Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks
Agreed, and yet many people say it does.
Lee, following up from my earlier argument regarding you being abducted by fairies overnight; I'm now convinced that you are indeed away with the fairies. You have not responded to ANY of the arguments presented and just keep repeating the same line over and over and over. I am wasting no more time on you or your delusional thinking.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
I would say that differently, but yes, and as from my favorite text...
"...catapulted into what I like to call the fourth dimension of existence...
"...rocketed into a fourth dimension of existence of which we had not even dreamed."
I am not qualified to debate evolution-versus-creation, and please forgive me if I have in any way seemed disrespectful to any scientific mind. My issues are only with religionists of whatever persuasion.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
I am not qualified to debate evolution-versus-creation, and please forgive me if I have in any way seemed disrespectful to any scientific mind. My issues are only with religionists of whatever persuasion.
My apologies for being rude in my previous post.
In view of your acknowledgement of your (obvious) lack of knowledge about the issues of evolution vs creation and specifically a complete ignorance of science in general and evolutionary science in particular, why have you created this thread?
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
I have been sitting out for a few pages, trying to understand where you are coming from. I am still somewhat unclear by what you mean when you say "religious bias" in science in reference to atheism. 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. 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. ID is not science. Creationism is not science. Telling kids that anything purely theological (or philosophical) with no evidence is just as valid as the laws of physics is not science. Things that are not science do not belong in a science class; simple as that. What you believe and teach your children at home is your business, but teaching verifiable fact in schools is what our tax dollars are going toward (and not for teaching children scientific fact is something that should taught along with religious dogma based entirely on supposition).
I think I may need to have your definition of religious bias spelled out for me in detail.
_________________
"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
Evolution is a fact. Creationism is a cultural construct.
Anyone claiming creationism should be taught in a school to 'let kids decide between the two' is forcing their own particular little cultural beliefs on the whole.
Creationism is in a neutral definition, that the world, universe, etc including humans were the end product of supernatural (some deity(s) or such ) forces. Therefore, since Christianity is not the only belief system in this planet that claims to know how the world and everything else including us was created... then why are creationists not pushing for ALL those different 'truths' to be taught to kids so they can decide?
The very label of 'creationism' is interesting. To avoid the religious connotation which would cause rejection AND legal bans in public schools this very religious concept which is particular to only one religion is re-branded into an almost-scientific sounding name and marketed using similar methods which are used in the scientific process. Talk about dressing a monkey in silk and taking her to the prom.
To all creationists I say this: When you wholeheartedly campaign for the Hindu version of how everything came to be...when you are willing to stand side by side in a classroom with a Rastafarian, a Native American, an Inuit, a Druid and a scientologist and hold YOUR version of things to be EQUALLY valid to teach to children....
then you have my support in your right to teach your version of things.
In case anyone wants to read up on the evidence for evolution, there a long article on wikipedia that lists the different types of evidence for common descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
It lists evidence from different angles:
-evidence from genetics/biochemistry (my favorite: endogenous retroviruses)
-evidence from comparative anatomy (whales have hip bones, unlike fish)
-evidence from paleontology (fossils)
-evidence from geographical distribution (Where are the marsupials?)
-evidence from observed natural selection (nylon eating bacteria, when nylon was invented by humans)
-evidence from observed speciation
Here is a video on endogenous retroviruses that really requires no knowledge of chemistry/genetics/viruses:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s[/youtube]
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
It lists evidence from different angles:
-evidence from genetics/biochemistry (my favorite: endogenous retroviruses)
-evidence from comparative anatomy (whales have hip bones, unlike fish)
-evidence from paleontology (fossils)
-evidence from geographical distribution (Where are the marsupials?)
-evidence from observed natural selection (nylon eating bacteria, when nylon was invented by humans)
-evidence from observed speciation
Here is a video on endogenous retroviruses that really requires no knowledge of chemistry/genetics/viruses:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s[/youtube]
That indeed was a very informative video. I did not know of the role retroviruses played in our evolution.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
Hovind addresses that in several kinds of animals by explaining how their reproduction systems work.
In view of your acknowledgement of your (obvious) lack of knowledge about the issues of evolution vs creation and specifically a complete ignorance of science in general and evolutionary science in particular, why have you created this thread?
I am not completely ignorant of science in general or even of evolutionary science, but I am wise enough to know true science is not dogma-first. Overall, however, and since you and I have always gotten along well here at WP, no problem!
I have been sitting out for a few pages, trying to understand where you are coming from. I am still somewhat unclear by what you mean when you say "religious bias" in science in reference to atheism.
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.
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. There might not be anything inherently wrong with doing that, of course, but I am literal-minded and prefer "say what you mean and mean what you say".
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.
Having one's hypothesis as ID or Creation does not preclude one from being a scientist.
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.
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".
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
...you will have just succumbed to pluralism and GWB will no longer consider you a terrorist!
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
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
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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".
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?
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?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html
this is an examination of the sort of "evidence" that creationists put forward.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Teacher had students duel with swords |
29 Feb 2024, 1:01 am |
Do you often tell white lies about your life? |
15 Apr 2024, 6:50 pm |
Houston HS students walk out |
06 Feb 2024, 8:08 am |
Nursing students knowledge and attitudes |
10 Mar 2024, 8:02 am |