NationStates Jolt Archive

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

You teach Science in Science. You teach English in English. You teach Home Ec in Home Ec. And you teach Religious Studies in Religious Studies.

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science.

No, we don't. There, your straw man is exposed. Quick, huh?

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this.
Relevance? No, science cannot test personal taste's and opinion. Thank you for restating known fact.

Sometimes science can actually tell us whats happened in a battle, its called Archaeology.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

No-one is trying to teach Shakespeare in science class though.

Whether Shakespeare is the best is subjective - it's a matter of opinion. Science obviously can't test thinks that lack an objective definition.

As for history, I'd say archaeology is pretty scientific, wouldn't you? They don't just make it up, you know.

As for the effect of sugar, that's a matter of biology and perfectly testable.

Edit: The reason we don't want creationism taught in science lessons is because it isn't science. Would you teach astrology in science lessons? Would you teach palm-reading?

You teach Science in Science. You teach English in English. You teach Home Ec in Home Ec. And you teach Religious Studies in Religious Studies.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Science can prove that sugar makes things "taste better." We know the tongue can identify sugar, we can analyze brain activity when comparing a bland food to the same food enhanced with sugar.

No, we don't. There, your straw man is exposed. Quick, huh?
You're as sharp as a tack and twice as painful.

Science can't prove stuff

Since science is about finding the truth by disproving things that matters.. how ?

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

I concur.

And I also agree with the no English, Home Ec., and History thing... SWEET!

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science...

I thought secularists said it shouldn't be taught because it can be actually disproved by science. Although, that goes for many religions. As you said. teaching it in a theology class is fine, no problem there... but a science class should teach just that- science

If it were true that science couldn't be proven, it would solve many of my problems. I'm so depressed.

Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments?

Yes, actually.

Sometimes science can actually tell us whats happened in a battle, its called Archaeology.

But it cant be proven as fact. You can say "its likely that this is the case" or "its possible that this is the case" etc. But no archeologist can prove it for a fact as it requires a level of intepretation

You're as sharp as a tack and twice as painful.

I get that sometimes, but it tends to be in other settings.

They aren't teaching that Shakespeare is the best author of all time, are they? They are teaching his works, the type of verse he used, literary elements, etc. They have evidence to prove that he actually wrote it. They also have evidence to prove that the battles actually happened.

I thought secularists said it shouldn't be taught because it can be actually disproved by science.

No, it can't. But not because it is by definition true, but because it does not allow itself to be tested - which means it cannot be examined through the scientific method.

Does that proof it is *wrong* ? No. Does that mean it can not be called science ? Yes. Should something which is not sience be taught in a science class ? No.

Simple questions, simple answers.

But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science.

No we don't. At least I don't.

If someone were to ask me if creationism should have a place in a religion/theology class, I'd say it does. Because it is relevant to that religion.

I'm just opposed to it being taught in scienceclasses, because it's not relevant there. What with science giving us evidence in total opposition to this.

The problem is, a lot of people want creationism to be taught instead of evolution in science classes. That would be very dumb. But taking a religion class and being told that God created the earth(according to Christian dogma, of course) is consistent.

Again, I'm not against it being taught at all, a theology class with Creationism included is fine, but it should be science that is taught in a science class

Again, I'm not against it being taught at all, a theology class with Creationism included is fine, but it should be science that is taught in a science class
It's funny. My rabbi said just that yesterday (seriously)

Science can prove that sugar makes things "taste better." We know the tongue can identify sugar, we can analyze brain activity when comparing a bland food to the same food enhanced with sugar.

Well, there I would disagree. By your experiment, you could prove that sugar increases brain activity, but wether something tastes better or not would have to be determined by an opinion poll. Using the same reasoning, you could "prove" that seizures make food taste better because there is increased brain activity when someone is experiencing an epilleptic seizure.

The long and short of it is that you can't prove anything to anyone that doesn't want something proven to them. They either accept things or reject them, and are fully entitled to do either.

The long and short of it is that you can't prove anything to anyone that doesn't want something proven to them. They either accept things or reject them, and are fully entitled to do either.

By that reasoning attempts to cure delusional mental patients is infringing on their right to reject societies version of reality. Do you agree and accept that consequence ?

Damn, I thought this was going to be an intelligent thread.

In the main, science can't prove ANYTHING. I get very annoyed when I hear people talking about such things. The only part of science that can give proofs is Maths, and that's because it's a purely human construct.

You can never "prove" the Force of Gravity. You can have an overwhelming amount of evidence that when you let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground; but there's no proof that says that next time you do it, it won't float upwards.

I'll let you get back to your bickering.

By that reasoning attempts to cure delusional mental patients is infringing on their right to reject societies version of reality. Do you agree and accept that consequence ?
If I understand what you are asking, it is should people not try to cure those that they consider mentally ill? There is nothing wrong with trying to cure someone. However, at some point, the patient has to want to get better, or otherwise there will be no progress. If you take away someone's rights to make their own decisions, then you are no longer dealing with a person. You are dealing with a thing. If all you can do is return some "thing" to society, then I would say that you have already failed.

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

Oh dear.

But it cant be proven as fact. You can say "its likely that this is the case" or "its possible that this is the case" etc. But no archeologist can prove it for a fact as it requires a level of intepretation

Actually, they can prove an incredible amount of things without the shadow of a doubt. They make use of a large variety of scientific tools, such as geophysics, geology, carbon-dating, forensics, etc.
I don't know if the show "Time Team" is broadcasted in the US. If it is, watch it when you get the chance. They present archeology and its methods in an easily-accessible way, and it never ceases to amaze me how much archeologist can tell by simply looking at different colourations of earth in a 10 cm trench...

Science can't prove stuff.

You are absolutely right. It can't. It can only disprove things, and provide enough evidence for theories that they might as well be proven.

But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science.

I've never heard anyone say any such thing. Now, we do say that Creationism cannot be taught in public schools because that would constitute a state establishment of religion.......

And we do say that Creationism cannot be taught in a science class because it simply isn't science......

I thought secularists said it shouldn't be taught because it can be actually disproved by science. Although, that goes for many religions. As you said. teaching it in a theology class is fine, no problem there... but a science class should teach just that- science

Actually, it can't be taught as science because it can't be disproven. You cannot empirically test for a God, therefore you cannot empirically disprove God. Therefore, anything including God cannot be scientific theory.


But it cant be proven as fact. You can say "its likely that this is the case" or "its possible that this is the case" etc. But no archeologist can prove it for a fact as it requires a level of intepretation

Science can't proven anything as 100% fact. There is always the chance that it is wrong. This is the very reason that science works the way it does. A hypothesis is tested, over and over again, until it becomes theory. Once it is theory, it is still tested. It stands as a theory only until it is disproven. Everything is open to being disproven. Anything that cannot be disproven cannot be included.

Well, there I would disagree. By your experiment, you could prove that sugar increases brain activity, but wether something tastes better or not would have to be determined by an opinion poll. Using the same reasoning, you could "prove" that seizures make food taste better because there is increased brain activity when someone is experiencing an epilleptic seizure.

The long and short of it is that you can't prove anything to anyone that doesn't want something proven to them. They either accept things or reject them, and are fully entitled to do either.

I doubt that they would be try to measure the brain's activity alone. But sugar will result in a hightened production of endorphines, a hormon that makes us feel happy. The body wouldn't release it if there was no positive stimulus, therefore sugar tastes good. QED

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

1. English class is subjective; therefore, objective processes do not apply in the same way besides quantifiable observations (like the actual taxt itself; it's meaning is subjective but the taxt is quantifiable). Subjective studies do not use scientific processes and do not need to be proven through those methods.

2. Science and history are intertwined. Many of the same processes are used by both to determine the validity of events, and archaeology uses scientific methods to extract information based upon observation and exploration of historical sites. Scientific concepts are also used to date, analyse, and examine historical occurences. If anything, history uses the most scientific processes outside of science classes/math classes.

3. Home Ec uses scienctific measurements whenever you make anything, and the processes of cooking are scientifically observable and provable. Chemistry, although not explicity stated in cooking, is a vital component of it. Taste is subjective, but certain properties of taste can be measured scientifically.

I doubt that they would be try to measure the brain's activity alone. But sugar will result in a hightened production of endorphines, a hormon that makes us feel happy. The body wouldn't release it if there was no positive stimulus, therefore sugar tastes good. QED

Since "tastes good" is a subjective experience, all I'm saying is that you would have to use an opinion poll to make your point. When you are trying to prove something subjective, one's measurements have to be based on subjective data.

By the same token, eating habanero peppers results in a heightened production of endorphines, because the body "thinks" it is being attacked by life-threatening pain, but not everyone will agree that habanero peppers taste good.

The main problem with crationism, as told by many other, is that there's some protestant christian who actually want it to take place of evolution in natural science courses.

But I think creationnism should be taught to little protestant kid when they go to school, but in their religious course. When I was to elementary school, things were going this way. We had mathematics courses, french, english, music, and Catholic teaching. Something like an hour with a lady that explain us New Testament and all that christian things, and we were fine. Some of the parents doesn't want their kids to follow that course, fine they put their child in "Moral" course where they do something else (I don't exactly know what, but anyway). Religious heritage should be passed down at school as a cultural service in partnership with the church, mosque, synagogue near by. That my opinion, and that the only way I could figure creationnims could be taught in school in a fair way.

Since "tastes good" is a subjective experience, all I'm saying is that you would have to use an opinion poll to make your point. When you are trying to prove something subjective, one's measurements have to be based on subjective data.

By the same token, eating habanero peppers results in a heightened production of endorphines, because the body "thinks" it is being attacked by life-threatening pain, but not everyone will agree that habanero peppers taste good.

I do believe that in both cases different areas of the brain would become active and that the amount of endorphines would not be the same. Plus, there will be most likely other hormones in the equation as well. But I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist, so I couldn't say for sure.

But it cant be proven as fact. You can say "its likely that this is the case" or "its possible that this is the case" etc. But no archeologist can prove it for a fact as it requires a level of intepretation
Please give me one example of religon that can be provable. Yes, Jesus existed. Yes, I believe he was God. Can that be proven? No. I will not force my opinion on others when I am in a science class. If you want to say the Big Bang is not testable etheir, actually it is. We might not ever be 100% provable, but scientist can test cosmic matter, and stuff that if I even try to explain here I will probably etheir confuse people to death or not get it right.
Can Science Prove the Earth is Round?
Yes
Can Religon Prove That Muhamed/Jesus/etc. was a prophet/son of/etc of god?
No

Science can't prove stuff
Religion can't prove stuff. gg

The problem with trying to prove anything is being able to decide on what constitutes proof. Scientifically, what constitutes proof is coming up with a hypothesis and creating an experiment to demonstrate the hypothesis. If the results that are predicted occur as the result of the experiment, then one can be reasonably considered to prove their hypothesis. Of course, in science, anything is subjected to being proven false, and scientists do it on a regular basis for the improvement of science. Of course, one has to make sure their experiments are clearly defined as a particular cause will lead to a particular effect. The problem comes in where people try to insist that a particular effect was created by a particular cause.

When it comes to religious proof, they tend to run into the fallacy of post hoc, ergo prompter hoc. Many experiments in religion are not provable by scientific methods.

Another one that gets used in religion is anecdotal evidence. This goes against all the rules of statistics because instead of a random sampling, one compiles a large quantity of data, keeps that which supports one's theory and discards everything else. By the same reasoning, one could prove that the Earth was made out of gold simply by showing a gold nugget and ignoring the mountains of rock all around them.

Sometimes science can actually tell us whats happened in a battle, its called Archaeology.


Science can also tell us what happened in a murder, it's called Forensics.

Science can tell us how babies are born, how the sperm fertilizes the egg, how our heart beats, how we breathe, how we sleep, how we shit, how we.. how we.. how we.... and thats called Biology, which is what religious crazy peoples dont like, all because of one little section in a god damn textbook that describes how life works all because it doesn't........ INCLUDE GOD.

As a Catholic, wellll... more like a agnostic/lapsed Catholic. For the entire time the Catholic Church came around we never believed the Bible to be infalliable... sure we believed the Pope was for the longest time, but no longer either, and sure we strung up scientists or put them under house arrest because he proved that Earth is not the center (but don't call me hypocritical because nowhere in Genesis does it state that the Earth is the center of the universe... maybe its' your King James toilet-paper Bible (becuase you wrote it there with magic marker) but it's not in mine (And don't even have one, though we have in the library school, even though were not a Christian one (there Gideons, Gideons like to hand out schools and of course hotels). A monk by the name of Gregor Mandel established how peas have diffrent colors, shapes and textures... which now know today as "traits".

But anyways, ever since Protestantism came around, it was changing, I mean sure Protestantism was good when it came out 500 years ago because it was saying "fuck you" to the Catholic Church of that time (something that makes us look bad) and they were smart people, but now as time progressed the Catholics became the more smarter and reformed a bit and most Protestants stayed smart.

However some got dumb. Really dumb and formed a sect of Protestanism called "Fundementalism", now they came up with such stuff as the Bible is infalliable and it's only infalliable if you use the King James Verison, though we also tend to seem to leave parts such as loving your neighbor and showing the acts Jesus did and how he died to pay for our sins, but no you seem to focus on "morality" and use the Bible to do that and now as time moved on from when it was first started in the 1830s to today, you now believe that God must be in goverment and that everything must have God or else it's "immoral", "sinful", "Satanic", "homosexual", "liberal", "un-American", "un-Patriotic" and "secular". Now usually, no one gives a fuck about you and they don't usually pander to your casues, that was until 2001, when a President came to power that is the same exact thing you are. Then even more, some event happened that caused us to unite but also for some reason caused more and more people to become "born-again". Then, you layed dormant for 2003 mostly until you found out that little state in the Northeast of the country (no where near the Midwest or the South, where it's Jesusland) found out that they legalized gay marriage there. So then you go "OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!!!111111111111oneoneone
GAYZ!!!!111111 TEH BIBL3 SEZ G4YZ R BAD!111" so you then whine and start fearing a "homosexual agenda". Then you complain "OMGZ!!11 Y CANT I DIZPLAY MY TEN BIG RULE TABLETS IN PUBLICKS?!!1". So on and so on.

So now you whine "OMFG!!1111 THERE IS NO GOD IN TEH BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKSZSZ!!1111oenoneononeelven" so you try creationism and because every knows that it's just Bible-talk they ignore you, so you go to the drawing board and create "intelligent design" it doesn't say exactly say that God did it (though thats really it) and say were dumb and it was just all luck that caused us to be here, it had to be some higher intelligence... (which could be aliens cause people believe, so now you've left a big gaping hole in your theory).

Anyways, the point I'm getting at is that you don't like that God isn't mentioned anywhere you so try to put god in it.

As a lasped Catholic, I have one thing to say.... Fundementalists are the true "Anti-Christs".

As a agonstic/weak atheist, that religion is just something that has caused much chaos, misery and destruction for the world. Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox. Jews too, even Muslims.

Thank you.

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.
And idiocy like this is why christians get bashed on this forum (to tie this in with another thread)

<snip> Religious heritage should be passed down at school as a cultural service in partnership with the church, mosque, synagogue near by. That my opinion, and that the only way I could figure creationnism could be taught in school in a fair way.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
No it shouldn't, if the parents want the children to learn about religion, then they along with their priest/rabbi/minister/etc. should teach it to them

The problem with trying to prove anything is being able to decide on what constitutes proof. Scientifically, what constitutes proof is coming up with a hypothesis and creating an experiment to demonstrate the hypothesis. If the results that are predicted occur as the result of the experiment, then one can be reasonably considered to prove their hypothesis.

Incorrect. One test is never enough to even elevate a hypothesis to the point of "widely-speculated", much less to the level of theory or accepted theory.

If experiment does not disprove the hypothesis, all you can say is that your hypothesis has been supported. You can not claim it has been proven. Now, if experiment after experiment after experiment doesn't disprove your hypothesis, it may become a theory. And a theory, until disproven, might be seen by the layman as being "proven".

Science does not prove or disprove anything.
Science forms hypotheses and then tests them with experiments,repeatedly.Based on the results a theory may be formed.If that theory holds it may be put to use in other aspects of life.

Incorrect. One test is never enough to even elevate a hypothesis to the point of "widely-speculated", much less to the level of theory or accepted theory.

If experiment does not disprove the hypothesis, all you can say is that your hypothesis has been supported. You can not claim it has been proven. Now, if experiment after experiment after experiment doesn't disprove your hypothesis, it may become a theory. And a theory, until disproven, might be seen by the layman as being "proven".
Supported. Good word! I'll buy that.

A kid attacks science.....Oh no! this is a serious blow to the scientific community!...it might never recover.

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.
okay. piece by piece.

part 1) almost no secularists argue that creationism has absolutly no place in schools. It has a place in religious studies classes. If you are studing christianity, then you have every right to teach christian creationism. Same goes for any other culture. If you teach Greek culture, then by all means, teach Greek creationism. The argument is that it is not science, and therefore has no place in science classrooms. As Fass stated, your straw man has fallen apart.

part 2) English does not teach that Shakespeare was one of the best authors. Actually, we are trained to teach that he is influential, and THAT is why we read him. Want proof of his influence? How many times have you heard "To be or not to be" or "a rose by any other name"? How about the countless musicals, plays, movies, and books based on his plays? You don't need science to prove it. Also, science has no place in an English classroom. I will never teach my students the importance of the atom unless it directly relates to the text I am teaching.

part 3) Archaeology is a science (albeit a social science). You don't need to test a battle because it happened. You have the facts of the battle. It isn't a scientific experiment because that battle has already happened and its outcome determined. You could run it as many times as you want. It doesnt matter. That is what happened. It has already had its influence.

part 4) Home ec. teaches that sugar sweetens things. Actually, they are more likely to teach that salt makes things taste better, as it is a flavor enhancer. However, this all has roots in biology and neurology. Some people react more to sweet, other sour, and others savory. It can be displayed by science, but really, that doesnt matter.

part 5) Often, science CAN back up a testimony. "I saw this man steal from this store" "we found his fingerprints in the store" Therefore, you have a visual and scientific proof that that man was, in fact in the store. Science just backed up the testimony. Also, if multiple tellings of a story correspond, you don't need the science. the chances of mass hysteria are slim.

actually, there is an author/philosopher (ah, hear him roll in his grave at that lable) named Alfred Jules Ayer who argued that anything that can not be empirically backed up by science or logic had no value. this would render the study of theology, ethics, language, and philosophy pointless. The irony, of course (and the irony in your statements and assumptions) is that his own thesis can not be backed by science, and therefore disproves itself.

"But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this."

What are you talking about. No one ever said it should'nt be taught in school. They do say it should'nt be taught in science class.

*twitch... twitch... twitch...*
Yes, we as a nation REALLY need to work on informing everyone about the idea of science, what it can and cannot do, and how to think!

Maybe then we can avoid such... statements as this one.

"But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this."

What are you talking about. No one ever said it should'nt be taught in school. They do say it should'nt be taught in science class.

Religion shouldn't be taught in public schools as if it were factual, regardless of what class it's to be taught in. If someone wants their child to have an education based upon any particular religion, then they should send their child to an appropriate religious school or homeschool them. I object to the idea of using taxes to support the views of any religion. This, I think, is at the base of most objections to religious education in public schools; the essential separation of church and state. Public dollars should not be used to teach Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism in schools. The role of public education is not to indoctrinate children into religious belief anymore than the army corps of engineers should be used to do maintenance work on churches (or synagogues or mosques, what have you).

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.
I can only conclude that either I am not a secularist or your statement (above) is not true. I'm going with the latter option, it seems just about every post along these 'secularists are being unfair to religious concepts in relation to formal education' lines is based on falsehoods or misunderstandings, so there's little reason to expect this will be some kind of exception.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.
Your conclusion is non-sequitor, and regardless your premises are not all true.

Some English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best English writers of all time, some history classes teach some of what happened at some or one battle, some home ec classes teach that sugar of some particular amount, added in a particular way, at a particular point in the preparation of a food, makes that particular food taste better, sometimes science is contrary to eyewitness testimony, sometimes it is consistent or consistent whilst being either more or less detailed.

We can and do use methodologies consistent with science to review and better understand language construction and usage, and forumla that are considered 'superiour' with regards to story/text construction are often used to evaluate the 'success' or 'failing' of a text. Scientific methods are often used to corroberate historical accounts, or to actually form accounts of history, or filling missing details from surviving contemporary accounts, science can be used to investigate how the various components of a recipe interact with each other at different points in the cooking process (for instance when heat is added) and science is often used in the development of recipes/cooking methods especially at an industrial/commericial level, scientific results might be erroneous, particularly if the theory/hypotheses behind the methodology is flawed or if the processes involved have not been meticulously followed out, but unlike eyewitnesses science never lies and processes/methodologies employed to reach results can be subjected to 'back engineering', unlike eyewitness 'memory'.

Science is not the be-all end-all, but it certainly plays a bigger part in life than you give it credit for. No wonder it needs to be taught in formal education, it's not only complex, but pervasive in everyday life and so clearly needs to be well-taught in order for people to 'have a clue' about the world around them.

No, it can't. But not because it is by definition true, but because it does not allow itself to be tested - which means it cannot be examined through the scientific method.

Does that proof it is *wrong* ? No. Does that mean it can not be called science ? Yes. Should something which is not sience be taught in a science class ? No.

Simple questions, simple answers.

What is your definition of science?

If it were true that science couldn't be proven, it would solve many of my problems. I'm so depressed.


Errr.... it is true that science can't be proven. Consider many of your problems to be solved.

So who needs proof all the time, anyway?

Seriously, let's all of us take a collective chill-pill.

These kids are too clever for us, fellow scientists. We knew our charade couldn't last forever, and now they've got us all figured out.

Yes, we scientists have just been faking it all this time.
All those things that make perfect sense, and can be rationally explained, detailing the ins and outs of the natural world? We made them up over cigars and brandy.

Pack it in, boys. The jig is up.

These kids are too clever for us, fellow scientists. We knew our charade couldn't last forever, and now they've got us all figured out.

Yes, we scientists have just been faking it all this time.
All those things that make perfect sense, and can be rationally explained, detailing the ins and outs of the natural world? We made them up over cigars and brandy.

Pack it in, boys. The jig is up.
*sigh* nothing can last forever.

Well, since we still have all this brandy and good cigars, lets start a new religion!

I was thinking of saying something intelligent here, but then I realized that the entire premis of the thread was stupid. So instead I shall entertain you all with meaningless jiberish:

Monkeys fling poo
I like monkeys
I want to make a cannon that will shoot poo

Hmm...
on second thought, I don't want to be accused of just spamming. So here is my comment, even if it has been said a million times:
Creationism does not belong in science class, as it is not science, but religion.
Religion does not belong in PUBLIC schools, because that would constitute the state supporting one religion over others (the exception of course would be a religious studies class, as it is not promoting a religion, just studying the aspects of them)
If you want to teach religion in PRIVATE schools, that is OK, and if parents wnat their children taught that creationism is science, they can send their kids to a private school that does that.

What is your definition of science?

Broadly the realm of theories, laws etc which can be researched through the scientific method. I quite like wikipedias description of the latter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

But in short:
1. Observe something which is not adequately explained by existing science
2. Try to explain the observation: devise a hypothesis
3. Unless you are talking about pure mathematics: devise tests capable of showing your hypothesis is wrong. (this includes looking at existing theories and see if your hypothesis conforms to or improves on them). Since it is not possible to devise a test to conclusively confirm or deny the existence of a supreme being (unless the being in question exists and decides to cooperate) this places religion - including ID - outside the scope of science.
4. If you succeed in disproving your hypothesis, adapt it to correct for the found error. In some cases this is a small alteration, in other cases it means starting fresh. Then return to point 3.
5. If you and others fail in disproving your hypothesis despite many, many, many tests carefully start assuming it may be a good approximation of the true state of affairs. The word "hypothesis" can now be replaced by "theory".

Essential to the method is that you must search for flaws. Science does not prove things right, it proves things wrong or, if you are lucky, fails to prove things wrong. With the exception of maths of course.

I keep looking at the title of this thread and I imagine someone staring at their washing machine without pressing the on button and saying, "Washing machine can't wash stuff."

I keep looking at the title of this thread and I imagine someone staring at their washing machine without pressing the on button and saying, "Washing machine can't wash stuff."

but science actually doesnt prove things... it relies on empirical evidence (which cannot be proof) and the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

science relies on this logic

1) p then q
2) q
therefore: p

example...

1) if the patient has disease X then he/she will have a rash
2) the patient has a rash
therefore: the patient has disease X

the conclusion does not necesarrily follow from the premises, as that rash could be caused by something else.

a simpler example...

1) if it is thursday, then john has english
2) john has english
therefore: it is thursday

it is a logical fallacy

i challenge you to find a scientific theory that does not follow this reasoning

not to mention that empirical evidence is not irrefutable, look at the ancient greeks, they had really good reason, and scientific evidence that the earth was a flat disk (all you can see is a flat disc around you), but it turned out to be wrong. people had really good evidence to believe the geocentric model of the solar system (do feel any movement at the moment), but that also turned out to be wrong

so science doesent prove anything, it just gives really really good reasons to believe something

not to mention that empirical evidence is not irrefutable, look at the ancient greeks, they had really good reason, and scientific evidence that the earth was a flat disk (all you can see is a flat disc around you), but it turned out to be wrong. people had really good evidence to believe the geocentric model of the solar system (do feel any movement at the moment), but that also turned out to be wrong
Actually, the greeks were among the first to prove the world is round (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth). In fact, they estimated the earth's circumference to within 2% of its actual size.

So who needs proof all the time, anyway?

Mathematicians.

but science actually doesnt prove things... it relies on empirical evidence (which cannot be proof) and the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

science relies on this logic

1) p then q
2) q
therefore: p

example...

1) if the patient has disease X then he/she will have a rash
2) the patient has a rash
therefore: the patient has disease X

the conclusion does not necesarrily follow from the premises, as that rash could be caused by something else.

a simpler example...

1) if it is thursday, then john has english
2) john has english
therefore: it is thursday

it is a logical fallacy

i challenge you to find a scientific theory that does not follow this reasoning

not to mention that empirical evidence is not irrefutable, look at the ancient greeks, they had really good reason, and scientific evidence that the earth was a flat disk (all you can see is a flat disc around you), but it turned out to be wrong. people had really good evidence to believe the geocentric model of the solar system (do feel any movement at the moment), but that also turned out to be wrong

so science doesent prove anything, it just gives really really good reasons to believe something
I understand that. I was just saying that a washing machine doesn't wash your clothes unless you use it. Science pursues proof even if it can never provide it 100%. Likewise, I pursue to get my clothes clean but those damn grass stains never come out.

i challenge you to find a scientific theory that does not follow this reasoning

I will do better: I challenge you to find *three* scientific theories that DO follow this reasoning.
As an intersting aside: ID and most religions do.

I will do better: I challenge you to find *three* scientific theories that DO follow this reasoning.
As an intersting aside: ID and most religions do.
I really just wanted to say my bit about the Washing Machines...

I really just wanted to say my bit about the Washing Machines...
We have all learned a valuable lesson. Washing machines lead to conflict. Conflict is bad. Therefore washing machines are bad. Death to washing machines. Wipe them off the face of the Earth :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

We have all learned a valuable lesson. Washing machines lead to conflict. Conflict is bad. Therefore washing machines are bad. Death to washing machines. Wipe them off the face of the Earth :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
Fucking soils myself....
Calm down, man!
And now you shot my washing machine after I made in my pants...

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

False premise.

Most of us object to teaching creationism as science and have no objection to it being taught in a theology or philosophy course.

Has Legendal made any further posts in this thread to defend his initial premise? Just noticing that I don't think I have seen any other posts in this thread by him.

1) if newtons 2nd law is true then something thrown in space will not curve
2) a ball thrown in space dosent curve
therefore: newtons second law is true

the disease X example

and

1) if you are experiencing wind resistence, then you will get hotter (friction)
2) you are getting hotter
therefore: you are experiencing wind resistence

three falacies made by science

now wheres that counterexample...

and ID and religion do not

they follow the inductive reasoning, "argument to the best explination"

which is also inconclusive

1) if newtons 2nd law is true then something thrown in space will not curve
2) a ball thrown in space dosent curve
therefore: newtons second law is true

the disease X example

and

1) if you are experiencing wind resistence, then you will get hotter (friction)
2) you are getting hotter
therefore: you are experiencing wind resistence

three falacies made by science

now wheres that counterexample...

and ID and religion do not

they follow the inductive reasoning, "argument to the best explination"

which is also inconclusive
Your falacies are not science. Science looks to see if there is something wrong with a hypothesis. All you have done is present hypothesis, and disprove them (actually, your disproving is science, your hypothesis on their own are not).

As for the ball not curving based on Newtons second law, you have a serious misunderstanding of that law. It states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. In the balls case, that force is gravity. By choosing to ignore parts of a system, you are not practicing science. In fact, the fact that the balls path is curved helps PROVE the second law, not make it a falacy.

Your falacies are not science. Science looks to see if there is something wrong with a hypothesis. All you have done is present hypothesis, and disprove them (actually, your disproving is science, your hypothesis on their own are not).

As for the ball not curving based on Newtons second law, you have a serious misunderstanding of that law. It states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. In the balls case, that force is gravity. By choosing to ignore parts of a system, you are not practicing science. In fact, the fact that the balls path is curved helps PROVE the second law, not make it a falacy.

i forgot to add in that there are no gravitational fields around, ecxept the ball.

i have not disproven the hypothesis, i have given arguments used to 'prove' theories

science sais this

1) if X is true, then we will observe Y
2) we observed Y
therefore: X must be true

im not saying that the premises are false, i'm saying the reasoning is invalid

if im not explaining this properley, go read popper. its probably explained much better in there

science relies on this logic

1) p then q
2) q
therefore: p

example...

1) if the patient has disease X then he/she will have a rash
2) the patient has a rash
therefore: the patient has disease X

A doctor who made diagnoses based on this logic would quickly find himself looking for new work.

A diagnosis is made by a preponderance of evidence using a process of inference, not upon a single symptom.

In the same way, the building of a theory upon the basis of an initial hypothesis relies upon a series of initial experiments or observations confirmed by subsequent repetition until a point of reliability occurs. Experiments or observations which don't fit the initial model aren't simply discarded; they must either be explained in terms of the model or, failing that, the model must be reformed.

In other words:

The patient has a rash.
If the patient has a rash and a fever, the patient may have chicken pox. If the patient has a rash and no fever, the patient may be having an allergic reaction.

The patient has a rash and a fever.
The patient may have chicken pox.
If the patient has a rash, a fever, and there are proteins indicating the presence of the chicken pox virus in his system, the patient has chicken pox.
There is no such protein in the patient's system.
Therefore, the patient has something other than chicken pox.

The type of logic you are attempting to use in your example is deductive, but science isn't limited to deductive logic. Much of science is also based upon inferential logic.

1) if it is thursday, then john has english
2) john has english
therefore: it is thursday

it is a logical fallacy

i challenge you to find a scientific theory that does not follow this reasoning

If this logical model were true, it would be impossible to advance science. We would still hold phlogiston as the material basis of fire, for example.

not to mention that empirical evidence is not irrefutable, look at the ancient greeks, they had really good reason, and scientific evidence that the earth was a flat disk (all you can see is a flat disc around you), but it turned out to be wrong. people had really good evidence to believe the geocentric model of the solar system (do feel any movement at the moment), but that also turned out to be wrong

Whether or not one feels movement is not in itself empirical evidence. In fact, it is the very definition of a subjective inference, and is not empirical at all. The scientific response to this would be to point out that the sensation of movement is not produced by movement per se, but by movement relative to some object, so that someone standing on the surface of a very large moving object and thus shared the same degree of inertia relative to the object wouldn't be expected to feel as though they were moving until they changed their degree of inertia (relative to the object). Note, too, that when the geocentric model was refuted based upon empirical evidence gathered by science, objections were raised primarily by traditionalist forces (such as the church of the time) who were actually the ones using the logical fallacy you cite, not to mention that of argument from authority. The argument for their part was that since a certain claim was made in a certain book held to be the ultimate authority, empirical observations to the contrary must be incorrect — setting up exactly the "q, therefore p" error which you've stated.

so science doesent prove anything, it just gives really really good reasons to believe something

The gravitational attraction between two macroscopic objects is equal to their masses times the inverse of the square of their distance from one another. Is belief required for this, and, if so, can you disprove the theory using means which are other than scientific?

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

ok then, lets teach kids that you created the world....

A doctor who made diagnoses based on this logic would quickly find himself looking for new work.

A diagnosis is made by a preponderance of evidence using a process of inference, not upon a single symptom.

In the same way, the building of a theory upon the basis of an initial hypothesis relies upon a series of initial experiments or observations confirmed by subsequent repetition until a point of reliability occurs. Experiments or observations which don't fit the initial model aren't simply discarded; they must either be explained in terms of the model or, failing that, the model must be reformed.

In other words:

The patient has a rash.
If the patient has a rash and a fever, the patient may have chicken pox. If the patient has a rash and no fever, the patient may be having an allergic reaction.

The patient has a rash and a fever.
The patient may have chicken pox.
If the patient has a rash, a fever, and there are proteins indicating the presence of the chicken pox virus in his system, the patient has chicken pox.
There is no such protein in the patient's system.
Therefore, the patient has something other than chicken pox.

The type of logic you are attempting to use in your example is deductive, but science isn't limited to deductive logic. Much of science is also based upon inferential logic.

ok... bad example

If this logical model were true, it would be impossible to advance science. We would still hold phlogiston as the material basis of fire, for example.

not true, inductive logic makes us use evidence and put bets in the most plausible theory aswell, so man will always go toward the rational answer, there dosent have to be proof, if everything required proof, then we wouldnt go anywhere...

Whether or not one feels movement is not in itself empirical evidence. In fact, it is the very definition of a subjective inference, and is not empirical at all. The scientific response to this would be to point out that the sensation of movement is not produced by movement per se, but by movement relative to some object, so that someone standing on the surface of a very large moving object and thus shared the same degree of inertia relative to the object wouldn't be expected to feel as though they were moving until they changed their degree of inertia (relative to the object). Note, too, that when the geocentric model was refuted based upon empirical evidence gathered by science, objections were raised primarily by traditionalist forces (such as the church of the time) who were actually the ones using the logical fallacy you cite, not to mention that of argument from authority. The argument for their part was that since a certain claim was made in a certain book held to be the ultimate authority, empirical observations to the contrary must be incorrect — setting up exactly the "q, therefore p" error which you've stated.

empirical evidence - evidence gained through sense experience, i dont get what you are trying to say here...
the churches werent using the logical fallacy i cite. the churches were actually using another logical fallacy... the fallacy of:

1) if i say your wrong, then your wrong
2) i say your wrong
therefore: your wrong

which involves invalid reasoning. (or insufficient premises)

The gravitational attraction between two macroscopic objects is equal to their masses times the inverse of the square of their distance from one another. Is belief required for this, and, if so, can you disprove the theory using means which are other than scientific?

yes, belief is required for this, if you didnt believe something, that means that you dont think its true.
belief is required for all types of knowlege. (see the tripartite analysis of propositional knowlege)
i do not have a way to disprove that theory, unless it is logically incoherant. however, i cannot prove it using science. what i can do, is gain really really really good evidence for my beliefs using science.

I really have to object to the term 'secularists'. It carries the implication that 'secular' people identify to some unifing set of beliefs, which is ridiculous. The term 'secularist' encompasses atheists, agnostics, and even new-age-spiritualists. Anyone with out an indoctrinated religion is included. It's as inane as declaring all theists, (of every religion), share a mutually complementary view ony any given contraversial social predicament.

Secondly, isn't the whole idea of 'secular' thought founded upon free thought (i.e. I don't identify with mainstream, dogmatic religion, instead I prefer my own). Given that, would it be silly to assume that this exceptionally diverse group, with a penchant for individualism, would agree on a topic as loaded as this?

Finally, has anyone noticed that only Christians attempting to patronise and demean the credibilty atheists (and the like) seem to use this term? (In the same manner they use the word 'Darwinism' instead of 'Evolutionism'). I will note that I am not too familiar with the American dialect and this just could be the standard term

But it cant be proven as fact. You can say "its likely that this is the case" or "its possible that this is the case" etc. But no archeologist can prove it for a fact as it requires a level of intepretation

I think you're not understanding how archeology actually works. Archeologists can dicover facts, i.e. a battle was fought here. Or, they were romans, and based on these facts, we build up an posible structure, where these facts must suit in. But it always works based in proved facts.
Anyway, the problem with the creationism thread it's that tries make equal what's not. If you want to loearn english in music class, even if the lirics are in english, you'll not make it or at least, not correctly.

Mathematicians.

Yeah, but they themselvese are working within an axiomatic system which itself cannot be prooved. Need I go all Incompleteness Theorem on your ass?

Religion shouldn't be taught in public schools as if it were factual, regardless of what class it's to be taught in. If someone wants their child to have an education based upon any particular religion, then they should send their child to an appropriate religious school or homeschool them. I object to the idea of using taxes to support the views of any religion. This, I think, is at the base of most objections to religious education in public schools; the essential separation of church and state. Public dollars should not be used to teach Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism in schools. The role of public education is not to indoctrinate children into religious belief anymore than the army corps of engineers should be used to do maintenance work on churches (or synagogues or mosques, what have you).

Yes!!! Religion in the temples, not in School!:headbang:

not true, inductive logic makes us use evidence and put bets in the most plausible theory aswell, so man will always go toward the rational answer, there dosent have to be proof, if everything required proof, then we wouldnt go anywhere...

You are speaking only in terms of the mathematical definition of proof, or more accurately a mathematical proof. We can, however, make a statement such as, "All evidence points to model A, to the pouint that unless evidence is found that contradicts model A, then model A is proven." That is, while the model cannot be proven to a degree of absolute certainty (which is only possible in mathematics), the model conforms to all known cases and predicts all future cases successfully.

empirical evidence - evidence gained through sense experience, i dont get what you are trying to say here...

Everything is gained through the senses. One also acquires belief through the senses. The difference is that empirical evidence can be used to build accurate, predictive models, whereas belief cannot. Empirical evidence is based upon things as they are; belief is an ontological interpretation of phemonena. In other words, whether or not some person, some group of people, or every person on the earth believes the world is flat (an interpretation based on a set of observations), the world is roughly spherical (its condition whether or not some other interpretation is brought to bear). If a rock is acting as a source for electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of 360 nm, the rock will be perceived as green by a nominal human eye... whether or not someone believes in electromagnetic waves, or whether a particular observer is blind. Thus, empirically, we say that the rock is green. The blind observer may believe that the rock is emitting wavelengths only in the ultraviolet spectrum, but that would be a matter of belief.

the churches werent using the logical fallacy i cite. the churches were actually using another logical fallacy... the fallacy of:

1) if i say your wrong, then your wrong
2) i say your wrong
therefore: your wrong

which involves invalid reasoning. (or insufficient premises)

That is precisely an argument from authority, which involves belief... a belief, in this case, which ignores evidence to enforce a premise. Interestingly, this is precisely the same thing that Intelligent Design advocates do routinely. There is a classic ID argument that design is recognizeable because it results in increased complexity, for instance, and this argument usually cites Mt. Rushmore as an example. Mt.Rushmore, it runs, is more complex than a random pile of rock... an assertion which actually isn't true. Sculptures are far less complex than unsculpted piles of stone, and it is precisely the reduction in complexity to a set of simple geometries that we perceive as an intervention of intellgence. Again, this is a perfect example of the logical fallacy which you cited (which I believe is called modus tolens or modus ponens; I always get the two names confused)... and also a very good reason for seeing this "alternative theory" as something other than science.

yes, belief is required for this, if you didnt believe something, that means that you dont think its true.

That's a judgement, not a belief, and it applies equally to science, religion, or buying eggs at the supermarket. One can make a judgement based upon correct evidence, incorrect evidence, or no evidence at all. Scientific judgement is based upon a combination of mathematics and empirical evidence. Religious judgement is generally made upon the assertions of an authority. Buying eggs is usually a judgement based upon a "sell by" date. The difference between belief and knowledge is that knowledge can be used to make accurate predictions; belief alone cannot. One may start from belief, but it is necessary to find evidence that supports or contradicts belief to get to the point of knowledge.

"I believe that the gravitational attraction between two objects is related to the cube root of their distance"

(10,000 experiments and observations later)

"I was incorrect. After gathering evidence and evaluating it (making judgements) in light of data, I now know that the gravitational attraction is related to the inverse of the square."

belief is required for all types of knowlege. (see the tripartite analysis of propositional knowlege)

Belief is required only to begin the investigations for knowledge, just as the belief in religion served as the impetus for scientific investigation during the Rennaisance and Enlightenment. Belief makes a claim, science tests the claim, and the result is knowledge.

i do not have a way to disprove that theory, unless it is logically incoherant. however, i cannot prove it using science. what i can do, is gain really really really good evidence for my beliefs using science.

Or you can find really, really good evidence to change your beliefs, if you are to bring them in line with an explanation of the way things work. But if it is simply a matter of belief, you could also choose to ignore the evidence and put forth the idea that the evidence has been intentionally falsified or, indeed, that it has been put forth by a devil tryig to trick you into hell. You could disprove the theory by finding a significant body of empirical evidence that contradicts it and thereafter coming up with a new model (theory) which is better at predicting the behavior of objects than was the old one.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

Wow! Someone just realised that English literatue isn't a science! History isn't a science! Taste isn't a science! They'll be telling us next personal opinion isn't a science. This post wins the Idiot Christian award of the day.

I hope some scientists in Kansas bring a counter argument to the school board to say that since Christianity is not the only religion that any RE class should begin by explaining that only a small minority of the world's population believes in Christianity and there are many other religions that have equal relevance. Among those that do believe in Christianity there are many sects with very different views. There is a crazy Christian sect called Catholicism that believes in evolution!!!

but science actually doesnt prove things... it relies on empirical evidence (which cannot be proof) and the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

science relies on this logic

1) p then q
2) q
therefore: p

example...

1) if the patient has disease X then he/she will have a rash
2) the patient has a rash
therefore: the patient has disease X

the conclusion does not necesarrily follow from the premises, as that rash could be caused by something else.

a simpler example...

1) if it is thursday, then john has english
2) john has english
therefore: it is thursday

it is a logical fallacy

i challenge you to find a scientific theory that does not follow this reasoning

not to mention that empirical evidence is not irrefutable, look at the ancient greeks, they had really good reason, and scientific evidence that the earth was a flat disk (all you can see is a flat disc around you), but it turned out to be wrong. people had really good evidence to believe the geocentric model of the solar system (do feel any movement at the moment), but that also turned out to be wrong

so science doesent prove anything, it just gives really really good reasons to believe something
I'm going to guess that you haven't taken a science class past middle school. You demonstrated a thorough lack of understanding of the scientific method and of what science itself does in the world. You want a scientific theory that doesn't follow your reasoning? How about all of them?

that any RE class should begin by explaining that only a small minority of the world's population believes in Christianity

While I personally would wish this were true, I fear it isn't. In 2000 about 33%of the worlds population was Christian, 20% Muslim and 14% Hindu. About 15% was non-religious or atheist, the remainder are smaller religions (Judaism, Sikhs, Buddhists etc). Christianity currently is also the fastest growing religion - although that is mainly due to the converts in Asia.

While I personally would wish this were true, I fear it isn't. In 2000 about 33%of the worlds population was Christian, 20% Muslim and 14% Hindu. About 15% was non-religious or atheist, the remainder are smaller religions (Judaism, Sikhs, Buddhists etc). Christianity currently is also the fastest growing religion - although that is mainly due to the converts in Asia.
Islam is the world's fastest growing religion.

I'm pretty sure christianity is shrinking.

Also, 33% of the world's population is still a minority.

Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. I'm pretty sure christianity is shrinking.

Christianity is only shrinking in western countries - in eastern countries like China and India it - especially Catholicism - is on a strong rise while remaining popular in South America and Africa.
Admittedly the Asians often have a blended form ( "Christian-Buddhist" for instance) - but it still is the worlds fastest growing religion.

Also, 33% of the world's population is still a minority.

Yes, but not a small one. And outnumbering the atheists 2 to 1...

Christianity is only shrinking in western countries - in eastern countries like China and India it - especially Catholicism - is on a strong rise while remaining popular in South America and Africa.
Admittedly the Asians often have a blended form ( "Christian-Buddhist" for instance) - but it still is the worlds fastest growing religion.
Islam is definitely outpacing christianity.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
^Has christianity dropping, Islam rising in terms of % of the world's population and christianity growing at 2.7% per year, matching the population growth and islam at 2.9%.

I dont see what is wrong with either Creationism or Evolution being taught in schools i tihnk it is up to the individual really to choose what they belive in and evolution hasn't really been proved where is the miising link the absolute proof of evolution.

I dont see what is wrong with either Creationism or Evolution being taught in schools i tihnk it is up to the individual really to choose what they belive in and evolution hasn't really been proved where is the miising link the absolute proof of evolution.
You don't know much about evolution, do you?

I thinkt he issue is very simple teach science AND ONLY science in science class and creationsim, if realted, in another class. If there is no class relevant then the parents can teach their own kids about opposing views.

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

First off, "Secularists" do not generally object to the teaching of ID outside of a science class, so your initial premise is total crap. Nor does it account for religious scientists who also object to the addition of ID to their curriculum.

In other news:

English doesn't PROVE that Shakespear was a great writer. They hand you that as a foregone conclusion. Prove that he was!

History doesn't PROVE a sequence of events. Rather it is a presentation of a concensus opinion on events based on witness testimony (often fallible) and often on interpretation of archological finds. Even recent history caught on film cannot cover every point of view on what an event did, who it effected, or what it means in the greater course of human history. Prove otherwise.

Fact is, there isn't a course available that "PROVES" anything. At best you get the majority opinion for humanities, some practical application for some course, and in science and math theories for which cases that might disprove it have not yet been found.

None of which really means a damn thing in relation to ID's place in a science class. Unless you think that "science" means "anything you can't prove", which would probably mean everything.



Might as well just cancel school at that point.


But, the end result seems to be your rant against science - of which I'm not sure your point since you also seemingly hold it sacrosact enough to not want ID in it, and a request for inclusion of ID into theology classes.


Which is pretty much in line with the majority feeling on the subject...

You don't know much about evolution, do you?

I know a bit but yet it has yet to be fully understood and proved as fact and who knows in a few 100 years it might disregarded with some theroy of where we came from wether it be primordal swamps or moulded in Gods image or some place and action they will be all theories till one of the other is proven as true and proper fact

I know a bit but yet it has yet to be fully understood and proved as fact and who knows in a few 100 years it might disregarded with some theroy of where we came from wether it be primordal swamps or moulded in Gods image or some place and action they will be all theories till one of the other is proven as true and proper fact
We dont teach things as subject matter in science classes because those things have been proven, but rather because they have been proven to be scientific subject matter.

Evolution is not fully understood, but it's as much proved as fact as the existence of a star around which the earth orbits (commonly known as the sun).

[Christians] outnumbering the atheists 2 to 1...

Maybe, who knows. If I'm specifically asked what religion I am, like I was when I joined the Cub Scouts (Wolf Cubs, or whatever your local variant is), decades ago, I'd say "Church of England". Perhps because (as was later proved by someone else going out on a limb) saying "I'm Agnostic" was seen as tantamount to saying the Lord's Prayer backwards in that situation.

In another situation, given a list including atheist and agnostic, I'd waver somewhat between those two options. If allowed to write an essay on my spiritual perceptions, or lack thereof, I would take up a page or ten.

Anyway, what I'm saying is, how many of the (quoted) 33% of Christains are Real Christians, and how many are Christian-Through-Habit, and how many are Christian as opposed to Buddist/etc, and how many are... well.

I am an atheist, I like my science to be science,
teach ID in shools go ahead, however I would also insist that as well as any christian religious lessons that are taught you also present in a positive light all religions (and I don't just mean different Judea Christian Islamic variants) lets throw in a couple of polytheistic worship Viking Breton Celtic Hindu, oooh how about the ancient Greek pantheon of Gods and its further absorbtion into the Roman belief system and te subsequent adoption of the Roman Empire through political expediency to support the idea of a single Imperator to a Monoteistic peasant religion like christianity.

Just a thought, because ID is of ourse only your local primary religions view on creation.

science sais this

1) if X is true, then we will observe Y
2) we observed Y
therefore: X must be true

im not saying that the premises are false, i'm saying the reasoning is invalid

if im not explaining this properley, go read popper. its probably explained much better in there

You are mistaking idiocy for science. No scientist thinks like this.

You are speaking only in terms of the mathematical definition of proof, or more accurately a mathematical proof. We can, however, make a statement such as, "All evidence points to model A, to the pouint that unless evidence is found that contradicts model A, then model A is proven." That is, while the model cannot be proven to a degree of absolute certainty (which is only possible in mathematics), the model conforms to all known cases and predicts all future cases successfully.

but model A is not 'proven' unless there is NO possibility for A to be false. we must be confusing our definition of 'proof'.
to me, proof is evidence that makes a proposition necesarrily true, with no possibility of falsification. (which is also able to be done in philosophy and pure logic)
anything else is just really good evidence, which can be used in Ockhams razor (the simpelest explination is often the best (which science also uses))
if that isnt what you believe 'proof' is then we cannot talk about this anymore, because the definitions are fundamentally different, and we would just go round in circles.
we need to agree on definitions.

Everything is gained through the senses. One also acquires belief through the senses.

first, take away any problems to do with language... now, would you say that knowlege of the impossibility of a square triangle is gained through the senses. a square triangle is a logical impossibility, and can be known a priori.you dont need to experience a triangle to know that it has 3 sides, because a triangle, by definition, has 3 sides. (you would, however, need experience to know that that shape is called a "triangle")

The difference is that empirical evidence can be used to build accurate, predictive models, whereas belief cannot. Empirical evidence is based upon things as they are; belief is an ontological interpretation of phemonena. In other words, whether or not some person, some group of people, or every person on the earth believes the world is flat (an interpretation based on a set of observations), the world is roughly spherical (its condition whether or not some other interpretation is brought to bear).

are you saying that my belief that i am not living in a 'matrix' bares no relation to things as they are... belief is a way of expressing ones ideas, ideas that someone thinks are true (eg. "i believe that it is going to rain, because there are dark clouds in the sky"-a belief based on the world as it is with good empirical evidence to support that claim). the greeks had good empirical evidence and good reason to believe that the earth was flat, but it is not.

That is precisely an argument from authority, which involves belief... a belief, in this case, which ignores evidence to enforce a premise. Interestingly, this is precisely the same thing that Intelligent Design advocates do routinely. There is a classic ID argument that design is recognizeable because it results in increased complexity, for instance, and this argument usually cites Mt. Rushmore as an example. Mt.Rushmore, it runs, is more complex than a random pile of rock... an assertion which actually isn't true. Sculptures are far less complex than unsculpted piles of stone, and it is precisely the reduction in complexity to a set of simple geometries that we perceive as an intervention of intellgence. Again, this is a perfect example of the logical fallacy which you cited (which I believe is called modus tolens or modus ponens; I always get the two names confused)... and also a very good reason for seeing this "alternative theory" as something other than science.

it is the same argument that any devoted "extremist" will use when backed into a corner. i did not use it in relation to ID.
btw: the logical fallacy i stated in relation to science is "affirming the consequent". the argument i used in religion is a valid argument, not a fallacy, but is unsound because one (or more) of the premises are false.

That's a judgement, not a belief, and it applies equally to science, religion, or buying eggs at the supermarket. One can make a judgement based upon correct evidence, incorrect evidence, or no evidence at all. Scientific judgement is based upon a combination of mathematics and empirical evidence. Religious judgement is generally made upon the assertions of an authority. Buying eggs is usually a judgement based upon a "sell by" date. The difference between belief and knowledge is that knowledge can be used to make accurate predictions; belief alone cannot. One may start from belief, but it is necessary to find evidence that supports or contradicts belief to get to the point of knowledge.

and you use your judgements to found your beliefs. eg. you make a judgement, that the eggs are not past their use by date. you then formulate a belief "these eggs are fine to eat" based on that judgement.

"I believe that the gravitational attraction between two objects is related to the cube root of their distance"

(10,000 experiments and observations later)

"I was incorrect. After gathering evidence and evaluating it (making judgements) in light of data, I now know that the gravitational attraction is related to the inverse of the square."

you may 'know' that that is true, but you do not have 'proof' that it is true.
heres the tripartite analysis of propositional knowlege.
X knows that P iff 1) X believes that P. 2) X has relevant, adequate evidence that P. 3) it is true that P.
this shows that you do not need proof to know something, so you may know that statement (depending on weather it was actually true or not) and have no proof, but we are discussing what science can 'prove', not what we can know from it.

Belief is required only to begin the investigations for knowledge, just as the belief in religion served as the impetus for scientific investigation during the Rennaisance and Enlightenment. Belief makes a claim, science tests the claim, and the result is knowledge.

i again relate to the tripartite analysis (see above), belief is required for knowlege. no-one has been able to sucessfully refute that analysis as long as it has stood. if you can refute it, please show me!

Or you can find really, really good evidence to change your beliefs, if you are to bring them in line with an explanation of the way things work. But if it is simply a matter of belief, you could also choose to ignore the evidence and put forth the idea that the evidence has been intentionally falsified or, indeed, that it has been put forth by a devil tryig to trick you into hell. You could disprove the theory by finding a significant body of empirical evidence that contradicts it and thereafter coming up with a new model (theory) which is better at predicting the behavior of objects than was the old one.

thats kindof what i was getting at... changing and ignoring some evidence (known as the conventionalist twist(again, read the first part (i think) of karl popper - conjectures and refutations)) makes it less scientific. And the new theory is never 'proved' only believed because of really really really good grounds.

I'm going to guess that you haven't taken a science class past middle school. You demonstrated a thorough lack of understanding of the scientific method and of what science itself does in the world. You want a scientific theory that doesn't follow your reasoning? How about all of them?

again... i want some examples... if you really wanted me to believe you there, you shouldhave given examples.
considering i am in high school, no, i havent, but i did go do some work at a radio telescope looking at pulsars (with a few PhD students and some Uni staff in parkes, NSW, Australia), and they used that exact form of reasoning there.

Now although I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in a science class, I would vouch for it in a theology or philosophy class. But secularists say that it shouldn't be taught at all because it can't be proved by science. Well get a load of this.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this. History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not. Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better". Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone. So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

As for the Science not helping in battles.....watch Battlefield Detectives on the history channel. The american one, not the weird JAG playing canadian one.

but science actually doesnt prove things... it relies on empirical evidence (which cannot be proof) and the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

science relies on this logic

1) p then q
2) q
therefore: p


Actually thats a very basic stating of it that doesn't say all that science really uses. Its more like
1)p then q
2)q
Therefore: p is the best explanation for event that we have at the present time. No one states that P is a fact or the only answer to the question rather the best one we have at the time.

I see that your in highschool now so what you are stating now seems to be a common misconception in that people state alot. People tend to think that once science does an experiment and it validates the hypothesis that the hypothesis is a fact now. That is not the case and no scientist will claim that. They will only claim that what we have is the best explanation for the event that we have at the present time. When you take a college bio course you'll get a better understanding of science.

Technically, the arguement is:

1) p then q
2) p
therefore: q

or:
1) p then q
2) not q
therefore: not p

You have to take into account p might not be the only way that q can happen.

Actually thats a very basic stating of it that doesn't say all that science really uses. Its more like
1)p then q
2)q
Therefore: p is the best explanation for event that we have at the present time. No one states that P is a fact or the only answer to the question rather the best one we have at the time.

Nitpick:
1)p then q
2)q
Therefor: p might be involved. Lets do a few tests to verify this.

Nitpick:
1)p then q
2)q
Therefor: p might be involved. Lets do a few tests to verify this.

If those tests show that q occurs with or without p, then another cause of q is hypothesized about, then tested. The process is repeated and repeated and so on...in some cases for hundreds of years.

It's funny, the people arguing against the scientific method simply have no idea what they're talking about.

Look, the idea that science doesn't deal in definites is intentionally built in to the scientific method. The reason for that is to insure, as much as possible, that nothing is taken for granted.

Still, science does work. Look around you. You like plastic? How about vaccinations? Food bred to be longer storing in the grocery store? Television? Your car? The machine that made your toasty socks? The shampoo with the lady faking an orgasm while using it? Pretty much goddam everything around you?

Nah, science doesn't work.

Retards.

You are mistaking idiocy for science. No scientist thinks like this.
You are mistaken.

You are mistaken.

You are right. It should read: "no scientist should think like this".

Of course, one can argue that someone who does is no longer a scientist even if he/she does get results and impressive titles - but that distinction may be too subtle for many people. It's easier to just say "scientists are human".

You are right. It should read: "no scientist should think like this".

Of course, one can argue that someone who does is no longer a scientist even if he/she does get results and impressive titles - but that distinction may be too subtle for many people. It's easier to just say "scientists are human".

Exactly. If a policeman commits a crime, that does not mean all police officering is thereby null. If a scientist fails to follow the scientific method, he's being a shitty scientist. That does not mean the method is suspect.

Yes but more importantly Scientist's can only prove things they think they understand but that dosent mean they know.

Yes but more importantly Scientist's can only prove things they think they understand but that dosent mean they know.

Except for mathematics science is not supposed to prove anything. It is supposed to disprove hypotheses. A scientist is never certain his hypothesis or theory is the right one (hence the name "theory" instead of a name like "iron clad rule" or "dogma") - just that it has survived an onslaught of tests trying to show it wrong and therefor probably is a reasonable approximation of the truth.

Except for mathematics science is not supposed to prove anything. It is supposed to disprove hypotheses. A scientist is never certain his hypothesis or theory is the right one (hence the name "theory" instead of a name like "iron clad rule" or "dogma") - just that it has survived an onslaught of tests trying to show it wrong and therefor probably is a reasonable approximation of the truth.
I think you have a TG.

but model A is not 'proven' unless there is NO possibility for A to be false. we must be confusing our definition of 'proof'.
to me, proof is evidence that makes a proposition necesarrily true, with no possibility of falsification. (which is also able to be done in philosophy and pure logic)

That's a mathematical proof. "To you" doesn't matter.

anything else is just really good evidence, which can be used in Ockhams razor (the simpelest explination is often the best (which science also uses))
if that isnt what you believe 'proof' is then we cannot talk about this anymore, because the definitions are fundamentally different, and we would just go round in circles.
we need to agree on definitions.

Occham's razor doesn't state that "the simplest explanation is the best." Occham's razor states that entities shouldn't be unnecessarily multiplied. The simplest explanation is often not the best one. Furthermore, there';s no way to "put things into Occham's razor." You've gotten to a point of talking nonsense here. I don't mean to be insulting, but that's what you've just done. We don't need to agree on definitions. You just need to stop inventing your own.

first, take away any problems to do with language...

I don't have any in particular. I'm published, and people seem to know what I'm talking about.

now, would you say that knowlege of the impossibility of a square triangle is gained through the senses. a square triangle is a logical impossibility, and can be known a priori.you dont need to experience a triangle to know that it has 3 sides, because a triangle, by definition, has 3 sides. (you would, however, need experience to know that that shape is called a "triangle")

I thought you wanted to "take away" problems with language, and here you are injecting them.

are you saying that my belief that i am not living in a 'matrix' bares no relation to things as they are... belief is a way of expressing ones ideas, ideas that someone thinks are true (eg. "i believe that it is going to rain, because there are dark clouds in the sky"-a belief based on the world as it is with good empirical evidence to support that claim). the greeks had good empirical evidence and good reason to believe that the earth was flat, but it is not.

No, belief is not a way of expressing ideas, belief IS an idea. Language is how we express ideas. The Greeks did NOT have good empirical evidence that the earth was flat, they had a mistaken conception that the earth was flat based upon a limited set of sensory data. As soon as they started examining it WITH empirical data (the shape of the shadow of the earth on the moon, the fact that ships disappear over the horizon from the bottom up, etc.) they found contrary evidence. They did not then sit around inventing double-talk and asserting that "belief is how we express ideas," either.

it is the same argument that any devoted "extremist" will use when backed into a corner. i did not use it in relation to ID.
btw: the logical fallacy i stated in relation to science is "affirming the consequent". the argument i used in religion is a valid argument, not a fallacy, but is unsound because one (or more) of the premises are false.

I know what you used it in relation to. You were simply wrong. Regardless of how many times you restate your mistake, you are incorrect. Pure and simple. I think I see where the problem with language lies, and it's absolutely in your head, so let me make it very clear:

YOU ARE WRONG.

Science does NOT work this way, and all you have demonstrated to this point is a profound misunderstanding of how science... a METHOD of investigation... works is simply so far off base as to be entirely absurd.

and you use your judgements to found your beliefs. eg. you make a judgement, that the eggs are not past their use by date. you then formulate a belief "these eggs are fine to eat" based on that judgement.

NO, no, no. Belief does NOT require judgement. It requires only acceptance. You can refine belief, you can discard some beliefs and keep others based on subsequent judgements, but belief comes first.

you may 'know' that that is true, but you do not have 'proof' that it is true.
heres the tripartite analysis of propositional knowlege.
X knows that P iff 1) X believes that P. 2) X has relevant, adequate evidence that P. 3) it is true that P.
this shows that you do not need proof to know something, so you may know that statement (depending on weather it was actually true or not) and have no proof, but we are discussing what science can 'prove', not what we can know from it.

It has become abundantly apparent to me what happened here; you've read a book that impressed you and are now filtering everything through the lens of this book. Whatever doesn't immediately fit your method of doing this, you're twisting around to make fit.

i again relate to the tripartite analysis (see above), belief is required for knowlege. no-one has been able to sucessfully refute that analysis as long as it has stood. if you can refute it, please show me!

The problem isn't "tripartite analysis," I would wager, but your improper application of it.

thats kindof what i was getting at... changing and ignoring some evidence (known as the conventionalist twist(again, read the first part (i think) of karl popper - conjectures and refutations)) makes it less scientific. And the new theory is never 'proved' only believed because of really really really good grounds.

That's not what belief is, and it isn't what science is. This is your imagination based, obviously, on your reading of a single book. You are very concerned about what everyone else believes, but it's only your belief ABOUT science you're talking about, over and over again. But you have no problem believing in a Karl Popper book that you've recently read, with or without evidence.

again... i want some examples... if you really wanted me to believe you there, you shouldhave given examples.
considering i am in high school, no, i havent, but i did go do some work at a radio telescope looking at pulsars (with a few PhD students and some Uni staff in parkes, NSW, Australia), and they used that exact form of reasoning there.

No, they didn't. You believed that they did. I don't care if you believe me. You're raving. No matter what anyone says, you'll quote your book at them and pretend that what you think the book says has been proven.

McVenezuela, I can't prove that you just utterly demolished Zrrylarg but I certainly do believe it.

*Sacrifices Topic*

I believe the point of science is that it DOESNT prove anything. It works by disproving everything it can.

You dont "prove" correct theories, you disprove incorrect ones.

It'd be nice if some of these wankers were to come out and say what they're actually thinking, rather than constructing bizarre andirrational cases against (often deliberately misinterpreted) anomalies of science: "I don't think anybody should pay any attention to these heathen scientists because they claim things happened that aren't mentioned in the Bible."
I'm getting a bit tired of cretins claiming that there's any other kind of substance to the bullshit they're spouting.

Funny you should say that.

From your posts I get the impression that you've been impressed by 'a book' (no prizes for guessing which one) and you're blindly accepting it to be true and dismissing all evidence to the contrary.

Hmm, and from this post, I get the impression that the only type of books you enjoy are brightly colored and have cardboard shapes pop up when you open them.

Hmm, and from this post, I get the impression that the only type of books you enjoy are brightly colored and have cardboard shapes pop up when you open them.

Shit, I completely misread his post. I'm way too tired to concentrate right now so I'll stop even trying to post. Apologies to McVenezuela.

English teachers teach that Shakespeare was one of the best writers of all time. Science cannot test this.

I say he was an overglorified hack who had no original works of his own. I shall prove this by saying neener neener.

History class shows us what happened at certain battles. Can science test what hapened at these battles through repeated testing and experiments? I think not.

Ever see unsolved history? You should. Then you'll shut up.

Home ec. teaches us that sugar makes things taste better. Science cannot test which things are "better".

9 out of 10 people think glazed donuts are better than plain. Conclusion: Sugar makes donuts better.

10 out of 10 people, when provided with sugar-enhanced cyanide, promptly died a horrible death. Conclusion: some things can't be helped.

Science does not back up eyewitness testimony in courts, although it is often the only deciding factor to convict someone.

CSI rocks.

So if someone doesn't want creationism in school at all, then they might as well disregard English, Home Ec., History, and all eyewitness testimonies.

Thank you, sir, for going so far beyond comparing apples and oranges and straight into Bananas and Buicks.

You are mistaken.

Show me a scientist who thinks like this and I'll show you someone who isn't a scientist.

Show me a scientist who thinks like this and I'll show you someone who isn't a scientist.

Creationist science.;)

McVenezuela, i have gone through a philosophy class, and thats where i picked up most of my definitions about belief, proof, knowlege etc.
i was also taught that ockhams razor is "the simpelest explination is often the best" (that is, after you take into account all evidence)
my definitions are not "wrong", they are simply different to yours. no definition of any word is right or wrong, just accepted by more or less people.

the problems of language was not oxymorons, i was talking about the philosophical problems stated above (about definitions and what not).

again, we cannot have a proper discussion unless we agree on definitions.

jus a few problems with what your saying, i dont get your meaning of belief, you seem to change it every time, i just would like that cleared up...

proof is mathematical proof, A is proven where there is NO possibility for A to be false.

I believe the point of science is that it DOESNT prove anything. It works by disproving everything it can.

You dont "prove" correct theories, you disprove incorrect ones.

more or less the point i was trying to get across, sorry if i was a bit ambiguous.

my argument goes thus
science uses inductive reasoning and empirical evidence to come to conclusions, and therefore never 'proves anything'

again... give me an example of where this is not the case.