Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To expand a bit on Wiltor's response, a somewhat simplistic but not altogether inaccurate description of science is that it involves a bunch of people, who have spent considerable time studying a subject, all trying to prove each other wrong.pastorkevin73 said:I'm not so sure how education makes what one person has discovered more trustworthy than another.
Thankfully, the Scientific Method ensures the honesty of the results. You HAVE looked at the Scientific Method, right? because we sure have asked you to numerous times. That's why your remark seems so odd here. As if you didn't know anything about the checks and balances of the Scientific Method.pastorkevin73 said:I'm not so sure how education makes what one person has discovered more trustworthy than another.
hence the Scientific Method, which weeds out the liars and crackpots.Yeah, a person with a doctorate has more study in a field, but doesn't make them more trustworthy. There are people at all levels of education who deceive.
Sure. Now, I have yet to see even ONE creationist who actually knows and understand the Scientific theory of Evolution, or even the very basic aspect of science, the Scientific Method.At the same time there are people who don't have a piece of paper with their name and seal on it, but are just a brilliant and understanding of a topic.
Willtor said:To be sure, you, PastorKevin73, could publish in a peer reviewed journal if you were to make observations and propose and execute tests to distinguish your ideas from those of others. The difference between a person with an accredited PhD and a person without one is that the person who has the degree has testimony - on the authority of others within the scientific community - that he has undergone a substantial breadth and depth of study and has demonstrated the capacity for original and rigorous thought. This is not to say that someone without a PhD has not done any of these things. But someone who has done these things and come out with a PhD rightfully has credibility in his area of study.
Again, this is not to suggest that he is necessarily right about what he says. In fact, a journal is not going to publish something by Richard Dawkins merely because it is from Richard Dawkins. It has to stand on its own merits. But the fact that he is widely published makes what he says, within the field of evolutionary science, credible.
Thus, when there is a panel of people with PhDs in evolutionary biology saying that evolution doesn't say a particular thing, but says something else, being disputed by a panel of people without PhDs saying that it does say the first thing, the common observer can't help but wonder why one whole panel is missing PhDs in the appropriate fields. Consider, next, that the panel with PhDs consists of the movers-and-shakers of the evolutionary world. Who better ought to know what evolution says and doesn't say? The papers that define the science, itself, are largely written by those very people.
In a simpler sense, consider the difference between someone who has spent his life observing a particular thing in nature and someone who has not. Certainly the second person could totally refute everything the first person has come to think. But this is not a common scenario. We cannot suppose that this is the case with every person who argues against someone with a PhD. As Augustine says, "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics." (Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" ch.19)
pastorkevin73 said:BTW, I find it interesting that most TEs call Hovind a liar and his education does not matter. I am by no means defending Hovind, I just find that it's interesting that there seems to be a double standard.
pastorkevin73 said:I am by no means down grading the work a person does for a Phd. It takes a massive amount of work. I am 2 credits away from my masters and know how much work that is, a Phd I am sure takes much more work. All I am saying is we shouldn't discredit what a person who does not have higher education has to say as they may having something of great sifnigicance to contribute to a discussion.
BTW, I find it interesting that most TEs call Hovind a liar and his education does not matter. I am by no means defending Hovind, I just find that it's interesting that there seems to be a double standard.
Allowed? Why would anyone allow something other than what is accepted in the scientific community to be taught to students? There isn't any sound opposition to evolution. If there were, and the scientific community held it to be valid, students would be informed. As it stands, though, there isn't any opposition to be "allowed".Driver said:Is opposition to evolution or opposing viewpoints allowed in public schools? Was it allowed at your private school?
Oops, you've been duped by the old 8th grade test prank. For a summary of and explanation on the piece that started the whole "8th graders were smarter than today's college graduates" nonsense, take a look at http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.htm.It is estimated that today's bacherlor's degree is about the equivalent of an eighth-grade education of 50 years ago.
see
http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/
jereth said:Sorry mate, I am a doctor and I beg to differ
Yes there is a lot of "art" to medicine, but plenty of hard science too including knowledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, anatomy, physiology and microbiology. All of these subjects make the case for evolution very convincingly.
steen said:There is that little detail of intense science education before medical school. Rather a lot of science there.
KerrMetric said:Medical education for the MD is not really science. It is rote learning and basic principles that are usually totally forgotten about by the practising doctor. It is like an engineer learning basic physics. He learns it as a background tool not as a physicist.
jereth said:BTW, I couldn't help noticing the poll result. I have to admit being surprised. I was always under the impression that there were more YECists who graduated from science.
BSc in Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoecology. Going on to my MSc/PhD this fall.pastorkevin73 said:It would be good to see from all who voted college/university degree in science to distinguish which science discipline their degree is in.
Physics B.A. and M.S.pastorkevin73 said:It would be good to see from all who voted college/university degree in science to distinguish which science discipline their degree is in.
My dad has a PhD in Physics, which basically means I get access to all the rooms with expensive gadgets at the university which students usually stay out of because of all the "danger" signs.KerrMetric said:BA Physics
PhD Theoretical Physics
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?