NationStates Jolt Archive

Pulled from the evil fox news site.

So again this is not about forcing christianity in school right?

The lawsuit will probably fail but if history repeats they will try again and again and again and again.....

Maybe it's the coming Dark Ages for the US?

------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167235,00.html

California Religious Schools Sue University Over Creationism
Saturday, August 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES — A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.

"A threat to one religion is a threat to all," he said.

UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment, because the university had not been served with the lawsuit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.

"These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed," Poorsina.

I'd probably discriminate too if I knew they accepted theology as science.
Bob Jones, what the hell?

I agree that ID should not be taught as a science class, but it would be better suited for the philosophy class. I mean, the belief that there is some sort of natural, rational order to the universe is not exactly a new idea. Take the Ionian philosophers for example (Plato, Socrates, etc.) I think that would be a good compromise.

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:

If they can pass the tests needed to get in why not just let them in? I am really glad that when I went to college they looked at my SAT and ACT scores and not at my highschool. (cuz 90% of my teachers were idiots)

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?
If the publisher is putting out books loaded with pseudoscience, then they should be allowed to discriminate against students taught using those books.

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

No, actually, it is academic standards. Teaching that ID is science is no different than teaching that 3 + 5 = 15. The methodology is wrong.

A science textbook that includes ID as science has fallen well below acceptable academic standards. It has nothing at all to do with what religion the students believe in.

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

Being tolerant of non-science within science is bad. If we allow ID to be called a scientific theory, we have to teach the Flat-Earth theory too. We have to teach the geocentric theory of the universe? Why? Because the definition of a scientific theory is thrown out and any idea someone has that they want to call theory suddenly becomes taught in a science class.

Again, it has nothing to do with religious tolerance. Science is already tolerant of all religions, as it says nothing at all about religion. Scientific study neither assumes that an deity exists, nor assumes that such deity does not exist. Scientific study neither assumes that any religion is correct, nor assumes that it is not correct. Religion is irrelevant in science. However, if you start teaching religion within science, it is obvious that you aren't even teaching the basics - the scientific method and how it can and should be used. If you aren't teaching the basics, you are hardly up to academic standards.

Honestly, the only courses that should be restricted in this way should be science courses. A student of any religion deserves post-secondary education.
Maybe there should be a high school class devoted to teaching both evolution and ID exclusively, so that the students can decide for themselves which they believe.

If they can pass the tests needed to get in why not just let them in? I am really glad that when I went to college they looked at my SAT and ACT scores and not at my highschool. (cuz 90% of my teachers were idiots)

If your college didn't look at the grades you had already received, it was a very rare (and probably not a very good) institution indeed.

The idea behind college admission is that those most likely to complete their education get in. Thus, colleges look at past school performance, test scores, essays, extracurricular activities, etc., etc.,etc. to get a good idea of what a student is qualified to do.

If someone has been taught non-science as science, they are going to have to retake high school level science in order to be on a level with the rest of the students. This is something most colleges aren't going to take the time to provide them with - and they shouldn't have to.

Maybe there should be a high school class devoted to teaching both evolution and ID exclusively, so that the students can decide for themselves which they believe.

If students are in the habit of believing science, rather than examining it, they probably shouldn't study science at a higher level at all.

Believing in ID is a faith-based thing. It doesn't take a class. You either believe there is a Creator, or you believe that there is not one. And, in the realm of theology or philosophy, you can simply believe.

I don't understand what these people don't get.

There is supposed to be a clear distinction between Church and state, which means that in a school, which is a state facility, you cannot preach ones religion as fact, or create a curriculum based on religious viewpoints.

You can study religions and the effects they have on society, but you cannot base study around God Almighty. If you want that, you can go to a private school, which, being non-state property, you can do whatever the hell you want.

If your college didn't look at the grades you had already received, it was a very rare (and probably not a very good) institution indeed.

The idea behind college admission is that those most likely to complete their education get in. Thus, colleges look at past school performance, test scores, essays, extracurricular activities, etc., etc.,etc. to get a good idea of what a student is qualified to do.

If someone has been taught non-science as science, they are going to have to retake high school level science in order to be on a level with the rest of the students. This is something most colleges aren't going to take the time to provide them with - and they shouldn't have to.
sure they looked at my grades, but didn't judge me by my highschool. there is a difference. I got a 98-100 in all my classes in highschool. My teachers were idiots. One of my geometry teachers couldn't understand basic theorems. I was not acedemically stunted because of them though. My point is that each student should be judged on their own merits and not by which school they went to.

sure they looked at my grades, but didn't judge me by my highschool. there is a difference. I got a 98-100 in all my classes in highschool. My teachers were idiots. One of my geometry teachers couldn't understand basic theorems. I was not acedemically stunted because of them though. My point is that each student should be judged on their own merits and not by which school they went to.
So you got nearly perfect grades... and you weren't judged by them at all. I see.

And no, Demipublicents makes an excellent point: If students aren't taught real sciences in highschool, then the university doesn't have to accept them and accept that they'll be behind their peers in that area of study.

Pulled from the evil fox news site.

So again this is not about forcing christianity in school right?

The lawsuit will probably fail but if history repeats they will try again and again and again and again.....

Maybe it's the coming Dark Ages for the US?

------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167235,00.html

California Religious Schools Sue University Over Creationism
Saturday, August 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES — A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.

"A threat to one religion is a threat to all," he said.

UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment, because the university had not been served with the lawsuit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.

"These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed," Poorsina.


even if it is passed let the unprepared fuckers get thrown into REAL schooling and see if they sink or swim

I would be embarased to be one of these christian schools at not preparing their students for the real world

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:

Oh because we know the religious groups are oh so tolerant.

They claim the right to discriminate on the basis of their religion, (ie not hire homosexuals and head start money going to groups that say they have the right to only hire christian teachers) and yet they are being desciminated against because a univirsity that has no obligation to accept every applicant is discriminating against them because their text books are found lacking.

If they want a religious "science" class then they should probably go to Bob Jones University.

even if it is passed let the unprepared fuckers get thrown into REAL schooling and see if they sink or swim

I would be embarased to be one of these christian schools at not preparing their students for the real world

Oh but you can already hear the arguements of the leftist anti-religion university staff discriminating against students of the faith. More lawsuits would follow....

I don't understand what these people don't get.

There is supposed to be a clear distinction between Church and state, which means that in a school, which is a state facility, you cannot preach ones religion as fact, or create a curriculum based on religious viewpoints.

You can study religions and the effects they have on society, but you cannot base study around God Almighty. If you want that, you can go to a private school, which, being non-state property, you can do whatever the hell you want.
from what I understand these were private schools.

and the separation between church and state thing? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I don't really see how that applies here.

from what I understand these were private schools.

and the separation between church and state thing? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I don't really see how that applies here.

The UC system is not private....

So you got nearly perfect grades... and you weren't judged by them at all. I see.

And no, Demipublicents makes an excellent point: If students aren't taught real sciences in highschool, then the university doesn't have to accept them and accept that they'll be behind their peers in that area of study.
judged by my grades yes.
judged by where I went to highschool. no

there is a difference.

my other point... lets say they aren't behind their peers can you still discriminate against them just because they went to religious school? that doesn't seem fair. :rolleyes:

The UC system is not private....
no but one would assume the religious schools teaching the curriculum are. I mean wouldn't you all throw a huge fit if the state had religious schools?? :rolleyes:

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:

Accepting bullshit as fact isn't tolerance. ID isn't a 'dissenting viewpoint' it's unscientific crap.

judged by my grades yes.
judged by where I went to highschool. no

there is a difference.

my other point... lets say they aren't behind their peers can you still discriminate against them just because they went to religious school? that doesn't seem fair. :rolleyes:
Why, we aren't discriminating against them if they know what they are doing. However, a student who has only been taught ID is in for a rude surprise in Bio 101.

judged by my grades yes.
judged by where I went to highschool. no

there is a difference.

my other point... lets say they aren't behind their peers can you still discriminate against them just because they went to religious school? that doesn't seem fair. :rolleyes:
The difference is they are not teaching science

If the collage requires a SCIENCE prereq then SCIENCE is what the Highschool has to teach in order to qualify

They fail to help their students meet the prereq they fail their students period

I could call band science but it does not mean that a collage schould accept it as such no matter what my grades were in that class

Why, we aren't discriminating against them if they know what they are doing. However, a student who has only been taught ID is in for a rude surprise in Bio 101.
maybe there should be a more comprehensive entrance exam then. I just don't see how it is fair to say "oh you went to religious school you must be dumb, no college for you"

judged by my grades yes.
judged by where I went to highschool. no

there is a difference.

my other point... lets say they aren't behind their peers can you still discriminate against them just because they went to religious school? that doesn't seem fair. :rolleyes:

Well it is not that simple. If your highschool is known as a bad school, then the fact that you got A's really doesn't mean much. Kind of like California bragging about primary schools being first in the state when they are almost last in the nation.

They aren't being discriminated against because they went to a religous school, they have classes that the schools will not accept. Big difference.

Discrimination? Yes.

Wrong? Kinda, at least. I don't totally understand the situation from this blurb of an article, but it seems the University is controlling the school system, including private schools. That's not quite right. UC should set requirements for itself and maybe even public schools. If the Christian schools are private schools, then the courses should fly (duh).

About science. This is a prime example (if I'm seeing this particular one correctly) of non-atheist views being discriminated against in our schools. What should be taught is what is known to be truth. Since we don't know crap, multiple sides need to be shown. I have no problem with either side, and neither should be afraid of the facts. Unfortunately, both are. ID is afraid of being disproved, which is impossible (same with being proven), and BB/Evo is afraid the facts will get out on itself, so it passes off opposition as radical ID support (since there are only two prominent possibilities). The difference is, BB/Evo is currently in power, so it enforces its own views (with positive sanction, negative sanction, and censorship). The other side would flip this if it could (which would be, ironically, un-Christian of it).

Maybe, eventually, we'll realize we're all on the same team and stop concentrating on winning. Jerks.... =P


Basically, this case has a chance, but not much of one in California, with a University against it. BTW, who is Bob Jones, and how did he get HIS own University? Thology =/= science. ID is science-ish. It just has little of what we call "empirical" evidence. ID comes into play when we realize that science cannot answer that question without stepping all over itself.

Lol, Fox is evil? Don't you just mean popular media in general? At least Fox has O'Reilly, which is completely unbiased, by the way... >_> Good show though.

maybe there should be a more comprehensive entrance exam then. I just don't see how it is fair to say "oh you went to religious school you must be dumb, no college for you"
The problem is they ARE using science class as an "entrance" exam ... the problem being the highschools dont have a "science" class

The difference is they are not teaching science

If the collage requires a SCIENCE prereq then SCIENCE is what the Highschool has to teach in order to qualify

They fail to help their students meet the prereq they fail their students period

I could call band science but it does not mean that a collage schould accept it as such no matter what my grades were in that class
well, I really doubt that they are not teaching science at all, they are maybe missing one theory, but from what I understand they are teaching both. If not though and the students are unprepared then there are always remedial classes. make their parents pay for those if they didn't pay attention to the education their kids were getting.

well, I really doubt that they are not teaching science at all, they are maybe missing one theory, but from what I understand they are teaching both. If not though and the students are unprepared then there are always remedial classes. make their parents pay for those if they didn't pay attention to the education their kids were getting.
They were misleading their students into thinking ID was a theory ... that would deffinatly taint someones view on what real science is

If they are willing to flex their deffinition of science far enough to include ID they were OBVIOUSLY not geting a good education ... not one of sufficent quality to qualify

no but one would assume the religious schools teaching the curriculum are. I mean wouldn't you all throw a huge fit if the state had religious schools?? :rolleyes:

Yes. Because that would violate the Constitution.

The UC system has never pandered to theology. Why should they? They have students from all over the world, Berkeley especially, and they are not all Christians.

The fact you go to a religious schools means nothing. Math is still math and English is still english but ID/Creationism is not Biology.

Again, they want a religious "science" class then they could go to the private schools.....

Well it is not that simple. If your highschool is known as a bad school, then the fact that you got A's really doesn't mean much.
Yeah I know. My school is first in the district but is still pretty substandard.
Thank God my SAT and ACT scores were near perfect....


They aren't being discriminated against because they went to a religous school, they have classes that the schools will not accept. Big difference.
okay I can understand that a little better. I still don't like it.

its not that these students cant get into UC, its that they wont be credited with having taken biology or american history if they were taught using vastly inferior text books.

the "academic police" of the UC system reviews course work of various schools and decides what passes muster. this is most important in privately run schools that arent under the aegis of the state board of education.

some of these student with excellent grades and other qualifications will still get into a california U. but they will probably be required to take remedial classes in those subjects as if they had never taken them at all.

its not that these students cant get into UC, its that they wont be credited with having taken biology or american history if they were taught using vastly inferior text books.

the "academic police" of the UC system reviews course work of various schools and decides what passes muster. this is most important in privately run schools that arent under the aegis of the state board of education.

some of these student with excellent grades and other qualifications will still get into a california U. but they will probably be required to take remedial classes in those subjects as if they had never taken them at all.
Exactly same reason there is a math placement course to our univ ... to determine if you need to take remedial cources

It seems rather unfair to discriminate against these students because you don't like their highschool. Usually they don't have much say in where they go. But this type of discrimination goes on all the time since underprivaledged schools often don't do a good job educating. The SATs however don't do a good job of measuring what was learned. Education is more then a memorized list of vocab words and speed math.

Perhaps you could have affirmative action for these kids that had the dissadvantage of living in a backwards commuity. I'm generally not a big fan of affirmative action, however, so I'm not sure I would like this solution. A better one might be to force them to take a remedial class. Lots of colleges do math testing after acccepting students and then put them in remedial classes if thats the only thing they are defficient in.

The important thing is that they understand the theory of evolution, not that they believe it. I personally believe it, but you can't really make someone believe something. There are lots of examples of people believing in things you find silly but you don't discriminate against them if they are otherwise intelligent. For example, schools don't ban thouse who believe in scientology even though the vast majority of us think they are morons for believing so.

In summery I think the best solution would to test them on the theory of evolution after acceptance along with testing in math and foreign language. If they don't uderstand evolution, put them in Evolution 050.

Ugh. As much as I don't want to respond to this thread and get my head torn off, I must.

First of all, I would like to point out that Christianity is the only religion that will take a beating from just about anyone and not usually complain. Any other religion that feels it is slighted in the least will bitch and whine till they have there way.

Secondly, not accepting the credit from How Christianity influenced American History is idiotic! The United States was founded on Christian Principles by mostly men who were Christians. Without Christianity, America wouldn't exist!

Exactly same reason there is a math placement course to our univ ... to determine if you need to take remedial cources
yeah I wouldn't have a problem at all with them (UC) making the students take remedial classes if they needed them. I do have a problem with them just turning them away(which is what I took from the article.)

Ugh. As much as I don't want to respond to this thread and get my head torn off, I must.

First of all, I would like to point out that Christianity is the only religion that will take a beating from just about anyone and not usually complain. Any other religion that feels it is slighted in the least will bitch and whine till they have there way.

Secondly, not accepting the credit from How Christianity influenced American History is idiotic! The United States was founded on Christian Principles by mostly men who were Christians. Without Christianity, America wouldn't exist!
Lol I think you need to take that american history course yourself lol

yeah I wouldn't have a problem at all with them (UC) making the students take remedial classes if they needed them. I do have a problem with them just turning them away(which is what I took from the article.)
I dident ... all it said was the COURSES were rejected not the students

That means the studants that take thoes corses dont automaticaly get their grades evaluated

AFter that point it is the university's decision if they want to spend the money on training under par students up to the level they should have been at if their highschool was doing its job

First of all, I would like to point out that Christianity is the only religion that will take a beating from just about anyone and not usually complain. What realm do you live in? Christians complain all the time.


Any other religion that feels it is slighted in the least will bitch and whine till they have there way. *coughsBuddhismcoughs*

The United States was founded on Christian Principles by mostly men who were Christians. Without Christianity, America wouldn't exist! I believe the treaty of Tripoli contradicts you on all accounts.

Actually, I can go back even further. The first English Settlers in America were Puritans and Quakers, Christian Men. Both settled in America to escape Religious persecution, and if Christianity didn't exist, niether would those settlers, and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered North America. Therefore, you, me, and anyone else with direct connections to America would not exist.

Oh, so the schools failed to teach anything other than ID? I don't think we can assume this based on the article.

What we know is that courses weren't accepted because they opposed Darwin. This could mean omission, but likely not. Maybe it was biased against Darwin. Maybe the books included information that went against evolution. You know, the information omitted in almost all high school textbooks. In any case, we don't know for sure.

I vote for the latter option, since a "Christian Influence" course was also unaccepted. Hopefully they did the same to "African-American Influence" courses, for the sake of a single standard.... Doubt it.

In summery I think the best solution would to test them on the theory of evolution after acceptance along with testing in math and foreign language. If they don't uderstand evolution, put them in Evolution 050.
And then the university has to absorb the cost of teaching under-par students the basics they SHOULD have known coming in

I vote for the latter option, since a "Christian Influence" course was also unaccepted. Hopefully they did the same to "African-American Influence" courses, for the sake of a single standard.... Doubt it.

Indeed, since California is a highly secular and liberal state.

Oh, so the schools failed to teach anything other than ID? I don't think we can assume this based on the article.

What we know is that courses weren't accepted because they opposed Darwin. This could mean omission, but likely not. Maybe it was biased against Darwin. Maybe the books included information that went against evolution. You know, the information omitted in almost all high school textbooks. In any case, we don't know for sure.

I vote for the latter option, since a "Christian Influence" course was also unaccepted. Hopefully they did the same to "African-American Influence" courses, for the sake of a single standard.... Doubt it.
Bah any class that allows ID into the science class room is by default defrauding their students as to what science is. showing automaticaly that the teachers or administration is in no position to teach what SCIENCE is

And then the university has to absorb the cost of teaching under-par students the basics they SHOULD have known coming in

What is not to understand? Evolution is the theory that states that we evolved from apes, and everything evolved from a primordial soup.

and if Christianity didn't exist, niether would those settlers, and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered North America. Therefore, you, me, and anyone else with direct connections to America would not exist.
Chris Columbus set sail for money, not religion. Seems you're in need of a mighty amount of history lessons kiddo.

What is not to understand? Evolution is the theory that states that we evolved from apes, and everything evolved from a primordial soup.
And you show either through perposefull ommission or lack of knoledge more then the basics of what evolution is

sigh,
I didn't read all the posts and it looks like my idea has allready been sugested

Chris Columbus set sail for money, not religion. Seems you're in need of a mighty amount of history lessons kiddo.

Ah, but the Spain back in Chris's time controlled religion as much as Britain. So, without Christianity, there would be no Christopher Columbus.

What is not to understand? Evolution is the theory that states that we evolved from apes, and everything evolved from a primordial soup.

theres a little more to it than that...

Belator is right. If Jesus had never existed, this world would be very different. The effect is HUGE and all-encompassing. Not just American history. Look at Europe. Oh, and guess where most of America came from?

And yes, the US was founded on Christian principles. Whether it developed and continued this way or not is irrelevant to the statement. America was heavily influenced by Christians/Christianity.


Also, I never thought ID was much in the way of science in itself. It's a necessary add-on. You think the Big-Bang Theory is science? [/trap]

What is not to understand? Evolution is the theory that states that we evolved from apes, and everything evolved from a primordial soup.
This is exactly why the courses aren't being considered. They're teaching bullshit like this.

Belator is right. If Jesus had never existed, this world would be very different. The effect is HUGE and all-encompassing. Not just American history. Look at Europe. Oh, and guess where most of America came from?

And yes, the US was founded on Christian principles. Whether it developed and continued this way or not is irrelevant to the statement. America was heavily influenced by Christians/Christianity.


Also, I never thought ID was much in the way of science in itself. It's a necessary add-on. You think the Big-Bang Theory is science? [/trap]
mmmm so full of delicious assumptions


As far as the big bang ... good or bad theory it atleast CAN be a scientific theory
Unlike ID

This is exactly why the courses aren't being considered. They're teaching bullshit like this.
Lol I was going to say the same thing but my comp freaked ... god must have done it

Care to take on my assumptions in a less vague way? For my own benefit..

Edit: Oh yeah, BB, I forgot. It's a hypothesis. And it contradicts science in areas of thermodynamics or, alternatively, in causality.

Care to take on my assumptions in a less vague way? For my own benefit..
Care to start with christs actual existance being the motivating factor rather then just the idea or myth of christ?

I could say odin made massive changes in history as well

Does that mean he existed?

What's the difference whether he existed or not? People believed he did. End of story (er...beginning).

Lol I was going to say the same thing but my comp freaked ... god must have done it

you've upset him, go sacrifice a goat...

Edit: Oh yeah, BB, I forgot. It's a hypothesis. And it contradicts science in areas of thermodynamics or, alternatively, in causality.
No, it doesn't. A simple foundation in physics is all that you need to know that the laws of the universe did not exist until after the Big Bang.

Oh yeah, BB, I forgot. It's a hypothesis. And it contradicts science in areas of thermodynamics or, alternatively, in causality.
Big bang is a theory. It does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics, and you claiming so simply displays your absolute ignorance of thermodynamics.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a load of hooey.

What's the difference whether he existed or not? People believed he did. End of story (er...beginning).
Because accepting it as truth has a massive influance over my life ... one that I may not nessisarily agree with ... so it is a big differance to me

QUOTE: "No, it doesn't. A simple foundation in physics is all that you need to know that the laws of the universe did not exist until after the Big Bang."

Then science can never study it. It cannot become a theory. It is stuck in belief, much like ID.

Science cannot prove Creation wrong. Creation has never been proven wrong. I believe it is true. I think that courses teaching Darwin's twisted ways of Evolution should be banned from all courses.

Science cannot prove Creation wrong. Creation has never been proven wrong. I believe it is true. I think that courses teaching Darwin's twisted ways of Evolution should be banned from all courses.
Thats EXACTLY the reason CREATIONISM has ABSOLUTLY no place in the science class

Thank you for making our point for us

You show exactly why Creationism and ID is NOT science

Science cannot prove Creation wrong. Creation has never been proven wrong. I believe it is true. I think that courses teaching Darwin's twisted ways of Evolution should be banned from all courses.


ohhh, the first troll. *waves* Hi, Troll :)

*looks at postcount of one* And it might possibly be a puppet!!! Could we be so lucky? *giggles*

QUOTE: "No, it doesn't. A simple foundation in physics is all that you need to know that the laws of the universe did not exist until after the Big Bang."

Then science can never study it. It cannot become a theory. It is stuck in belief, much like ID.
No, scientists do study the big bang.

Scientists cannot study outside the big bang, this is true, which is why any proposals about "before" the big bang can only be hypotheses... or musings, really.

ohhh, the first troll. *waves* Hi, Troll :)

We need one of those clickers to keep track of them. Where there's one, there's going to be more.

Science cannot prove Creation wrong. Creation has never been proven wrong. I believe it is true. I think that courses teaching Darwin's twisted ways of Evolution should be banned from all courses.

Either:
1) You're trolling. In which case, that wasn't all that humorous, but decent effort anyways. I give it a B-

2) You're serious. In which case, I can only say that what you believe on the matter is irrelevant: evolution has happened, and continues to happen, regardless of how much you malign the central concept of modern biology. Luckily, you (and your creationist ilk) are probably not making major administrative decisions about public education (especially university education) in this country (yet).


Re: Big Bang
To those who say that BB can't be studied scientifically, you're dead wrong. By studying the universe, and especially the motion of the galaxies and expansion of space, also the cosmic microwave background, we come to the more or less inescapable conclusion that at one point, roughly 12-14 billion years ago, the entirety of the visible Universe was compacted into a singularity, from which issued a tremendous amount of energy. This is the general basis of the Big Bang. The specifics require lots of physics that I have yet to either complete or understand, so I won't try to explain them as I would invariably fuck that up.

OK, this forum is faster than my internet connection...as of 12:39 forum time....

The thermodynamic contradiction comes from the wing of BB theorists that think the universe may come back together via gravity, then re-BB again, and so on, and so on. However, this system would suffer entropy, and could not happen forever.


Upward, you are quite right. It makes a HUGE difference to your life. However, my use of the phrase was in the context of its effect on human history. Here, the effects of belief in Jesus can be seen.


Schmoo, all I have to say is "..."

Ok, I DO have more.... In studying the Bible, you cannot conclude that it is opposed to much of the theory of Evolution. True, the Bible can't be proven wrong (though there's nothing wrong with looking into it seriously). At least you know that. Boy, I hope you're joking.... =P

Thats EXACTLY the reason CREATIONISM has ABSOLUTLY no place in the science class
Thank you for making our point for us

"Well, I believe its true, and I think that is false, so that clearly demonstrates the need to teach this idea"

Well then, I believe that 2+2=5 is true and that 2+2=4 is a twisted and immoral corruption. Time to teach it, I guess.

OK, this forum is faster than my internet connection...as of 12:39 forum time....

The thermodynamic contradiction comes from the wing of BB theorists that think the universe may come back together via gravity, then re-BB again, and so on, and so on. However, this system would suffer entropy, and could not happen forever.


Upward, you are quite right. It makes a HUGE difference to your life. However, my use of the phrase was in the context of its effect on human history. Here, the effects of belief in Jesus can be seen.


Schmoo, all I have to say is "..."

Ok, I DO have more.... In studying the Bible, you cannot conclude that it is opposed to much of the theory of Evolution. True, the Bible can't be proven wrong (though there's nothing wrong with looking into it seriously). At least you know that. Boy, I hope you're joking.... =P
Not exactly. If the universe has nothing to leak heat into, it won't suffer from an entropy death.

OK, this forum is faster than my internet connection...as of 12:39 forum time....

The thermodynamic contradiction comes from the wing of BB theorists that think the universe may come back together via gravity, then re-BB again, and so on, and so on. However, this system would suffer entropy, and could not happen forever.




Actually, since the universe's expansion has been observed to be accelerating, the so-called "Big Crunch" has been more or less ruled out. Thus eliminating your putative contradiction. But extra points for trying there. ;)

Ummm, hello??! Don't generalize Schmoo as a typical Christian. Some just need more study (no offense if you were being serious). It's decidedly un-Christian to be intolerant of others; same with trying to impose it on others. It must always be based on choice.

Maybe some Bible study is in order...and I don't just mean for Schmoo.

I transferred to a public high school in my senior year after attending a Catholic school for the first three years of high school. One of the things that annoyed me when I transferred was that they didn't count any of my three courses in religion. These courses covered Roman Catholic cathechism and were not meant in any way to be "disguised" as a history or science course. I can definately understand why a public institute of eduction would ignore the grades from these courses. There is definately something wrong with allowing students to achieve a diploma and/or honors from a publicly funded school based even partially on his/her performance in a religion class. At the same time, however, I worked hard to earn an "A" in those classes. The fact that that hard work was entirely ignored when I transferred was annoying. I suppose there really isn't any middle ground here, though. If the public school takes into account, even in the slightest bit, performance in a religion course (even if it is only in consideration of the hard work the student did for that course), then it is allowing a student's religious education to effect his grades and/or overall transcripts. It kind of is a no win situation.

The thermodynamic contradiction comes from the wing of BB theorists that think the universe may come back together via gravity, then re-BB again, and so on, and so on. However, this system would suffer entropy, and could not happen forever.

The repeating Big Bang Theory does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that the energy within the universe remains constant. Because the universe will always have the same amount of energy at any given time (beginning or end, take ur pick), energy cannot be lost if the universe collapes into itself via the re-Big-Bang theory (theres no where else for the energy to go to).

Edit: Damn! Too slow on the trigger :p

I transferred to a public high school in my senior year after attending a Catholic school for the first three years of high school. One of the things that annoyed me when I transferred was that they didn't count any of my three courses in religion. These courses covered Roman Catholic cathechism and were not meant in any way to be "disguised" as a history or science course. I can definately understand why a public institute of eduction would ignore the grades from these courses. There is definately something wrong with allowing students to achieve a diploma and/or honors from a publicly funded school based even partially on his/her performance in a religion class. At the same time, however, I worked hard to earn an "A" in those classes. The fact that that hard work was entirely ignored when I transferred was annoying. I suppose there really isn't any middle ground here, though. If the public school takes into account, even in the slightest bit, performance in a religion course (even if it is only in consideration of the hard work the student did for that course), then it is allowing a student's religious education to effect his grades and/or overall transcripts. It kind of is a no win situation.
There is a difference in accepting religous grades as indication of work ethic

And accepting thoes religous classes to teach adaquate content and count for "test out" sort of situation

It's decidedly un-Christian to be intolerant of others; same with trying to impose it on others.

Well i'm not a Christian so it's not an issue now is it

Its not discrimination, as far as i know they arent banning christians from becoming students, just requireing that all students take classes preparing them for those at UC, with textbooks up to their standards.

Nonono. I'm not saying the energy is destroyed, but that some leaks past the "point of no return." Therefore, it's out of the system.

Anyways, if the BCrunch is outruled, then it doesn't matter if thermodynamics is a contradiction. All still have to deal with causality.

QUOTE: "Well i'm not a Christian so it's not an issue now is it"

Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to you. =/ No offense. I was talking to Schmoo.

Nonono. I'm not saying the energy is destroyed, but that some leaks past the "point of no return." Therefore, it's out of the system.

Anyways, if the BCrunch is outruled, then it doesn't matter if thermodynamics is a contradiction. All still have to deal with causality.

Well, the BB may have causality issues, but so does creationism. BB says "we really can't know what happened 'before,' since time came to be in the BB." Whereas Creationism says "God did it" without positing how God came to be. So we have one theory (an actual theory, not the colloquial usage) that is based on the available empirical evidence and is logically derived...and one arbitrary belief (not a theory, I won't dignify it with that word) whose empirical evidence consists of "This book says so, and the book is true because it says that it's true" and "People have believed this for a long time. Including lots of famous people. And lots of people believe it now."


Given these two options, I'd say that the scientific one is just a smidge more, y'know...logical.

maybe there should be a more comprehensive entrance exam then. I just don't see how it is fair to say "oh you went to religious school you must be dumb, no college for you"

That isn't what they are saying. What they are saying is, "To meet the prerequisites for entrance into our school, you must have had an approved science course. You don't have that course, so you cannot be admitted."

It is no different from saying, "To come to our school, you must have a minimum SAT score of 1000. You don't have that, so you cannot be admitted."

It has nothing at all to do with religion and everything to do with the lack of education these schools are providing.

Wrong? Kinda, at least. I don't totally understand the situation from this blurb of an article, but it seems the University is controlling the school system, including private schools.

No, the University is setting standards for who can and cannot be admitted. If a private school wants to teach from a science book that says the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, it can do so. It just means that the university will not count the science classes from that school as prereqs for admission to the school

About science. This is a prime example (if I'm seeing this particular one correctly) of non-atheist views being discriminated against in our schools.

Science is neither theist nor atheist. Science can posit nothing about the existence or non-existence of a God. That is for philosophy and theology to discuss.

What should be taught is what is known to be truth.

So the only subject that can be taught in school is basic math, since we defined it that way and therefore know it to be the truth?

Nothing in science is "known to be truth." It is "known within a certain degree of certainity and therefore seen as the best theory yet." This would describe evolutionary theory.

I have no problem with either side, and neither should be afraid of the facts.

I don't have any problem with either side believing whatever. However, ID/Creationism are not science. They do not follow the scientific method. The only way they could possibly be used in a science classroom is as examples of pseudoscience or just plain bad science. (And I doubt those pushing for this would be ok with that).

Unfortunately, both are. ID is afraid of being disproved, which is impossible

Exactly! And since it cannot be disproven, it is not science.

Evo is afraid the facts will get out on itself,

Hardly. Getting the facts out is exactly what teaching is all about.

Discrimination? Yes.

Wrong? Kinda, at least. I don't totally understand the situation from this blurb of an article, but it seems the University is controlling the school system, including private schools. That's not quite right. UC should set requirements for itself and maybe even public schools. If the Christian schools are private schools, then the courses should fly (duh).
Why? Would you say the same about a private school that taught in math courses that 2 + 2 = 3 and that gravity is caused by velcro?


About science. This is a prime example (if I'm seeing this particular one correctly) of non-atheist views being discriminated against in our schools.
No, it's not. It's about having a certain standard and not allowing junk to be certified as pristine. And it has nothing to do with atheism. Far too many people think that not mentioning god = atheism, which it isn't.


What should be taught is what is known to be truth. Since we don't know crap, multiple sides need to be shown.
Wrong. We do know that evolution is a fact, and ID isn't a "side"; it's junk. It isn't science. It isn't falsifiable. It's not testable. It's just junk. It's like teaching astrology and phrenology in sociology!

What is not to understand? Evolution is the theory that states that we evolved from apes,
No it doesn't.

Hint: learn about that which you are speaking. Then you won't look stupid.

Edit: Oh yeah, BB, I forgot. It's a hypothesis. And it contradicts science in areas of thermodynamics
No it doesn't.


or, alternatively, in causality.
Nor that.

oh-for-two. Want to try for strike 3?

Lol, you better not call ID a theory.

The "time came to be" concept fails as a standalone in BB, because that is an arbitrary belief. Besides, you still have the issue of where the matter came from. From a logical standpoint, ID and BB are still equals.

I like your evidence for Christianity. You are looking at the same evidence that so many Christians and non-Christians are tricked by every day of their lives. Some are falling for the truth. BTW, that's not empirical evidence is it?

The thermodynamic contradiction comes from the wing of BB theorists that think the universe may come back together via gravity, then re-BB again, and so on, and so on. However, this system would suffer entropy, and could not happen forever.
Wrong. Entropy is a measure of the usable energy of closed systems within the universe, and does not apply qua universe.


Ok, I DO have more.... In studying the Bible, you cannot conclude that it is opposed to much of the theory of Evolution. True, the Bible can't be proven wrong
It has been with many stories. Jericho. The Flood. The Exodus. Ai. Creation. etc. None of that happened.

It has been with many stories. Jericho. The Flood. The Exodus. Ai. Creation. etc. None of that happened.
I don't think you can really say that none of that happened.

I don't think you can really say that none of that happened.
I can and do. It's been shown through archaeological digs and other studies that:

1. Jericho was abandoned at the time the Israelites were supposed to have conquered it.

2 Ai means "ruins", and you can't conquer ruins

3. There never was a mass exodus of the jews from Egypt, because there never was a mass enslavement of the jews in Egypt.

4. The flood is simply impossible. The rain would have had to fall at something like MACH 3 to get enough water.

5. The creation stories are cobbled from Egyptian and Babylonian sources.

The important thing is that they understand the theory of evolution, not that they believe it.

Actually, that really isn't the issue either. They need to understand what science is. Teaching ID in a science class will confuse a student, as they are teaching philosophy and theology as science. The only way to truly incorporate either into a science course is to teach you what types of things are outside the scientific method and therefore unscientific.

Hell, most students get out of high school without understanding the scientific method anyways. We don't need to compound that by teaching them pseudoscience as actual science.

Lol, you better not call ID a theory.

The "time came to be" concept fails as a standalone in BB, because that is an arbitrary belief. Besides, you still have the issue of where the matter came from. From a logical standpoint, ID and BB are still equals.

I like your evidence for Christianity. You are looking at the same evidence that so many Christians and non-Christians are tricked by every day of their lives. Some are falling for the truth. BTW, that's not empirical evidence is it?
Actually, the matter condensed out of the massive amount of energy released by the BB. But I'm not a physicist (yet. still in high school, but I've got big plans), so I really can't go into much more detail. The idea that time came to be in the BB is well-supported: if the BB created the entire universe, time is an obvious part of that. You can't have a four-dimensional spacetime without the time part, and the whole shebang came out of the BB.

Your remarks on Christianity are kinda confusing, but let me see what I can do: the "evidence" for faith is severely lacking from a logical standpoint. If we have an explanation for the Universe that encompasses essentially everything (except that fuzzy bit at the very very very beginning, but we're working on that part), using only logically consistent natural phenomena, why on Earth would you arbitrarily throw in anything supernatural? I could explain gravity by saying that some transcendent being personally pushes every piece of matter in the universe towards every other piece, but its far simpler (and more consistent) to use well-established, well-tested natural principles to do the same job. The scientific explanation also gives the added benefit of being able to be used as a predictive model. Instead of being subject to the arbitrary will of some supernatural entity (for whom there is no empirical evidence), the Universe tends to behave according to certain principles, thus allowing us to use those principles to accomplish certain tasks.
Good luck asking God to bring an image of something else to your eyes. It's far easier to use the power of science to build a camera and TV according to the principles of electromagnetism to do the same thing.

To reiterate: the scientific approach is better not only because it relies on empirical evidence, but also because it is testable and its predictions can be tested and put to practical use. The faith-based approach isn't testable and unnecessarily complicates things. Additionally, there's no way to practically apply the principles of a faith-based explanation of the universe to produce any discernable effect on anything.

I can and do. It's been shown through archaeological digs and other studies that:

1. Jericho was abandoned at the time the Israelites were supposed to have conquered it.

2 Ai means "ruins", and you can't conquer ruins

3. There never was a mass exodus of the jews from Egypt, because there never was a mass enslavement of the jews in Egypt.

4. The flood is simply impossible. The rain would have had to fall at something like MACH 3 to get enough water.

5. The creation stories are cobbled from Egyptian and Babylonian sources.

I am not going to even argue with you about this. you provide no sources.

btw on 4 God can make it rain as much as He wants it to, so that really isn't even an arguement.

"I reject your reality and insert my own"

QUOTE: "No, it doesn't. A simple foundation in physics is all that you need to know that the laws of the universe did not exist until after the Big Bang."

Then science can never study it. It cannot become a theory. It is stuck in belief, much like ID.

Incorrect. Science can study back to the initial conditions (if there was a beginning). At this point, Big Bang theory describes what those inital conditions might have been. No evidence has yet disproven those intial conidtions.

One cannot know what came before. One cannot know what caused it, if there was a cause. But one can study as far back as the initial conditions within the universe.

The important thing is that they understand the theory of evolution, not that they believe it.

I'd say that accepting the theory of evolution (well, at least its basic premises) is inevitable if one understands it fully. If one has been thoroughly taught evolution, understands it, and still rejects it, then one is either:
-Lying,
-Delusional, or
-Willfully ignoring the evidence in order to hang on to a myopic, but comforting, worldview.

Science cannot prove Creation wrong.


Nor does it try to.


The end.

I'd say that accepting the theory of evolution (well, at least its basic premises) is inevitable if one understands it fully. If one has been thoroughly taught evolution, understands it, and still rejects it, then one is either:
-Lying,
-Delusional, or
-Willfully ignoring the evidence in order to hang on to a myopic, but comforting, worldview.
the problem is that many people are not presented the whole evolution story they are inundated with half truths, and sometimes flat out lies.

I believe in evolution and I believe in God.
so hows that working for you?

Ahhh! Too much to repond to. (1:19 forum time)

Entropy (in my use) went ahead and applied to the universe, anyways.

You still have problems with causality unless you're willing to settle for the same ID does....that time has not always been. Which has no proof I'm aware of. And don't give me the "you're wrong, therefore you're wrong argument."

QUOTE: "It has been with many stories. Jericho. The Flood. The Exodus. Ai. Creation. etc. None of that happened."

O_o Huh? How do you know? Perhaps an earthquake (set in motion by God before he made time)? The Exodus? Explain. Creation? You limit God. This is not Biblical. He could've created stuff however he wanted to.

BB is junk, too. It's not very testable when it comes down to it. Sure, you can look at the effects, but not the event's origin. Which does matter. Christians can look at God's effects. Not his origin.


BTW, now that I know what the article was actually saying....

I didn't say that science posits on theism. I said the schools do. However, this case isn't as bad as I figured. With the still limited information, I can't conclude much more.

Yes, I know that Christianity is not science. The courses may still have been valid, even though they teach about ID as an alternative to science in that particular area. This is no worse than most high-school science, which doesn't do a very good job with the issue of scientific fallability (most people are clueless). Should those courses be removed? How will they be identified? It's a science course, but it should be allowed to not always be science. As long as it teaches the science part well.

That might be all....

the problem is that many people are not presented the whole evolution story they are inundated with half truths, and sometimes flat out lies.

I believe in evolution and I believe in God.
so hows that working for you?
I would say that being presented with half-truths and lies about evolution would probably motivate one to reject it. If taught properly, acceptance of evolution should progress logically from an understanding of it, excepting the three circumstances I mentioned.

I accept the validity of evolution by natural selection, and I don't believe in your God or anyone else's. And it's working out terrifically for me, thanks.

Yes, I know that Christianity is not science. The courses may still have been valid, even though they teach about ID as an alternative to science in that particular area. This is no worse than most high-school science, which doesn't do a very good job with the issue of scientific fallability (most people are clueless). Should those courses be removed? How will they be identified? It's a science course, but it should be allowed to not always be science. As long as it teaches the science part well.

That might be all....

A science course should teach only science and its applications. Teaching thoroughly unscientific hooey like ID in a science class is as much of a non-sequitur as would be teaching German in a calculus class. Its irrelevant, but worse, contradicts the actual material of the class. Thus any class teaching ID that purports to be a science class is at best incomplete and at worst thoroughly useless.


Edit: Out for dinner, but hopefully the thread won't have totally grown beyond my ability to catch up later...

I am not going to even argue with you about this. you provide no sources.
o-tay. Here you go:

1. Jericho: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html

2. Ai: http://dict.die.net/ai/

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Ai
ruins. (1.) One of the royal cities of the Canaanites (Josh.
10:1; Gen. 12:8; 13:3). It was the scene of Joshua's defeat, and
afterwards of his victory. It was the second Canaanite city
taken by Israel (Josh. 7:2-5; 8:1-29). It lay rebuilt and
inhibited by the Benjamites (Ezra 2:28; Neh. 7:32; 11:31). It
lay to the east of Bethel, "beside Beth-aven." The spot which is
most probably the site of this ancient city is Haiyan, 2 miles
east from Bethel. It lay up the Wady Suweinit, a steep, rugged
valley, extending from the Jordan valley to Bethel.

(2.) A city in the Ammonite territory (Jer. 49:3). Some have
thought that the proper reading of the word is Ar (Isa. 15:1)


3. No Exodus: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684869136/102-3791771-6008166?v=glance

4. Your cop-out ad hockery notwithstanding, rain falling at MACH 3 would annihilate everything, including the ark.

5. Creation sources: http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

You still have problems with causality
No we don't.



"It has been with many stories. Jericho. The Flood. The Exodus. Ai. Creation. etc. None of that happened."

O_o Huh? How do you know?
Read down further. And please--no ad hoc crap like " He could've created stuff however he wanted to."


BB is junk, too.
No, it's got evidence.


It's not very testable when it comes down to it.
Sure it is, from the standpoint of understanding the past.

4. Your cop-out ad hockery notwithstanding, rain falling at MACH 3 would annihilate everything, including the ark.

since you didnt give a link for this one, i will for you :):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Ok, imagine for a second we lived in a 3 dimensional universe instead of a 4 dimensional universe.

Now, imagine that this 2 spatial dimension representation of our universe was actually the surface of a balloon. Draw a ton of dots on the balloon to represent galaxies, stars, etc.

As you blow the balloon up, each dot gets farther away form each other dot. From any one dot, it would look like the universe was expanding away from that point, but it's really the fabric of spacetime stretching away and expanding.

Now, run that in reverse. The balloon shrinks smaller and smaller and everything gets closer and closer together.

The Big Bang theory states, simply, that at one point, the universe was infinitely dense and infinitely hot, meaning all the energy of the universe and space-time was all crunched up onto a single, dimensionless point. A singularity, if you will.

This theory was originally proposed to explain the observed Cosmic Background Radiation at the beginning of the 20th century. It has been further refined by applications of new science such as quantum mechanics and the burgeoning field of M-Theory.

You can reject BBT out of hand if you really want to (you wouldn't be alone, Einstein purposely went out of his way to include variables in his equations that allowed for a solid-state universe instead of an expanding one, but he eventually admitted to it), but then you have to come up with another way of explaining the CBR.

I'd just like to point out that there's only one place in the world where this newfangled old Creationism chestnut is roasting:

America.

Mull that over for a sec, kids - you want to be seen by an entire rest-of-the-planet, Third World included, as the Greatest Nation In The World™, and yet you don't think you're hurting your reputation by letting your schools and your children be bullied by a gang of fundamentalist hooligans with no respect for academia?

Good luck with the job of dumbing down America, guys.

o-tay. Here you go:

1. Jericho: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html

2. Ai: http://dict.die.net/ai/

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Ai
ruins. (1.) One of the royal cities of the Canaanites (Josh.
10:1; Gen. 12:8; 13:3). It was the scene of Joshua's defeat, and
afterwards of his victory. It was the second Canaanite city
taken by Israel (Josh. 7:2-5; 8:1-29). It lay rebuilt and
inhibited by the Benjamites (Ezra 2:28; Neh. 7:32; 11:31). It
lay to the east of Bethel, "beside Beth-aven." The spot which is
most probably the site of this ancient city is Haiyan, 2 miles
east from Bethel. It lay up the Wady Suweinit, a steep, rugged
valley, extending from the Jordan valley to Bethel.

(2.) A city in the Ammonite territory (Jer. 49:3). Some have
thought that the proper reading of the word is Ar (Isa. 15:1)


3. No Exodus: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684869136/102-3791771-6008166?v=glance

4. Your cop-out ad hockery notwithstanding, rain falling at MACH 3 would annihilate everything, including the ark.

5. Creation sources: http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

I am sorry I think you missed part of my post


"I reject your reality and insert my own"

I'd just like to point out that there's only one place in the world where this newfangled old Creationism chestnut is roasting:

America.

Mull that over for a sec, kids - you want to be seen by an entire rest-of-the-planet, Third World included, as the Greatest Nation In The World™, and yet you don't think you're hurting your reputation by letting your schools and your children be bullied by a gang of fundamentalist hooligans with no respect for academia?

Good luck with the job of dumbing down America, guys.
Some of us are trying to preserve our dignity

Loks like I'd have to go back pages to see what's happened....not going to happen, I hafta go after this one. [1:42 forum time]

Here goes what I saw.

Yeah, the matter condensed from the energy caused by the big bang. So? Where'd the energy come from? The BB? Still no evidence here, just supposition. This evidence could be as much for BB as against it. The only way I see huge quantities of energy suddenly existing is by creation. But that's just me. Maybe it came into existence from a nothing source rather than an everything one? This is the part science doesn't cover, and where ID steps in. I thought BB ideas tried to reconcile this time (most supporters do, though). If not, cool beans, we're in agreement! I hope everyone gets to know this.


Lol, natural selection is quite apparent. Not totally sure about evolution in its entirety. I used to agree, but as I learned more, I saw more faults, so now I'm not sure. Plus, it's a pretty extreme timeframe by most accounts.

BAAWA, these may be points, they might not be. I can't tell without information. Besides, archaeological evidence of time is quite soft, especially when working with a short time frame (ie. thousands of years). Jabez means pain, and pain can't pray. Saying that Jericho was abandoned at the time conquered can just as easily be interpreted as proof of it happening. Besides all of that, I'm not gonna ask you find the dozens of researches needed to make these even viable scientific points. Science is rough, in many ways.

Well, I can't stay, I'm already late. Good Luck, guys.

Yeah, the matter condensed from the energy caused by the big bang. So? Where'd the energy come from? The BB? Still no evidence here, just supposition. This evidence could be as much for BB as against it. The only way I see huge quantities of energy suddenly existing is by creation. But that's just me. Maybe it came into existence from a nothing source rather than an everything one? This is the part science doesn't cover, and where ID steps in. I thought BB ideas tried to reconcile this time (most supporters do, though). If not, cool beans, we're in agreement! I hope everyone gets to know this.




The energy did come from the BB. As to how specifically, I'm really not qualified to give you a good answer.

...btw, there is a way for matter/energy to come into existence ex nihilo, so to speak. They're called quantum vacuum fluctuations. Out of nowhere, particles pop into and out of existence. Sound weird, but it's quite real (proven by the Casimir effect, which I really haven't the time to explain, but Google it if you must). Could the Universe have originated from a fluctuation in some other medium? I'm not ruling it out!

But seriously, this is getting into some really heavy physics and cosmology that I'm not comfortable explaining: I'm probably either out-of-date or just flat-out wrong about some of it. Such are the wages of trying to argue this stuff without having a serious educational background in it (next year! I promise!).

Yeah, the matter condensed from the energy caused by the big bang. So? Where'd the energy come from?
It was always there. The universe cannot come into or go out of existence. The universe is the ontological primary.


BAAWA, these may be points, they might not be. I can't tell without information. Besides, archaeological evidence of time is quite soft, especially when working with a short time frame (ie. thousands of years). Jabez means pain, and pain can't pray. Saying that Jericho was abandoned at the time conquered can just as easily be interpreted as proof of it happening.
Ummmm....not unless you're into lying.

I regret to inform all of you religion nuts and supporters of ID (Intelligent Design) that it is an inherently flawed theory. First of all evolution is a universaly accepted scientific theory.

Now, for those of you that will jump to say that evolution is "just a theory" let me clarify something. First off, in the scientific community a theory is something that is supported by years and years of exhaustive research; the only reason that these are called theories, and not facts, is because scientific research is always being perfected. Right now evolution is the most logical and scientifically supported reason out there now; although it is likely that it will be modified several times in my lifetime. A good example would be Newton's law of gravity. Newton was right on all counts with that theory, however, his law of grvity was only useful to macro physics, like apples falling and all; not micro physics, like atoms. So along comes Einstien and REFINES that theory. Notice that I did not say "disprove", Newton is still right, its just that his laws aren't practical on a micro level. So, in the scientific community you will never find a distinguished scientist saying that evolution is wrong. They may argue over how it happens, and how fast but you will never hear anyone say it is wrong.

Also, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that evolution is a flawed theory. In that case those supporting ID would be saying in effect, "You don't have evidence for your theory so here, accept ours, which coincidentally has no evidence to back it up either." That is, I'm afraid, just not how science works.

Yet another point against ID is that it is based on religion which is a study of the supernatural, while science is a study of natural phenomena. Supernatural phenomena, by definition are unproveable, hence going against the very purpose of science which is to prove things. So, it should not be presented as a scientific theory, as it is not scientific.

I doubt that many of you read through all of my post or that it changed your mind, but i thought it vital that i put out my views on the subject.

Yeah, the matter condensed from the energy caused by the big bang. So? Where'd the energy come from? The BB? Still no evidence here, just supposition. This evidence could be as much for BB as against it. The only way I see huge quantities of energy suddenly existing is by creation. But that's just me. Maybe it came into existence from a nothing source rather than an everything one? This is the part science doesn't cover, and where ID steps in. I thought BB ideas tried to reconcile this time (most supporters do, though). If not, cool beans, we're in agreement! I hope everyone gets to know this.

You've just taken misused the term ID to mean Creationism, which is something almost all IDers try not to do when explaining why ID > Evo. Getting ID tied up with Creationism would be complete suicide for ID's attempt to get into science classrooms, since students/teachers/parents/scientists/courts have all consistantly fought (and won) most of their legal battles to keep Religion out of science class rooms. ID itself concerns itself with life on Earth, and postulates that the order we see in the natural world is actually part of a design by a supernatural being.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Besides, archaeological evidence of time is quite soft, especially when working with a short time frame (ie. thousands of years). Jabez means pain, and pain can't pray. Saying that Jericho was abandoned at the time conquered can just as easily be interpreted as proof of it happening.

It is a proven archaeological fact that Jericho was abandoned centuries before the time the Hebrews claim to have conquered it.

The bible is therefore wrong, unless you create some stupid magical reason (ie god falsified the archaeolgical record to fool the world) in order to save it, which I'm sure god will do for you if you ask him nicely.


O_o Huh? How do you know? Perhaps an earthquake (set in motion by god before he made time)? The Exodus? Explain. Creation? You limit God. This is not Biblical. He could've created stuff however he wanted to.

This is precisely why religion has absolutely no place in science, history or any other rational pursuit. Firstly the fundamentalists will come up with all kinds of idiocy to try to discredit the good science, historical event, etc, foolishly assuming that, even if they could successfully discredit it, then their own baseless beliefs would by default be proven (which is ridiculous).

When that fails, hey we can just use magic to make it happen. After all, that's what god is there for, isn't he? To magic the fundamentalists out of tight jams.



Rational thinker: The Biblical Flood didn't happen.

Believer: Yes it did.

Rational thinker: The volume of water needed to flood the planet would have been forced down so rapidly to have been hugely evident today, and would have destroyed the ark.

Believer: Not true, god made it so no evidence of the flood survived.

Rational thinker: But how could the ark have survived?

Believer: God protected it.

Rational thinker: But there is no way an ark of the dimensions in the bible could have held all of the life needed to seed the world. Nor to hold all of the food needed to sustain the life.

Believer: God altered the supernatural dimensions of the ark and also made it so the animals could survive without the food, constant attention, special needs, etc, that they would need.

Rational thinker: What about the effects on salinity levels that would kill of certain species of fish during the flood?

Believer: God made it so that all fish was miraculously survived.

Rational thinker: What about the fact that certain species (like the Kangaroo) are found only in one place despite the fact you claim they would all have exited at the same place from the ark.

Believer: God made sure they travelled thousands of miles in only one direction to one place and never left ever again.

Rational thinker: Is there anything I could tell you that your god couldn't have magically twisted around due to "his limitless powers"?

Believer: Nope.


So you see, religion denies rational thought. Therefore it has no place in science or history. Case closed.

You've just taken misused the term ID to mean Creationism, which is something almost all IDers try not to do when explaining why ID > Evo. Getting ID tied up with Creationism would be complete suicide for ID's attempt to get into science classrooms, since students/teachers/parents/scientists/courts have all consistantly fought (and won) most of their legal battles to keep Religion out of science class rooms. ID itself concerns itself with life on Earth, and postulates that the order we see in the natural world is actually part of a design by a supernatural being.
i.e. creationism.

It's interesting to note that ID didn't exist until the 1990s.

So what is ID?

A calculated effort on the part of the biblical literalists to get literal biblical creationism taught in schools without having to go through the normal channels of testing, verification, etc., but rather having the "activist courts" or "activist school boards" do it for them.

Yeah, the matter condensed from the energy caused by the big bang. So? Where'd the energy come from? The BB? Still no evidence here, just supposition.

Another favourite tactic of fundamentalists, assuming all science, no matter how complex, should be instantly understandable to any lay person (even one who doesn't want to accept it). I mean, who's to say that I haven't thought of something disproving evolution that the leading academics in this field haven't? After all, if any moron can read and believe the bible why not Darwinian evolution?

Regarding causality, etc, of the Big Bang theory, those questions are all adequately answered by Quantum Mechanics (recall that the early universe existed at the quantum level). I recommend you take Physics 101 at your local university. It's a start.

You've just taken misused the term ID to mean Creationism, which is something almost all IDers try not to do when explaining why ID > Evo. Getting ID tied up with Creationism would be complete suicide for ID's attempt to get into science classrooms, since students/teachers/parents/scientists/courts have all consistantly fought (and won) most of their legal battles to keep Religion out of science class rooms. ID itself concerns itself with life on Earth, and postulates that the order we see in the natural world is actually part of a design by a supernatural being.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Thats because it would show their hand on trying to gateway non scientific theory's into a SCIENCE room

Thats because it would show their hand on trying to gateway non scientific theory's into a SCIENCE room

SHHHH! You're not supposed to say the truth out loud! :eek:

\Secondly, not accepting the credit from How Christianity influenced American History is idiotic! The United States was founded on Christian Principles by mostly men who were Christians. Without Christianity, America wouldn't exist!

Actually a "history" class is measured by the content. If the christian "history" left out a great deal of what students are expect to know then yes it will get dumped.

America would have been founded no matter what. People didn't come here for "religious freedom"

Actually, I can go back even further. The first English Settlers in America were Puritans and Quakers, Christian Men. Both settled in America to escape Religious persecution, and if Christianity didn't exist, niether would those settlers, and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered North America. Therefore, you, me, and anyone else with direct connections to America would not exist.

Psst buddy. Jamestown was before the Pilgrims. You really need a course in history if you belive the myth of the Pilgrims and religious freedom.

They had it in Holland and they didn't practice it when they were here.

What is not to understand? Evolution is the theory that states that we evolved from apes, and everything evolved from a primordial soup.

Opps. Your textbook was wrong. We shared a common ancestor with the apes. Gorillas, chimps, orangs, Gibbons, and siamangs are not our grandparents.....

It is a state sponsored violation of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment - the school is telling people who practice and teach a certain religious belief that they will not be allowed into the college - religious discrimination pure and simple.

Evolution is NOT icompatible with ID and vice-versa - when are the two sides of this debate going to pull their heads out of the asses and see this.

Evolution is NOT icompatible with ID and vice-versa - when are the two sides of this debate going to pull their heads out of the asses and see this.

And when will you realise that evolution is supported by evidence whereas ID is a non-rational belief (as all religous beliefs are, whether you believe them or not) that has no place within science.

It is a state sponsored violation of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment - the school is telling people who practice and teach a certain religious belief that they will not be allowed into the college - religious discrimination pure and simple.

Rubbish. The University is merely saying that if your "science" course included ID it is not a science course worthy of the name, and therefore you do not have the qualifiations that a person who took a real science course would have. Even a cursory look at some of the outlandish views posted by the fundamentalists in this thread would prove that this is indeed the case, and the University is thus correct in its move.

And when will you realise that evolution is supported by evidence whereas ID is a non-rational belief (as all religous beliefs are, whether you believe them or not) that has no place within science.



Rubbish. The University is merely saying that if your "science" course included ID it is not a science course worthy of the name, and therefore you do not have the qualifiations that a person who took a real science course would have. Even a cursory look at some of the outlandish views posted by the fundamentalists in this thread would prove that this is indeed the case, and the University is thus correct in its move.
agreed you can call it anything you want

But that does not make it a real science class if ID was accepted as a valid theory

And when will you realise that evolution is supported by evidence whereas ID is a non-rational belief (as all religous beliefs are, whether you believe them or not) that has as much place within science as whether somebody's favourite football team is going to win on the weekend.

ID is perfectly rational to those who believe in it. They ask the question that science cannot answer - where did the matter/energy that gave rise to the "big bang" come from? To say it "always existed" is as "irrational" as saying some supreme being created it - neither is a testable, provable hypothesis.

Why is it invalid to teach in a science class that there are those who believe the universe was "created" by some sort of overall intelligence who set things in motion. The problem with the theory of ID is that there is no way to establish the correctness or incorrectness of this idea by use of the scientific method. On the other hand, while scientific method would seem to establish the existence of the "big bang" and can show that the general theory of evolution is the most likely explanation for much of life on earth as we know it, it cannot explain where the matter/enegery for the "big bang" came from.

Also, just curious, and really just kind of a side question - does anyone know, has there been any research done or proposals submitted to establish why man is the only sentient creature to have evolved on earth - why hasn't evolution produced other sentient beings as well. Just curious because I don't know how evolution deals with this issue.

Again though, I do not see how ID (which I differentiate from "creationism") is incompatible with evolution - and I'm at a loss to understand why evolutionists seemingly "fear" (I use the term VERY loosely) the idea of ID - Creationism (i.e. a belief in a 6,000 year old earth and a literal six, 24 hour day cycle for the beginning of earth) is something that I can understand evolutionionists would call "rubbish" on and have no issue with them doing so.

It is a state sponsored violation of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment - the school is telling people who practice and teach a certain religious belief that they will not be allowed into the college - religious discrimination pure and simple.
No it's not. It's saying that if you want to be admitted, you have to know certain things. It's no more religious discrimination than making sure the entrants know that the earth is spheroid and not flat!

ID is perfectly rational to those who believe in it. They ask the question that science cannot answer - where did the matter/energy that gave rise to the "big bang" come from? To say it "always existed" is as "irrational" as saying some supreme being created it
No it's not; it's ontologically proper.


Why is it invalid to teach in a science class that there are those who believe the universe was "created" by some sort of overall intelligence who set things in motion.
Because it's bad ontology and has no backing.


The problem with the theory of ID is that there is no way to establish the correctness or incorrectness of this idea by use of the scientific method. On the other hand, while scientific method would seem to establish the existence of the "big bang" and can show that the general theory of evolution is the most likely explanation for much of life on earth as we know it, it cannot explain where the matter/enegery for the "big bang" came from.
Sure it can.


Also, just curious, and really just kind of a side question - does anyone know, has there been any research done or proposals submitted to establish why man is the only sentient creature to have evolved on earth - why hasn't evolution produced other sentient beings as well. Just curious because I don't know how evolution deals with this issue.
There are other at least quasi-sentient beings on the planet. Dolphins and gorillas, for instance.


Again though, I do not see how ID (which I differentiate from "creationism")
There is no difference.

Ah, but the Spain back in Chris's time controlled religion as much as Britain. So, without Christianity, there would be no Christopher Columbus.

Sure the Royals were Religious but they didn't send CC for the glory of the Church. They did it for power.

<Snip>

Again though, I do not see how ID (which I differentiate from "creationism") is incompatible with evolution - and I'm at a loss to understand why evolutionists seemingly "fear" (I use the term VERY loosely) the idea of ID - Creationism (i.e. a belief in a 6,000 year old earth and a literal six, 24 hour day cycle for the beginning of earth) is something that I can understand evolutionionists would call "rubbish" on and have no issue with them doing so.
Actually, I haven't seen anyone fearing or even disputing ID. The problem is when people try to pass it off as a science. It's violating the scientific method from start to finish.

That's what evo people are "afraid" of: that ingorants will suddenly undermine the scientific method, and teach people a lot of useless & flat-out wrong stuff in the school system.

How'd you lot educate new scientists, if none of them know how to conduct scientific research? That's what the dispute is about. No doubt ID might be true, and no doubt it's a very beautiful & compelling philosophical idea. But it's wholly unrelated to science.

There is no difference.

Sure there is, there is one hell of a difference between creationism and ID as I understand/define them:

Creationism = strict adherence to the literal word of Genesis - six 24 hour days, the world is 6,000 years old, etc.

ID = belief that some superior intelligence caused the universe to come into being billions of years ago and that evolution gave rise to people, animals, etc. and that evolution was part of the plan put in place when the universe was designed by the superior intelligence.

Belator is right. If Jesus had never existed, this world would be very different. The effect is HUGE and all-encompassing. Not just American history. Look at Europe. Oh, and guess where most of America came from?

And yes, the US was founded on Christian principles. Whether it developed and continued this way or not is irrelevant to the statement. America was heavily influenced by Christians/Christianity.


Also, I never thought ID was much in the way of science in itself. It's a necessary add-on. You think the Big-Bang Theory is science? [/trap]

Europe? Hmmm How many Religious wars did they have?

America wasn't founded for Christianity.

What's the difference whether he existed or not? People believed he did. End of story (er...beginning).

Hmmm my kid belives in Hefalumps and woozles so whats your point?

Actually, I can go back even further. The first English Settlers in America were Puritans and Quakers, Christian Men. Both settled in America to escape Religious persecution, and if Christianity didn't exist, niether would those settlers, and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered North America. Therefore, you, me, and anyone else with direct connections to America would not exist.

Really now? You might want to tell that to the people of the Jamestown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Colony) founded in 1607 by the Virginia Company 13 years before the Puritans who settled in Plymouth. (A group of xenophobic Calvanists who thought even the other Calvanists and Puritans weren't strict enough.

ID is perfectly rational to those who believe in it. They ask the question that science cannot answer - where did the matter/energy that gave rise to the "big bang" come from? To say it "always existed" is as "irrational" as saying some supreme being created it - neither is a testable, provable hypothesis.

The Theory of Intelligent Design does does not concern itself with the Big Bang! :mad: ID deals with the complexities of life, not with matter/energy or the universe's origins or the "unanswerable questions of life." Were you perhaps thinking of Creationism when you wrote this response?

Why is it invalid to teach in a science class that there are those who believe the universe was "created" by some sort of overall intelligence who set things in motion. The problem with the theory of ID is that there is no way to establish the correctness or incorrectness of this idea by use of the scientific method.

Ok then, you've answered your own question.

On the other hand, while scientific method would seem to establish the existence of the "big bang" and can show that the general theory of evolution is the most likely explanation for much of life on earth as we know it, it cannot explain where the matter/enegery for the "big bang" came from.

Just to be clear, the Scientific Method does not establish anything. It is an organized series of steps used to solve problems. The theories of the Big Bang and Evolution do not depend on each other in order to be valid. As for the origins of matter and energy, I am sure that a scientifically testable theory will eventually arise. Lets wait and see before deciding what science can and cannot empirically prove.

Also, just curious, and really just kind of a side question - does anyone know, has there been any research done or proposals submitted to establish why man is the only sentient creature to have evolved on earth - why hasn't evolution produced other sentient beings as well. Just curious because I don't know how evolution deals with this issue.

First of, evolution doesn't deal with sentience at all, since its all about charting the changes and developments of life on Earth. Secondly, why are you so sure that human beings are the only sentient creatures on this Earth? I suppose you've never heard of gorillas before, right?
[URL]http://www.koko.org/[URL]

First of all evolution is a universaly accepted scientific theory.

Not actually true. It's nearly universally accepted, and currently has the most evidence (thus making it the leading theory).

Now, for those of you that will jump to say that evolution is "just a theory" let me clarify something. First off, in the scientific community a theory is something that is supported by years and years of exhaustive research; the only reason that these are called theories, and not facts, is because scientific research is always being perfected. Right now evolution is the most logical and scientifically supported reason out there now; although it is likely that it will be modified several times in my lifetime.

Doing good so far....

A good example would be Newton's law of gravity. Newton was right on all counts with that theory, however, his law of grvity was only useful to macro physics, like apples falling and all; not micro physics, like atoms. So along comes Einstien and REFINES that theory. Notice that I did not say "disprove", Newton is still right, its just that his laws aren't practical on a micro level.

Oops! Incorrect. Newton's laws are actually never absolutely correct. Because they ignore quantum mechanics, there is always error introduced by using them. However, that error is very small when we are looking at relatively slow speeds and large masses. So, since the calculation is much simpler, we use them as a "good enough" approximation.

So, in the scientific community you will never find a distinguished scientist saying that evolution is wrong.

Nope. Not unless said scientist finds evidence that contradicts the theory.

So you see, religion denies rational thought. Therefore it has no place in science or history. Case closed.

Your stereotyping is hardly necessary. Religion has no place in science because it is not based in empiricism and addresses an issue that is outside the realm of science. That hardly means that all religion denies rational thought. In fact, many religions outright require it.

t is a state sponsored violation of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment - the school is telling people who practice and teach a certain religious belief that they will not be allowed into the college - religious discrimination pure and simple.



Of course, that isn't what is happening. The school is stating that a science class which teaches non-science will not count as a science class towards admission to the college, plain and simple. It could be a science class at a non-religious high school that taught ID, and it would still be denied. It could be a math class that taught that 3 + 5 = 15, and it would be denied.

If you want your students to be able to go to an institution of higher learning, you better meet the standards necessary to enter that institution. Otherwise, your students aren't getting in.

Evolution is NOT icompatible with ID and vice-versa - when are the two sides of this debate going to pull their heads out of the asses and see this.

The idea of creation or of a creator is not incompatible with evolutionary theory. However, the entire "theory" that ID wants to teach is based on, "EVOLUTION IS WRONG, MMKAY!?"

ID is perfectly rational to those who believe in it.

Rational? Perhaps.

Scientific? Nope.

They ask the question that science cannot answer - where did the matter/energy that gave rise to the "big bang" come from? To say it "always existed" is as "irrational" as saying some supreme being created it - neither is a testable, provable hypothesis.

You are obviously completely unfamiliar with the brand of ID they are trying to push into schools, which has absolutely nothing to do with this question, and in fact says, "These things could not have happened through evolution, therefore we say God did it!" Of course, the proposition that there is (or is not) a God is an inherently unscientific one, so the "theory" fails outright.

Why is it invalid to teach in a science class that there are those who believe the universe was "created" by some sort of overall intelligence who set things in motion.

To say, "Some people believe...." is not. Of course, again, that isn't what ID states. You really need to look into this some.

The problem with the theory of ID is that there is no way to establish the correctness or incorrectness of this idea by use of the scientific method.

Exactly! And that is why it has no business in a science class.

On the other hand, while scientific method would seem to establish the

Also, just curious, and really just kind of a side question - does anyone know, has there been any research done or proposals submitted to establish why man is the only sentient creature to have evolved on earth - why hasn't evolution produced other sentient beings as well. Just curious because I don't know how evolution deals with this issue.

The fact that you ask the question demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the theory. You are asking a question that essentially involves directed evolution - and evolutionary theory does not involve directed evolution.

Again though, I do not see how ID (which I differentiate from "creationism") is incompatible with evolution

That's because you haven't actually looked into what they are saying. What you are proposing is simply a theistic view of the world - that God set things in motion and made all the rules. This is something that most scientists already believe! However, any scientist must admit that this portion of our beliefs is faith-based, not science-based, and cannot be brought into the science.

ID, on the other hand, says, "Evolution couldn't have done this (even though it could have), therefore we have proven God." - a completely illogical statement, even if the first part is true.

Science cannot prove Creation wrong. Creation has never been proven wrong. I believe it is true. I think that courses teaching Darwin's twisted ways of Evolution should be banned from all courses.

Emmmm so many assumptions so little time.

Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Creationism can't even prove itself.

Darwins twisted ways? So why not explain evolution to us?

The Theory of Intelligent Design

Ahem. Surely you meant the "idea"? Calling ID a theory in a science discussion is hardly proper.

As for the origins of matter and energy, I am sure that a scientifically testable theory will eventually arise. Lets wait and see before deciding what science can and cannot empirically prove.

Logically, science can only be applied to that which is within the universe. Thus, we can study things to the point that we might be able to discuss what the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe (if there was a beginning) were, but we cannot go before that, as it would be outside the universe.

Just to clear something up, the schools science credits are NOT being denied because they are teaching ID, but because they are using specific Science texts from Bob Jones University (http://www.bjup.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?parent_category_rn=279832&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1514951).


Biology for Christian Schools is a textbook for Bible-believing high-school students. Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them.

The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second...If...at any point God's Word is not put first, the authors apologize.

The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a "scientific" explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on "supposed science." If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.


You can read more at that link, but this text and a similiar one used for their History Class is why they are not acrediting those classes.


Naginah

Sure there is, there is one hell of a difference between creationism and ID as I understand/define them:

Creationism = strict adherence to the literal word of Genesis - six 24 hour days, the world is 6,000 years old, etc.

You are refering to Young Earth Creationism, where the Earth and the universe were created over 6000 years ago. However, there is also Old Earth Creationism, where people interpret the Creation story over a long period of time (3-4 billion years). In this view, a "day" according to Genesis could mean millions of years.

ID = belief that some superior intelligence caused the universe to come into being billions of years ago and that evolution gave rise to people, animals, etc. and that evolution was part of the plan put in place when the universe was designed by the superior intelligence.

Your understanding of Intelligent Design is horribly flawed. ID does not deal with the ceation of the universe any more than evolution does (isnt this the 3rd time I've said this?). ID Theory states that life on Earth is so irreducibly complex that it must be the product of an intelligent being. ID briefly acknowledges that microevolution may have played a role, but asserts that any macroevolution is the product of this intelligent being. I repeat (for the fourth and hopefully last time): ID does not concern itself with the creation of the universe!!!

So, let me get this correct - I want to make sure I'm not comparing apples and oranges - Evolution "explains" the "physical existence" of people, but does not even try to explain "sentience." Furthermore, evolution "explains" the "rise of life" but does not even try to explain the "rise of the universe." is that correct?

You are refering to Young Earth Creationism, where the Earth and the universe were created over 6000 years ago. However, there is also Old Earth Creationism, where people interpret the Creation story over a long period of time (3-4 billion years). In this view, a "day" according to Genesis could mean millions of years.



Your understanding of Intelligent Design is horribly flawed. ID does not deal with the ceation of the universe any more than evolution does (isnt this the 3rd time I've said this?). ID Theory states that life on Earth is so irreducibly complex that it must be the product of an intelligent being. ID briefly acknowledges that microevolution may have played a role, but asserts that any macroevolution is the product of this intelligent being. I repeat (for the fourth and hopefully last time): ID does not concern itself with the creation of the universe!!!

No need to get worked up, clearly we're working from 2 different understandings/definitions of the terms "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism." That's all.

So, let me get this correct - I want to make sure I'm not comparing apples and oranges - Evolution "explains" the "physical existence" of people, but does not even try to explain "sentience." Furthermore, evolution "explains" the "rise of life" but does not even try to explain the "rise of the universe." is that correct?

No, very little of that is correct.

Evolution does explain sentience - attempting to figure out why it might have been selected for, that sort of thing. However, it does not assume that anything was evolving towards sentience, just that it happened and was an advantage for the creatures developing it. Sentience is part of the physical existence of people. It is a product of the way we develop.

Evolution also does not explain the rise of life. Evolutionary theory begins with life already begun. It explains the diversity of life and the way it changes. It deals with natural selection and speciation, not with the beginning of life.

You are correct, however, that evolution doesn't deal with the rise of the Universe. The best known theory for that is the Big Bang theory, which is completely and totally separate from Evolutionary theory. The two in no way depend upon one another.

No need to get worked up, clearly we're working from 2 different understandings/definitions of the terms "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism." That's all.

The problem is that there are other terms for the definitions you are using. You are using non-standard definitions here.

Just to clear something up, the schools science credits are NOT being denied because they are teaching ID, but because they are using specific Science texts from Bob Jones University (http://www.bjup.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?parent_category_rn=279832&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1514951).

<Snip>
Holy shit.... I didn't think such extreme misinformation was legal. Poor kids.

No, very little of that is correct.

Evolution does explain sentience - attempting to figure out why it might have been selected for, that sort of thing. However, it does not assume that anything was evolving towards sentience, just that it happened and was an advantage for the creatures developing it. Sentience is part of the physical existence of people. It is a product of the way we develop.

Evolution also does not explain the rise of life. Evolutionary theory begins with life already begun. It explains the diversity of life and the way it changes. It deals with natural selection and speciation, not with the beginning of life.

You are correct, however, that evolution doesn't deal with the rise of the Universe. The best known theory for that is the Big Bang theory, which is completely and totally separate from Evolutionary theory. The two in no way depend upon one another.

Thanks for the explanation - I'm just trying to make sure I understand the theories. I still don't see how ID and evolution are mutually exclusive though (if in fact anyone is truly claiming that to be the case as opposed to my understanding that, that is what some are asserting).

i.e. creationism.

It's interesting to note that ID didn't exist until the 1990s.

So what is ID?

A calculated effort on the part of the biblical literalists to get literal biblical creationism taught in schools without having to go through the normal channels of testing, verification, etc., but rather having the "activist courts" or "activist school boards" do it for them.

Didn't it start in 1989?

But you are correct on the rest.....

Ahem. Surely you meant the "idea"? Calling ID a theory in a science discussion is hardly proper.

Maybe not, since ID is not scientifically testable. However, I decided to call it the "Theory of Intelligent Design." Why? It gets boring typing "ID" all the time! Too many IDs, and not enough people who know what it is. >__<

Thanks for the explanation - I'm just trying to make sure I understand the theories. I still don't see how ID and evolution are mutually exclusive though (if in fact anyone is truly claiming that to be the case as opposed to my understanding that, that is what some are asserting).
Demp don't rip my head off if I muck this up.

ID, in the usual sense, conflicts with the overall theory of evolution. As you might have noticed others mention, the usual brand of ID doesn't recognise macro-evolution (how one species eventually evolves into another).

The ID ideas you presented earlier - your personal version - doesn't sound like it contradicst the evolution theories outright. Theoretically, there might have been some guiding force at work, who put the origins of the universe into motion. Personally, I don't believe that, but hey, anything's possible :)

It is a state sponsored violation of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment - the school is telling people who practice and teach a certain religious belief that they will not be allowed into the college - religious discrimination pure and simple.

Evolution is NOT icompatible with ID and vice-versa - when are the two sides of this debate going to pull their heads out of the asses and see this.

No it is not. They are not being denied entrance. Certain classes are not being accepted for credit.

Evolution and ID are incompatible. ID introduces God and evolution has never set out to prove or disrprove God.

And when will you realise that evolution is supported by evidence whereas ID is a non-rational belief (as all religous beliefs are, whether you believe them or not) that has no place within science.

Actually, science is a religion. We just think we are in charge, rather than God.

And if you don't believe me, why don't you show me a plateful of quarks?

No need to get worked up, clearly we're working from 2 different understandings/definitions of the terms "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism." That's all.

Forgive me if I seemed too aggressive, but definitions are vital to rational discussion. We can't argue over something if we don't know what exactly we are arguing about. Plus, the thread as diverged from its original topic and threatens to turn into another classic ID vs Evo thread. Thats always frustrating :(

Also, just curious, and really just kind of a side question - does anyone know, has there been any research done or proposals submitted to establish why man is the only sentient creature to have evolved on earth - why hasn't evolution produced other sentient beings as well. Just curious because I don't know how evolution deals with this issue.
.

Sentient? To what extent? Chimps are self-aware and have a complex social structure. They lie, make tools, make war, and practice rudimentary politics.

As to the question of why? Well we are pretty much wiping out everything so its kind of hard to Evolve when you are on the endangered list.

ID is perfectly rational to those who believe in it.

Sorry, but that is not the correct definition of what defines something as rational. Whether somebody thinks something is correct or not does not make it rational. For something to be rational it must be grounded firmly in the natural world, not in the magical supernatural.

The notion of intelligent design is firmly grounded in the notion of the supernatural and thus it is non-rational and irrelevant to science.


Why is it invalid to teach in a science class that there are those who believe the universe was "created" by some sort of overall intelligence who set things in motion.

It is invalid because groundless and non-rational theories that have no basis in the natural world nor can be proven or disproven have absolutely no place in the study of science.

Science is the study of what is, its as simple as that. Magic is not allowed.


Also, just curious, and really just kind of a side question - does anyone know, has there been any research done or proposals submitted to establish why man is the only sentient creature to have evolved on earth - why hasn't evolution produced other sentient beings as well. Just curious because I don't know how evolution deals with this issue.

Ever heard of Homo neanderthalensis?

Demp don't rip my head off if I muck this up.

ID, in the usual sense, conflicts with the overall theory of evolution. As you might have noticed others mention, the usual brand of ID doesn't recognise macro-evolution (how one species eventually evolves into another).

The ID ideas you presented earlier - your personal version - doesn't sound like it contradicst the evolution theories outright. Theoretically, there might have been some guiding force at work, who put the origins of the universe into motion. Personally, I don't believe that, but hey, anything's possible :)

OK, thanks. I'll stick to my theory then - There is a God who brought the universe into being and set the evolutionary process into motion and who either 1) planned the process in such detail that it would give rise to sentient humans or 2) "implanted" sentience in humans at some point in time during the evolution of our physical bodies. This is where we may differ - I do not believe that sentience is just a "random" happening that enhanced survivability of the species and so was "selected" by evolution. Rather, sentience was either planned as a part of evolution by the creator or it was "divinely" installed in people at some point. Under either scenario, full evolutionary theory works as does "my" definition of intelligent design. I can explain Life, the Universe and Everything (well, everything except the meaning of 42 :) ) this way.

OK, Flame On!! ;)

Actually, science is a religion. We just think we are in charge, rather than God.

Actually no, science makes no claim that humans "are in charge", that is pure idiocy. There is no one "in charge" in science, and if there is science simply doesn't care as it isn't provable.


Your comparison of the two just proves why the University's decision was absolutely correct.

Here is a much better comparison:

A religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence.

A religion is based on the supernatural, science is based on the natural.

OK, thanks. I'll stick to my theory then - There is a God who brought the universe into being and set the evolutionary process into motion and who either 1) planned the process in such detail that it would give rise to sentient humans or 2) "implanted" sentience in humans at some point in time during the evolution of our physical bodies.

That is not a theory though. It's just a non-rational and baseless private musing with no evidence whatsoever to support it and, what's more, no possible reason to be the case. Occam's Razor makes it illogical to hold that view, much less call it a "theory".

That doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in it, by all means. But don't even try to compare it to evolution.

My personal opinon.. if you can't teach teach ID/Creationism to those who may not beleive, then you shoudln't teach evolution to those that don't beleive either. I think it should go both ways instead of just one.

That is not a theory though. It's just a non-rational and baseless private musing with no evidence whatsoever to support it and, what's more, no possible reason to be the case. Occam's Razor makes it illogical to hold that view, much less call it a "theory".

That doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in it, by all means. But don't even try to compare it to evolution.

I'm not trying to compare it to evolution at all. I also understand it is not testable under the scientific method. What I am saying is that it allows for both evolution and Intelligent Design as co-existing and completely compatible with each other.

Granted, maybe the word "theory" was not a strictly used in it's proper scientific meaning. Though, I don't see what is wrong with calling something a theory even though it may be unproveable.

I'm not sure I understand how you're applying Occam's Razor to make the idea illogical though, Unless you are saying my belief in a creator has "skewed" my observation of the facts. If it has, the ONLY view that is "skewed" is my view on how sentience in humans came into being, that's it. EVERYTHING else squares with evolution "to a T." My view allows for ameobas to "grow up" into humans and donkeys and elephants, etc. It just offers a "supreme being" as the explanation for sentience.

My personal opinon.. if you can't teach teach ID/Creationism to those who may not beleive, then you shoudln't teach evolution to those that don't beleive either. I think it should go both ways instead of just one.

Hmmm so give the students the choice of what they will learn?

We can close down most schools then. ;)

Thanks for the explanation

No prob. =)

I'm just trying to make sure I understand the theories.

Good. It's rather hard to have a discussion if you don't understand them, no?

I still don't see how ID and evolution are mutually exclusive though (if in fact anyone is truly claiming that to be the case as opposed to my understanding that, that is what some are asserting).

The version of ID you are talking about is not in any way mutually exclusive with evolutionary theory. It is still unscientific, but doesn't contradict the theory either. The version of ID people are trying to push into schools is mutually exclusive with evolutionary theory, as the entire idea behind it is that evolution could not have caused speciation and specialization of organisms.

Demp don't rip my head off if I muck this up.

Do I do that? I apologize if I do - I don't mean to. Damn these forums and their lack of expression hehe.

ID, in the usual sense, conflicts with the overall theory of evolution. As you might have noticed others mention, the usual brand of ID doesn't recognise macro-evolution (how one species eventually evolves into another).

The ID ideas you presented earlier - your personal version - doesn't sound like it contradicst the evolution theories outright. Theoretically, there might have been some guiding force at work, who put the origins of the universe into motion. Personally, I don't believe that, but hey, anything's possible

Sounds good to me!


Actually, science is a religion. We just think we are in charge, rather than God.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHA!

Ok, seriously, now that I've had my laugh.....

You are aware that most scientists are theists, right?

And if you don't believe me, why don't you show me a plateful of quarks?

Got a plate around? Your average plate would have plenty already in it.

Sorry, but that is not the correct definition of what defines something as rational. Whether somebody thinks something is correct or not does not make it rational. For something to be rational it must be grounded firmly in the natural world, not in the magical supernatural.

Hmmmm....

Main Entry: 1ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: 'rash-n&l, 'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English racional, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

Nope, nothing in there about being grounded in the natural world. It says that it must be based on reason. And many people have reason to believe that there is a God. Now, that doesn't make it scientific, of course, but it hardly makes it irrational.

The notion of intelligent design is firmly grounded in the notion of the supernatural and thus it is non-rational and irrelevant to science.

You are correct that it is irrelevant to science, but that hardly makes it irrational.

My personal opinon.. if you can't teach teach ID/Creationism to those who may not beleive, then you shoudln't teach evolution to those that don't beleive either. I think it should go both ways instead of just one.

If you want to stop teaching science in high schools, you get right on that. I'll continue hoping that students get a proper introduction to science, thanks.

I'm not trying to compare it to evolution at all. I also understand it is not testable under the scientific method. What I am saying is that it allows for both evolution and Intelligent Design as co-existing and completely compatible with each other.

And, other than the idea that sentience was suddenly planted, rather than developing by some possibly pre-planned method, you described what most scientists actually believe. Believe is the key word here, as it is a faith-based thing. As far as science goes, they only claim the process, not the deity.

Granted, maybe the word "theory" was not a strictly used in it's proper scientific meaning. Though, I don't see what is wrong with calling something a theory even though it may be unproveable.

All things in science are unprovable. To be considered a scientific theory, something must be falsifiable - it must be logically able to be disproven - and it must have an incredible amount of evidence backing it.

In lay-terms, a theory is simply an idea to explain something. That is the way you were using it before.

You are aware that most scientists are theists, right?

In lay-terms, a theory is simply an idea to explain something. That is the way you were using it before.

Therefore, a religious belief is a theory, correct? And a theory is a religious belief?

Therefore, a religious belief is a theory, correct? And a theory is a religious belief?

Not from a scientific viewpoint, no.

The word theory means something very different in science than it does in lay-terms. In lay-terms, we might call a religious belief a theory. In scientific terms, a religious belief is unfalsifiable and untestable. It does not have the empirical evidence and testing to back it. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.

I'm not trying to compare it to evolution at all. I also understand it is not testable under the scientific method. What I am saying is that it allows for both evolution and Intelligent Design as co-existing and completely compatible with each other.

In debates on NS General, you should stress that you're talking about your personal version of ID. Otherwise you'll just end up taking a lot of shit for no reason.
You are right, however, that your version of ID doesn't outright contradict the evolution theories. Speculating that a supernatural entity created the natural mechanisms with a specific goal in mind, doesn't contradict anything in science. But then, there's no evidence to support the idea either. It's a question of faith.

Granted, maybe the word "theory" was not a strictly used in it's proper scientific meaning. Though, I don't see what is wrong with calling something a theory even though it may be unproveable.

Try using the words "Idea", "Concept" & "Philosophy" instead, if you want to avoid confusion. It's just a suggestion though. As long as you don't claim your personal theories are scientific theories, there's really nothing wrong in using the word.

I'm not sure I understand how you're applying Occam's Razor to make the idea illogical though, Unless you are saying my belief in a creator has "skewed" my observation of the facts. If it has, the ONLY view that is "skewed" is my view on how sentience in humans came into being, that's it. EVERYTHING else squares with evolution "to a T." My view allows for ameobas to "grow up" into humans and donkeys and elephants, etc. It just offers a "supreme being" as the explanation for sentience.

To put it very, very simple, Occam's Razor says "the simplest solution is the right one" (please google it, if you don't know what it is). Ockham (sp?) was actually a highly religious priest, who tried to logically prove that belief in god is irational. He did it, because he felt that believing in God, because you thought he couldn't possibly not exist was anathema to real faith.

We can apply Occam's Razor to your idea, because it isn't necessary for evolution to work. Not only that, but it introduces - not just something hugely complex for no reason - the unknowable into the equation, for no aparent reason. OR removes the irrational explanation.

EDIT: Hehe, nope Demp. You don't go around ripping heads off. It wasn't meant to be quite that litteral. I just meant "forgive me, if I miss something". This isn't my area of expertise at all, you see ;)

Hmmmm....



Nope, nothing in there about being grounded in the natural world. It says that it must be based on reason. And many people have reason to believe that there is a God. Now, that doesn't make it scientific, of course, but it hardly makes it irrational.



You are correct that it is irrelevant to science, but that hardly makes it irrational.



rational adjective 1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic: I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation.

Now, I am sure you will agree with me that matters concerning the supernatural are not logical by definition. They transcend logic, they can ignore logic. In the supernatural, magic can make anything happen, for example a flood that we have no evidence for or a god who can break the laws of physics, or create species out of thin air.

It is in stark contrast to the natural world, where everything must be logical.

Therefore, any belief based on the supernatural is likewise outside the realm of logic by definition.

Therefore, any belief based on the supernatural is non-rational. This doesn't neccessarily mean it is "irrational" or absurd however (although I certainly believe it is, but that's irrelevant).

My personal opinon.. if you can't teach teach ID/Creationism to those who may not beleive, then you shoudln't teach evolution to those that don't beleive either. I think it should go both ways instead of just one.

Hmm, maybe we should let students decide if they want to be taught if the world is flat or round?

Or if the Sun is the centre of the Solar System or the Earth is?

I have a suggestion for you. How about we only teach what is actually scientifically agreed upon? Let's leave the mythology and fair tales for bed-time stories, shall we?

I'm not sure I understand how you're applying Occam's Razor to make the idea illogical though,

I'm sorry, allow me to explain.

We are agreed, I think, that either the origins of the universe, or human evolution, are due to:

-Natural Phenomena (Big Bang, Evolution, etc)

-Natural Phenomena with Supernatural Direction (your definition of "ID")

Now, Occam's Razor dictates we must logically remove all the superfluous additions. There is no need for supernatural direction, natural phenomena are more than enough to addequately explain everything we are trying to understand. Therefore ID is non-rational, ie made illogical due to Occam's Razor.

ID is thus at the least irrelevant and not needed, at worse an insidious falsification of science.

Actually no, science makes no claim that humans "are in charge", that is pure idiocy. There is no one "in charge" in science, and if there is science simply doesn't care as it isn't provable.


Your comparison of the two just proves why the University's decision was absolutely correct.

Here is a much better comparison:

A religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence.

A religion is based on the supernatural, science is based on the natural.

Aha! But it all depends on your viewpoint. And, if you want to go about a Supernatural theory for religion, let us take a look at a hypothetical situation.

You are a slave in Roman Society and the year is 0000. By some oddity in time and space, you are brought forward to president day United States. While here you see the following things:

A Car driving around.
A plane taking off, flying, and landing.
A gun shooting a target.
A television show.
A DVD
The Space Shuttle taking off.
Astronauts landing on the moon.
And a Nuclear Bomb Detonating.

Now, describe those events with the vocabulary of a slave in Roman Society, from the year 0000 AD. Keep it in English Please.

Aha! But it all depends on your viewpoint. And, if you want to go about a Supernatural theory for religion, let us take a look at a hypothetical situation.

You are a slave in Roman Society and the year is 0000. By some oddity in time and space, you are brought forward to president day United States. While here you see the following things:

A Car driving around.
A plane taking off, flying, and landing.
A gun shooting a target.
A television show.
A DVD
The Space Shuttle taking off.
Astronauts landing on the moon.
And a Nuclear Bomb Detonating.

Now, describe those events with the vocabulary of a slave in Roman Society, from the year 0000 AD. Keep it in English Please.

I'm sorry, but would you mind telling me what the bloody hell that is about?

I'm sorry Belator, your point seems to have escaped me.

You basically seem to be saying that your belief in the supernatural is because you don't understand the natural explanation for these phenomena?

If so I agree with you, supernatural beliefs are used by those who don't understand to explain away natural phenomena. They are also used when someone doesn't like the natural explanation. This is especially the case in the fundamentalist doctrine of creationism/ID.

Edit: Seems The Similized world beat me to the punch.

Yay! Who needs fact when you have a three thousand year old misstranslated collection of fables?

Simple. Religions are some of the first Theories to ever have existed. What I asked you to do will prove that.

In ancient times, people would try to understand the world around them. This was accomplished by creating religions. Basically, religions are the first scientific theories ever created.

What really is interesting is that when you look at Creation Myths, they tend to be similiar.

Simple. Religions are some of the first Theories to ever have existed. What I asked you to do will prove that.

In ancient times, people would try to understand the world around them. This was accomplished by creating religions. Basically, religions are the first scientific theories ever created.



Firstly, they are not theories as they are not falsifiable.

Secondly, you are right that religions were created by early man to explain away natural phenomena that he could not understand. Nowadays, they are not only unneccessary, their explanations have been proven to be rediculous.

What really is interesting is that when you look at Creation Myths, they tend to be similiar.
Only when you examine those from similar regions where it is clear that an older collection of myths influenced a newer one.

For example, the Hebrew myth of creation (shared by Christianity) was clearly influenced by the myths held by their powerful neigbours in Babylonia. The biblical flood story comes from the Gilgamesh epic, itself an ancient Sumerian poem.

Myths from more remote places are sometimes vastly different, for example the Mayan creation myths. Or the "Dreamtime" myths of the Australian Aboriginals.

Simple. Religions are some of the first Theories to ever have existed. What I asked you to do will prove that.

In ancient times, people would try to understand the world around them. This was accomplished by creating religions. Basically, religions are the first scientific theories ever created.

What really is interesting is that when you look at Creation Myths, they tend to be similiar.
Sure they do. And while you're off proving religion is real, because plenty of myths are similar, the rest of us will get coffee.

There's no way you can make the argument mate. The problem is we already have fairly adequate explanations for why the majority of religions share similar concepts & stories. But let's not spoil the fun just yet...

You can't say religions were mankind's first scientific theories. You can't because they weren't. Mankinds first science theories, were our first science theories... The ones reached using the scientific method.

Religion was no doubt (and still is) a tool people employ to understand & explain reality. However, religion have no real test to be put thru, or anything else of the sort. It's simply elaborate thought experiements. When such things doesn't require worthship, organisation & specific rituals, they are called philosophies.

Science is an entirely different kettle of fish. Science doesn't - and can't - concern stuff that can't be observed. It's only applicable to reality. You can't use the scientific method to determine whether there's a universal morale-code for example.

You seem to be playing the infamous "God-of-the-gaps" game: If you don't understand it, or if noone understands it, God must be the explanation.

Unfortunately, that's no explanation at all. You are simply adding to the mystery when you invoke God. If God made humans, for example, could you please demonstrate how & why? And while you're at it, could you also please demonstrate God actually did it? Or that there is a God? Or how God came to be?

If even one of those questions are unanswerable, then you don't actually explain anything by invoking God. You simply make the mystery inexplicable. Science, on the other hand, will not draw any sort of conclusion. It may be God, it may be a blowfish, or it may simply be something else entirely.

In relation to evolution, there's not even much of a gap for God to reside in. We can already explain how things work, without resorting to unknowables, so why add extra complications? Other than a subjective, personal desire to throw God into it, do you have any compelling OBJECTIVE reason for doing it?

However, religion have no real test to be put thru, or anything else of the sort. It's simply elaborate thought experiements. When such things doesn't require worthship, organisation & specific rituals, they are called philosophies.

I disagree that religion is a "thought experiment". Thought experiments still occur within universes of clearly defined laws, similar to ours (and sometimes ours). For example, Einsteins thought experiments (like the relativity ones involving a freefalling elevator) occured within "our" universe.

Religion does not. Whenever it encounters a problem, it simply summons god to twist the fabric of reality and make the impossible (at least in our universe) possible. They don't deserve the description "thought experiment".

Now, describe those events with the vocabulary of a slave in Roman Society, from the year 0000 AD. Keep it in English Please.

Ermmm, there was no year AD 0. I believe the year you are thinking about is either AD 1 or 1 BC.

I disagree that religion is a "thought experiment". Thought experiments still occur within universes of clearly defined laws, similar to ours (and sometimes ours). For example, Einsteins thought experiments (like the relativity ones involving a freefalling elevator) occured within "our" universe.

Religion does not. Whenever it encounters a problem, it simply summons god to twist the fabric of reality and make the impossible (at least in our universe) possible. They don't deserve the description "thought experiment".

... Somehow I can't disagree with you... However, I was trying not to be too antagonistic towards religion. That's why I chose that particular wording.

AD 1, then.

As for how God created Man, Genetic Manipulation.

AD 1, then.

As for how God created Man, Genetic Manipulation.

Perhaps you haven't bothered reading the previous posts, but Occam's Razor will tear that idea up nicely.

Besides the fact you have absolutely nothing to back up such a bold statement, your idea is also completely unnecessary.

AD 1, then.

As for how God created Man, Genetic Manipulation.
No, no. You're not gonna get away with sidelining religion & science by saying that.

How did God do it? Demonstrate it, or at least explain how it can concievably be falsified.

And do the same with the rest of the questions I asked you. If you can't, then you'll know why religion & science isn't the same thing, and why the two aren't compatible.

AD 1, then.

As for how God created Man, Genetic Manipulation.It doesn't take God to manipulate something's genetic code...

Science is an entirely different kettle of fish. Science doesn't - and can't - concern stuff that can't be observed. It's only applicable to reality. You can't use the scientific method to determine whether there's a universal morale-code for example.



Science is composed of the experimental process AND philosophy. For example, the idea that only natural causes can explain the phenomenon of life and its diversity is not proven, but only an assumption. The evidence from the experiments in interpreted in terms of this assumption. The evidence can support (or not support) the assumption, but cannot prove the assumption. The assumption is arrived at using philosophy (reason, logic, induction, etc). That particular philosophical point of view that is most popular in science today, often referred to as neo-Darwinism, is on a collision course with any other philosophical point of view or religion that holds that the supernatural interfered with life as we observe it.

So you are quite wrong. Science is totally involved with things and causes that it cannot observe or see. Its because the speculations that come out of science (e.g. that we humans evolved from animals using selection and mutations) will impact out ideas of morality. Many people hold that because we have evolved, our idea of morality should be based on successful selection. So while scientific theory cannot be used to detect morality, it has been used to determine the moral code. This is the level of involvement of science in modern society. This is one reason why it will always (at least the neo-Darwinism) clash with religion, unless religion modifies it's views to go along with it. I suppose that is what much of the fuss is over.

It doesn't take God to manipulate something's genetic code...

No, but it would to take a base genetic code, such as a spider monkey, and turn it into a Homo Erectus. Unless you are talking about us at least 100 years in the future.

Science is composed of the experimental process AND philosophy. For example, the idea that only natural causes can explain the phenomenon of life and its diversity is not proven, but only an assumption. The evidence from the experiments in interpreted in terms of this assumption.

This is not true. Science does not deny the existance of the supernatural, on the contrary it recognises that because it is not falsifiable it can never be denied.

Science instead maintains that since it cannot be falsified it is irrelevant. Science ignores the supernatural completely and instead deals with the natural world.

Instead, it is logic which we see that rejects the supernatural. Since everything can be explained via the natural world, Occam's Razor (a tool of logic) removes the supernatural.

No, but it would to take a base genetic code, such as a spider monkey, and turn it into a Homo Erectus. Unless you are talking about us at least 100 years in the future.Not "us". Some advanced alien race could have done that. It's just as plausible as saying a deity did that.

No, but it would to take a base genetic code, such as a spider monkey, and turn it into a Homo Erectus. Unless you are talking about us at least 100 years in the future.

This is a load of bs. It assumes that only genetic manipulation can "take a base genetic code, such as a spider monkey, and turn it into a Homo Erectus".

However, science has proven that this can occur naturally, the mechanism for that is evolution. I suggest the works of Darwin, perhaps he is familure to you?

This is a load of bs. It assumes that only genetic manipulation can "take a base genetic code, such as a spider monkey, and turn it into a Homo Erectus".

However, science has proven that this can occur naturally, the mechanism for that is evolution.

While it can occur naturally, the odds are extremely low. I mean, tiny! And it would take several million years.

But if you wanted a Homo Erectus within the next ten years, well, Genetic Manipulation works wonders.

But if you wanted a Homo Erectus within the next ten years, well, Genetic Manipulation works wonders.

You really think Homo Erectus evolved in ten years?

While it can occur naturally, the odds are extremely low.
The probability of evolution occuring is 1. That is, it is a certainty, as all species constantly evolve.

The probability that a particular species will evolve to a particular thing is harder to determine, but is based on environmental pressures.

Science is composed of the experimental process AND philosophy. For example, the idea that only natural causes can explain the phenomenon of life and its diversity is not proven, but only an assumption. The evidence from the experiments in interpreted in terms of this assumption. The evidence can support (or not support) the assumption, but cannot prove the assumption. The assumption is arrived at using philosophy (reason, logic, induction, etc). That particular philosophical point of view that is most popular in science today, often referred to as neo-Darwinism, is on a collision course with any other philosophical point of view or religion that holds that the supernatural interfered with life as we observe it.

So you are quite wrong. Science is totally involved with things and causes that it cannot observe or see. Its because the speculations that come out of science (e.g. that we humans evolved from animals using selection and mutations) will impact out ideas of morality. Many people hold that because we have evolved, our idea of morality should be based on successful selection. So while scientific theory cannot be used to detect morality, it has been used to determine the moral code. This is the level of involvement of science in modern society. This is one reason why it will always (at least the neo-Darwinism) clash with religion, unless religion modifies it's views to go along with it. I suppose that is what much of the fuss is over.

Time to kill the popular misconception yet again...

Science is not anything like you make it out to be. For example: Science doesn't prove stuff. It proves stuff wrong or fails to prove stuff wrong. It can't prove a theory to be true.

You're quite right saying we use the scientific method to examine & theorise about stuff we currently can't falsify. However! The scientific method cannot be applied to things that can't logically be falsified. This it the main difference between philosophies/religions and scientific theories. The former are unfalsifiable. The latter either is, or will eventually become, falsifiable. This is also why something like, for example, M-Theory isn't strictly science. We have no way of falsifying it.

I have no idea why you're, continually, setting up strawmans (neo-darwinism) and trying to divert attention from the actual issue, by talking about philosophical debates, spawned by a science theory (the moral junk). But it doesn't have anything to do with science, and as far as I can tell, it's not relevant in any way.

Look mate, it's quite alright not to know everything. Noone does. Noone's blaming you for not knowing, or having misunderstood, what science is, but I suggest you use the resources at your disposal to find out. You're online. Take advantage of it.

I'll gladly admit that you've almost completely lost me. To a large extent, I simply have no idea what you're claiming, dispoting, asking or whatever. I'm gona take that as my queue to leave for the day.

In relation to evolution, there's not even much of a gap for God to reside in. We can already explain how things work, without resorting to unknowables, so why add extra complications? Other than a subjective, personal desire to throw God into it, do you have any compelling OBJECTIVE reason for doing it?

This is just another 'poke' to see if you are going to respond to the earlier post....:)

You suggest that there is not much of a gap in the evolutionary theory. Apparently science can explain just about everything.

I disagree.

I can see that we can pretty much explain a miniscule fraction of all that we observe. Start with something as basic as gravity. What is it? What about the origin of life? What about the process of the development of an embryo? What about the supposed evolution of prokaryotes into eukaryotes? How is that supposed to happen? How can complicated organs like eyes evolve one mutation at a time? Most scientists would probably agree that the process of microevolution cannot explain the process of macroevolution. So how does macroevolution work? How does science explain the explosion in the diversity of life? What holds the atom together? Can science explain where the so called big bang came from? What about human consciousness? How did we get that? And if we are so genetically similar to monkeys, how can that tiny bit of genetical difference account for the vast difference that we observe today? Why is there even homology in the so-called junk DNA?
Why do humans die? What happens to your consciousness when you die?

Science cannot answer any of these questions. It can speculate. But if you would like to believe the opinions of a few old scientists like Hawkins and Dawkins are really worth putting your 'faith' in, can you assume that this is a safe bet?

Time to kill the popular misconception yet again...

Science is not anything like you make it out to be. For example: Science doesn't prove stuff. It proves stuff wrong or fails to prove stuff wrong. It can't prove a theory to be true.

You're quite right saying we use the scientific method to examine & theorise about stuff we currently can't falsify. However! The scientific method cannot be applied to things that can't logically be falsified. This it the main difference between philosophies/religions and scientific theories. The former are unfalsifiable. The latter either is, or will eventually become, falsifiable. This is also why something like, for example, M-Theory isn't strictly science. We have no way of falsifying it.

I have no idea why you're, continually, setting up strawmans (neo-darwinism) and trying to divert attention from the actual issue, by talking about philosophical debates, spawned by a science theory (the moral junk). But it doesn't have anything to do with science, and as far as I can tell, it's not relevant in any way.

Look mate, it's quite alright not to know everything. Noone does. Noone's blaming you for not knowing, or having misunderstood, what science is, but I suggest you use the resources at your disposal to find out. You're online. Take advantage of it.

I'll gladly admit that you've almost completely lost me. To a large extent, I simply have no idea what you're claiming, dispoting, asking or whatever. I'm gona take that as my queue to leave for the day.

I was trying to show you how the philosophy of science does directly impact the area of belief, faith, world view, etc.

Science does prove stuff. The methodology that it uses is in setting up a hypothesis, and setting up an experiment where the results either confirm or falsify the hypothesis. But the purpose of such a process is to prove, e.g, that a particular gene is involved in cancer. In that sense, science is capable of proving it, wherever the experiment can be repeated and the hypothesis used to make more predictions which can also be tested.

What is happening in the modern world is that the authority that science has on repeatable and testable observations of the modern world are being used to speculate and explain the past. The philosophy that it uses is clashing with religion. Religion fights back by introducing another philosophical view point into science, ID. ID does not force religion to hold the view point that God did not create man, whereas the implication of the philosophy of neo-Darwinism is that everything is potentially explainable through natural causes. That is why neo-Darwinism is quick to accuse their critics of 'the God of the gaps' argument. It's because neo-Darwinism assumes that the supernatural did not intervene.

You really think Homo Erectus evolved in ten years?

Of course not! With Genetic Manipulation, maybe little dwarven Homo Erectus in 10 years, but full grown would take many years.


The probability of evolution occuring is 1. That is, it is a certainty, as all species constantly evolve.

The probability that a particular species will evolve to a particular thing is harder to determine, but is based on environmental pressures.

The probability for a spider monkey to go Homo Erectus through evolution and live are extremely low.

Simple. Religions are some of the first Theories to ever have existed. What I asked you to do will prove that.

In ancient times, people would try to understand the world around them. This was accomplished by creating religions. Basically, religions are the first scientific theories ever created.

What really is interesting is that when you look at Creation Myths, they tend to be similiar.
Those aren't theories, at least not in the modern scientific sense.
A theory in the modern, scientific sense needs to make predictions and those predictions need to be testable/falsifiable. In the case of evolution, the prediction is that we'll find fossils of animals that are the ancestors of present day animals but are different. We find that. Evolution has occured in the past and the emergence of new species (such as the bug that eats only nylon) show that evolution still occurs.

The probability for a spider monkey to go Homo Erectus through evolution and live are extremely low.Which proves nothing. Spider monkeys aren't considered our ancestors. ;)

Science is composed of the experimental process AND philosophy. For example, the idea that only natural causes can explain the phenomenon of life and its diversity is not proven, but only an assumption. The evidence from the experiments in interpreted in terms of this assumption.
Actually, it started off as a hypothesis, but due to evidence that backs it up, it is a theory.

The evidence can support (or not support) the assumption, but cannot prove the assumption.
Bingo. That's the nature of science.
Theories are tested, when a theory fails a test it is modified or abandoned, when it passes, it is supported.

The assumption is arrived at using philosophy (reason, logic, induction, etc). That particular philosophical point of view that is most popular in science today, often referred to as neo-Darwinism, is on a collision course with any other philosophical point of view or religion that holds that the supernatural interfered with life as we observe it.
Ant that other philisophical/theological point of view is not scientific.

So you are quite wrong. Science is totally involved with things and causes that it cannot observe or see.
?!? I'm sorry, but you proved that where in your rant?

Its because the speculations that come out of science (e.g. that we humans evolved from animals using selection and mutations) will impact out ideas of morality. Many people hold that because we have evolved, our idea of morality should be based on successful selection. So while scientific theory cannot be used to detect morality, it has been used to determine the moral code.
It isn't the job of scientists to advocate morals. While morals may draw influence from science, science draws no influence from morals (with the exception of research ethics, of course)

This is the level of involvement of science in modern society. This is one reason why it will always (at least the neo-Darwinism) clash with religion, unless religion modifies it's views to go along with it. I suppose that is what much of the fuss is over.
Science isn't doing the clashing. Most scientists don't give a shit about other people's religious beliefs. It is religious groups who can't accept that they are wrong or that scientists don't give a shit what they believe who are doing the clashing. They are the ones who are insisting that their views are taught in science classes despite having nothing to do with science. It seems to me that religion is a crochety old man trying to fight the changing times, being dragged kicking and screaming into that good night.

Actually, science is a religion. We just think we are in charge, rather than God.
Nope.

And if you don't believe me, why don't you show me a plateful of quarks?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Quarks have been isolated, only for short periods of time... but they have been.

Pulled from the evil fox news site.

So again this is not about forcing christianity in school right?

The lawsuit will probably fail but if history repeats they will try again and again and again and again.....

Maybe it's the coming Dark Ages for the US?

------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167235,00.html

California Religious Schools Sue University Over Creationism
Saturday, August 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES — A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.

"A threat to one religion is a threat to all," he said.

UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment, because the university had not been served with the lawsuit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.

"These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed," Poorsina.
Back to the thread. What is the matter with a book that studies Chrisitanities influence on the history of the US? Christianity has had a great effect on US history, I find it difficult to understand that anyone could argue it has not.

It would appear the only other concern should be in what class creationism is taught. As a large majority of Us citizens consider them selves christian the idea proposed by this religion are a reasonable subject to teach. However as they are presented in a different way and based on a different premise then I agree they should not be taugh alongside science, but in a class of thier own.

As science can't prove creationsim wrong but can only present a reasonable alternative or alternatives there should be no problem. Fear that you have jumped on the wrong band wagon may be what drives people to argue that one or the other side should not be taught.

To put it very, very simple, Occam's Razor says "the simplest solution is the right one" (please google it, if you don't know what it is). Ockham (sp?) was actually a highly religious priest, who tried to logically prove that belief in god is irational. He did it, because he felt that believing in God, because you thought he couldn't possibly not exist was anathema to real faith.

We can apply Occam's Razor to your idea, because it isn't necessary for evolution to work. Not only that, but it introduces - not just something hugely complex for no reason - the unknowable into the equation, for no aparent reason. OR removes the irrational explanation.



Oh, ok, got it, sorry, I was confusing the 'Schrodinger Cat phenomenon' and Heisenberg Uncertainty principle with Occam's Razor.

Back to the thread. What is the matter with a book that studies Chrisitanities influence on the history of the US? Christianity has had a great effect on US history, I find it difficult to understand that anyone could argue it has not.

I think this is a different argument. Really, you can't teach the role of Christianity in US history because there is supposed to be a system free of religion of any particular kind. If you teach how Christianity influences US politics and history, the kids will become disenfranchised and think, "If there really is a seperation of church and state and that is not followed, what in the system does work?"

It would appear the only other concern should be in what class creationism is taught. As a large majority of Us citizens consider them selves christian the idea proposed by this religion are a reasonable subject to teach. However as they are presented in a different way and based on a different premise then I agree they should not be taugh alongside science, but in a class of thier own.

Regardless of the fact that most of the the US is some form of chritianity, not all are christian. If you want to teach creationism, teach it is Social Studies when studying world religions and include the creation myth of every other major religion, or some teach it in some sort of philosophy class. Keep it out of the science classroom as there is no science involved.

As science can't prove creationsim wrong but can only present a reasonable alternative or alternatives there should be no problem. Fear that you have jumped on the wrong band wagon may be what drives people to argue that one or the other side should not be taught.

Science can't prove creationism wrong for a major reason...it has never been proven. There is nothing to support the idea of creationism, save the bible (not a fact provider) and the faith of a few people. That does not a scientific argument make. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by data that has been empirically tested to show that this is the case. Are there parts missing in the story? Yes. Will things in the specific portions of the theory of evolution change? Yes. Will the general theory of evolution change? Not for the most part. We have a good understanding of how it works. We can see a clear pattern.

These are things that creationism lacks.

Actually, it started off as a hypothesis, but due to evidence that backs it up, it is a theory.


OK, but there appears to be several definitions of the word 'theory'. Perhaps you may like to specify the exact one you mean.


Ant that other philisophical/theological point of view is not scientific.


There is a problem with this point. Before Darwin, the idea of natural causes being the only causes allowed in the speculation over the origins and diversity of life was not popular. The vast majority of scientists held that God was the creator of static life, i.e., that life had been created as is, not evolved. The contribution of Darwin and his allies was to change much of that. His argument was that the old way of science was not really science, and that the true definition of science was that it should use only causes that are potentially measurable (i.e. NOT supernatural ones) in it's theories of the origins and diversity of life. What he was really saying that the scientists of his day were not true scientists--they were not doing science. Chaps like Luis Pasteur and Isaac Newton and many other reputable men who made major contributions to science were more like imposters or pretenders. I disagree with him, obviously.


?!? I'm sorry, but you proved that where in your rant?


If you would like a sensible discussion, I suggest you leave out inflaming words like 'rant'. They are unnecessary. If you don't understand a point, admit it, instead of accusing your opponent of stupidity or fanaticism.

In an earlier post, someone said that science only deals with what it sees. My point is that science is quite frequently involved in the investigation of things or events that it cannot see. For example, no one has seen an atom. That is why we have models of atomic structure. Neither does anyone understand what light is, or how it appears to have both wave and particle like behaviours. Neither has anyone observed the force of gravity, although we have made progress in observing and predicting its effects on matter.

Another point I was making was that the current philosophy of science has had a huge impact on religion. Can anyone argue that the decline in church attendance has not been contributed to by Darwinism and neo-Darwinism? Thus science and religion cannot truly be separated, unless one is changed. The philosophy of neo-Dawinism and the relevation of creation (in the Bible) are not compatible unless one of them is modified.


Science isn't doing the clashing. Most scientists don't give a shit about other people's religious beliefs. It is religious groups who can't accept that they are wrong or that scientists don't give a shit what they believe who are doing the clashing. They are the ones who are insisting that their views are taught in science classes despite having nothing to do with science. It seems to me that religion is a crochety old man trying to fight the changing times, being dragged kicking and screaming into that good night.

People are doing the clashing, of course. I see that the science community and the religious community are, and have been for a while now, opponents, particularly over the debate about the origin of man. The fight is not always defined by science/religious boundaries, particularly when many religious groups modify their theology to adjust to the philosophy of neo-Dawinism, while some scientists are in favour of ID. Neo-Darwinists (NDers) and ID is the most recent front line of the battle. IDers are sick of ND having so much control over morals, ethics, etc. and are pushing for a change. NDers are refusing to budge by labelling ID as non-science. You may think of religion as a croaky old man refusing to admit defeat. Perhaps that is the way things will eventually go. Who knows? I do not believe humans are objective enough about the debate, and are capable of accepting falsehood if it suits them temporarily. But the battle is raging. As for me, I hope the truth wins, even if it is at the expense of letting go of my own favourite viewpoint.

While it can occur naturally, the odds are extremely low. I mean, tiny! And it would take several million years.

But if you wanted a Homo Erectus within the next ten years, well, Genetic Manipulation works wonders.
Show us where you get your probability calculations from

This is not true. Science does not deny the existance of the supernatural, on the contrary it recognises that because it is not falsifiable it can never be denied.

Science instead maintains that since it cannot be falsified it is irrelevant. Science ignores the supernatural completely and instead deals with the natural world.

Instead, it is logic which we see that rejects the supernatural. Since everything can be explained via the natural world, Occam's Razor (a tool of logic) removes the supernatural.

Fortunately, the process of science is not restricted to individual view points and philosophies. Anyone can do science, so long as they stick to the rules of the process of science. That is why science is bigger than ID or neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is the philosophical view point that says that life as we observe it can be explained (at least potentially) using only natural causes, e.g. natural selection and mutation. (The process of science is older than this philosophical view point.) Thus science itself does not measure the supernatural, nor is it capable of proving the existence or the non-existence of God (or some other equivalent). However, neo-Darwinism is a different matter. A classic example comes from Wikipedia on the subject of abiogenesis:

''the generation of life from non-living matter — has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth.''

This statement does not say that God did not create life, but the implication is there. 'Since we have never observed life arising from non-life, we can suggest that it must either be very rare or that the conditions back then were so different as to be more favourable for the formation and evolution of the early life forms.'
This is the implication of neo-Darwinism. Thus, you are right to say that science does not deny the existence of the supernatural, but it effectively rules it out, not through logic as you suggest, but by a blatant assumption that only natural causes were involved in the origin (and diversity) of life.

Also from Wikipedia. These statements give the basis for the theory of evolution:
'The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.'

This basically says that every living thing came from a single ancestor, and that the causes involved were mutation (manifestation of novel traits) and selection (some traits persist while others perish).

Personally, I don't see it as very good logic to remove God simply because He makes it more complicated. My reason is that the removal of a designer is far worse because it means that one is left trying to explain incredibly complex processes with a couple of causes (selection and mutation). Altogether far too simplistic. Only someone who has never had a good look as the phenominal complexity of life could ever believe that, unless they carried some sort of 'faith' in their theory.

Alternatively, hoping that another natural cause is going to pop up around the corner and solve everything is not terribly logical either. Not only is this highly unlikely, but it is rather illogical to make your theory DEPEND on that unlikely discovery.

Fortunately, the process of science is not restricted to individual view points and philosophies. Anyone can do science, so long as they stick to the rules of the process of science. That is why science is bigger than ID or neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is the philosophical view point that says that life as we observe it can be explained (at least potentially) using only natural causes, e.g. natural selection and mutation. (The process of science is older than this philosophical view point.) Thus science itself does not measure the supernatural, nor is it capable of proving the existence or the non-existence of God (or some other equivalent). However, neo-Darwinism is a different matter. A classic example comes from Wikipedia on the subject of abiogenesis:

''the generation of life from non-living matter — has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth.''

This statement does not say that God did not create life, but the implication is there. 'Since we have never observed life arising from non-life, we can suggest that it must either be very rare or that the conditions back then were so different as to be more favourable for the formation and evolution of the early life forms.'
This is the implication of neo-Darwinism. Thus, you are right to say that science does not deny the existence of the supernatural, but it effectively rules it out, not through logic as you suggest, but by a blatant assumption that only natural causes were involved in the origin (and diversity) of life.

Also from Wikipedia. These statements give the basis for the theory of evolution:
'The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.'

This basically says that every living thing came from a single ancestor, and that the causes involved were mutation (manifestation of novel traits) and selection (some traits persist while others perish).

Personally, I don't see it as very good logic to remove God simply because He makes it more complicated. My reason is that the removal of a designer is far worse because it means that one is left trying to explain incredibly complex processes with a couple of causes (selection and mutation). Altogether far too simplistic. Only someone who has never had a good look as the phenominal complexity of life could ever believe that, unless they carried some sort of 'faith' in their theory.

Alternatively, hoping that another natural cause is going to pop up around the corner and solve everything is not terribly logical either. Not only is this highly unlikely, but it is rather illogical to make your theory DEPEND on that unlikely discovery.


And in the end adding the god portion just because it is logical for you makes it a NON scientific hypothesis

As such it has no right to be in a SCIENCE class

Sure there is [regarding no difference between cretinism and ID], there is one hell of a difference between creationism and ID as I understand/define them:

Creationism = strict adherence to the literal word of Genesis - six 24 hour days, the world is 6,000 years old, etc.

ID = belief that some superior intelligence caused the universe to come into being billions of years ago and that evolution gave rise to people, animals, etc. and that evolution was part of the plan put in place when the universe was designed by the superior intelligence.
IOW: ID is the same as cretinism, only IDers don't want you to know it, so they couch their crap in pseudo-science terms to make it look like they aren't peddling the biblical literalism that they are.

There is a difference in accepting religous grades as indication of work ethic

And accepting thoes religous classes to teach adaquate content and count for "test out" sort of situation
Yes, but even if you accept religious grades on those grounds it kind of interferes with separation of church and state unless you accept grades achieved in any course on the basis giving credit for work ethic. In that case, you have to accept grades in an economics course that teaches that demand for a product increases with price.

And in the end adding the god portion just because it is logical for you makes it a NON scientific hypothesis

As such it has no right to be in a SCIENCE class

I agree that adding God to a theory is not scientific. Perhaps it is more of a philosophical process. However, how is it that neo-Darwinism got you to accept that the assumption that states that only natural causes were involved in the origin and diversity of life was on a scientific basis? Surely you can see that it is on the basis of a philosophy, not an experimental process. I know you can see that.

Actually, science is a religion.
Actually, it's not. Thanks for lying.



And if you don't believe me, why don't you show me a plateful of quarks?
We've got quark trails. Or don't you bother to do research before you spout off?

My personal opinon.. if you can't teach teach ID/Creationism to those who may not beleive, then you shoudln't teach evolution to those that don't beleive either. I think it should go both ways instead of just one.
That's like saying you shouldn't teach that the earth is spheroid to flat-earthers.

Simple. Religions are some of the first Theories to ever have existed.
"Theory" in the vernacular, and not theory in the scientific sense.


In ancient times, people would try to understand the world around them. This was accomplished by creating religions. Basically, religions are the first scientific theories ever created.
No, they aren't. They have nothing to do with science.


What really is interesting is that when you look at Creation Myths, they tend to be similiar.
Actually---no, that's wrong as well. The Norse creation stories are quite different from those of the Mesopotamian region, which are different from those of the east Asian region, for example.

Yes, but even if you accept religious grades on those grounds it kind of interferes with separation of church and state unless you accept grades achieved in any course on the basis giving credit for work ethic. In that case, you have to accept grades in an economics course that teaches that demand for a product increases with price.
Well to an extent they do ... some shop classes and or (like my old highschool) they gave out GRADES for study labs (for doing your homework activly when in lab)

So really that was like a "work ethic" graded course

I agree that adding God to a theory is not scientific. Perhaps it is more of a philosophical process. However, how is it that neo-Darwinism got you to accept that the assumption that states that only natural causes were involved in the origin and diversity of life was on a scientific basis? Surely you can see that it is on the basis of a philosophy, not an experimental process. I know you can see that.

So whats your problem with calling it neo-darwinism instead of evolution, whatever that is? As far as I can see its only to make it seem rediculous, which is a rather childish debating tactic as it already has a widely accepted name, we dont call gravity neo-Newtonianism so why the strange name?

As for the post itself, we see no evidence for a designer so we dont feel the need to invent one. Its that simple.

So whats your problem with calling it evolution instead of neo-Darwinism, whatever that is? As far as I can see its only to make it seem rediculous, which is a rather childish debating tactic as it already has a widely accepted name, we dont call gravity neo-Newtonianism so why the strange name?

As for the post itself, we see no evidence for a designer so we dont feel the need to invent one. Its that simple.

That's a good question. My reason for not calling it evolution is simple. The term 'evolution' has multiple definitions. A computer database can be said to evolve it is being upgraded from time to time. The FORD sedan model has also evolved over time. Skin colour in humans has evolved according to levels of sunlight, disease, etc., over time. Viruses evolve as a form of self defense or survival tactic when fighting immune systems. And bacteria are thought to have evolved into eukaryotes. If I say use the term 'evolution', it is not always clear in which sense I mean.

Furthermore, many people seem to think that the evolutionary process required for things like antibiotic resistance and viral protein modification are evidence for the evolution of molecules to man (I don't believe it is). If I say that I do believe in evolution, inevitably, someone will misunderstand what I mean. If I say that I don't believe in evolution, once again, someone will point to antibiotic resistance and call me a nutter (someone who refuses to believe something as clear as the nose on his face).

When I say neo-Darwinism, I don't mean it as a form of ridicule. Rather, I am referring to the theory that was popularised by Darwin. It has been modified over time, thus it isn't Darwinism. But it is sort of descended from Dawinism, evolved, if you like. It states that all living things today decended from a single ancestor, using only the causes of selection and mutation.

As for you not seeing evidence of a designer, how would you know what evidence to look for? Perhaps your eyes are seeing it, but your world view won't let you recognise it. Again, how would one know?

If the publisher is putting out books loaded with pseudoscience, then they should be allowed to discriminate against students taught using those books.

Not if they are going to remain a State run college they won't.... A college, especially a governmentally controled college, has no right to discriminate based upon primary schooling which which the intended students have no control over. SAT scores should be the only thing which applies to their admission standards. If it is going to receieve state funds, it's not going to disciminate....

I would like to refer all of you to the "We should not be arguing Creation/Evolution" thread. Since neither side seems liable to convince the other of its so-called truth, the "debate" is pointless.

Not if they are going to remain a State run college they won't.... A college, especially a governmentally controled college, has no right to discriminate based upon primary schooling which which the intended students have no control over. SAT scores should be the only thing which applies to their admission standards. If it is going to receieve state funds, it's not going to disciminate....

Yes, and the first standardized test that asks any biology questions is going to completely filter out anyone who believes in intelligent design.

IIRC, there are Achivement tests that do this. As well as Advanced Placement tests.

If you want to go to college and believe in Intelligent Design, you can go to Liberty Baptist College. Or Bob Jones. Unfortunately, you'll be going to a school with no accredited biology department.

[snip]

This statement does not say that God did not create life, but the implication is there. 'Since we have never observed life arising from non-life, we can suggest that it must either be very rare or that the conditions back then were so different as to be more favourable for the formation and evolution of the early life forms.'
This is the implication of neo-Darwinism. Thus, you are right to say that science does not deny the existence of the supernatural, but it effectively rules it out, not through logic as you suggest, but by a blatant assumption that only natural causes were involved in the origin (and diversity) of life.
We go where the evidence leads, and there is no evidence for "supernatural".


Also from Wikipedia. These statements give the basis for the theory of evolution:
'The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.'

This basically says that every living thing came from a single ancestor,
Oversimplification.


and that the causes involved were mutation (manifestation of novel traits) and selection (some traits persist while others perish).

Personally, I don't see it as very good logic to remove God simply because He makes it more complicated.
I do, because there is no support for the god-posit.


My reason is that the removal of a designer is far worse because it means that one is left trying to explain incredibly complex processes with a couple of causes (selection and mutation). Altogether far too simplistic.
That's a good thing! We have those causes; we do not have god.


Only someone who has never had a good look as the phenominal complexity of life could ever believe that, unless they carried some sort of 'faith' in their theory.
Argument from awe logical fallacy.

Not if they are going to remain a State run college they won't.... A college, especially a governmentally controled college, has no right to discriminate based upon primary schooling which which the intended students have no control over.
It should if it wants to have some sort of academic standard.

I would like to refer all of you to the "We should not be arguing Creation/Evolution" thread. Since neither side seems liable to convince the other of its so-called truth, the "debate" is pointless.

I see that everyone ignored that post. Just what is WITH you people, anyway? :headbang:

Actually, I can go back even further. The first English Settlers in America were Puritans and Quakers, Christian Men. Both settled in America to escape Religious persecution, and if Christianity didn't exist, niether would those settlers, and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered North America. Therefore, you, me, and anyone else with direct connections to America would not exist.

The first english settlers were Quakers (1681) and Puritans (1620)? That comes as surprisings news to us Virginians who already had a functioning government in place prior to those mosterous Puritans even setting foot on these shores...

But while we're on the principle of "Puritans" founding anything, lets not forget Providence Plantantion (present Rhode Island) the first american colony founded by christian refugees fleeing persecution by those same so called "Puritans".... Not to mention creating a colony with incorporated religious liberty and freedom (for all, not just Christians).... And the later founding of Maryland (by Roman Catholics) which also incorporated those same ideals. And Pennsylvania; Virginia later adopting the same principle of "Christian Forbearance" when becomming the first independent American Republic (1775)...

Revisionism ignores history, you'ld do better to learn what REALLY happened.

It is a proven archaeological fact that Jericho was abandoned centuries before the time the Hebrews claim to have conquered it.


There is no such proven "fact" as you suppose. The city has been host to many settlements since 8000 BC, during the bronze age alone it was host to three differing settlements: The Hyskos settlement from 1800BC to about 1590BC, the Canaanite settlement starting in the 1400's BC... (And it was the Canaanites which the Hebrews conquered and took the city from). There is plenty of archialogical evidence supporting the Hebrew conquest, including messages send from the many kings over the canaanite providences to allies in Egypt at the time. The thing is, the exact time of the Hebrew settlement in the region is not exactly known, not is any other particular "date" known in exactness... The best we can do is suppose things which automatically have a margin of error (based upon viable dating techniques) of several centuries. What is certain (from tablets found all over the middle-east) is that the Canaanites of Jericho at some time between the 14th and 13th centuries BC were under assault from a foreign power known to them as the "Habiru" who are described as taking cities and fortresses from the Canaan servants of the Pharoah, and were seeking either military aid, or resettlement in Egypt to avoid the "Habiru's" conquest.


The bible is therefore wrong, unless you create some stupid magical reason (ie god falsified the archaeolgical record to fool the world) in order to save it, which I'm sure god will do for you if you ask him nicely.

The Bible does not list dates, only events which are seen readily in the messages sent between powers around the middle-east at the time. Thus, it can be easily assumed that the conquest occured between the 1400's to 1300's BC, where it was razed and left in such state till about the 800's BC when Israel resettled the ruins of the old city.

Aha! But it all depends on your viewpoint. And, if you want to go about a Supernatural theory for religion, let us take a look at a hypothetical situation.

You are a slave in Roman Society and the year is 0000. By some oddity in time and space, you are brought forward to president day United States. While here you see the following things:

A Car driving around.
A plane taking off, flying, and landing.
A gun shooting a target.
A television show.
A DVD
The Space Shuttle taking off.
Astronauts landing on the moon.
And a Nuclear Bomb Detonating.

Now, describe those events with the vocabulary of a slave in Roman Society, from the year 0000 AD. Keep it in English Please.

Actually,that´s already been done in German schoolbooks.Except for the english part,though,cause all the stuff about modern society was in Latin.We were supposed to translate it.

Actually, it started off as a hypothesis, but due to evidence that backs it up, it is a theory.
OK, but there appears to be several definitions of the word 'theory'. Perhaps you may like to specify the exact one you mean.
I'll be happy to do it for him. There's a vast difference between a scientific theory & other discipline's use of the word. But you have previously displayed that you know this. You're also the one who started trying to confuse the matter by introducing more than one use of the word, without differentiating clearly between them. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you muddy the waters like this?

Ant that other philisophical/theological point of view is not scientific.
There is a problem with this point. Before Darwin, the idea of natural causes being the only causes allowed in the speculation over the origins and diversity of life was not popular. The vast majority of scientists held that God was the creator of static life, i.e., that life had been created as is, not evolved. The contribution of Darwin and his allies was to change much of that. His argument was that the old way of science was not really science, and that the true definition of science was that it should use only causes that are potentially measurable (i.e. NOT supernatural ones) in it's theories of the origins and diversity of life. What he was really saying that the scientists of his day were not true scientists--they were not doing science. Chaps like Luis Pasteur and Isaac Newton and many other reputable men who made major contributions to science were more like imposters or pretenders. I disagree with him, obviously.
Riiight... Are you seriously proposing the scientific method can be applied to anything but the logically observable universe?

Also, if you dislike being accused of ranting, perhaps you should try to stick to the topic at hand, refrain from deliberate attempts at linguistic confusion, liberal use of strawmen, and calling people who wish to preserve the scientific method from your inane perversions, for neo-Darwinists. Throw-stone-sin and all that.

?!? I'm sorry, but you proved that where in your rant?
In an earlier post, someone said that science only deals with what it sees. My point is that science is quite frequently involved in the investigation of things or events that it cannot see. For example, no one has seen an atom. That is why we have models of atomic structure. Neither does anyone understand what light is, or how it appears to have both wave and particle like behaviours. Neither has anyone observed the force of gravity, although we have made progress in observing and predicting its effects on matter.
There's a difference between the logically observable & the supernatural/spiritual/otherworldly/whatever. Science can be applied to everything that works within the framework of our universe. Things that are outside that framework are also beyond the scope of the scientific method. Again I find myself wondering if this is another attempt at sabotaging the debate? You seem (from previous posts of yours), to know & understand this full well. So why bring it up, when you know you're not making a point?
Another point I was making was that the current philosophy of science has had a huge impact on religion. Can anyone argue that the decline in church attendance has not been contributed to by Darwinism and neo-Darwinism? Thus science and religion cannot truly be separated, unless one is changed. The philosophy of neo-Dawinism and the relevation of creation (in the Bible) are not compatible unless one of them is modified.
There's no such thing as neo-Darwinism outside the weird brains of fundamentalists. None of the things you say here have anything what so ever to do with the scientific method, or theories reached using it. Believe whatever you please. You live in a free nation. If you dislike scientific discoveries, and feel they threaten your belief-system, show some fucking balls, instead of this slander-manouver.
Pertition your government to remove science education from the school ciriculum. Don't just go around making up insane, baseless arguments. It's rediculous.

Science isn't doing the clashing. Most scientists don't give a shit about other people's religious beliefs. It is religious groups who can't accept that they are wrong or that scientists don't give a shit what they believe who are doing the clashing. They are the ones who are insisting that their views are taught in science classes despite having nothing to do with science. It seems to me that religion is a crochety old man trying to fight the changing times, being dragged kicking and screaming into that good night.
People are doing the clashing, of course. I see that the science community and the religious community are, and have been for a while now, opponents, particularly over the debate about the origin of man. The fight is not always defined by science/religious boundaries, particularly when many religious groups modify their theology to adjust to the philosophy of neo-Dawinism, while some scientists are in favour of ID. Neo-Darwinists (NDers) and ID is the most recent front line of the battle. IDers are sick of ND having so much control over morals, ethics, etc. and are pushing for a change. NDers are refusing to budge by labelling ID as non-science. You may think of religion as a croaky old man refusing to admit defeat. Perhaps that is the way things will eventually go. Who knows? I do not believe humans are objective enough about the debate, and are capable of accepting falsehood if it suits them temporarily. But the battle is raging. As for me, I hope the truth wins, even if it is at the expense of letting go of my own favourite viewpoint.
What you describe is all in your mind. Show me a neo-Darwinist or lay off with the conspiracy/paranoia shit. You most likely know the vast majority of both scientists & biologists & evolution researchers in particular, are religious.
Morals & Ethics are the same thing. Though many atheists will shy away from using the word "morals", because Christians mave such a monolopy on the language, that many automatically connect that word with Christian Biblical Moral values. That, however, is a social battle against a dargage cultural inheritance, and in no way related to any sort of scientific theory.
But you already know this, don't you?

I'm sorry your faith is so fragile you can't accept scientific discovery with your Bible. Fortunaly, most people don't have that problem. Unfortunately for your society's future, the majority of Americans share your dilemma. And to ad insult to injury, lack of education, and a stagnant religious community is likely to blame.

Still, this doesn't have anything to do with science at all. If we're talking school context, this belongs in social studies. But like I said; just be honest about it & outlaw use & education in the scientific method.

This is not true. Science does not deny the existance of the supernatural, on the contrary it recognises that because it is not falsifiable it can never be denied.

Science instead maintains that since it cannot be falsified it is irrelevant. Science ignores the supernatural completely and instead deals with the natural world.

Instead, it is logic which we see that rejects the supernatural. Since everything can be explained via the natural world, Occam's Razor (a tool of logic) removes the supernatural.
Fortunately, the process of science is not restricted to individual view points and philosophies. Anyone can do science, so long as they stick to the rules of the process of science.
Exactly.
<Snipped out the delusionary/obnoxious bits>

''the generation of life from non-living matter — has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth.''

This statement does not say that God did not create life, but the implication is there.

<More dribble>
Of course. You look up a short & sweet description of something related to a scientific theory. Science - as you've stated repeatedly yourself - only concerns itself with the natural world. Of course such a theory can't offer speculations about deities. You know this, so what do you bring it up for? Do you hear me complain that the Bible genesis doesn't mention that the universe just might be a tiny bit older than it (well... they) propose? You really do distort the living shit outta just about everything, don't you?
Personally, I don't see it as very good logic to remove God simply because He makes it more complicated. My reason is that the removal of a designer is far worse because it means that one is left trying to explain incredibly complex processes with a couple of causes (selection and mutation). Altogether far too simplistic. Only someone who has never had a good look as the phenominal complexity of life could ever believe that, unless they carried some sort of 'faith' in their theory.
I too don't see the wisdom in ignoring the obvious explanation: The Gigantic Space Goat did it.
But that's my personal opinion. Your god & my Giant Space Goat don't explain anything. They simply eliminate ever getting an explanation, unless one of them should happen to stop by & explain what it's all about. This is where science, instead of applying Occam's Razor (this is what it was invented for, by the way) & slitting the throat of the God & the Goat, science simply offers no explanation or opinion. You may not think that's good logic. I, on the other hand, don't think you're a terribly rational person. Besides, you know perfectly well that science doesn't say that your God or my Goat can't be lurking in this gap in our knowledge. It just refuses to put them there, because they offer no explanation, and as they are unfalsifiable, they'd kill all further research, effectively putting an end to science.

But you already know all this. You've explained it yourself. So why is it you contradict yourself?
Alternatively, hoping that another natural cause is going to pop up around the corner and solve everything is not terribly logical either. Not only is this highly unlikely, but it is rather illogical to make your theory DEPEND on that unlikely discovery.
Which theory? Our theories about evolution doesn't extent to the cause of life. You most likely know this as well, but whatever... The cause of life, as long as we don't decide that "That pink unicorn did it", remains logically falsifiable. As long as that's the case, we may potentially know the explanation one day. And as long as that's the case, science hypothesis will remain just that. And remember, unlike your faith, science is flexible. The only thing that needs to happen for a theory to be scrapped, is for one observation to seriously contradict it. It already happened to the old Law of Gravity, as you probably already know as well.

Theories don't depend on presently unfalsifiable claims. Things aren't considered theories when they're at that stage. All scientific theory needs supporting observations, that's one of the basic requirements for something to be considered a theory...

But none of this is stuff you haven't already said yourself. What exactly are you trying to pull here? Just causing general confusion, or what?

So whats your problem with calling it evolution instead of neo-Darwinism, whatever that is? As far as I can see its only to make it seem rediculous, which is a rather childish debating tactic as it already has a widely accepted name, we dont call gravity neo-Newtonianism so why the strange name?

As for the post itself, we see no evidence for a designer so we dont feel the need to invent one. Its that simple.
When I say neo-Darwinism, I don't mean it as a form of ridicule. Rather, I am referring to the theory that was popularised by Darwin. It has been modified over time, thus it isn't Darwinism. But it is sort of descended from Dawinism, evolved, if you like. It states that all living things today decended from a single ancestor, using only the causes of selection and mutation.
Forgive me if I find your personal labels offensive in the extreme, and don't believe a word you say here. I'm of the opinion you use this term (like every other reasonably informed IDer), because science have been helpful enough to prove a lot of Darwins original ideas wrong. Besides, the term itself implies some sort of cult following, like for example religious believers.

Whatever the real explanation is, you'd do well to stick to actual terminology. Every harsh word you've gotten from me so far, has been because of your fucked up attitude about this.
But I don't know what I'd expected from someone from you.
As for you not seeing evidence of a designer, how would you know what evidence to look for? Perhaps your eyes are seeing it, but your world view won't let you recognise it. Again, how would one know?
And you still want it in a science class... WHY?! It's nothing to do with science. You already know it!

Now, I am sure you will agree with me that matters concerning the supernatural are not logical by definition.

No, I won't. It would be correct to say that some people who hold views concerning the supernatural do not arrive at them logically. However to say that all views of the supernatural are, by definition, not logical, would be incredibly incorrect.

They transcend logic, they can ignore logic.

Key word: can. They do not have to, and often do not.

Therefore, any belief based on the supernatural is non-rational. This doesn't neccessarily mean it is "irrational" or absurd however (although I certainly believe it is, but that's irrelevant).

Incorrect, any belief which actually ignores logic is irrational (which is the same thing as non-rational, except it is actually a word). A belief based in logic, but simply a different conclusion than yours is not irrational just because you didn't come to it.

Yes, and the first standardized test that asks any biology questions is going to completely filter out anyone who believes in intelligent design.

IIRC, there are Achivement tests that do this. As well as Advanced Placement tests.

If you want to go to college and believe in Intelligent Design, you can go to Liberty Baptist College. Or Bob Jones. Unfortunately, you'll be going to a school with no accredited biology department.

Exactly, what's to say these kids don't actually buy the ID taught in those classes.... The curriculum does not dictate that capacity of the students. And students don't automatically buy everything fed to them in school by some teacher. If they have the basic Scholastic Aptitude, and are footing the bill and want to attends this state college (they are paying for); why should they be penalized for education they had no choice over alone?

What's next, locking up children of criminal parents? In what other ways are we going to begin visiting the sins of the parents upon the children next?

This just goes to show that most "Liberals" are anything BUT actually "Liberal" in their ideology....

Religion does not. Whenever it encounters a problem, it simply summons god to twist the fabric of reality and make the impossible (at least in our universe) possible.

You know, baseless stereotyping is the first step on the road to pure bigotry.

Science is composed of the experimental process AND philosophy.

Technically, science is philosophy, with addded restrictions. All of science must follow those restrictions, however.

For example, the idea that only natural causes can explain the phenomenon of life and its diversity is not proven, but only an assumption.

Still spouting the same old nonsense, I see. Of course, anyone who has any idea at all of the logic behind science knows that no such assumption is made.

Since everything can be explained via the natural world,

What an arrogant statement, and one no true scientist would ever say (at least with any certainty).

Most scientists would probably agree that the process of microevolution cannot explain the process of macroevolution.

You are just full of baseless statements today, aren't you? Actually, most scientists (since most scientists do understand evolutionary theory) would say that the process that leads to small changes (microevolution) can, over time, lead to large changes and even speciation (macroevolution).

So how does macroevolution work?

Lots and lots and lots of tiny changes = big changes. It is a relatively simple concept that most gradeschoolers can comprehend.

I was trying to show you how the philosophy of science does directly impact the area of belief, faith, world view, etc.

Impact != Study

Science does prove stuff.

Holy crap! You don't even understand the basic logic of science. How the hell do you claim to have a science degree?

The methodology that it uses is in setting up a hypothesis, and setting up an experiment where the results either confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

Incorrect. An experiment cannot confirm a hypothesis, as there are still ways that it could be disproven. It can only support the hypothesis by not disproving it.

But the purpose of such a process is to prove, e.g, that a particular gene is involved in cancer.

Incorrect. The purpose is to provide support for the hypothesis. If enough support is gathered, one might consider it "proven", but it is never actually proven. There is always uncertainity and the hypothesis (even if it garners so much support that it becomes theory) is still open to being falsified.

It's because neo-Darwinism assumes that the supernatural did not intervene.

Again with your baseless statements. I'm beginning to think that you make up lies on purpose because you think that some people haven't already heard this BS and you might be able to mislead them.

Science does not assume that the supernatural did not intervene. It does not assume that the supernatural did intervene. The supernatural is, by definition, outside of science, so science assumes nothing at all about it.

It should if it wants to have some sort of academic standard.

Academic standards have historically been based upon aptitude, which is the only thing which effects the capacity of the students learning, and not on prior curriculum content. What a student was taught has little bearing on whether or not the student is capable of learning.

If it were not a state-funded school, this would be a non-issue. It is a state-funded school, so it is an issue.

Exactly, what's to say these kids don't actually buy the ID taught in those classes.... The curriculum does not dictate that capacity of the students. And students don't automatically buy everything fed to them in school by some teacher. If they have the basic Scholastic Aptitude, and are footing the bill and want to attends this state college (they are paying for); why should they be penalized for education they had no choice over alone?

What's next, locking up children of criminal parents? In what other ways are we going to begin visiting the sins of the parents upon the children next?

This just goes to show that most "Liberals" are anything BUT actually "Liberal" in their ideology....
The difference is the simple fact that supposedly their grade in a SCIENCE class reflects a basic aptitude in science (supposedly)

A class that allows ID is NOT a science class room so grades earned there DON’T NESSISARILY reflect their aptitude in SCIENCE

Simple as that

After that point I think there should be a student wide aptitude test personally because most science rooms are so shoddy that we cant be sure they got a good education anyways.

BUT then we are asking the university to soak up funds testing rather then making sure the high school classroom is up to par.

Anyone can do science, so long as they stick to the rules of the process of science.

Yeah, like not invoking an assumption or explanation that cannot be falsified....

Neo-Darwinism is the philosophical view point that says that life as we observe it can be explained (at least potentially) using only natural causes, e.g. natural selection and mutation.

If we are talking about philosophical viewpoints, we have moved out of a science discussion. I'm sure there are those who personally believe that natural causes can explain all there is to know. In fact, I know some such people. The ones who have studied science, however, are well aware that said belief is no more scientific than the belief that God created everything.

''the generation of life from non-living matter — has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth.''

This statement does not say that God did not create life, but the implication is there.

Hardly. "Extremely rare," could, if you were so inclined, be interpreted as, "God only does it every now and then." "Conditions unlike those of modern Earth," could, if you were so inclined, be interpreted as, "God has to be directly intervening for that to happen, and God isn't directly intervening now."

Only someone who has never had a good look as the phenominal complexity of life could ever believe that, unless they carried some sort of 'faith' in their theory.

And now you're delving into bigotry.... "No one can possibly logically come to a different conclusion than me..."

Alternatively, hoping that another natural cause is going to pop up around the corner and solve everything is not terribly logical either. Not only is this highly unlikely, but it is rather illogical to make your theory DEPEND on that unlikely discovery.

Good thing that evolutionary theory doesn't depend on any such thing, eh?

A college, especially a governmentally controled college, has no right to discriminate based upon primary schooling which which the intended students have no control over.

It is called HIGHER EDUCATION for a reason. Not all people should go to college, not all people need to go to college. If you are unprepared for college, there is no reason at all that an institution, whether it be a state institution or not, should waste its resources.

SAT scores should be the only thing which applies to their admission standards.

Really? So, "Can you do math on an 8th grade level and do you know a few vocabulary words you'll never use?" is what should get you into college? Why don't we just skip high school altogether!?

Seriously, SAT scores hardly give a good enough indcation of whether or not a student is prepared for college. This is why institutions don't just use SAT scores, or just grades, or "just" anything. They use test scores, grades, essay, extracurricular activities, job experience, etc, etc, etc.

If it is going to receieve state funds, it's not going to disciminate....

So anything that receives state funds can't have admissions requirements? If it receives state funds, we have to let 3 year olds into college?

Admission requirements are only legally discriminatory if they are applied unequally. So long as any such class is not accepted, it is not legally considered discrimination.


Exactly, what's to say these kids don't actually buy the ID taught in those classes.... The curriculum does not dictate that capacity of the students. And students don't automatically buy everything fed to them in school by some teacher. If they have the basic Scholastic Aptitude, and are footing the bill and want to attends this state college (they are paying for); why should they be penalized for education they had no choice over alone?

If they have the aptitude and the drive, they can find a way to take a science course which will be accepted as a prereq. There are remedial classes out there - and you can generally get one at any community college or even at some technical schools.

The difference is the simple fact that supposedly their grade in a SCIENCE class reflects a basic aptitude in science (supposedly)

A class that allows ID is NOT a science class room so grades earned there DON’T NESSISARILY reflect their aptitude in SCIENCE

Simple as that

After that point I think there should be a student wide aptitude test personally because most science rooms are so shoddy that we cant be sure they got a good education anyways.

BUT then we are asking the university to soak up funds testing rather then making sure the high school classroom is up to par.

Replace University with State in this case... Once again, this is a STATE RUN COLLEGE FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS OF THESE STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS.

Further the SAT is not completely good enough, so it can be replaced. But basing this on the curricular content is absurd... The students have no control over the curricular content of their primary education. I'm not "asking" the state university to soak up the cost... I'm DEMANDING that they do.... Why? Because, it's their RESPONSIBILITY AS LONG AS THEY ARE BEING PAYED BY MY TAX DOLLARS.

Any other view is relegated to the circular file where it belongs....

Replace University with State in this case... Once again, this is a STATE RUN COLLEGE FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS OF THESE STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS.

In truth, very little of the budget of a state university actualy comes from the state. And the states cut those budgets every year, which ends up raising tuition..

Further the SAT is not completely good enough, so it can be replaced. But basing this on the curricular content is absurd...

This is like saying, "Sure, the computer test we give isn't good enough, but we should determine whether or not to hire someone as a computer programer basedon whether or not he has studied programming...."

In order to be prepared for college, a student must have certain things under their belt. If they don't, they aren't prepared.

The students have no control over the curricular content of their primary education.

Students over a lot of things - their parents do. It is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children are prepared for the future. If they stunt their child's future by putting them into a school that does not provide the necessary education to get them into a good college, then it is unfortunate that these students will have to work harder and seek other outlets before they can get a college education.

Doing away with admissions standards is hardly the answer here. The answer is ensuring that the people out there know what it takes to be able to get into a good university, and do what they can to make sure their children can get there (if their children should be going to college in the first place).

I'm not "asking" the state university to soak up the cost... I'm DEMANDING that they do.... Why? Because, it's their RESPONSIBILITY AS LONG AS THEY ARE BEING PAYED BY MY TAX DOLLARS.

This is silly. Primary and secondary education are not the responsibility of a university or college - it is the responsibility of the primary and secondary educators. Passing the buck up to the college level is going to do nothing more than drop standards and harm every person seeking a college education there by dropping the standard of education they will receive. There is a reason that people don't go straight from kindergarten into college.

Replace University with State in this case... Once again, this is a STATE RUN COLLEGE FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS OF THESE STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS.

Further the SAT is not completely good enough, so it can be replaced. But basing this on the curricular content is absurd... The students have no control over the curricular content of their primary education. I'm not "asking" the state university to soak up the cost... I'm DEMANDING that they do.... Why? Because, it's their RESPONSIBILITY AS LONG AS THEY ARE BEING PAYED BY MY TAX DOLLARS.

Any other view is relegated to the circular file where it belongs....
You can demand all you like they still have the right to set entrance standards

The private schools curriculum does contain a science class which is the prerequisite for entrance to the school

Maybe a better focus would be making sure high schools are up to a minimum standard to get qualified as being a “high school”

Tekania, out of curiosity, are you opposed to magnet schools?

Replace University with State in this case... Once again, this is a STATE RUN COLLEGE FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS OF THESE STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS.

You are also requiring ME as a TUITION PAYER to pay for THEM because THEIR parents choose to send them to a school that did not meet minimum standards

Replace University with State in this case... Once again, this is a STATE RUN COLLEGE FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS OF THESE STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS.

You are also requiring ME as a TUITION PAYER to pay for THEM because THEIR parents choose to send them to a school that did not meet minimum standards

Replace University with State in this case... Once again, this is a STATE RUN COLLEGE FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS OF THESE STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS.

You are also requiring ME as a TUITION PAYER to pay for THEM because THEIR parents choose to send them to a school that did not meet minimum standards

It is called HIGHER EDUCATION for a reason. Not all people should go to college, not all people need to go to college. If you are unprepared for college, there is no reason at all that an institution, whether it be a state institution or not, should waste its resources.

It's not wasting its resources. It's a state funded school. It's resources are the students attending. This paragraph is sent to the refuse bin where it belongs.



Really? So, "Can you do math on an 8th grade level and do you know a few vocabulary words you'll never use?" is what should get you into college? Why don't we just skip high school altogether!?

Seriously, SAT scores hardly give a good enough indcation of whether or not a student is prepared for college. This is why institutions don't just use SAT scores, or just grades, or "just" anything. They use test scores, grades, essay, extracurricular activities, job experience, etc, etc, etc.

The issue here is not their test scores (which were good) or their grades (which were also good) or their extra-curricular activities, or job-experience, it's the content of the textbooks they were taught from which they are being discriminated against. Which is NO BASIS WHAT-SO-EVER in determining if they are indeed PREPARED...

Considuer yourself called on your bullshit.


So anything that receives state funds can't have admissions requirements? If it receives state funds, we have to let 3 year olds into college?

Nice strawman... Doesn't work, not what I said.... I said they can't make curricular CONTENT a issue.... The kids have the demonstrated aptitude... This is an issue of BLATANT discrimination... and the admissions board should be FIRED... and sent packing... They are state employees, mandated by the same equitable laws as all other state employees. If they cannot meet them, they can leave...


Admission requirements are only legally discriminatory if they are applied unequally. So long as any such class is not accepted, it is not legally considered discrimination.

If they have the aptitude and the drive, they can find a way to take a science course which will be accepted as a prereq. There are remedial classes out there - and you can generally get one at any community college or even at some technical schools.

Except there is no need. Priot to BOARS rullings THIS year this was a non-issue. To deal with their own admissions:



When asked whether poor college performance
by students from religious
schools prompted the rejection of the
textbooks, UC representatives responded
negatively. They also acknowledged that
UC did not have any objective evidence
that students from religious schools are
deficient in science when they arrive for
their freshman year of college.


The UC representatives indicated that
there was no problem with the material
facts in the BJU physics textbook—that
if the Scripture verses that begin each
chapter were removed the textbook
would likely be approved for the science
lab course requirement.


The UC representatives acknowledged
that there were no UC policies or guidelines
for BOARS to follow when it decided
to reject the books. (ACSI also discovered
that no minutes were taken of the meetings
in which these decisions were made,
nor were the publishers or schools
asked for more information regarding
their submissions.)


The rejection of the science books represents
the first time that UC has rejected
books because of their religious content
and teachings. (Note: Since that meeting,
courses with religious content in other
subject areas have also been rejected by
UC.)

Basically, the fact is the UC system is rejecting ALL courses which contain any religious inferences..... It's an act of discrimination, and nothing less.

This has nothing to do with aptitude...

This has nothing to do with their performance past or present...

This has everything to do with rejecting kids of religious parents, by state employees abusing their offices...

Basically, the fact is the UC system is rejecting ALL courses which contain any religious inferences..... It's an act of discrimination, and nothing less.

This has nothing to do with aptitude...

This has nothing to do with their performance past or present...

This has everything to do with rejecting kids of religious parents, by state employees abusing their offices...
If they bring religion in to the science class it is no longer science and should not be counted as such

They do not have the necessary prerequisites to attend and the university is under no obligations to provide those prerequisites. They can go get them by their own self without wasting my money

It's not wasting its resources. It's a state funded school. It's resources are the students attending. This paragraph is sent to the refuse bin where it belongs.

What a silly thing to say. The students are using the school. The school is a resource for the students. The resources of the school are exactly what the rest of us have - money and workers.

And it is wasteful to have to provide basic education to people who should already have it.

The issue here is not their test scores (which were good) or their grades (which were also good) or their extra-curricular activities, or job-experience, it's the content of the textbooks they were taught from which they are being discriminated against. Which is NO BASIS WHAT-SO-EVER in determining if they are indeed PREPARED...

Actually, yes it does. If they were taught from textbooks with incorrect information in them, they were taught incorrect information. A student who was taught that the derivative of x^2 is 32 would be ill-prepared for a calculus class, now wouldn't he?

Meanwhile, looking at the curriculum used is nothing new in college admissions. Unfortunately, even public high schools will often give students a passing grade or even an A when they haven't done the work. There was an entire graduating class in Savannah, GA, which ranged from A's to failing, that couldn't operate on a middle-school level. The schools gave good grades, but didn't actually expect that the material was taught.

Considuer yourself called on your bullshit.

What part of "etc, etc" do you not understand? I hardly suggested that what I listed was exhaustive.

Nice strawman... Doesn't work, not what I said.... I said they can't make curricular CONTENT a issue.... The kids have the demonstrated aptitude...

....but not preparation. A kindergarten student may have aptitude, but does not have the preparation to get them into college.

This is an issue of BLATANT discrimination...

Hardly. If the school was simply saying, "Any religious high school will be disregarded on principle," it would be blatant discrimination. However, what they are saying is, "Any science class that is inadequate will be disregarded." This is a neutral policy.

The UC representatives indicated that
there was no problem with the material
facts in the BJU physics textbook—that
if the Scripture verses that begin each
chapter were removed the textbook
would likely be approved for the science
lab course requirement.

Did you miss the part of the thread earlier where some of the materal from one of these "textbooks" was copied? A science textbook that says, "Science is right, except where it contradicts our literal interpretation of Genesis, and then it is wrong," is not science - and will not prepare students for a science education. However, that is one of the books under question.

Basically, the fact is the UC system is rejecting ALL courses which contain any religious inferences..... It's an act of discrimination, and nothing less.

I have seen no evidence of this. In fact, I would call bullshit immediately, since just about every science textbook out there has the perfunctory religious inference. Most make the comment that many people believe that God is responsible for creation.

This has nothing to do with aptitude...

No, it doesn't. But aptitude is hardly all that is necessary before one can be successful in college education.

This has nothing to do with their performance past or present...

If I perform well in ballet, can I get science credit?

This has everything to do with rejecting kids of religious parents, by state employees abusing their offices...

No, it has to do with rejecting improper science classes. If the exact same student had a proper science course under their belt, they would be fine. And there are many ways to get one - remedial courses at a community college or another high school being the first to come to mind.

Which proves nothing. Spider monkeys aren't considered our ancestors. ;)

Thank you. I hoped somebody would answer that..... :)

Not if they are going to remain a State run college they won't.... A college, especially a governmentally controled college, has no right to discriminate based upon primary schooling which which the intended students have no control over. SAT scores should be the only thing which applies to their admission standards. If it is going to receieve state funds, it's not going to disciminate....

Sure they can. If a student is illequiped to take certain courses, then he doesn't get credit for them and has to take 101 courses to make up for them.

SAT scores are not a good measure of a student. You can take courses on taking the SAT. A buddy did that and did well on the SATs. He dropped out of college.....

Hmm...Odd thread.

All in all, here's where I'm standing....

Fact: UC is discriminating based on the curricular material offered in a given group of high schools.

Unknowns: Whether or not the curricular material is an actual problem. How much there was that was thrown out. Whether or not the students taking the courses were educated or not, regardless of whether the course itself was lame.

Personally, I learned as much about science on my own as I did in high school. My high school was excellent, secular, and public. My science courses say a lot about what I know, because in order to pass my half-dozen advanced science courses, I had to know a lot of science. (Please don't rake mud on definitions, like the word "know." You know how I'm using it.) However, if I had not taken a science course in high school, I would still know enough to get into a liberal-arts university. This is why standardized testing is so necessary. And I'm not talking about knowledge/regurgitation of accepted/popular theories. I mean solid ability to use the scientific method and infer/hypothesize based on observation and reason. Almost all science in most high schools is regurgitation mixed with math. This is not particularly important in higher education unless you are pursuing a math major.

I conclude from this that they should only reject courses that blatantly show misinformation (which should not be introduced, especially in a "Christian" school). Then, they need to show this. From the evidence shown, it's probable that some good courses were removed like wheat along with the tares. While a difficult situation, difficulty does not make action on generality acceptable. Of course, I don't know this, so I could easily be wrong, and they may have done their homework. None of us seem to be in a position to make a decent judgment on this.

It should if it wants to have some sort of academic standard.

Exactly, if a school starts turning out lunkheads, the companies start blacklisting job applicants. If they don't correct then companies stop giving money to the schools.....

Academic standards have historically been based upon aptitude, which is the only thing which effects the capacity of the students learning, and not on prior curriculum content. What a student was taught has little bearing on whether or not the student is capable of learning.

If it were not a state-funded school, this would be a non-issue. It is a state-funded school, so it is an issue.

Yes; "could learn" is a factor but so is having a certain level of knowledge.

Back before biotech exploaded a local community college had a ten year lawsuit over a teacher that was teaching biology from the 50's. He refused to learn anything knew especially biotech.

Companies told the school that they would not accept anybody that listed the school on their apps as they found previous employees were severly lacking in basic knowledge and it was not their job to teach these people.

The school decided it was better to spend a million dollars fighting a lawsuit over firing this teacher.....

Hmm...Odd thread.

All in all, here's where I'm standing....

Fact: UC is discriminating based on the curricular material offered in a given group of high schools.

Unknowns: Whether or not the curricular material is an actual problem. How much there was that was thrown out. Whether or not the students taking the courses were educated or not, regardless of whether the course itself was lame.


If I had to guess I would think it was a safe bet the material is the problem. Todays Christian political groups are quick to scream discrimination and liberal commie bias in the universities. So the school would be rather stupid to simply take the stance of that nothing religous should be allowed. The course work is most likely the issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167235,00.html
OMFG! I'm appalled at such idea!

I'm happy that such a move would be impossible in Portugal! Here in public schools there's only space for Evolutionism, and that's the way it should be, because not everyone is Christian. If you want your kids to learn Creationism you can always put them on sunday school... There's no need for a mix of both teories in public school!

I conclude from this that they should only reject courses that blatantly show misinformation (which should not be introduced, especially in a "Christian" school). Then, they need to show this. From the evidence shown, it's probable that some good courses were removed like wheat along with the tares. While a difficult situation, difficulty does not make action on generality acceptable. Of course, I don't know this, so I could easily be wrong, and they may have done their homework. None of us seem to be in a position to make a decent judgment on this.

Did you see the post earlier where some of the "information" from these courses was posted?

The textbook in question did not teach the actual scientific method, instead, it taught the following "scientific method":

1) Read the Old Testament.
2) Ask us how you should interpret it, the main point being that it should be interpreted absolutely literally.
3) Do an experiment.
4) If the results of that experiment look like the same thing the Bible said, they are correct results. If they in any way seem to you to contradict the literal TRUTH in the Old Testament, they are incorrect and must be discarded.


This would be like teaching a math class like the following:

Christian math is a little different from other people's math. In Christian math, we don't have the number 666, or any derivative thereof, because it is an evil number. Nothing can be added, multiplied, divided, or subtracted to add up to a number with three 6's in a row. The correct answer would be 667, instead, as 7 is a holy number - one with good luck.

Three, seven, and twelve are all holy numbers. You should get these numbers as a correct answer very often. If you think the answer is 11, you are wrong. It is actually 12, as 12 is a holy number close to 11. Same goes for 3 and 7. Thefore, 5+6 = 12.

Would a person taught math this way be well prepared for college? No? Then why would a person taught that science is as I described above be considered prepared for college?

Did you see the post earlier where some of the "information" from these courses was posted?

The textbook in question did not teach the actual scientific method, instead, it taught the following "scientific method":

1) Read the Old Testament.
2) Ask us how you should interpret it, the main point being that it should be interpreted absolutely literally.
3) Do an experiment.
4) If the results of that experiment look like the same thing the Bible said, they are correct results. If they in any way seem to you to contradict the literal TRUTH in the Old Testament, they are incorrect and must be discarded.


This would be like teaching a math class like the following:

Christian math is a little different from other people's math. In Christian math, we don't have the number 666, or any derivative thereof, because it is an evil number. Nothing can be added, multiplied, divided, or subtracted to add up to a number with three 6's in a row. The correct answer would be 667, instead, as 7 is a holy number - one with good luck.

Three, seven, and twelve are all holy numbers. You should get these numbers as a correct answer very often. If you think the answer is 11, you are wrong. It is actually 12, as 12 is a holy number close to 11. Same goes for 3 and 7. Thefore, 5+6 = 12.

Would a person taught math this way be well prepared for college? No? Then why would a person taught that science is as I described above be considered prepared for college?

Depends. Are they majoring in the field of science or another field completely?

Depends. Are they majoring in the field of science or another field completely?

At most universities, a basic level of science is a requirement for any degree, even music or art history, so it doesn't really depend at all.

A college is not a vocational school, you do more than just your major.

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:

tolerance is only good if its tolerance for minorities, homosexuals, retards, etc..
but if its tolerance for christian views, they wont allow it.

o.0

Yay for fundamentalist teachings!! Let's all just assume all science is wrong based on our particular beliefs about how the Bible was meant, which we don't know a thing about, since we all spent our time learning about the Bible vicariously. [/annoyingredundantsarcasm]

Sorry, but I had to let it out... Apparently, some have gotten confused about...everything, I guess. That's so wholly wrong from a Christian standpoint (true, I'm generalizing, but I'm way nearer the mark) that I don't have anything of value to say contradicting it, except "NO!" I mean, come on. A surface examination of The Bible will reveal that it should not always be taken literally. Revelation being taken literally is probably my worst pet peeve, because it's figure should be a known fact, the evidence is so blaring. Come on...666? *rants* Anyways, if ALL (we can't generalize here safely) of the literature in the school is like that, then by all means, require practical science tests of all the students from there. That way, they aren't bumped off because of their birth.


Back to slightly off topic, I think "Neo-Darwinism" is a better term for the entirety of popular evolution, unless you're only talking about the evolution of species (through natural selection/mutation). Creationism might have been a good term, but it turns out to be highly misconstrued. People think this means strict adherence to one or both of the stories of creation in Genesis. All it means for sure is that God created everything in some way or another, at some point in time. Much like the Big Bang Theory, it primarily explains the beginning of time. If you assume more based on the term alone, you're putting words in the person's mouth. That's when everyone becomes fundamentalist. Oh, and ID is a ridiculous term. PC!! >8-(

Christians and Neo-Darwinists/Evolutionists(certainly no better a term than ND) may have theoretical conflict on an individual basis, but their respective sides are not necessarily conflicting in themselves. I don't believe this "vs" thread thing should ever be an issue. Even the word "versus" implies an attempt to win. Which is silly. Why discuss if not for the sake of truth?

Too bad it happens, and I'm to blame as well. =( Getting better though. Calls for a little more Plutarch, Montaigne, and Bible study....