1. ID is valid science.
2. Criticism of ID is religious discrimination.
is evolution science, or a theory
neither can be proven, there are flaws that can be picked out of either (evolution or creationism). we should teach science as science and historical theories (such as evolution or creation or mythology etc) seperate.
how about this for evolution:
1. evolution is absolutely true.
2. Criticism of evolution is stupid, its proven
anyways people should be able to question either, and the tools aren't there to prove evolution (or history) accurately
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, DAWGS and SURGE!
Also this whole "let the student decide" thing is dumb.
If things were so simple to understand and evaluate that you only needed a grade 8 education then what's the point of having university, or degrees, or hiring people with years of decades of experience? Since all you need to completely understand and evaluate centuries of science in diverse disciplines such as biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, anthropology and biogeography (just to name a few) is a grade 8 education and a few hours in a biology classroom apparently, the rest of this education stuff is just silly.
Next time I go to the doctor with my kid, I'll make sure my doctor presents both sides of a decision (one drug or another, or a drug or leeches) and my kid can decide for himself.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
is evolution science, or a theory
neither can be proven, there are flaws that can be picked out of either (evolution or creationism). we should teach science as science and historical theories (such as evolution or creation or mythology etc) seperate.
how about this for evolution:
1. evolution is absolutely true.
2. Criticism of evolution is stupid, its proven
anyways people should be able to question either, and the tools aren't there to prove evolution (or history) accurately
ID is not science, as it cannot be tested.
The scientific evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, evolution is a fact.
We don’t need to teach geocentrism, growing earth nonsense, the ether, or alchemy to students and then let them decide. Such notions are only useful in teaching the history of scientfiic thought – how we currently know that these discredited ideas are wrong, and why we currently accept other theories. [Novella]
A theory is the highest status something is given in science. Do you understand what a theory means in science (it is different than the common use of theory meant to indicate an idea)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
neither can be proven, there are flaws that can be picked out of either (evolution or creationism).
There's no such thing as "proven" in science, that's something for math and formal logic.
In science you have a theory which, if it explains all observations and makes accurate predictions, is the best possible explanation at the time.
You have the fact of gravity, we observe gravity, and you have the theory of gravity, general relativity explains the fact of gravity.
You have the fact of evolution, we observe populations evolve, and you have the theory of evolution which explains the fact of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
we should teach science as science and historical theories (such as evolution or creation or mythology etc) seperate.
Evolution is not a historical theory, it is a current theory that has been verified by 150 years of scientific research and has never been falsified with a contrary observation. Evolution should be taught in the science classroom, since it is the best description of how the evolution we observe in the world takes place.
Creation myths should be taught, but taught in a comparative religion class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
how about this for evolution:
1. evolution is absolutely true.
2. Criticism of evolution is stupid, its proven
This is a better phrase:
Evolution is as close to a fact that science ever gets; it is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Gould)
If something replaced the current theory of evolution, it would encompass it, not disprove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
anyways people should be able to question either, and the tools aren't there to prove evolution (or history) accurately
This is so very wrong. The tools are there and have been used for 150 years.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Next time I go to the doctor with my kid, I'll make sure my doctor presents both sides of a decision (one drug or another, or a drug or leeches) and my kid can decide for himself.
You'll be doing your kid a disservice by not letting him choose between a doctor and a faith healer in the first place!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to malcolmk14 For This Useful Post:
What if God delegated the work. He/she had a great idea for the universe but thought it would be too much work, so he contracted it's design to someone else? Kind of like this:
If God has any good business sense (and I think evidence of the Catholic church shows that he/she does) then God would have accepted the lowest bidder on the contract to design the universe.
The lowest bidder probably wasn't the most intelligent bidder.
Therefore it's possible that both intelligent design, and evolution are wrong.
Fortunately there's no way to prove or disprove this, therefore Unintelligent Design FTW
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Where do people learn to use Q.E.D. from? I'm pretty sure I didn't know what it meant before taking formal logic courses in uni, and the only other time I generally see it being used is to make silly points in online discussions.
Is that use just how people know it, or are there a bunch of people learning the meaning of QED out there in some other way?
I learned it from my Math 20 teacher...he kept ending off proofs with QED and eventually someone asked what it meant.
A theory is the highest status something is given in science. Do you understand what a theory means in science (it is different than the common use of theory meant to indicate an idea)?
I wasn't aware of the difference, but if there is no proven in science, than that makes sense.
There's no such thing as "proven" in science, that's something for math and formal logic.
In science you have a theory which, if it explains all observations and makes accurate predictions, is the best possible explanation at the time.
You have the fact of gravity, we observe gravity, and you have the theory of gravity, general relativity explains the fact of gravity. but if this is science, it is not proven but the best possible explanation at the time
You have the fact of evolution, we observe populations evolve, and you have the theory of evolution which explains the fact of evolution.
micro evolution we can observe, but having a short recorded human history, we can't fully observe this, although it may be the best possible explanation at the time
Evolution is not a historical theory, it is a current theory that has been verified by 150 years of scientific research and has never been falsified with a contrary observation. Evolution should be taught in the science classroom, since it is the best description of how the evolution we observe in the world takes place. what i mean is it is a theory about something that happened in the past. and never?? really? Although I guess how would we have a falsified observation if we can't really observe it? aside from looking at fossils which are supposedly billions of years old, in fossil layers that are at times all mixed up, with dating systems that aren't perfectly accurate.
Creation myths should be taught, but taught in a comparative religion class. sure
This is a better phrase:
Evolution is as close to a fact that science ever gets; it is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Gould) I'm sorry but this statement is sort of arrogant, by the Gould guy. evolution is as close to a fact as science ever gets? no, gravity is as close to a fact as science ever gets, water being made of hydrogen and oxygen particles is as close to fact as science ever gets. The problem with science is we can't question it because we aren't as smart as these guys who study it. I have heard stories of scientists being threatened because they didn't believe what other scientists believed, told not to continue thier research. It's easy to criticize religion because, well its religion, but to criticize science? I guess we can't do that
If something replaced the current theory of evolution, it would encompass it, not disprove it.
how do you know that? science can disprove itself
This is so very wrong. The tools are there and have been used for 150 years. to make assumptions, yes there are tools, but those tools change over time as they are found to be not accurate enough. They haven't been using the same tools (or ideas) for 150 years
see above
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, DAWGS and SURGE!
Anyone remember Darwinius Masillae, the much publicized "missing link" fossil in 2009?
Any research can easily be contradicted by another scientist. Claims are sensationalized in order to get more funding. Evolution is not a "fact". Unless by "fact" you mean what is the current (albeit by no mean unanimous) consensus among some scientists and internet philosophers with copy-paste skills.
Anyone remember Darwinius Masillae, the much publicized "missing link" fossil in 2009?
Any research can easily be contradicted by another scientist. Claims are sensationalized in order to get more funding. Evolution is not a "fact". Unless by "fact" you mean what is the current (albeit by no mean unanimous) consensus among some scientists and internet philosophers with copy-paste skills.
A thread started with a video about a bunch of uneducated bimbos talking about a topic they probably have put no real thought in to? And its even a topic that's been beat like a dead horse on CP every few months?!?! This thread is destined for greatness.
Look into why many scientists prefer to keep any religious beliefs to themselves.
The mob mentality of the scientist community currently is reminiscent of the Church and its followers during the Dark ages.
I see what you're saying, but you're wrong. I know many scientists who are religious but I know none that are creationists. As someone who is highly educated and well-versed in the science community, I have my finger on the pulse here.
Anyone remember Darwinius Masillae, the much publicized "missing link" fossil in 2009?
Missing link is a bad way to describe it, all fossils are transitional, missing link is something religious groups have been trying to suggest we can't find proof of our evolution from our ancestors, while we certainly can, but considering the length of time we are searching for fossils its of course going to have some holes (Thats where God is!)
Quote:
Any research can easily be contradicted by another scientist.
Sure, but the one that wins out is the one with evidence and research that can be duplicated by others over and over until it becomes accepted fact. In fact its this competition and aggressive challenge amongst scientists that makes the scientific method so successful.
Quote:
Claims are sensationalized in order to get more funding.
Usually by the media, however this does happen sometimes and it is unfortunate, but the majority of papers are dull, boring and hard to sensationalize, since the vast majority of science is to non science folk boring and uninteresting. The media is really bad at taking science news and spinning it, to much the dismay of those scientists being quoted, we talk often here at CP about our dislike for media sensationalism with science news.
Quote:
Evolution is not a "fact".
Technically yes its not a fact, but it is resoundingly close to it. Theory in science is the top, like has been mentioned; having facts means nothing if you can't put it together, make it testable and observable. I know many scientists out of frustration of the misunderstanding of the word theory in lamen terms is making many of them ponder out loud about changing terminology to reflect the strength of the word theory in science.
As you can see in the video, the most common mistake by the ladies is saying "its just a theory," all scientists cringe and die a little inside when people say that. Its the biggest misunderstanding and failure of modern science to communicate this to the general public. At least in Icelandic our word for evolutionary theory has no such confusion, probably helps in our 94% agreement to evolution in polls
Quote:
Unless by "fact" you mean what is the current (albeit by no mean unanimous) consensus among some scientists and internet philosophers with copy-paste skills.
As close as unanimous as you can get, probably well over the 90% of all the worlds biologists agree, they might argue over some of the details, but evolution as a fact for biologists is a given, without it we cannot understand or explain modern medicine and all of modern biology.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
