Science Museums Adapt in Struggle against Creationist Revisionism

Scientific American ^ | July 12, 2007 | Elizabeth Landau

[edsheppa]

Since when does theory play into this?

I don't think it's going too far to say that theory is the point of science. Neither classification schemes nor any other activity that aren't built around theory based are not very useful science-wise.

And Since when does a scientific fact backed by evidence need theory?

Evidence is a verified prediction. A prediction is a logical conclusion of a theory. Therefore you can't have evidence without theory.

[stormer]

“I asked you to give scientific reasons and evidences showing KINDS isn’t a legitimate classification pursuit.”

Would you consider that am ostrich, hummingbird, and penguin to be the same kind? How about a thylocene and a wolf?

[CottShop]

[[Evidence is a verified prediction.]]

First of all, I gave a couple of predictions about hte science of Baraminology- secondly, sdomething does not infact need to be predictable to be science

[[You’ll also have to be more specific about what constitues “major unrelatedness, or discontinuity, among various taxa.”]]

Yeah sure- As specific as evos stating that everyhting has common descent without any acientific fact or biological evidnece to back it up? That specific Ed? Tell me, is a contentious disputed opinion more valid than another opinion? Can you show biologiccal evidnece showing a species isn’t infact a discontinued species? When you can do that- then we’ll play hte game- until then the classification of Baraminology is every bit a valid classification as the other system

[[Evidence is a verified prediction.]]

That is not true- evidnece is evidence and isn’t contingent upon prediction- this hsould be self evident

[[I don’t think it’s going too far to say that theory is the point of science]]

Discovery and usually advancement of understanding are the point of science which is exactly what Baraminology seeks- deeper understanding based on the evidences.

Now, if you’re going to play the ‘in order ot be science, somethign has ot be predictable and falsifiable’ then I guess we call evo science a psuedo-science, and I think you understand why

[CottShop]

[[Would you consider that am ostrich, hummingbird, and penguin to be the same kind? How about a thylocene and a wolf?]]

No- for further explanation why- study Baraminology

[stormer]

OK - I did some more reading at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html. The type of examples I gave you don’t really seem to be covered. I’m guessing that given their appearances, the ostrich, hummingbird, and penguin would all be separate apobaramins and the thylocene and the wolf would be considered monobaramic. Is this correct?

[betty boop]

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Hi Coyoteman! So do you say that science does know of such a source? Do you suppose it is the Sun? Or might it be a universal vacuum field that spontaneously emits photons (light quanta, energy) on a constant basis?

This is actually a fascinating topic. Living systems -- unlike inorganic systems -- seem to invest a whole lot of work in maintaining their distance from thermodynamic equilibrium. When they fail to do that, it appears they die -- and then entropy gets to take over.... So to speak. :^)

Thoughts???

[edsheppa]

Since you don’t know the difference between predictive and predictable, I’m obviously wasting my time. As you were.

[Coyoteman]

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Hi Coyoteman! So do you say that science does know of such a source? Do you suppose it is the Sun? Or might it be a universal vacuum field that spontaneously emits photons (light quanta, energy) on a constant basis?

The SUN! You are exactly right. (You been goin' to night school or something?)

[CottShop]

I’m not sure, haven’t looked into it- I’m sure they fall under a classification kind and are most likely different kinds- The Thylocene is a marsupial I beleive and not a dog

[CottShop]

Oh please do explain how something that’s predictive isn’t a prediction- The system of Baraminology is predictive, and furthermore, as I mentioned, science doesn’t have to be predictive NOR does it need predictions- Evidence is evidence, and one doesn’t need a predictive hypothesis in order to scientifically examine and experiment and engage in scientific research- predictions can and should be made true, and as mentioned Baraminology does so, so I’m not sure what your problem with it is?

[ROTB]

> Thank you for being reasonable and polite.

No problem man. At least you called me reasonable, even though I’m a young-earth Bible believer.

That’s a start! :)

[AndyTheBear]

Couldn’t God do that?

Yes He could. But still, the universe "looks" like it is very old. Creating it to look that way seems odd to me, which is why I think it probably is very old. However I allow that I might be wrong, its not something I feel compelled to "believe" in. God has been known to do things without consulting me first (although have you ever noticed that atheists never allow for this possibility--arguing that if they can't understand God immediately after putting in almost no effort, then He must not be real).

[MEGoody]

Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.

I notice the author avoids specifying what these supposed 'unfounded challenges' were.

[MEGoody]

Yeah, that'll help this country compete worldwide.

Sweetie, I hate to break it to you, but evolution has been taught exclusively in schools for half a century. If there is a problem with U.S. students competing against the rest of the world, you can't blame creationists.

[Coyoteman]

No problem man. At least you called me reasonable, even though I’m a young-earth Bible believer.

That’s a start! :)

Hey, I said you were reasonable, not correct! ;-)

For example we were discussing Egypt and the flood. The first pyramids in Egypt were built about 4780 years ago. That's earlier than the established date for the global flood of 4350 years ago. How did they survive? How did the Egyptians survive?

But at least your responses to date have been polite and not the poorly-spelled free associations we have from others. They are much easier to read and decipher.

[edsheppa]

Oh please do explain how something that’s predictive isn’t a prediction

Wow, your grasp of English is abysmal even by creationist standards. I will try to remedy your ignorance.

Predictive is an adjective whereas prediction is a noun. I doubt you know the difference between adjective and noun, so here is some example usage of the two words which might make the distinctions (both between the two words and their respective parts of speech) clear to you.

It's a prediction of my computer model that there will be a lunar eclipse tomorrow. Because my model makes predictions, it is predictive.

[Coyoteman]

Sweetie, I hate to break it to you, but evolution has been taught exclusively in schools for half a century. If there is a problem with U.S. students competing against the rest of the world, you can't blame creationists.

It would be silly to say it is the only problem with our schools, but to the extent creationists are fighting the teaching of science in the schools and denigrating the scientific method just because it reaches inconvenient answers, I can blame part of the decline of eduction on creationists.

[Alamo-Girl]

Do you suppose it is the Sun? Or might it be a universal vacuum field that spontaneously emits photons (light quanta, energy) on a constant basis?

Thank you so much for these engaging insights!

I'll submit a related question which remains open in physics:

"What is the origin of inertia?"

Inertia is the property of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. Or as it is commonly measured, inertia is the principle that an object will resist any effort to change its state of motion.

Even if the Higgs (Standard Model theory of ordinary matter) is finally observed or created at CERN after all prior attempts have failed - the question remains how energy gathered into the Higgs results in a resistance to acceleration (if the answer is mass.)

The question is relevant when discussing light and biological life because of null paths (the geometry) and the unique properties of massless particles such as the photon.

A null path is an empty path and can be visualized in special relativity as an object traveling at the speed of light. For the object, no time passes. The observers sense time passing. Massless particles, e.g. photons, do not have a rest frame, they are always moving at the speed of light.

The energy of a massless particle is its momentum (p) times the speed of light (E=pc) whereas inertial mass is equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared (E=MC² transforms to M=E/C²).

The term "Mach's principle!" (coined by Einstein) was used to assert that inertia stems from an interaction between a body and the mass of the Universe as a whole - essentially saying that inertia has no meaning apart from the whole – or the path is determined by the geometry of the whole. The whole in this case consists of 5% ordinary matter, 25% dark matter and 70% dark energy – or, all of space/time regardless of dimensions. (Equivalence Principle et al)

Geometrically speaking, the “Mach’s Principle” insight makes sense to me for the source of inertia - and therefore it makes sense to me that light (null path and massless) is both an ideal source for energy in life (v. non-life/death in nature) – as well as a possible channel for new information in the universe.

Or it could be an illusion, i.e. mass is a shadow of extra-dimensional momentum components – possibly multiply imaged (Wesson et al), space/time exists in the observer’s perception and not separately (Lanza et al) - and “physical” reality is actually mathematical structures existing outside of space and time (Tegmark et al.).

LOLOL!

[AndyTheBear]

Oh please do explain how something that’s predictive isn’t a prediction

In this sentence "predictive" is indeed being used as an adjective and "prediction" is indeed being used as a noun.

I doubt you know the difference between adjective and noun, so here is some example usage of the two words which might make the distinctions...

I confess I haven't followed your discussion up to now, but it seems like if you have degenerated to the point where you attack his grammar without bothering to notice that it was already correct...well what conclusion might an unbiased observer be tempted to reach about the validity of your view?

[ROTB]

For example we were discussing Egypt and the flood. The first pyramids in Egypt were built about 4780 years ago. That’s earlier than the established date for the global flood of 4350 years ago. How did they survive? How did the Egyptians survive?

****************************************

Wierd. What are your sources for those two dates?