Intelligent design taught in schools

[Crimson King]

Jeez, you are my favorite poster ever now.

 

[Sucumbio]

Since Dre. posts here so much we should remove him from the smash debater group and he can just live it up here in the PG.

 

[jaswa]

He is eternal, self-necessary, simple, unified, not just a bunch of complex principles, and ahs the three omni traits.

Three? (assuming you mean -potent, -niscient, -benevolent) What about omnipresence? Just doesn't come up when talking about problems of evil or whatever.

 

[ballin4life]

The whole point of God arguments was that naturalistic beings could not be the first cause. The philosophical God shares essentially no traits with naturalistic beings. He is eternal, self-necessary, simple, unified, not just a bunch of complex principles, and ahs the three omni traits. He is not purported to be anything like naturalistic beings. That's the whole point of the argument, only something which such traits could be the first cause, and that's what we commonly refer to as God. The fact you're saying "well what caused God?" suggests you're not actually familair with what theists have been arguing.

Nitpick: That's not really what people "commonly refer to" as God.

You're acting as if this is the only argument for theism. As I've said above, I'm not going to bother contendt this point, because it's not necessary to the God debate. The fact you think the improbabiltiy argument is the onyl argument for theism is not only laughable, but displays a compleet ignorance of the topic at hand.

I don't know where anyone said that was the only argument, but it seemed to be a pretty big point you were making earlier in this thread.

And if the creator of the universe is naturalistic, it's existence wuld also necessitate a prior cause....you don't really understand the philosophical notion of God do you?

Why would it need a prior cause? We can just say causality applies to all but the first cause (this is exactly what is said about God anyway).

It's far more probable that my existence was actuated by my mother giving birth to me, than by a FSM shooting a laser down at Earth, in which the impact magically generated my body.

Heh. In what sense is one more probable than the other? All evidence would perfectly fit both hypotheses.

Just curious.

Three? (assuming you mean -potent, -niscient, -benevolent) What about omnipresence? Just doesn't come up when talking about problems of evil or whatever.

I don't see why God in the sense of first cause needs to have any of those "omni traits". Particularly not benevolence (unless you define benevolence as "what God wants"). Omnipresence is getting a little weird because God is supposed to be nonphysical, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about where God is present. But again why does God have to be omnipotent or omniscient just because God was the first cause of the universe?

 

[Mike]

I, for one, would really like to hear some PG'ers talk about Intelligent Design in schools.

There isn't much of a debate here... ID is not scientific (it's unfalsifiable) so it shouldn't be taught in science classes, except maybe as a misconception. It may have a place in social sciences or history, but it would be taught for what it is: a superstition, an argument from ignorance.

@Dre: Both you and that guy misunderstands the entire purpose of science. It's not meant to explain the metaphysical, it's not meant to explain ethics. It's meant to explain how the universe works in a physical sense. Nothing is assumed to be true in science. EVERYTHING is subject to new evidence, including the speed of light. If we find that the speed is not constant in all cases, we must then change our models to account for that. That's what makes science so great and useful. Any proposition about the universe that is not scientific should not be seriously considered.

And I like how the video is cut right before the scientist has time to explain himself... not biased at all.

Also, I find it hypocritical how you complain about people debating about the philosophy of religion "knowing nothing about it" when you do the same with the philosophy of science.

 

[Ganonsburg]

There isn't much of a debate here... ID is not scientific (it's unfalsifiable) so it shouldn't be taught in science classes, except maybe as a misconception. It may have a place in social sciences or history, but it would be taught for what it is: a superstition, an argument from ignorance.

I would appreciate it if you would not do things like this. Having a belief system does not make one ignorant or superstitious. Every person has a belief system. It is more than possible to believe in a creator and be a renowned biologist, physicist, chemist, mathematician, etc, etc.

 

[Mike]

I would appreciate it if you would not do things like this. Having a belief system does not make one ignorant or superstitious. Every person has a belief system. It is more than possible to believe in a creator and be a renowned biologist, physicist, chemist, mathematician, etc, etc.

This is a complete strawman (and doesn't even argue what I said). Do you think ID should be taught in science classes as an alternate theory? If so, why?

 

[jaswa]

Both you and that guy misunderstands the entire purpose of science. It's not meant to explain the metaphysical, it's not meant to explain ethics.

Thank you for supporting Dre's argument. That's his whole point - because science CAN'T explain the metaphysical, it has no place in a metaphysical discussion, ie. one that encompasses notions of God.

EDIT: I hope you're not talking about the WL Craig video - he knows a thing or two about science

 

[Mike]

Science can't explain the metaphysical because it's a self-contained field based purely on semantics. It's like saying science can't explain grammar. No duh! It's not a criticism that science cannot explain the metaphysical - science PURPOSELY ignores metaphysical statements because they cannot be proven empirically. You might as well criticize science for not being able to analyze literature.

But the thing about metaphysics vs science is that people use metaphysical claims to contradict science, which is taking things completely out of context.

 

[jaswa]

Science can't explain the metaphysical because it's a self-contained field based purely on semantics. It's like saying science can't explain grammar. No duh! It's not a criticism that science cannot explain the metaphysical - science PURPOSELY ignores metaphysical statements because they cannot be proven empirically. You might as well criticize science for not being able to analyze literature.

But the thing about metaphysics vs science is that people use metaphysical claims to contradict science, which is taking things completely out of context.

To purposely ignore metaphysical statements seems a bit silly as the video demonstrates that science has metaphysical assumptions. But anyways...

So if someone gives you a book you're not going to analyse it with science? Good, so don't analyse God with science - analyse him with metaphysics.

 

[Ganonsburg]

This is a complete strawman (and doesn't even argue what I said). Do you think ID should be taught in science classes as an alternate theory? If so, why?

Had you read the few pages prior to your posts, you would have seen my position. But I'm not attempting to argue about it, I'm simply asking you to be polite. Asking people to be polite != strawman.

 

[Mike]

To purposely ignore metaphysical statements seems a bit silly as the video demonstrates that science has metaphysical assumptions. But anyways...

So if someone gives you a book you're not going to analyse it with science? Good, so don't analyse God with science - analyse him with metaphysics.

I wasn't the one who brought science into a God debate. Dre began by posting that horrible video about the Big Bang being improbable.

Why don't you list the metaphysical assumptions science requires?


@Ganonsburg: I'll say whatever I feel is relevant or necessary to the debate. If it ends up offending someone, then harden up.

 

[Dre89]

No, I used that to show that ID had scientific backing behind it, therefore warranted a position in the classroom.

In terms of what should be taught in schools, I don't see how you can distinguish between what should be taught in shcools, and what shouldn't, when they both have scientific argument behind them. It doesn't matter if you think the science behind the ID argument is crap, they were notable scientists who used the scientific method.

And this isn't a matter of theists versus atheists. Even what's taught in schools now is disputed by other atheist scientists. There isnt enough unity in the scientific community to warrant the teaching of one theory, and the denial of others.

Ironically, the reason why eveyone is arguing for evolution to be taught, and not ID, is probably because they were only taught evolution in shcool.

 

[Mike]

ID does not have scientific backing. It is not scientific because it cannot be disproven. Therefore it cannot be taught in science classes. What part of that don't you understand? You cannot use the scientific method to come up with an unscientific idea. That violates the very definition of science.

Evolution is scientific fact. It is an observable phenomenon both presently and historically (through fossils). There is no reason why evolution SHOULDN'T be taught in science classes. Evolution also does not contradict ID, so it shouldn't be an ID vs. evolution debate, it should be an ID vs. science debate.

 

[Dre89]

I guess I see what you mean now actually.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Evolution is scientific fact. It is an observable phenomenon both presently and historically (through fossils). There is no reason why evolution SHOULDN'T be taught in science classes. Evolution also does not contradict ID, so it shouldn't be an ID vs. evolution debate, it should be an ID vs. science debate.

Wait a second...

Evolution, if you are talking about molecules-to-man evolution, is certainly not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. Because it is an event in history, it can not (by definition) be experimented on or observed. The fossil record tells us very little, and in order to get anything from it we have to start out with massive assumptions.

At the very least, the fossils tell us a few things.

• Stuff died
• Stuff died at different times
• There are some animals/plants similar to what we see today, some that are vaguely similar, and some that are almost carbon copies of what we see today

Maybe there are few more basic points I missed, but that's the gist of it. Other than that, we really don't know much. Carbon-14 dating really doesn't tell us much about the age of the fossils, despite what many people think. Scientists have to make an assumption that the amount of C12 and C14 have remained constant, or at least at a constant ratio. They have to assume that there has been no contamination from the environment. Additionally, the magnetic field of the earth affects the production of C14 in the atmosphere. Stronger field = less C14. This means that in the past there was less C14 production, which is another issue with radiocarbon dating.

So, C14 dating is not quite so reliable for dating things in the (supposedly) distant past. The problem now is that scientists date rock layers by the fossils found inside them. So the age of the fossils and their rock layers are not very reliable, and really can not be used as fact.

As for evolution being observed in real time, that is only microevolution and speciation that you can see. It says nothing for macroevolution (see a few pages ago).

Which is why my point a few pages ago was that M2M evolution should not be taught in schools: because it is not a science.

 

[AltF4]

Ganonsburg:

I think the technical term you're looking for is "Abiogenesis". the study of how life can come from non-life. Not "Molecules to Man" evolution. Though I do like that term.

You'll hear much grumbling about how Abiogenesis simply must be impossible. But this is demonstrably false. Some time in the past, there was no life. The universe was just a swirl of hot gases. Today there is life. Therefore life must have come from non-life at some point.

And it certainly is science. There are hypothesis currently, and we have the means of gathering evidence to invalidate those hypothesis. It is still very early for the study of Abiogenesis. Very little is known. But that is not the same as it being unscientific.

 

[rvkevin]

Concerning Carbon Dating

Scientists know the limits of carbon dating, that's why they use other forms of dating methods when Carbon Dating isn't appropriate.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Ganonsburg:

I think the technical term you're looking for is "Abiogenesis". the study of how life can come from non-life. Not "Molecules to Man" evolution. Though I do like that term.

I don't know how I left that impression, because in talking about the fossil record that implies I'm talking about the evolution from single cells to all the life we have now.

You'll hear much grumbling about how Abiogenesis simply must be impossible. But this is demonstrably false. Some time in the past, there was no life. The universe was just a swirl of hot gases. Today there is life. Therefore life must have come from non-life at some point.

We know that there's life now, and at some point there was no life, but that does not necessitate life forming from non-life. There are two (main) assumptions people can take at this point: that there is no god, and that there is a god (or gods). The assumption you take will affect the conclusion you draw. But they are both assumptions, neither of which can be proven by science. It's a far cry from fact.

And it certainly is science. There are hypothesis currently, and we have the means of gathering evidence to invalidate those hypothesis. It is still very early for the study of Abiogenesis. Very little is known. But that is not the same as it being unscientific.

Science. No, it is not a science. It can not be observed, it can not be tested or repeated or experimented on, and it's not the application of facts. It's a theory about what may or may not have happened in the past. Even with evidence, there are starting assumptions that direct the interpretation of the evidence. Even at the high school level of science students are told in labs not to make assumptions about what they'll find, and to think critically.

Concerning Carbon Dating

Scientists know the limits of carbon dating, that's why they use other forms of dating methods when Carbon Dating isn't appropriate.

I didn't say that scientists don't know the limits, or that C14 dating is unusable and unreliable at every level. I was showing that they have to start out by making certain assumptions that can heavily influence the results of the tests.

Mind giving a few examples of the other forms of dating? I'm not much of a biologist or chemist, I much prefer physics and math, so I'm not completely aware of all the various dating methods.

 

[AltF4]

I don't know how I left that impression, because in talking about the fossil record that implies I'm talking about the evolution from single cells to all the life we have now.

You made it sound like that's what you were trying to say. If not, then you can just disregard my post.

We know that there's life now, and at some point there was no life, but that does not necessitate life forming from non-life. There are two (main) assumptions people can take at this point: that there is no god, and that there is a god (or gods). The assumption you take will affect the conclusion you draw. But they are both assumptions, neither of which can be proven by science. It's a far cry from fact.

I was just making the point that abiogenesis clearly is not impossible. You can claim that "god did it", and that's fine. You can have a debate about that. But you can't say both that it's impossible AND "god did it". If so, then impossible is meaningless.

Science. No, it is not a science. It can not be observed, it can not be tested or repeated or experimented on, and it's not the application of facts. It's a theory about what may or may not have happened in the past. Even with evidence, there are starting assumptions that direct the interpretation of the evidence. Even at the high school level of science students are told in labs not to make assumptions about what they'll find, and to think critically.

Do you think that the study of how the solar system formed is not science? Every astrophysicist would disagree with you. Do you think that the study of the early universe is not science? CERN would disagree with you.

You do not need to be able to observe the original event for it to be science. You can perform simulations and recreations, you know. There's a lot we can know and not know by indirectly observing things.

 

[Ganonsburg]

You made it sound like that's what you were trying to say. If not, then you can just disregard my post.

Sorry, maybe I should have said, "series of events," so as not to imply one distinct point in time.

I was just making the point that abiogenesis clearly is not impossible. You can claim that "god did it", and that's fine. You can have a debate about that. But you can't say both that it's impossible AND "god did it". If so, then impossible is meaningless.

There's a distinction between "life came out of non-life" and "there was no life, then there was life." The second one absolutely must be true, I agree, but the first one, again, is an assumption.

Do you think that the study of how the solar system formed is not science? Every astrophysicist would disagree with you. Do you think that the study of the early universe is not science? CERN would disagree with you.

I'm arguing from the definition of science. We can not observe our universe being formed, nor can we recreate it or experiment on it. Also, I'm not really sure about what applications it has in the real world. The technology we've built to get out there certainly counts as the product of findings in physics and chemistry, which are sciences, but I would not say that technology was the result of the study of the early universe.

Then again, I'm not completely sure what you mean by "study of the early universe." Would you mind explaining what you mean by that?

You do not need to be able to observe the original event for it to be science. You can perform simulations and recreations, you know. There's a lot we can know and not know by indirectly observing things.

Indirect observations work just as well as observations, mostly. But again, we have to be careful about what assumptions we take. Simulations are great, but they can only do what they're programmed to do. If we programmed a simulation of a rock falling from the top of a building, but we didn't know about air resistance/drag, we'd have a simulation of a rock continuously accelerating until it hits the ground, which does not happen in real life.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm arguing from the definition of science. We can not observe our universe being formed, nor can we recreate it or experiment on it. Also, I'm not really sure about what applications it has in the real world. The technology we've built to get out there certainly counts as the product of findings in physics and chemistry, which are sciences, but I would not say that technology was the result of the study of the early universe.

Indirect observations work just as well as observations, mostly. But again, we have to be careful about what assumptions we take. Simulations are great, but they can only do what they're programmed to do. If we programmed a simulation of a rock falling from the top of a building, but we didn't know about air resistance/drag, we'd have a simulation of a rock continuously accelerating until it hits the ground, which does not happen in real life.

Just would like to highlight the self-contradictory nature of that post. You're saying it's not scientific to use indirect observations, but later you are. We have indirect observations supporting the big bang by the way. Cosmic background radiation and the fact that almost all galaxies are receding are both pieces of evidence that point to the universe beginning with the big bang. Additionally, there's the homogeneity of the universe, it's pretty much all the same if you look at it on a large enough scale.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Just would like to highlight the self-contradictory nature of that post. You're saying it's not scientific to use indirect observations, but later you are. We have indirect observations supporting the big bang by the way. Cosmic background radiation and the fact that almost all galaxies are receding are both pieces of evidence that point to the universe beginning with the big bang. Additionally, there's the homogeneity of the universe, it's pretty much all the same if you look at it on a large enough scale.

I guess I didn't say quite what I meant. Indirect observations are hugely inferior to direct observations, due to all the things we don't know and therefore can't account for. IOs should never be taken for fact over direct observations, and in the case that the event can not be directly observed, it should be taken with a grain of salt. What IOs are good for, however, are to look at possibilities to explore and observe directly. They're essentially good for starting up theories, but are very poor at providing evidence for them.

And when a process is well established, things like simulations are good for constructing models for engineers. ie, practical uses.

 

[AltF4]

In the case of the Big Bang, cosmic background radiation is not an indirect observation. It really is direct. It's the heat left over from the Big Bang. This "direct vs indirect" distinction is really a false one, anyway. I shouldn't have brought it up.

Don't be so quick to say things like:

We can not observe our universe being formed, nor can we recreate it or experiment on it.

When you claim something is impossible, you have to have PROOF that it is. Simply saying "I don't know how you would do it" is not an answer. People have declared all sorts of things impossible and were very wrong.

I'm sure you've heard of the Large Hadron Collider? Recreating the Big Bang in controlled lab conditions is exactly what they're doing.

We know exactly how fast light travels (and this is not an "assumption", like that dope in Dre's video says), we know the chemical composition of distant stars, we know all kinds of things you might think "unknowable".

You know that because the speed of light is finite, the further into space you look, the further into the past you are looking. When you look at a distant galaxy, you are not seeing it as it is now, but rather how it was billions of years ago. Tell me again how we cannot directly observe things in the past. All you have to do is look up and you are observing the very distant past, all the way up to the Big Bang.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Don't be so quick to say things like:

When you claim something is impossible, you have to have PROOF that it is. Simply saying "I don't know how you would do it" is not an answer. People have declared all sorts of things impossible and were very wrong.

We can't travel back in time, correct? Therefore an event in the past is unobservable. I know that light takes time to travel, and as such can allow us to see into the distant past, but we can really only see so far into the past. Whether it's possible to actually observe the BB via light from space would depend on how big the universe is, where in the universe the BB happened, and how far away we are from that point. However, due to the nature of explosions, momentum on each side of the explosion is equal to that on the other side (I don't know if I explained that quite thoroughly enough). This means that wherever it occurred, it didn't occur at what is now the edge of the universe. Not to mention the light from that would have immediately been on the edge of the universe, and it would not be observable today (unless the universe is like the surface on a 4D ball, in which case the light would continue traveling).

(I'm sorry I can't address this point as thoroughly as I'd like to, but I'm very short on time due to the ending of the semester, and this isn't exactly a subject I know many of the details about)

I'm sure you've heard of the Large Hadron Collider? Recreating the Big Bang in controlled lab conditions is exactly what they're doing.

They're making collisions, but they're not recreating the Big Bang, which is what I'm getting at. THE Big Bang, one single event, can not be replicated because it is one single event in time and space (or nonspace, or wherever existing objects were before existence).

(Also cool, and relevant to the dimensions discussion in DH (MAN OH MAN I WISH I COULD TALK THERE ABOUT DIMENSIONS) is that scientists hypothesize that at high energies, such as from collisions such as this, the higher dimensions that are "raveled" up into subatomic particles will expand enough to be observed or tested. Not relevant to the discussion, but cool nonetheless.)

We know exactly how fast light travels (and this is not an "assumption", like that dope in Dre's video says), we know the chemical composition of distant stars, we know all kinds of things you might think "unknowable".

We know these things through testing and experimentation. The thing is, we can not recreate a universe and watch it form from scratch. And even if we could, would we have the time to watch everything unfold? If we caused these events to happen, can we really say that it's possible for them to happen by chance?

You know that because the speed of light is finite, the further into space you look, the further into the past you are looking. When you look at a distant galaxy, you are not seeing it as it is now, but rather how it was billions of years ago. Tell me again how we cannot directly observe things in the past. All you have to do is look up and you are observing the very distant past, all the way up to the Big Bang.

But even if this is the case, can we really say that that's what happened in the distant past? If there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being existing outside the universe, wouldn't that being have the power to set a universe in motion in any way it chose? Wouldn't it be able to make it look like anything it wanted? We really can't prove the existence or nonexistence of such a being, and as such we really can't know for certain what has happened in the past when no one (bar such a Being) was there to observe it.

If that concept doesn't quite make sense, here's (kind of) the process I'm alluding to:

You go to the store. You see a pair of jeans on sale with holes in them. You know that holes come from wear and tear, and so you estimate the age of the jeans to be 5 years old. However, the jeans are actually only a few months old, and it just happens that the designer made the jeans with holes in them, giving them the appearance of age.


Lastly, we haven't yet actually observed the BB yet, and we haven't observed macroevolution happen in the past, and as such, even if they are right and will be observed in the future, they do not warrant a place in science classes at this time.

I apologize for the late reply.

 

[AltF4]

There is a big difference between "I am not able to conceive of any way to know" something and something "Is fundamentally unknowable". The first is just a statement of your own ignorance, the second is an assertion which must be proven.

Some things are actually unknowable. Some problems are actually unsolvable. Provably unsolvable. (The canonical example is "The Halting Problem" in computer science) There is no reason to believe things like the origin or the universe are fundamentally unknowable.

We really can't prove the existence or nonexistence of such a being

I'm glad you brought this up. To say that something is unfalsifiable (as you did) is to say that it is pointless, irrelevant, inane, and easily discarded. Falsifiability is a requirement for any theory to be taken seriously. Being unfalsifiable means that the theory produces no observable results, and is useless.

It may very well be true, sure. Take the Inverted Spectrum theory. It may very well be true. It's fun to think about. But it's unfalsifiable. There's no way to prove that it's wrong. Consequently, it cannot affect the real world in any way. Whether or not it's true is of no consequence.

When you say that your god is unable to be disproven, you are saying that it is pointless and ineffective. Just like theories about whether the universe was created as it is now, but made to look old. Could it be true? Sure. But because it cannot ever be proven wrong, there's no reason to even consider it seriously.

 

[Ganonsburg]

And this all brings us to my original point, which is that ID, along with molecules-to-man macroevolution and the Big Bang Theory, should not be taught in public schools as science because none of them have been shown correct at this time.

-ID can not be proven on our own accord (it would require the Designer to manifest Himself, tell us, and show us...which still may not be enough proof for many people).
-M2M MacEv has some scientific theories about it, but because it is in the past, it can not be proven to have happened. Evidence can support a theory, but when there is not a way to actually observe the event to confirm that the theory is true, we can not say it is scientific
-BB has the same problem as M2M, with the extra catch that we may actually observe the BB thanks to old light. However, we don't know if that will ever happen, and we don't know if the BB even happened. Again, it's hardly scientifically "proven."

 

[GwJ]

If I can expand on the Hadron Collider, they're not recreating the big bang. They're recreating the circumstances directly after it. Like such a small time after it, that it's some number with a huge negative exponent. I don't remember what the number was, but I read it in a BBC article at school.

 

[ballin4life]

And this all brings us to my original point, which is that ID, along with molecules-to-man macroevolution and the Big Bang Theory, should not be taught in public schools as science because none of them have been shown correct at this time.

-ID can not be proven on our own accord (it would require the Designer to manifest Himself, tell us, and show us...which still may not be enough proof for many people).
-M2M MacEv has some scientific theories about it, but because it is in the past, it can not be proven to have happened. Evidence can support a theory, but when there is not a way to actually observe the event to confirm that the theory is true, we can not say it is scientific
-BB has the same problem as M2M, with the extra catch that we may actually observe the BB thanks to old light. However, we don't know if that will ever happen, and we don't know if the BB even happened. Again, it's hardly scientifically "proven."

So should we just scrap teaching history as well?

 

[Ganonsburg]

So should we just scrap teaching history as well?

History has been recorded by people who were there. So unless you don't trust any one of those accounts, then there's no reason to scrap it.

 

[AltF4]

And this all brings us to my original point, which is that ID, along with molecules-to-man macroevolution and the Big Bang Theory, should not be taught in public schools as science because none of them have been shown correct at this time.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how science works. Science never PROVES a theory true. It only ever invalidates theories. "Truth" in science is shorthand for saying, we are "very very sure". But it is not "true" in the same sense that mathematical theorems are proven true.

The fact that a theory has not been proven true, nor can it be proven true, is not reason to keep it from a science classroom. That quality belongs to every theory.

It is theories which cannot be proven FALSE that should be left out of the classroom. For reasons I just explained.

 

[Nicholas1024]

History has been recorded by people who were there. So unless you don't trust any one of those accounts, then there's no reason to scrap it.

The miracles of Christ were recorded by 4 independent accounts. So unless you have good reasons not to trust them, we should teach that as well.

And by the way, the people who recorded the history weren't actually "there" a lot of the time. For example, Alexander the great has a 400 year time gap between the events and the first biographies of his conquests. (And from what I understand, that sort of thing is typical.) In case you're wondering, the timegap for the 4 gospels is 40 (for mark) to 70 years (for John) at worst, and likely shorter.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how science works. Science never PROVES a theory true. It only ever invalidates theories. "Truth" in science is shorthand for saying, we are "very very sure". But it is not "true" in the same sense that mathematical theorems are proven true.

The fact that a theory has not been proven true, nor can it be proven true, is not reason to keep it from a science classroom. That quality belongs to every theory.

It is theories which cannot be proven FALSE that should be left out of the classroom. For reasons I just explained.

Note that I said "prove," with quotation marks. It's simply the easiest word to use, although it is not completely accurate. The quotation marks are meant to point out that the word 'prove' is being used differently.

So you would have students be taught things that are not yet proven, and may never be proven?

There's also a fundamental difference between the "theories" taught in classroom, which are shown to be all but fact, and the "theories" of evolution and the BB. The ones primarily taught in the classroom are theories that can be repeatedly shown time and time again through experimentation. They are observable, and have real impact on what we do in the world now. Because they are repeatable, they are pretty much fact, because we rely on those principles to do our daily activities or to invent new technologies.

The theories of evolution and BB, however, are not observable, repeatable, and have next to zero impact on our daily lives. This fundamental difference is the difference between science (by definition), and proposed unobserved history that attempts to use true science to support a claim.

I don't know if you see the difference between these two types of "theories."

The miracles of Christ were recorded by 4 independent accounts. So unless you have good reasons not to trust them, we should teach that as well.

On a personal level, I believe that the Bible is God's account of what happened. Because he was the one to actually be there, he can account for what happened. And he revealed this account by inspiring men, who then wrote the books of the Bible.

/not part of the debate

And by the way, the people who recorded the history weren't actually "there" a lot of the time. For example, Alexander the great has a 400 year time gap between the events and the first biographies of his conquests. (And from what I understand, that sort of thing is typical.) In case you're wondering, the timegap for the 4 gospels is 40 (for mark) to 70 years (for John) at worst, and likely shorter.

Cool. I'm not really sure how deep history classes should go, but when I made my post I was primarily thinking of 16/17/18/1900's, when people started to really record things in real time.

 

[ballin4life]

History has been recorded by people who were there. So unless you don't trust any one of those accounts, then there's no reason to scrap it.

There's all kinds of reasons not to trust random sources, and you said you wanted PROOF.

Historians really do debate what happened based on the various sources.

The science behind evolution or the big bang is more robust than history. Yes, the big bang itself isn't really a theory, but there are reasons that scientists believe that it happened. I believe you could even call it the result of a theory about the expansion of the universe, which is based on our current observations.

Similarly, evolution is based on two theories that we can observe - namely natural selection and mutations. Evolution must follow as a consequence of the fact that natural selection has been occurring and organisms can change (due to mutation or other factors like genetic drift etc).

As for stuff being "important in our daily lives", you realize that very little that we learn in school is important to our daily lives? Sure, some people need to know how to do Math or how to write, but certainly not everyone is going to be an engineer or a writer. Sure, it's good to learn science to know how electronics work, but my TV is still going to work regardless of whether I know the physics behind it. Then, what about history, chemistry, literature, etc? Schools have long since moved away from teaching students only practical knowledge.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Here we run into micro vs macroevolution again.

Microevolution is change within a species. THIS is what people are talking about when they claim to have observed evolution. It is demonstrably true, and has indeed happened in the past.

Macroevolution is change between species. This is a whole different ball game, and does not at all follow from microevolution. Let me give you an analogy.

1): I can become stronger by working out.
2): I can work out repeatedly
3): Therefore, by working out repeatedly, I can lift the empire state building.

Do you see the problem? Although microevolution can "stack" to an extent, it can't account for all the changes that macroevolution requires. Becoming faster and growing legs are two entirely different things.

 

[1048576]

Note that I said "prove," with quotation marks. It's simply the easiest word to use, although it is not completely accurate. The quotation marks are meant to point out that the word 'prove' is being used differently.

So you would have students be taught things that are not yet proven, and may never be proven?

There's also a fundamental difference between the "theories" taught in classroom, which are shown to be all but fact, and the "theories" of evolution and the BB. The ones primarily taught in the classroom are theories that can be repeatedly shown time and time again through experimentation. They are observable, and have real impact on what we do in the world now. Because they are repeatable, they are pretty much fact, because we rely on those principles to do our daily activities or to invent new technologies.

The theories of evolution and BB, however, are not observable, repeatable, and have next to zero impact on our daily lives. This fundamental difference is the difference between science (by definition), and proposed unobserved history that attempts to use true science to support a claim.

I don't know if you see the difference between these two types of "theories."



On a personal level, I believe that the Bible is God's account of what happened. Because he was the one to actually be there, he can account for what happened. And he revealed this account by inspiring men, who then wrote the books of the Bible.

/not part of the debate



Cool. I'm not really sure how deep history classes should go, but when I made my post I was primarily thinking of 16/17/18/1900's, when people started to really record things in real time.

Evolution is demonstrably true. Take a fast-breeding life form, like fruit flies, split them into 2 groups, with 2 different environments, and eventually you will be able to distinguish one group from the other.

 

[AltF4]

Ganonsburg

I don't know how to respond to you, except to say that almost everything you just said is wrong. The Big Bang can be observed, it does impact our daily lives, it does have repeatable experimentation, etc... Where are you getting your information? Yes, I would have things "which may never be proven" be taught in science classrooms because that phrase describes EVERY scientific theory.

Not even the catholic pope denies the Big Bang anymore. That says something. It's a fact. It is a part of science. Intelligent design is not. It's a bunch of religious nonsense poorly disguised as science so that christians can teach their mythology in public schools. No thank you.

 

[ballin4life]

Here we run into micro vs macroevolution again.

Microevolution is change within a species. THIS is what people are talking about when they claim to have observed evolution. It is demonstrably true, and has indeed happened in the past.

Macroevolution is change between species. This is a whole different ball game, and does not at all follow from microevolution. Let me give you an analogy.

1): I can become stronger by working out.
2): I can work out repeatedly
3): Therefore, by working out repeatedly, I can lift the empire state building.

Do you see the problem? Although microevolution can "stack" to an extent, it can't account for all the changes that macroevolution requires. Becoming faster and growing legs are two entirely different things.

Except that growing legs etc can be perfectly explained by mutations and then natural selection.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Here we run into micro vs macroevolution again.

Microevolution is change within a species. THIS is what people are talking about when they claim to have observed evolution. It is demonstrably true, and has indeed happened in the past.

Macroevolution is change between species. This is a whole different ball game, and does not at all follow from microevolution. Let me give you an analogy.

Ah, except that has been observed as well. There have been plenty of observed instances of speciation. Source.

1): I can become stronger by working out.
2): I can work out repeatedly
3): Therefore, by working out repeatedly, I can lift the empire state building.

Do you see the problem?

No. You haven't stated that one can't work out forever, or that working out only creates a limited amount of strength. See that's the problem with the idea of a macro-microevolution dichotomy, it assumes that microevolution for some reason can't accumulate over long periods of time to produce macroevolution.

Although microevolution can "stack" to an extent, it can't account for all the changes that macroevolution requires. Becoming faster and growing legs are two entirely different things.

Actually it can. There is nothing preventing microevolution building up to become macroevolution and make these large changes. In fact transitional forms are a testament to this. There are tonnes of them. Source.

 

[Nicholas1024]

As far as your first source goes, it looks impressive at first glance, but after looking a little further into this "evidence", it's really not that convincing. Let me quote the first example it gives of a transition between species.

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

So basically, he found a new variant of a flower among his existing ones that couldn't interbreed with the ones he already had, with twice as many chromosomes. The differences are minute, and there's no "transitional form". It's completely possible it was just a previously unclassified flower he mistook for the O. lamarckiana, or perhaps one with a genetic defect of some sort. Hardly a change between species. The other examples I read were similarly unimpressive. I'm sure you'll accuse me of picking on the weakest example or say that it's really "transition between species", but if you do so then I'm putting the burden of proof on you: Quote me a more convincing example.

As far as your second source goes, I can't debate those because I'm not a biologist, I couldn't prove anything either way. (If you want a real argument there, go ahead and ask a Christian biologist. I just haven't read much on the subject. Sorry.) However, I will say this: Why aren't some of those transitional forms still alive today? Since these transitional forms provided an advantage over the original species, and those original species somehow managed to survive to the present, why couldn't the transitional forms have done so? Instead, all we have are fully developed creatures. Also, why don't we see any mistaken transitional forms in the fossil record, ones with random mutations that didn't actually benefit the creature, but instead hurt it? Obviously they wouldn't be too differentiable from the originals, but they should still exist.

Also, the problem between macro-microevolution is on your end. Tons of atheists here have just been assuming "Microevolution is true, therefore macroevolution is true". I'm pointing out the flaw in that argument. Micro evolution BY ITSELF does not imply macro evolution in any way shape or form. You would need additional evidence for that.