RE: EXPELLED

RE: EXPELLED (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 1:03:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize What do you think? I think making these mandatory classes would be a big waste of time. It really does bring up the spectre of classes that provide arguments against relativity, the atomic theory, the migration of Native Americans from Asia, the theory that the Egyptians built the pyramids unaided by our space brothers, etc. Dont forget, in medical school especially, we need to start teaching chinese medicine and homeopathy as dissenting philosophies to our medical establishment. Maybe some Chakra re-alignment courses too. And power crystal's healing capabilities.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 1:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes I think making these mandatory classes would be a big waste of time. Then I think making classes teaching evolution mandatory is a big waste of time. quote: It really does bring up the spectre of classes that provide arguments against relativity, the atomic theory, Students are allowed to scrutinize them right? In these classes, the professors are allowed to give counter arguments (ie: ask questions like, how do we really know this is true? Because such and such experiments did such and such). They are allowed to teach opposing views (ie: the history behind how we developed these laws and what ideas opponents came up with and how they were later disconfirmed). Heck, most philosophers would disagree with hedonism as a philosophy that should be advocated but in a philosophy and ethics class I took, I was taught the pros and cons of it (by a teacher who disagreed with it). Scrutiny and criticisms are allowed in these cases, why not evolution? You also seem to be confusing operational science with origins science. With operational science, we can observe the laws with empirical proof here and now. With origins science, the evidence is mostly circumstantial (and often much more subject to interpretation). quote: the migration of Native Americans from Asia, the theory that the Egyptians built the pyramids unaided by our space brothers, etc. Where are the historical records written by people who encountered the origin of life and man providing the history of evolution? If a history teacher doubts these events, then he should be allowed to introduce (expose students to) criticisms and opposing views, as long as he also teaches what is generally accepted and the strongest non - strawman arguments for (and against) all positions that he teaches (including that which is generally accepted). If such views aren't allowed to be criticized in public schools, then they shouldn't be taught. Even historians don't always agree on all past events and on many issues and history teachers are allowed to teach criticisms and opposing views (as long as the mainstream views are objectively introduced). Why not evolution? Are you claiming that evolution is less controversial than Native American Migration or the notion that the Egyptians built the pyramids? Why is it that if a biology teacher (with a Ph.D) introduces criticisms to evolution in a public school, he will likely lose his job? It's difficult to objectively argue that this kind of misbehavior put forth by the secular community has no effect on the alleged consensus of evolution.

Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 2:05:29 PM)
"Students are allowed to scrutinize them right? In these classes, the professors are allowed to give counter arguments (ie: ask questions like, how do we really know this is true? Because such and such experiments did such and such). They are allowed to teach opposing views (ie: the history behind how we developed these laws and what ideas opponents came up with and how they were later disconfirmed). Heck, most philosophers would disagree with hedonism as a philosophy that should be advocated but in a philosophy and ethics class I took, I was taught the pros and cons of it (by a teacher who disagreed with it). Scrutiny and criticisms are allowed in these cases, why not evolution?" History and Philosophy are fields that mingle subjective information with objective information. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist; I feel that Hedonism is a wonderful philosophy, and you don't. They stray into subjectivity, which allows an instructor to give subjective opinions on them. Evolutionary biology has no basis in subjectivity-- if you believe that it didn't occur, that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that it did, and does, happen. If any instructor tried to add his or her personal opinions to a subjective course such as biology, that would tell more about the incompetence of the instructor than the incompetence of the class. "Where are the historical records written by people who encountered the origin of life and man providing the history of evolution?" Our DNA, the relation of our physical structures with our primate forebears, the knowledge we have of the existence of evolution. Those work as very good records, I would think. "If a history teacher doubts these events, then he should be allowed to introduce (expose students to) criticisms and opposing views, as long as he also teaches what is generally accepted and the strongest non - strawman arguments for (and against) all positions that he teaches (including that which is generally accepted). If such views aren't allowed to be criticized in public schools, then they shouldn't be taught. Even historians don't always agree on all past events and on many issues and history teachers are allowed to teach criticisms and opposing views (as long as the mainstream views are objectively introduced). Why not evolution? Are you claiming that evolution is less controversial than Native American Migration or the notion that the Egyptians built the pyramids? Why is it that if a biology teacher (with a Ph.D) introduces criticisms to evolution in a public school, he will likely lose his job? It's difficult to objectively argue that this kind of misbehavior put forth by the secular community has no effect on the alleged consensus of evolution. " Again, your arguments are based on fallacious comparisons. History can fall back onto a "Rashomon Problem," where the events of history are viewed differently by the observers who participated in the event. Unless we build a time machine, the events of history remain stuck in subjectivity, which gives scholars and instructors wiggle room to insert their own views on historical events. Scientific principles, on the other hand, have been constant since the beginning of the universe, are constant today, and will continute to be constant until the end of time. If we discover a scientific truth, then that truth will have been true thousands of years ago, in a wholly objective fashion. Any instructor who tries to teach his or her students "contrasting views" to a known scientific truth reveals more about his or her own biases than the topic he or she dislikes.

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 2:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: It really does bring up the spectre of classes that provide arguments against relativity, the atomic theory, Students are allowed to scrutinize them right? In these classes, the professors are allowed to give counter arguments (ie: ask questions like, how do we really know this is true? Because such and such experiments did such and such). Those are not counter-arguments. And I would expect in a biology class that the evidence and experiments relevant would be taught. quote: They are allowed to teach opposing views (ie: the history behind how we developed these laws and what ideas opponents came up with and how they were later disconfirmed). Discussing outmoded theories is not the same as teaching opposing views. And I would expect in a biology class that Lamarckism would be discussed. Or the Greek 'elements' in chemistry. quote: Heck, most philosophers would disagree with hedonism as a philosophy that should be advocated but in a philosophy and ethics class I took, I was taught the pros and cons of it (by a teacher who disagreed with it). Scrutiny and criticisms are allowed in these cases, why not evolution? Philosophy is a very different discipline from science.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 2:15:10 PM)
quote: Philosophy is a very different discipline from science. Tell that to Richard Dawkins.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 2:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sartrian History and Philosophy are fields that mingle subjective information with objective information. UCD is historical. quote: Evolutionary biology has no basis in subjectivity-- if you believe that it didn't occur, that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that it did, and does, happen. Neither does history. Either a past event did occur or it didn't. However, historians may still argue over whether or not an event occurred. Also, can you demonstrate to me that UCD did and does happen? Show me molecule to man evolution (and I don't mean human or animal/non - human development. I mean RM + NS). quote: If any instructor tried to add his or her personal opinions to a subjective course such as biology, that would tell more about the incompetence of the instructor than the incompetence of the class. But a history teachers opinion on past events are somehow less subjective? Past events that didn't happen as long ago as evolution (UCD) supposedly did. quote: Our DNA, the relation of our physical structures with our primate forebears, the knowledge we have of the existence of evolution. Those work as very good records, I would think. You didn't meet the criteria that is met in the case of historical events recorded by people who experienced them. Your alleged records are subject to much more interpretation. The existence of DNA is not evidence that it evolved. quote: Again, your arguments are based on fallacious comparisons. I'm not the one who brought up the comparisons, essentialsaltes was. I simply refuted them. quote: History can fall back onto a "Rashomon Problem," where the events of history are viewed differently by the observers who participated in the event. Unless we build a time machine, the events of history remain stuck in subjectivity, which gives scholars and instructors wiggle room to insert their own views on historical events. UCD is historical in nature. quote: Scientific principles, on the other hand, have been constant since the beginning of the universe, are constant today, and will continute to be constant until the end of time. Even if true, so? quote: If we discover a scientific truth, then that truth will have been true thousands of years ago, in a wholly objective fashion. Any instructor who tries to teach his or her students "contrasting views" to a known scientific truth reveals more about his or her own biases than the topic he or she dislikes. UCD is no more of a scientific truth than recorded historical events are. Just because you proclaim its a scientific truth does not make it so. I mean, evolution can't even withstand any scrutiny. I find it very difficult to believe something that can't withstand scrutiny is scientific. Again, I do not argue that they have to teach it in a science class, just that they expose everyone who is required to learn evolution to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views. Science welcomes academic freedom and open inquiry. Criticisms and opposing views are something science welcomes. You can't simply proclaim UCD is fact and say, "because I say its a fact, students should not be exposed to criticisms and opposing views." Students should be exposed to criticisms and opposing views so that they can objectively determine whether or not they think there is enough evidence to show that it is a fact. They should be allowed to decide for themselves if there is enough evidence to show its a fact, you shouldn't decide for them based on your opinion. If there is enough evidence to show it is a fact, then you should have nothing to fear because students would conclude that it is a fact (unless you are proclaiming that they are somehow intellectually inferior than you and that you are somehow better at interpreting the evidence than they are, which is nonsense). Are you afraid that students would conclude that the criticisms of evolution and opposing views are valid? Basically, you are not the ultimate authority over what constitutes a scientific truth. Students should be exposed to criticisms and opposing views and they should determine what to believe for themselves. quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Those are not counter-arguments. Even if not, they are allowed to teach counter arguments and opposing views though (as long as they objectively teach the strongest non - strawman arguments for mainstream views and show the strongest non - strawman criticisms of the counter arguments and opposing views). quote: And I would expect in a biology class that the evidence and experiments relevant would be taught. I would expect them to not brainwash students with one side and only one side of an issue. quote: Discussing outmoded theories is not the same as teaching opposing views. Yes it is, but that's not to say they necessarily advocate them. They can teach both the pros and cons of criticisms (and they can teach the pros and cons of opposing views). Why is this not the case when it comes to evolution? Also, just because you label it "outmoded" does not make it so. quote: And I would expect in a biology class that Lamarckism would be discussed. Or the Greek 'elements' in chemistry. But not ID or creationism (at least not the strongest non - strawman arguments for the pros of ID and creationism). quote: Philosophy is a very different discipline from science. Science is an aspect/branch of philosophy. Science is the philosophy that theories should be falsifiable. Again, they do not have to teach criticisms and opposing views in a "science" class, but all students required to take classes on evolution should be exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views.

Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:26:46 PM)
"UCD is historical." I have no idea what exactly you're trying imply by saying this. Yes, our common ancestor was in the past, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? "Neither does history. Either a past event did occur or it didn't. However, historians may still argue over whether or not an event occurred or not." I mentioned that history blends subjectivity and objectivity. Yes, events do occur, but considering that historians don't have time machines, they have to work things out using subjective reasoning and coming to debated conclusions on events from correlating opposing and sometimes biased histories. "Also, can you demonstrate to me that UCD did and does happen? Show me molecule to man evolution." Every organism on Earth-- bacteria, grass, roundworms, fish, humans-- shares genes. This conclusively shows that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. And what common ancestor could we share with bacteria? What could be simpler than a single-celled organism? Well, viruses and prions are incredibly simple, replicating agents that skirt the line between "life" and "unliving." It's also been shown that viruses evolve, which is good evidence that a non-living, replicating protein cluster could have led to the formation of DNA and by association, all life on Earth. Does that answer your question? "But a history teachers opinion on past events are somehow less subjective. Past events that didn't happen as long ago as evolution (UCD) supposedly did." Yes, they should be less subjective, due to the fact that they've been trained in history and have learned tools for sidestepping their own biases. But we're human-- that doesn't stop the occasional injection of personal beliefs and thoughts into history. "You didn't meet the criteria that is met in the case of historical events recorded by people who experienced them. Your alleged records are subject to much interpretation. The existence of DNA is not evidence that it evolved." Yes, but the fact that ALL living organisms on Earth share the same DNA shows that we came from a common ancestor. The fact that I share 98 percent of my DNA with chimpanzees, who have similar biological structures as I do, shows that I share a common, primate ancestor with them. I don't need any sort of "first hand account" of evolution, because my DNA provides a record that is incredibly accurate in its complexity. "I'm not the one who brought up the comparisons, essentialsaltes was. I simply refuted them." Right. "UCD is historical in nature." An objective truth that is present up to our modern day. If you'd like to consider that "historical," then be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that it's utterly provable. "Even if true, so?" Objective truth, unlike histories, continue to exist permanently. Our analysis of those truths are the only thing that can be changed, and only by creating a theory that explains the truth in a more accurate way. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution (and by association, the descent from a common ancestor) proves accurate, and will be the standard of gaging Evolution until, or if, we come up with a more accurate theory. "UCD is no more of a scientific truth than recorded historical events are. Just because you proclaim its a scientific truth does not make it so. I mean, evolution can't even withstand any scrutiny. I find it very difficult to believe something that can't withstand scrutiny is scientific. Again, I do not argue that they have to teach it in a science class, just that they expose everyone who is required to learn evolution to criticisms and opposing views." I've provided plenty of logical proof. The fact that you refuse to accept it is your problem, not mine. Besides, why waste time in a science class dealing with the non-scientific? If you want groundless theories and assertions of an untestable god, go to a religion class or a creative writing class. "They are allowed to teach counter arguments and opposing views though (as long as they objectively teach the strongest non - strawman arguments for mainstream views and show the strongest non - strawman criticisms of the counter arguments and opposing views)" If the opposing view boils down to "goddidit," then there's no way it even vaguely belongs in a science class. Science requires that one observe nature and form theories as to why phenomena occur, reforming those theories if they don't fit with observations, or make poor predictions. "Intelligent Design" starts with the assumption that god exists, and bends all observations to fit that a priori assumption. "Intelligent Design" is completely contrary to science as a whole. "I would expect them to not brainwash students with one side and only one side of an issue." Science is not an "issue." Opinions do not sway the outcome of scientific evaluation. "Yes it is, but that's not to say they necessarily advocate them. They can teach both the pros and cons of criticisms (and they can teach the pros and cons of opposing views). Why is this not the case when it comes to evolution?" Because the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is not an outmoded theory. Alas. "But not ID or creationism (at least not the strongest non - strawman arguments for the pros of ID and creationism)." It was less accurate than the Darwinian Theory. But at least Lamarck tried to apply scientific reasoning to his theory. "Intelligent Design" is not even a scientific theory. It's a thinly veiled attempt to insert god into the objectivity of science. "Science is an aspect/branch of philosophy. Science is the philosophy that theories should be falsifiable." Philosophy is a discipline regarding the human interaction with the universe. Science is the discipline of uncovering the objective facts of the universe, and how they function.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:30:33 PM)
I'm enjoying the unquoted stream of consciousness debate here folks, but this has little to do with the fundamental premise of the film, which is that American scientists should have the right to criticize any theory they see fit, and if their colleagues don't like the criticism, then they are free to respond - what they aren't free to do is to threaten to drum them out of academia, particularly at the university level.

Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:37:29 PM)
Of course they should be allowed to. If a doctor in a hospital didn't believe in the Germ Theory of Disease, insisting that all disease came from god and only prayers and holy water could cure illness, they'd be laughed out of the hospital, losing all credibility and respect as a doctor. Willful ignorance cannot be tolerated in positions of authority.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:47:02 PM)
quote: Of course they should be allowed to. If a doctor in a hospital didn't believe in the Germ Theory of Disease, insisting that all disease came from god and only prayers and holy water could cure illness, they'd be laughed out of the hospital, losing all credibility and respect as a doctor. Willful ignorance cannot be tolerated in positions of authority. Well, besides the display of ignorance over characterizing ID as a straw man, and the difference between the direct connection of germs to infections, as a opposed to the inferred connection between mutation, selection, and the development of biological complexity, I would hope that doctors can indeed challenge fundamental notions of the spread of infections on a theoretical level so as to advance our understanding of such things, about which we still have much to learn.

Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:54:26 PM)
And where, exactly, did I make a strawman? I thought the comparison was apt-- denying a reasonable theory that fits with what we've observed, just because it hurts someone's feelings about a magic man in the sky. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, won't we! Besides, evolution is completely rational for one simple reason (that I keep repeating, BTW). All life forms on Earth share genes. Such an occurrence would only be possible if all life forms sprung from a common ancestry. That ancestry would have to be an agent simpler than even bacteria. Things like viruses and prions show us that a non-living protein replicator is possible, and backs up the idea that we sprung from a common, abiogenetic ancestor. It's very simple. Unfortunately, it tends to hurt peoples' feelings. Fortunately, those people are laughed out of academia for their crippling bias.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:55:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sartrian I have no idea what exactly you're trying imply by saying this. Yes, our common ancestor was in the past, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It's subject to interpretation like history is. quote: I mentioned that history blends subjectivity and objectivity. and UCD is historical. quote: Yes, events do occur, but considering that historians don't have time machines, they have to work things out using subjective reasoning and coming to debated conclusions on events from correlating opposing and sometimes biased histories. Scientists don't have time machine either and I don't see how their reasoning is any less subjective. quote: Every organism on Earth-- bacteria, grass, roundworms, fish, humans-- shares genes. So? quote: This conclusively shows that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. How? I addressed arguments like this in other threads. It is your interpretation that says this, not the evidence. Again, students should be exposed to criticisms of your interpretations and opposing views, unless you are afraid they might not believe your interpretations otherwise. Here http://forums.christianity.com/m_3277680/mpage_3/key_commonalities/tm.htm#3322328 Read post 67 among many others. quote: Well, viruses and prions are incredibly simple, replicating agents that skirt the line between "life" and "unliving." In nature, both infect a living host that already exists. quote: It's also been shown that viruses evolve, which is good evidence that a non-living, replicating protein cluster could have led to the formation of DNA and by association, all life on Earth. Does that answer your question? Again, in nature viruses rely on an existent host. Show me molecule to man evolution. quote: Yes, they should be less subjective, due to the fact that they've been trained in history and have learned tools for sidestepping their own biases. But we're human-- that doesn't stop the occasional injection of personal beliefs and thoughts into history. Oh, but your opinion on the matter is somehow more objective (just because it may conform to the mainstream views)? quote: Yes, but the fact that ALL living organisms on Earth share the same DNA shows that we came from a common ancestor. Already addressed. quote: The fact that I share 98 percent of my DNA with chimpanzees, who have similar biological structures as I do, shows that I share a common, primate ancestor with them. Why should it? I already addressed the commonality argument. quote: I don't need any sort of "first hand account" of evolution, because my DNA provides a record that is incredibly accurate in its complexity. So then you shouldn't have a problem with students being exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views since you think that your evidence is so compelling that they would accept it anyways. Or are you afraid they won't (maybe because you think they are intellectually inferior to you)? quote: quote: "I'm not the one who brought up the comparisons, essentialsaltes was. I simply refuted them." Right. I'm glad you agree. quote: An objective truth that is present up to our modern day. If you'd like to consider that "historical," then be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that it's utterly provable. So prove to me UCD is true. Show me molecule to man evolution. quote: Objective truth, unlike histories, continue to exist permanently. UCD is historical. Universal common descent isn't occurring right now, is it? You are alleging it occurred in the past. It's historical. quote: Our analysis of those truths are the only thing that can be changed, and only by creating a theory that explains the truth in a more accurate way. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution (and by association, the descent from a common ancestor) proves accurate, and will be the standard of gaging Evolution until, or if, we come up with a more accurate theory. Then you should have no problems with students being exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views because they would have no problem accepting it despite this exposure. quote: I've provided plenty of logical proof. No, you haven't. You've only provided illogical reasons why students shouldn't be exposed to refutations of your alleged proof. quote: The fact that you refuse to accept it is your problem, not mine. The fact that you can't provide proof is your problem, not mine. quote: Besides, why waste time in a science class dealing with the non-scientific? If you want groundless theories and assertions of an untestable god, go to a religion class or a creative writing class. Again, they don't have to label the class science. As long as those who are required to take classes promoting evolution are also required to be exposed to criticisms and opposing views. quote: If the opposing view boils down to "goddidit," then there's no way it even vaguely belongs in a science class. See above. Your argument boils down to "nature did it" and it requires no less faith. quote: Science requires that one observe nature and form theories as to why phenomena occur, reforming those theories if they don't fit with observations, or make poor predictions. so? quote: "Intelligent Design" starts with the assumption that god exists, and bends all observations to fit that a priori assumption. Not true. quote: "Intelligent Design" is completely contrary to science as a whole. Nope. quote: Science is not an "issue." Opinions do not sway the outcome of scientific evaluation. So then you should have no problems with students being exposed to criticisms of evolution and opposing views. Unless you are claiming that they are somehow more subjective and less scientific than you (which is nonsense). quote: Because the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is not an outmoded theory. Alas. You are not the ultimate authority to determine this. Let the students be exposed to both sides of the issue and decide for themselves. quote: It was less accurate than the Darwinian Theory. See above. Also, Natural selection was a creationist concept. quote: But at least Lamarck tried to apply scientific reasoning to his theory. "Intelligent Design" is not even a scientific theory. It's a thinly veiled attempt to insert god into the objectivity of science. ID is certainly more scientific than UCD. quote: Philosophy is a discipline regarding the human interaction with the universe. Science is the discipline of uncovering the objective facts of the universe, and how they function. Philosophy definition quote: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosophy Science is a methodology for investigating truth (it applies falsifiability to hypotheses). Again, science is a philosophy.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:56:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sartrian Besides, evolution is completely rational for one simple reason because you keep proclaiming it to be? quote: (that I keep repeating, BTW). That I have refuted several times on these message boards.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:03:26 PM)
quote: And where, exactly, did I make a strawman? I thought the comparison was apt-- denying a reasonable theory that fits with what we've observed, just because it hurts someone's feelings about a magic man in the sky. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, won't we! Besides, evolution is completely rational for one simple reason (that I keep repeating, BTW). All life forms on Earth share genes. Such an occurrence would only be possible if all life forms sprung from a common ancestry. That ancestry would have to be an agent simpler than even bacteria. Things like viruses and prions show us that a non-living protein replicator is possible, and backs up the idea that we sprung from a common, abiogenetic ancestor. It's very simple. Unfortunately, it tends to hurt peoples' feelings. Fortunately, those people are laughed out of academia for their crippling bias. The strawman is comparing ID to �prayers and holy wate� but beside that obvious strawman there is a deeper logical flaw to your argument that goes like this: Germ theory is the prevailing scientific theory concerning the spread of disease. Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory concerning the development of complexity in living organisms over time. It would be dangerous to criticize germ theory, and those who do so should be opposed. Therefore, it would be dangerous to criticize evolutionary theory, and likewise those who do so should be opposed. Conclusion? The prevailing scientific theory should never be criticized! Of course, only an idiot would say such a thing, so I am sure this isn�t the argument you intended to employ.

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:18:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud The strawman is comparing ID to �prayers and holy wate� but beside that obvious strawman there is a deeper logical flaw to your argument that goes like this: Germ theory is the prevailing scientific theory concerning the spread of disease. Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory concerning the development of complexity in living organisms over time. It would be dangerous to criticize germ theory, and those who do so should be opposed. Therefore, it would be dangerous to criticize evolutionary theory, and likewise those who do so should be opposed. Conclusion? The prevailing scientific theory should never be criticized! Of course, only an idiot would say such a thing, so I am sure this isn�t the argument you intended to employ. Any established theory can be challenged if you bring adequate evidence to the table to support your idea. Its that simple. Its dangerous to acquiesce the scientific process to those with a religious/political agenda and very little, if any, evidence to back up their claims. That would be dangerous in the case of 'heal by prayer' believers challenging germ theory, just as its dangerous that reason is continually and unjustly assaulted by hordes of pseudo-scientists and religious figures when it comes to evolution.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:25:41 PM)
quote: Any established theory can be challenged if you bring adequate evidence to the table to support your idea. Its that simple. Its dangerous to acquiesce the scientific process to those with a religious/political agenda and very little, if any, evidence to back up their claims. That would be dangerous in the case of 'heal by prayer' believers challenging germ theory, just as its dangerous that reason is continually and unjustly assaulted by hordes of pseudo-scientists and religious figures when it comes to evolution. You are making the same illogical argument, that criticizing germ theory is the equivalent of criticizing evolutionary theory. But the precise analogy is that the criticism of evolution is the equivalent of criticizing the once prevailing theory of spontaneous germination of organisms; a process which took at least a century. Indeed, the broader evolutionary theory has virtually no practical application whatsoever when it comes to regular critical scientific practice at all, so no one would die if it were criticized, or even abandoned for that matter. Either way, criticism of scientific theories should not be met with academic blacklisting; indeed, they cannot be for us to have a truly free exchange of ideas.

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: And I would expect in a biology class that Lamarckism would be discussed. Or the Greek 'elements' in chemistry. But not ID or creationism (at least not the strongest non - strawman arguments for the pros of ID and creationism). I think an explanation of Paley and his watch would be justified, but not teaching "ID" or creationism.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:28:40 PM)
quote: think an explanation of Paley and his watch would be justified, but not teaching "ID" or creationism. Just out of curiousity, do you think string theory should be discussed in science classes? What about abiogenesis?

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:32:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Any established theory can be challenged if you bring adequate evidence to the table to support your idea. Its that simple. Its dangerous to acquiesce the scientific process to those with a religious/political agenda and very little, if any, evidence to back up their claims. That would be dangerous in the case of 'heal by prayer' believers challenging germ theory, just as its dangerous that reason is continually and unjustly assaulted by hordes of pseudo-scientists and religious figures when it comes to evolution. You are making the same illogical argument, that criticizing germ theory is the equivalent of criticizing evolutionary theory. But the precise analogy is that the criticism of evolution is the equivalent of criticizing the once prevailing theory of spontaneous germination of organisms; a process which took at least a century. Indeed, the broader evolutionary theory has virtually no practical application whatsoever when it comes to regular critical scientific practice at all, so no one would die if it were criticized, or even abandoned for that matter. Either way, criticism of scientific theories should not be met with academic blacklisting; indeed, they cannot be for us to have a truly free exchange of ideas. My point was that it doesn't matter what the theory is, it shouldn't be taught until it has some reasonable evidence and some scientific consensus. ID really has any significant amount of either of those, so I don't think it is without reason to 'expel' those who want to push their personal agenda's on students. I don't care what the subject is. Note that it appears most of the stories in expelled are completely false, or extremely misleading at best, rife with cherry picked info to make it sound as evil and conspiratorial as possible. The whole premise of the film appears to be fraudulent, so where exactly is the blacklisting going on? Like I pointed out before, if you want to dedicate your life to building a case for ID, you likely have plenty of sources of funding and no one will stop you from doing the research. They will just stop you from teaching it in schools until you make a solid case for it.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:37:02 PM)
quote: My point was that it doesn't matter what the theory is, it shouldn't be taught until it has some reasonable evidence and some scientific consensus. ID really has any significant amount of either of those, so I don't think it is without reason to 'expel' those who want to push their personal agenda's on students. I don't care what the subject is. So you would support academics pursuing ID research within the confines of academic institutions then? quote: Note that it appears most of the stories in expelled are completely false, or extremely misleading at best, rife with cherry picked info to make it sound as evil and conspiratorial as possible. The whole premise of the film appears to be fraudulent, so where exactly is the blacklisting going on? Have you seen the film? quote: Like I pointed out before, if you want to dedicate your life to building a case for ID, you likely have plenty of sources of funding and no one will stop you from doing the research. They will just stop you from teaching it in schools until you make a solid case for it. I pay taxes; I am already funding institutions to do the research.

Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:37:41 PM)
quote: It's subject to interpretation like history is. Nope. Fortunately, DNA provides a record that can't be tampered with. Genes don't lie, unlike historians. There's no interpretation, unless you'd like to consider reading the results "interpretation." quote: and UCD is historical. See above, mon ami. quote: Scientists don't have time machine either and I don't see how their reasoning is any less subjective. DNA mutations can be traced backwards, and mDNA remains unchanged for huge periods of time-- thus making any changes easily observable and traceable backwards. quote: So? Genes cannot be transmitted unless an organism reproduces. If a human being and bacteria share genes, then ipso facto, bacteria are related to us through a common ancestor. quote: How? I addressed arguments like this in other threads. It is your interpretation that says this, not the evidence. Again, students should be exposed to criticisms of your interpretations and opposing views, unless you are afraid they might not believe your interpretations otherwise. Here http://forums.christianity.com/m_3277680/mpage_3/key_commonalities/tm.htm#3322328 Read post 67 among many others. It's not open to "interpretation." The evidence stands, and it can't be otherwise unless you plug your ears, screaming, "It's not real! They're all conspiring against me!" quote: In nature, both infect a living host that already exists. Good point! Unfortunately, that's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to show you that a non-living protein replicator is possible in nature. And you concede that it is. quote: Again, in nature viruses rely on an existent host. Show me molecule to man evolution. When I build my time machine, you'll be the first one that I call. Science isn't about proving something. Science is about forming theories that conform to what we observe and making theories that have predictive capabilities. A non-living protein replicator is feasable, and fits with what we've observed, due to: 1. Our most ancient common ancestor had to be simpler than a single-celled bacteria, pointing towards a non-living protein replicator. 2. Viruses and prions exist. Therefore, it's feasible that a non-living protein replicator could even exist. They reinforce each other. I don't need to directly observe the creation of life, because the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the theory of Abiogenesis fit with our observations. quote: Oh, but your opinion on the matter is somehow more objective (just because it may conform to the mainstream views)? I never said anything about my opinion. You went off on some weird tangent about history teachers and evolution, and I was trying to make sense of your post in my response. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. quote: Already addressed. By me. You keep saying I'm wrong without putting forward any evidence as to why I'm wrong. quote: Why should it? I already addressed the commonality argument. You didn't address anything, I'm afraid to say. quote: So then you shouldn't have a problem with students being exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views. You think that your evidence is so compelling that they would accept it anyways. Or are you afraid they won't (maybe because you think they are intellectually inferior to you)? Ooh, lovely ad hominem attack. But at any rate-- I do believe that outdated scientific theories ought to be addressed, if only to show why the theory was less correct than later theories. "Intelligent Design," on the other hand, is not scientific, and should be dismissed from classrooms at the first sight of its ugly theological head. quote: So prove to me UCD is true. Show me molecule to man evolution. Science isn't about proving things. Science is about interpreting the facts and creating theories as to why those facts occur, using observations that fit with the fact's effects and its future actions. I've repeatedly told you the theories and backed them up with detailed evidence as to their accuracy. I can't show you abiogenetic formation of life, but I can tell you why it's the most plausible reason for our existence, and evidence that backs it up. But if you choose to not listen to me, I don't really care. The facts exist. The evidence exists. Their existence is not contingent upon your beliefs. quote: UCD is historical. Universal common descent isn't occurring right now, is it? You are alleging it occurred in the past. It's historical. Of course it's happening right now-- but slowly. Speciation of complex eukaryotes takes millions of years. And it doesn't change the fact that whatever species is produced, it comes originally from the common ancestor of all life. quote: Then you should have no problems with students being exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views because they would have no problem accepting it despite this exposure. I have a problem with ignorant theology being passed off as truth by biased instructors who don't care a bit about mixing their personal indoctrination with objective scientific truth. quote: No, you haven't. You've only provided illogical reasons why students shouldn't be exposed to refutations of your alleged proof. Then let me boil it down for you: Fairy tales should not be passed off as truth. That is dishonest, deceitful, and lazy. Saying that god created all life has no evidence backing it up, brings theological questions into a field of science, and encourages the lazy answer of "goddidit." quote: The fact that you can't provide proof is your problem, not mine. I've been the one bringing all the evidence to the table, whereas you keep saying it's not correct and providing nothing to back you up. I'm less than impressed by your criticism. quote: So then you should have no problems with students being exposed to criticisms of evolution and opposing views. Unless you are claiming that they are somehow more subjective and less scientific than you (which is nonsense). If you came up with a theory that refuted the Darwinian Theory, sure. It'd be a great boon to science if you could back it up. Unfortunately, what you want brought into science departments is thinly veiled theology. It's deceitful to tell impressionable students a lie and pass it off as truth. quote: You are not the ultimate authority to determine this. Let the students be exposed to both sides of the issue and decide for themselves. Science is not an "issue," again. It does not demand that a bunch of college kids sit around and give their opinions as to why the Darwinian Theory is icky. The Darwinian Theory is the most accurate theory of evolution, and until somebody finds a rabbit in the Precambrian layer, it's the only theory that should be used to teach evolution. quote: See above. Also, Natural selection was a creationist concept. Oh, is this another one of your "refutations" that coincidentally enough, doesn't have any evidence to back it up? quote: ID is certainly more scientific than UCD. Repeating over and over again that you can fly to Venus doesn't make it any more true. quote: Science is a methodology for investigating truth (it applies falsifiability to hypothesis). Again, science is a philosophy. I would argue that definition you pulled up has nothing to do with science, considering that science doesn't try to investigate the principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. But it's a moot point. I don't really care either way.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:44:38 PM)
quote: Of course it's happening right now-- but slowly. Speciation of complex eukaryotes takes millions of years. And it doesn't change the fact that whatever species is produced, it comes originally from the common ancestor of all life. Evidence? How about the origin of eukaryotes? How long does that take? The cell? Any idea? quote: Science is not an "issue," again. It does not demand that a bunch of college kids sit around and give their opinions as to why the Darwinian Theory is icky. The Darwinian Theory is the most accurate theory of evolution, and until somebody finds a rabbit in the Precambrian layer, it's the only theory that should be used to teach evolution. Ah yes, the only way to disprove evolution is through the miraculous; and this is what passes as science in your mind? quote: I've been the one bringing all the evidence to the table, whereas you keep saying it's not correct and providing nothing to back you up. I'm less than impressed by your criticism. And I am less than impressed that you think your opinion is sufficient evidence.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:45:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 My point was that it doesn't matter what the theory is, it shouldn't be taught until it has some reasonable evidence and some scientific consensus. Consensus by whom, those who agree with you? quote: ID really has any significant amount of either of those, so I don't think it is without reason to 'expel' those who want to push their personal agenda's on students. I don't care what the subject is. Are you afraid that if students are exposed to criticisms and opposing views of evolution, they would begin to realize that the criticisms and opposing views are valid? If so, then you can't turn around and tell me that evolutionary brainwashing has no effect on the alleged consensus. quote: Like I pointed out before, if you want to dedicate your life to building a case for ID, you likely have plenty of sources of funding and no one will stop you from doing the research. The secular (tax funded) community tries not to fund anything that would oppose their naturalistic presuppositions. quote: They will just stop you from teaching it in schools until you make a solid case for it. A solid case according to your subjective opinion? Why not let the students decide, are you afraid it might shift the consensus?

Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:52:36 PM)
quote: That I have refuted several times on these message boards. As they say on the internet, "noep." quote: Germ theory is the prevailing scientific theory concerning the spread of disease. Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory concerning the development of complexity in living organisms over time. It would be dangerous to criticize germ theory, and those who do so should be opposed. Therefore, it would be dangerous to criticize evolutionary theory, and likewise those who do so should be opposed. Conclusion? The prevailing scientific theory should never be criticized! It's interesting to see how easily my thoughts can be distorted! Maybe I should use smaller words next time. See, my point was that the Germ Theory of Disease is the accepted standard of medicine because it fits with our observations and makes good predictions. If you came up with a better theory, then it would be put into practice. But trying to refute an accurate theory by saying, "goddidit" is irresponsible and ignorant (and in the case of Germ Theory, dangerous). The same thing works for the Darwinian Theory of Evolution-- it fits with our observation and makes good predictions. It's irresponsible and ignorant to dismiss all of our scientific investigation with the handwave of "goddidit--" and in the case of people teaching impressionable students, it's disingenuous and mind-numbing. Conclusion? God has never been observed, measured, or quantified. It is not only unscientific, it's idiotic to insert him into any theory whatsoever, whether that attempt at insertion be creationism or "Intelligent Design." Now, if you manage to find god, call for evolutionary biologists. I'm sure they'd love to meet him. quote: Just out of curiousity, do you think string theory should be discussed in science classes? What about abiogenesis? String theory is a hypothesis that cannot be tested yet, due to the limitations of our technology. I have yet to read of any physicists who claim that String theory is an accurate representation of our universe. And abiogenesis is a valid theory as to the origin of life, due to reasons that I keep mentioning over and over again. quote: So you would support academics pursuing ID research within the confines of academic institutions then? Not until the Southern Baptist Convention decides to fund a school of evolutionary biology.

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 4:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So you would support academics pursuing ID research within the confines of academic institutions then? If the institution feels the theory is worthy enough to bear fruit, than that's their decision? But its their choice, and ID'ers don't get to cry conspiracy theories when their pet theory just doesn't pass muster for those institutions when they make their choices for what areas of research to pursue. quote: Have you seen the film? Already said I hadn't yet, but I've read quite a bit about it and of course, watched all the trailers. Behe himself is still employed at his university, even though they dont endorse his views... Arguably the pioneer of the modern ID movement hasn't been 'expelled' for his beliefs... so wheres the conspiracy again?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI