The New Anti-Science Assault on US Schools

No you did not even understand my answer.

reva

 

There are more historians who argue against the Holocaust than there are scientists (as a % of the total in that field) who argue against evolution or global warming.

 

Scientific fact is an observation. It is a scientific fact that if you drop something it will fall to the ground. It is a scientific fact that life forms evolve.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory but creationism is not.

Your post shows that you do not understand science and so your opinion of it is not valid. You can have your own opinions but you can not have your own facts.




A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.



Can you see how your claim of:

is just nonsense?

 

Oh for (*)(*)(*)(*) sake.

It's quite clear that you get your entire "understanding" of science from Christian blogs written by idiots who know less than you do.

 

Never Left:

...which conffirms our earlier discussions in another thread about the poor state of the American education system (not to mention spelling).

As others have said, you don't get to choose your facts.

 

I like claims that adaptation isn't evolution.

WRONG!


Evolution is defined as the genetic change of a population over generations. Adaptation is GENETIC CHANGE.

This is why you can have your own opinions (Chocolate is better than vanilla) but you can't have your own facts (adaptation isn't evolution because evolution is a cat turning into a dog!).

 

That is the problem. Theory is a bunch of facts held together with guess work. There is not too much difference between theory and guesswork. I have often said what is science fact via theory today will be quaint myth a few hundred years from now. Guess what? That means those that use science exclusively to quantify their model of reality are living a lie, well unless science has began getting far more accurate than they have in the past. In other words unless you like living a lie do not believe science is truth, think of science as good tool that can not be trusted to be exceedingly accurate.

Then what to do if one is not religious like I and can not believe in science either? I use science as the third in line of authorities to build a model of reality (we all have some kind of a model of reality with an authority that defines how real ones beliefs are i.e.; is it real or not? ). My first authority is God and religion. Second is this mantra not of the claims of theoretical science; “I don't believe in empirical science. I only believe in a priori truth.”
Kurt Gödel coined that phrase. If you dont know who Godel is, trust me he was Einsteins equal and maybe superior to big E in some areas of science. Lastly I use science along with the first two along my own senses to frame a model of reality.

reva

 

It'd be nice rev if you understood what you were talking about. I already explained what a theory is.

 

You might as well p!ss into the wind.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory, based on evidence. Global warming is still a hypothesis, Creationism is pre-scientific mysticism.

You're arguing that things you disagree with can be grouped together and dismissed as mere opinion? Get off the computer and go back to the Bronze Age, fella. Sacrifice some goats to your God, or whatever it is you do, you don't belong in this century.

 

True, we're adamant, except our reason that we don't want our kids taught a version of science rejected by schooled scientists. You reason is based upon a world view rejected by all but fundamentalists and "old time religion" types in Iran and Saudi Arabia

 

Electron, don't be a dik...what you wrote is almost precisely what I wrote. 1) Evolution is a theory. You just added the word 'scientific' which goes without saying. 2) Global warming is a hypothesis. 3) Creationism is pre-scientific mysticism isn't accurate. It too is a theory, Fundamental science was in development by quite a few civilizations as the book of Genesis was being written.
I happen to believe that evolution is closer to reality. Some believe that creationism is. For many, creationism and evolution are one in the same. Genesis being a 'short cut' of explaining 'where we came from' to a majority of people that could neither read nor write, worshiped the sun and had a scientific comprehension of a 3 year old. What easier way to answer their question of where we came from than to say...'God made us'...then their priests filled in the blanks with all those little stories.
Not teaching creationism in school is a mistake. Too many kids come to school pre-programed to accept it. They learn it at home. The world is filled with religions that teach it. There are close to 4 billion people that have religious roots in Abrahamic myths. A good teacher could easily draw parallels between biblical metaphor and scientific reality. To flat out deny that a belief in creationism exists is foolish. Once we start segregating and omitting information in schools because it doesn't fit our agendas, where will it end.

By the way...I don't have a goat...or a god.

 

Evolution is the change of allele frequency in a population through successive generations. That's how any biology textbook or professor will define the phenomenon. Evolution as a process has been proven.

The theory of evolution speculates on the mechanisms of evolution, its origins, and eventual outcomes.

Adaptation is part of evolution. They aren't seperate from eachother. Speciation is an inevitability of natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

If there was a group of cells in your own body that became independent from your own metabolism, and were able to continue living and reproducing indefinitely beyond your own death, would you consider that speciation?

 

I would consider them...offspring...AKA, reproduction. However, if tha mass of 'independent cells' grew off of my arm or some other place on my body..I'd consider them just plain freaky.

 

I find this debate most amusing. This "Evolution" debate hinges, in part, on the differences in meaning of "theory" in science and its meaning to laymen.

In science, "theory" is used to name an established, monumental, all encompassing explanation, not hardly suspect. But to a layman, it's something not proven.

Do you guys hold we shouldn't teach Einstein's Theory of Gravitation in schools?

 

I'm not talking about human reproduction. I'm talking about a group of cells in... let's say your liver.... have mutated and are able to continue living and reproducing after your death. Would you consider that group of cells a human, or has it become something else? Would you consider that speciation?

Also, not only has the metabolism of these cells separated from your own, but also go on to outcompete the other cells in your body.

 

Or germ theory. (*)(*)(*)(*) washing your hands.

 

No, no...by all means teach all the 'theories' Let those ripe, fresh young minds sort through them. Hopefully to pursue further development and turn those 'theories' into fully substantiated laws. But I still disagree with your premise that "In science, "theory" is used to name an established, monumental, all encompassing explanation, not hardly suspect". One fundamental cosmological theory, 'the Big Bang' has become very suspect lately by science. Nothing is cast in stone. As we learn more about one thing, it seems we know less about another. Don't get me wrong, that's not a criticism of science..but a valid observation.

 

Yes, some great points with the view "science theory"

Which prompts me to remember a discussion in another forum. On the subject of dark matter. I asked how can it be proven. Now this resulted in a circular debate.

Science theory > Belief it exists (This is the point i asked, how can it be proven) = Result > Science theory > Belief it exists > etc....

In this way, an endless cycle of theory unless the line is drawn.

 

Theorys do not "develop and turn into fully substantiated laws." lol You understand nothing.

Laws define "what", theorys explain "why". The law of gravity does not explain how it works, but what it does. There will never be such a thing as "The Law of Evolution", for example. Get it?

 

I suppose speciation would apply in that case. But wouldn't the new livermen have human DNA? Would the livermen be a mutation?

 

You have a very rude way of holding a conversation. Get it?

 

Complete nonsense.
Creationism is a belief supported by nothing.
Scientific theories are formulated, tested, and the resulting mass of data determines which way they develop.
The difference between scientific theories and creationism "theories" is the difference between Albert Einstein and Harold Camping.

 

The problem with your blind adherence to the Religion of Evolution, is that you believe it to be settled fact. The TRUTH is that science keeps proving previously held "scientific fact" wrong. What was being worshiped as "scientific fact" 20 years ago has now been completely debunked.

Yet people like you continue to drink the Kool-Aid. Bizarre!