• 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.

Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Why do we want to teach things that are not absolutely provable in a science class?

There are no scientific theories that are absolutely proven. Even the Germ Theory of Disease is not considered to be absolutely proven. Should we not teach that germs cause disease in science class?

For Creationist it is a religious agenda for Evolutionists it is a religiously held philosophical agenda.

What religiously held philosophical agenda are evolutionists pushing?

The origin of the universe and how reality is constructed is still too unknown to make any categorical statements about.

How species changed over time is not unknown. The geologic history of the Earth is not unknown. These things are well evidenced and well understood.


We aren't talking about POV class. We are talking about SCIENCE class. A scientific theory isn't a point of view.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The main thing about science classes taught at the public school level is that they are supposed to be about science--how scientists examine evidence and reach conclusions.

The first thing a student should learn is that science is based on inductive reasoning and thus cannot make categorical statements. Where were you?
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The thing you are doing, mixing science and belief leads to bad science and bad theology.

Science is just a way of describing physical reality. Trying to ignore physical reality is a futile battle.
Reality is reality. Humans are both physical and psychological. It is for humans that both studies exist.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are you speaking of Einsteinian space-time here as your four dimensional environment for the phenomenon of light?
No. I am speaking of a cross-section of 10 dimensional space used as models in current string-theory type ideas. Einsteinian is valid int he neighborhood of earth, but w3e do not know how far that extends.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Even to the rejection of scientific observation?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
The main thing about science classes taught at the public school level is that they are supposed to be about science--how scientists examine evidence and reach conclusions.

Do you know what I have never heard in any science class, EVER??? I have never heard any teacher, professor, or research scientist claim that data couldn't be trusted because the laws of physics changed in some unknown and undetectable way to produce multiple independent lines of evidence that support a specific theory. NEVER have I heard this.

The very fact that you have to invent completely undetectable, unobserved, and unsupported changes in the laws of physics is because the evidence does not support your position. That is the ONLY reason you are suggesting that the laws of physics are different, both temporally and spatially.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1. Yes, and the tests are designed by the experimental evidence obtained today, which may or may not be the same as way back then.
2. 3122BC. Writing begins with numbers in 3500, and sentences are provable from 3100BC.
3. I do not need it in heaven.
4. Well, let's see - in police training, in teacher training, in psychology, I can't remember all the places. Anyway, here's a little link to get you started: Does the Brain Filter out a Wider Awareness? | The Huffington Post
5. And those are also the people who decide what "actual scientific tests" are, and thus who can be part of them. Seems to me, that ignores the observations of the 99% of humanity who are not part of the club.

I do not take issue with the observations. Only with the theories used to account for them.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I can tell how different they are in the last thousand years, and that makes sense to me. But why does 10,000 years ago matter?
Prospecting, mining, bacteria, again all come down to what is there today, or maybe in the last couple centuries. Why is anything else relevant scientifically?
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Got any evidence that scientists (who are usually neutral) are being paid to come up with a given result?
Yep. The benefits of non-homogenized milk only being published once in America and once in England comes to mind. The FDA (in the USA) and flu vaccine. The sudden new theory that DNA came to earth from space. I can't think of them all right now, but I see a lot of them.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Reality is reality. Humans are both physical and psychological. It is for humans that both studies exist.
How do you determine the source of ones personal psychological reality and whether is aligns with well evidenced reality?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
1. Yes, and the tests are designed by the experimental evidence obtained today, which may or may not be the same as way back then.

Events in the past are responsible for the evidence in the present. If the laws of physics were different in the past, then the evidence in the present would show it.

The very fact that you have to invent a completely unwarranted and unsupported history of changing physical laws only demonstrates that the evidence does not support creationism. If the evidence supported creationism then you would be adamantly arguing for physical laws that have never changed.

If you were on a jury, would you be convinced by a defense attorney who claimed that all of the DNA evidence should be thrown out because the laws of physics in the DNA lab were different on the day that the evidence was tested?

5. And those are also the people who decide what "actual scientific tests" are, and thus who can be part of them. Seems to me, that ignores the observations of the 99% of humanity who are not part of the club.

Tests are not observations.

What makes a good scientist a good scientist is coming up with ingenious ways of testing a hypothesis. Observation is not science. Testing hypotheses is science.

I do not take issue with the observations. Only with the theories used to account for them.

You take issue with them not because they lack evidence to support them, but because they conflict with your beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic

How do you know that those benefits are the same everywhere in time and space? How do you know that the laws of physics are the same everywhere milk is consumed? What if the laws of physics are different in the US v. UK?
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1. Lest wee forget Is this really Post #361!), I started with we can teach physics with any theory in place, if we instead focus on observations and force students to their own theories. I was challenged on that, and I have simply been facilitating here, just as I do a math class (although there i really do know the answers). Looks like it's working.
2. Possibly. look at 10 dim string theory models and take R3 as a localized cross section around our planet and possibly out solar system. That's where I am coming from.
3. I believe everything in the Bible literally happened (except of course those things specifically describes as stories), but perhaps the people watching did not understand it correctly. Try bouncing some errors off me (but not in this thread, please) and see what i do with them. Gen. 1 deals with the plans God made for earth; that's what took 6 days. You are right, there is no statement of historical earth time. BUT, if God put us here to guide the earth, and we study science to do it better, and science only teaches us that earth has gotten along quite well without us for millions of years, we have an implied contradiction there.
4. Okay, but think about how that question might help me get a handle on the mechanics of the fourth dimension.
5. Suppose life began say 4200 BC, human life 4000 BC, writing 3500BC (that's one we can prove). Slowing light down in 4100BC might be just the thing to cause intelligent life, if it weer part of something bigger needed to do the trick.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, but making up stories about how space is different in undetectable ways does not make the data disappear.



Decay would be the same within all frames of reference.



You don't have a theory. You have made up stories with nothing to back them.
I have a theory. I just get too many alerts from this tread each day to write it all up,a nd think it all through.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
77
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟40,275.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You don't have a theory. You have stuff you have made up. Those are not the same thing.

None of those are theories.

A theory is a set of hypotheses that have been scientifically tested and supported by data. You don't have that.
I have already posted that scientists control who is part of them, and exclude 99% of the people doing so. That makes "scientific theory" just another word for "Listen to me. I'm a smart guy."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.