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

" You are a bit slow aren't you, cool, I'm not too smart either..."

I'm smart enough to to know that the popularity of a claim has no logical bearing on the validity of that claim.

Time for bed, night all! :)

Religion and politic is NEVER invalid.. or fallacious, logical or not.. Thats why I choose to live under another Kingdom not of this earth.. No fallacy there.. I'm a visitor and alien here.. And am grateful when treated well..

My King and father WILL NOT be happy if that is not so.. The citizens of this place are being WATCHED and recorded.. I prefer to not defame their choices.. They will and must live with them.. and have a perfect RIGHT to be WRONG..

Well:

I live in another dimension
but I have a summer home in reality

[ I'm smart enough to to know that the popularity of a claim has no logical bearing on the validity of that claim. ]

There ya go.. Whats true is true and whats not is either partial truth or wholly wrong.. has nothing to do with popularity.. Something popular can true, and something unpopular can be true too.. vice versa.. Populararity is based on opinion.. and is a straw man.. The truth is the truth even you are the only one earth to know it.. OR NOT.. its STILL true..

[ I live in another dimension but I have a summer home in reality ]

SO cool.. 1st reality or 2nd reality..?...

I don't understand the problem at all. Even if you believe fully in evolution and believe creationism is totally false, WHY do you want your children to be closed-minded and ignorant to different theories? Doesn't everyone want their children to learn everything they can? Why shouldn't they learn about both?

non-controversial placemarker

WHY do you want your children to be closed-minded and ignorant to different theories?

For about the ninety-eleventh time, ID is not a theory. It has no science, no data, no observation, no way to verify it--it is belief or dogma, not science!

I think it is dishonest to equate evolution, one of the best-supported theories in science with ID, a Trojan horse promulgated by the Discovery Institute to force creation science, under false pretenses, into real science classes (see the Wedge Strategy for details).

As for the definition of theory, and other definitions, see the following (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
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
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

Additional reading, for extra credit. From an NSF abstract:

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

"are you saying that such an observation would be best explained by your interpretation?"

I am not asserting that this particular prophecy was intended to be a test for ID. I am saying my understanding of the Bible, creationism and ID particularly, lead me to propose this test.

I do not expect to be proved wrong, but it is a possibility. If so, it would be as earth shattering to my version of ID as finding Precambrian human fossils would for evolution.

"Why is this assertion made, though? What observations form the basis of this assertion?"

This is purely a philosophic question. Why do scientists prefer one proposition over any other? Elegance? Simplicity? Intuition? If you can answer that question, you will have broken significant new ground in the philosophy of science.

But to the point, there is no viable explanation for origins of life other than ID. There is no evidence of any self organizing principle which would cause nonliving matter to arrange into living cells in the same sense the periodic table is self organizing. Until such mechanisms are discovered, the origins of life are the subject of speculation.

"But the premise thus far lacks justification."

The absence of a scientific basis for self organizing life forms is a justification. Beyond that I fail to see a need to justify an axiomatic premise (i.e. the existence of a Creator, creation itself not being an axiom). It only needs to be demonstrated that ID is one possible explanation of the origins of life (in order to be useful, not to qualify as science).

"it would, in fact, not falsify Biblical creationism because you could still assert that life was created by God even if it could have come about through another means."

It would falsify my interpretation of biblical creationism, and ID particularly. Others may claim to believe the Bible and disagree with my drawing the line in the sand where I do. It would prove me and many others wrong. All I need is to see is a realistically naturally occurring environment which spawns the simplest living cells, and I will concede that I am wrong.

My assertion is not merely that life could be created through divine intervention in the natural realm (a view which cannot be disproved), it is that life can ONLY exist as the result of intelligent intervention. The scientific strength of this statement is that it is universal.

"A falsification criteria is a hypothetical observation that, if made, would demonstrate that intelligent design is impossible, not simply that another mechanism is possible."

This is a common problem with evolution and natural history in general. You must distinguish between a historical event (or set of events) and a scientific law. You must logically distinguish between a singular existential statement and a universal existential statement.

It is not my job to attempt to make a falsifiable test for a historical event. Either something happened or it did not. For ID to be true, the law would be that living things must originate from other living things or be intelligently assembled from nonliving things. No ad hoc exceptions. For me, ID stands or falls on this basis.

"Asserting the existence of living witnesses is not the same as demonstrating the existence of living witnesses."

The living witnesses of Christ's death and resurrection had empirical evidence of these historical events.

1 John 1:1-3

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have examined, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us;)
That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the resurrection does not claim to be a scientific law which can be recreated in a laboratory. It is a historical event which science does not contradict. Science could have contradicted it by producing the body of Jesus. It cannot because there is no corpse to produce. He is alive.

"So how would a neutral observer test for it?"

Anyone who obeys the gospel will experience it firsthand. If anyone is willing to do the commands of Christ, that person will know experientially Who He is and Who His Father is. That person will see them. Those who reject His sayings remain in darkness and cannot see Him or the Father.

Do you want to observe? The essential nature of science is a willingness to be proved wrong. Are you willing to expose your deeds to the light of the teachings of Christ? Are you willing to evaluate the quality of your deeds by the criteria of Christ's words? If you are willing to come to the light and have your deeds evaluated as good or evil, you will see. Anyone who prefers and loves moral darkness will not see because they cannot.

"No, however the ability for anyone with the requisite sensory organs to be able to make the same observations under the same conditions is a requirement for science."

Again, you fail to distinguish between historical facts and scientific laws. The above standard cannot be applied to evolution. The claims of natural history cannot be recreated in a lab. Even if they could there would not be enough time to ever carry out a useful experiment.

You are preferring to believe the accuracy of supposed historic events which took place billions of years ago with no eye witnesses based on extrapolations from incomplete physical evidence using inductive reasoning. But you doubt the veracity of eye witness claims to an event just a few centuries ago backed by the most substantial historical documents of that time.

"Math is a construct used as a tool... Math is a tool used by science, though it is not inherently scientific in itself."

That fails to address the issue. You are exempting math from an arbitrary rule of demarcation, but describing what math does to justify it being an exception to the rule. You need to modify the rule to accommodate math, or abandon math. You cannot have it both ways. Otherwise I can plug anything into your statement: "Religious faith is a tool used by scientists... Or, a cock-a-doodle-doo is a tool used by scientists." If the supernatural becomes useful, does that then qualify it for the realm of science? Utility is also a subjective matter.

"I accept the word of scientists because thus far the scientific method has proved reliable. If I wished to replicate the observations of scientists, I could follow their documented procedures to do so. I do not need to rely on nothing more than someone's 'feelings' to have confidence in a claim; I can look at the independent research of multiple individuals producing the same results, and -- if I so desire -- I could replicate those results on my own."

Then you accept the scientific claims of others on the basis of rational faith. If you do not test them yourself, it is faith. If you are unwilling to have your beliefs tested it is dogma. How many scientific theories have you tested? How many times have you used the scientific method to formulate and test a theory? Have you developed any theories of your own this way? How do you KNOW it really works the way it is described in the text books?

I am not saying these things are untrue, just asking why you believe them to be true. (Hint: Consider rational faith as the answer to the postulate.)

"You are asserting that your religious beliefs are true and calling that science."

Actually I am arguing against calling ID and creationism "unscientific". Biblical faith is not equivalent to science. But it is also not unscientific. The distinction is important. The history of Abraham Lincoln's presidency is not science, but it is not unscientific (necessarily). My point is to show these things do not contradict science. In a nutshell, truth is bigger than science.

"Muslim or a Hindu claiming that their particular religious beliefs are true and claiming that their personal experiences with respect to their religion stands as scientific evidence."

Red herring. If you have such experiences, they are relevant and valid. But you are not claiming that. You are saying other claims of different experiences prove mine are not valid. I cannot disprove their experience to you or prove them. I cannot prove my own experiences to you. You must choose to accept or reject their claims based on rational faith - the same way you accept scientific theories.

Thank you both so much for your pings to this conversation! I've been trying to catch up, but it's late now and I have to go sleep. Perhaps I'll have a comment or two tomorrow?

tour de force bump

Wolf

Feathered farmers placemark

You are on a roll guessing the authors of quotations. Who said the following:

---

Someone who was talking about faith, not science. And thus someone I am not really interested in discussing right now.

So put up or shut up.

The very fact that I am honor bound to keep his identity secret is a testament to the Stalinist mentality of the average evolutionist. As to not posting, well, some of us need to make a living.

---
Just as I am honour bound to keep the identity of the Bush advisor who told me that Iraq was invaded because the president was bored secret.

These idiots need to worry a lot more about Marx and a lot less about Darwin in schools.

On the contrary, tell a child he is the accidental offspring of an ape, and he will act like an ape. Care to compare crime statistics among Christian and post-Christian cultures?

---

I would LOVE to. Where will you get your crime statistics on 14th Century Europe from? Oh.. from your professor friend no doubt!

My friend--I know you think he's Harvey the Rabbit--but listen for a moment to what he said: the complexity of the human genome is just too great, the chain of events is too improbable to explain with conventional evolutionary theory. I've seen--his words--something that looks like an evolutionary process in very minor genetic transactions, so to speak, but species to species evolution requires a leap of faith.

---

Even though we have actually SEEN species to species evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Has your "friend" ever read a scientific journal.

Nope. It's just how various factors within the universe interfere with the copying process to produce a result that is not identical to the original.

So the forces that interrupted the otherwise predictable copying mechanism were themselves the irrational and unpredictable part of the physical universe? The gust of wind that knocked the predicted protein out of place was, in fact, a random wind not answering to meteorological realities? Evolutionists, even on their own flawed terms, are forced to accept that even their own predictions must be rooted in order, not chaos.

---

We went through this before. Mutations are often determined by quantum mechanical events such as nuclear decay. Quantum events are random.

It dawned on me by eureka revalation that there is an absolute proof of the theory of ID, sex. The theory of evolution can not account for a separation of species into unique individuals utterly dependent upon each other for procreation. Sex is a statistical and scientific impossibility.
Additionally, there is no reasonable (sic. evolutionary) justification for sex. Species are perfectly capable of multiplying by cloning. The specious argument that sex increases random selection thereby insuring the perpetuation of the species is on drugs and has not met my parents. Make of that what you will.
Only a whimsical and all-knowing God could have conceived of sex.

Christianity was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery in England. Go figure.

---

It was also the driving force behind the ANTI abolitionists. Religion is a wonderful thing, it can be used to justify pretty much any action, if you use it well enough.

300