How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Not ALL supporters of evolution are this way, IMO. But there's a vocal group that DOES react this way, and that has, IMO, been way out of line in giving evolution special treatment that no other discipline could dream of having. I'm glad to see some people brave the insults and stand up for real science.

which is just as true on the creationist side of things... the problem is not the theories, it's assuming something is an absolute truth

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Not ALL supporters of evolution are this way, IMO. But there's a vocal group that DOES react this way, and that has, IMO, been way out of line in giving evolution special treatment that no other discipline could dream of having. I'm glad to see some people brave the insults and stand up for real science.

which is just as true on the creationist side of things... the problem is not the theories, it's assuming something is an absolute truth

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

I'm sincerely curious as to how believing that there is nothing outside of the natural world can _improve_ the value of your life if you are honest with yourself.

This might deserve a thread on it's own so this is the only thing I will say about it here: Frankly, I would find it insulting if the value of my life depended on the existance of divine being that may or may not have made mankind.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

I'm sincerely curious as to how believing that there is nothing outside of the natural world can _improve_ the value of your life if you are honest with yourself.

This might deserve a thread on it's own so this is the only thing I will say about it here: Frankly, I would find it insulting if the value of my life depended on the existance of divine being that may or may not have made mankind.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

which is just as true on the creationist side of things...

Absolutely - for SOME creationists, not all. And as I said, the problem is with SOME evolutionists, not all.

the problem is not the theories, it's assuming something is an absolute truth

Absolutely - and these religious evolutionists are assuming that particle-to-people evolution is an absolute truth. They are not willing to change that - they're only willing to change the proposed mechanisms. Do you agree?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

which is just as true on the creationist side of things...

Absolutely - for SOME creationists, not all. And as I said, the problem is with SOME evolutionists, not all.

the problem is not the theories, it's assuming something is an absolute truth

Absolutely - and these religious evolutionists are assuming that particle-to-people evolution is an absolute truth. They are not willing to change that - they're only willing to change the proposed mechanisms. Do you agree?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

This might deserve a thread on it's own so this is the only thing I will say about it here: Frankly, I would find it insulting if the value of my life depended on the existance of divine being that may or may not have made mankind.

This is a rather fascinating side-issue, and it's been discussed before. If it was opened up again on another thread, I'd probably join in again.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

This might deserve a thread on it's own so this is the only thing I will say about it here: Frankly, I would find it insulting if the value of my life depended on the existance of divine being that may or may not have made mankind.

This is a rather fascinating side-issue, and it's been discussed before. If it was opened up again on another thread, I'd probably join in again.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm short on time now, but one thing I'd like to do in this thread is go through some of the proposed changes and discuss them.

this is interesting...

current definition...

Science: The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. These explanations are based on observations, experiments, and logical arguments that adhere to strict empirical standards and a healthy skeptical perspective.

proposed change...

Science: Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

they do not sound terribly different, but i find it interesting that he lost the phrases "adhere to strict empirical standards" and "a healthy skeptical perspective" and inserted the phrase "theory building" and "more adequate explanations"

the most interesting change is the word "adequate"... almost implying the the goal of science is to reach a consensus, as opposed to the "healthy skeptical perspective" pointed to in the first definition

i'm not sure if this is a good change... science is about confrontation and heated discussion... in the end it is all words, and trying to make it more a matter of compromise might take away the very edge that leads to scientific innovation... maybe friendlier, but not necessarily better

i think fervor is a good thing in this particular realm... once again, it is just words

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm short on time now, but one thing I'd like to do in this thread is go through some of the proposed changes and discuss them.

this is interesting...

current definition...

Science: The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. These explanations are based on observations, experiments, and logical arguments that adhere to strict empirical standards and a healthy skeptical perspective.

proposed change...

Science: Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

they do not sound terribly different, but i find it interesting that he lost the phrases "adhere to strict empirical standards" and "a healthy skeptical perspective" and inserted the phrase "theory building" and "more adequate explanations"

the most interesting change is the word "adequate"... almost implying the the goal of science is to reach a consensus, as opposed to the "healthy skeptical perspective" pointed to in the first definition

i'm not sure if this is a good change... science is about confrontation and heated discussion... in the end it is all words, and trying to make it more a matter of compromise might take away the very edge that leads to scientific innovation... maybe friendlier, but not necessarily better

i think fervor is a good thing in this particular realm... once again, it is just words

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Absolutely - and these religious evolutionists are assuming that particle-to-people evolution is an absolute truth. They are not willing to change that - they're only willing to change the proposed mechanisms. Do you agree?

sure... but it's a very small minority... many in science cling to the best theory of the moment (which evolutionism is), but they only do this because they have seen all the evidence and judged it as the best explanation... if a better theory came along, even the most ardent would recognize it in time

i'm not sure if the same can be said on the creationist side

the bottom line is that there is no opposing theory that comes anywhere close to explaining life on our planet as well as evolution... it's not perfect, but it's much more logical than any other theory that's been presented

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Absolutely - and these religious evolutionists are assuming that particle-to-people evolution is an absolute truth. They are not willing to change that - they're only willing to change the proposed mechanisms. Do you agree?

sure... but it's a very small minority... many in science cling to the best theory of the moment (which evolutionism is), but they only do this because they have seen all the evidence and judged it as the best explanation... if a better theory came along, even the most ardent would recognize it in time

i'm not sure if the same can be said on the creationist side

the bottom line is that there is no opposing theory that comes anywhere close to explaining life on our planet as well as evolution... it's not perfect, but it's much more logical than any other theory that's been presented

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Again, tho, I would like to note that they are NOT talking about teaching creationism, or ID, or any theory other than evolution, in Kansas. They are only talking about giving some air time to some valid, peer-reviewed scientific criticism against that holiest of holy grails, particle-to-people evolution (as opposed to micro-evolution, which is usually the bait-and switch thing that is offered when people object to "evolution"). And I say more power to 'em!

This is something I completely agree with. Many get so defensive against this, however, that I have to ask, is your theory so weak that it can't stand up to some honest criticism in the classroom?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Again, tho, I would like to note that they are NOT talking about teaching creationism, or ID, or any theory other than evolution, in Kansas. They are only talking about giving some air time to some valid, peer-reviewed scientific criticism against that holiest of holy grails, particle-to-people evolution (as opposed to micro-evolution, which is usually the bait-and switch thing that is offered when people object to "evolution"). And I say more power to 'em!

This is something I completely agree with. Many get so defensive against this, however, that I have to ask, is your theory so weak that it can't stand up to some honest criticism in the classroom?

Man, that sounds harsh...Sorry. Again, my intentions here are purely discussion. I apologize for any appearance of malice or mean-ness.

Man, that sounds harsh...Sorry. Again, my intentions here are purely discussion. I apologize for any appearance of malice or mean-ness.

[Spock]

personally I side with the chimps

[Spock]

personally I side with the chimps

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

This is something I completely agree with. Many get so defensive against this, however, that I have to ask, is your theory so weak that it can't stand up to some honest criticism in the classroom?

i wouldn't call it defensive... i'd call it fevor... the strength of the theory inspires the strong defense... make just as strong an offense and i'll bet that you may change some minds

confrontation and argument are good things in the scientific world... it's what it's all about

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

This is something I completely agree with. Many get so defensive against this, however, that I have to ask, is your theory so weak that it can't stand up to some honest criticism in the classroom?

i wouldn't call it defensive... i'd call it fevor... the strength of the theory inspires the strong defense... make just as strong an offense and i'll bet that you may change some minds

confrontation and argument are good things in the scientific world... it's what it's all about