Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
What can I put my hand on who wrote the Bible, that created God, that surfed the waves during the Noachian flood?
I suspect that you are trying to claim that science requires evidence to be direct and tactile before it is acceptable.
This is silly. Although direct observation is used by science, at least as far as we can trust our senses, increasingly science is relying on indirect observation. None of quantum physics is known through direct observation but on predictions of what tracks would be left by specific quantum events. Very little of chemistry is based on direct observation, most is based on the observation of reactions by tools. Name a science and then check the direct to indirect observation ratio.
We, in our every day life, base as much of our awareness of what is around us on indirect clues as on direct observation.
When we hike along a dirt track, how do we know a bicycle has been there, do we need to physically see and touch the bike? No, we can observe the tracks it leaves in the dirt. If we leave a child in a room for a moment and come back to find a broken lamp, do wee need to directly observe the child knocking the lamp down to know the child did knock it down? Of course not. We sift through the possible causes of the lamp falling down and one by one, eliminate them as realistic given the environment the lamp is found in - we check the dust on the table to see how close to the edge the lamp was originally, we look at the same clues to see if the lamps traveled across the table before toppling. We check to see if the household pet left tracks in the same dust. We examine the room for sources of wind strong enough to move the lamp. Eventually we narrow the possibilities down to one. We do this type of analysis so frequently in our lives it becomes automatic, many times we are unaware we are doing so.
We do the same sort of thing in science, except that we go a few steps further and if possible try to replicate a number of the possibilities. When replicating the possibilities, we attempt to stabilize all the variables but the one we are testing, a process that at times requires a larger, complex effect to be broken down into much smaller events.
For those possible explanations where we can't replicate the event, we look to as many different lines of evidence as is possible.
We don't just conclude that the child is guilty of knocking the lamp down, we check for that pet, for that wind, for a slammed door, even a potential earthquake before coming to a conclusion.
We determine by examining the dust and marks on the table whether the lamp was slid across the table or knocked over.
We calculate the friction coefficient of the lamp on the table with dust and without dust.
We check the force needed to knock the lamp over. We check the strength of the child - is he/she strong enough to move the lamp. We examine all sorts of things before concluding that our hypothesis of the child knocking the lamp over is correct.
All of that testing is done, and the conclusion drawn, without observing the child knocking the lamp off the table.
" Now don't go telling me that isn't science.
Why would we do that? Direct observation is a part of science but it is not the whole of science. Not by a long shot.
" By the way, scientific conclusion is not necessarily fact. The scientific community would like us all to think so but many of us know better.
I see you do not understand the difference between a fact and a theory. A fact is a data point, generally directly or indirectly observed. A theory is an explanation for the existence or state of the fact, or more often the relationship between a number of different facts.
As far as calling a scientific conclusion a fact, as in 'the absolute truth', this does not happen, science is tentative and it knows it. When some scientist uses the term fact, if s/he is not using it to reference a bit of data, s/he is using the term as shorthand for 'shown to be accurate to a degree beyond reasonable doubt'. This occurs when a theory has so many converging lines of evidence all pointing in one direction, and/or has survived so many attempts at falsification, that it would be extremely surprising for it to be falsified in the future.
Hold that thought, js1138. We've got some catching up to do!
But I confess, I am a total fan of Dancing with the Stars. Best live music on television, kick-a** band under the baton of the gifted Harold Wheeler, with absolutely first-rate players and singers, doing it all live. Plus the professional dancers on the show are simply breath-takingly amazing to watch.... They get good partners every now and then, too: Emmitt Smith and his pro partner are in second place going into this week. :^) Amazing how light, how deft that man is on his feet, and how sweet his presentation!
I just love it! Be back later!
Sorry but that doesn't satisfy your requirement of direct observation. Unless you are claiming that the Bible you are touching *is* the creator.
"By the way, could you mail me some of that Big Bang material? I'd like to compare it to what is in my septic tank.
I suspect you wouldn't understand much of it (and no I do not claim to understand all of it).
I suspect it as been ignored because the evidence is against it not because teaching it is unlawful.
"If you don't mention these things to the kids in the right environment they are going to grow up holding to unchallenged beliefs they picked up here and there.
For once I agree with you.
OK, what did I miss?
But I hope we'll speak again later this evening.
'Til then, bye!
Creationism and Lamarckianism are two different kettle of fish.
On the law side, Lamarckianism is not a recognized religion.
On the practical side, it is mentioned as a failed hypothesis. Should creationism be taught as a failed hypothesis? I can imagine how well that would go over.
Remember, ID is not necessarily religious in nature ~ e.g. the part of ID that has the mothership deliverying new types of critters from the "new animal factory" in Baghdad on Sandoz 9.
Besides, arguing that "religion" should be prohibited from a class when other fictions are allowed (Lamarckianism) runs afoul of the "free speech" clause in the First Amendment.
You have to be very careful what arguments you advance in support of an "evolution only" curriculum.
Students ARE and WOULD BE taught the prevailing (pseudo) scientific theories--and imho, over-exhaustively TToE.
30 minutes to even an hour out of a semester or a year on ID would not traumatize anyone nor rob them of anything significant and would go a long ways toward teaching critical thinking and an open mind. But even if it were just a notice of the 5-12 paragraphs in a book--BIG DEAL--NOT!
And all the wailing about a sticker in front of the book??? Utterly and preposterously ridiculous. And those folks want us to take their hyper INQUISITIONAL SCHREECHING as evidence of a rational scientific mind???
What utter hypocritical hogwash.
Well worth whatever "sacrifices" the TToE folks would be wailing about.
Oh hogwash.
There's dozens of summaries around at the beginning or ending of lots of long tomes of documents. I just prefer to let others choose or write which ones to use. Not a huge deal.
Odd you'd make it a big deal.
30 minutes? You don't need that much.
ID is a Trojan horse, religion masking as a pseudo-science, hoping to be mistaken for a science if just the proponents SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH and OFTEN ENOUGH! (Wasn't it Goebbels who said...?).
Scientific evidence for ID: none.
Scientific research being conducted: none.
PR budget: lots!
Apologists: many
Almost 200 more votes have come in, and the percentages are pretty much as I reported earlier. Prior FR polls typically receive around 6,000 votes before they're ended. This one now has 3,633 votes, so it seems unlikely that the trend will change very much.
I'm ignoring un-registered voters. The important votes are from registered freepers, and in particular, those who have expressed an opinion on the poll question, so I'm also ignoring their votes for "undecided" or "pass." Freepers with an opinion have voted as follows:
Yes (put creationism in science class) 1,142 votesPercentage voting "No" is 34.9%
No (keep creationism out of science class) 614 votes
Total freeper votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 1,756
And I thought we were communicating. I guess not.
You're channelling f.Christian. Stop it.
I much disagree.
Disagreement does not automatically = noncommunication.
You said your piece, I said mine. I have no need to keep repeating my point. I'm willing to lurk for a while and see what else develops.
BTW, how'd you come down on the idea of continuing to allow Lamarckianism into biology texts?
I don't do biology. My primary fields are archaeology and physical anthropology (including DNA research, human osteology, fossil man, etc.).
Troll this question to one of the biologists on the threads.
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.