Education panel stalls curriculum vote for creationism appeal [S. Carolina, another Kansas?]

MyrtleBeachOnline ^ | 14 December 2005 | Staff

[dmz]

I hereby declare openly, in front of all freepers and God, as a believer in evolution, that I do not at all mind both theories being examined in class.

Evolution in science class.
ID/Creationism in comparative religion class.

See how easy that is?

[dmz]

that doesn't happen without a creator, boys.
_____

So now you're the one making unequivocable statements. You called another poster a liar for just that same reason.

[dmz]

I would suggest power before money.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I suggest drinks before lunch. Wait, what were we talking about?

[Doctor Stochastic]

True. That's what's wrong with Africa. Some people would rather be boss than be rich. And that's in spite of the results of WWI and WWII which showed that God is on the side of the wealthier nations.

[furball4paws]

"SCIENTISTS ARE HUMAN BEINGS"

Damn! and I always thought I was an alien.

[PatrickHenry]

What evidence do you use to derive the explanation of a creator for these observations?

I have no quarrel with anyone's faith in God. But for millennia, those who are not content with faith have tried, without success, to "prove" the existence of deities -- one or many -- in the following ways (the first two are somewhat rare nowadays):

a. X exists (where X is a thing like the earth, sun, universe, life, consciousness etc.), therefore an X-god exists.

b. X happened (where X is an event like disease, war, lightning, tornado, etc.) therefore a god caused X.

c. I feel X (where X is an emotion like love, awe, happiness, etc.), therefore a god is the source of X.

d. I conceive of X (where X is an abstraction like justice, beauty, goodness, etc.), therefore a god is the source of X.

In each case, the proffered explanation -- for things, events, emotions, and abstractions -- is a deity. But we can't just declare that this is a persuasive explanation. We have to demonstrate it. Even if we don't understand the sun, proclaiming the existence of a sun-god adds nothing to our understanding. Similarly for life, consciousness, etc. Mere declarations, regardless of how firmly we believe them, are not explanations. Nor is mere existence of things, events, feelings, and abstractions any kind of evidence for the existence of deities. The sun is evidence of the sun. A deity is evidence of the deity. One is not evidence for the other. More is required for a persuasive argument.

If there were persuasive, verifiable evidence, then theology would be a science, like physics or chemistry. If there were logical proof, theology would be taught like math or geometry. Faith would serve no purpose.

If you want to propose a persuasive argument -- one which goes beyond faith -- then provide us with an deity-detector so we can observe objectively verifiable evidence for the deity's existence. Better yet, bring forth the actual deity. If you can't, then you should be content to rely on faith. But don't point to the sun as evidence of a sun-god.

[Youngblood]

Why do these politicians who are gunning for evolution always seem to have an "R" after their name? Its soon going to be time to start looking at third-party candidates.

[unlearner]

"Once again for those who refuse to read or comprehend: 'evolution' is a scientific fact under the defintion of 'scientific fact'."

I suppose if you invent the concept of "scientific fact" then you can define it how ever you wish, but you will be doing so outside the realm of science.

According to online sources, their is no standard definition for "scientific fact" as you claim. There are definitions for adjudicative fact, collateral fact, constitutional fact, evidentiary fact, legislative fact, material fact, mediate fact, predicate fact, ultimate fact; but none for scientific fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact

The assertion that many people believe evolutionary theory is literally true is a FACT. That natural selection has been observed is also a FACT. The proposition that man descended from other primates is a theory. It is a conclusion based on observable evidence.

Your assertion that evolution is a fact indicates you do not understand the philosophical foundation of science. You assume that empiricism and realism are truth rather than merely philosophic opinion. That is why you have trouble accepting that a scientific theory is not a fact.

Let me be very clear on this point: science is founded on philosophy.

Science is defined by the philosophy of science. Science is not equipped to define itself.

The scientific method is the product of philosophy not science.

Popper's demarcation of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable. Thus we must return to philosophy in order to equip us with an understanding of science.

Biblical creationism and ID (limited to biblical versions) is not unscientific. The propositions are testable, falsifiable, and supported by empirical evidence:

1. Testable - the prediction is made that man will eventually discover a way to create life from non living matter (an example of "intelligent design")

2. Falsifiable - the prediction is made that no instance will ever occur where life arises from nonliving matter without intelligent intervention (Observation must take place in the here and now, not speculated and inferred using the unreliable tools of inductive reasoning that is foundational to natural history.)

3. Empirical evidence - believing the gospel of Christ's atoning death, physical burial, and subsequent resurrection three days later, confirmed by living witnesses results in the indwelling of God's Spirit within the believer's human spirit. Just as anyone can make the logical assertion, "I think, therefore I am"; I can assert the certain knowledge of the existence of God because He lives in me.

You accept other empirical evidence based on the observation of other people (rather than needing to observe every piece of empirical evidence firsthand). The question is whether you will accept the empirical evidence of the millions of believers who know God lives because He lives in us.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Why do these politicians who are gunning for evolution always seem to have an "R" after their name?

Residue from the Nixon Southern Strategy?

[dmz]

Whatever we were talking about can be discussed over drinks before lunch.

[Dimensio]

Biblical creationism and ID (limited to biblical versions) is not unscientific

So you're saying that the Christian God is entirely a part of and completely constrained within the natural universe

[Dimensio]

Testable - the prediction is made that man will eventually discover a way to create life from non living matter

Why does Biblical Creationism make this prediction?

Falsifiable - the prediction is made that no instance will ever occur where life arises from nonliving matter without intelligent intervention

Why does Biblical Creationism necessitate that this be true?

Empirical evidence - believing the gospel of Christ's atoning death, physical burial, and subsequent resurrection three days later, confirmed by living witnesses

Where are the accounts of these "living witnesses"?

results in the indwelling of God's Spirit within the believer's human spirit.

What evidence is there of this "indwelling"? Also, is this "God's Spirit" a completely natural phenomena, or is it a supernatural property of some sort? If it is the latter, then it cannot be considered scientific.

Just as anyone can make the logical assertion, "I think, therefore I am"; I can assert the certain knowledge of the existence of God because He lives in me.

This amounts to a completely subjective claim and as such cannot be considered scientific evidence.

[unlearner]

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Your definitions need refining. A fact does not need to be repeated to be a fact. It can happen once, as your definition of data supports.

Faith is confidence in a person or idea without experiencing evidence directly but supported by known evidence. This is rational faith.

Dogma is a belief that a person is unwilling to subject to the scrutiny of evidence. If what I believe is true in reality, it will continue to be true after being tested. And I will become more certain of it.

As I have demonstrated in post # 109, biblical creationism and ID are not unscientific.

[unlearner]

"So you're saying that the Christian God is entirely a part of and completely constrained within the natural universe"

No. His presence is experienced within the natural universe. The effects of His existence are seen within the natural realm.

Biblical creationism and ID are at least as scientific as modern theoretical physics.

Any attempt to claim science must only be concerned with "nature" is an arbitrary demarcation. Science is concerned with observable phenomena but is not limited to what exists in our realm (as theoretical physics demonstrates).

[js1138]

This really has become the Republican equivalent of Jim Crow. I lived through the Jim Crow era. It was quite popular. No one in the South could hope to be elected without supporting segregation.

But it was wrong, and it was exposed as wrong. Now the Republicans are walking in the footsteps of the Islamic fundamentalists and the Moonies. It's going to be hard to live down.

[Thatcherite]

..in this case, an old distinguished professor who doesn't have much fight left him and doesn't want his family dragged through the mud of an "academic" senate ridiculing him for speaking his mind. It says a lot about the civility--and breadth of mind--of the pro evolution crowd.

Why didn't he speak up when he was younger then? And whence comes this bizarre paranoid delusion that the whole of science is suppressing the truth about the falsity of evolution, apparently just to annoy fundamentalist Muslims and Christians. An organised conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of individuals, that no-one in the conspiracy benefits from, and that has been maintained for 150 years. Tinfoil hat, anyone?

[PatrickHenry]

An organised [UK spelling] conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of individuals, that no-one in the conspiracy benefits from, and that has been maintained for 150 years.

Never under-estimate the power of Darwin Central.

[js1138]

The professor sat in my very living room, told that very story...

He will, of course, not object to having someone contact him to confirm this story.

Someone (who seems to have stopped posting on these threads) told us an unlikely story about a museum tour guide. When the museum was contacted they said they didn't give tours.

So put up or shut up.

[Thatcherite]

with a few billion hydrogen explosions

If you are referring to suns, you are out by about 13 orders of magnitude. few billion billion would have been somewhat closer. Describing the number of suns as "a few billion" doesn't begin to get to the scale of the universe. You need to be counting galaxies in the billions, each with billions of stars.

On the other hand, we don't see donkeys giving birth to jay birds, nor do we have even the slightest cultural memory of the possibility.

Donkeys giving birth to jaybirds sounds more like the rate of speciation that those who believe in Noah's Ark would require to get back to the 25million+ species that exist today in only 4500 years starting from what could be rescued on a wooden boat.