No "Real Science" = No Diploma!

Well said! Have a good nights sleep!!!

 

(Standing ovation for Amie!)

He advocates teaching evolution as FACT. I doubt he advocates using the Scientific Method to EXAMINE evollution.

In Apologia's General Science textbook, it starts by teaching three important principles. The first one is that we CANNOT assume something is true, based on the reputation of the person. ANYONE can be wrong. The second is that we cannot assume something is true, based on our prejudices. But to be REAL scientists, we must apply the Scientific Method to EVERYTHING to see if it holds up. Evolution has LOTS of flaws. WHY is it that these are not permitted to be discussed?

As far as whether or not creation is science or religion.... That's interesting. How the earth/man came to be is science, unless God had anything to do with it, and then it's religion? I'm all for teaching evolution in the schools, even in homeschools, as long as it's taught as a THEORY, complete with all the problems of it. Fine. Don't teach ID in the public schools, but at least teach evolution so that any semi-intelligent person can make an educated choice!

 

That's what I was thinking Jackie but you said it much better than I could have.

 

What is really sad is that you could replace "homeschool" with "public school" and the article as a whole would have been much more on point!

 

The problem with the "both sides" way of doing things is that there isn't two sides. There's one side made up of highly qualified Biologists publishing thousands of articles a year in peer reviewed journals and doing mountains of research projects versus another side that doesn't do research and doesn't even try getting their material peer reviewed. Creation institutes have yet to publish a single evidenced mechanism let alone a theory of creation. I'm very disappointed with the way they do things. I've written them several times with various lists of factual errors in Molecular Biology they have made and yet no responce and no corrections. Creation is religion or if you like philosophy, Evolution is Science. There is no science in Creation and no religion in Evolution. That's the way it is based on empirical evidence and only the empirical evidence.


Personally, I think Evolution should be excluded from public school science classes except on the honors level. It's not covered adequately and does very few students any good. I think we could replace it with more Cellular and Molecular Biology.

 

That's the only way evolution can be and is evaluated.

The problems surrounding discussion of flaws are many. First, I often find the flaws simply aren't flaws. Usually, arguments are based on faulty or incomplate information. Second, the whole idea that a theory offers a perfect and complete explanation without flaws is incorrect. Theories are explanations of evidence. The most accepted ones are the best explanations. It's certainly bad form to argue evolution is the 'truth' or is 'proven' but the fact remains that it remains the best explanation of the evidence we have. Of course there are still holes but the fact that a mountain has caves doesn't make it any less of a mountain.

Except that here the use of theory is not a scientific use. This is the problem I have with discussing the matter. There's a preamble about science and yet when the word theory is brought into the matter, science is thrown out the window and 'theory' is used as if it's meant in a layman's sense.

 

That is your opinion though and I know it is the opinion of many others. However, to a Bible believing Christian you can't have science without creation and evolution is nothing more than a theory some people teach as fact. I will teach my children creation as fact and evolution as a theory because as a Christian that is what I believe. I would never presume to tell anyone what to teach their kids and so I feel I have the right to teach mine my beliefs. I will continue to teach the way I teach and no article or research paper by some scientist is going to change my faith.

The problem I have with scientists is that they won't even consider the possiblility that creation is real. Won't even consider it! I thought that is what science was all about - researching all possibilities. How can scientists say they will research x and y but z is totally out of the question?

Sorry for blabbering. I just hate it when there are all these arguements going on, not on this board, but I'm just saying in general. Why can't you teach yours and I'll teach mine and let's leave it at that? And I couldn't possibly care less what they teach in public schools - as screwed up as they are already!

 

They can't consider it. Creationism demands a supernatural creator. Science can only deal with the natural world. It's like demanding someone measure volume with a geiger counter or faulting a scale because it can't tell you how loud your stereo is.

Of course you can teach yours - you're just wrong is all!


Seriously though, I'll argue against creationism and ID all day but in the end I'll defend a parent's right to teach it. It's important that we allow people to teach their kids what they feel is important even when we disagree. That and so what if I disagree on that? Most of the moms I know who teach creationism or ID are excellent parents who are giving their kids stable, loving and supportive homes to grow in. That's the most important consideration.

 

I hate to be arrogant but according to the accepted definitions of religion and science, what I stated was fact. For it to be my opinion you would have to change the definition of religion and science.

Evolution is nothing more than a theory. I don't think very many people would claim otherwise. However theories themselves have the potential to be facts. Gravity is only a theory, kinetics in organic chemistry is only a theory, but they all explain occuring phenomena. It's a fact that things fall, it's a fact that certain molecules react certain ways in certain situations, and it's a fact that things evolve. The theory is only an explaination of how the phenomenon occurs not if the phenomenon occurs.

I don't think anyone is asking you to as long as you don't expect science and its methods to change.

They did for a very long while, then over the course of the last 150 years they were won over. The number now is about 99.9% for people with degrees in relevant fields and basically 100% for working Biologists not to mention the numbers are still growing percentage wise.

You don't understand how research works. We research what we have money for and so far it's very hard to find money for any pure research projects and that includes most Evolution research. What I would like to see is creationists using their seven figure incomes and eight firgure donations and the institutions dedicated entirely to creationism and do some research there first and then demonstrate to the public why we need funding for creation research. Futhermore, it's very unlikely that creation and ID can be researched, even if they had unlimited money and scientists working on the project, just because creation and ID are outside of science.

We can only research what is in the realm of science. So far no part of biblical creation has been demonstrated to be part of the realm of science.

Exactly, I think I like your post better than my own.

 

Ya know my post wasn't really meant to argue anything really. I don't care what you all think. If I didn't think what I believe is right I wouldn't believe it.

I'm sorry you don't think I understand science or how research works because I don't feel or think or live the way you do. I understand science completely. Just not the science you believe in. I am a very educated person. A very educated Bible believing christian and you won't sway me or make me feel like what I believe is wrong.

I'm certainly not trying to tell you to change.

 

I don't expect you to change either. I'm just a real sucker for a good debate.

 

The way I understand it, Gravity is both a law and a theory. There's the observable phenomenon of gravity, the law. Release and apple in midair an apple and it falls towards the earth. But there's also the theory, the explanation of that observable phenomenon. Currently one theory involves gravitons I think? I do know we haven't got a theory of Gravity that's as well-substantiated as that of Evolution.

I think people get tripped up with law and theory as well. Some people think a theory is one step down from a law or a law is a theory that's been proven. That's not so.

A law is an observable phenomenon. The apple falls. that's the Law of Gravity. We can see that.

A theory is an explanation of the law or a set of laws, evidence and observable phenomenon. The apple falls because this and this make it fall. That's the Theory of Gravity.

Laws and theories exist side by side, not in a hierarchy.

 

It's all good! I don't expect anyone to change either.

I'm not usually for a debate but more for "do what you do and I'll do what I do and we'll all lively happily". :lol:

In a way I'm a total hippy.

 

I don't even understand science completely. Mainly I understand the underlying principles, the philosophy of science, and enough about my field of study to further the knowledge of the field. I highly doubt anyone understands science completely and from a couple of your responces I also doubt your understanding of science. As far as your comment about the science I believe in, I believe in the real science that explores the natural world, which is the only science there is based on the definition of science. The "science" you believe in is metaphysics, the unknowable, the mystic, something which doesn't even begin to be science as it is known.

As am I, to Ph.D level. I don't doubt that you are an educated person. But education doesn't make you an expert in all fields of study. I'm not trying to make you believe that what you teach you children is wrong, atleast not in the sense you think I am implying. There are many ways to be wrong.

I use the term 'fact'(as we know it) or 'observation'(as we see it) instead of 'law'(as it truely is). I don't like the word law being used in science. Physicists get a little arrogant when they study the natural world but every scientist has their own philosophy of science.

To be honest, I don't fully understand the theory of gravity beyond what they teach you in freshman cal based physics, which for me was over twenty years ago. But I do know their current theory does involve gravitons interacting with each other at the speed of light. Yes, you are correct in saying that Evolution is a stronger theory than gravity, much stronger actually. We have many known mechanisms of evolution, so we can build a very accurate theory.

Yes, that's a very good explaination of how a theory is made. I wouldn't say they exist side by side but they share a special relationship with one another and both contribute to our understanding.

 

I thought a law was something proven and that it's repeatable.

Creation-substantiating papers are banned from peer-review, and any scientists with such leanings are likely to be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. Many, in fact, have already experienced that.

Belief that all creatures came from one common ancestor who developed an interest in sex at the exact convenient time that another similar, compatible, attractive creature also arose from the same slime pit with similar interests requires much more faith than the theory that God created everything out of nothing.

So-called scientists can look at a fossel bone and draw imaginary, fantastic beasts from it and call it "science," but when they look at patterns that cannot have arisen by themselves or when they look at the complexity of a single cell, they refuse to consider a first cause or a "Maker." One scenario they call science, and the other--"by definition"-- is not, because it involves something supernatural? What a double standard! Pointing to fear or the impetus & desire to survive or some unknown mechanism inherent in all living creatures to want to procreate in order to preserve their species as the driving force of evolution sounds just as "supernatural" to me. No, more like magic or fairy tale. Like a bird waiting a million years for the wind to blow the twigs into place so she could lay her eggs.

When our kiddos were first learning about evolution that nothing plus time equals something and that more time plus chance equals everything, they laughed out loud. Where did time come from? Was it here before space and matter? According to that theory it was. What is time?

Michael Behe is not a Christian, as far as I know. Yet he is only one of a number of prominent scientists who have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible. He wrote the book, Darwin's Black Box.

(The definition of evolution in debate here is not referring to the changes within species, which use information which is already there, but macro-evolution, which is the belief in common ancestry, millions and billions of years, more and more information being added from nowhere, leading to continually more complex creatures.)

Evolution: No first cause allowed. Just results. No intelligent planning. Just perfection in patterns and beauty. Not good science. Not good logic. Definitely bad religion!

Yet it's taught in public schools.

 

You appear to be very uninformed on the issue.

Most of everything you just said can be effectively refuted at www.talkorigins.org . If you have any further questions or commits on Evolution after reading up on the topic private message me.

 

Wow!
What are you, 12?

We went from educated to "You're a poo poo head", in about 10 posts...

I would never tell someone to NOT post, simply because I believe they are wrong.

However, since we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, let me return the favor to you......

You appear to be very uneducated in the ways of this forum and common social politeness. Until you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, please refrain from posting.

 

The problem is not an "uninformed" opinion, it's a "dissenting" opinion.

First, we're not impressed with your PhD. We're just a bunch of ignorant, in-the-dark homeschoolers here. We don't object to those who disagree with us (ad Dawn has done), but we DO object to "I know more than you, so you better bow down to me!" attitude.

I once had the opportunity to listen to two biologists go at it. I was with my friend, Norm. I had just learned earlier that day that he had actually student taught High School biology, which totally shocked me. (I mean this guy dresses in cut-offs and t-shirts!). We got talking to a visiting prof from Ohio State. The prof told Norm straight out that "I've got a PhD in Biology, so I know what I'm talking about!" Norm, without batting an eyelash, replied with, "Really! I got a PhD in Biology, too, and I believe....."

I will not get drawn into the evolution/creation debate. You are not about to change the mind of us poor, ignorant folk, and none of us can change the mind of one of the Great Honored Academia, so why waste my time?

 

I agree. The the referred-to poster may have run out of rational counter-points, broke forum protocol, and resorted to insults, but the site he refers to is interesting. Revealing. I hope this high-energy thread doesn't get shut down, because in some ways the site actually validated the proposition that both theories are religions. The site even names evolutionism's deity--supposedly the driving force in nature--and I'd like to see the discussion continue to explore the questions this raises.

The deeper one delves into this study, the more obvious it appears that the debate is not between science and religion. It's between two religions. One side acknowledges the Creator as Father God. The other one looks at His creation and calls it Mother Nature.

According to this religion, to consider theories of how their deity created herself is good. It's acceptable science. To consider that nature was made by Anyone other than Mother, herself, is blasphemy against their religion, falsely called "science."

Certain understandings, requirements, and word definitions and limitations have to be adhered to in the religion of Mother Nature (or simply nature) worship. Their first article is: Nature is supreme. She created herself. There is no higher power. To even ask if there is a God other than herself is not good science, thus all other theories are banned--very like a false cult, refusing to let followers explore certain issues which lie outside their religion.

This is perhaps the most strongly held tenant of evolutionism: any reference to any other god is called "not science." Interesting rules to the game, I'd say! Oh, freedom of inquiry, where art thou in this religion!

Questions from a homeschooler, who refuses to be limited by other's redefining of the word science:

Which religion is true?
Which, if either, of the following declarations would be a tenant of good science?

"It is She that hath made us, and we ourselves."

Or

"It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves."
(Psalm 100)


Well, dear hubby and I had a fascinating time exploring that site last night. As you can see, it triggered some propositions, and I truly hope the rest of the people on the Homeschool Spot know it's all in good will. Oh, and BTW, I am ignoring the above cult member's illegal use of the ban.

 

I'm so glad you posted this because when I saw what was written to Prairie of all people I couldn't believe someone could be such a knowitallass.

Anyway thanks Jen! You rock girl!