FB thread: ID alongside "Evolutionism"
Karen
http://www.bing.com/videos/
Matt
I do not. I think natural selection has a scientific basis; not to say it's all-explaining, but the claims it makes are based on observable data. Even if intelligent design is a real thing (and I don't think it is), it is incorrect to label it as a scientific idea. Creationism and intelligent design are, by their very nature, incompatible with the scientific method. You can not test it, and therefore can not affirm or falsify it. It is a matter of faith, and therefore has no more place in a science class than the origin myths of the Piasas or the Aztecs.
Karen
Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. I see evolution as a religion also. Don't you think that the schools should teach all the theories or none?
Karen
Also if they stop teaching myths such as the Piasas or the Aztecs, they would have to teach only fact based truths. I wonder if that would discourage children from asking questions to seek truths?
Weyrcat
Weyrcat
Before I go on, no, "Intelligent design", "Creationism", whatever the Religious Reich choose to call "Genesis > Science" should NOT be taught in school alongside Evolution. This would be like teaching children the world is flat alongside the Globe of the Earth in geography class.
Karen, Evolution is not a religion.
Merriam-Webster defines religion as:
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
And faith as:
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Important terminology that confuses the issue: Science and maths has a specific language associated with it that muddles concepts for the laymen. In evolution the main word that gets tossed around incorrectly is...
Theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
People tend to use the word 'theory' as a colloquial synonym for "Conjecture." A "Theory" in science or math is completely different and has terribly rigourous requirements. A theory in maths must have been Proven*1 to be infalsifiable; this means that mathematicians have been actively trying to prove it false and can find zero examples where it is proved false.
A "theory" in science is the same way, only instead of using mathematical proofs*1.
When scientists call Evolution a theory, they conduct the scientific method on a Hypothesis (what we THINK happen/ed) in an attempt to DISPROVE it. Science tries to DISPROVE its own hypothesis and theories in order to be left with only what we are 99.9% sure what we cannot falsify is true. Once a hypothesis has been unable to be disproved over and over and over again and is supported by gobs and gobs of unfalsifiable evidence, THEN and ONLY THEN is something called a Theory. Theory is as close to FACT as science is allowed to get. Science allows for the fact that even if something is held as TRUE for hundreds of years, it could be wrong if evidence proved it wrong (see the recent Neutrino debate.)
Evolution misconstrued as religion:
Religion is faith, in its simplest terms. You BELIEVE in religion because of faith. There is no scientific evidence for the basis of religion. Gravity is not religion, because it requires no faith. It is supported by scientific evidence and math. It is Theory. People do not "believe" in evolution, they either understand it or they don't. Imagine someone saying they do not "accept" gravity because they do not understand how it works. They do not float off the surface of the Earth, they are simply stating they do not understand how gravity works, so they wave their hand and say it's a myth. People who "don't accept" evolution are doing the same thing, but in the same vein it does NOT mean they have not evolved. Not understanding calculus does not disprove physics, and not understanding plate tectonics does not make Earthquakes go away.
As for what schools should teach:
In public science class, Evolution.
In public history class, the basics of the religions that ruled the peoples and the societies of the geographies and peoples being studied, because you cannot hope to understand a people or their societies without understanding their basic religious law.
Dogma, or indepth study of a religion, should not be done in school outside of a class specifically devoted to such study.
This would in no way teach question NOT to ask questions. Science encourages children to ask questions about EVERYTHING. To question the answers they are given. If all the world accepted the answer they were given, without evidence, simply because someone told them "Because" religion would rule the world and there would be no medicine, no science, no higher math, no world as we know it.
It is summed up in one of my favorite quotes:
science and Philosophy are questions that may never be answered.
Faith and religion are answers that may never be questioned.
Religion is belief based on faith. Evolution is theory based on evidence. They are not even related.
1. *Proof (math): a demonstration that if some fundamental statements (axioms) are assumed to be true, then some mathematical statement is necessarily true.[1][2] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. *Wiki*
Karen, Evolution is not a religion.
Merriam-Webster defines religion as:
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
And faith as:
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Important terminology that confuses the issue: Science and maths has a specific language associated with it that muddles concepts for the laymen. In evolution the main word that gets tossed around incorrectly is...
Theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
People tend to use the word 'theory' as a colloquial synonym for "Conjecture." A "Theory" in science or math is completely different and has terribly rigourous requirements. A theory in maths must have been Proven*1 to be infalsifiable; this means that mathematicians have been actively trying to prove it false and can find zero examples where it is proved false.
A "theory" in science is the same way, only instead of using mathematical proofs*1.
When scientists call Evolution a theory, they conduct the scientific method on a Hypothesis (what we THINK happen/ed) in an attempt to DISPROVE it. Science tries to DISPROVE its own hypothesis and theories in order to be left with only what we are 99.9% sure what we cannot falsify is true. Once a hypothesis has been unable to be disproved over and over and over again and is supported by gobs and gobs of unfalsifiable evidence, THEN and ONLY THEN is something called a Theory. Theory is as close to FACT as science is allowed to get. Science allows for the fact that even if something is held as TRUE for hundreds of years, it could be wrong if evidence proved it wrong (see the recent Neutrino debate.)
Evolution misconstrued as religion:
Religion is faith, in its simplest terms. You BELIEVE in religion because of faith. There is no scientific evidence for the basis of religion. Gravity is not religion, because it requires no faith. It is supported by scientific evidence and math. It is Theory. People do not "believe" in evolution, they either understand it or they don't. Imagine someone saying they do not "accept" gravity because they do not understand how it works. They do not float off the surface of the Earth, they are simply stating they do not understand how gravity works, so they wave their hand and say it's a myth. People who "don't accept" evolution are doing the same thing, but in the same vein it does NOT mean they have not evolved. Not understanding calculus does not disprove physics, and not understanding plate tectonics does not make Earthquakes go away.
As for what schools should teach:
In public science class, Evolution.
In public history class, the basics of the religions that ruled the peoples and the societies of the geographies and peoples being studied, because you cannot hope to understand a people or their societies without understanding their basic religious law.
Dogma, or indepth study of a religion, should not be done in school outside of a class specifically devoted to such study.
This would in no way teach question NOT to ask questions. Science encourages children to ask questions about EVERYTHING. To question the answers they are given. If all the world accepted the answer they were given, without evidence, simply because someone told them "Because" religion would rule the world and there would be no medicine, no science, no higher math, no world as we know it.
It is summed up in one of my favorite quotes:
science and Philosophy are questions that may never be answered.
Faith and religion are answers that may never be questioned.
Religion is belief based on faith. Evolution is theory based on evidence. They are not even related.
1. *Proof (math): a demonstration that if some fundamental statements (axioms) are assumed to be true, then some mathematical statement is necessarily true.[1][2] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. *Wiki*
Weyrcat I personally feel that any teacher attempting to serve ID or Creationism to students should have their teaching license suspended for proselytizing to students, which is a violation of the Constitutional law regarding separation of church and state.
PS: These "Scientists that doubt evolution" are NEVER NAMED. They can't. NCSE has has made light of this with Project Steve, which finds scientists ONLY NAMED STEVE who DO support Evolution education:
http://ncse.com/
♥ NCSE!!
** On the video, dear Blogrollers, I LOVE Eugenie Scott. I got a good giggle when the IDer kept steamrolling over Eugenie like a twelve year old. He can't answer point blank questions. I wish the Discovery Institute would tuck up their tail and stop pretending to be honest scientists. These people HAVE to understand science in order to try to refute it, which makes them LIARS. They must be PURPOSEFULLY be LYING and dispensing FALSE THEORIES they KNOW to be false. Awful human beings.
I do go overboard on the Science vs Religion threads. It just pains me to see good people believing lies and keeping themselves ignorant of truth and science simply because someone told them it's bad. It reminds me of an abuser keeping their victim a mental prisoner by telling them that no one can/will help them, and that the abuser is ALL the victim has.
Weyrcat I also ♥ Eugenie Scott. She's my hero.
Karen
But Jana, where in the constitution does it state that there is a seperation of church and state?
Weyrcat
For Seperation of Church and State, Here is an explanation of the First Amendment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/
which outlines the separation of church and state, and other constitutional material on the free exercise of religion and whatnot.
The Constitution itself (the original signed body) makes no mention of "god" (excepting the year which was common practice at the time) or religion except that ""no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Comments
Post a Comment