Question From High School Student
- Thread starter Student313
- Start date
>>Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes?<<
Yes.
>>Why or why not?<<
Because its a theory, not a hypothosis. There is a BIG difference. Should we not teach Gravitational THEORY, or Electrical THEORY?
>>Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?<<
Sure, as long as to balance it out every other religiously based creation story is given equal time. Like the Indian one of the earth being vomited out of a gods mouth. The ones of the stars being sperm shot out of a deity's penis. And all of the other 100's of wonderful ones!
>>Why or why not?<<
Well, to teach all of that would be pretty time consuming. Maybe we should just stick with what the evidence seems to show?
>>When responding please leave your name and occupation/title/affiliation.<<
Name: Here its "Gravity"
Occupation: Freelance writer and computer consultant
Title: Sir
Affiliation: Many
Yes.
>>Why or why not?<<
Because its a theory, not a hypothosis. There is a BIG difference. Should we not teach Gravitational THEORY, or Electrical THEORY?
>>Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?<<
Sure, as long as to balance it out every other religiously based creation story is given equal time. Like the Indian one of the earth being vomited out of a gods mouth. The ones of the stars being sperm shot out of a deity's penis. And all of the other 100's of wonderful ones!
>>Why or why not?<<
Well, to teach all of that would be pretty time consuming. Maybe we should just stick with what the evidence seems to show?
>>When responding please leave your name and occupation/title/affiliation.<<
Name: Here its "Gravity"
Occupation: Freelance writer and computer consultant
Title: Sir
Affiliation: Many
§outh§tar said:
But that is the purpose of this new version of creationism: to disguise itself as "science," but without the burden of scientific method.
Ironically, I almost used the term "wedge" but changed my mind
Anyway, I had seen the first link above, but forgot about it. Thanks for posting it again. An interesting thread might be to what extent the anti-evolution community has achieved the goals outlined on that web page. I'll have to revisit that document again.
You might check out the parent page to the second link you posted (Parent Page), that is a fascinating read and I'm going to take a closer look at it later as well.
Anyway, I had seen the first link above, but forgot about it. Thanks for posting it again. An interesting thread might be to what extent the anti-evolution community has achieved the goals outlined on that web page. I'll have to revisit that document again.
You might check out the parent page to the second link you posted (Parent Page), that is a fascinating read and I'm going to take a closer look at it later as well.
I'm not really sure if I can respond to other people's posts, as this is simply an interview thread. But I see other people are. I suppose I'll go ahead and do it, kuz it may help Student313 out.
Why not? That's part of the law of evolution. Ya can't dismiss some part of a scientific law just because some people don't wanna believe it.
A significant number of people believe matter can be created. This defies the first law of thermodynamics. So should we not teach thermodynamics when applied to properties of matter?
Just kuz they see it that way, that doesn't make it so. It's not really Atheistic, but secular. The premise of a secular government is not undermined.
Laws are typically proven. Otherwise, they'd still be theories.
Gee . . . Good thing I'm not one of those people.
No it doesn't. Science is backed by research and observations. Scientists don't create ideas from nothing. They come up with hypotheses. A hypothesis is a guess made after casual observations. Scientists take a hypothesis and test it carefully and scientifically to find if it's true before they claim anything. Faith is just bull-headedly accepting a hypothesis, or even just some random idea, as true without any evidence to either the affirmative or the contrary.
Science, by its nature, is the opposite of faith.
Hmm . . . Good thing I didn't make such a claim.
We love you too.
Actually, people are claiming that it's not backed up by scientific observations. That's different from claiming it unscientific.
If it can be shown that the hypothesis of intelligent design is backed up by valid science just as the law of evolution is, then I would allow it in a biology class.
Ya know . . . Just to be a little devil's advocate, here's a bit of reading:
Genesis 1
<Sup>11</Sup>And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
<Sup>20</Sup>And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
<Sup>24</Sup>And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
The Bible don't seem so anti-evolutionary after all.
okinrus said:
Why not? That's part of the law of evolution. Ya can't dismiss some part of a scientific law just because some people don't wanna believe it.
A significant number of people believe matter can be created. This defies the first law of thermodynamics. So should we not teach thermodynamics when applied to properties of matter?
okinrus said:
Just kuz they see it that way, that doesn't make it so. It's not really Atheistic, but secular. The premise of a secular government is not undermined.
786 said:
Laws are typically proven. Otherwise, they'd still be theories.
§outh§tar said:
Gee . . . Good thing I'm not one of those people.
§outh§tar said:
No it doesn't. Science is backed by research and observations. Scientists don't create ideas from nothing. They come up with hypotheses. A hypothesis is a guess made after casual observations. Scientists take a hypothesis and test it carefully and scientifically to find if it's true before they claim anything. Faith is just bull-headedly accepting a hypothesis, or even just some random idea, as true without any evidence to either the affirmative or the contrary.
Science, by its nature, is the opposite of faith.
§outh§tar said:
Hmm . . . Good thing I didn't make such a claim.
§outh§tar said:
We love you too.
Actually, people are claiming that it's not backed up by scientific observations. That's different from claiming it unscientific.
§outh§tar said:
If it can be shown that the hypothesis of intelligent design is backed up by valid science just as the law of evolution is, then I would allow it in a biology class.
Ya know . . . Just to be a little devil's advocate, here's a bit of reading:
Genesis 1
<Sup>11</Sup>And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
<Sup>20</Sup>And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
<Sup>24</Sup>And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
The Bible don't seem so anti-evolutionary after all.
Care to tell me what empiricism is?
After observing SnakeLord's comment about it, I hypothesize that empiricism has something to do with philosophy. Now I need to take the hypothesis and test it carefully and scientifically to find if it's true before I claim anything.
97 posts to go!
After observing SnakeLord's comment about it, I hypothesize that empiricism has something to do with philosophy. Now I need to take the hypothesis and test it carefully and scientifically to find if it's true before I claim anything.
97 posts to go!
Fine, I'll humor ya for a bit.
Not science, but the law of evolution. Don't compare the field to the hypothesis.
And it's superior because it's backed up by . . . science. What's intelligent design backed up by?
95 posts to go!
§outh§tar said:
Not science, but the law of evolution. Don't compare the field to the hypothesis.
And it's superior because it's backed up by . . . science. What's intelligent design backed up by?
95 posts to go!
Athelwulf: I'm not sure you can boil the entire body of work that embodies the theory of evolution into a concise "Law," as much as we'd like to say it. Particularly since this is where the general public misunderstands and loses the gist of what it means to be a "theory" in science.
A scientific law is a statement that is considered to be true and provides a description of some recurring fact or facts of nature, such as the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.
I don't think you can really boil evolution down to such a concise statement. I do, however, think that we will have a set of concise Laws about evolution, perhaps once genomes are sequenced more quickly and efficiently.
But a Scientific Theory, as Athelwulf pointed out, is greatly misunderstood by the general public and the under-educated masses (in science, that is). A theory to them is an idea or suggestion. They have theories about why their bus is always late; why the drivers in their city are worse than in other cities; why they don't get laid as often as their roommates; etc.
These, however, are really just hypotheses and speculations. A hypothesis is an idea. A speculation to which one can apply a test. But if the hypothesis isn't testable, its merely a speculation.
Once a hypothesis or set of hypohteses are tested they can give rise to predictions about future observations, which in turn creates a "Theory." A theory is a set of tested hypotheses. Evolution is observed in nature and is a fact It happened. It happens. What is theoretical are the mechanisms that cause evolution, of which there are many.
I'm not saying that one or more Laws of Evolution have been proposed, I just haven't seen them. Perhaps I said it though: Evolution happened. Evolution happens.
A scientific law is a statement that is considered to be true and provides a description of some recurring fact or facts of nature, such as the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.
I don't think you can really boil evolution down to such a concise statement. I do, however, think that we will have a set of concise Laws about evolution, perhaps once genomes are sequenced more quickly and efficiently.
But a Scientific Theory, as Athelwulf pointed out, is greatly misunderstood by the general public and the under-educated masses (in science, that is). A theory to them is an idea or suggestion. They have theories about why their bus is always late; why the drivers in their city are worse than in other cities; why they don't get laid as often as their roommates; etc.
These, however, are really just hypotheses and speculations. A hypothesis is an idea. A speculation to which one can apply a test. But if the hypothesis isn't testable, its merely a speculation.
Once a hypothesis or set of hypohteses are tested they can give rise to predictions about future observations, which in turn creates a "Theory." A theory is a set of tested hypotheses. Evolution is observed in nature and is a fact It happened. It happens. What is theoretical are the mechanisms that cause evolution, of which there are many.
I'm not saying that one or more Laws of Evolution have been proposed, I just haven't seen them. Perhaps I said it though: Evolution happened. Evolution happens.
The alternative is insanity.§outh§tar said:
Empiricism, as defined in Webster's (Unabridged, online) is "the practice of emphasizing experience especially of the senses or the practice or method of relying upon observation, experimentation".
The alternatives to this are either that our senses are unreliable and that everything we experience must be considered spurious or that everything, including all of our dreams and imaginations, are equally real to what we observe through our senses.
Just try concocting a working world-view with either of the latter conclusions.
We can also take the pragmatic approach. Empiricism works better than anything else.
~Raithere
Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes?
Why or why not?
Yes, it should. Evolution is a very useful tool to explain a very probable chain of events that have lead to the present day, and the diversity of species. Much of biological science would be hard to do if the underlying principle was "What would God do?" We have already seen what God would do. God would persecute the scientists, burn the women and invade the Holy Land.
Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?Why or why not?
No. It undermines evolution. How could we ever hope to progress in science if the underlying principle was "quote scripture?" We couldn't. God as a mechanism is unnesccessary and detrimental to science, because it holds science back. It also would never let biologists fix their mistakes, because the bible must always be right.
Inerrancy of scripture should not be a scientific law.
As for evolution being a law, it is far from that. The laws of physics can be expressed with numerical formulae. Evolution cannot. However, evolution is the paradigm under which almost all life sciences are conducted. Which makes it as powerful as a law, just less accurate.
Why or why not?
Yes, it should. Evolution is a very useful tool to explain a very probable chain of events that have lead to the present day, and the diversity of species. Much of biological science would be hard to do if the underlying principle was "What would God do?" We have already seen what God would do. God would persecute the scientists, burn the women and invade the Holy Land.
Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?Why or why not?
No. It undermines evolution. How could we ever hope to progress in science if the underlying principle was "quote scripture?" We couldn't. God as a mechanism is unnesccessary and detrimental to science, because it holds science back. It also would never let biologists fix their mistakes, because the bible must always be right.
Inerrancy of scripture should not be a scientific law.
As for evolution being a law, it is far from that. The laws of physics can be expressed with numerical formulae. Evolution cannot. However, evolution is the paradigm under which almost all life sciences are conducted. Which makes it as powerful as a law, just less accurate.
Raithere said:
Do you realize that this is a speciously worded argument from ignorance?
Which was my point in the first place - those who say science is objective deliberately overlook that its very base foundation is built on.. nothing but an argument from ignorance. A hope, a leap -- that our knowledge is sufficient to comprehend reality. Not only that, but there is also foolishly unsubstantiated assumption that we are able to correctly and [/i]accurately[/i] interpret and validate data. You might call this insanity, but I am indifferent. "Objectively" speaking then, it reeks to me of arrogance, ignorance, and subjectivism. Is that any different?
As long as people realize this and realize that in this manner, science and ID are not very much different - they have similar, if not exactly the same roots, but only different branches - then the chimerical idiocy of claiming science is an objective endeavor can be eliminated from our threads.
Last edited:
Certainly not all science is truly objective. But Experiments/Observations which can be replicated independently are a hell of a lot mroe objective than people buying into some mythology/superstition first and then trying to come up with rational justifications for it!