Michigan Anti-Evolution Bill

[Cantuar]

If that same science class teaches about the beginning of the universe then I am saying that a Creator (Not ID. Not Creationism. Not Pink Unicorns)
should also be taught along with the other theories of the beginning.

The statement that a Creator caused the beginning of the universe is not a theory. It's not testable or falsifiable, it doesn't explain anything beyond simply making a statement. And since you're capitalising "Creator," you're clearly referring to some sort of god, which puts you in the realms of theology, not science. There is no reason whatever for theology to be taught in science class.

 

[lucaspa]

ID is often times considered a philosophical position and is, in my opinion, still alive and kicking. Obviously with all the contention between various schools of thought who argue for some form of ID (with varying degrees of sanity) the term has become rather ambiguous, but I think bluntly caling ID a fasified scientific theory, or ANY kind of scientific theory for that matter, is a bit short of the whole truth. Of course, I agree that ID is "not in the least bit scientific" and ought to be taught as a teological position rather than as a scientific theory.

-jon

1. When anyone says "not in the least bit scientific" then you have to have criteria for what is scientific. Philosophers of science have tried for over 400 years to find a set of criteria and have failed miserably. It is called the Demarcation Problem. I can post Larry Laudan's summary of the failures from his essay "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem" if you wish.

Now, COULD biological organisms be manufactured artifactsas ID states? Emphatically yes. I am working with one of those artifacts now: the ROSA mouse. It is a mouse whose embryonic stem cells were transduced with the bacterial gene for beta-galactosidase and then reimplanted into the mother. The embryo and then animal expresses this bacterial gene in every cell in its body. It makes a great system for determining whether transplanted cells are from the host (ROSA mouse) or donor (non ROSA). Or, if you isolate cells from the ROSA mouse, then those cells are donor and you can tell them from host.

Did the ROSA mouse evolve? No. It was manufactured.

So, advancing a hypothesis that ALL organisms are manufactured by a technology and placed here in present form has observational consequences. It is a scientific theory. But because the hypothesis has observational consequences, we can test for those consequences like we would ANY scientific hypothesis and falsify the hypothesis when contrary consequences are found.

2. Yes, ID obviously has religious motivation to it and is another attempt to "prove" the existence of God via science. So what? IF God zapped species into existence in their present form, then that is what happened. We can't exclude that simply because it is about God. That would be making science into a religious position and we can't allow that. Instead, the proper course AS SCIENTISTS, is to test the hypothesis like any other hypothesis.

3. IDers, because they are tying the existence of God to ID, really don't want ID falsified. So they try very hard not to make testable statements. However, since they also want ID to be considered as a scientific statement, they can't totally avoid testable statements. So deal with the testable statements and stay away from the religious aspects that are none of science's business.

4. The statement "God created" or "An intelligent entity created" is "still alive and kicking". After all, theistic evolutionists have the same statements.

 

[lucaspa]

The statement that a Creator caused the beginning of the universe is not a theory. It's not testable or falsifiable, it doesn't explain anything beyond simply making a statement. And since you're capitalising "Creator," you're clearly referring to some sort of god, which puts you in the realms of theology, not science. There is no reason whatever for theology to be taught in science class.

Cantaur, DGB said "If that same science class teaches about the beginning of the universe ". IOW, IF the curricula gets involved with hypotheses for the ultimate cause of the universe, THEN "God created" has to be one of the 4 or 5 possible hypotheses. NONE of the candidates are currently testable or falsifiable. (Which means that falsifiability isn't a sufficient criteria to exclude an idea from science. Surprise! Popper's attempt at the Demarcation Problem fails.) That should be made clear.

Now, in the event, high school science classes never venture into this area. In dealing with the beginning of the universe, what is discussed is HOW the universe began -- Big Bang -- not WHY it began. Therefore the particular hypothesis "God caused the Big Bang" never comes up.

Before I leave this area, there are two questions within science where direct action by a "Creator" is a legitimate hypothesis:

1. Why does the universe exist?
2. Why does the universe have this order rather than some other order?

 

[lucaspa]

Facts that science says is facts(theories).

There are two kinds of facts.

1. Repeated observations. Thus the velocity of light is a fact. That humans have 46 chromosomes is a fact. Repeated observation.

2. Accepting theories as (provisionally) true. When theories survive numerous attempts to falsify them and have accumulated considerable supporting evidence, then they are accepted as (provisionally) true -- as facts -- and then used to make other theories or other observation.

The classic example here is heliocentrism -- the sun is the center of the solar system. A theory. Plain and simple. Yet EVERYONE views it as "fact". We use the "fact" of heliocentrism to calculate the paths of spacecraft to other planets or our solar system. That the spacecraft arrive where and when they are calculated to arrive becomes even more support for the theory.

Common ancestry is accepted (provisionally) as fact.

Evidence that only science controls.

The rule for science is that ONLY evidence that ANYONE and EVERYONE can get under similar circumstances can be considered. So much for "controlling" evidence when the evidence MUST be available to EVERYONE. That you personally due to lack of time, funds, or training are unable to get the evidence doesn't mean that you CAN'T.

Half the time I find that when pinned down, science cannot make up their minds which that it is or is not what they say it is and is often changed.

Some examples, please?

Ikester, on the frontiers of science, there are always 2 or more competing hypotheses. Scientists fight like cats and dogs over them. That's why these forums are relaxing for me. They are so much tamer and milder than most scientific meetings and discussions! So yes, what is "said" changes when new data come in and falsify some of the hypotheses.

So, when you see all scientists agreeing on certain theories -- such as evolution or Big Bang -- you know that the evidence is so overwhelming that it is impossible to disagree.

Because all other religions are taught in history class except christian. Could you explain that?

Can you document this? My daughter just last year had Christianity taught as part of the history of Europe. First the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, then the role of the Church in Medieval politics, the role of the Church in preserving knowledge and inspiring art, and the Reformation. So she got quite a bit of the history of Christianity taught.

Do you mean teaching Christianity as THE valid religion? Of course they can't do that, nor would I want them to. I don't want the state promoting a particular religion. We've seen the harm that comes from that.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

No. From On the Origin of Species (you can quote this every time it comes up, and it will come up often):

"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.

These quotes blow away any assertion that evolution is a religion. Creationists try to portray evolution as atheism (thus the religion part). But evolution is not and never has been atheism.

Notice also that Darwin specifically said that evolution had nothing to do with getting the first life, much less getting the universe.

Arthur, what you will soon see is that most creationists and many atheists aren't really arguing creationism vs evolution. What they are arguing is theism vs atheism. This is the sublevel of the discussion. You MUST ALWAYS be aware of the sublevel and listen very carefully to posters so that you can recognize when the discussion leaves science and becomes theism vs atheism.

My strong opinion is that you want to keep the discussion from going to atheism vs theism. Since evolution is NOT atheism, it does harm to science and evolution to let evolution be portrayed this way -- by EITHER creationists or atheists.

Creationists who think evolution is atheism have made a tragic logical mistake: they have said that IF God did NOT create by their literal interpretation of Genesis, THEN God did not create and does not exist.

Yes, the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but that is the tradgedy of the mistake. Another tragedy is that some atheists are quite happy to let creationists make the mistake since it furthers their own proselytizing agenda.

For theists, both creationISM and evolution are different ways to accomplish CREATION. IOW, they are competing ways that God created.

I definately have to copy this. It says what I'd often like to say to some people on and off this forum. What amazes me, is how redundantly this (and other facts about Evolution, science, et al..) comes up on this board and how the same replies including mistakes and misconceptions are made. It honestly gives me a headache. Though, I confess, that's probably from staring at my screen for too long. XP

It took me 10 minutes skimming through my biology text book to get a basic understanding of Evolution. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject (or on Science in general. I bearly scrapped up a B in school.), but I have a good grasp on it.


Well...back to the topic. Actually, that post was slightly relevant. XP

 

[Cantuar]

Cantaur, DGB said "If that same science class teaches about the beginning of the universe ". IOW, IF the curricula gets involved with hypotheses for the ultimate cause of the universe, THEN "God created" has to be one of the 4 or 5 possible hypotheses. NONE of the candidates are currently testable or falsifiable.

From what I've been reading about cosmology, which isn't very technical because I don't have the mathematical background, it seems that the theories under consideration make some testable predictions which can be addressed by experiments in nuclear physics. The sorts of experiments needed to test the latest theories are just too expensive for any governments to provide funds to build the accelerators, though.

I mean, when one of your four or five possible hypotheses is "God created," what do you do when you've said it? Cosmologists are refining their theories and they've been testing them to the extent they can; there's nothing you can do with "God created." People accept it if they believe in God, reject it if they don't, and allow that it's possible if they're agnostic. I also don't see why it isn't compatible with some of the other hypotheses; if you allow that God's a possibility, then God could have been involved in an initial singularity or in collision of branes or any other of the current hypotheses.

BTW, it's Cantuar, not Cantaur. Cantuar is a Latinised version of Canterbury, where I went to university. It's also the name by which the Archbishop of Canterbury signs himself (the current version being Rowan Cantuar), so it seemed appropriate for a Christian forum (since I've always had a lot of respect for the mainstream C of E, even though I know it doesn't count as Christian in some fundamentalist quarters).

 

[lucaspa]

Science and their old earth theories, has had the Bible thrown out of school. Name me another reason it was removed that did not have anything to do with science?

The Bible wasn't thrown out. The local high school has a copy in the library

Why is Christianity not promoted in public schools? Not from science, but from the lesson of
1. The Reformation Wars, where governments were linked to particular Christian denominations and killed people who worshipped differently.
2. From the Puritans fleeing persecution in England where the Anglican Church was the religion supported by the government.
3. From the laws of various states in the 1700s. If you were not a Congregationalist and lived in Massachusetts, you were taxed to support the Congregational Church. In Virginia, you were taxed to support the Episcopalian Church.

So the Founding Fathers kept religion private and would not allow the schools to support a particular religion. At first, this was mostly to keep rival denominations of Christians from fighting, but later it keeps Christians from oppressing Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Jainists, and atheists. Notice that none of these is allowed to promote their religion either.

So a battle was started by science against God.

Actually, the battle has always been the other way. Remember, the laws were originally forbidding the teaching of evolution. Science was attacked by Biblical literalists.

This is also the reason that those in the christian faith do not get along with science.

Just Biblical literalists, not "those in the christian faith". Remembver, Ikester, the people who sued to keep creationISM out of public school in Arkansas were ALL Judeo-Christians. Of 26 plaintiffs, 23 were ministers or rabbis. They included the Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, and African-Methodist bishops of Arkansas.

Science did not want anything in their way while they taught their theories.

No one ever said you couldn't talk about creationism in a philosophy and comparative religion classroom. You just can't teach it as what it is not: a valid scientific theory. Actually, you could teach it like geocentrism is taught -- a falsified theory -- but you wouldn't approve of that, would you?

Kids are suspended and expelled for bringing it to school.

Can you please document this and be specific?

Thanks to science. And you wonder why we fight for our rights? And we will continue. Believe what you want. This has just begun. And with the help of www.aclj.org we will be making strides in obtaining our rights back.

What did science have to do with this?

Ikester, this sounds like a rant against atheism. If you want to protest what you consider undue influence of atheism in public schools, that's fine. But the basic flaw here is that science is atheistic. It's not.

If you want to fight atheism as a rival faith, then go ahead. BUT, if you don't realize that science is NOT your enemy and keep this mistaken notion that science is atheism, then you will lose your fight against atheism. You are fighting the wrong "enemy" in the wrong place.

 

[Cantuar]

Before I leave this area, there are two questions within science where direct action by a "Creator" is a legitimate hypothesis:

1. Why does the universe exist?
2. Why does the universe have this order rather than some other order?

That first doesn't sound like a science question to me. Science is too restricted to dealing with the laws of nature to answer "outside" questions like that, isn't it? I mean, if "direct action by a Creator" is a legitimate alternative, then the answer to that question would be along the lines of "because it pleased God to bring it into being," and how much further forward are you scientifically after having said that?

The second question seems more legitimate, but again, once you've answered that the order is a reflection of the mind of God or something equally theological, how much further forward are you scientifically?

 

[lucaspa]

Cantaur, DGB said "If that same science class teaches about the beginning of the universe ". IOW,

From what I've been reading about cosmology, which isn't very technical because I don't have the mathematical background, it seems that the theories under consideration make some testable predictions which can be addressed by experiments in nuclear physics. The sorts of experiments needed to test the latest theories are just too expensive for any governments to provide funds to build the accelerators, though.

None of the candidates for First Cause with the possible exception of quantum fluctuation are testable. Logical and mathematical necessiity is not. No Boundary is not. Both are consistent with the observed universe but both will also accomodate any new discoveries about this universe. That is, they don't predict any knowledge to be found different than what the other hypotheses predict.

Ekpyrotic is really an alternative to Big Bang, a how the universe began, not really an alternative to "Why the universe began". That one can be tested because it makes different predictions in gravity waves from BB.

Quantum fluctuation ultimately depends on String Theory right now in order to get a spacetime by quantum fluctuation. Yes, the various String Theories do make different predictions FROM EACH OTHER, but not, as far as I am aware, from No Boundary or LandM necessity or deity.

I mean, when one of your four or five possible hypotheses is "God created," what do you do when you've said it?

Try to falsify the others so that this one is the only hypothesis left standing. IOW, just what you do with the others.

The difference is that "God created" is automatically consistent with te observed universe, just as L and M necessity is. No Boundary has an arbitrary choice about the nature of time right after the BB, but otherwise it too is consistent with the observed universe. No Boundary did have to be tinkered with when it was found the universe wasn't going to collapse, but that has been done. Which shows that NO Boundary wasn't really falsifiable to begin with, since a forever expanding universe SHOULD have falsified it.

Cosmologists are refining their theories and they've been testing them to the extent they can;

But many of these theories addres HOW the universe began, not WHY. So it's apples and oranges.

I also don't see why it isn't compatible with some of the other hypotheses; if you allow that God's a possibility, then God could have been involved in an initial singularity or in collision of branes or any other of the current hypotheses.

In No Boundary, there is no creation. The universe just IS. So, if No Boundary is correct, then "God created" is false. If quantum fluctuation is correct, then the universe has no cause. So again, the cause inherent in "God created" is falsified and thus "God created" gets falsified.

Now, whether that falsifies the existence of deity is another matter.

 

[lucaspa]

That first doesn't sound like a science question to me. Science is too restricted to dealing with the laws of nature to answer "outside" questions like that, isn't it?

And one of the "laws" of nature may be that a Creator set up the laws of nature. Science seeks to describe the physical universe. Including the "why's" it looks the way it does. The idea that science is "restricted" to natural law came about because Michael Ruse let lawyers dictate to him what science is.

There is a question whether science is CAPABLE of answering the question or determing whether the hypothesis is false. However, there is no restriction on science asking questions it can't answer. We do it all the time. Mostly due to lack of instrumentation, not inherent limitations of science.

I mean, if "direct action by a Creator" is a legitimate alternative, then the answer to that question would be along the lines of "because it pleased God to bring it into being," and how much further forward are you scientifically after having said that?

You are at the next layer. The question is: why does the UNIVERSE exist? Answer: Because God created it. Next question: why did God create the universe. Possible answer: Because it pleased God to do so. Next question: Why did it please God to do so?

The second question seems more legitimate, but again, once you've answered that the order is a reflection of the mind of God or something equally theological, how much further forward are you scientifically?

Again, you are forward enough to have the answer to the question: why does the universe have this order rather than some other order?

If you take any of the other possible answers, such as "there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in the one with this order", how much further forward are you scientifically?

You see, Cantaur, you can't judge the accuracy of an answer by the ability to answer the next question that pops up out of the answer. You answer questions one layer at a time and assess the accuracy of the answer.

 

[Cantuar]

*

* I mean, when one of your four or five possible hypotheses is "God created," what do you do when you've said it?
* *
Try to falsify the others so that this one is the only hypothesis left standing. IOW, just what you do with the others.

OK, but didn't you just say that the others weren't testable?

In any case, I suspect that if one of these other versions is correct and they come with the baggage that there's no cause, that won't prove a problem for theologians because they'll have some intricate way of showing that God is above all that and that he could have created someething for which there's no cause. This stuff makes my teeth ache.

 

[DGB454]

Enough said about your sense of humor..

That wasn't polite was it? (can you guess where this is going to come up again?)

Then I suppose ordinary politeness to strangers doesn't apply?.

Bingo.. If you guessed it was going to come up again here then you win.

Then explain it to me. I haven't seen you advance an argument in several posts. It would be nice of you to get back on topic.

Actually you explained it rather nicely when you said this..

Cantaur, DGB said "If that same science class teaches about the beginning of the universe ". IOW, IF the curricula gets involved with hypotheses for the ultimate cause of the universe, THEN "God created" has to be one of the 4 or 5 possible hypotheses.

See? I had a feeling you got what I was saying all along.

DGB, you say Creator. Let's get specific. HOW do you think the Creator created? Did the Creator form the first H. sapiens from dirt? Did the Creator simply poof the first H. sapiens into existence out of nothing? Did the Creator have H. sapiens evolve from a previous species?

Did the Creator simply start the Big Bang and then everything else happened without any input from the Creator?

When you answer these questions then everyone will have a much better idea of what you are talking about.

Actually, let's not get specific. That wouldn't be on the topic would it?

 

[Cantuar]

You are at the next layer. The question is: why does the UNIVERSE exist? Answer: Because God created it. Next question: why did God create the universe. Possible answer: Because it pleased God to do so. Next question: Why did it please God to do so?

OK, we left science behind some time ago, didn't we? I mean, getting into the personal preference of a hypothetical deity doesn't sound like something that's ever going to make it into Science or Nature.

If you take any of the other possible answers, such as "there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in the one with this order", how much further forward are you scientifically?

Depends. I assume that this multi-universe business came out of (or at least via) cosmology theory, not just directly out of the recesses of someone's imagination. Theories can be falsified by experiment, but they can also be shown to be incorrect in themselves. My PhD research was pure theory, no experiment at all, but it could still have been shown to be incorrect by someone going through it and finding mistakes in the mathematics. The multi-universe scenario, even if not testable by experiment (that we know of), could be shown to be scientifically impossible if the theory itself is shown to be incorrect. Scientifically we're that much further forward if we know which theories are self-consistent and which aren't. Although while I was doing my PhD, I and my colleagues were forever coming up against the opinion of experimental scientist that theoretical research was a total waste of space, so I can see that some of them wouldn't be impressed by hearing that a theory was or wasn't self-consistent ("I'm not having some thoretician tell me what I can't do..." - sigh -).

 

[Cantuar]

Actually, let's not get specific. That wouldn't be on the topic would it?

If you're claiming that your "God created" scenario is scientific enough to warrant pride of place in science class, then it would be on topic. So why not have a go at answering?

 

[DGB454]

Is there any scenaro scientific enough to warrant pride of place in a science class?

 

[Cantuar]

Scientific ones are.

 

[DGB454]

Good answer...

Like what? I have yet to hear any scientific explination of the beginning that was any more plausable than God did it.

 

[Siliconaut]

Like what? I have yet to hear any scientific explination of the beginning that was any more plausable than God did it

How do you define "plausible"? To scientists like Stephen Hawking, theories look plausible that to me are near-incomprehensible because I shamefully lack the prerequisite higher maths.

Simplicity is no evidence of truth - one can't repeat that too often...

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa: DGB, you say Creator. Let's get specific. HOW do you think the Creator created? Did the Creator form the first H. sapiens from dirt? Did the Creator simply poof the first H. sapiens into existence out of nothing? Did the Creator have H. sapiens evolve from a previous species?

Did the Creator simply start the Big Bang and then everything else happened without any input from the Creator?

When you answer these questions then everyone will have a much better idea of what you are talking about.

Actually, let's not get specific. That wouldn't be on the topic would it?

It would be right on topic. After all, it is the specifics that have to be addressed in the classroom if the Michigan law is passed. Also, we need the specifics to know what you mean when you want the "Creator" discussed and why.

 

[lucaspa]

*

OK, but didn't you just say that the others weren't testable?

Which is one reason why we have insufficient data to decide between the hypotheses.