Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
I think I get what your saying. But I am speaking from a purely laypersons, (i.e. my child in a classroom) perspective. In that scenario we have no choice but to appeal to the "authority". And if you don't believe this is a topic with religious implications just talk to one of those children who has been taught something from say, the bible, for most of their childhood, who is suddenly confronted with a well presented argument that says everything he believes is a lie. And if he disagrees, he gets an "F".
"I don't believe that a student receives an "F" for disagreeing as long as they provide the proper answers on the tests. If a student asks "What about creation?" in a biology class and automatically receives an "F" then there is a problem with the teacher and the school. That is not the same as being asked a question about the evolution of the whale on a test and giving an answer such as "There is no such thing. God created whales as they are."."
Well of course, but because the evidences for design are dismissed and not included in the criteria, he/she is left with no alternative.
"Education is not about belief. Education is about learning 'how to learn' and knowledge of a topic. If a student is asked a question on a test about the science of biology and gives a religious answer they are just as wrong as if they were asked a question about the play "Romeo and Juliet" and give answer about the movie "Gladiator"."
Except that, once again, there may be evidences against what he/she is learning. And if he has such thoughts they are supressed by the criteria. All because a creation scientists opinion about the same evidence, or any other opinion, is squashed.
"Wrong subject, wrong answer. Education does not require that the student believe the information, only that they know and understand it."
Oh so in other words, just learn what we tell ya....dont think for yourself? Where will we be in the scientific community in ten years with that kind of narrow thinking. You see what I mean? This is what the church was always accused of. And finally they were banned from the public forum(schools).
"If parents do not want their children to even be presented with this information they can always send them to parochial schools."
So were not allowed in the public forum eh? Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like an inquisition to me.
In your opinion, thank you.
"Yes. It is my opinion that belief based upon empirical evidence is better (i.e. more reliable, more truthful, etc.) than belief that is not based upon based upon empirical evidence or, worse yet, belief contrary to the evidence."
I would agree completely.
"I can't say that the alternative is "wrong" but it is, at least, out of touch with reality and prone to error."
And evolution isn't? It certainly cannot be said to be without error. And perception is reality.
And there are plenty of facts which support most all religious beliefs, (including evolution) whether they be contrived facts or not is irrelevent to the believer of those facts. And that is no where more evident than with the evolutionist.
"I don't seem to be able to convince you to stop calling evolution religion. Why is that? Do you disagree with the dictionary's definition?"
No, I simply am doing what an evolutionist supposedly does. Observing the evidence and drawing a logical conclusion.
"Contrived facts" is an oxymoron. What do you mean by this?"
I didn't really intend to put the two words together. I appologize. What I mean is that facts are used to support contrived conclusions. Meaning, certainly not the ONLY conclusions that could be drawn.
You can label them theories if you like, but they are still based upon substantiated as well as unsubstatiated facts and conjecture. Just as any religion, the "gaps" must be filled to satiate the simple. Because those with "horse sense" so to speak, laypersons, always tend to point out the obvious.
"No. Evolution is based upon substantiated and corroborated facts, not conjecture."
Yes but the coclusion that it was evoution that is responsible for what is observed is not the ONLY possible conclusion.
"Those laypersons with "horse sense" are often wrong."
At least they are certainly attacked and presented as being such.
"Look at geocentricism. Any layperson can watch the sun rise in the east, move across the sky, set in the west, and determine that the sun moves around the Earth. It's an obvious, natural conclusion based upon observation. It's also incorrect."
Well, it is also, now, something that can be disproven quite readily.
"As with evolution, geocentricism was the established religious position."
Yes, but it wasn't for no reason at all. It was from a reliable source of information which was simply misinterpreted. Evolution has had its share of embarassments over the same type mistakes.
"As with evolution, is eventually gained acceptance in the religious community as it built up an almost irrefutable body of evidence."
I understand the problem. But it is not irrefutable. It is simply a difference of opinion when observing the known facts.
BTW, what should be considered a "valid" refutation of an opinion? I mean, if for instance, we decide not to appeal to "authority"?
"Does your question pertain to formal logic here or science?"
Is there a difference? Let me put it this way. What would YOU accept as a possible refutation of evolution? Im not looking for the "pat answer" here ok? Just one specific something that might make you, at least decide that it evolution may not be the only possibility.
