Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Bettawrekonize -> Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/20/2008 2:23:24 PM)

quote:


One in eight U.S. high school teachers presents creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, says a poll published in the Public Library of Science Biology.

Of more than 900 teachers who responded to a poll conducted by Penn State University political scientist Michael Berkman and colleagues, 32 percent agreed that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as scientifically unsound. Forty percent said such explanations are religiously valid but inappropriate for science class.

However, 25 percent said they devoted classroom time to creationism or intelligent design. Of these, about one-half -- 12 percent of all teachers -- called creationism a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species,


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/one-in-eight-hi.html

This looks like a good thing for academic freedom. Hopefully more biology teachers will start realizing that UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are nonsense and that ID and Creationism are more scientific. Or it could be that many scientists already realize this but they are afraid of being unfairly discriminated against by the secular community.


Oh, and get this nonsense.

quote:


Longtime Wired Science readers know that I'm less bothered than many science writers at the possibility of evolution being under-taught in science and biology courses. ... However, teaching creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution, as if religious explanations had even a fraction of the scientific validity of evolution, is unacceptable -- it promotes fatally flawed, uncritical thinking.


It promotes uncritical thinking? The only thing here that promotes uncritical thinking is brainwashing students with naturalistic philosophies (at taxpayer expense) while censoring all criticisms and opposing views. But I guess they don't want students to be critical of the notion that (unguided) naturalistic processes explain the emergence of the universe and everything in it, just of anything that may contradict this notion.

quote:


The study's authors note that courtroom victories -- classroom creationism has consistently been struck down in U.S. courts -- is apparently insufficient to guarantee an accurate depiction of evolution. Nor will rigorous state science standards, like those recently passed in Florida, do the trick.


More examples of the secular community using litigation and political means, and not scientific ones like reason and logic, to spread their indoctrination. Just shows how unscientific UCD and other naturalistic philosophies really are (indeed, science welcomes academic freedom and open inquiry. UCD and other naturalistic philosophies censor this).



Jhud -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/20/2008 2:44:22 PM)

I have often wondered, what would happen if the vast majority of science teachers just ignored court directives? How many could be hauled away before we simply had to shut down schools?

Perhaps atheists would start homeschooloing then. [;)]



cow451 -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/20/2008 3:15:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I have often wondered, what would happen if the vast majority of science teachers just ignored court directives? How many could be hauled away before we simply had to shut down schools?

Perhaps atheists would start homeschooloing then. [;)]


Why not just stop fooling with trying to teach science, anyway?



drj11 -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/20/2008 3:16:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
This looks like a good thing for academic freedom. Hopefully more biology teachers will start realizing that UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are nonsense and that ID and Creationism are more scientific. Or it could be that many scientists already realize this but they are afraid of being unfairly discriminated against by the secular community.


So where is that atheist materialist conspiracy again? Oh wait... it doesn't exist.

quote:


Oh, and get this nonsense.

It promotes uncritical thinking? The only thing here that promotes uncritical thinking is brainwashing students with naturalistic philosophies (at taxpayer expense) while censoring all criticisms and opposing views. But I guess they don't want students to be critical of the notion that (unguided) naturalistic processes explain the emergence of the universe and everything in it, just of anything that may contradict this notion.


BTW, my Evidence for a Young Earth thread still sits back there with the sound of crickets chirping, with nary a peice of supportable evidence in favor of a young earth. Feel free to show us how creationism promotes critical thinking when it's entire premise rests upon mountains and mountains of evidence being dismissed and ignored, and please post any evidence you have in that thread.

quote:


The study's authors note that courtroom victories -- classroom creationism has consistently been struck down in U.S. courts -- is apparently insufficient to guarantee an accurate depiction of evolution. Nor will rigorous state science standards, like those recently passed in Florida, do the trick.

More examples of the secular community using litigation and political means, and not scientific ones like reason and logic, to spread their indoctrination. Just shows how unscientific UCD and other naturalistic philosophies really are (indeed, science welcomes academic freedom and open inquiry. UCD and other naturalistic philosophies censor this).



The creationist circle has long since shown to be immune to reason and logic. Just look at the examples here, like drmark and unclemonkey who will absolutely under no circumstances consider any evidence at all if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. Honestly, in what universe can you call that critical thought? Thats is the antithesis of critical thought. The most ironic part of it is, creationists (including you) accuse scientists of this very thing, while they themselves are the most exemplary examples of it. If scientists and concerned parents have to resort to the courtroom it is because creationism does not back down in the face of reason and fact, and expects their doctrine to be taught regardless of scientific merit. They find sympathetic school officials gullible enough to fall for the tripe unsupportable doctrine and claim they are being attacked when people of reason fight back.

But hey, if you can show creationism has scientific merit, I invite you to present it here.

I won't be holding my breath, however.



Jhud -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/20/2008 3:26:16 PM)

quote:

Why not just stop fooling with trying to teach science, anyway?


I don't know anyone on either side of the debate who has a problem with 'science'.

Metaphysics? Now that's a problem.



Method -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/20/2008 3:30:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I have often wondered, what would happen if the vast majority of science teachers just ignored court directives? How many could be hauled away before we simply had to shut down schools?

Perhaps atheists would start homeschooloing then. [;)]



Are you saying that homeschoolers are all theists? I really doubt that. Anyway . . .

What if geology teachers started teaching geocentrism? What then? It would make one ask why a teacher was teaching a theory that no one in the field uses. The same for creationism. No scientist uses creationism in their work. They use evolution. That is why evolution should be taught, because these students will be expected to USE the theory if they become scientists. It is also important for students to understand the theory so that they can understand the leading edge of biological research that can and will affect the health industry.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 12:35:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
So where is that atheist materialist conspiracy again? Oh wait... it doesn't exist.


Uhm... I already quoted efforts cited by the article that were used to try and censor anything that may oppose naturalistic viewpoints.

quote:


The creationist circle has long since shown to be immune to reason and logic.


We're not the ones advocating that creationism and ID and not UCD and other naturalistic philosophies be taught in public schools (and that students in public schools be brainwashed with ID and creationism).

quote:


Just look at the examples here, like drmark and unclemonkey who will absolutely under no circumstances consider any evidence at all if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture.


I think drmark and unclemonkey are in better positions to speak for themselves than you.

quote:


But hey, if you can show creationism has scientific merit, I invite you to present it here.


You know, I'm still waiting for someone to present empirical evidence for UCD in the relevant thread. So far, no one has presented any (and don't think that getting the last word means you've presented any evidence. It seems like some evolutionists are prone to this sort of twisted logic).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
What if geology teachers started teaching geocentrism?


Actually, in my astronomy class, I learned the pros (why people believed it in the past) and cons (why it was ultimately rejected by many) of geocentricism. The teacher presented both sides (both the pros and cons) and explained to us why he thinks geocentricism is false. He didn't lose his job for this. See, the difference between the notion that geocentricism is false and naturalistic philosophies like UCD is that, in the case of geocentricism, teachers are allowed to teach the pros and cons of it and many of them believe the mainstream viewpoint can be defended. In cases where there is dispute over which viewpoint is the correct one (ie: different versions of string theory maybe), teachers are allowed to teach those opposing views and teach the controversy. In the case of UCD, other naturalistic philosophies, ID, and Creationism, teachers are only allowed to teach one side (that which is consistent with naturalism). Unlike the heliocentric model (which is believed to be defendable) and unlike the case of other theories where controversy exists (ie: string theory), in the case of naturalistic philosophies, the cons of them and the pros of opposing views are censored. The fact that the cons of the notion that naturalistic processes are responsible for the universe and everything in it are censored (and the fact that opposing views and arguments are censored) suggests that this notion is not defendable.



swan42 -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 12:42:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I have often wondered, what would happen if the vast majority of science teachers just ignored court directives? How many could be hauled away before we simply had to shut down schools?

Perhaps atheists would start homeschooloing then. [;)]

In 1957, they tried that in Little Rock Arkansas, but not just science teachers.



gluadys -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 1:48:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Actually, in my astronomy class, I learned the pros (why people believed it in the past) and cons (why it was ultimately rejected by many) of geocentricism. The teacher presented both sides (both the pros and cons) and explained to us why he thinks geocentricism is false. He didn't lose his job for this. See, the difference between the notion that geocentricism is false and naturalistic philosophies like UCD is that, in the case of geocentricism, teachers are allowed to teach the pros and cons of it and many of them believe the mainstream viewpoint can be defended. In cases where there is dispute over which viewpoint is the correct one (ie: different versions of string theory maybe), teachers are allowed to teach those opposing views and teach the controversy. In the case of UCD, other naturalistic philosophies, ID, and Creationism, teachers are only allowed to teach one side (that which is consistent with naturalism). Unlike the heliocentric model (which is believed to be defendable) and unlike the case of other theories where controversy exists (ie: string theory), in the case of naturalistic philosophies, the cons of them and the pros of opposing views are censored. The fact that the cons of the notion that naturalistic processes are responsible for the universe and everything in it are censored (and the fact that opposing views and arguments are censored) suggests that this notion is not defendable.


Difference is that geocentrism is as naturalistic (though falsified) as heliocentrism and string theory is also naturalistic. ID and creationism are not.

Science is the study of nature not of metaphysics or philosophy.



Method -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 2:17:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Actually, in my astronomy class, I learned the pros (why people believed it in the past) and cons (why it was ultimately rejected by many) of geocentricism.


Did they teach that geocentrism was based on biblical inerrancy?

quote:

See, the difference between the notion that geocentricism is false and naturalistic philosophies like UCD . . .


UCD is not a philosophy. It is a scientific conclusion. This is the first problem. Those who want to "criticize" evolution use lies like this one. If they were honest there would be no reason to reject evolution.

quote:

In cases where there is dispute over which viewpoint is the correct one (ie: different versions of string theory maybe), teachers are allowed to teach those opposing views and teach the controversy. In the case of UCD, other naturalistic philosophies, ID, and Creationism, teachers are only allowed to teach one side (that which is consistent with naturalism).


There is no other scientific theory that explains biodiversity. There is no other theory to teach in science class other than falsified ones such as Lamarckian evolution. This "teach other theories" claim is another lie that the creationists try to foist on teachers.

quote:

Unlike the heliocentric model (which is believed to be defendable) and unlike the case of other theories where controversy exists (ie: string theory), in the case of naturalistic philosophies, the cons of them and the pros of opposing views are censored. The fact that the cons of the notion that naturalistic processes are responsible for the universe and everything in it are censored (and the fact that opposing views and arguments are censored) suggests that this notion is not defendable.


Teachers in public schools are all censored from pushing religion on kids. Most of us think this is a good thing, theist and atheist alike.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 3:11:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Difference is that geocentrism is as naturalistic (though falsified) as heliocentrism and string theory is also naturalistic. ID and creationism are not.


This is exactly my point. The problem is that it seems some committed naturalists are aware of the fact that the notion that the emergence of everything is explainable through naturalistic processes is indefendable so they advocate the censorship of anything that may contradict their metaphysics.

quote:


Science is the study of nature not of metaphysics or philosophy.


Science is limited to that which can be falsified. There is no reason to limit science to your definition. ID and creationism are more scientific than UCD. ID is falsifiable and has not been falsified, UCD is unfalsifiable.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 3:19:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Did they teach that geocentrism was based on biblical inerrancy?


Irrelevant.

quote:


UCD is not a philosophy.


UCD is not science. Not only is it unfalsifiable, but it maintains itself by censoring criticisms and opposing views (which is anti -scientific).

quote:


It is a scientific conclusion.


This statement is easy enough to make. Substantiation is a whole differnet issue.

quote:


This is the first problem. Those who want to "criticize" evolution use lies like this one. If they were honest there would be no reason to reject evolution.


If this were true, there would be no reason to censor criticisms and opposing views of evolution in the classroom. The only lie here is the notion that the people who are responsible for only their naturalistic views being taught in public schools and not opposing views are somehow interested in science or that they're somehow advancing critical thinking and good logic.

quote:


There is no other scientific theory that explains biodiversity.


UCD does not explain it.

quote:


There is no other scientific theory that explains biodiversity. There is no other theory to teach in science class other than falsified ones such as Lamarckian evolution. This "teach other theories" claim is another lie that the creationists try to foist on teachers.


If this were true then evolution wouldn't need to maintain itself by method of censoring criticisms and opposing views. Notice how heliocentricism does not maintain itself this way.

quote:


Teachers in public schools are all censored from pushing religion on kids. Most of us think this is a good thing, theist and atheist alike.


I am not asking them to push religion on kids, I am asking them to be allowed to teach both sides of the issue (just like they are allowed to with most other controversies). If your side really is that well founded in science and logic, then there is no reason for you to confuse teaching both sides of the issue with, "pushing religion on kids." Teaching only one side of the issue (that which is consistent with naturalism) is pushing religion on kids (the religion of naturalism).



Method -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 3:54:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Did they teach that geocentrism was based on biblical inerrancy?


Irrelevant.


It's very relevant. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is the practice of ignoring evidence in preference to a literal Genesis. You can not speak about creationism without pushing religion.

quote:

UCD is not science. Not only is it unfalsifiable, but it maintains itself by censoring criticisms and opposing views (which is anti -scientific).


All lies, again. By this time you should know that. Find an organism that does not use the same codons as other life and you have falsified UCD.

quote:

This statement is easy enough to make. Substantiation is a whole differnet issue.


Universal codon usage, shared metabolic pathways, shared replication systems, shared transcription systems, and shared translation systems. All of this supports UCD.

There is no physical law that states methionine must be coded by an ATG. Therefore, if two species do not share common ancestry there is no reason that ATG should code for methionine in each species outside of common ancestry.

quote:

If this were true, there would be no reason to censor criticisms and opposing views of evolution in the classroom.


There is every reason to censor bad science and bad arguments that are fueled solely by a religious agenda in a public school classroom.

quote:

UCD does not explain it.


You are right. One also needs the mechanisms of natural selection and speciation in order to explain biodiversity. Luckily, those are part of the theory of evolution.

quote:

If this were true then evolution wouldn't need to maintain itself by method of censoring criticisms and opposing views. Notice how heliocentricism does not maintain itself this way.


Which scientists are being prevented from doing research using ID? There is no other theory to teach. That's the whole point. There are certainly religious theologies masquerading as science and those are rightly censored as part of a public science class.

quote:

I am not asking them to push religion on kids, I am asking them to be allowed to teach both sides of the issue (just like they are allowed to with most other controversies).


The "other side" is religion.

quote:

If your side really is that well founded in science and logic, then there is no reason for you to confuse teaching both sides of the issue with, "pushing religion on kids." Teaching only one side of the issue (that which is consistent with naturalism) is pushing religion on kids (the religion of naturalism).


There is currently no other side. There is no scientific theory of biodiversity that is currently being used by scientists. None.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 4:06:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
It's very relevant.


No, it's not. I am not asking them to teach biblical inerrancy. Are you even trying to come up with a reasonable argument? If not, please at least try to come up with reasonable arguments. Don't just focus on getting the last word (no matter how bad the logic) and filling up pages with text just for the sake of cluttering good reasoning with bad reasoning (if that is what you're doing).

And you know the thing is, you seem smart enough to know that the alleged arguments for censoring anything that may contradict UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are flawed. So why do you keep advocating to do so? A characteristic of good science is that it allows, even encourages, the discussion of the pros and cons of all sides. It does not advocate the censorship of any side. What you are advocating is not scientific. Why do you keep advocating it?

quote:


Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is the practice of ignoring evidence in preference to a literal Genesis.


Creationism is more scientific than UCD and other naturalistic philosophies.

quote:


You can not speak about creationism without pushing religion.


Why not?

This is like me saying, you can not speak about UCD and other naturalistic philosophies without pushing naturalistic religion. Teaching both sides does not push religion.

quote:


All lies, again. By this time you should know that. Find an organism that does not use the same codons as other life and you have falsified UCD.


The notion that an organism that doesn't use the same codon would falsify UCD is a lie. There is no reason for it to falsify UCD just because you (or any consensus) assert it would.

quote:


Universal codon usage, shared metabolic pathways, shared replication systems, shared transcription systems, and shared translation systems. All of this supports UCD.


None of it does.

quote:


There is no physical law that states methionine must be coded by an ATG. Therefore, if two species do not share common ancestry there is no reason that ATG should code for methionine in each species outside of common ancestry.


There is no physical law that states UCD should predict this. There is no reason why UCD should state that it must only be coded in ATG (and that the code can't change). After all, the word evolution implies change. Lack of observable mechanism is not a problem in the case of the formation of new (original) organs, organ systems, limbs, body plans, appendages, etc... or the DNA that codes for them, so it shouldn't be a problem here either (if there were something other than ATG). The difficulty of a minor change (say from ATP to something else) seems minor compared to the difficulty of the huge structural, interdependent changes required to form new organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, limbs, etc... or the DNA for them. Given the seemingly huge difference in relative difficulty, it seems very unlikely for UCD to create all these huge structural changes and not make a relatively simpler change such as changing the energy currency from ATP to something else in a single organism (unless you are contending that ATP somehow gives a survival advantage over other energy forms, in which case, it makes sense for a designer to use it). I would say that changing the energy currency in a lab from ATP to something else is far easier than coding for entire organ systems, so, likewise, it makes sense that it would be far easier for evolution to change energy currencies from ATP to other currencies in at least some other organisms. There is no reason for UCD to predict this. This is a problem for UCD, not something UCD should predict.

quote:


There is every reason to censor bad science and bad arguments that are fueled solely by a religious agenda in a public school classroom.


If UCD and other naturalistic philosophies were good science they wouldn't need to maintain themselves by censoring criticisms and opposing views.

quote:


You are right. One also needs the mechanisms of natural selection and speciation in order to explain biodiversity. Luckily, those are part of the theory of evolution.


Neither of which explain it. They do not explain the emergence of new organs, organ systems, body plans, etc... or the DNA for them.

quote:


Which scientists are being prevented from doing research using ID?


Gonzales for one. He got denied tenure at ISU for no other reason. Now he does ID research at a private institution.

quote:


There is no other theory to teach. That's the whole point.


ID and Creationism are two. They're more scientific than UCD and other naturalistic philosophies.

quote:


There are certainly religious theologies masquerading as science and those are rightly censored as part of a public science class.


Naturalism is a religion masquerading as science. It's so unscientific that it can't even maintain itself without censoring criticism and opposing views.

quote:


The "other side" is religion.


You mean like naturalism and naturalistic philosophies (like UCD).

quote:


There is currently no other side. There is no scientific theory of biodiversity that is currently being used by scientists. None.


At least you seem to tacitly indicate that evolution is not a theory of biodiversity being used by scientists.



gluadys -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 5:02:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Difference is that geocentrism is as naturalistic (though falsified) as heliocentrism and string theory is also naturalistic. ID and creationism are not.


This is exactly my point. The problem is that it seems some committed naturalists are aware of the fact that the notion that the emergence of everything is explainable through naturalistic processes is indefendable so they advocate the censorship of anything that may contradict their metaphysics.


No, your point is that one should "teach the controversy" no matter what. In science classes it is perfectly ok to teach scientific controversies. I attended high school at the time that Big Bang theory was still controversial. The evidence to discount Hoyle's steady state theory was not yet available. So we were taught both. That's fine, because both theories were scientific; both were naturalistic. Neither, at the time, called on metaphysics, philosophy or religion to be introduced into science.

But creationism, as science, has been falsified as thoroughly as geocentrism (though I don't expect you want that taught), and both creationism and ID do require introducing something other than science into the curriculum.

quote:

UCD is unfalsifiable.


This from the person who does not recognize what falsification is; probably because you don't recognize the nature of evidence either.

Both Method and I have presented you with clear means of falsifying UCD.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
All lies, again. By this time you should know that. Find an organism that does not use the same codons as other life and you have falsified UCD.


The notion that an organism that doesn't use the same codon would falsify UCD is a lie. There is no reason for it to falsify UCD just because you (or any consensus) assert it would.



Absolutely, there is. If you inherit your DNA from your ancestors, you also inherit the particular coding system used. If your DNA codes for methionine with ATG, you can be sure that was true of your ancestors too.

Can you imagine species with different coding systems mating? If ATG means 'methionine' in your father's DNA but 'glycine' in your mother's DNA, which amino acid will your cells produce? What protein will be constructed?

Species using a different DNA coding cannot possibly share a common ancestor. How could the same ancestor pass on two different coding systems?

quote:

There is no physical law that states UCD should predict this.


UCD doesn't predict that it will be ATG that codes for methionine. But it does predict that if an organism in which ATG codes for methionine reproduces, its descendants will use the same codon for the same purpose. It won't switch to using ATG for valine or serine instead of methionine.

If there were an ancestor that used CGC for methionine instead of ATG, then when it reproduced, its descendants would use CGC for the same purpose. And we could tell that the two groups had different ancestors by the fact that each codes for methionine with a different codon, and each uses the other codon for a different amino acid.

That would be a falsification of UCD.

We do not observe that, however, so UCD is a logical conclusion of what we do observe: universal use of the same DNA codons.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 5:09:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
This is exactly my point. The problem is that it seems some committed naturalists are aware of the fact that the notion that the emergence of everything is explainable through naturalistic processes is indefendable so they advocate the censorship of anything that may contradict their metaphysics.



How about I propose this. They don't have to label it science, they can label it philosophy as long as they require everyone who is introduced to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies to be introduced to criticisms and opposing views (like ID and creationism). I also want them to teach that we argue that the purpose of science is to find best explanations, and not the best naturalistic explanations, and that limiting science to the best naturalistic explanations means that if the best explanations may contradict naturalism, science will be unable to find them. Then they can teach students that we believe the criteria for science is falsifiability and why we believe ID and creationism are more falsifiable than UCD. They can try to refute this all they want, as long as they teach students this. If your arguments stand up to scrutiny, you should have no problems with this.

quote:


But creationism, as science, has been falsified as thoroughly as geocentrism (though I don't expect you want that taught), and both creationism and ID do require introducing something other than science into the curriculum.


I do not think that creationism, as a science, has been falsified as strongly as UCD and other naturalistic philosophies; however, if they want to teach naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) they should likewise teach criticisms of naturalistic philosophies, opposing views, and criticisms of those opposing views.

quote:


This from the person who does not recognize what falsification is; probably because you don't recognize the nature of evidence either.

Both Method and I have presented you with clear means of falsifying UCD.


You should be free to introduce students to these alleged falsification schemes provided that you introduce them to my counterarguments. If your falsification schemes are reasonable, you should have no problem believing that students will accept them over my counterarguments. That's all I ask. The only reason to refuse is if you know that your arguments are nonsense and you don't want students to realize this. If your alleged falsification schemes are as reasonable as you claim, you should have no problems introducing students to my counterarguments.

quote:


Absolutely, there is. If you inherit your DNA from your ancestors, you also inherit the particular coding system used. If your DNA codes for methionine with ATG, you can be sure that was true of your ancestors too.


If your DNA codes for eyes, you can be sure that your ancestors DNA did the same. So then, following your logic, how did eyes originate? Are you alleging that all of our alleged ancestors had eyes? If not, then it's possible for our alleged ancestor to not have something that we have.

To continue with your logic, eyes are subject to evolutionary change. The eyes of chimps are different than the eyes of humans, yet evolution contends that we acquired eyes from a common ancestor. Clearly, if our eyes were identical to the eyes of our alleged common ancestor and the eyes of chimps are identical the the eyes of our alleged common ancestor, then our eyes would be identical to the eyes of chimps. Yet, our eyes are not identical to the eyes of chimps which means that, if UCD is true, one or both of our eyes have changed since we acquired them from our alleged ancestor. If UCD is true, this means that eyes are subject to evolutionary change. If eyes can change, then there is no reason why ATP (or ATG) can't change (unless ATP gives a survival advantage).

quote:


Can you imagine species with different coding systems mating? If ATG means 'methionine' in your father's DNA but 'glycine' in your mother's DNA, which amino acid will your cells produce? What protein will be constructed?


Uhm... Species with different eye colors have offspring.

quote:


Species using a different DNA coding cannot possibly share a common ancestor. How could the same ancestor pass on two different coding systems?


Different humans have different eye colors yet, according to UCD, all humans share a common ancestor. This is like me asking, how can the same ancestor pass off two different eye colors? You're not understanding the argument being made. Please, at least try to understand it.

You don't seem to even understand how evolution allegedly works (or was thought to work). The changes that allegedly code for these new structures allegedly start with mutations in germ lines. If mutations in germ lines can produce all the changes required to produce all the complex structures of living organisms, it requires a leap of faith to say that they are unable to change, have never changed, and will never change ATP into something else (unless ATP provides an advantage).

quote:


UCD doesn't predict that it will be ATG that codes for methionine. But it does predict that if an organism in which ATG codes for methionine reproduces, its descendants will use the same codon for the same purpose. It won't switch to using ATG for valine or serine instead of methionine.


Just because you (or anyone else) allege it predicts this does not make it so. There is no reason for UCD to predict this.

quote:


If there were an ancestor that used CGC for methionine instead of ATG, then when it reproduced, its descendants would use CGC for the same purpose. And we could tell that the two groups had different ancestors by the fact that each codes for methionine with a different codon, and each uses the other codon for a different amino acid.


There is no reason for this to indicate that these groups don't share a common ancestor.

quote:


That would be a falsification of UCD.


No, it would not.

quote:


We do not observe that, however, so UCD is a logical conclusion of what we do observe: universal use of the same DNA codons.


We do not observe that, so UCD is an illogical conclusion of what we do observe. Universal use of the same codon is not what UCD should predict.



gluadys -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 5:18:41 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
This is exactly my point. The problem is that it seems some committed naturalists are aware of the fact that the notion that the emergence of everything is explainable through naturalistic processes is indefendable so they advocate the censorship of anything that may contradict their metaphysics.



How about I propose this. They don't have to label it science, they can label it philosophy as long as they require everyone who is introduced to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies to be introduced to criticisms and opposing views (like ID and creationism). I also want them to teach that we argue that the purpose of science is to find best explanations, and not the best naturalistic explanations, and that limiting science to the best naturalistic explanations means that if the best explanations may contradict naturalism, science will be unable to find them. Then they can teach students that we believe the criteria for science is falsifiability and why we believe ID and creationism are falsifiable and UCD is not. They can try to refute this all they want, as long as they teach students this.


The purpose of science IS to find the best natural explanations. Science, by definition, is limited to natural explanations.

Probably one thing that does need to be explained in our day is that "natural" explanations do not eliminate God. Natural causes are what an earlier generation called God's "secondary" or "providential" causes i.e. the way God made the world to run in the ordinary course of events as distinguished from direct interventions into history. Whether such direct interventions exist is a matter of faith and science does not comment on whether they do or don't. But the scientific study of anything MEANS studying it as a natural event.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 5:27:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
The purpose of science IS to find the best natural explanations. Science, by definition, is limited to natural explanations.


Did you even read what I said? Read it. They do not have to label it science, as long as they teach what we argue (ie: what I mentioned above) to those who are taught UCD and other naturalistic philosophies. Then they are free to try and refute it. If your arguments are as sound as you claim, you should have no problems with this.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 5:35:39 PM)

Now, to continue the argument I was making with Method, the point here is that if all organisms and their offspring use, say, ATP, this tells me that evolution is incapable of plausibly making a change from ATP to something else. This change seems simple relative to the changes required to produce new organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, limbs, or the DNA for them. If evolution is incapable of plausibly making this relatively simple change compared to the much more complex ones required to produce new organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, limbs, or the DNA for them, why should I believe that evolution is capable of producing new organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, limbs, or the DNA for them? This is not evidence for UCD, it is not at all what UCD should predict. It's a huge problem for UCD.



swan42 -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 6:18:13 PM)

quote:

if all organisms and their offspring use, say, ATP, this tells me that evolution is incapable of plausibly making a change from ATP to something else.



argumentum ad ignorantiam

No, it says evolution hasn't used something else other than ATP, not whether it cannot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance



gluadys -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 7:28:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
The purpose of science IS to find the best natural explanations. Science, by definition, is limited to natural explanations.


Did you even read what I said? Read it. They do not have to label it science, as long as they teach what we argue (ie: what I mentioned above) to those who are taught UCD and other naturalistic philosophies. Then they are free to try and refute it. If your arguments are as sound as you claim, you should have no problems with this.



In the first place UCD is not a naturalistic philosophy. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.

The philosophy of naturalism is taught in philosophy classes, and those same classes do teach other philosophies including those grounded in theism. And students and teachers are free to debate these ideas. No one has said that either ID or concepts of creation are to be excluded from classes on philosophy.

However, many devout Christians have practiced science and in doing so they have sought natural explanations of observed events. "natural" should not be confused with "naturalism". No natural explanation of observations in nature commits a researcher (or student) to a philosophy of naturalism.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 10:23:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42
No, it says evolution hasn't used something else other than ATP, not whether it cannot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


What I should have said is that, "if all organisms and their offspring use, say, ATP, this suggests that evolution is incapable of plausibly making a change from ATP to something else." Sorry, my mistake.

So, if evolution is capable of plausibly making a change from ATP to something else, then UCD does not predict that all living organisms should use ATP and there is no reason for all living organisms to use ATP. If it is plausible for evolution to have produced a change to something other than ATP then why hasn't it done so by now? If ATP provides no survival advantage, then there is no reason for unguided evolution to maintain ATP. There are many many bacteria that have been multiplying all throughout the world, allegedly for millions of years, so if you want to argue that evolution is plausibly capable of changing to something other than ATP, why hasn't it happened by now? Unless you are arguing that ATP somehow gives a survival advantage and hence natural selection would favor it. Otherwise, there is no reason for all organisms to use ATP if evolution can plausibly change to something else.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 10:34:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
In the first place UCD is not a naturalistic philosophy. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.


statements like this are easy enough to make. Substantiation is a whole different issue.

quote:


The philosophy of naturalism is taught in philosophy classes, and those same classes do teach other philosophies including those grounded in theism.


The philosophy of naturalism is different than a naturalistic philosophy. A naturalistic philosophy is a philosophy that does not contradict naturalism. UCD is an example of a naturalistic philosophy (unless you want to argue that UCD somehow contradicts naturalism).

quote:


And students and teachers are free to debate these ideas. No one has said that either ID or concepts of creation are to be excluded from classes on philosophy.


They are excluded.

So then, you agree that criticisms and opposing views of UCD and other naturalistic philosophies should be taught to students (in public schools) and the above arguments that I have made should be taught (by requirement) to students who are required to be exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies? If so, then we aren't really in disagreement. What you want to call "science" is arbitrary, the point here is that those who are exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies should likewise be exposed to the strongest, non strawman criticisms and opposing views (and the criticisms of those opposing views, etc...).

Anyone who is required to be exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies (in public schools) should likewise be required to be exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views (like ID and creationism) in public schools (and the criticisms of the opposing views, etc...). Whether or not you want to label criticisms and opposing views "science" is arbitrary, but if you truly believe that your arguments stand on reason and logic then you should have no problems with students being exposed to criticisms and opposing views.

If you agree with this, then I can say that you are an intellectually honest person because you aren't afraid of your viewpoints being criticized by the strongest criticisms (and teachers should be free to criticize those criticisms and then to criticize those criticisms, etc...) and you aren't afraid of the strongest opposing views being exposed (and I'm not afraid of the criticisms of opposing views either, and criticisms of those criticisms, etc...) in the face of students. If you do agree with this, you are the first evolutionist I have encountered on these (or any) forums that agrees with this and I can actually say that there is at least one intellectually honest evolutionary naturalist here. That would be impressive.



gluadys -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 11:35:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
In the first place UCD is not a naturalistic philosophy. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.


statements like this are easy enough to make. Substantiation is a whole different issue.


Especially when substantiation is misunderstood, misapplied, rejected and ignored.

quote:

quote:


The philosophy of naturalism is taught in philosophy classes, and those same classes do teach other philosophies including those grounded in theism. And students and teachers are free to debate these ideas. No one has said that either ID or concepts of creation are to be excluded from classes on philosophy.


They are excluded.


I don't know of any situation in which they are excluded from classes in philosophy. Can you provide documentation that this is so?

quote:

So then, you agree that criticisms and opposing views of UCD and other naturalistic philosophies should be taught to students (in public schools) and the above arguments that I have made should be taught (by requirement) to students who are required to be exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies?


Not quite. I agree that any class which studies naturalism (the philosophy) should also study other philosophies and debate the issues. It would be very helpful if there were some exposure to the philosophy of science, so that students were not left with the false impression that science = naturalism. Although science is the study of nature, it is not wedded to naturalism. It is, however, wedded to a few philosophic axioms that are not universally accepted by all philosophies. e.g. that the senses are a reliable guide to physical reality. (Or in religious terms: God created a real world, not an illusion.) This is an axiom disputed by such philosophers as Kant and by such religions as Hinduism. But the scientific study of nature (including UCD) does not imply a commitment to naturalism.

Certainly, such a class would discuss the existence of God, including the watchmaker argument (aka ID).


quote:

What you want to call "science" is arbitrary,


Again, that would be something discussed under philosophy of science. For the purpose of establishing curricula, science is what scientists do using scientific method.

quote:

Anyone ...should likewise be required to be exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views (like ID and creationism) in public schools (and the criticisms of the opposing views, etc...).


Oh, well, if one wants non-strawman views, that does pretty well eliminate creationism since it consists of nothing else. Of course, eliminating creationism does not eliminate discussion of God and creation---just one theologically bankrupt perspective on them.

quote:

If you do agree with this, you are the first evolutionist I have encountered on these (or any) forums that agrees with this and I can actually say that there is at least one intellectually honest evolutionary naturalist here. That would be impressive.



I am not sure what you intend to imply by terms like "evolutionist" and "naturalist".
By faith, I am Christian. I am not a scientist, just an ordinary layperson who has taken an interest in how the concept of evolution has been handled theologically. I am not a "naturalist" in the sense of subscribing to naturalism. Nor am I a naturalist in the sense of one who studies nature first hand---beyond puttering around in my garden. Nor am I an "evolutionist" in the sense of one who promotes evolution or considers it to have a primary philosophical or theological meaning. I simply accept that in the current state of our understanding, it makes the best scientific sense.

My background is primarily in Christian education, and I am much more interested in the theological issues than the scientific issues, though in order to deal with the horrid theology of creationism, I have had to learn some of the science along the way. ID is also, in my mind, more to be rejected by Christians as bad theology than as bad science. As I see it, both ID and creationism--but especially creationism--are deeply opposed to the Christian doctrine of creation. And it is as a Christian that I reject them.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism (5/21/2008 11:41:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Especially when substantiation is misunderstood, misapplied, rejected and ignored.


Well, you have yet to substantiate.

quote:


Oh, well, if one wants non-strawman views, that does pretty well eliminate creationism since it consists of nothing else.


No, it does not eliminate creationism. Non - strawman = the actual arguments made by those who hold a viewpoint, not a (different) strawman version of it made by an opponent.

quote:


I don't know of any situation in which they are excluded from classes in philosophy. Can you provide documentation that this is so?


It is not for me to prove a negative. Show me examples where what Behe proposes (in terms of intelligent design) is legally taught in public schools (in, say, California or other states where such teaching is banned which is, by far, the majority of states). Please provide the strongest non - strawman arguments (meaning what Behe actually proposes, not someone else misquoting Behe, taking him out of context, or teaching that he proposes something that he doesn't propose just for the sake of shooting down a strawman). I propose you are unable to. Show me examples where my above counterarguments to UCD (and my counterarguments in other threads) are legally taught in the publics schools of such states.

If you are confident that your viewpoints stand up to scrutiny, then you should have no problems if my criticisms to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are exposed, in public schools, to students who are exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies. You should also have no problem if the strongest non - strawman arguments for ID and Creationism are also exposed to these students. Those who are required to be exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies should likewise be required to be exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views.

quote:


Certainly, such a class would discuss the existence of God, including the watchmaker argument (aka ID).


Including the pros and cons of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design (the strongest non - strawman arguments made by all sides). Anyone who should be required to take classes promoting UCD and other naturalistic philosophies should likewise be required to take these classes.

quote:


Again, that would be something discussed under philosophy of science. For the purpose of establishing curricula, science is what scientists do using scientific method.


I don't see how UCD is something scientists "do" using the scientific method. Scientists do not evolve from a microbe to a human (you may argue that they have evolved from a microbe to a human, but it's not something that they do).

quote:


My background is primarily in Christian education, and I am much more interested in the theological issues than the scientific issues, though in order to deal with the horrid theology of creationism, I have had to learn some of the science along the way.


Do you happen to speak many languages?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI