Evolution VS ID. As a practical matter, what difference does it make?

[kanicbird]

@John Mace

Just to be clear here, do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory as those terms are used by scientists?

Yes I know, Again we will have to agree to disagree about this point, I think exposing children to other ideas is mind expanding and will in general help humanity both on the individual level and societal level. Part of that is making sure that children know that science can be wrong, no man knows everything, adults are not infallible, and they can actually be part of changing that for the better - that is the part I feel is beneficial for the children to know.

I think schools in general tend to force a certain thinking on our children, and in the process destroy their natural abilities and strengths, turning out ‘cookie cutter kids’.

It sounds like you want to pretend to be objective,

My beliefs and where I am coming from on this (which has changed over the years) is:
Science should be taught as science, students should be made aware that science is based on our observations of our world and we apply these observations to come up with theories as to how the world works. (OK I gave in on the theory vs. guess on this one).

Other theories as to how the world works should ALSO be taught, but not in science class - these theories should not just be creationism, but include things like space seeding, matrix theory (which is close to Plato’s writings on the shadows on a cave wall being what we know as reality). These should not be taught as facts either, just beliefs that certain groups of people hold as to how the world works.

As for your comment about using the exact words, it was just a coincidence, but again just because I use such words that just happens to be in line with a group of people does not make those words wrong. Again stop attacking the people and stick to the issues please or I am just going to label you as a anti-creationist and just assume that you will just mindless oppose whatever they say due to some intolerance you may have.

@Voyager

What you are missing is why creationism is wrong. It is not that their conclusions are wrong

Is that a scientific fact, what you just stated can NOT be proven EVER.

but their methods are wrong also.

Their methods are what they are, to start with a certain initial assumption, there is nothing ‘wrong’ with that as long as that assumption and the basis of it’s assumption is made clear.

The problem with creationists is that they start by assuming the correctness of a source, and refuse to change their conclusions based on evidence.

Only as far as science is concerned, again I am not saying that creationism (which you seem to want to address more then other theories) should be taught in science.

[John_Mace]

@kanicbird

Yes I know, Again we will have to agree to disagree about this point, I think exposing children to other ideas is mind expanding and will in general help humanity both on the individual level and societal level. Part of that is making sure that children know that science can be wrong, no man knows everything, adults are not infallible, and they can actually be part of changing that for the better - that is the part I feel is beneficial for the children to know.

I think schools in general tend to force a certain thinking on our children, and in the process destroy their natural abilities and strengths, turning out ‘cookie cutter kids’.

We have ample room in the curriculum for teaching how people can get things wrong. History classes are full of such examples. Science, too, is often taught form a historical perspective, so we learn what Aristotle got right and what he got wrong, what Galileo got right/wrong, and even what Newton got right/wrong. I think you’re creating a problem that doesn’t exist.

My beliefs and where I am coming from on this (which has changed over the years) is:
Science should be taught as science, students should be made aware that science is based on our observations of our world and we apply these observations to come up with theories as to how the world works. (OK I gave in on the theory vs. guess on this one).

Other theories as to how the world works should ALSO be taught, but not in science class - these theories should not just be creationism, but include things like space seeding, matrix theory (which is close to Plato’s writings on the shadows on a cave wall being what we know as reality). These should not be taught as facts either, just beliefs that certain groups of people hold as to how the world works.

Teaching a course on comparative cutures or comparative religion is great, but those are not alternatives to science. And teaching these in the context of “how the world works” is a terrible idea. The world doesn’t work like any of those things. There are plenty of ways to teach creativity without giving credence to crackpot theories about how the world works. Besides, there is no objective way to determine which of these crackpot theories should be taught.

As for your comment about using the exact words, it was just a coincidence, but again just because I use such words that just happens to be in line with a group of people does not make those words wrong. Again stop attacking the people and stick to the issues please or I am just going to label you as a anti-creationist and just assume that you will just mindless oppose whatever they say due to some intolerance you may have.

I don’t usually like labels, but I don’t mind being called anti-creationist. I am, and for good reason. The creation myth is just a story, like any myth, and it should be taught as myth, not as some alternative theory about how the world works.

[Voyager]

@kanicbird

Is that a scientific fact, what you just stated can NOT be proven EVER.

What can’t be proven? That creationism is wrong?

Their methods are what they are, to start with a certain initial assumption, there is nothing ‘wrong’ with that as long as that assumption and the basis of it’s assumption is made clear.

Are you saying that the method of assuming something correct and stating that any evidence against is it wrong is valid? And there is nothing wrong with that? Just want to be sure before I tell you what I think of that statement.

Only as far as science is concerned, again I am not saying that creationism (which you seem to want to address more then other theories) should be taught in science.

The creationist method is not just bad science, it is bad period. Creationists are not the only people using this method, I think you could say astrologers do also. You can call it the “stay the course” method - if you’re convinced you’re right, ignore any evidence that you aren’t. It doesn’t work too well anywhere.

[kanicbird]

@Voyager

The creationist method is not just bad science,

I never claimed it to be science at all, actually I think I have claimed that science should be taught without creationism (unless it comes up through science itself)

if you’re convinced you’re right, ignore any evidence that you aren’t. It doesn’t work too well anywhere.

There are plenty of historical examples where evidence was ignored and to the benefit of mankind. OTOH we have a example of where there was strong evidence worldwide and within both parties of the US that Sadam Husane had WMD’s, which many like to claim never existed. If we assume that there were no WMD’s we can also assume Bush had scientific evidence of WMD’s and the attack was scientifically justified.

Evidence is just as good as our observations, and there can be errors. Now one of the strong points of science is a system that rigorously test for errors and reports the margin of error.

The strong point in matters of faith is standing up for what you know to be right, not just go along with the crowd.

The strong points of contemplation of the origins of the universe, through science and other methods is that is it mind expanding and enriches the human experience.

Are you saying that the method of assuming something correct and stating that any evidence against is it wrong is valid? And there is nothing wrong with that? Just want to be sure before I tell you what I think of that statement.

When you are talking about matters of faith, it can be neither proven nor disproven. Faith has it’s worth as a human characteristic.

To answer more directly, Yes, you are permitted to create your own view of the world, set your own rules and act accordingly. You can likewise disregard information that does not agree with that. - this in matters of faith is called free will.

I don’t think children should be taught Martix theory as fact, just a theory that some people have.

@John Mace

I think you’re creating a problem that doesn’t exist.

Perhaps, but my view of school was some people back then did make mistakes sometimes, but we know better now, which is true, but leaves the impression that the adults now know everything - which I think is harmful, as it places adults as gods.

Teaching a course on comparative cutures or comparative religion is great, but those are not alternatives to science.

Fully agree

There are plenty of ways to teach creativity without giving credence to crackpot theories about how the world works.

So we should ignore a valid way to teach creatitivity because you think it’s a crackpot theory.

Besides, there is no objective way to determine which of these crackpot theories should be taught.

Statistics (largest groups)? influence on history? Seems like there are ways.

I don’t usually like labels, but I don’t mind being called anti-creationist.

Fine, it does show in your posts, but when I am posting these alternatives, I am not limiting it to creationist theory nor Christain theory, but many major theories, I am really not hung up on that particular one.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Voyager

The creationist method is not just bad science, it is bad period. Creationists are not the only people using this method, I think you could say astrologers do also. You can call it the “stay the course” method - if you’re convinced you’re right, ignore any evidence that you aren’t. It doesn’t work too well anywhere.

In fact, creationism and ID aren’t just bad science, but they aren’t really science at all. Like astrology, orgone energy, and other forms of pseudoscience, it co-opts the vernacular of science while totally ignoring the critical methodology of it. ID is conceptually different from natural selection.

Stranger

[John_Mace]

@kanicbird

So we should ignore a valid way to teach creatitivity because you think it’s a crackpot theory.

When taught in reference to the way the world works, they are crackpot theories (and I use theory in the vernacular sense here). Take creationism, for example. What does it tell us about how the world works? What part of creationist “theory” have been shown to be a valid representation of anything about the physical world?

I have no problem teaching them (even in public school) as literature or myth or history, but not as “how the world works”. Do you see the difference?

[kanicbird]

John Mace we are both in agreement that creation theory should not be taught in science class. let’s bury that one.

@John Mace

Take creationism, for example. What does it tell us about how the world works? What part of creationist “theory” have been shown to be a valid representation of anything about the physical world?

Lets leave out that this is a Christian theory, as you are biased against it. Lets just assume a story about how we and our world came about was written. The people who wrote it presented it as the word of a ‘God’(which may have just been a space alian). That crackpot theory has played a part in human development ever since, including human perception of our physical world. It at the very least is a glimpse of our past.

Ironically, since you are a anti-creationist (by your own words) I would think you would support creationism teaching for the reason that is it so easily disproved, which would create mass doubt in such theory and cause it to collapse on it’s own weight, instead of trying to censure it.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@kanicbird

I never claimed it to be science at all, actually I think I have claimed that science should be taught without creationism (unless it comes up through science itself)

…

So we should ignore a valid way to teach creatitivity because you think it’s a crackpot theory.

Creationism isn’t a theory at all. That’s the whole bleeding point. It belongs in science not at all, and in public school only, if it must be addressed, as an example of religious and ethnic belief systems. Conflating it with science (as the Intelligent Design contingent attempts to do) is disingenous at best and fraudulent at worse.

Stranger

[John_Mace]

@kanicbird

Lets leave out that this is a Christian theory, as you are biased against it. Lets just assume a story about how we and our world came about was written. The people who wrote it presented it as the word of a ‘God’(which may have just been a space alian). That crackpot theory has played a part in human development ever since, including human perception of our physical world. It at the very least is a glimpse of our past.

This is all very vague, and doesn’t jibe with your earlier statement about telling us something about how the world works. I’ve already agreed that these alternative “theories” can be interesting literature and they can tell us, as allegory, something about human emotions-- especially human fears. But what does that have to do with how the world works? It doesn’t tell us how apples fall to earth, how to build a bridge or a computer, how to send someone to the moon, or even how to make a good bowl of chicken soup.

Ironically, since you are a anti-creationist (by your own words) I would think you would support creationism teaching for the reason that is it so easily disproved, which would create mass doubt in such theory and cause it to collapse on it’s own weight, instead of trying to censure it.

I’m not trying to censor it or censure it. I’m just trying to keep it out of science class. You say you want to do that too, but then you talk about teaching something called alternative methods of understanding how the world works. AFACT, and as far as you have explained, that’s nothing more than teaching what I would call “alternative science”.

[Voyager]

@kanicbird

I never claimed it to be science at all, actually I think I have claimed that science should be taught without creationism (unless it comes up through science itself)

You’re definitely not supporting creationism, don’t worry, that’s been clear enough. The problem
is I don’t think you see the methodological issue with it.

There are plenty of historical examples where evidence was ignored and to the benefit of mankind. OTOH we have a example of where there was strong evidence worldwide and within both parties of the US that Sadam Husane had WMD’s, which many like to claim never existed. If we assume that there were no WMD’s we can also assume Bush had scientific evidence of WMD’s and the attack was scientifically justified.

That’s a terrible example. Yes, pre GW I Saddam had WMDs. The issue was whether he still had them. The only real evidence he did was from suspect sources. Now, the UN was conducting an experiment - the inspections - about whether he still had them. Notice that Bush, instead of letting the experiment complete, was so convinced there were WMDs that he not only ignored the evidence against them but stopped the experiment early and declared the results.

Remember, the inspectors went to exactly the places our intelligence (from Chalabi, it turned out) said there werer WMDs and found nothing.

It’s not surprising that Bush doesn’t understand why creationism is wrong. The WMD situation is like a creationist claim Noah’s Ark still exists, and after four expeditions to places he claims it should be come up dry, says it still exists, and the flood story is correct.

Evidence is just as good as our observations, and there can be errors. Now one of the strong points of science is a system that rigorously test for errors and reports the margin of error.

But there is a difference between reading one volt when the real value is 1.15 volts, and reading one volt and claiming the real value can be 10,000 volts. Even after you touch the wire and nothing happens.

[quote]

The strong point in matters of faith is standing up for what you know to be right, not just go along with the crowd.

To answer more directly, Yes, you are permitted to create your own view of the world, set your own rules and act accordingly. You can likewise disregard information that does not agree with that. - this in matters of faith is called free will.

I don’t think children should be taught Martix theory as fact, just a theory that some people have.

If you mean as in the movie, it’s not a theory, it is an unsupported fantasy. Can’t be disproven, but there is no evidence at all for it.

If someone has faith in something for which there is no evidence, fine. Someone who has faith when there is strong evidence against is a fool. It is good for a man to have faith that his wife doesn’t cheat, since no one can or should keep tabs on each other all the time. However, if a man continues to have that faith when his wife is out every night until three, gets presents of interesting clothing, and has children that don’t look at all like the husband, the man is an idiot.

I think faith is highly overrated at times.

Since you are not a creationist, this doesn’t apply to you - just want to be clear about that.

[Voyager]

@Stranger On A Train

In fact, creationism and ID aren’t just bad science, but they aren’t really science at all. Like astrology, orgone energy, and other forms of pseudoscience, it co-opts the vernacular of science while totally ignoring the critical methodology of it. ID is conceptually different from natural selection.

Stranger

I contend it’s worse than that - it is just plain poor reasoning. You don’t need scientific training to understand that a speculation with 150 years of evidence against it, and just about none for it, is wrong.

[Voyager]

@Stranger On A Train

Creationism isn’t a theory at all. That’s the whole bleeding point. It belongs in science not at all, and in public school only, if it must be addressed, as an example of religious and ethnic belief systems. Conflating it with science (as the Intelligent Design contingent attempts to do) is disingenous at best and fraudulent at worse.

Stranger

Creationism - the 18th century variety - was a hypothesis falsified by the evidence. Those who cared about the evidence and the truth abandoned it. IIRC, I learned about creationsm in junior high science, in exactly this context, just as I learned about phlogiston and spontaneous generation.

[kanicbird]

@John Mace

You say you want to do that too, but then you talk about teaching something called alternative methods of understanding how the world works. AFACT, and as far as you have explained, that’s nothing more than teaching what I would call “alternative science”.

OK, I do see your point, though I disagree. The application of science to reality is a bit of a leap of faith, as we can see sometimes in engineering disasters which new scientific theories can be discovered. Now the scientific process is continuously refined to weed out errors, but as long as this process is ongoing, some leaps must be made.

The science = truth angle is one aspect that I don’t agree with, and one aspect that I think should be stressed in school. Creationism is not involved in this, nor is matrix theory.

The other aspect, how to introduce things like Creationism and Matrix theory and the like, is a separate issue, except, like science, are attempts to explain how our world works.

@Voyager

If you mean as in the movie, it’s not a theory, it is an unsupported fantasy. Can’t be disproven, but there is no evidence at all for it.

Yes as in the movie, but it’s not just a modern day fantasy, as I pointed out above Plato came up with such a way of describing the world, but just using things from his time.

[MEBuckner]

@kanicbird

The application of science to reality is a bit of a leap of faith, as we can see sometimes in engineering disasters which new scientific theories can be discovered. Now the scientific process is continuously refined to weed out errors, but as long as this process is ongoing, some leaps must be made.

The application of science to reality is a “leap of faith” that everyone makes every waking minute of every day of their lives. It’s also a foundational aspect of our social, political, and legal systems.

“I think I’ll set this glass down on this coffee table. But wait–how do I know this one solid object won’t just fall through this other solid object? I could stain the rug!”

“Well, here I am, at the top of this very tall building–wow, what I view! I wonder what that brilliantly glowing round object off to the West is? It sure is surrounded by a lot of lovely colors. It’s an awfully long way down from here–should I take the stairs back down, or just step off the edge and see if I can gently float down to the ground if I want to hard enough?”

“Gee, Mom, I wasn’t lying–I was at Jimmy’s house, the entire night. It’s true we also went out to that bar and hooked up with some chicks, but you didn’t ask me about that–who’s to say I can’t simultaneously be in one location and also be at another location at the same time?”

“Now, honey, how do you know there isn’t someone who looks exactly like me, drives a car exactly like mine, has my exact same name and therefore has a credit card in what looks like my name, and is having an affair with my secretary?”

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask that you convict the defendant. It’s true we have been unable to submit any evidence that the defendant is guilty, but I know in my heart of hearts that he is a bad man and did the terrible things he is accused of here. I ask you to have faith–faith in our police, faith in me, faith in our legal system, faith in Law itself, and find him guilty on all counts.”

[Voyager]

@kanicbird

OK, I do see your point, though I disagree. The application of science to reality is a bit of a leap of faith,

If it is a leap, it is a very tiny leap - in fact a quantum leap, in the true meaning of that term. The leap is backed up by tons of evidence and experience.

Yes as in the movie, but it’s not just a modern day fantasy, as I pointed out above Plato came up with such a way of describing the world, but just using things from his time.

In 1973 Ed Fredkin, a professor at MIT, had a theory that the universe is a simulation. So, the Matrix is hardly original.

[RTFirefly]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I don’t remember anyone saying that private schools should not be allowed to teach it. Do you have any links for the latter?

OK, let this be such a thread. In the U.S., private schools aren’t allowed to teach or not teach whatever they damned well please. Each state requires the children of that state to be educated until they’ve reached a certain age, which is no lower than 16 in any state IIRC. You can send your kid to a public school during those years, or to a private school, or you can homeschool, but if you choose one of the latter options, you can’t teach your kid candle-making for ten years in place of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Elementary and secondary schools have accrediting bodies to make sure they’re teaching an appropriate curriculum in a competent fashion, and I for one would be a bit upset to find that those bodies were accrediting schools that taught largely unsupported quackery as scientific theory on a par with well-established theories with many decades of evidence backing them up. And it wouldn’t matter whether we’re talking ID, astrology, Scientology, or whatever.

If churches want to teach this stuff as part of their Wednesday night Bible studies, then more power to them. But we require private education to actually be education, and the teaching of bullshit as science is antithetical to the spirit of that requirement.

[kanicbird]

MEBuckner and Voyager that leap is most of the time small, but it still is a leap. Science does not apply directly to reality, engineering is the application of science to reality, so lets teach science for what it is, just some repeatable observations which may or may not hold up in real world applications, and stop taking it as truth.

[Captain_Carrot]

@kanicbird

MEBuckner and Voyager that leap is most of the time small, but it still is a leap. Science does not apply directly to reality, engineering is the application of science to reality, so lets teach science for what it is, just some repeatable observations which may or may not hold up in real world applications, and stop taking it as truth.

Yes, science does apply directly to reality. The entire point is that we’re observing the world, drawing conclusions, and then trying to prove those conclusions false by comparing them to “real world applications”. What’s left is accurate, not just “repeatable observations which may or may not hold up”. Engineering, on the other hand, takes science and uses it to make stuff like bridges, computers, rockets, and so on. Teaching science as what you seem to think it is would be a grave disservice both to scientists and to students.

[kanicbird]

@Captain Carrot

Yes, science does apply directly to reality. The entire point is that we’re observing the world, drawing conclusions, and then trying to prove those conclusions false by comparing them to "real world applications

bold mine.

Science does not apply directly to reality, and some people assuming it does is the problem we are discussing here. Science has the advantage over other theories by the ability to reevaluate after proven wrong - and is defined in a way that it is never incorrect. hmmm never incorrect, sounds like a god.

Teaching science as what you seem to think it is would be a grave disservice both to scientists and to students.

Repeatable observations, which historically may or may not hold up under real world conditions, and can AND HAS cause many deaths, yeah that is a great service to humanity - get real!

Look I am not discrediting science, but just placing it here it really is, a continuing attempt for us lowly humans to d3describe how our would works.

[Voyager]

@kanicbird

bold mine.

Science does not apply directly to reality, and some people assuming it does is the problem we are discussing here. Science has the advantage over other theories by the ability to reevaluate after proven wrong - and is defined in a way that it is never incorrect. hmmm never incorrect, sounds like a god.

Science is not a theory, science is a methodology - a methodology that has been proven to work. And yes, it is better than the old methodology of reasoning about the world without doing experiments. That is the methodology that is unrelated to reality.

Repeatable observations, which historically may or may not hold up under real world conditions, and can AND HAS cause many deaths, yeah that is a great service to humanity - get real!

The observations are made under real world conditions. Other conditions might have other results. I am an engineer, actually, and engineering has led to death also. I don’t see where science had led directly to deaths - the application of science certainly has.

Look I am not discrediting science, but just placing it here it really is, a continuing attempt for us lowly humans to d3describe how our would works.

And how does this work if science does not apply directly to reality?