If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[AV1611VET]

Basic creationists idea:
If scientists discover they are wrong...

"If" ?????

Haw! haw! haw! haw! haw! --- oh, man --- wheeeeee!

Is this a nitrous oxide moment, or what?

Oh, man!

Okay --- I'm fine --- I'll be alright.

Sorry.

 

[Tomk80]

Okie-doke, tell that to the college students going to school next semester, who'll have to buy new science books.

Tell that now to our public schools, whose science books are all out-of-date.

Do you have any relevant point here? Nothing has changed for Pluto, except it's classification as a planet. This has not suddenly changed it's orbit or it's composition. And yes, science textbooks will need to be revised. So?

And I can't help but to think, that just like eggs causing cancer, then not, then causing cancer again, then not, etc. --- in a couple years (if not sooner), Pluto will be put right back where it has been for the last 76 years.

Perhaps. If other evidence shows up that forces us to change the definition of what a planet is again, we will need to change it again. What else should we do, AV? Not change is, while knowing it doesn't work? How does that make sense?

 

[Tomk80]

"If" ?????

Haw! haw! haw! haw! haw! --- oh, man --- wheeeeee!

Is this a nitrous oxide moment, or what?

Oh, man!

Okay --- I'm fine --- I'll be alright.

Sorry.

Fun. Big haha... Kudos...

Now respond to the point made.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't mean anything. Scientists have no problem at all with bowing to cultural definitions for introductory science books for unimportant issues. We don't consider it to be a big problem that we aren't telling students the whole story: telling them the whole story would be entirely too complex and just serve to sow confusion. Whether or not Pluto is a planet is not considered important.

Then why did they start now? Why all the hullabaloo, all of a sudden?

If this has been a secret scientists have known and kept quiet for 76 years, what prompted the "leak"?

 

[AV1611VET]

You actually believe that it is possible for heat death to occur within our lifetime? As a student of cosmology, I can assure you that this is utterly and completely impossible. What is your evidence for this ridiculous statement?

Skip it --- Christians will know what I meant.

And for the record --- I'm on record as saying God will intervene before we achieve maximum entropy on our own.

 

[AV1611VET]

No they won't, because it doesn't affect anything but a name. It doesn't change anything at all about the content of the text. Hell, I don't think any scientists at all will care if people outside of astronomy continue to call Pluto a planet. It doesn't change anything.

We'll see.

 

[Chalnoth]

Then why did they start now? Why all the hullabaloo, all of a sudden?

If this has been a secret scientists have known and kept quiet for 76 years, what prompted the "leak"?

Two things:
1. The discovery of extrasolar planets.
2. The discovery of a Kuiper belt object larger than Pluto.

This prompted the astronomy community to come together to decide on a standard definition of a planet, so that, within scientific circles, there would be no ambiguity. The important thing was that people settle on a definition, not what the actual definition was.

The fact that the rest of the world cared has more to do with the public appeal of solar system astronomy. It really doesn't much matter what people outside of astronomy say is a planet or not.

 

[Chalnoth]

Skip it --- Christians will know what I meant.

And for the record --- I'm on record as saying God will intervene before we achieve maximum entropy on our own.

Then why did you bring up maximum entropy at all? It's really not a concern for anybody.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have any relevant point here? Nothing has changed for Pluto, except it's classification as a planet. This has not suddenly changed it's orbit or it's composition. And yes, science textbooks will need to be revised. So?


Perhaps. If other evidence shows up that forces us to change the definition of what a planet is again, we will need to change it again. What else should we do, AV? Not change is, while knowing it doesn't work? How does that make sense?

Tom, you don't get it, do you?

Why were they so gung-ho to call Pluto a planet at all? This is par-for-the-course for science.

As soon as something is sighted --- get it published - refute it later.

This is known as the Publish or Perish Principle.

Get that accreditation and publicity first, then worry about it being refuted later.

This is why I stopped reading Scientific American and Popular Science, and stuff like that.

Great breakthroughs --- right on the front cover --- then read the article:

• Scientists "think" they might have evidence for...
• Scientists "assume" they've seen...
• However, Dr. So-and-So disagrees, saying...
• We "may" have a major breakthrough here.
• 30 years from now, we may just see this phenomenon occur.
• We're "headed for a breakthrough".

The usual junk - from UFO's behind the Hale-Bopp comet to tides destroying coastal areas during the next conjunction of Mars and Jupiter.

Faces on Mars, Gumby on Venus,
What's the next peek into the 'scope
Gonna bring us?
Will it be another face, somehow?
Yes indeed! Mickey Mouse on a cow!

 

[Chalnoth]

So, you distrust science this much? Why are you using a computer, then? Science is what taught us how to built a computer. What if science tells us your computer won't work tomorrow?

What about modern medicine? TV's? Housing? Industry?

If science is so untrustworthy, why do trust it so much?

 

[USincognito]

You know the great thing about Pluto is that it shows there is robust discussion amongst astronomical professionals and that new data can bring about a new consensus. That's good change.

On the other hand Creationists hear something they like and then tenaciously hang onto it, and worse yet, repeat, dispite being shown they are incorrect, sometimes for decades as in the case of Lucy's knee joint.

Pluto was a case of astronomy incorporating new data like verification of Kuiper-belt objects and a more precise definition of planets. "Lucy's knee joint" is a case of Creationists propigating a lie because they like the sound of it.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom, you don't get it, do you?

No, I don't. What would you expect science to do, AV? Not change the classification of Pluto to accomodate the new information, despite that this would pose great problems of clarity because of the new observations? If we discover tomorrow that smoking is, in fact, not a primary cause for lungcancer but dancing the boogie woogie is, should we ignore that and leave everything where it was?

I indeed don't get it. What is the bad thing in changing our models if the evidence requires us to?

Why were they so gung-ho to call Pluto a planet at all? This is par-for-the-course for science.

Because at that time, Pluto was a large object circling the sun, which didn't make it a comet and didn't make it a star. And because at the time it was discovered, that was enough to make it a planet. Now, we found new planets and new objects that look like Pluto, which makes the previous, vague definition of planet untenable. Because of that, we need to change the definition. What would you propose to do otherwise, AV?

As soon as something is sighted --- get it published - refute it later.

This is known as the Publish or Perish Principle.

No, it is not. The publish or perish priniciple is a phenomenon where lines of research are abandoned if they don't give results soon enough. It is a problem recognized by scientists, but it's reasons are political, not scientific.

And yes, as soon as we sight something, we have to publish it. How else are others going to know it was sighted and build on that knowledge, AV?

Get that accreditation and publicity first, then worry about it being refuted later.

Yes. Do the experiment and let others check the results with more experiments. Again, what the bad thing in that?

This is why I stopped reading Scientific American and Popular Science, and stuff like that.

Great breakthroughs --- right on the front cover --- then read the article:

• Scientists "think" they might have evidence for...
• Scientists "assume" they've seen...
• However, Dr. So-and-So disagrees, saying...
• We "may" have a major breakthrough here.
• 30 years from now, we may just see this phenomenon occur.
• We're "headed for a breakthrough".

So, because scientists are honest about science being tentative and about the debate within the scientific community, you state that science cannot be trusted? Where's the logic in that, other than in a kind of Orwellian 'doublethink'.

The usual junk - from UFO's behind the Hale-Bopp comet to tides destroying coastal areas during the next conjunction of Mars and Jupiter.

Faces on Mars, Gumby on Venus,
What's the next peek into the 'scope
Gonna bring us?
Will it be another face, somehow?
Yes indeed! Mickey Mouse on a cow!

So now you bring out things that scientists themselves never believed but rather were shoddy statements by ufologists, and pretend scientists denoted special attention to it in any way. Really AV, if you are going to discuss this in any way, could you at least discuss what actually happened?

 

[shernren]

Being a chef is pretty stressful as exotic ingredients are pretty difficult to find. Like the other day, this customer of mine told me he'd tried beef stewed with eggplant at another restaurant and he found it delicious, and would it be okay if I tried to whip up a batch for him? But I didn't really know what an eggplant was, so I called up my French food supplier and asked him to send a batch in.

What a con! When I opened the crate, all I saw was a few kilos of brinjals! Those things sitting there were obviously brinjals, so who had taken the eggplants and switched them for brinjals? I grilled the courier but in the end he was just the messenger and he had no idea who'd done the preposterous thing. The funny thing is, I cooked the beef with brinjals instead of eggplants and the customer liked them just fine. At least I got a new recipe to play with, although I've fired my French food supplier. Food's a cutthroat business, and I've heard rumours that he always substitutes meehoon for rice vermicelli, too ...

=======================

Calling a brinjal (Asian name) an eggplant doesn't mean I've discovered anything revolutionary about it, or that scientists have been wrong about it being brinjal for the last 2000 years.

Calling Pluto a minor planet instead of a planet doesn't make it any less distant, cold, or old beyond YECist timeframes.

And calling a brinjal an eggplant doesn't make it any less delicious, nutritious, or evolved.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if science tells us your computer won't work tomorrow?

They did try telling us that during the Y2K Scare, and I didn't believe it.

My toaster works just fine.

 

[AngryWomble]

I think this thread has aptly deomstrated why the term creation science is an oxy moron. Also i think one of the things the OP was after was seeing some Lesson Plans and not just a syllabus, so AV....would you be able to knock together a Lesson Plan for us? And no, saying that you'll use visual aids doesn't cut it.

Also science is driven by paradigm shifts and change, that the beauty of science. It changes it's theories to fir the evidence and doesn't ignore the evidence that doesn't fit in with them. If we let creation science into the science classroom we'd be back peddling and we'd probably end up with a similer dogmatic regime to the one that had Galelao (SP) put under house arrest for being correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know the great thing about Pluto is that it shows there is robust discussion amongst astronomical professionals and that new data can bring about a new consensus. That's good change.

How does that saying go?

They came for Pluto, but we were Earth, so nobody said anything. Then they came for Neptune, but we were Earth, so nobody said anything. Then they came for Uranus, but we were Earth, so we didn't say anything. Etc. Finally, they came for Earth, and there was no one left to speak for us.

 

[JohnR7]

You know the great thing about Pluto is that it shows there is robust discussion amongst astronomical professionals and that new data can bring about a new consensus. That's good change.

On the other hand Creationists hear something they like and then tenaciously hang onto it, and worse yet, repeat, dispite being shown they are incorrect, sometimes for decades as in the case of Lucy's knee joint.

Pluto was a case of astronomy incorporating new data like verification of Kuiper-belt objects and a more precise definition of planets. "Lucy's knee joint" is a case of Creationists propigating a lie because they like the sound of it.

On the other hand Creationists hear something they like and then tenaciously hang onto it, and worse yet, repeat, dispite being shown they are incorrect, sometimes for decades as in the case of Lucy's knee joint.

That is the claim is that Lucy was put together with two different skeltons found more then a mile apart. They were trying to get a monkey to look more human like in order to try to prove their lame duck theory.

 

[AngryWomble]

They did try telling us that during the Y2K Scare, and I didn't believe it.

My toaster works just fine.

I believe that there was some genuine concern by some industry bods about how some of the machines would cope with going to the year 2000. the concern was that some machines might end up with a year that was in the 70's, i can't remember which one but it was one given to computers as some sort of universal start date. Now imagine if a bank had some servers that did that, lets say the ones that held your account details.....it's a little concerning isn't it?

 

[AngryWomble]

How does that saying go?

They came for Pluto, but we were Earth, so nobody said anything. Then they came for Neptune, but we were Earth, so nobody said anything. Then they came for Uranus, but we were Earth, so we didn't say anything. Etc. Finally, they came for Earth, and there was no one left to speak for us.

I spy with my little eye something begining with S....

Yep, it's Strawman time. what does this have to do with Science pray tell?

 

[AV1611VET]

Two things:
1. The discovery of extrasolar planets.
2. The discovery of a Kuiper belt object larger than Pluto.

Moral of the story: You can make some of the people think a sub-planet is a planet some of the time; but you can't make all of the people think a sub-planet is a planet all of the time.

This prompted the astronomy community to come together to decide on a standard definition of a planet, so that, within scientific circles, there would be no ambiguity. The important thing was that people settle on a definition, not what the actual definition was.

Translation: They fessed-up.

The fact that the rest of the world cared has more to do with the public appeal of solar system astronomy. It really doesn't much matter what people outside of astronomy say is a planet or not.

Translation: They'll believe anything, as long as you put it in technospeak.