Ever tried de-caf mswas ? I’ve heard that caffine makes it hard to concentrate - leading the user to produce the sort of deranged rants i keep seeing under your name.
Sin
My public high school also had a class entitled The Bible as Literature. I took that class and it was definitely an English Literature class. We students had to remember a lot of detail about who was related to whom and to what degree–to include the conflicting details given in different sections of the Bible. We also had to recognize various literary themes and devices throughout the texts. (Yes, each book of the Bible was treated as an essentially separate entity in that class.)
OTOH, once the never-all-that-great state of Kansas has its population nose-dive as people die from conditions that should have been controlled by vaccination and antibiotics and the like, there will be A) that many fewer anti-science people around and B) a rather pointed example of the benefits of science staring the remaining Anti-Science folks in the face.
It’s pretty damn near impossible to test it now, but ID will always be impossible to test, because it makes no predictions. As far out as these ideas are, there are quantum gravity theorists who propose that a multiverse model suggests things about any particular portion of that multiverse (should it support life, of course) that are predictable and testable, at least in principle. Again, I’ll take “maybe someday, with better technology” over “never” any day when proposing new scientific theories.
Pretty much all of quantum mechanics shites on Occam’s Razor to those who cannot let go of classical preconceptions (which is a very difficult thing to do). Be that as it may, all of our predictions, and all of our experiments, point to the conclusion that quanta in a coherent state do not exist in any particular state, but in all of the possible states allowed, until an interaction makes it “choose” at random from that potentially infinite set of choices. One particular model relies on the idea that the photon doesn’t just go from A to B. It takes every possible path. It goes to Andromeda and back. Ten times. It traces out the words “Mickey Mouse” on your forehead. And weirder things. As outrageous as this idea is, it works. It’s yielded predictions confirmed to better than parts-per-billion.
Occam’s Razor is nothing but a rule of thumb (albeit one that seems fool-proof, so long as one has access to all the necessary info.) stating, all things being equal, the more parsimonius of two hypotheses is to be preferred. That’s it. Like Einstein said, simplicity is to be favored, but not too much. A “theory” that makes no predictions is beyond simple. It’s vacuous.
You shouldn’t assume anything. Judgement about how things ought to be is thoroughly unscientific. People do follow intuition often when conducting science, and need to harbor a degree of bias just to proceed, but one mustn’t let facts get in the way of ideals. And the fact is, the notion that a higher intelligence set the universe in motion is thoroughly unscientific. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it’s just not something that can be tested. Arguing with a scientist that they should consider ID is like arguing with a doctor they should consider the gnome that lives in the patient’s left elbow. If you want to insist the gnome is there, and you claim that everything medical science has tought us about elbows is a consequence of the will of the gnome, that’s up to you, but the doctor is rather ethically bound to take a different approach. He can’t assume your gnome. He’s got to do the best he can with theories informed by observations. Simply saying “the gnome did it” gives the doctor nothing he can use to treat a patient. If the doctor wants to throw up his hands and proclaim “it is the gnomes will!”, he may do so, but he has ceased practicing medicine.
And, quite frankly, given the gnome’s track record, I’d say folks are pretty nuts to pay it much heed. The scientific method delivers. The gnome never did, and there’s absolutely no reason to assume it ever will.
Hear, hear! That’s exactly what the problem is as I’ve understood it for quite some time.
Ha! Open-minded scienTITS indeed! The Holy Board of Kansas will cleanse the prurient-minded!
Like so much poo flung by so many poo-flinging monkeys, their scientitted claims of old-earth life-formation and noble man having descended from those very poo-flinging jungle beasts will deflect harmlessly off the holy visages of the virtuous Board Members.
Bacteria immune to last year’s antibiotics? Bah! The Lord creates resistant bacteria in such a way as to perpetuate man’s scientific discovery, so that we may further glorify Him.
Man’s perpetual scientific discovery not further glorifying God and instead unearthing 220 million year-old dinosaur bones? Bah! The Lord created the Holy Board of Kansas to serve as righteous arbiter between Scientific Discoveries Which Have Biblical Merit and Scientific Discoveries Which Have Not Biblical Merit. The Holy Board of Kansas and its distinguished panel of milk-skinned, sandy-haired theologians say unto to the breathlessly-waiting heathen community of turgid, Ph.D.-wielding silverback man-apes as follows: the Lord was eating a rotisserie chicken from an alternate, much older universe on day Four, and in his infinite wisdom, must have dropped some of the discarded bones onto the Earth.
So sayeth The Board. Its infallible logic twas ever thus.
That, or He’s like a kid with a magnifying glass and an anthill. Can’t get 'em all, but what fun torturing a few! 
It is a little late in the game for me to bring this out, but this is a quote that is well suited to what is going on here.
When you say “theory of creation” what are you talking about. Strictly speaking, there IS no “theory of creation.” It doesn’t exist. there is no such theory in science. There is nothing to “dismiss.”
There are religious beliefs, of course, but these are not theories, nor are they formulated as theories, so you’ll have to be more clear about what you’re insisting cannot be dismissed in its “entirety.”
If you’re talking about the (two) Biblical stories of creation in Genesis, I have to tell you that, they can, on the basis of physical evidence be falsified virtually in their entirety as being literally accurate descriptions of the origins of the universe or the earth or of life or of human beings. The mere existence of God cannot be falsified of course, nor can the general belief that God created the universe, but we can say with certainty that humans were not made out of clay, nor were they made before other animals, nor is the earth older than the sun and the stars, etc. etc. etc.
And of course, the origin of the universe and of life has nothing to do with evolution anyway.
I once saw a 2 page proof (totally correct that 1+1=3), does that make it true?
It was in an Abstract Algebra class and it was the professor’s idea of a brainteaser. He also proved 1+1 =2 in 180 pages. (That was how many lines he needed to complete it)
I’ll see what I can find for your “proof”.
So is your lawn chair a comfy one, Guy?
See below.
Who’s done that? I certainly haven’t; I happen to believe in one.
However, such an idea is beyond the purview of science (hence science education as well), because as you have already agreed, neither the pro or the con position on such an entity is supportable with evidence.
What’s generally meant by “creation” in this context, in the U.S. of A., is the Biblical creation story (actually stories, but let’s skip that for now). That story and evolution, if not exactly diametrically opposed (I’d say it’s the creationists who’d like to portray the pairing that starkly), are mutually contradictary.
Here’s the deal: if you come into the middle of a debate where certain terms have long since been appropriated and defined by certain groups, and decide that one of those terms means what you say it means, without making yourself in the least bit clear about this, you’ve got to expect a great deal of misunderstanding. You’ve brought that on yourself. If you want an honest discussion about your idea, pick another term and let’s talk.
But there’s no reason why your idea should be taught in the schools. Because you know what? Nobody besides us has even heard of it, AFAWK.
BTW, nobody’s talking about “attempt[ing] to disprove the creator’s existence” other than you. That is what your debate adversaries here are staying away from - the notion that science classes should take a position on an unprovable, unfalsifiable proposition such as the existence of a Creator.
Agreed. Hence the subject doesn’t belong in a science class.
There was a ‘Bible as literature’ class in my public high school, ca. 1971. Sorry about yours.
But one problem is that teaching religion, even in terms of history, sociology, or literature, in the public schools, is a tricky business. If it’s really a proselytization opportunity, it’s a violation of the Establishment Clause. And if it isn’t, then you’ll upset those who wish it were an opportunity to preach the Gospel in school.
There certainly is some of that around here, and it’s occasionally gotten under my skin.
But what we’re discussing here is the overall dismissal of religion taught as science, and you’ve failed completely to make the point that that is ignorant or bigoted.
Yeah, tell that to Copernicus, Galileo, or even Scopes.
I’ve read Genesis more times than I can count. I’ve also read a number of the other Near Eastern creation myths, although that was awhile back. Care to explain how these can “contribute to scientific inquiry”? I’m certainly mystified.
As science. We think it’s worthless as science. Let’s please focus here.
No, it isn’t. One has plausibility because of a fairly detailed fossil record, anatomical similarities, and DNA evidence. The other has no plausibility (despite not being beyond the realm of possibility) because there’s NO FREAKIN’ EVIDENCE.
To regard both as equally plausible is illogic, ignorance, and idiocy.
It comes with big, down-filled cushions, lumbar support, a cupholder, industrial-strength titanium-reinforced bullshit meter, self-righteousness alarm, a side pocket capable of holding more than 50 barfbags, and a plexiglass shield capable of deflecting flying bibles, ink-soaked pocket protectors, weighty PhD theses, and monkey poo of all consistencies.
I see where you and mswas are coming from. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of scientism. We’d all do well to keep in mind the trap that scientism lures us into: “Dawkins said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” It’s an attitude that praises science while simultaneously violating its very principles. Couldn’t agree with you more on that.
However, the ideas that IDers and Creationists are arguing are not sound scientific hypotheses, nor are they new. They’ve been successfully debunked time and again. Any more argument becomes less and less open minded and more and more like wrestling with a pig. There comes a time when one must say “Fuck this noise.” Staying open to new ideas is one thing, banging your head agaist a wall is quite another.
I also like your idea of keeping the debate open and public and alive, and letting critical thinking be the deciding factor. However, when we’re talking about evolution in the classroom, we’re generally not talking about well-educated university professors, we’re talking about fifth graders. They generally don’t have the capacity for critical thought. They believe what the teacher tells them, or what their parents tell them, or what the TV tells them. The rational discourse you propose is not going to take place in an elemetary school. Kids aren’t going to ask about the various proposed hypotheses of abiogenesis, they’re going to ask why it’s spelled so funny. And if it’s going to be on the test. (Indeed, with NCLB this become of utmost urgency.)
As well, while there are many great science teachers out there, there are also a bunch who are wonky fools with an agenda. Many would use their podiums as pulpits, to shoot down evil-lution and promote Biblical literalism. You can bet that these nitwits aren’t going to give any sort of equal time to evolution or encourage a town-square discussion.
Lastly, Creationism is not science. It meets no criteria of science. Why should it be taught in science class?
First off, no, not every single one of us has conducted every possible experiment that there is to perform. That does not mean that we can’t evaluate the credibility of those that did and draw reasonable conclusions from their work. Your argument is meaningless.
Second, fruitflies and bacteria notwithstanding, so what if the pace of evolution is slower than the span of a human life? You seem to think that the only way to verify something is to observe it in real time. Science does not have to work that way. We can make observations using a number of methods, correlate them, and draw conclusions with remarkably accurate predictive power. Did we need to travel to Saturn to figure out how far away it is? No. Did we need to have a conversation with germs to know that unsanitary operating conditions can kill? No. Do we need to see a gecko give birth to a Giraffe to know that evolution works? No.
A fact of which female geckos are extremely appreciative.
You did not see a “totally correct” proof that 1+1=3. Maybe you and the professor didn’t see the flaw in the proof, and likely I couldn’t either, but that does not mean it was correct.
Was your professor Lou Costello? In In the Navy, he proved conclusively and with 3 different formulas that 7 x 13 = 28.
I have stated previously on this board that I think that, in its essence, there is merit to investigating “intelligent design”. The idea that life, in some form, can be the product of intelligent thought is not fantasy - we humans are already able to modify existing organisms to suit or whims or needs. Creating life is a virtual inevitabilty.
The ability to distinguish between, say, a GMO and a naturally-occurring one is not trivial. Indeed, it may even become necessary in the future. As such, the search for intelligent design can be scientific.
However: the current Intelligent Design movement seems to be oblivious to the above, and prefers to focus its efforts on the search for “The Creator”. It is motivated by politics and religion, rather than a genuine search for knowledge. Because the current ID formulation depends on an * a priori* assumption that such a creator exists, and that said creator leaves tell-tale signs of its action within the natural world, it is inherently unscientific. The presence or absence of a Divine Creator cannot be falsified. This version of ID, then, has no place in a science classroom, as anything other than a potential historical footnote.
As for claims of evolution being unverifiable because of the vast expanses of time required for its action to be truly appreciated, I would counter with the fact that the study of history itself is burdened by the same problem. Historical sciences (e.g., evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology) - and, indeed, the study of our own cultural and social history - are fundamentally different from “hard” sciences because of the simple fact that, by their very nature, each event is non-duplicatable. Sure, trends may recur, but the Big Events - for example, the formation of the Earth, the appearance of life, the K-T extinction event, the evolution of humans from primate ancestors - only occured once. We therefore must infer from assorted clues the mechanisms and prcoesses which resulted in the current state of things, and any useful mechanism ought to be applicable more generally. Natural selection, for example, satisfies the requirement of explaining not only directional, small-scale changes within populations, but also explains large scale changes such as adaptations and morphological shifts and novelties. Thus, evolution via natural selection stands as the most likely explanation for the forms and diversity of life we see around us and in the fossil record.
Again, the same could be true for “intelligent design”, if its proponents chose to focus on those organisms which we know to be the result of intelligent tinkering. After identifying processes and principles for identfying ID within those organisms, perhaps then our gaze could be turned toward searching for a Divine Fingerprint. But to start there dooms the entire movement to failure. Nitpicking evolutionary pathways does not serve as evidence for intelligent design. “Mere” complexity, in and of itself, does not serve as evidence for intelligent design. In fact, little to nothing within ID’s current focus serves as evidence for ID. As such, it rates no space or time in the classroom. This Kansas rehash of the Scopes trial is nothing more than a political farce.
Odds are your prof used some variation on the classic proof that 1 = 2. The site walks you through it and explains it all the way through. Suffice to say it is not “totally correct” although it certainly looks that way in algebraic form. There are variations on the theme using imaginary numbers. Making the proof longer makes it harder to identify the exact subtle step which contains the illegal operation.
Enjoy,
Steven