Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 06:58:46 PM
Dude, the appeal to ignorance argument has been made millions of times before, and it's stupid as fuck.  Clearly, you don't understand what Dr. Hawking meant; he does not imply that a lack of absolute certainty gives one the mandate to regard every possible "theory" with equal weight, but rather to always be open to modification and consideration of a current theory if new evidence gives light to holes in it.

By your line of reasoning, we should teach Ancient Greek creation theory in schools as well.

Actually, when I went to school, they did. Not in science class, but in Greek Mythology.

Dude, it's  clear from your post that it is you, not I who didn't understand the scientific principle which Hawkins was explaining.

QuoteEvolutionary theory is accepted as both a theory and a fact in the scientific community.  There is mountains of evidence supporting it; fossil records, genetic links, related vestigial organs, scientifically induced evolution, etc.

It was you who warned about confusing the layman's use of the word theory with the scientific definition of it. And yet, here you are blurring the two to suit your own agenda.

The Theory of Evolution is, currently, the most viable theory to explain the origin of life on this planet. HOWEVER, there are certainly enough "holes" (missing links in the fossil record, the fact that mutation has not been observed in nature, etc, etc)  in that theory that no scientist worth his salt would accept it as "fact".

If you are going to throw down the gauntlet and present yourself as some sort of scientific intellectual, you damned well better be able to live up to it!

Right now, you just sound like someone who has seen a few too many Star Trek re-runs!

And just for the record, no, I don't believe "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science class. However, I don't feel it should be altogether banned from school curriculum - perhaps social science class would be a good place to discuss it?

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
Really?  Every time I quote a section of your post that contradicts the above, I'll put a * at the front.

Oh, Christ, I'm being attacked with punctuation. Give me a second or two to piss my pants. Okay, moving on...

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PMScience does not cater to what you really wish were true.

That's deep, my friend, deep. Science, being a construct of man, and not some metaphysical universal truth that you'd like it to be, is just that -- a construct of man. Man made the rules of science, and it is therefore just as fallible as man.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
* Your analogy applies more to intelligent design than evolution.  Both ID and your stated examples cater to the "god of the gaps" fallacy.  Evolution doesn't do that; evolution features mounds of scientific evidence and support.  Do any of your examples feature this quality?

I presented no analogy, so your first asterisk misses. (Whew!) I did present valid examples of schools of thought, all of which offered "mounds of scientific evidence" in the fashion of their time.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
The "Science isn't always right!" tautology is commonly used by those who perpetuate pseudo-scientific beliefs.  Yes, scientists can be wrong.  But they are proven wrong by detailed analysis, not by waving the possibility that they may be incorrect around and hoping it will happen to be true.

Nope, sorry. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to present "science" as a thing so clearly and undeniably superior to "faith" or "belief," then the burden is on you to PROVE IT. If you're going to present it that way, and base the education of our children on that premise to the exclusion of any other premise, the "science" must be absolutely right 100% of the time AND YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IT to uphold your stance that the science is superior. Once again, prove to me that I'm evolved from a single-cell critter in a prehistoric pond. I note that you have declined a number of invitations to do that.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
So we should just keep kids ignorant, and in the dark, of what by your own (inconsistent) admission is the truth, simply do appease those who believe in something that is demonstrably false?

Like, this is precisely why our education system is failing, and precisely how liberty dies; when you censor truths you don't like.

This is your idea of education, not mine, as a review of my remarks will show you. You're the one who believes that pure "science," actually a construct of man, and its evolution theory is the only thing our children should even be exposed to. At no time, with no word, not in any way, have I advocated censorship of any idea, including most especially the theory of evolution.

And I take offense again -- seems to be a pattern here -- at your characterization of my "inconsistent" version of the truth. Surely you read better than that.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM

I never said that we couldn't.  In fact, we already have for a long time, in the form of cross breeding.

Well, if we can control evolution, how is it the immutable law of the universe? If you'll notice, I haven't made a single argument that creation is the correct theory; I also haven't argued against it. But I haven't seen a single argument from you that makes any sense at all that anything else is the correct theory. You keep yelping about "mounds of evidence" for evolution, but I don't see a single scrap.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM  No, I was indicating precisely the opposite.

AGAIN, you contradict yourself. You just got done telling me that evolution is a process that can be controlled by humans, then you come back and say it ain't so. ::sigh::

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM

Wait; you're contradicting yourself again.  You say that evolution and religion are irreconcilable, yet you yourself are attempting precisely this right now.

Again, you misquote me. What I said was that the theory of evolution -- as it is presented and taught in the public schools -- is antithetical to Christian religion, as well as to the Jewish faith, and to Muslims, and to many others. It is presented precisely as you present it, as a take-it-all-right-now principle that excludes the very possibility of any other solution. I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. (You'll pardon, I'm sure, my lack of capitalization for what can hardly be called a holy concept.) I have a HUGE problem with lib/progs who want to shove evolution theory down my throat and down the throats of my children.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM* Firstly, one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.  Secondly, I don't find evolution much demeaning at all.  Thirdly, the universe doesn't care if you find reality inconvenient.

Oh, God. (Shit, should I lowercase that?) Another flaming asterisk! Horrors!

Finally. I've met someone who knows for a fact what the universe cares about AND is comfy with the concept of being descended directly from pond scum. Under different circumstances -- a LOT different -- I might ask you to marry me. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
<snip; analogy to hand of god was merely referring to fallacy of appealing to popularity>

I think I just have to pass on this nonsense.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM

I don't disagree on you with this.  But I still hold that we shouldn't teach our children something that, by your own admission, is false.

"I don't disagree on you with this." Did I copy that correctly? I have, as you well know, admitted that nothing is false. It is a source of never-ending incredulity for me to watch a knee-jerk lib/prog dance and jig and skip to avoid being "hoist on his own petard."

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
* Appealing to your own incredulity isn't an argument.  And nobody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic; more successful species will survive (duh), and some will learn to reproduce (duh), and those that reproduce will survive, and somewhere along the line sexual reproduction for many organisms became favorable and they survived, etc.  There is no intelligence needed here.

And I don't see how "who created the law of the universe" is relevant to the origin of life.

Ah, the final bolt from the punctuation quiver. Zing. Ouch. Just two sentences with any meat in them:

"[N]obody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic."

Um, whose logic would that be? What would that logic, without mankind, be based on? Are you suggesting that the alleged progression from ape to man was a "natural result of logic?" Are you saying that the universe itself was founded on what we call -- or what you call -- logic?

Are you really, truly, absolutely positive you want to sail under that flag?

Quote from: bluelieu on June 12, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
While some fundamentalists Christians may be conservatives (and not all are...especially in the Hispanic population), the vast majority of conservatives are not fundamentalists.  If you live in an area where such groups are the majority then (to borrow a phrase from evolutionists) ADAPT.  Tell your kids that it is not your belief, school them to pay attention to the evoutionary portion of the curricula and move on.  The same goes, btw, when man-made global warming is presented.  If you wish (and I do) tell them to take such "proven scientific fact" with a massive grain of salt.  Stop trying to bend everybody to your way of thinking.

That's pretty much my view. It's how I pulled one of the highest grades in my college sociology class even though much of what was covered in the curriculum was BS, particularly when we got to covering economic systems.

Quote from: Dr_Watt on June 12, 2012, 07:40:11 PM
Actually, when I went to school, they did. Not in science class, but in Greek Mythology.

I and have no issues with teaching the Genesis in bible study.  They did not teach you Greek Mythology in science class, so don't teach that god created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, OK?

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 08:46:52 PM

That's deep, my friend, deep. Science, being a construct of man, and not some metaphysical universal truth that you'd like it to be, is just that -- a construct of man. Man made the rules of science, and it is therefore just as fallible as man.

So your argument is that Evolution *could* be wrong, so we shouldn't teach it, just to be sure.  Even though plenty of what we teach (read: everything) also suffers from this tautological statement.

Quote
I presented no analogy, so your first asterisk misses. (Whew!) I did present valid examples of schools of thought, all of which offered "mounds of scientific evidence" in the fashion of their time.

Please, point me to the mounds of scientific evidence that exists or existed to give any reasonable basis for the Greek creation myth.  This should be fun.

Quote
Nope, sorry. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to present "science" as a thing so clearly and undeniably superior to "faith" or "belief," then the burden is on you to PROVE IT.

Faith is the willful suspension of critical thinking to believe in something without evidence.  This is the antithesis of logical thought.  The scientific method is a systematic, logical analysis of the universe through observation and experimentation.

So, if by "superior" we are referring to the ability to deduce fact, then yes, an openly logical method of analysis is superior to a method that prides itself on relying on emotion rather than truth.  Do you utilize faith when judging a suspected criminal?

Quote
If you're going to present it that way, and base the education of our children on that premise to the exclusion of any other premise, the "science" must be absolutely right 100% of the time AND YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IT to uphold your stance that the science is superior.

I suppose that we should not teach gravitational theory, because it is incomplete.

After all, history is not "absolutely right 100% of the time", so by this line of reasoning we should not teach any of it.  For all we know, the conspiracy theorists were right, and aliens really did construct the pyramids.

Now, explain why evolution is held to such higher levels of scrutiny than any of these accepted facts.

QuoteOnce again, prove to me that I'm evolved from a single-cell critter in a prehistoric pond. I note that you have declined a number of invitations to do that.

Because you already agree with me that evolution is correct, so I fail to see your motivation here.

Quote
This is your idea of education, not mine, as a review of my remarks will show you. You're the one who believes that pure "science," actually a construct of man, and its evolution theory is the only thing our children should even be exposed to. At no time, with no word, not in any way, have I advocated censorship of any idea, including most especially the theory of evolution.

I never said that science is the only thing our children should be exposed to.  But in Science classrooms of course it should be. 

And you are arguing censorship of ideas, whether or you realize it or not.  You are proposing that we not teach evolution or ID simply because it is controversial.  That is the definition of censorship; look it up.  It would establish a precedent that whining about inconvenient facts will prompt the government to ban teaching of it.

In fact, how exactly do we go about by your suggestion of not teaching evolution in schooling?  You would you enforce it?  Jail those who do not comply? 

Quote
And I take offense again -- seems to be a pattern here -- at your characterization of my "inconsistent" version of the truth. Surely you read better than that.

I take offense at your disturbing inability to consistently portray your own stance on the issue.

Quote
Well, if we can control evolution, how is it the immutable law of the universe?

*sigh*.

You don't understand evolution.  You're thinking of it from a religious standpoint.  Evolution is not a scientific law.  It is simply a model of how life developed.  Similarly, that the Earth slowly cooled over billions of years is not a scientific law, there are no equations for this, and in theory it could very well have not happened at all.  In a way, you could argue that evolution closely resembles history; and that the Roman Empire fell was not an immutable law of the universe.

QuoteIf you'll notice, I haven't made a single argument that creation is the correct theory; I also haven't argued against it.

Yes, you have.  You've stated that evolution is probably correct.  Ergo, creation theory must probably be wrong, unless if the two can overlap, but you've made your position clear that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

QuoteBut I haven't seen a single argument from you that makes any sense at all that anything else is the correct theory. You keep yelping about "mounds of evidence" for evolution, but I don't see a single scrap.

Stop contradicting yourself.  You've admitted that you "believe" in evolution already, and yet you continue to formulate ridiculous and cliché arguments against it.

Quote
AGAIN, you contradict yourself. You just got done telling me that evolution is a process that can be controlled by humans, then you come back and say it ain't so. ::sigh:: 

Dude, this isn't that difficult to decipher.  I'm not speaking in fucking morse code.  Humans can theoretically control the evolutionary process, and we have, on a smaller level.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the billions of years of evolution existing before humans evolved surely cannot be the result of human guidance.

Quote
Again, you misquote me. What I said was that the theory of evolution -- as it is presented and taught in the public schools -- is antithetical to Christian religion, as well as to the Jewish faith, and to Muslims, and to many others. It is presented precisely as you present it, as a take-it-all-right-now principle that excludes the very possibility of any other solution.

This argument is tedious and old as dirt.  No scientist presents the evolutionary model as perfect or complete.  Similarly, no scientist presents gravitational theory as perfect or complete.  What you seem to want is for schools to constantly push it down the childrens' throats that evolution (and only evolution) is incomplete and could be wrong.

Let me turn this around for a second: show me where the Roman Catholic Mob applies this level of scrutiny to its own beliefs.  Have you EVER heard a priest imply anything other than that what he says is the complete, undeniable, irrefutable truth?

Quote

I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. (You'll pardon, I'm sure, my lack of capitalization for what can hardly be called a holy concept.) I have a HUGE problem with lib/progs who want to shove evolution theory down my throat and down the throats of my children.

We "shove" evolution theory down your throat in the same manner that we "shove" gravitational theory and the history of the Roman Empire down your throat.  If you find facts to be inconvenient, just admit it and quit the smokescreen.

Quote
Oh, God. (Shit, should I lowercase that?) Another flaming asterisk! Horrors!

Finally. I've met someone who knows for a fact what the universe cares about AND is comfy with the concept of being descended directly from pond scum. Under different circumstances -- a LOT different -- I might ask you to marry me. 

Really, shoving this down your throat isn't going to work.  I'm going to have to drill it through your skull.

That the laws of physics are impersonal is hardly a fringe concept.  All of them are purely mathematical constructs.  There is no variable for the kinetic object of a body in motion that takes into account your personal emotions.  This is why creationists are not scientists; they openly allow emotional prejudices to influence their deductions, and this is really, really bad.

I also find it funny that you think evolution is depressing, even though you yourself grew from a sack of proteins in your mommy's uterus.

Quote
I think I just have to pass on this nonsense.
"I don't disagree on you with this." Did I copy that correctly? I have, as you well know, admitted that nothing is false. It is a source of never-ending incredulity for me to watch a knee-jerk lib/prog dance and jig and skip to avoid being "hoist on his own petard."

Spare me the ad hominems, and just admit that your deduction of history is based on your own wish of what reality is, rather than logical analysis of facts.  Do you think the sun cares if you found its eventual demise depressing?

Quote
Ah, the final bolt from the punctuation quiver. Zing. Ouch. Just two sentences with any meat in them:

"[N]obody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic."

Um, whose logic would that be? What would that logic, without mankind, be based on? Are you suggesting that the alleged progression from ape to man was a "natural result of logic?" Are you saying that the universe itself was founded on what we call -- or what you call -- logic?

I...this isn't rocket science.  Really, it isn't.  I explained it before and I'll explain it again; no hole exists in the evolutionary theory that requires or would be fixed by the presence of an intelligent designer.  But you are free to believe this on the basis of faith (although, by your account this is impossible to reconcile).  Faith that will not be taught in science class.

Quote
Are you really, truly, absolutely positive you want to sail under that flag?

Why do you confuse evolution with the universe's physical laws?

I think we've pretty well worn this one out. Time to move on.

I'll be sure to wear my asterisk-resistant vest in the future, just in case you decide to start shooting at me with punctuation again. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 13, 2012, 08:58:30 AM
I and have no issues with teaching the Genesis in bible study.  They did not teach you Greek Mythology in science class, so don't teach that god created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, OK?

Before you answer, how about reading my entire post!

Since you obviously missed it, here it is again!

And just for the record, no, I don't believe "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science class. However, I don't feel it should be altogether banned from school curriculum - perhaps social science class would be a good place to discuss it?


Got it?

I agree with t-bone. Time to move on!

-Dr Watt

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 13, 2012, 06:37:40 PM
I think we've pretty well worn this one out. Time to move on.

I'll be sure to wear my asterisk-resistant vest in the future, just in case you decide to start shooting at me with punctuation again. 

For your sake, I just hope he doesn't resort to !!!!, or the all dreaded YELLING IN ALL CAPS, that's when you know you're losing the debate.

Quote from: Solar on June 13, 2012, 06:52:42 PM
For your sake, I just hope he doesn't resort to !!!!, or the all dreaded YELLING IN ALL CAPS, that's when you know you're losing the debate.

I don't have to worry about that. He tells me immediately when I'm losing the debate. Don't you, Big Boy?

Aw, c'mon, toss me an asterisk or a semicolon or something... 

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 13, 2012, 07:04:14 PM
I don't have to worry about that. He tells me immediately when I'm losing the debate. Don't you, Big Boy?

Aw, c'mon, toss me an asterisk or a semicolon or something... 

He's such a gentleman.*********

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
If you support this, please justify it.

Beforehand, be sure to understand the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" and the layman's usage of the term.

For an uneducated person, you are sure snarky...

I love how, when I respond to your posts paragraph by paragraph, present my arguments, provide factual analysis, and wait for a reply, the response is ignore any semblance of a logical discussion, and just resort to ridiculous name calling.   

I especially like how taxed calls me an "uneducated person", and then leaves it at that.  No need to actually posit an argument, with facts...that's just overrated.

Or how me using asterisks is somehow relevant to the empirical validity of my points.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
I love how, when I respond to your posts paragraph by paragraph, present my arguments, provide factual analysis, and wait for a reply, the response is ignore any semblance of a logical discussion, and just resort to ridiculous name calling.   

I especially like how taxed calls me an "uneducated person", and then leaves it at that.  No need to actually posit an argument, with facts...that's just overrated.

Or how me using asterisks is somehow relevant to the empirical validity of my points.

A degree is not evidence of an education.
It merely means they passed what was expected of them.
Some of the most successful people in the country never attended college.
I'd take the advice of a person that excelled in their field, over that of a college professor that only read about the field in which he teaches.

Quote from: Solar on June 14, 2012, 09:20:26 AM
A degree is not evidence of an education.
It merely means they passed what was expected of them.
Some of the most successful people in the country never attended college.
I'd take the advice of a person that excelled in their field, over that of a college professor that only read about the field in which he teaches.

Firstly, what is your position on the issue here, just so that I don't commit accidental strawmans?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 10:14:10 AM
Firstly, what is your position on the issue here, just so that I don't commit accidental strawmans?

Aside from hard sciences, college is for those that need to further their education for one reason or another.
But for most people, it's a waste of time, they are successful in their own right.
Getting a degree has become a state sponsored scam, to get a civil service position, college is a requirement, this puts the state in a position of dictating what college courses exist, in turn it has become a symbiotic relationship between the two, one that needs to be abolished.
Granted this is my opinion, but 70% of college is fluff and completely unnecessary.
If you really want to succeed in any particular field other than hard science, then go to a specialized school.
You know, the ones that will change the face of higher learning in this country for good.

Quote from: Solar on June 14, 2012, 10:53:07 AM
Aside from hard sciences, college is for those that need to further their education for one reason or another.
But for most people, it's a waste of time, they are successful in their own right.

...I think you're confusing threads here.  We're discussing the teaching of intelligent design in public classrooms; ie, middle schools and high schools.