|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/16/2008 5:30:51 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
So what your saying is God isnt omniscient? He makes mistakes?
From an ID (scientific) perspective, we don't know. You are also making assumptions about the intent of the designer, something ID does not attempt to do. From a Biblical perspective (which is not scientific in this regard), things break down and are imperfect because of the fall.
quote:
It says it doesn't, but it does. Jhud seems smart so I don't know why he continuously falls for the doublespeak of the ID movement. Just look at the freaking wedge document. And again, its really puzzling how much sympathy creationists have for the ID movement, and vice versa. On paper, creationists should be just as vehemently against ID as they are evolution, yet they arent. This speaks volumes to the intentions of biggest proponents of ID. Its incrementalism to bring creationism back to mainstream.
This is like me saying, its really puzzling how much sympathy materialists/naturalists/atheists have for UCD. This speaks volumes to the intentions of the biggest proponents of UCD (ie: Dawkins). After all, almost all atheists believe in UCD but not all Christians believe in ID or creationism from a scientific perspective. Atheism almost must accept UCD whereas Christianity is more able to accept the notion that creationism and ID are false from a scientific perspective (since Christians generally accept the fact that their beliefs are not entirely the product of empirical methods). So Christianity is more open minded in this respect.
Secondly, you are in no position to tell us the intentions of ID proponents or creationists.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/16/2008 5:38:19 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/16/2008 5:42:06 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 308
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
So what your saying is God isnt omniscient? He makes mistakes?
From an ID (scientific) perspective, we don't know. You are also making assumptions about the intent of the designer, something ID does not attempt to do. From a Biblical perspective (which is not scientific in this regard), things break down and are imperfect because of the fall.
The idea that his creation fell, still implies an imperfect God. The idea that Lucifer rebelled against God implies an imperfect God. He obviously didn't get it right.
quote:
This is like me saying, its really puzzling how much sympathy materialists/naturalists/atheists have for UCD. This speaks volumes to the intentions of the biggest proponents of UCD (ie: Dawkins).
Sorry... Behe and the DI are pretty much the sum total of organized ID support in this country. Dawkins doesnt speak for the evolutionary movement the way Behe and DI speak for ID.
quote:
Secondly, you are in no position to tell us the intentions of ID proponents or creationists.
Just read about the wedge document. I dont have to read their minds, they spelled it out for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/16/2008 5:56:11 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
The idea that his creation fell, still implies an imperfect God. The idea that Lucifer rebelled against God implies an imperfect God. He obviously didn't get it right.
Or it implies that we have free will and are facing the consequences of our actions.
quote:
Sorry... Behe and the DI are pretty much the sum total of organized ID support in this country. Dawkins doesnt speak for the evolutionary movement the way Behe and DI speak for ID.
Dawkins is one of the biggest proponents of UCD and atheists do in fact have a lot of sympathy for UCD. On the other hand, Christians are more open minded to a variety of views from a scientific perspective than atheists are. You claiming that it's puzzling how much sympathy creationists have for the ID movement is not as telling (in terms of intentions) as me saying it's puzzling how much sympathy atheists have for UCD because many Christians do have sympathy for UCD from a scientific perspective while most atheists do not have sympathy for ID or creationism from a scientific perspective.
quote:
Sorry... Behe and the DI are pretty much the sum total of organized ID support in this country. Dawkins doesnt speak for the evolutionary movement the way Behe and DI speak for ID.
Even if true, so? Again, Christians have more sympathy for UCD than atheists have for ID or Creationism which is more telling about the intentions of atheists than it is about the intentions of Christians. Christians are more open minded to a wide variety of scientific explanations while atheists are less open minded to scientific explanations that may contradict materialism. If this suggests anything, it suggests that atheists aren't as interested as Christians in science and in finding the best scientific explanation, they are more interested in promoting their atheistic religion.
quote:
Just read about the wedge document. I dont have to read their minds, they spelled it out for us.
Even if these are the intentions of some ID proponents and Creationists, none of this negates ID (or creationism) as a science and this is not to say that all ID supporters or Creationists have the same intentions.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/16/2008 6:23:32 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/18/2008 7:33:59 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 150
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
You have either severely misunderstood my posts or have gone to great lengths to build a strawman. I am not sure which and it really doesn’t matter. Your mischaracterization of my argument is easy enough to refute.
E.g. a fossil of an extinct organism IS empirical evidence that organism once lived and can provide empirical evidence for some aspects of its life. However, whether one believes that fossil is evidence of a common ancestor or a common creator is determined by worldview rather than any evidence the fossil provides.
In other words, the "empirical" evidence doesn't resolve the question concerning whether a "creator" created, or not.
But your OP stated this:
quote:
What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me.
So you weren't intending on debating evidence since world-view considerations take pre-eminence in this debate? Well, which is it? Is there any point to make by, or conclusion to be drawn from, "empirical" evidence regarding evolution? You're inconsistent on this point. Therefore, the ambiguity with which you made your OP is extremely puzzling.
And so, my response in my last post was, in fact, right on target. The problem is, you haven't understood my objection to your argument.
But worse, you have gone on the defensive over specific biological features that are common between two different species (i.e. "pharyngeal pouches" in humans and fish), as though the evidence did not point toward Darwinism.
But listen again to what you said:
quote:
However, whether one believes that fossil is evidence of a common ancestor or a common creator is determined by worldview rather than any evidence the fossil provides.
So what does the rhetoric of your OP amount to?
My OP to your thread was:
quote:
There's a difference between direct and indirect empirical evidence. Of course, there's no direct empirical evidence for evolution. But, Darwinists are going to claim that there's indirect empirical evidence for their claim (i.e. the fossil record, organic adaptability, genetic similitude, etc.).
And you never bothered to inquire about the meaning of my distinction between "direct" and "indirect" empirical evidence. And, as I had said, my distinction is equivalent to a distinction that's made by some ID proponents that I named: Anderson and Geisler's "origin" vs. "operation" science, and Meyer's "observational" vs. "historical" science. You simply wrote me off on this important point.
"Observational" and "Operational" sciences are those that are done in and with the immediate environment, like physics and chemistry.
"Origin" and "Historical" sciences are those that are done by speculating on past events that are not within the view of immediate empirical perception, like Astrophysics/Big Bang Cosmology and geology.
When I stated that "God is not directly perceptible by sense perception", I have made no more controversial a claim than historic Christianity, which says that God is spirit (John 4:24). Therefore, it's impossible to perceive God by faculties that only receive impressions from material objects within the physical universe. Again, hardly a controversial claim; unless you're a pantheist or process theologian.
You are indeed trying to make a monkey's uncle out of us by equivocating, at will, in your responses to us. When we want to debate the evidence, you'll debate it. But then, you also have the "world-view" card to play at will, just in case the "evidential" route doesn't go so well for you.
And when that doesn't work, you can always resort to calling an ID proponent, like me, an "evolutionist" or "unbeliever". Or pull out informal logical fallacies from Pat's chest of red herrings.
Hear me now, but believe me later: I was trying to help pump you up.
So why have you treated me like an enemy?
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 4/18/2008 7:46:00 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/19/2008 3:50:07 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1660
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic quote:
quote:
E.g. a fossil of an extinct organism IS empirical evidence that organism once lived and can provide empirical evidence for some aspects of its life. However, whether one believes that fossil is evidence of a common ancestor or a common creator is determined by worldview rather than any evidence the fossil provides.
In other words, the "empirical" evidence doesn't resolve the question concerning whether a "creator" created, or not.
If you want to put what I say in other words I would appreciate a better representation of my statement. My statement, IOW, is that the empirical evidence provided by the fossil record doesn’t support the concept of a common ancestor any more that it supports the concept of a common creator. I.e., in keeping with the topic of this thread, fossils do NOT provide empirical evidence for the concept of a common ancestor.
quote:
quote:
What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me.
So you weren't intending on debating evidence since world-view considerations take pre-eminence in this debate?
That is one real screwball distortion. Because I quite correctly identify the interpretation of empirical evidence as a worldview based interpretation I don’t want to discuss the evidence?
Quite to the contrary, distinguishing evidence from interpretation IS discussing the evidence.
quote:
And you never bothered to inquire about the meaning of my distinction between "direct" and "indirect" empirical evidence.
I didn’t need to inquire. You provided examples, which I correctly identified as worldview based interpretation, which is exactly what it is. Just because you call interpretation evidence doesn’t make it so.
quote:
When I stated that "God is not directly perceptible by sense perception", I have made no more controversial a claim than historic Christianity, which says that God is spirit (John 4:24). Therefore, it's impossible to perceive God by faculties that only receive impressions from material objects within the physical universe.
That is the problem with trying to build a doctrine on one verse of Scripture taken out of context. The Bible plainly states not only that we CAN perceive the existence of God by observing the physical universe, but we are without excuse if we don’t. See Romans 1:20
quote:
I was trying to help pump you up.
By distorting my statements? That sort of help I can do without.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/20/2008 2:03:05 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 266
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Or maybe it is a broken down version of an organism that previously existed. Designs break down over time, if my car breaks I do not assume it wasn't designed. Otherwise, why would evolution evolve finger muscles and no fingers when it doesn't produce a survival advantage?
I call shananagans.
I'm not sure if you personally have done it, but I've seen numerous ID proponents on this site claim that evolutionists claim that something existing, or not existing (Junk DNA, for instance) is evidence for evolution either way. You (again, this is the general 'you') have said that since one prediction was falsified, we can't claim the other for our side.
Right here you're indirectly predicting that vestigial bodyparts will appear as part of a designed world, because the designed world has broken down over time. You have previously claimed that we would expect everything to be useful (See, Junk DNA). If you're going to say we can't have it both ways, then no hypocrisy allowed. Pick one or the other.
And yes, I'm aware I just attributed one ID proponent's claim to the whole group. I've seen it done often with evolution proponents, again, no hypocrisy allowed if you're going to demand the same.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/20/2008 4:48:50 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
Right here you're indirectly predicting that vestigial bodyparts will appear as part of a designed world, because the designed world has broken down over time. You have previously claimed that we would expect everything to be useful (See, Junk DNA).
I never said I expect everything to be useful, just that we generally expect things to be more useful than Darwinists have traditionally claimed they would be. ID advocates don't generally expect a designer to design useless/purposeless segments of DNA and we would generally expect that a large majority organs and DNA should have function/purpose (that's not to say that a designer can't design purposeless, useless DNA or organs). ID doesn't predict vestigial organs, but they're also not incompatible with ID as well. However, we would generally expect that most organs have function and most DNA has function and we would expect this to be the case more so than Darwinists traditionally have. That's not to say that we expect designs to be optimal. For instance, the ford pinto isn't a perfect design, it is far from optimal. There are far more optimal cars. However, we would generally expect each component of the car to have function, even if they're not designed optimally. Most designers would not randomly attach a thousand pound weight to a car for no reason. If a part breaks down, the car no longer functions as it did. The part may function, but not function as well as it used to, or it may not function at all. So vestigial organs (as in broken down) aren't necessarily incompatible with ID, just that we would generally expect that things should have function and we wouldn't assume that it doesn't. This isn't necessarily a specific prediction of ID because its possible for some designer to attach a thousand pound weight in a car. While this may seem counterintuitive, one would have to know the purpose of the designer before knowing why he did what he did. ID doesn't claim to know the purpose of the designer, so even if we do find useless organs and DNA, this would not falsify ID (none of this has anything to do with what ID specifically predicts, just with what it may suggest. Its only a prediction in the most general sense), but ID would suggest that we try to deduce the purpose and not simply assume that it has no purpose whereas evolution could easily dismiss it as an object that's there with no purpose because unguided, purposeless processes put it there. Heck, the purpose of something might have nothing to do with the survival of the organism. Something might be put in an organism to make it more inefficient so that it would balance out the ecosystem instead of allowing the organism to dominate it. We don't claim to know the purpose of the designer, but ID would suggest that things would generally have purpose and that we should look for purpose.
For instance, when people look at paintings and art, people generally expect that everything drawn on a piece of art or put there was done intentionally. We don't assume something was put there by accident, we generally expect things to have purpose (even if we can't deduce the purpose). One part of the art maybe put there to make the drawing symmetrical or asymmetrical, one part maybe put there to balance out the rest of the colors, one part maybe put there because it symbolizes something. When people listen to songs, they generally expect the lyrics to have meaning. There are times where the person who made the song doesn't reveal the meaning (or the reason behind the song and what the author was referring to) or they deny that it has any specific meaning. Despite this, we still generally expect most lyrics to have meaning, most instrumental sound to be put there for a reason (ie: to act as a harmony or a melody, etc...), even if we don't know the purpose. We generally expect purpose but just because we can't find purpose doesn't mean that it wasn't designed.
quote:
I've seen it done often with evolution proponents, again, no hypocrisy allowed if you're going to demand the same.
I'm glad you acknowledge that evolution proponents are sometimes hypocritical, I appreciate your honesty here. Do you agree that students should be exposed to criticisms exposing the hypocrisy, or do you think it might hurt evolution (and possibly atheism) and hence students should not be exposed to them. Because it seems like its ok for evolutionists to have hypocrisy and have their views exposed to students in public schools while censoring criticisms and opposing views, but if a criticism or opposing view has any sort of perceived contradiction, evolutionists are quick to point it out and allege its flawed without even giving it a chance of exposure in public schools. This double standard by evolutionists makes it very difficult for me to take evolution seriously.
Back to the main point
Imagine we found a spaceship on mars that flies, but it doesn't fly very well. So we examine it and start to reverse engineer it. We find a part that doesn't seem to do anything. Do we assume the part has no purpose? Do we assume the part has no function? The part maybe broken (which may cause the spaceship not to fly as well), but assuming the spaceship was designed, we would expect the part to have a function (even if it is broken and no longer functions). ID would suggest that, because the spaceship was designed, the part has a function. However, even if we find no function for it, that's not to say that the ship wasn't designed. We would generally expect every part in the ship to have a purpose, but that's not to say that we can always deduce the purpose. It's not to say that things can't be broken. We have to know the purpose of the designer before we can deduce why he put that part there. DNA and organs having purpose is only a prediction in a very general sense, its not something ID specifically predicts must be the case.
Another example
Something can have no apparent purpose and still have characteristics of design. If an archaeologist found something that looks designed and they didn't know of a purpose, they wouldn't assume that it wasn't designed. ID would suggest that we look for a purpose. Even if we can't find a purpose for the item found, it doesn't mean it wasn't designed (it wouldn't falsify the notion that it was probably designed); however, we would generally expect that, because we think it was designed, it has a purpose. What would falsify the notion that it was (probably) designed is if we see nature somehow producing this item independently of design. We don't have to know of a purpose for every archaeological find to know that they were probably designed, but purpose is something that we generally expect to exist.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/20/2008 7:14:23 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/21/2008 6:30:00 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 266
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
I've seen it done often with evolution proponents, again, no hypocrisy allowed if you're going to demand the same.
I'm glad you acknowledge that evolution proponents are sometimes hypocritical, I appreciate your honesty here. Do you agree that students should be exposed to criticisms exposing the hypocrisy, or do you think it might hurt evolution (and possibly atheism) and hence students should not be exposed to them. Because it seems like its ok for evolutionists to have hypocrisy and have their views exposed to students in public schools while censoring criticisms and opposing views, but if a criticism or opposing view has any sort of perceived contradiction, evolutionists are quick to point it out and allege its flawed without even giving it a chance of exposure in public schools. This double standard by evolutionists makes it very difficult for me to take evolution seriously.
I'll respond, time permitting, to the rest later. I wasn't saying that evolutionary proponents have been hypocritical (though I'm sure some have), but that creationists or IDers have accused them of being hypocritical.
You'll have to define "students" to me. That's a bit too broad. It'd be like asking whether I think students should be taught calculus. Obviously students should learn calculus, but first graders shouldn't.
In the same way, I would encourage higher-level students to be subjected to any valid criticism of evolution. However, introducing any topic as controversial to a lower-level student is not what should be done. At lower levels, things that are accepted as fact by the relevant fields should be taught as fact. Later, the student should be subjected to criticisms of that position.
Evolution is accepted as fact by all relevant fields. Therefore, it should be taught to lower level students without controversy. Later on, it should be rigorously challenged by any valid criticism (and for that matter, invalid criticism in order to teach a student the differences between the two.)
If ID starts doing science and garners enough evidence to be considered worth consideration, then I would encourage it to be taught at lower levels as well. Until it earns that place, it should not simply be allowed to have a 'free pass' into public textbooks.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/21/2008 10:54:52 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
Obviously students should learn calculus, but first graders shouldn't.
If they want to teach first graders calculus, then first graders should be allowed to scrutinize it as well. Likewise, if they want to teach first graders evolution, then first graders should be taught criticisms and opposing views.
quote:
Evolution is accepted as fact by all relevant fields.
By some people who are experts in various fields, but not necessarily all.
quote:
If ID starts doing science and garners enough evidence to be considered worth consideration, then I would encourage it to be taught at lower levels as well. Until it earns that place, it should not simply be allowed to have a 'free pass' into public textbooks.
First of all, the secular community needs to stop discriminating against ID proponents and creationists and they need to start allowing them to get an equal opportunity at tax funded research.
Secondly, perhaps the only reason evolution is as accepted as much as it is is because it got a free ride for so long in the past. When evolution gets taught to students with little to no scrutiny and with the censorship of opposing views, it gets a free ride. It got a free ride for so many years and this is probably what forced its acceptance by many who accept it, despite the many problems it has. Even though it got a free ride for so long, it still has so many problems that its having difficult convincing others that its true. What, are you afraid that if students are exposed to criticisms and opposing views they might doubt evolution? When you say that ID or creationism will get a free ride, you seem to be arguing that it will get acceptance because it is taught to students (if it gets taught). Are you afraid the consensus might change against evolution if criticisms and opposing views are introduced. If that is what you fear, then you can't turn around and tell me that the fact that students are brainwashed with evolution with the censorship of criticisms and opposing views has nothing to do with the acceptance of evolution. If that is not what you fear, then you should have no problem with the notion that students are perfectly capable of properly understanding evolution in the face of scrutiny and opposing views and that they are perfectly capable of properly interpreting the evidence and that when they do so, they would still accept evolution. This means that you should have no problems with scrutiny and opposing views being introduced to students who are exposed to evolution. You, or any scientist, or any alleged consensus, should not be the ultimate authority over what gets taught in public schools. Science does not progress by proclamation. Students who are exposed to evolution should be exposed to criticisms and opposing views. If the students are sophisticated enough to understand evolution, then there is no reason they aren't sophisticated enough to understand any problems with criticisms and opposing views (as if the current authorities somehow have better intuition than students and are somehow superior).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/21/2008 12:29:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/21/2008 5:24:11 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 266
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
If they want to teach first graders calculus, then first graders should be allowed to scrutinize it as well. Likewise, if they want to teach first graders evolution, then first graders should be taught criticisms and opposing views.
Not really. While student questioning should be encouraged in general, devoting time to, for instance, questioning calculus, is a waste of time. A waste of time in a public education system is also a waste of money. Students should be encouraged to scrutinize things, and if they find fault with them, to find out what is true. However, devoting time to study all sides of every issue is a gross waste of resources. Public schools are for teaching children facts (2+2=4), not how to think (Questioning why 2+2=4). If a child wants to peruse a question, they should be encouraged to do so, but time should not be taken, in class, from teaching what is accepted as true. If a child asks why something is, an explanation should be offered. However, dragging contrary theories into everything simply to encourage questioning simply burns time. Basically, they should be encouraged to pursue and question things on their own. Spoon-feeding them contrary theories won't help them develop the ability to ask questions, it will bring them to expect all theories to be presented.
quote:
By some people who are experts in various fields, but not necessarily all.
Isn't the statistic at something like 98% + of all professionals in relevant fields? I don't remember where, but I once read that something like four times as many historians question the validity of the Holocaust than biologists find serious fault with the TOE. The Holocaust isn't accepted by all historians, but that should stop us from teaching it as historic fact.
quote:
First of all, the secular community needs to stop discriminating against ID proponents and creationists and they need to start allowing them to get an equal opportunity at tax funded research.
If they present proposals for research that are worth pursuing, then I agree that they should be funded publicly. However, you're not going to tell me that they would be able to 'scrounge up' funding from non-government sources, considering the fanbase for ID among religious institutions. Any serious scientist that asked the theistic community for handouts would probably get them.
quote:
What, are you afraid that if students are exposed to criticisms and opposing views they might doubt evolution? When you say that ID or creationism will get a free ride, you seem to be arguing that it will get acceptance because it is taught to students (if it gets taught). Are you afraid the consensus might change against evolution if criticisms and opposing views are introduced. If that is what you fear, then you can't turn around and tell me that the fact that students are brainwashed with evolution with the censorship of criticisms and opposing views has nothing to do with the acceptance of evolution.
<sarcasm>Yes, you know me. I fear open inquiry.</sarcasm>
I really could care less if consensus turns against evolution. In fact, if I found a theory that I believed better fit all available evidence, I would immediately favor that theory over evolution. The fun thing about scientists is that they tend to follow where the evidence leads. There are slip-ups, I'll grant. False conclusions do occur. These are generally discovered and weeded out. If a scientist doesn't dismiss or adapt a theory that's been discredited, then they're no true Scotsman... er... scientist.
"Brainwashing: Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs."
Some people believe that 2+2=5. Is it 'brainwashing with censorship' to only teach 2+2=4? Some people believe that nuclear is correctly pronounced "NEW-cue-lurr" instead of "NUKE-lee-urr". Should we teach students this, simply to present the opposing side?
quote:
If that is not what you fear, then you should have no problem with the notion that students are perfectly capable of properly understanding evolution in the face of scrutiny and opposing views and that they are perfectly capable of properly interpreting the evidence and that when they do so, they would still accept evolution. This means that you should have no problems with scrutiny and opposing views being introduced to students who are exposed to evolution.
Correct, I (probably foolishly) believe that, when presented with all sides of an argument, people will generally choose the side that is true. The problem I have with opposing theories of anything that is accepted overwhelmingly within relevant communities in public schools is that it's a complete waste of time. If you want to send your child to a school in which they spend all day detailing all the opposing theories to 2+2=4, be my guest. With use of public funds, however, I believe that only things that are actually relevant to progressing the child's learning should be taught. So while private-school Suzy may know all of the counter-hypothesis' to 2+2=4, Little public-school Billy will have used that time learning new things, like multiplication.
quote:
You, or any scientist, or any alleged consensus, should not be the ultimate authority over what gets taught in public schools. Science does not progress by proclamation. Students who are exposed to evolution should be exposed to criticisms and opposing views. If the students are sophisticated enough to understand evolution, then there is no reason they aren't sophisticated enough to understand any problems with criticisms and opposing views.
If not the relevant parties, then who should be authority on what is taught in public school? Should we just teach everything we can get our hands on?
Science does not progress by proclamation. Schooling is not science. Science class is not science. Science class teaches how to do science, and what science has found out about the universe. We base this on what scientists in the relevant fields agree on. Just as we teach in history class what historians agree on. Public gradeschool is not there to do independent studies or perform new experiments. It is there to teach children the how, and what. Not to do the actual science (That's what colleges are for).
quote:
(as if the current authorities somehow have better intuition than students and are somehow superior)
As if people who have spent their entire lived dedicated to learning about a single subject know more about that subject than students. I'm not sure, exactly, what intuition has to do with anything. Human intuition is a flawed thing (See the Monty Hall problem). Science class materials should be based on what the relevant authorities agree on because the reason that they are the relevant authorities is because they've spend a good portion of their time learning about the subject in question. who else are we supposed to hand the decision over to? People who know nothing about the relevant data?
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/21/2008 5:54:21 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
Not really. While student questioning should be encouraged in general, devoting time to, for instance, questioning calculus, is a waste of time.
My calculus teacher always taught that me that we should scrutinize everything when it comes to math. That's what a math proof is for, they prove things and show you all the different possibilities where a formula could be wrong and go about proving why each one isn't wrong (and they say, "what about if this happened" then they prove it). Students are encouraged to ask questions and scrutinize what the teacher is teaching and the teacher can then prove to the students why such and such is correct. Indeed, scrutiny is encouraged in math, its just that there are very few teachers that would scrutinize math at such a low level (such as calculus, though at much higher levels of math, from my understanding, they are still peer reviewing and finding errors in peoples work).
quote:
However, dragging contrary theories into everything simply to encourage questioning simply burns time.
When it comes to math there really aren't any criticisms and contrary theories that any math teacher would actually subscribe to (at the level of calculus or below).
quote:
Isn't the statistic at something like 98%
You're probably thinking of the NAS or something. I found this interesting though
uncommondescent
It says 30% of community college professors consider ID to be science (but its reference link broke).
quote:
The Holocaust isn't accepted by all historians, but that should stop us from teaching it as historic fact.
Then they should be allowed to teach criticisms and opposing views. A teacher doesn't necessarily have to, but he should be allowed to.
quote:
If they present proposals for research that are worth pursuing
Who should be the judge of that? I think taxpayers should, since they're the ones paying.
quote:
However, you're not going to tell me that they would be able to 'scrounge up' funding from non-government sources, considering the fanbase for ID among religious institutions.
Well, Behe is willing to do more ID research but government institutions won't fund him.
quote:
Some people believe that 2+2=5.
2 + 2 = 4 by matter of definition, this is not a scientific matter.
quote:
Some people believe that nuclear is correctly pronounced "NEW-cue-lurr" instead of "NUKE-lee-urr". Should we teach students this, simply to present the opposing side?
Again, you are arguing on issues of definition, not science.
quote:
With use of public funds, however, I believe that only things that are actually relevant to progressing the child's learning should be taught.
The public should decide what public school funds are spent on, not any specific group. You are not the ultimate authority over what is relevant.
quote:
If not the relevant parties, then who should be authority on what is taught in public school?
taxpayers, they're the ones paying. I'm not saying that the relevant authorities can't teach the side of their alleged consensus, but if taxpayers want criticisms and opposing views of evolution to be taught, they should be taught. Its their money. and criticisms and opposing views should certainly not be suppressed, if a professor wants to introduce students to some arguments for ID or creationism and criticisms of evolution, they should certainly be allowed to do so. As long as they properly teach the students all the material that the class requires them to teach (but they should be allowed to add to it as well). They should also be allowed to teach criticisms of ID and creationism. They might not test the students on ID or creationism, but mentioning some positive and negative arguments about various positions (includes both sides of evolution, creationism, and ID) should not be discouraged (and it wouldn't hurt science). A biology professor should certainly not lose his job for doing so.
quote:
It is there to teach children the how, and what.
As far as the what, they shouldn't teach only one side.
quote:
As if people who have spent their entire lived dedicated to learning about a single subject know more about that subject than students.
and there are professors in biology who think ID is scientific.
quote:
Science class materials should be based on what the relevant authorities agree on because the reason that they are the relevant authorities is because they've spend a good portion of their time learning about the subject in question.
I'm not saying they shouldn't teach evolution, just that if they want to teach evolution, they should teach criticisms and opposing views.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/21/2008 6:35:53 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/21/2008 10:21:19 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 266
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Indeed, scrutiny is encouraged in math, its just that there are very few teachers that would scrutinize math at such a low level (such as calculus, though at much higher levels of math, from my understanding, they are still peer reviewing and finding errors in peoples work).
That's kind of my point. Questioning should be part of the process at the higher levels. At the lower levels, it's about establishing the base premises of a discipline.
quote:
When it comes to math there really aren't any criticisms and contrary theories that any math teacher would actually subscribe to (at the level of calculus or below).
This, my 2+2 examples, and my nuclear example aren't direct parallel. They're simply meant to illustrate a point. Insert any concept you want to into those slots and the examples remain valid.
quote:
You're probably thinking of the NAS or something. I found this interesting though
uncommondescent
It says 30% of community college professors consider ID to be science (but its reference link broke).
That part you left out of my quotation, however, was the word "relevant." I don't care how many random-degree professors accept or reject ID. I don't care if the arts history professor finds ID plausible. Find me a study with similar results for biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, ect... and I'll give it a bit of credence. (I also find it fun that the link you provided includes "Fewer than 6 percent of professors at elite universities took that position.")
quote:
Then they should be allowed to teach criticisms and opposing views. A teacher doesn't necessarily have to, but he should be allowed to.
No, no they should be allowed to teach that the Holocaust didn't happen. It was a massively documented tragedy. It is as proven as anything can be. To teach the opposite as anything other than a thought exercise is to allow lies and deception into our schools.
quote:
Who should be the judge of that? I think taxpayers should, since they're the ones paying.
Heck, while we're at it, let's let the taxpayers set the minimum wage, tax rates, national interest rates, foreign policy, etc... Let's watch the whole of our country fall down around us in one swift movement. The reason that this country functions at all is because we have people who know what they're doing controlling most things. To let the taxpayers decide things is a very bad idea. The founding fathers realized this, it's why we have the electoral college.
quote:
Well, Behe is willing to do more ID research but government institutions won't fund him.
More? He ever did ID research? I know he wrote a book, but I'm not aware of any research he did to substantiate his claims. But you dodged the point the section you're responding to. I said that, if he asked the religious community, he'd probably find himself rolling in research cash. Not all money comes from the government.
quote:
The public should decide what public school funds are spent on, not any specific group. You are not the ultimate authority over what is relevant.
Actually, by your definition, I am. Not just me, of course, but I'm part of that 'public taxpayer' you're talking about. According to you, I am the authority on what should be taught. You can't say that the taxpayer should decide, then deny me my opinion on the matter.
quote:
taxpayers, they're the ones paying. I'm not saying that the relevant authorities can't teach the side of their alleged consensus, but if taxpayers want criticisms and opposing views of evolution to be taught, they should be taught. Its their money. and criticisms and opposing views should certainly not be suppressed, if a professor wants to introduce students to some arguments for ID or creationism and criticisms of evolution, they should certainly be allowed to do so. As long as they properly teach the students all the material that the class requires them to teach (but they should be allowed to add to it as well). They should also be allowed to teach criticisms of ID and creationism. They might not test the students on ID or creationism, but mentioning some positive and negative arguments about various positions (includes both sides of evolution, creationism, and ID) should not be discouraged (and it wouldn't hurt science). A biology professor should certainly not lose his job for doing so.
quote:
As far as the what, they shouldn't teach only one side.
Again, in the low levels, I believe that only things that are accepted should be taught. I don't care how it goes about doing it. I don't care where it gets the money. I don't care about any supposed conspiracy, but if ID wants to be taught in primary school, it needs to gain prestige among relevant fields.
quote:
and there are professors in biology who think ID is scientific.
Again, let's go by the numbers. The reported number of biologists who accept ID over evolution are vanishingly small. If a massively greater majority disagrees, let the majority be taught, while the minority fights for prestige within the scientific community.
quote:
I'm not saying they shouldn't teach evolution, just that if they want to teach evolution, they should teach criticisms and opposing views.
And I agree, at the higher levels. If you're angling to become an evolutionary biologist, you should be exposed to every criticism. If you're in sixth grade science, you should just be taught the widely accepted theory.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/21/2008 11:56:15 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
That's kind of my point. Questioning should be part of the process at the higher levels. At the lower levels, it's about establishing the base premises of a discipline.
No, it should be scrutinized at the lower level too, its just that, in the case of math, there aren't any arguments against it at the lower level that any math teacher would consider valid. There is nothing to scrutinize. In the case of evolution, there are things to scrutinize at the lower level, the alleged evidence for evolution that is taught at the lower level do have counter arguments that critics propose.
quote:
This, my 2+2 examples, and my nuclear example aren't direct parallel. They're simply meant to illustrate a point. Insert any concept you want to into those slots and the examples remain valid.
What point?
quote:
That part you left out of my quotation, however, was the word "relevant." I don't care how many random-degree professors accept or reject ID. I don't care if the arts history professor finds ID plausible.
Truth, nor science, are based on unanimous consensus. Even if your alleged consensus is true, if tax payers want criticisms and opposing views equally funded, it is their money to decide. If evolutionists want to fund the teaching of evolution and censor opposition, they should do it with their own money, they shouldn't use tax dollars to do it with. People are free to donate money to evolutionary teachings provided that it receives no tax funded benefits that criticisms and opposing views don't receive. There are a lot of tax payers that do not like students being brainwashed with evolution with the censorship of criticisms and opposing views with their tax dollars and they should not have to pay for this nonsense. Perhaps the only reason there is this alleged consensus is because scientists have been brainwashed with evolution throughout their academic education. If you don't think this is the case, then you should have no problems with students being exposed to criticisms and opposing views of evolution.
quote:
No, no they should be allowed to teach that the Holocaust didn't happen. It was a massively documented tragedy. It is as proven as anything can be. To teach the opposite as anything other than a thought exercise is to allow lies and deception into our schools.
Indeed, they should be allowed to teach the history behind the Holocaust. However, if there are well educated history teachers that want to teach any criticisms and opposing views, they should be allowed to introduce them provided that they objectively teach everything their class requires them to. Secondly, its not like evolution has any documented historical records written by people who experienced it like the holocaust has. The amount of interpretation the evidence for and against the holocaust is subject to is far less than that of origins.
Thirdly, you argue that the holocaust is an accepted consensus, so teachers and students shouldn't challenge it.
Evolution is allegedly an accepted consensus, so teachers and students shouldn't challenge it.
Therefore, teachers and students shouldn't challenge an accepted consensus.
This is nonsense. The level of historical evidence for the holocaust is far greater than the alleged evidence for evolution.
quote:
Heck, while we're at it, let's let the taxpayers set the minimum wage, tax rates, national interest rates, foreign policy, etc... Let's watch the whole of our country fall down around us in one swift movement. The reason that this country functions at all is because we have people who know what they're doing controlling most things. To let the taxpayers decide things is a very bad idea. The founding fathers realized this, it's why we have the electoral college.
Introducing students to criticisms and opposing views of evolution will probably not cause the end of the world as we know it.
quote:
More? He ever did ID research?
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Empirical_ID_research
Behe may not have done all his research under the ID moniker (most of his research was done when he was an evolutionist, but now the secular community won't fund his research because he is an ID advocate), but he seems to think his research supports ID. Another good example was the Gonzalez case. His research was supporting ID and as a result he was denied tenure (and the secular community won't fund his research anymore)
quote:
But you dodged the point the section you're responding to. I said that, if he asked the religious community, he'd probably find himself rolling in research cash. Not all money comes from the government.
ID research does get done, but it can't compete with tax funded institutions. For instance, public museums get funded by tax dollars and they promote evolution. The same is true with public libraries and schools. Research is expensive and these institutes have other expenses as well. However, their expenses are covered with tax dollars. The private institutions supporting creationism and ID must fund all their other expenses with private funds. Clearly, they have an unfair disadvantage. While I do tend to agree that they could probably put more money into research, they still should not have such an unfair disadvantage. If evolutionists want evolution funded, they should not steal a free ride from tax dollars while making everyone else pay through donations. This is exactly what they have done all these years and that's probably what mostly contributed to many of those who do accept evolution. Teaching criticisms and opposing views would not hurt science.
quote:
Actually, by your definition, I am. Not just me, of course, but I'm part of that 'public taxpayer' you're talking about. According to you, I am the authority on what should be taught. You can't say that the taxpayer should decide, then deny me my opinion on the matter.
Yes, but you are free to donate money to what you think should be taught. You should not force others to pay for it. If Creationism and ID must be funded privately, evolution should not steal a free ride from taxpayers.
quote:
Again, in the low levels, I believe that only things that are accepted should be taught. I don't care how it goes about doing it. I don't care where it gets the money. I don't care about any supposed conspiracy, but if ID wants to be taught in primary school, it needs to gain prestige among relevant fields.
Perhaps the only reason evolution has such a consensus by those who agree with it is because many of those who agree with it have been brainwashed with it for such a long time. Evolution has been stealing a free ride from taxpayers for such a long time and it is unlikely this has no influence on its acceptance. There is absolutely no reason why a professor who teaches criticisms and opposing views of evolution should lose his job, its hard to believe this kind of misbehavior does not affect the alleged consensus. It wouldn't hurt science to teach criticisms and opposing views, the only thing you have to fear is evolution losing its consensus.
quote:
Again, let's go by the numbers. The reported number of biologists who accept ID over evolution are vanishingly small. If a massively greater majority disagrees, let the majority be taught, while the minority fights for prestige within the scientific community.
The point is that there are biologist professors who reject evolution. They should be allowed to teach their criticisms and opposing views in any class they teach evolution in. They should be allowed to do tax funded research without being discriminated against by the secular community (just like any evolutionists are able to do tax funded research without discrimination). Criticism of evolution should not be opposed by blacklisting, this kind of behavior is anti - scientific and can easily cause an artificial consensus.
quote:
And I agree, at the higher levels. If you're angling to become an evolutionary biologist, you should be exposed to every criticism.
Criticisms and opposing views, I'm glad you agree with this.
quote:
If you're in sixth grade science, you should just be taught the widely accepted theory.
They should be taught criticisms and relevant opposing views of the evidence that they are exposed to if the professor chooses to teach them it (though he might not test them on it, but at least mentioning it wouldn't hurt and if a student asks the professor what he personally believes and why, he should be allowed to say). The professor should not lose his job for this. As long as he teaches the students what they're supposed to know in the class.
BTW, you might find this interesting
quote:
Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crandaddy
So we’ve got 600 on the DI’s list, 3000+ on Bergman’s list, and now an additional 700 in the C.E.P.?
Uncommon descent
quote:
Bergman’s Dissent from Darwin List at 3,000-10,000
Uncommon descent
also
quote:
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
From my understanding, at least in the case of the descent from Darwin petition, these petitions try to make sure that the people signing them have relevant degrees (though I didn't read the qualifications for any of the other petitions).
Here is what that specific petition says
quote:
If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," then please contact us at cscinfo@discovery.org.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Also, from the uncommon descent site
quote:
On this list I have well over 3,000 names but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to this list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed on the published list because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers.
While I can't prove that so many people signed these petitions, I highly doubt these sources are dishonest and that they're making it all up. As in the case of Gonzalez, Gentry, and a few others, I think there is evidence for discrimination and I really hope this gets fixed. I know for a fact that if I argue against evolution on unregulated message boards, I get cussed at, discriminated against, I get personal attacks thrown at me, and evolutionists hardly ever even try to address the issues. So I have good reason to believe this kind of discrimination does occur. I think the discrimination that critics of Darwin face needs to stop. Heck, the journal science even admit that they probably won't publish creationist work and I can go on with lots of good evidence that discrimination does exist.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/22/2008 11:24:53 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/22/2008 2:02:19 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
To give you a better idea of the hostility anyone faces for saying anything some atheists don't like, here is another example
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/for_pointing_out_the_obvious_i.php
quote:
Somebody else’s turn: Darwin trolls try to eviscerate former pal Chris Mooney for saying something sensible about Expelled. Caution: One way ticket to Troll City
UncommonDescent
It seems like this person basically got cussed at for simply saying that the movie was a box office success. This person is the author of "The Republican War on Science." Seriously, the hostility that some atheists seem to have toward anyone who dares criticize evolution or support opposing views is ridiculous.
quote:
NAS at 85% atheists — Let’s bump it up to 100%
quote:
Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the public is secondary to this. [Moderator then turns to the panel for responses.
Uncommondescent
Granted, Larry Krauss from the NAS kinda refuted him (and he said more questionable statements), the point is that there does seem to exist hostility. This hostility also seems to have been going on for a while.
quote:
Professors should be able to fail any student, no matter what the grade records indicate, if the professor discovers the student is a creationist. Furthermore, the student's department should have the right of retracting grades, and possibly even degrees, if the student becomes a creationist later. (Kendrick Frazier Skeptical Inquirer Fall, 1983)
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Anticreationist_debate_tactics
I really think this hostility against those who support creationism or ID and/or who may criticize Darwinism needs to stop.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/22/2008 10:47:18 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 308
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
To give you a better idea of the hostility anyone faces for saying anything some atheists don't like, here is another example
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/for_pointing_out_the_obvious_i.php
quote:
Somebody else’s turn: Darwin trolls try to eviscerate former pal Chris Mooney for saying something sensible about Expelled. Caution: One way ticket to Troll City
UncommonDescent
It seems like this person basically got cussed at for simply saying that the movie was a box office success. This person is the author of "The Republican War on Science." Seriously, the hostility that some atheists seem to have toward anyone who dares criticize evolution or support opposing views is ridiculous.
quote:
NAS at 85% atheists — Let’s bump it up to 100%
quote:
Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the public is secondary to this. [Moderator then turns to the panel for responses.
Uncommondescent
Granted, Larry Krauss from the NAS kinda refuted him (and he said more questionable statements), the point is that there does seem to exist hostility. This hostility also seems to have been going on for a while.
quote:
Professors should be able to fail any student, no matter what the grade records indicate, if the professor discovers the student is a creationist. Furthermore, the student's department should have the right of retracting grades, and possibly even degrees, if the student becomes a creationist later. (Kendrick Frazier Skeptical Inquirer Fall, 1983)
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Anticreationist_debate_tactics
I really think this hostility against those who support creationism or ID and/or who may criticize Darwinism needs to stop.
quote:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/for_pointing_out_the_obvious_i.php
Someone was a jerk on the internet? Unbelievable!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
