
I homeschool my kids because I want them to learn critical thought. We do Bible study and compare the morals of the Bible with the morals taught in modern culture, so that they can see the difference and not be brainwashed by modern propaganda.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 10-08-2013 at 07:39 AM..
Reason: strongly suggest you stop advertising your website
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
