Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 3, 2005 | G. Jeffrey MacDonald

[MacDorcha]

"The modern usage defines philosophy as the study of leaning and of human knowledge"

And to study science is to study WHOSE knowledge then?

"Technical sciences" lead to "technology." This is the product of discovering finer laws in physics and exploiting them.

If it is possible (It if always existed) it is attainable. If it is not possible, it is not attainable.

This is a way of thinking that must be used when studying science and using it's benefits.

[Liberal Classic]

Computer science doubly so!

[narby]

Again, there is no compelling evidence for macro evolution.

The OJ jury didn't see any compelling evidence either.

[shuckmaster]

"If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

A few days ago there was one on here asking why tennis balls don't evolve into bowling balls. He disappeared after I suggested he let us know when he saw two tennis balls get together & produce baby tennis balls.

[Dimensio]

If something CAN be false in science, it is taken as "scientific"

Let's not pretend that this is the only criteria for a scientific statement.

"God will show himself on May 7, 2005 at 1523EDT in Times Square in New York City" is a falsifiable statement, but it is not scientific.

If it is SHOWN as false, it is dismissed or adjusted.

Correct.

There is no focal point that can be "true" unless it can be "false"

Not quite. There is simply no way to accept as "true" a statement unless there is some hypothetical means by that it could evaluate as false. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that this is somehow bad methodology, unless you're pushing to have any arbitrary nonsense pushed into science classrooms on a whim.

If there is absolutely no possible observation that would demonstrate that a statement is false, then the statement is fundamentally meaningless. There is no way to strengthen its validity, because you have no basis for comparing it to a contrary situation.

Socrates posited that EVERYBODY knows "the Truth." The only task is to ask the correct questions. Any answer will lead to the next step in logic, and thus eventually to the "trail head" of truth.

Okay, then. I "know" that "the Truth" is that the universe was created Last Thursday by the cat Queen Maeve. How do we proceed from there? What questions do we ask to lead ourselves to the "trail head" of this Truth?

[Dimensio]

So are you going to get around to explaining why science is a "religion"?

[js1138]

Socrates posited that EVERYBODY knows "the Truth."

Socrates was full of if if he actually said this. Of course you can lead someone by asking questions. It's attempted in courtrooms every day. It's done by crystal ball gazers, politicians and all kinds of frauds.

Clinically, it's called cold reading. It's not particularly associated with truth.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Please remember that evolutionary theory is only an attempt to explain the diversity of life, but not the origin of life."

If that is true then why does evolution postulate Universal Common Ancestry? If it (a) does not postulate the origin of life, and (b) cannot _prove_ the links between the kingdoms (or even between many groups of animals within the kingdoms, like turtles and bats), then why is universal common ancestry part of evolution?

The doctrine of universal common ancestry would make sense if there were a theory of abiogenesis which required it. However, without one, the only reason to suppose universal common ancestry is materialist philosophy.

http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/04/overselling-universal-common-ancestry.html

[shuckmaster]

the fossil record should as a rule be marked by transitional fossils. There seem to be none.

All fossils are transitional.

[js1138]

The doctrine of universal common ancestry would make sense if there were a theory of abiogenesis which required it. However, without one, the only reason to suppose universal common ancestry is materialist philosophy.

Common descent is supported by numerous independent lines of evidence, the most convincing of which is the same kind of DNA evidence that establishes parenthood in the courts.

[Tribune7]

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers.

Richard Dawkins does.

[ValenB4]

Oops. I misunderstood you. ID is still a statist imposition.

[MacDorcha]

Nraby just gave me an interesting post, which though often stated in sentiment, gave me a spark:

Science cannot claim God, one way or the other. (This is known by common virtue)

Where the problem lies is that many scientists have come to the conclussion that since God is undetectable by science, then He must not exist. This would be relating to "the correctness of their empirical statements and theories"

Any statement made by any scientist regarding the existance of God is to be known for what it is: an opinion outside of their own field.

[IYAAYAS]

I'm a college student right now. I had to study evolution in two classes; Anthropology and Biology. My anthropology proffessor who was a hard core marxist told the class she did't care what they believed as long as they answered the test questions the way she taught in class, I thought that was fair. My biology proffesor (Phd) said he had a few problems with the theory of evolution and personaly believed in inteligent design, however "I will teach and you will learn what's in the book".

[js1138]

Richard Dawkins does.

So did Jim Jones, and so does the Rev,. Moon.

what's your point?

[IYAAYAS]

I'm a college student right now. I had to study evolution in two classes; Anthropology and Biology. My anthropology professor who was a hard core marxist told the class she didn't care what they believed as long as they answered the test questions the way she taught in class, I thought that was fair. My biology professor (PhD) said he had a few problems with the theory of evolution and personally believed in intelligent design, however "I will teach and you will learn what's in the book".

[doc30]

There is no way they can ignore the "other side" if they are in public school.

That's part of the problem, too. Public schools do a very poor job of teaching science. My point extends to that realm as well.

[js1138]

Any statement made by any scientist regarding the existance of God is to be known for what it is: an opinion outside of their own field.

And if you find such a statement in a science textbook you can rightly ask to have it removed.

[MacDorcha]

"Okay, then. I "know" that "the Truth" is that the universe was created Last Thursday by the cat Queen Maeve."

You overode the "ask correct questions" aspect.

If I knew the correct questions, this debate would have been over long ago.

[From many - one.]

Not that much.

Out goes comparative anatomy, much of taxonomy, parasitology, much physiology, etc.

Correlations would have to be presumed due to Divine action and not possible relationships, adaptive changes and variations would be required to stop at some magical point of reduced or impaired viablity of offspring prior to mutual infertility, genetic studies would have similar blank walls.

I could go on.