Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

[AV1611VET]

I've never seen a model of science where theory proceeds facts.

Okay ... thank you!

 

[kellhus]

Why? I'm going to try to be a veterinarian, not a master of evolution.

You are going to have to be a "master of evolution" if you want the slightest hope of being accepted to a full veterinary program after your undergraduate education.

I don't believe any part of that nonsense. God created us and all the animals on this planet.

~<Learn to Follow the Wolves>~

Whatever, if your serious about wanting to be a vet, you'll be straightened out when you join a pre-vet emphasis biology major.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

In ten years I would love to hear how creationism explains the things that you learned.

God set forth the expansion of the cosmos because of the......

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th

of a chance any structure could occur and the infinite chance that anything could occur given the accept of the universes infinite expansion of matter to energy.

The rest is history. At least that is how I view creationism

 

[XB3LI3V3RX]

I honestly didn't come here to argue, just to add my little comment. You can bicker amongst yourselves about how dumb you think I am and what not like you people do, but I'll be going now. Goodbye!
(I hope you people can see one day how big a lie evolution is though.)

~<Learn to Follow the Wolves>~

 

[AV1611VET]

Immaculate, care to comment on this:

I've never seen a model of science where theory proceeds facts.

... in view of you having said this?

You are heavily misguided. A theory must be tested or simulated. A whole fact always surpasses a theory but a theory must be based from the fragments of facts.

You have hypothesis, theory then fact.

 

[kellhus]

I honestly didn't come here to argue, just to add my little comment. You can bicker amongst yourselves about how dumb you think I am and what not like you people do, but I'll be going now. Goodbye!
(I hope you people can see one day how big a lie evolution is though.)

~<Learn to Follow the Wolves>~

*watches Wolf run away with some degree of amusement*

Or maybe that was a poe? He certainly doesn't handle having his beliefs questioned in any way very well, does he?

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I've never seen a model of science where theory proceeds facts. I mean, you can use a theory to generate a new hypothesis, and then experimentally test that hypothesis to establish facts, but theory as a starting point is completely alien to me.

Within biology, we normally consider a theory to be a set of observations and the framework for making sense of those observations. Another way to think about it is as a hypothesis that's withstood the test of time. That said, every theory should be potentially falsifiable. If it's not, then you're not doing science.

What sort of biology have you been teaching? A hypothesis is an assumption with no proven evidence for it, a theory has basic factual information to provide its plausibility, then a fact is a confirmed piece of information.

A theory cannot be a theory if it proceeds fact. That is an illogical absurdity. I hope I am not stating common usage though.

 

[kellhus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zD3NxSsD8

Posting for science win.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Immaculate, care to comment on this:


... in view of you having said this?

I actually misquoted. I had a feeling I was over simplifying the concept.

 

[Rhizobium]

What sort of biology have you been teaching?

Microbiology, introductory biology, and a bit of genetics.

A hypothesis is an assumption with no proven evidence for it, a theory has basic factual information to provide its plausibility, then a fact is a confirmed piece of information.

We're mostly in agreement on this part. I'm not sure I would say a theory ever becomes a fact in the sense that it isn't open to discussion or being falsified though.

 

[mark kennedy]

Microbiology, introductory biology, and a bit of genetics.

Always thought the public schools should teach more genetics. Gotta be more informative then cutting up frogs.

We're mostly in agreement on this part. I'm not sure I would say a theory ever becomes a fact in the sense that it isn't open to discussion or being falsified though.

Never looked at it like that myself. Always thought a theory was the unified principle that ties all the facts together. In science, like all philosophy, the search for transendance is key. Once some part of the theory does not agree with the facts you kind of have to question both. Just never thought of theories as true or false, more like, valid or it's not. It either unifies the facts or it doesn't. Can't really falsify a theory, like everything else in empirical logic, it's a go or a no go.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[kellhus]

Always thought the public schools should teach more genetics. Gotta be more informative then cutting up frogs.

Dissection is pretty important, but I gotta agree with you that more genetics in high school would be great.

 

[mark kennedy]

Dissection is pretty important, but I gotta agree with you that more genetics in high school would be great.

We have seen in our time the emergance of a science, it's called genetics. Fifty years it really didn't have the status of being a 'real science'. It wasn't until the DNA double heliex model showed the parts and the functions it was accepted. I love this intro to the Human Genome paper:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years.(Human Genome, Nature 2001)​

I think genetics deserves a lot more attention is all. There is some pretty fascinating history going on there that happened in our time.

 

[Rhizobium]

Always thought the public schools should teach more genetics.

I actually teach community college. I could never teach high school. The fact that the students have to be there would bother me too much. I mean, I support compulsory education and understand its purpose, but I'd never be comfortable with the idea of having a captive audience while I teach.

Just never thought of theories as true or false, more like, valid or it's not. It either unifies the facts or it doesn't.

That's one way to think about it. To be honest, philosophy of science is really complex, and there's a lot more disagreement over basic issues than you'd expect. Even within the practice of science definitions differ a lot between disciplines. For example, physicists often use the word theory in the way you're describing, or sometimes as a synonym for hypothesis.

The emphasis on falsification I've outlined comes from the philosopher Karl Popper, who I would say was probably the most influential philosopher of science. His idea was that for something to be considered science it has to be testable; you have to be able to prove it wrong. In the strict sense you can't ever know anything with 100% certainty. There's always a chance that you'll find new data that will overturn a hypothesis or a theory. However, in practice we tend to treat a theory as similar to a fact after it has withstood decades of testing and not been proven wrong.

 

[biggles53]

Which is why I will never tell anyone on here where I go to school (since you people want to stick your nose in everything). My teacher taught us evolution, but said she didn't believe in it, and said she wasn't forcing us to believe anything, but that she just didn't believe it was true. I would say 9/10 teachers at our school are Christians.

What does that have to do with a song?

~<Learn to Follow the Wolves>~

Your teacher should be drummed out of the ranks...

Her irresponsible utterances will only serve to stunt the education of future students of science........and assist in giving confidence to 18 year old know-nothings who think they possess all the 'truth' that is necessary in this world....!

I teach mathematics.....maybe I should be telling my students that most of their studies are genuine, but that calculus stuff..? Don't believe it kids....nothing but devil's spawn...!

 

[Split Rock]

What sort of biology have you been teaching? A hypothesis is an assumption with no proven evidence for it, a theory has basic factual information to provide its plausibility, then a fact is a confirmed piece of information.

A theory cannot be a theory if it proceeds fact. That is an illogical absurdity. I hope I am not stating common usage though.

The problem here is your use of terminology. In science a "fact" is usually the same as "data." As in, "every time I let go of a pen it falls to the ground." Therefore, facts come before an hypothesis. No hypothesis comes out of thin air, afterall. Then more "facts" are collected to test the hypothesis. You are using "fact" in the more colloquial sense, as "something proven beyond a reasonable doubt." That is what people mean when they say "evolution is a fact." If I am wrong about what you are saying, please correct me.

 

[AirPo]

No more than teaching the truth.


Truth is not a religion. We are not talking some doctrine from the church of England here. But why even talk about what the bill of rights or constitution were meant to say? That is a bit like folks on the Titanic getting together to study the schematics of the ship's hull after it was sinking. They tossed the bible and constitution etc out already. They ought to toss out the NSA and IRS!
So called science and evolution from the pond is religio-centric. It's not science. It's fable.

Your made up stories are not the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have seen in our time the emergance of a science, it's called genetics. Fifty years it really didn't have the status of being a 'real science'. It wasn't until the DNA double heliex model showed the parts and the functions it was accepted.

Surprisingly, geneticists had most of the concepts right before the specific chemistry of inheritance was discovered:

By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair.--Ernst Mayr
80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery

​

I think genetics deserves a lot more attention is all. There is some pretty fascinating history going on there that happened in our time.

I think it would benefit us all of you learned more of the basic within genetics.

 

[Loudmouth]

A hypothesis is an assumption with no proven evidence for it,

That's actually a poor definition of a hypothesis. A hypothesis is always built on the discoveries before it. More importantly, a hypothesis is a testable proposition that can often be put in the form of "If A, then B and not C". C is your null hypothesis, and B is the set of observations that will confirm the hypothesis.

A theory is an overarching model that is used to produce specific testable hypotheses. Saying that a hypothesis becomes a theory isn't exactly true, although they do become part of the larger theory. For example, heliocentrism is a theory. Using that theory I can come up with a testable hypothesis, such as a prediction of stellar parallax for stars within a few hundred light years of Earth. Of course, Heliocentrism is a much larger concept than stellar parallax.

a theory has basic factual information to provide its plausibility, then a fact is a confirmed piece of information.

Gould had a concise and well written explanation for the difference between theory and fact:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.--Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
​

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I have to admit to being a bit conflicted on the issue of whether or not to discuss creationism/intelligent design in science classrooms. On one hand, it isn't science and shouldn't be taught as science, just like alchemy. But also like alchemy, it was a prelude to what seceded it. Ergo, Alchemy is not science but was a precursor to chemistry. Astrology is not science but was a precursor to astronomy. Creationism/intelligent design isn't science but was a philosophical position that predated Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Why is that important? I think starting off any given science course with a case-study of the developmental history of that field is good background to have. Understanding something about what the alchemists/astrologists/creationists thought before chemistry/astronomy/evolution can help provide a better understanding of A) why one is scientific and the other is not and B) why one has become the accepted method of understanding the natural world.

In teaching evolution at the college level to students, starting off with what Darwin knew and believed at the time of his voyage is key to understanding just how significant his findings were if they caused not only him to shift his beliefs, but a complete paradigm shift globally too.

In the end, if someone wants to teach creationism/intelligent design as some theistically philosophical/religious alternative to evolution, it should be done in a religious studies classroom or a philosophies classroom and include the creation stories and proposed intelligent designers of other religions too.