Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Page 11 of 18 [ 277 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 18 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

04 Mar 2014, 9:40 am

Quote:

Yesterday I found an article explaining how some scientists insist evolution and atheism are inseparable where others do not. So, this thread was begun (prior to yesterday and) during my ignorance of "dogma-first" being accepted as "scientific" in the minds of some people. In my own case if I were a scientist, I would approach the entire matter with my personal beliefs aside and just look to see what the observable suggests. Having an hypothesis is one thing, but being determined to prove it true at the expense of all else is not rational unless one has some kind of agenda.

There are scientists who are vocal atheists (Lawrence Kraus, Dawkins). Just as there are scientists who are vocal believers (francis Collins). But writing popular books for general readers on the subject is not the same as publishing peer reviewed science on the subject. A large percentage of scientists are atheists, agnostics or pantheists but they don't include those views in their professional work or they'd be ignored or ridiculed.

The point being you need to differentiate between personal views and published science.

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

04 Mar 2014, 2:33 pm

leejosepho wrote:

I think you may be misunderstanding. Many scientists believe that evolution provides evidence against creationism and ID, not the other way around. The people who say that many scientists insist that atheism and evolution are inseparable are generally those trying to detract from the credibility of said scientists in an effort to ignore scientific evidence that does not agree with their worldview.

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

I don't understand how using empirical data and rigorous peer reviewed research allows for any type of religious bias on the part of atheists.

Whether or not you realize this, you have just presented a "dogma-first" argument in the form of a statement saying you do not understand something you have actually just explained away.

How is this a "dogma first" argument? All scientists rely on empirical data and peer reviewed research no matter what their religious/spiritual beliefs are.

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

It seems to me that the religious bias is coming from those who believe in a higher power rather than those who do not acknowledge one.

It can actually come equally from either side, but I do understand what you mean there since some scientists believe science (or evolution) and atheism are inseparable.

If you mean starting out with the belief in atheism as a basis for research, I suppose that it can come equally from either side. In reality, those who most often bring in the bias are those who have already had their beliefs disproven by science.

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

ID is not science. Creationism is not science.

Having one's hypothesis as ID or Creation does not preclude one from being a scientist.[/quite]

It does if they try to claim creationism or ID is science.

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

Telling [students] that anything purely theological (or philosophical) with no evidence is just as valid as the laws of physics is not science.

IDs, YECs and such typically show their own evidence, and the fact their evidence is rejected by atheistic scientists only proves the atheistic scientists do not accept their evidence.

YECs don't show evidence, they show "evidence." The difference being that YECs make things up to fit their personal ideology and try to call it fact without actually using any form of valid research. Evidence and proof in the scientific fields means that it must be factual, researched using the scientific method, peer reviewed, and independently verifiable (none of these apply to the "evidence" used by YECs, which is the reason their "proof" is anything but).

Trying to say that scientists' rejection of proven falsehoods is evidence of religious bias is like saying that the rejection of an alien involvement in the creation of the planet is proof of bias.

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

I think I may need to have your definition of religious bias spelled out for me in detail.

That would be whenever any human being insists upon a given dogma -- deism, theism, atheism or whatever else -- as part of his or her definition of "science".

As I have stated before, very very few atheist scientists involve that belief (or lack thereof, to be more accurate) in their actual research. From the standpoint of atheism, it is almost impossible to affect any physical sciences research in any meaningful way. I could see it as a possibility is in psychology, social sciences, and political science, but even then it seems unlikely.

_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche

trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

04 Mar 2014, 4:15 pm

leejosepho wrote:

trollcatman wrote:

Baleen whales have hips! Shake those hips baby!

Hovind addresses that in several kinds of animals by explaining how their reproduction systems work.

They are actually vestigial organs. Dolphins have hip bones too because their ancestors were land mammals as well. This is a dolphin embryo that has mini-legs that it will lose later in development:

Adult dolphin, with pelvis but no legs:

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

04 Mar 2014, 5:12 pm

leejosepho wrote:

However, it would be great to hear an evolutionist or two honestly declare the battle is a religious one where Evolutionism is just as much a religion as Creationism (and with neither being necessary or helpful in the area of actual science).

If you want such a declaration to be honest, you'd first have to persuade a scientist that it's true. How is that going for you?

Nevertheless, scientists should rejoice in a rather unexpected insight hidden in this accusation. leejosepho folows the example of other creationists in challenging scientists to concede that a scientific theory is merely religion. The clear implication is that those creationists consider religion to have a lower epistemic status than a scientific theory.

Hallelujah! Praise .... umm. What? I find myself short of deities to praise. I also fail to find anything in evolutionary theory about an afterlife, supernatural entities, abominations (chocolate is an abomination, unclean in the eye of natural selection, and whosoever eateth it shall surely be put do death by Black Forest Gateau), or any of the other stuff I associate with religion. I shall adopt mathematics as my religion on the grounds that if a religion is defined as a belief system that contains unprovable statements, then mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

04 Mar 2014, 6:03 pm

TallyMan wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Whilst science has not and will not prove that there is no deity "pulling the strings"

That isn't exactly true.

I agree with the rest of your post.

The idea of an invisible puppeteer is an unfalsifiable claim, outside the domain of science. It's unscientific (and furthermore, it's not useful - it doesn't explain anything), but that's different to "disproven".

leejosepho wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

it does prove that either humans have slowly evolved over many millions of years OR the deity has deliberately made the world appear much older than it is.

The either/or of that is too limited for me, but I do understand how a certain type of logic could lead to believing something had just been proved.

The evidence is overwhelming that the world is old. Absolutely overwhelming.

What other explanations are there other than it actually being old, or it being designed to look older than it is?

Quote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Additionally, if evolution is divinely guided, you have to raise questions of the deity's nature.

I would not, but I understand why some people do.

I think it's simple intellectual curiosity. If you learn something new about the world, surely that tells you something new about God, too?

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Mar 2014, 2:12 am

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html
this is an examination of the sort of "evidence" that creationists put forward.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Mar 2014, 2:23 am

LKL wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html
this is an examination of the sort of "evidence" that creationists put forward.

I'm glad there's a logical explanation for those supposed human tracks from millions of years ago.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Mar 2014, 2:31 am

Yeah, if you look at pictures of the supposedly anachronistic 'human tracks,' they're universally pretty obviously not human tracks to anyone but the most wishful of thinkers.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

05 Mar 2014, 8:03 am

sonofghandi wrote:

The people who say that many scientists insist that atheism and evolution are inseparable are generally those trying to detract from the credibility of said scientists in an effort to ignore scientific evidence that does not agree with their worldview.

I have never heard anyone say that for that reason, but that would not mean no one ever has. In any case, I was referring to something like this:

Quote:

The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.

The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.

http://www.icr.org/article/7897/

sonofghandi wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

I don't understand how using empirical data and rigorous peer reviewed research allows for any type of religious bias on the part of atheists.

Whether or not you realize this, you have just presented a "dogma-first" argument in the form of a statement saying you do not understand something you have actually just explained away.

How is this a "dogma first" argument? All scientists rely on empirical data and peer reviewed research no matter what their religious/spiritual beliefs are.

All scientists do not rely upon the *same* empirical data and peer-reviewed research, and some will categorically dismiss anything suggesting Creation or Intelligent Design.

sonofghandi wrote:

If you mean starting out with the belief in atheism as a basis for research, I suppose that it can come equally from either side.

Certainly, and there are YEC links I do not post here because of their own overtly-religious tones.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

05 Mar 2014, 8:20 am

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

I have never heard anyone say that for that reason, but that would not mean no one ever has. In any case, I was referring to something like this:

Quote:

Almost all scientists are evolutionists, true (as evolution is scientifically sound), but that does not mean they are atheists. Plenty of Christian scientists (the vast majority of christian scientists) fully accept that evolution is true. As for the whole Nye vs Ham debate, Ham presented exactly zero evidence that was scientifically acceptable. Nye does not insist that science is based on evolution, rather that evolution is based on science. You have it backwards.

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

I don't understand how using empirical data and rigorous peer reviewed research allows for any type of religious bias on the part of atheists.

Whether or not you realize this, you have just presented a "dogma-first" argument in the form of a statement saying you do not understand something you have actually just explained away.

How is this a "dogma first" argument? All scientists rely on empirical data and peer reviewed research no matter what their religious/spiritual beliefs are.

All scientists do not rely upon the *same* empirical data and peer-reviewed research, and some will categorically dismiss anything suggesting Creation or Intelligent Design.

Some will dismiss anything suggesting Creation or Intelligent Design because there is no actual scientific evidence for it, not because of any type of religious dogma (unless you count the Scientific Method as religious dogma). Creationists, ID, and YEC has absolutely no empirical data to support it. So are you saying that science should support every speculation thought up by anyone, even when these suppositions are not possible according to known scientific laws?

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

If you mean starting out with the belief in atheism as a basis for research, I suppose that it can come equally from either side.

Certainly, and there are YEC links I do not post here because of their own overtly-religious tones.

I have not seen a single YEC use anything but religious tones, with almost all of them staunchly in the conservative christian camp.

_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

05 Mar 2014, 8:27 am

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

I have never heard anyone say that for that reason

Exactly who is saying that evolution and atheism inseparable? I have never heard it from a credible scientist. I have seen plenty of articles where that is an accusation against science, but I have not seen it as a viewpoint put forth by those who you seem to think say it.

There are plenty of atheists who believe we are the result of alien manipulation or that we are descendants of aliens rather than an evolutionary result (along with some even more bizarre explanations not involving evolution). There are plenty of scientists that accept evolution and still believe in God.

As for myself, I believe in evolution. Not because I am an atheist, but because of the science behind it. I believed in that validity of evolution long before I lost faith in Christianity.

_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

05 Mar 2014, 8:34 am

sonofghandi wrote:

So are you saying that science should support every speculation thought up by anyone, even when these suppositions are not possible according to known scientific laws?

We are in a battle of words and/or definitions here, and I am not interested in that. Some people believe science proves creation false, some believe science proves evolution false, some are in-between or wherever, and some folks holding whatever "position" -- I have none -- will say at least some of the folks elsewhere are not even scientists. Overall, my answer to your loaded question is "No."

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

05 Mar 2014, 8:47 am

"Brainwashed teacher tries to to pass the brain washing to students, gets compliments from fellow brainwash victims and the lobby interested in making America science-less.

_________________
.

AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA

05 Mar 2014, 9:21 am

Give it up guys, the brain washed religious nuts wont concede because their to afraid to admit that there is nothing more after death. their afraid of death and dying and oblivion. their afraid of the truth. and all they want to do is convince others because they don't want to face the truth them selves. you would have better luck analyzing their psychology and the way they think instead of what they think or believe to be true. Take and consider a schizophrenic person, same difference, ignore their self induced delusions and analyze the person..

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

05 Mar 2014, 9:46 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

"Brainwashed teacher tries to to pass the brain washing to students, gets compliments from fellow brainwash victims and the lobby interested in making America science-less.

^ This.

Trying to impart knowledge to these religious types is an exercise in futility. They put their fingers in their ears and say "Nah, nah, nah I can't hear you and by the way it was god wot dun it." Their mindset is completely locked onto their belief system and nobody can tell them otherwise. They believe it blindly to the point of abject stupidity despite being confronted with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately all we can do is leave them to their delusions and hope that kids learn the truth about science and evolution before these nutjobs get to them and brainwash them.

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

05 Mar 2014, 9:59 am

leejosepho wrote:

sonofghandi wrote:

So are you saying that science should support every speculation thought up by anyone, even when these suppositions are not possible according to known scientific laws?

You are making the mistake of assuming all points of view are of equal merit.

Page 11 of 18 [ 277 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 18 Next

Jump to:

Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks Post Reply New Topic

Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks