Are you asserting that a promient ID supporters opionion does matter but a promient scientists opinion does not?
My argument has been that it should be pointed out in the textbooks that science has not proved or disproved the existence of a creator at the beginning of the study of BBT. I have given my reasons why several times.
Among them are the fact that some scientists and atheists are saying BBT proves there is no creator rather loudly.
One of your objections was that “the ID movement is entirely Christian and wants Biblical creation taught in science classes”
So I changed it to Cosmic Mind or however you would prefer to say it.
The fact that there is no movement has nothing to do with it.
Dont worry Marley its not going to happen anyway atheists won that battle long ago.
I dont mind you having more than one objection but I do mind you mixing them together. Its a good debate technique but that is all it is.
If the problem is that its not science then we need to stop teaching history in science class as well.
You said ID was not a religious theory, and it’s been pointed out to you that you’re wrong. It is. Hawking’s opinion on religion doesn’t matter: he’s not developing a theory of religion. He’s a physicist. Behe and others are open about the fact that they are trying to get religion taught in science classes, and it’s noteworthy that they’ve said so.
And you’re wrong. It shouldn’t be mentioned. It’s not a scientific matter and it’s not a subject that belongs in a science textbook, and furthermore, why should this be the one idea that gets this kind of special “this hasn’t been disproved!” mention?
So what if they are? It doesn’t go in a science textbook.
You’re not talking about the same concept at this point, but regardless - and I said this already - Cosmic Mind doesn’t belong in a science textbook either. It may be nondenominational, but it’s not science.
This isn’t an atheist thing. It’s a science thing. It’s not good if ulterior motives and other bullshit get mixed into science.
I do have multiple objections, and I think I’ve kept them separate.
This doesn’t make sense. Science can tell us a lot about history: paleontology and plate tectonics, for example, and obviously the Big Bang. It also makes sense to discuss how the model of the atom was revised from Democritus to Bohr and how our understanding of gravity and relativity changed over time. There are aspects of history that are relevant to a science class. Religious doctrine is another issue: it’s based on faith, it doesn’t produce theories, and it doesn’t belong in science classes.
I told you some of my knowledge was a bit old and it seems as if the “jumps” are part of that.
Wiki says later observations overturned that hypothosis.
The part that doesn’t make sense is the idea that textbooks dealing with science (not religion) need to go out of their way to mention that the Big Bang Theory hasn’t disproved the existence of God - something the theory doesn’t address in the first place and isn’t going to address because it’s outside the realm of science. Do we need to do this in every chapter of the textbook? Should the texts also say that evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God, since that’s also a debated subject and also has nothing to do with science or evolutionary theory? Should a chapter on geology mention that science hasn’t proved there was no Biblical Flood (although looking at the fossil and geological record it’s obvious that no such thing happened)? What about the chapter about the formation of the solar system? Should it say that science hasn’t disproved the Genesis creation story in a metaphorical sense?
This stuff isn’t science. You don’t need to carve out an exception for it in science textbooks. If you look around at the world and see evidence that something set all of this in motion, fine. If you look around and you don’t see that, fine. Don’t shove that debate in a science textbook or demand that a textbook give special priority to your views. It’s not doing that for anybody else’s.
Just imagine the reaction if there were attempts to pass laws requiring that every chapter in the Bible have a disclaimer that “There is no evidence this is anything but a book of mythology, and numerous incidents related in this text violate physical law. There is also no scientific evidence for God being possible or actually existing.”
Jon55, I just don’t get it. What is the purpose of this thread? Are you trying find conclusive evidence for Big Bang or trying to to contest the teaching of it in high school?
If you are trying to find 100% proof for BBT you are not going to since no scientific theory is 100% bullet proof, all of them are subjected to modification or dismissal. Just look at how many atomic models was proposed before we settle on the Bohr model for now.
Like it or not BBT will persist until we observe something that contradicts the foundation of the theory. For example if I can “make” heat flow into a hotter region without putting in work then I will be breaking the thermodynamic laws casuing a complete rethink. Even then it’s still more preferable to to modify the current theory to accommodate the new observation then to throw out all the work done previously completely. OR someone comes up with different theory that able to slot in all the evidence better.
A good example of that is the orbit of Mercury. There was slight deviation which couldn’t be accounted for by Newton theory, that was later resolved using Einstein’s theory of general relativity. We still use teaches Newton’s theory today but with a note saying “Dont apply to high mass/energy/velocity result not guaranteed”
Your arguments aren’t circular - they aren’t really arguments at all. I’m expressing concern about the harm that results if religious bias is allowed to affect science and politics, and you come back with “anyone who kills is not a true Christian”, as though that mattered one iota. Whether or not you can set up some actual test to determine who is a “true” Christian or not, religion overall is nonsensical and irrational and not a justification to kill people or rewrite science textbooks.
Remember the Raelians, the nuts who claimed they had cloned a human? They believe in ID, but their designer is a space alien. They are obviously just as full of it as the religious IDers, and for the same reasons. There also seems to be a bunch of Islamic creationists. They are probably the more fundamentalist branch, so maybe Perry can equate creationism with terrorism some time.
But for the most part in the US the term ID is just a fig leaf covering up the naughty god bits which are really at the heart of creationism and which makes teaching it so clearly unconstitutional that even the creationists have given up.
Behe is a special case, because he has one foot in the science world, where he writes opeds in the Times saying he accepts evolution and natural selection, and one foot in the wacky creationist world where he vets creationist ^h^h^h ID textbooks without bothering to read them. His ID ideas have no evidence of course, but he isn’t that much worse than Hoyle or lots of other scientists who hold on to bad ideas for various reasons. His real sin is selling out to the nutjobs.
Thats because I agreed with you on your point below. So yes I have no argument with you on seperation of church and state.
Where did I say that any religious group should be allowed to run the state?
We have the same conclusion only we came to it by it radicaly different thought processes.
Mine is that people that seek such power rarely turn out to be Christians.
Of course it matters. What if I can get a couple of million of my friends to call ourselves scientists and that we have proved that BBT is a bunch of poppycock.
I suspect you would want to see our credentials.
That was were all the bible quoting came in.
I have no idea how true most people are. Its not for me to judge.
But when someone is so far from the ideal, when someone is in fact contrary to the ideal then it is obvious.
Your opinion and not mine and it was a disclaimer. I never said a word about a rewrite.
Nice job of taking out that strawman tho.
There is no such thing as “Christian credentials”. There is no qualifying test to be a Christian - all you’re doing is throwing out your own personal definition to rule out anyone who you think embarrasses Christianity by being violent, which is pretty much all Christians because humans are violent.
But, yes, I can ask to see a scientist’s credentials, because science and religion are vastly different. Facts matter in science, and this critical distinction is why efforts to equate science and religion will fail to anyone with a modicum of critical-thinking skills.
It is sad, it is very very sad, that not nearly enough Americans have even that much, to the point where they’ll think that Intelligent Design is a scientific idea.
You still aren’t getting it. The number of scientists making the claim really doesn’t matter-if your proof is falsifiable and fits all the available information, it will get looked at.
Ah I had several motives for starting this thread. None of them had to do with textbooks.
First and foremost I wanted to find out how many of those who believed in BBT really knew in detail what the facts are.
Hamster has scored high marks in this regard. Most of the rest not so much.
To be fair there was already a thread pertaining to BBT and I think some of the posters may have had some fatigue for the subject.
And alot only made one or two posts so its kind of hard to tell.
I unintentionaly got us offtopic when I mentioned my daughters textbooks in one of my responses.
I dont mind discussing the politics but I had hoped to stay on point.
One of my sub-motives for starting this was perhaps to learn some more about BBT and in that regard the thread has been successfull.
I would settle for BBT to be correct in describing the universe about 80% of the time. I think that would be a huge success for a subject so complex.
To pull a number out of my hat I would say maybe 50% which really is not bad at all.
I am curious as to what you would pull out of your hat?
It is also a good example of observation beats the heck out of theoretical math.
Math is great and never lies but if not put in the proper framework it can mislead.
I didn’t realize there was a minimum, and we’re not talking about some trivial refinement. You want special consideration for your ideas and recognition from science, while giving nothing in return, out of fear that children will reject your ideas, as they should.