- Posts: 15740
- Thank you received: 319
Faith vs Science in Schools
17 Dec 2012 23:05 #33
by ScienceChic
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic Faith vs Science in Schools
And why do you think I am assuming and that my stand on this issue is based merely on my perception? I may have in my sig that I aspire to be a freak, 
but my beliefs are pretty conservative in that they generally follow widely accepted views by larger scientific organizations and bodies of experts.
This statement implies that you believe they go together: [quoteemCinnamonGirl:3syyu7p7]They can go together if you try to think creatively about it.[/quoteem:3syyu7p7]
You say that you have issues with people in science who try to misrepresent evolution as concrete (which no scientist that I know does [just b/c we don't post a disclaimer every time we talk about it doesn't mean that it's to be taken absolutely for certain - any particular specific topic in evolution is way too complex to delve into the nuances of what parts of it are more or less reliable and why. If you think I wrote a TLTR book before... lol ], but it is the widely accepted theory at the current moment that best describes and explains how life has changed and adapted, despite the gaps in knowledge that are always getting filled in as we learn more. Nothing else, certainly not creationism or intelligent design which can't even be tested and proven or disproven, has been proposed or demonstrated to adequately challenge its acceptance).
Then you say "Sorry but science is not always right. They tell us something then it changes later" - which is it? Is it concrete or does it change to something later? Are there no allowances to be made for the fact that science does indeed provide for weight of credibility and incorporate new data and modify based on that, and throw out that which is wrong or strengthen what isn't...or does it stubbornly stick to previous dogma despite new data presented?
Next you say you are fascinated by string theory and that it's going to turn science on its head - where do you think string theory came from? Scientists! And it's far from perfect, or well-understood, so it's a pretty safe bet to say that much that is currently thought about it will change as time goes on and we learn more basic physics.
What did you think of the rest of the Darwin quote? How would you interpret what he said when taken in the full context of the letter from which it came and of his entire life which was conflicted on this matter?
[quoteemGrady:3syyu7p7]I still haven't seen the proof that ID can be dis-proved or for that matter proved.[/quoteem:3syyu7p7][quoteemGrady:3syyu7p7]ID theory can coexist in perfect harmony with evolution.[/quoteem:3syyu7p7]The fundamental difference I see between natural selection and intelligent design is that through the scientific discipline we observe, test, analyze, and understand, then create rational explanations of how the observed function in order to further our knowledge of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. Intelligent design says that no matter what the observed data, it is because of an intelligent designer - the data is irrelevant, they always go back to attributing the world as we we know and perceive it to be to something that cannot be proved or disproved. That's not seeking to objectively further our understanding, that's seeking to prove the existence of a higher power ("Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose."). Their biggest flaw? The concept of irreducable complexity.
I'm surprised that someone as smart as Michael Behe would back himself into such a corner by claiming that we just can't figure some things out because they are too complex, couldn't have come about through a step-wise process (evolution isn't necessarily step-wise), and therefore they must have been "intelligently" designed, not randomly happened upon and perpetuated by natural selection forces. He had to have known that at some point our understanding would progress to the point that the previously unexplainable would become understandable and explainable, and his claims ripped to shreds. Sorry, but this destroys the credibility of intelligent design in my eyes. Maybe there is an intelligent designer out there, maybe there isn't, but it's not science's place to try to confirm that belief.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified
by Pete Dunkelberg
[Posted: 26 April 2003]
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
William A. Dembski and Kenneth R. Miller
Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.
April 12, 2006
Read more at: http://phys.org/news64046019.html#jCp
BTW, did you know that the founder of Intelligent Design movement , Phillip Johnson (a former law professor, mind you, no degree in any sciences), does not believe that HIV causes AIDS and he authored the Wedge Strategy , the Discovery Institute's internal document detailing their long-term plan to inject the "supernatural" into science. Yeah, sorry, the supernatural has no place in science; go check out the philosophy department.
but my beliefs are pretty conservative in that they generally follow widely accepted views by larger scientific organizations and bodies of experts.This statement implies that you believe they go together: [quoteemCinnamonGirl:3syyu7p7]They can go together if you try to think creatively about it.[/quoteem:3syyu7p7]
You say that you have issues with people in science who try to misrepresent evolution as concrete (which no scientist that I know does [just b/c we don't post a disclaimer every time we talk about it doesn't mean that it's to be taken absolutely for certain - any particular specific topic in evolution is way too complex to delve into the nuances of what parts of it are more or less reliable and why. If you think I wrote a TLTR book before... lol ], but it is the widely accepted theory at the current moment that best describes and explains how life has changed and adapted, despite the gaps in knowledge that are always getting filled in as we learn more. Nothing else, certainly not creationism or intelligent design which can't even be tested and proven or disproven, has been proposed or demonstrated to adequately challenge its acceptance).
Then you say "Sorry but science is not always right. They tell us something then it changes later" - which is it? Is it concrete or does it change to something later? Are there no allowances to be made for the fact that science does indeed provide for weight of credibility and incorporate new data and modify based on that, and throw out that which is wrong or strengthen what isn't...or does it stubbornly stick to previous dogma despite new data presented?
Next you say you are fascinated by string theory and that it's going to turn science on its head - where do you think string theory came from? Scientists! And it's far from perfect, or well-understood, so it's a pretty safe bet to say that much that is currently thought about it will change as time goes on and we learn more basic physics.
What did you think of the rest of the Darwin quote? How would you interpret what he said when taken in the full context of the letter from which it came and of his entire life which was conflicted on this matter?
[quoteemGrady:3syyu7p7]I still haven't seen the proof that ID can be dis-proved or for that matter proved.[/quoteem:3syyu7p7][quoteemGrady:3syyu7p7]ID theory can coexist in perfect harmony with evolution.[/quoteem:3syyu7p7]The fundamental difference I see between natural selection and intelligent design is that through the scientific discipline we observe, test, analyze, and understand, then create rational explanations of how the observed function in order to further our knowledge of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. Intelligent design says that no matter what the observed data, it is because of an intelligent designer - the data is irrelevant, they always go back to attributing the world as we we know and perceive it to be to something that cannot be proved or disproved. That's not seeking to objectively further our understanding, that's seeking to prove the existence of a higher power ("Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose."). Their biggest flaw? The concept of irreducable complexity.
I'm surprised that someone as smart as Michael Behe would back himself into such a corner by claiming that we just can't figure some things out because they are too complex, couldn't have come about through a step-wise process (evolution isn't necessarily step-wise), and therefore they must have been "intelligently" designed, not randomly happened upon and perpetuated by natural selection forces. He had to have known that at some point our understanding would progress to the point that the previously unexplainable would become understandable and explainable, and his claims ripped to shreds. Sorry, but this destroys the credibility of intelligent design in my eyes. Maybe there is an intelligent designer out there, maybe there isn't, but it's not science's place to try to confirm that belief.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified
by Pete Dunkelberg
[Posted: 26 April 2003]
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
William A. Dembski and Kenneth R. Miller
Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.
April 12, 2006
Read more at: http://phys.org/news64046019.html#jCp
BTW, did you know that the founder of Intelligent Design movement , Phillip Johnson (a former law professor, mind you, no degree in any sciences), does not believe that HIV causes AIDS and he authored the Wedge Strategy , the Discovery Institute's internal document detailing their long-term plan to inject the "supernatural" into science. Yeah, sorry, the supernatural has no place in science; go check out the philosophy department.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 Dec 2012 23:42 #36
by ScienceChic
What else measures and analyzes the world as we know it CG?
I am more than fine with adding to kids' knowledge, and making them more well-rounded, well-informed individuals with the biggest variety of background knowledge and perspectives possible (that was my exact philosophy with regard to the courses that I took in college - I had at least one course in every subject except economics) - those kids become the best critical thinkers and creative problem solvers - a comprehensive review of all of the religions of the world is a fabulous idea and would fill more than a year's worth of study all by itself. It just does not belong in a science classroom, that's all I'm saying.
While some, maybe even many, would say that our perception of our reality is a limitation; I would argue the opposite: that [font=comic sans:3utwqfdq]because we are made up of exactly the same stuff as that which we observe, that we are perfectly suited for making observations and deducing the function of our universe[/font:3utwqfdq]. I don't believe it to be a coincidence that many things that we've invented have later eerily mimicked some previously unknown or not-understood design in nature when put in a side-by-side comparison. We do not have the capacity to comprehend other universes that are made up of vastly different components, but since it's a long way off before we even prove the existence of other dimensions, and we have enough work to do in our own yet, it's a moot point.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic Faith vs Science in Schools
Yes, it pretty much is.LadyJazzer wrote: Sounds like the theological equivalent of "The Tobacco Institute"...("It's not bad for you...No, really!")....And "The Heartland Institute"...("There's no climate change...No, really!")
Surely I hope you don't believe that science as an established discipline with a well-defined scientific method existed when humans believed that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth? Who do you think disproved those beliefs? Scientists.CinnamonGirl wrote: Listen, evolution is important for science down the road in college. Part of the theory around evolution is the way groups and entities have similar structures like having the same bone showing up in all reptiles, etc. This is very important information for science. I am saying don't take away, add. Bring it all in. So, we can talk about it together. Science can be really egocentric in that they think they are the only thing out there. Measurements can be concrete but that is where it ends. And even then they are not all concrete. Why did they believe the world was flat for so long? They did not have the infomation or technology to know otherwise. We are the same, and to be so self absorbed to think that science is our only measurement is the problem.
What else measures and analyzes the world as we know it CG?
I am more than fine with adding to kids' knowledge, and making them more well-rounded, well-informed individuals with the biggest variety of background knowledge and perspectives possible (that was my exact philosophy with regard to the courses that I took in college - I had at least one course in every subject except economics) - those kids become the best critical thinkers and creative problem solvers - a comprehensive review of all of the religions of the world is a fabulous idea and would fill more than a year's worth of study all by itself. It just does not belong in a science classroom, that's all I'm saying.
How is it stunting our learning when we say it's completely acceptable to teach religion in religious classes, just not religion in science classes? The kids get the education they need in the appropriate class and can use it to ask questions in other classes. If it boils down to you don't believe that creationism and intelligent design are religious by nature, but are science, then all I can urge you to do is some more research into what they, and evolution, are all about by examining what each side claims to stand for, and what each says about the other because you would be in the minority in your belief that they are scientific.CinnamonGirl wrote: The reason string theory fascinates me is that I do believe we humans can only perceive what we can within our capabilities. There is evidence that things are happening around us that is sort of like other dimensions that humans cannot pick up. If that is true then science may be wrong because we are basing it on something we know now but in 100 years may not be true. Bring it all in and discuss it all. This will actually help our children and may bring more answers than we have now.
The problem is when we all fight for our own thoughts and this stunts learning. Learning less is not the answer. Bring it all in!
While some, maybe even many, would say that our perception of our reality is a limitation; I would argue the opposite: that [font=comic sans:3utwqfdq]because we are made up of exactly the same stuff as that which we observe, that we are perfectly suited for making observations and deducing the function of our universe[/font:3utwqfdq]. I don't believe it to be a coincidence that many things that we've invented have later eerily mimicked some previously unknown or not-understood design in nature when put in a side-by-side comparison. We do not have the capacity to comprehend other universes that are made up of vastly different components, but since it's a long way off before we even prove the existence of other dimensions, and we have enough work to do in our own yet, it's a moot point.
archer, you put it very well, thank you.archer wrote: The problem with adding intelligent design to the science curriculum comes down to totally different methods of teaching. With science....it is all about the question......don't tell me a truth......show me the truth. If I ask a question......don't give me an answer.....show me how to come to the right answer.....give me a method. Without the question.....there is no science. It is only by asking the question.....then seeking the answer, and using our somewhat limited senses to separate true from false that we gain the knowledge and form the answer. Intelligent design is taught with a different method....it is the answer, no questions allowed. It is the "truth", so there is no value in asking questions. How can these two coexist in the same classroom? We encourage students to question theories, and find answers, then test those answers to determine if they stand up to the scrutiny. Religion tells us to take it on faith......that is a hard leap for the scientist, and trying to teach a religious dogma to science students would require them to put aside everything they have been taught about what science is, and how the scientific method helps us reveal truths about our world and ourselves.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 Dec 2012 02:27 #37
by CinnamonGirl
My point is that is your perception. There are millions of people who disagree. So, who wins?
Part of the answer is we have to stop pushing our views on others. Really, the more we do the more hypocritical we all are. Compromise and compassion come from acceptance that our views are only right for ourselves. We all have different paths that brought us here. And looking into others with curiosity rather than trying to change their views is a start. IMO.
In my view, if you put the two together you can learn more than taking away teaching intelligent design along with evolution. IN my mind they can go together. If you knew me and my thoughts on God and the universe you may understand where I am going with this. Really, string theory is part of that. One interesting fact that has some searching string theory is that if it is proven it could explain some parts of some religions scientifically.
Another book that is fascinating is the book "Embraced by the Light". My view of the universe, God has nothing to do with religion. But it does have to do with Evolution and Intelligent design together. SC, you are asking me the wrong questions. I can't answer them in this context, because that is not my point.
Really, the problem is fear. What are you afraid of if intelligent design is taught with evolution? It would solve the problem of people fighting the teaching evolution in science class.
Replied by CinnamonGirl on topic Faith vs Science in Schools
Science Chic wrote:
Yes, it pretty much is.LadyJazzer wrote: Sounds like the theological equivalent of "The Tobacco Institute"...("It's not bad for you...No, really!")....And "The Heartland Institute"...("There's no climate change...No, really!")
Surely I hope you don't believe that science as an established discipline with a well-defined scientific method existed when humans believed that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth? Who do you think disproved those beliefs? Scientists.CinnamonGirl wrote: Listen, evolution is important for science down the road in college. Part of the theory around evolution is the way groups and entities have similar structures like having the same bone showing up in all reptiles, etc. This is very important information for science. I am saying don't take away, add. Bring it all in. So, we can talk about it together. Science can be really egocentric in that they think they are the only thing out there. Measurements can be concrete but that is where it ends. And even then they are not all concrete. Why did they believe the world was flat for so long? They did not have the infomation or technology to know otherwise. We are the same, and to be so self absorbed to think that science is our only measurement is the problem.
What else measures and analyzes the world as we know it CG?
I am more than fine with adding to kids' knowledge, and making them more well-rounded, well-informed individuals with the biggest variety of background knowledge and perspectives possible (that was my exact philosophy with regard to the courses that I took in college - I had at least one course in every subject except economics) - those kids become the best critical thinkers and creative problem solvers - a comprehensive review of all of the religions of the world is a fabulous idea and would fill more than a year's worth of study all by itself. It just does not belong in a science classroom, that's all I'm saying.
How is it stunting our learning when we say it's completely acceptable to teach religion in religious classes, just not religion in science classes? The kids get the education they need in the appropriate class and can use it to ask questions in other classes. If it boils down to you don't believe that creationism and intelligent design are religious by nature, but are science, then all I can urge you to do is some more research into what they, and evolution, are all about by examining what each side claims to stand for, and what each says about the other because you would be in the minority in your belief that they are scientific.CinnamonGirl wrote: The reason string theory fascinates me is that I do believe we humans can only perceive what we can within our capabilities. There is evidence that things are happening around us that is sort of like other dimensions that humans cannot pick up. If that is true then science may be wrong because we are basing it on something we know now but in 100 years may not be true. Bring it all in and discuss it all. This will actually help our children and may bring more answers than we have now.
The problem is when we all fight for our own thoughts and this stunts learning. Learning less is not the answer. Bring it all in!
While some, maybe even many, would say that our perception of our reality is a limitation; I would argue the opposite: that [font=comic sans:1xwx9z7p]because we are made up of exactly the same stuff as that which we observe, that we are perfectly suited for making observations and deducing the function of our universe[/font:1xwx9z7p]. I don't believe it to be a coincidence that many things that we've invented have later eerily mimicked some previously unknown or not-understood design in nature when put in a side-by-side comparison. We do not have the capacity to comprehend other universes that are made up of vastly different components, but since it's a long way off before we even prove the existence of other dimensions, and we have enough work to do in our own yet, it's a moot point.
archer, you put it very well, thank you.archer wrote: The problem with adding intelligent design to the science curriculum comes down to totally different methods of teaching. With science....it is all about the question......don't tell me a truth......show me the truth. If I ask a question......don't give me an answer.....show me how to come to the right answer.....give me a method. Without the question.....there is no science. It is only by asking the question.....then seeking the answer, and using our somewhat limited senses to separate true from false that we gain the knowledge and form the answer. Intelligent design is taught with a different method....it is the answer, no questions allowed. It is the "truth", so there is no value in asking questions. How can these two coexist in the same classroom? We encourage students to question theories, and find answers, then test those answers to determine if they stand up to the scrutiny. Religion tells us to take it on faith......that is a hard leap for the scientist, and trying to teach a religious dogma to science students would require them to put aside everything they have been taught about what science is, and how the scientific method helps us reveal truths about our world and ourselves.
My point is that is your perception. There are millions of people who disagree. So, who wins?
Part of the answer is we have to stop pushing our views on others. Really, the more we do the more hypocritical we all are. Compromise and compassion come from acceptance that our views are only right for ourselves. We all have different paths that brought us here. And looking into others with curiosity rather than trying to change their views is a start. IMO.
In my view, if you put the two together you can learn more than taking away teaching intelligent design along with evolution. IN my mind they can go together. If you knew me and my thoughts on God and the universe you may understand where I am going with this. Really, string theory is part of that. One interesting fact that has some searching string theory is that if it is proven it could explain some parts of some religions scientifically.
Another book that is fascinating is the book "Embraced by the Light". My view of the universe, God has nothing to do with religion. But it does have to do with Evolution and Intelligent design together. SC, you are asking me the wrong questions. I can't answer them in this context, because that is not my point.
Really, the problem is fear. What are you afraid of if intelligent design is taught with evolution? It would solve the problem of people fighting the teaching evolution in science class.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.164 seconds
sponsors
