Michigan Anti-Evolution Bill

[DGB454]

A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena that's testable and falsifiable and that's based on the laws of nature. How can you use the scientific method to test the theory that God created the universe? What test could you come up with to falsify the presence or the actions of God?

Edited to say - before Prof blows a gasket, by "the actions of God," I don't mean specific actions such as "the universe was created 6000 years ago," I mean actions of a deity in general.

Can't. Never said I wanted to falsify God. Just the opposite actually.


Who is Prof? is that Gilligans buddy? Not sure.

 

[Orihalcon]

Seems to me that science is a little afraid of losing ground in the schools. This is a free country the last I looked. So whats wrong with having a choice? Or has science suddenly became fact and cannot be challenged?

yes, science is afraid of losing ground in schools. we can't suddenly start teaching falsified beliefs in our science classrooms, which are supposed to be places for kids to learn scientific truths.
the US is not a free country, especially for children. the kids can't choose to go to school or not without being punished for it. basic science, math, english, social studies classes are mandatory. but guess what? there's a difference between giving the kids an alternative to study and just lying to them.

as soon as they hit university, if they believe the intelligent design theory, they won't be able to get any biology degree without realizing that half the **** they learned in high school was a lie.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Can't. Never said I wanted to falsify God. Just the opposite actually.

Fair enough. What tests could you come up with to prove God?


Here's how I see it.

I have a carton of orange juice in my refridgerator. Is this statement true or false? You have no way of knowing what I have in my fridge from where you are without me providing evidence. So..you can either take my word on it...or decide not to until I provide evidence that proves I have orange juice.

same can be said for a Creator.

God created the earth. Is this statement true or false? We have no way of knowing because we didn't see God create the Earth. So...we can either accept that God created the earth...or decide not to until evidence is proved.

Of course, it can be proven or disproven that I have orange juice...God can't be proven or disproven. At least not with the methods we have now. If God came here right now and said 'I exist, I created the Earth, etc..etc..' I'd believe him/her/it. Just like I'd believe the Pink Unicorn if he came here and said the same thing. And if it's proven that there is no Deity, etc..etc..I'll believe that too. But, I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

If you take the creator (I know ID isn't the same as a creator) out of the picture what are you left with?
A universe that started from nothing and created itself from nothing?
Which sounds more absurd?
I don't believe I have ever heard a satisfactory explination of how the universe managed to create itself. Is there one out there?

Just because 'Godditit' is the simple, easy to understand answer doesn't make it the right one. I have little understanding of Quantam Mechanics, Abiogenesis, etc..etc..so, I won't even touch explaining creation of the universe based on all that. They're just theories. An explaination doesn't equal 100% proof in the science community. It just means it's backed with facts and evidence. Some stronger than others.

Most people don't accept ToE or life from lifelessness because they aren't 100% proven. There are loopholes in the theory of gravity, but a lot of people seem to accept that. Than again...if some didn't believe in the theory of gravity, it's not like they'd start floating off into space.

 

[Siliconaut]

What are you reading? I have been saying Creator not Creationism.

Why should science teach a creator, when science cannot make statements about such an entity? That would be tantamount to lying - science simply doesn't have a stance on the existance of a creator, and thus it should not be taught as having one.

The existance of a creator is something to be debated in philosophy and religion classes, everywhere else it's simply off topic.

What are you reading? I have been saying Creator not Creationism.

That's great. Why do you propose teaching something science has no stance on in science classes, then?

I was poking fun at your old-age moans about "youth nowadays". No offence intended, I just couldn't let it slip... *gg*

 

[DGB454]

Fair enough. What tests could you come up with to prove God?


Here's how I see it.

I have a carton of orange juice in my refridgerator. Is this statement true or false? You have no way of knowing what I have in my fridge from where you are without me providing evidence. So..you can either take my word on it...or decide not to until I provide evidence that proves I have orange juice.

same can be said for a Creator.

God created the earth. Is this statement true or false? We have no way of knowing because we didn't see God create the Earth. So...we can either accept that God created the earth...or decide not to until evidence is proved.

Of course, it can be proven or disproven that I have orange juice...God can't be proven or disproven. At least not with the methods we have now. If God came here right now and said 'I exist, I created the Earth, etc..etc..' I'd believe him/her/it. Just like I'd believe the Pink Unicorn if he came here and said the same thing. And if it's proven that there is no Deity, etc..etc..I'll believe that too. But, I doubt that'll ever happen.

Exactly. Same can be said with any other explination on how the universe came to be.So why not teach that a creator may have created the universe? What is the harm in that?

By the way. There are no pink unicorns. I killed the last one a few years ago. (pesky varments kept eating all my purple carrots)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Exactly. Same can be said with any other explination on how the universe came to be.So why not teach that a creator may have created the universe? What is the harm in that?

Do they teach any first cause events in school?

 

[Cantuar]

Can't.

Exactly. And the lack of ability to falsify an assertion means that it sin't a scientific theory. And if it isn't scientific theory, it doesn't belong anywhere in science, including science class.

Never said I wanted to falsify God. Just the opposite actually.

I didn't say anything about wanting to falsify God. I said that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. If an assertion explains everything and its stellar opposite, then it's no use as a scientific theory. In order to be able to use a theory as an explanation, that theory has to be testable and incorrect parts of it have to be identified and corrected, or it's a worthless explanation. I can say the Invisible Pink Unicorn did everything, and there's no way that can be tested objectively. So it's not a useful explanation, any more than invisible dragons or leprechauns or demons or angels, because once you've said "I know they exist and they can do anything," you're no better off than before in terms of understanding how things happen.

Who is Prof? is that Gilligans buddy? Not sure.

Prof is Lucaspa, who's a biology professor at a college in New York.

 

[Cantuar]

Exactly. Same can be said with any other explination on how the universe came to be.So why not teach that a creator may have created the universe? What is the harm in that?

It isn't science. Teach in philosophy or rreligion classes by all means - but if you're teaching all the possible causes, the Christian God is just one possibility among many. I assume that as long as you're wanting kids to learn all the possibilities, you'll be going through the whole range of African, Asian, South American, northern European, and other creation stories as well as just the Christian one.

By the way. There are no pink unicorns. I killed the last one a few years ago. (pesky varments kept eating all my purple carrots)

There's just the one - the IPU (pbuh), and you can't prove otherwise.

 

[goat37]

Do they teach any first cause events in school?

From what I've found, most use the Big Bang theory and leave it at that...

I am sure some kids ask "what caused the big bang?" typically the answer is either "I don't know" or that "since the universe is an entirely self-contained entity, everything (if anything) happens outside the known universe it would not have any bearing or effect on things inside the universe, therefore it isn't even worth talking about because it wouldn't make any difference."

That last part may not be completely true as I wrote it, just kind of ad-libbed it, but the general gist of it is accurate (from what I've read from Hawking, Greene, etc..)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

From what I've found, most use the Big Bang theory and leave it at that...

I am sure some kids ask "what caused the big bang?" typically the answer is either "I don't know" or that "since the universe is an entirely self-contained entity, everything (if anything) happens outside the known universe it would not have any bearing or effect on things inside the universe, therefore it isn't even worth talking about because it wouldn't make any difference."

Well, the "I don't know" response is what I remember from school as well. I just don't remember ever being taught a first cause.

 

[lucaspa]

Thanks for bumping it up. Looks like the traditional non-answer answer that I always get. Not that I can give a better one but it does seem like when the answer is not cut and dry the first thing to get thrown out is the one with God. (no accountability that way I guess)

What do you feel is a non-answer about the other candidates for First Cause? Notice that deity created is one of the candidates, so it didn't get "thrown out".

This one.

2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.

That is one of the hypotheses for First Cause, but it is not a scientific theory. It is a theological statement. As a theological statement, it is not appropriate in science class.

Remember, a God or Gods can have created the universe by the means discovered by science, right?

Ok don't get your panties all in a bunch. I don't recall saying anything about child abuse or labor or drugs. If you feel it's your duty to protect every child in the world then you are a better man than me. I feel it's my duty to protect mine and try to help those I can help. If children learning that there may be a creator in science class somehow contributes to child abuse or someone in Oregon doing drugs then maybe I should rethink my position.

Nice duck of the issues!! So you think we can lie to students in science class and present intelligent design as a valid scientific theory. Remember, this isn't about a generic creator, it's about a SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC THEORY: intelligent design.

What you want is for school to promote theism. And you want kids lied to by saying that there is a valid scientific theory of intelligent design. All under the false guise of "let the state decide".

What is the falsified theory? A Creator?

NO! Intelligent design isn't just saying "there is a Creator." Darwin said that about evolution:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Intelligent design says that organisms or parts of organisms were manufactured deliberately by an intelligent entity and then placed on the planet. IOW, organisms or parts of organisms are manufactured artifacts, like pottery or cars or watches. The evidence falsifies that.

I have the uncanny ability to learn more than one thing and retain it for extended periods of time. I'm guessing the kids today don't have that same ability. If they did then I would think teaching more than 1 thing to them wouldn't be such a huge problem.

It's not teaching them more than one thing. After all, within evolution you get phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium being discussed at the same time. You get allopatric and sympatric speciation being discussed.

The problem is that you are trying to teach a falsified theory as tho it were valid. Tell me, how do you honestly teach that the earth is the center of the solar system? You can't, because that theory has been shown to be wrong. ID has also been shown to be wrong.

Your premise is that ID is a valid theory. It's a false premise.

Maybe they have evolved into having less memory capacity.
Weird huh?

Ad hominem. Why did you use it?

PS. After re-reading this post it just hit me that appears like I'm being a bit of a smart alec. Hmmm....

It appears that you have run out of rational argument and have to use ad hominem. Please change that.

 

[lucaspa]

A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena that's testable and falsifiable and that's based on the laws of nature. How can you use the scientific method to test the theory that God created the universe? What test could you come up with to falsify the presence or the actions of God?

Edited to say - before Prof blows a gasket, by "the actions of God," I don't mean specific actions such as "the universe was created 6000 years ago," I mean actions of a deity in general.

No blown gasket. As you noted, the statement "God created" has no testable deductions.

If you say "God created using evolution" (as Darwin did) you have lots of testable deductions FOR EVOLUTION. But none for "God created".

If you say "God created the universe 6,000 years ago" then you can have deductions and tests for 6,000 YEARS AGO. But still none for "God created."

The "theory" is a theological statement, not a scientific theory.

 

[lucaspa]

Fair enough. What tests could you come up with to prove God?


Here's how I see it.

I have a carton of orange juice in my refridgerator. Is this statement true or false? You have no way of knowing what I have in my fridge from where you are without me providing evidence. So..you can either take my word on it...or decide not to until I provide evidence that proves I have orange juice.

You have this backwards. You make a statement/hypothesis that a specific fridge contains orange juice (in or out of the carton?). You deduce from that statement that a carton of orange juice with the liquid will be present in that fridge if you look into it. You test the deduction by opening the fridge and trying to show that such a carton is NOT there.

Now, when you say "I provide evidence" means YOU have tested the hypothesis. Distance prevents me from testing it, but I COULD if I would take the time and expense to travel to your house and open your fridge.

What you do when you say "prove" is actually falsify all other hypotheses that orange juice is NOT in your fridge.

[QUTOE] God created the earth. Is this statement true or false? We have no way of knowing because we didn't see God create the Earth. So...we can either accept that God created the earth...or decide not to until evidence is proved. [/QUOTE]

The problem is not that we didn't see God create. We didn't see H. sapiens evolve from H. erectus, either. But there is evidence left by that process that is present for us to find.

No, the problem is saying "God created the earth" has no testable deductions. The deductions don't happen until you SPECIFY A MECHANISM BY WHICH GOD CREATED!! And then, you don't test God but the mechanism.

So, if you state that God created the earth by gravity accreting interstellar dust and rocks around a forming protostar, then we have plenty of evidence that God created the earth. However, what we don't know is whether God actually used gravity or whether gravity works on its own and there is no God.

God can't be proven or disproven. At least not with the methods we have now.

There you go!! You now just alluded to Methodological Materialism.

 

[lucaspa]

Again....I am talking Creator not Creationism....Is anyone hearing me out there?

Yes, we are hearing you, but you aren't hearing us.

Saying "There is a Creator" as in Creator = God is NOT a scientific theory. It's a THEOLOGICAL statement. Science can't legitimately say anything about that. What the Michigan law does is not discuss "Creator" but really a mechanism for HOW a Creator created. CreationISM.

In biology there is indeed a "creator" of biological designs: natural selection. ID doesn't accept that but insists that deity had to manufacture organisms entirely and place them on the planet.

I honestly don't want to debate anything. I don't need science to tell me there is a creator. It can't and I know that.

Go back to the OP. The Michigan law says that science CAN tell you there is a Creator. You have just said ID isn't valid and therefore the Michigan law is bogus.
"All students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator."

So science can tell me how the Creator molded the universe but it's not allowed for the teaching of the Creator in science class? Actually that answer came directly from lucaspa.

Right. Because "the Creator" itself, as you pointed out above, can't be shown by science. You BELIEVE that from evidence outside of science. Not from science. You said that yourself "I don't need science to tell me there is a creator. It can't and I know that."

Science isn't about beliefs. Now, to be fair, IF a teacher says evolution shows that there is no Creator, then that isn't science either. That is also a faith based view that would violate the separation of Church and State.

Were talking teaching a Creator in science.

Which you yourself said science can't. You seem to forget that you "know that".

No wonder you are confused.

 

[lucaspa]

Exactly. Same can be said with any other explination on how the universe came to be.So why not teach that a creator may have created the universe? What is the harm in that?

WHEN the discussion of First Cause comes up, you could list "created by deity" among the possibilities for First Cause. However, that is NOT in biology class. It might come up in physics class or a class on cosmology (not taught in high school), but not in biology, chemistry, or earth science.

What? You are just casually going to drop this into the middle of discussing respiration or photosynthesis?

Or do you want to mandate such a mention in every science class, whether it is relevant or not?

 

[lucaspa]

From what I've found, most use the Big Bang theory and leave it at that...

I am sure some kids ask "what caused the big bang?" typically the answer is either "I don't know" or that "since the universe is an entirely self-contained entity, everything (if anything) happens outside the known universe it would not have any bearing or effect on things inside the universe, therefore it isn't even worth talking about because it wouldn't make any difference."

That last part may not be completely true as I wrote it, just kind of ad-libbed it, but the general gist of it is accurate (from what I've read from Hawking, Greene, etc..)

Big Bang isn't First Cause. "what caused the big bang?" gets close to First Cause. Both answers are correct as they both say "I don't know." Since there are multiple hypotheses for First Cause with insufficient data to choose between them, "I don't know" is the correct short answer. That BB is a singularity with nothing "before" able to affect us on this side of the singularity is another way of saying "I don't know".

 

[lucaspa]

Well, the "I don't know" response is what I remember from school as well. I just don't remember ever being taught a first cause.

You probably weren't. Neither was I. Time is so limited in high school science class that no time is spent on all the speculative branches of science. And let's face it, quantum fluctuation and No Boundary are too complicated for high school science classes to really deal with them other than saying the names.

 

[goodseedhomeschool]

ID makes perfect sense. It sure makes more sense than the religious fairy tales evolution tells. I am glad to see this and I hope more states follow the same.

 

[goat37]

ID makes perfect sense. It sure makes more sense than the religious fairy tales evolution tells. I am glad to see this and I hope more states follow the same.

If schools want anything to do with creation, they should change to a christian school and call themselves seminary.

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory and therefore should not be taught in science class as a plausible competing theory.

Creationism is a religious ideal, and does not belong in school.

I don't want my children going to a school where they could teach something that is as blatantly false as this. The school system isn't perfect, but it will get a lot worse if schools start doing something like this.

If you want your kids to learn about creation, go to church on sundays and send them to sunday school...either that or send them to a seminary school.