How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Is there any way of trying to say how creationism is true without bringing a supreme deity into the equation?

in my mind, no! for there to be creationism, there has to be a CREATOR!

[Rían]

Any more comments on my post about the philosophical foundations of the scientific method would be welcome! (the law of non-contradiction; the basic reliability of our senses; the law of causality).

To move on (while still hoping for comments about those things listed above) -

I've talked to some people who think that creationism is outside of the realm of science. IMO, this is partly true (and it's also true of many other theories), but it's untrue in the area that matters the MOST - the scientific evaluation part.

Example : here are some statements that CANNOT be evaluated scientifically, as they currently stand:
1. The world as we see it today was created by the God described in the Bible.
2. The world as we see it today was created by a purple turtle.
3. The world as we see it today was created by naturalistic processes.
4. My printer weighs 15 pounds.
5. The hole in this skull was caused by a bullet.
6. My husband loves me.

Now, NONE of these 6 statements, as they currently stand, can be evaluated scientifically! NONE of them.

Does anyone agree?

[Nurvingiel]

Not entirely. (Naturally! ) Could forensic science not be used to determine whether or not a bullet caused the bullet hole in the skull? Could you not weigh your printer? (I agree with the others though.)

EDIT:
Oh, as they currently stand. .:headdesk:.
(One would have to append "because the techniques of forensic science were applied" or "because I used a scale to determine its mass" to make it scientific.)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

3. The world as we see it today was created by naturalistic processes.
4. My printer weighs 15 pounds.
5. The hole in this skull was caused by a bullet.

these can be evaluated scientifically, maybe not proven, but evaluated

3. studies of fossil records, geo magneticism, sedimentary(pre-life) layers and so on and so forth
4. Use a set of accurate scales, on a gravity neutral environment (ie: earth gravity)
5. measure entry and exit wounds, compare and contrast with existing knowledge of bullet wounds, and wounds made by other force, test velocity, examine distance factors, etc etc

[Rían]

no, I said "as they currently stand", as Nurvi noticed. We would have to add some more details to make them testable in a lab, if possible. Some will have direct observable evidence, some indirect observable evidence, some indirect analogous evidence, and some merely educated guesses.

Sorry, gtg pick up kiddos now!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

no, I said "as they currently stand", as Nurvi noticed. We would have to add some more details to make them testable in a lab, if possible. Some will have direct observable evidence, some indirect observable evidence, some indirect analogous evidence, and some merely educated guesses.

Sorry, gtg pick up kiddos now!

all of my points can be evaluated following current scientific methods as they currently stand, so i am not quite sure what you are driving at, apart from the kids school of course

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Example : here are some statements that CANNOT be evaluated scientifically, as they currently stand:
1. The world as we see it today was created by the God described in the Bible.
2. The world as we see it today was created by a purple turtle.
3. The world as we see it today was created by naturalistic processes.
4. My printer weighs 15 pounds.
5. The hole in this skull was caused by a bullet.
6. My husband loves me.

I would add that any intelligent being is outside the realm of science - not just the one described in the bible.

However - science MUST follow the natural laws of biology and physics. So I disagree with the "naturalist process" part. For it to be scientific - it must be able to obey the laws of nature. Otherwise the whole argument is mute and anything is possible.

[Butterbeer]

[QUOTE=jerseydevil]

However - science MUST follow the natural laws of biology and physics.


OK cards on the table, havent (yet) read this thread properly (hardly at all - ! yet),though been intrigued by the small part i've read - and am kinda jumping in here (its a characteristic of mine) but philosophically i must disagree with the above statement - science : "MUST follow the natural laws of biology and physics".
Science is a-priori the determination of the rules by which we determine subjects such as Biology and Physics.

In a very real sense the momment Science MUST follow natural laws of sub-sets, it implodes on itself.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

OK cards on the table, havent (yet) read this thread properly (hardly at all - ! yet),though been intrigued by the small part i've read - and am kinda jumping in here (its a characteristic of mine) but philosophically i must disagree with the above statement - science : "MUST follow the natural laws of biology and physics".
Science is a-priori the determination of the rules by which we determine subjects such as Biology and Physics.

In a very real sense the momment Science MUST follow natural laws of sub-sets, it implodes on itself.

No - because we know certain things must work in the natural world. If you take out the laws of physics and biology and nature - then you can have whatever you can imagine with no constraints. But there are constraints in the natural world and science MUST be able to explain occurences within nature - not saying - "and then man appeared" - with no explanation of how it may have happened. And saying that god did it - isn't science.

Naturalism in Science
...naturalism is one of the basic principles around which all of science is organized. It states that supernatural causes and events must be ruled out; that everything that happens must have an understandable cause that is based on empirical evidence and obeys physical laws and causality. To put it another way, this scientist is not using naturalism:



At this point a distinction must be made between methodological naturalism and metaphysical, or atheistic, naturalism. The former is what science employs, the belief that natural events have natural causes and that the physical world is logical and understandable. This principle is necessary to do science and can be held by both atheists and theists. The latter is the belief that there is nothing beyond those natural causes; in other words, that the supernatural does not exist. This is a personal belief that, while it may be held by some scientists, has no bearing on their work. Science itself, which uses methodological and not metaphysical naturalism, assumes that all events it can observe and study are natural in origin. It does not, however, claim that the supernatural does not exist; nor does it claim that it does exist. To make a statement either way would be beyond the bounds of science.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No - because we know certain things must work in the natural world. If you take out the laws of physics and biology and nature - then you can have whatever you can imagine with no constraints. But there are constraints in the natural world and science MUST be able to explain occurences within nature - not saying - "and then man appeared" - with no explanation of how it may have happened. And saying that god did it - isn't science.

Loved the cartoon

My point was more that philosophically one problem with science (not one i practically pursue in any way, note) is that science "Must" by its very nature impose and agree laws (for it to either meaningfully exist or have any point) and that biology and physics are a sub-set or constituent part of Science in general and therefore the statement that "science MUST follow the rules of Biology and Physics" cannot be correct. Would it not be the other way round? I do not have any rational problem with science (why should i?) more just a natural empirical philosophical resitance to "MUST" in this context.

(this being my own step two!)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Loved the cartoon

My point was more that philosophically one problem with science (not one i practically pursue in any way, note) is that science "Must" by its very nature impose and agree laws (for it to either meaningfully exist or have any point) and that biology and physics are a sub-set or constituent part of Science in general and therefore the statement that "science MUST follow the rules of Biology and Physics" cannot be correct. Would it not be the other way round? I do not have any rational problem with science (why should i?) more just a natural empirical philosophical resitance to "MUST" in this context.

(this being my own step two!)

Well then if it doesn't have to follow biological limits - then I guess elephants would be able to fly. You can not just introduce something without it following the laws of biology. You have to have a natural explanation that makes sense in the PHYSICAL world.

[Falagar]

I think the point he's making is that science doesn't follow rules, it is the rules.

[me9996]

God made the chicken first!!!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then if it doesn't have to follow biological limits - then I guess elephants would be able to fly. You can not just introduce something without it following the laws of biology. You have to have a natural explanation that makes sense in the PHYSICAL world.

*lighthearted* Dumbo flew.


Do not the laws of biology and in relation to the above, the laws of physics, have validity and in some respects rigidity because they are scientific as opposed to quantiative? If so do not then the laws of biology and physics constitute a Sciencitic examplar in which THEY must follow the laws of Science to be vaild within themselves?

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I think the point he's making is that science doesn't follow rules, it is the rules.

well yeah if you want to put it succinctly ( i hadn't thought of that approach!)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Do not the laws of biology and in relation to the above, the laws of physics, have validity and in some respects rigidity because they are scientific as opposed to quantiative? If so do not then the laws of biology and physics constitute a Sciencitic examplar in which THEY must follow the laws of Science to be vaild within themselves?

It seems as if we were both saying the same thing - just in different words. I was merely specifying biology and physics as a particular science. Things can't just be thrown in that don't obey the laws of physics and the natural world.

This is basically what I am stating - "natural events have natural causes and that the physical world is logical and understandable.". The argument for creationism MJUST be kept in the realm of natural world.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I think the point he's making is that science doesn't follow rules, it is the rules.

Interesting! I think I would probably agree ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

these can be evaluated scientifically, maybe not proven, but evaluated

3. studies of fossil records, geo magneticism, sedimentary(pre-life) layers and so on and so forth
4. Use a set of accurate scales, on a gravity neutral environment (ie: earth gravity)
5. measure entry and exit wounds, compare and contrast with existing knowledge of bullet wounds, and wounds made by other force, test velocity, examine distance factors, etc etc

You're mentioning methods of evaluation, which would be good ones.
(and btw, Nurv, I love your ::headdesk:: ! )

I'll repost my statements:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

1. The world as we see it today was created by the God described in the Bible.
2. The world as we see it today was created by a purple turtle.
3. The world as we see it today was created by naturalistic processes.
4. My printer weighs 15 pounds.
5. The hole in this skull was caused by a bullet.
6. My husband loves me.

Now, starting with #4 - I would agree with your suggestion for evaluation. (and I didn't quite word #4 the way I wanted to, but oh well.) We could take it to a scale and weigh it, and it would be shown by the directly observeable evidence to be either true or false. (or there could be other reasons why it showed 15 pounds, but whatever - it would be a reasonable conclusion that the hypothesis is correct.) We can directly observe this.

Now for #5, it gets a little more complex. One way to do it is to take a skull and shoot bullets thru it, and then say something like this: "If the physical marks left by our controlled experiment match this other skull to a degree beyond what we think would be accidental, then it is reasonable to conclude that the hole was made by a bullet." This is indirect evidence, with the important note that the indirect evidence is actually in the present and is testable. It's reasonable to conclude this, but it could be a good fake.

Another skull thing - we can dig up a skull and hypothesize that it belongs to a 15-yr-old female. We can do this because we actually HAVE skulls that we KNOW belong to 15-yr-old females, and it matches in every respect. This again is indirect evidence that is in the present. It's reasonable to conclude this, altho of course it could be a very good fake.

For #6 - IMO, this is really untestable in a scientific sense. Now you could try to say "we define 'love' as the measureable increase in the following 10 chemicals and the following measureable body responses ", but of course different people could respond in different ways. I think a thing like that is pretty undefineable in a scientific sense, as things currently stand.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

For #6 - IMO, this is really untestable in a scientific sense. Now you could try to say "we define 'love' as the measureable increase in the following 10 chemicals and the following measureable body responses ", but of course different people could respond in different ways. I think a thing like that is pretty undefineable in a scientific sense, as things currently stand.

Disagreed. "Love" can be more or less quantifiable if you make an attempt at it. So can anger. so can depression. I dont see why its impossible to say anything scientific about love. Certainly love falls well in the sphere of why biology works in humans.

[Rían]

I think you can quantify it to some extent.