Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
The difference is that people interested in science do not have a forum where discussion can be limited to scientific issues, whereas people interested in religion can exclude skepticism from their threads.
I have asked about four times in the last couple of days exactly what religion has to contribute in a science classroom. Exactly what would be taught if a state had a law like Louisiana's that permits teaching of alternatives.
I'm still waiting for an answer.
[[Which of these things you believe should be taught in science class?]]
The scientific FACTS- ALL of them- Objectively!
I believe I am arguing that the definition of a miracle is more exclusive than simply determining if there is a known natural explanation, timing being paramount.
You can't possibly teach all of science in high school. Be specific. What specific facts would you teach?
What do you mean ‘rejects Ergaster’?
It’s a fossil of a humanoid, right?
Did it once walk the earth? If so, when? Is it dated correctly?
Is it a relative of mankind? How do you know?
how would YOU classify it, if its not a ‘transitional’?
We are all aware of the observer problem, and at least some of us deal with it as best we can. Others, I’m not so sure about. Some, I sometimes think, try to use it to their advantage against the rest of us.
There are several authors reporting on several eyewitnesses.
[[IOW, you’re arguing that if any event has the initial appearance of being a miracle (ie happening contrary to known natural laws), then it must be one and there will never be a natural explanation for it,]]
I think a little more precision is needed here- God may very well use natural laws in a supernatural manner- if so, then yes, we can know how He did something by examining the natural aspects, but not understand the actual supernatural event itself. For instance, when the head was restored, scientsits could examine how everythign was reattached, whether htere are any telltale reattachment points, see if any vessels shrunk during hte process, determine iof any biological changes took place, if there was any scarring etc, but still not be able to determine How God superceeded nature by causing hte event to occure.
This is an example of the result of our differing presumptions. Christian's ask what does science (or anything else we do for that matter) do to exalt, glorify or praise God. Christians must also realize that false witness and accepting lies as truth is not what God expects or requires.
“Or the one who keeps telling us that science isn’t about truth or proof? “
Science is about ‘truth’, in that it is an attempt to explain what is, ie, come up with the best explanation that fits the facts. Truth does not equal ‘proof’. A theory can be viewed as true even if not ‘proved’.
You cannot ‘prove’ a scientific theory, you can only prove that it fits the facts and data (or dis-prove it by showing it DOESNT fit the facts and data, which is called falsifiability).
You can prove a mathematical theorem because it is based on axioms, but you cannot prove scientific theories because they are based on empirical evidence as well as models.
So start with the data and go from there:
What’s your explanation for all those dinosaur bones we have uncovered over the past 200 years? When did T Rex roam the earth? Where?
what’s your explanation for the seashell fossils found in my backyard in central texas?
If its better than what the scientists have come up with, i am all ears.
A test for science is falsifiability: What set of data would make your theory false? If there is no such set of data that exists, then you are not talking about science. Is creationism science? Ask the question: What set of data makes creationism falsifiable? If there is none, its not science.
If that’s what you genuinely believe, then you are suffering from a classic instance of the Observer Problem just previously mentioned by hosepipe
[[There are other radioactive decay mechanisms as well. Do you disagree with ALL forms of radioactive decay based dating? Why?]]
Assumptions- plain and simple- you’ll find a nice little list of links showing hte problems with many of the methods of dating in this thread that I posted- I have more for hte more obscure dating methods as well.
And your point is that hearsay evidence is convincing? I'm not trying to bash faith, but I do believe we are talking about faith, and not evidence of a kind we would accept in court.
My point remains that science has a different outlook on acquiring and validating knowledge. I can't imagine why people want faith dragged into science classes, where the prevailing atmosphere is one of skepticism.
Do you really want your religion dissected in front of high school students?
What do you do when they conflict?
I’m sorry, I shoudl have said the FACTS objective facts related to Macroevolution and Baraminology, and ID- BOTH sides should be able to present hteir findings minus their projections beyond hte science. IF this were done, the student would have a much more complete picture abotu the viability of either side, and it is my belief that the one would more thna override hte other when students start to see that Macroevolution isn’t nearly as ‘established’ as they are now deceitfulyl led to beleive it is, and would see that Yep- there are scientifically valid evidences that point in another direction entirely.
Teach hte objective science on both sides of the isle, and let the students decide and form hteir own opinions- but Heck- We both know that that kind of objective Sceince will never be taught because hte church of Darwin runs the Government
[[Did it once walk the earth? If so, when? Is it dated correctly?]]
You tell me
[[What do you mean ‘rejects Ergaster’?]]
Rejects it as a valid classification- The ‘differences’ are far too small to warrent it’s own classification- I made that clear in my many posts on the subject.
[[how would YOU classify it, if its not a ‘transitional’?]]
You ask a lot of questions, don’t you?
You keep saying you want to teach facts, but you haven’t listed any.
I tell my children to learn everything they can that is being taught about evolution. They should be able to understand the theory as well as anything else our society requires. However, I teach them to go an extra mile and to understand the underlying presumptions that are required for both a creationist view and an evolutionist view. I teach them that all reasoning is based on presumptions and that these often lead to an answer we want to hear and that it is precisely these conclusions which are based on their own presumptions which require the highest degree of skepticism.
In short, if the answer is what you wanted it to be (and this is sometimes tough to know about ourselves) you had better redo your work over and over again until you know what presumptions might be affecting your outcome.
This is what I teach my children. A typical answer on an essay from my children would be along the order of "this is the answer you want, however it is based on assuming X, Y, Z as being true. X, Y Z is not true because ...."
Quite frankly, I would rather my children devote time to learning logic or philosophy rather than evolution. They would be more helpful.
All this is generalization. What facts would you teach?
Lol- Haven’t presented any? I guess you haven’t been paying attention for several hundred posts then
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.