Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[HARK!]

You're asking for 'confirming evidence' (or a logical 'proof') for what is now regarded as being a scientific hypothesis (Abiogenesis)? The term 'theory', as in the 'Oparin-Haldane theory' is over a hundred years old and its meaning has changed.

Hmmm... Guess that confirming evidence wasn't so confirming after all.

 

[SelfSim]

Actually the correct word is testing. What science does is to try to figure out a test that will have one result is a theory is correct and a different result if it is not. The scientist wins either way. Oh perhaps a bigger if the result goes the way they expected. But a win either way.

The person seeking to confirm their religious beliefs is in an entirely different situation. If the result of the test conflicts with their position it is a disaster for them.

Ok .. 'results consistent with the hypothesis' then ..

 

[Speedwell]

That's coming from a person made in God's image.

By random variation and natural selection.

 

[HARK!]

Ok .. 'results consistent with the hypothesis' then ..

I have this hypothesis that the universe was created. The empirical evidence, and the laws of science, would lead me to no other conclusion of its' veracity.

Science Proves Creation

 

[SelfSim]

I'm waiting to see a successful test. So far no one has been able to reproduce those reults

I suspect you're waiting for answers to questions which are not under test.
There is much objective support from the field of chemical evolution and autocatalysis research/information theory, however. One has to be aware of that, in order to investigate that material though.

Personal incredulity is no basis for leading to actually finding out what's going on in some topic under scientific scrutiny/research .. which brings us back to encouraging scientific enquiry .. starting at school.

Our entire perception of reality operates purely on personal belief. The mental institutions are full of living examples of those with personal beliefs outside of what most others consider reality.

.. which demonstrates to me, the different ways how arrive at a meaning for 'reality', (which I see you're relying on there). Science's way is not via way of beliefs (or delusions, in the case of 'mental' facilities). Those ways are distinguishable via objective testing (of a testable hypothesis).

Do you feel that your understanding of reality somehow transcends your own perception?

I don't have a clue what you mean by 'transcends your own perception'. But I do understand how we arrive at meanings for 'reality'.

 

[SelfSim]

Hmmm... Guess that confirming evidence wasn't so confirming after all.

I'll leave that one up to @Speedwell ..

 

[sjastro]

Wow -- the paranoia in this thread is thick.

Oh good grief! That's ridiculous on so many levels.

Both of you are prime examples of what would happen if the education system masquerading as science and operating on circular arguments by putting the conclusion first and working backwards; a production line of individuals who cannot think for themselves and a hostility towards real science.
The end result is a stagnation of technological and economic progress.

This is not exclusively an American problem there are no mincing of words in Australia.

An essential element in the teaching of science is the encouragement of students and teachers to critically appraise the evidence for notions being taught as science. The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of future generations.

Issued by Geological Society of Australia

 

[Speedwell]

I have this hypothesis that the universe was created. The empirical evidence, and the laws of science, would lead me to no other conclusion of its' veracity.

Science Proves Creation

Cool. A bit too Newtonian. Still, not bad. But it doesn't prove creationism.

 

[SelfSim]

I have this hypothesis that the universe was created. The empirical evidence, and the laws of science, would lead me to no other conclusion of its' veracity.

Yes .. that is your belief .. (I get that).

 

[HARK!]

.. which demonstrates to me, the different ways how arrive at a meaning for 'reality', (which I see you're relying on there). Science's way is not via way of beliefs (or delusions, in the case of 'mental' facilities). Those ways are distinguishable via objective testing (of a testable hypothesis).

I'm still waiting for a conclusive test. This should be easily verifiable under ideal controlled laboratory conditions, right?

How much longer do we have to wait? Why are our children being taught this unverified hypothesis in the mean time?

How does teaching this unverified hypothesis prepare them to run their own businesses?

Have you ever run a successful business solely on unverified hypotheses?

 

[HARK!]

Yes .. that is your belief .. (I get that).

Scientific law supports that belief.

 

[public hermit]

They shouldn't teach it in a science class because it's not science. What they should do is teach about the creation in a religion and philosophy class, starting in kindergarten through the twelve grade.

Yes! Children should learn about all the various religions and common philosophies, in the process hearing about the Genesis account. I can't imagine why that's a bad idea, except Christians not wanting children to hear about others religions. That being the case, then no religion should be taught. There. Settled.

 

[AV1611VET]

Both of you are prime examples of what would happen if the education system masquerading as science and operating on circular arguments by putting the conclusion first and working backwards; a production line of individuals who cannot think for themselves and a hostility towards real science.
The end result is a stagnation of technological and economic progress.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

They shouldn't teach it in a science class because it's not science. What they should do is teach about the creation in a religion and philosophy class, starting in kindergarten through the twelve grade.

My vote is that they teach creationism in history class.

 

[renniks]

Both of you are prime examples of what would happen if the education system masquerading as science and operating on circular arguments by putting the conclusion first and working backwards; a production line of individuals who cannot think for themselves and a hostility towards real science.
The end result is a stagnation of technological and economic progress.

This is not exclusively an American problem there are no mincing of words in Australia.

Issued by Geological Society of Australia

Exactly backwards. Teaching that's there's More than one possiblity enhances critical thinking, it doesn't stifle it.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm still waiting for a conclusive test. This should be easily verifiable under ideal controlled laboratory conditions, right?

Again .. you are asking a question which has an unstated belief (or many of them) as its basis. Science doesn't address beliefs where they cannot be stated in objectively testable ways. (So 'no', I don't agree .. namely because I don't have to agree).

Molecular tests, (either remote or locally excecuted), on bodies such as Titan, (moon of Saturn), which has lakes of hydrocarbon chemistry, is one current example of target selection resulting from the predictions of molecular evolution hypotheses. There are other numerous examples.

How much longer do we have to wait? Why are our children being taught this unverified hypothesis in the mean time?

Patience .. patience.
Tangible results from an understanding of how: speculation=>hypothesis=>testing=>conclusions from the scientific method permeate and benefit everyday life, are the short-term advantages.

How does teaching this unverified hypothesis prepare them to run their own businesses?

Aids by providing an alternative (and highly useful) way of thinking when compared with chasing beliefs (deluded, or otherwise), and suffering the consequences thereof.

Have you ever run a successful business solely on unverified hypotheses?

You mean where the business actually becomes the hypothesis under test? Sure.

 

[public hermit]

My vote is that they teach creationism in history class.

A history of religions class? Or, taught as history? How about taught as an interpretation of history?

 

[HARK!]

I don't have a clue what you mean by 'transcends your own perception'. But I do understand how we arrive at meanings for 'reality'.

The mass of an atom is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The lightest element in existence is hydrogen, which has only one proton. The combined number of protons and neutrons possessed by an element is knows as its atomic mass. The average atomic mass of the elements on Earth can be found displayed in the periodic table. Unlike a proton, a neutron has no charge, but its mass is about the same as that of a proton. The mass of the proton or neutron is 1836 times bigger than that of the electron.

The size of the atoms is about 1~2 Å. Compared to the overall size of the atom, the nucleus is about the size of a raindrop in a playground. A nucleus’ volume is only 10^14 that of the atom. Empty space takes up most of the space occupied by an atom.

What this means is that what we view as rock solid reality, in reality is little more than empty space.

Is this woman spinning to the right or to the left?

 

[SelfSim]

Scientific law supports that belief.

What do you mean by 'created'?

.. If I have the time, we can put your claim to the test. That test starts by asking the above question.

 

[AV1611VET]

A history of religions class? Or, taught as history? How about taught as an interpretation of history?

Absolute factual pure history.