BS: The End of Science in Texas...

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 12:48 AM

Funny, Funny.
I took two degrees at Texas University in the 1950s, including several math courses, and never, at any time, heard anyone mention pi= 3 being taught at any level.

Here is a joke from "Texas Mathematics Teacher," Fall 2004, put out by the Texas Council of Teachers of Mathematics, est. 1953.

"Do you know pi r squared, Grandpa?"
"Nonsense! Pie are round and cornbread are square."

The issue contains the article "Slices of Pi: Rounding Up Ideas for Celebrating Pi Day," pp. 6-7.
http://www.tenet.edu/tctm/downloads/TMT_Fall_04.pdf
Math teacher

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 12:59 AM

"...Sure wish I was as sure of things as some folks are...."

It's interesting that the only folks who are sure about things seem to be the fundamentalists of any religion. You rarely hear a scientist say that they are sure about anything. They always seem to qualify their statements with phrases like, "According to the laws of physics as we understand them" or "To the best of our current knowledge".

That's why the creationists can criticize "the theory of evolution".

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 01:06 AM

"Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: heric - PM
Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:49 PM

Well, that's not quite accurate. Many of the facts from the past were wrong because people were stupider then. But now we have the right facts, children."

Do you mean less well educated? Well, some of them were educated as well as could be for the times.

Do you mean less intelligent? I'd have to disagree. I doubt if there has been any significant change in mankind's intelligence in the last 10,000 years. All that has changed is the amount we know. And there are those who are resisting that change.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 04:11 AM

I do not believe heric expected to be taken entirely seriously on that point ...

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: heric
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:08 AM

No I didn't mean it seriously but remember when you were a kid wondering how people "then" could have believed x, y or z. such as in bleeding, or leeches as medically beneficial. Funyy thing (ha ha ) for me is now I get bled several times a year to treat high iron.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: heric
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:50 AM

The point is that I agree with Bev, and Jerry too, that people with any scientific training beyond grade school fully understand the great number of mysteries to be addressed and the fragility of countless theories, while school teachers rarely convey to children such a nuanced world view. From my perspective that would be a much more productive course of action.

When I was a biology student, I remember meeting an astronomy student. I said I picked biology because I believed that was the subject area that both needed and would gain the most advances in overturning old and creation of new thoeries over the next few decades. He said he chose astronomy for exactly the same reason. I was amazed. I didn't think there was THAT much more to be done. Now it turns out he was very right.

So anti-Creationists get animated over attempts to criticize some or many subissues in Darwinian theory. They say it is a clever tactic to replace anything unanswered with a Creation non-answer based in dogma. Maybe so, some or most of the time, but yes it is a good and persuaive tactic to my mind. Kids should be encouraged to think things through, without fear that we may turn them into religionists.

On a point relatd to textbook content: I clearly remember my fourth grade social studies book. On the inside coveers,it had a map of the world, with all socialist countries completely blacked out: Lost to civilization - a problem that was growing like a cancer. It was a most impressive map, which left an enduring impression on me.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:53 AM

"You rarely hear a scientist say that they are sure about anything."

I wish I could just agree with you and let it drop. I don't entirely disagree with your assessment RE:religion and its "certainty/dogmatism".

But I DO find the same dogmatism, maybe not in science, but among those who think they are "speaking science". You wanna find some of the angriest posts on the mudcat, search for all the countless threads like this one that touch on the evolution/creation issue and see if you don't agree that the dogma is from the "scientific" point of view...

...and, in those cases, nobody is suggesting, as you do, that "To the best of our current knowledge" caveot that you claim for them. They are right goddamn it -- and for a school to even SUGGEST that one cannot draw a conclusion from science regarding an intelligent origin (that one is not possible) is absolute HERESY.

Applying what we currently know from science, I tend to conclude that the Earth is much older than the creation story with which I was raised. For that reason, I also tend to look at that Genesis account differently than I was once taught. I don't think it was written as a journalistic account of seven days.

Interestingly, though, I DO find the Genesis account to be something other that simple "mythology". For one thing, it lacks the ancient on-the-back-of-a-turtle, flat-earth, how-the-bear-got-its-tail type of story telling of "mythology". It's WAY too matter-of-fact for that kind of interpretation.

I don't conclude anything from the observation other than I think that the Genesis account is something "other" -- perhaps not to be taken literally as a journal of seven days, but certainly not as a purposely made-up story to pacify or mysitfy an intellectually dull people.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:08 AM

The Book "The Muse in the Machine" casts some light on the idea that our ancient precedessors were not less intelligent, but thought in a slightly different more emotional/poetic way than the modern 'dry intellectual' way. Well worth reading: it is by an AI researcher, who felt that attempts to duplicate human intelligence would permantly fail until emotion was taken into account - emotion and the human physical body being fundamental to human thought processes.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: heric
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:11 AM

P.S. Rapaire: I LOVE those petrified watermelons from the Bonneville flood. You should market them.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:26 AM

Ancient people were not intellectually dull, they just did not have the information we have today.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:40 AM

What's turning out to be an interesting story, though, is the fact that we don't appear to have all the information that they had back then either.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:49 AM

As far as I can tell there isn't one person in this forum that doesn't think the creation story is a load on nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 11:07 AM

we don't appear to have all the information that they had back then either.

How do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 01:30 PM

Its a matter of belief rather than rational analysis, Shakey. To many people, the Judeo-Christian story of god/God creating mankind by fiat (and, when he/He later realized that something was missing, creating woman by yanking a rib from the first man) makes about as much rational sense as the Hopi story of man coming to this world through a hole in the rocks. On the other hand, if one truly believes that he/He can do anything (and it's been a while since we had a she/She in charge, hasn't it?), than everything and anything is entirely possible and rational.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: MaineDog
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 01:47 PM

I must correct my prior post. Pi was taught as "about 22/7", in some New York and New Jersey schools in the fifties. These days I use
Pi = 4.0*atan(1.) , which some say gives the best possible reault for a particular computer or calculator.

Also, if you read more of the Bible than Genesis, you will find passages that declare that God's time is not sensibly related to man's time, so we are not required to believe in 6 modern 24-hour days at all.

MD

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 03:01 PM

Mr artbrooks I salute you.

My statement above was left deliberately vague because there are many creation stories from across the world and most people only believe in one of them and thus disbelieve the rest. But why, what makes their particular story more convincing than any of the others? Fact is none have a shred of evidence. While science in general and darwinism in particular does not yet have all the answers more and more of the questions are being answered and the god of gaps is ruler of an ever diminishing domain.

One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round.

I'm grateful that religion has inspired man to great music and great buildings but the cost has also been great.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:23 PM

I certainly don't think 'the creation story' is a load of nonsense - anymore than I think the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Divine Comedy, Hamlet, Paradise Lost, or Ulysses a load of nonsense ...

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:46 PM

"While science in general and darwinism in particular does not yet have all the answers more and more of the questions are being answered and the god of gaps is ruler of an ever diminishing domain."

Just so we're clear...

that's as equally unscientific in its speculation as the creationism that you chide.

Your concusion is drawn. You now seek affirmation, not knowledge. That's exactly what the creationists are chided for.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:59 PM

Big difference, John. Darwinism, in general, is accepted as the model which aligns and clarifies all known data to date, with the least complex or arbitrary explanation. If new data were found which controverted it--or part of it -- it would be carefully incorporated into a modified model IF it were confirmed data. Hell, even Piltdown Man got incorporated and it was bum data! Creationism, basically, has one data source and accepts no other.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 06:30 PM

I don't agree, Amos. At the point at which I made my statement, Shakey says, basically, that he already believes in an evolution that occurs without an intelligent design or god.

That implies the same unwillingness to accept any new data that disagrees with his pre-conclusion. It's inherent in his statement. He concludes that -- regardless of any new data -- people will conclude that man invented god and not the other way around.

Lots of creationists (probaby the majority) believe also in evolution. The arguement here is somewhere else, and the line demarking victory in this tug'o'war is whether there was design or merely random chance. And on that one, neither side is any closer to being drawn over the line in defeat.

And it is that kind of dogmatism that has led to stalemates such a Texas, where greater than 50% of the people who pay the taxes for public education, do NOT accept the same pre-conclusion that Shakey and his "science teaching" ilk demand. (science-teaching in quotes because, if the end is pre-concluded, it is not science).

And, see, it was just upthread that GUEST:meself was asking if I really thought that people insisted upon teaching that science disproves the existence of a god. Shakey and you have answered for me.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:00 PM

John: I have no trouble accepting this:

"Lots of creationists (probaby the majority) believe also in evolution. The arguement here is somewhere else, and the line demarking victory in this tug'o'war is whether there was design or merely random chance. And on that one, neither side is any closer to being drawn over the line in defeat.

And it is that kind of dogmatism that has led to stalemates such a Texas ... "

But I don't think this does answer my question - which was, what science teachers are actually telling kids in the classroom - as opposed to what someone may say anonymously on an internet forum. And I'm not convinced that there are not a substantial number of science teachers who actually believe in a Supreme Being, whether or not they buy into anything remotely like the conventional creation story.

I don't doubt that there are competing dogmatisms, but I just question whether it is the science teachers themselves that are so dogmatic on one side of the debate. Of course, as I say, you're much closer to the situation than I am.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:02 PM

Fiddle, John. Science cannot disprove any such thing, because, as a hypothesis, it is not falsifiable. Furthermore it is the nature of science that ALL hypotheses are conditional until disproved in favor of a better one. Hell, the Newtonian formulation of gravity held sway for centuries and is only gradually being shifted by post-Einstinian exploration. This is a totally different approach to knowing from embracing a body of data based on its authoritative provenance -- the individual rather than the experiment.

Scientists accept a theory like evolution (not "believe" in it) because it matches existing data. You may recall that for several centuries, the mystery of blood flow in the human body was explained by adhering to the lessons of old Galen, the founder of much of Western medicine. His model was tides, into which humours were injected by glands according for the personality. When Harvey presented his circulation model to the London academy several hundred years later, it caused a huge uproar, but the evidence was repeatable and verifiable, and the model was surrendered.

You may find individuals who act reactionary or close-minded while still posing a scientists, but they don't represent the field very well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:19 PM

"Science cannot disprove any such thing, because, as a hypothesis, it is not falsifiable. Furthermore it is the nature of science that ALL hypotheses are conditional until disproved in favor of a better one. Hell, the Newtonian formulation of gravity held sway for centuries and is only gradually being shifted by post-Einstinian exploration. This is a totally different approach to knowing from embracing a body of data based on its authoritative provenance -- the individual rather than the experiment."

I don't disagree, Amos. And I'm saying that that is not where the battle line is drawn.

I'm saying that many people, evidenced in great number on this very forum do not accept the first line in your above paragraph. They accept that from their study of science, as they understand it, they are like Shakey and accept that science has taught them that, indeed, science has amply disproved the existence of a god.

Again, I don't know any agnostic/atheists who did not arrive at their god-free conclusion via their understanding of science -- whether it is, indeed, science or not.

You see the dogmatism and lack of scientific reason in the creationist. You don't see the same lack of scientific reason of those who think they are speaking "scientifically".

I do see them and I do not accept their premise. And I don't accept their right to teach a god-free conclusion in classrooms for which I have paid equally. If they were right and I were wrong -- or, said a more accurate way -- if they had a greater case for a god-free universe than I do for a god-directed one, I would accept their right to teach their world view as such. I do not accept that.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:53 PM

John,

THere is a world of difference between teaching a god-free world, which would be highly unscientific and presumptuous, and teaching without any reference to religion in matters of scientific data and hypotheses.

If education is to be s state-sponsored activity, as it seems the Federal government wants it to be, then it, by constitutional necessity, must teach no preference toward any religion. A science teacher would be remiss to assert science had disproved the existence of Allah, or any other deity, without being extremely explicit about what research he was citing. I have never heard anyone claim science had disproved god. I wouldn't know how to frame such an experiment, since by definition the realm of natural phenomena does not (in the usual sense) include spiritual beings of any kind, let alone super-beings. There is simply no such proof anywhere within science or claimed by science and I would dearly love to see it if you have seen such an experiment or even such a claim.

Unless your kids are going to a religious school, which would not be one that is paid for equally by all taxpayers, they should not find ANY indoctrination in their studies bearing on one religion or another, or their inverses, in a preferential way. Studying many religions across different cultures can be an eye-opening and educational experience in terms of understanding the human beast historically but that full-spectrum study is a different matter altogether.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:10 PM

And you two aren't at each other's throat! My, the MC has fallen from the days of MG -- civil discourse, of all things! Rational defense of positions! Actual, honest-to-God, thought-out positions and arguments! Gracious, the next thing you know we'll be accepting formal debate! 8-)

For whatever it's worth, my own opinion is that Church-related schools should be allowed to teach whatever form of science they wish (my own Catholic schooling, K-BA, found no conflict between the sciences and the Church's teachings). If a tax-supported school wishes to teach "Creationism" then it should teach ALL theories of it, from ALL religions -- not just the two creations contained in Genesis. That makes it a study of Comparative Religion, though, and not science. Mind you, I would have no problem with classes in Comparative Religions in the public schools....

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: fumblefingers
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM

We, and many other species, were depositied on this planet by creatures in a spacecraft as part of an experiment. The creators come back from time to time to see how things have progressed. That's my view of creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Fergie
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM

If any person can put before this forum any verifible evidence that a god entity exists I will immediatly fall down on my knees and recant my atheistic beliefs.

Fergus

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:41 PM

This thread caused me to search on the net for what the Catholic church now teaches about evolution
and creation, as when I was in Catholic school in the 50's and 60's, there was no conflict between the two.
It was interesting to see that there is an admonition against fundamentalism from
the Vatican and that evolution is taught in science class in Catholic schools and
the belief in God as creator is taught in religion class.

quote "... the Vatican's former chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, prior to his retirement, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." A cardinal who is the President of the Pontifical Councils for Culture pointed out "the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism."
The current pope does not endorse creationsim or intelligent design.

I'm no longer a Catholic, but I'm glad to know they have not thrown out science.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:08 PM

Shucks, all them Christian Brothers who taught me chemistry, biology, physics, and various sorts of math in high school and the Franciscan monks who taught me plant morphology, zoology, botany, trigonometry, chemistry and stuff in college will all be pleased to know that they won't be declared heretics.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: heric
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:37 PM

The way I heard it, the Roman Catholic Church, and notably the Jesuits, were accepting and well-versed in Copernican theory for half a century until the rise of Protestantism forced the Pope to take action to retain his dominion over the fundamental doctrines. Then it rather fell apart. On Galileo's head.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Kent Davis
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:08 AM

Guest, Shakey, at 3:01 p.m. stated, "As far as I can tell there isn't one person in this forum that doesn't think the creation story is a load on nonsense."
I don't. I am confident that the account given in Genesis is accurate.
I understand why some do not believe the Genesis account. They note, correctly of course, that there is much evidence which is compatible with the universe evolving over billions of years after a Big Bang.
There is also much evidence which is compatible with creation of a stable, mature universe by an omnipotent God. I am not writing to convince anyone of my position. I don't suppose, in a few short paragraphs, that I can.
I am writing to protest the hubris of those who think that everyone who disagrees with them on this matter is an "idiot" and "ignorant". As a hobby farmer and as a physician, I do have some knowledge of nature and some intelligence with which to interpret that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:47 AM

The problem, Kent, is that it is more usual to find someone declaiming against evolutionary theory who IS in fact ignorant, and whose love of sweeping generalizations, and various violation of logic, does make them look idiotic. The most common argument in support of creationism is doctrine, which is illogical in and of itself. I don't know anyone who thinks everyone who disagrees is an idiot or ignorant, but I do know a lot of people who use the general rule of "if it walks like a duck...".

Speaking from ignorance, and speaking illogically, is sure to bring you such labels.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 03:54 AM

"Its too bad ignorance doesn't itch"

Well it does in a way. Watch a liar closely and they will rub their nose when they are telling a lie.

Stupidity may be genetic and those who ignore certain knowledge are ignorant but there is the awful truth and
there are funny beliefs

The tribal, cowardly, envious, hateful and greedy often choose the beliefs.

Those who know the awful truth; become administrators, politicians and preachers for the Mega Evangelical Christ Church Association - MECCA

or they become scientists, musicians and artists of words and pictures.

But we all still need to be vigilent of envy, hate and greed in our lives.


PS
don't mess with Tesas, its already a mess.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 04:25 AM

Seems that maybe 2 villages somewhere in Texas are missing their idiots!

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:27 AM

"The problem, Kent, is that it is more usual to find someone declaiming against evolutionary theory who IS in fact ignorant, and whose love of sweeping generalizations, and various violation of logic, does make them look idiotic."

I think that what Kent and I are trying to say it that this statement cuts both ways. It's just that those who think they "believe in science" are more unaware of their ignorance -- and tolerated for their more mainstream ignorance.

In these discussions, I consistently find those who say they believe in evolution (meaning that they don't believe in creation) stating things that show that they haven't the foggiest notion of what evolution implies or where it leaves them.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:44 AM

Or care!!

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:55 AM

they haven't the foggiest notion of what evolution implies or where it leaves them.

Well, what do you think it implies, and where does it leave us?

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Mr Happy
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:58 AM

Check it out!


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CEqlUJGCE

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:05 AM

John Hardly

It's just that those who think they "believe in science"
don't understand science any better than the creationists do. You don't "believe" science, you use it as long as it works. When it doesn't, you come up with a new theory that fits the facts better but it still isn't The Truth.

As Amos said earlier -
it is the nature of science that ALL hypotheses are conditional until disproved in favor of a better one.

You can't do that with your God.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:25 AM

"Believe" in science? People believe in the scientific method, and in the idea that "truth" is an approximation. I suppose what we are really saying is that you can't have the absolute certainty that the religious mind seems to crave. Giving them their due, people of mature religious belief accept that uncertainty too, even about their religion. You are unfortunate in the USA in having as the mainstream faith one which is philosophically stuck in the 17th century.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:46 AM

GUEST,PMB

"Believe" in science? People believe in the scientific method

OK, I was being inexcusably lax there. You can believe in the scientific method but you shouldn't "believe" a scientific theory.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:58 AM

Perhaps they could design me a thru zero flanger!

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:06 AM

I think we're getting to quibbles about what the word "believe" means. You can believe in scientific theories, and you do; to the extent that you are prepared to bet your life on it. Don't fly or go climbing if you don't believe in gravity. Which is a case in point. We have a perfectly functioning theory of gravity, which you can take at many levels, Newtonian or relativistic, as it is useful. But we really have little idea of the mechanism of gravity, and there are bound to be changes to existing theories when (if?) we manage to combine relativity with quantum mechanics. And when we do that, nothing is more certain that the new theory will raise a whole new set of questions.

So in reality you never get to the truth, and you might question if the word "truth" actually means anything specific. But if the alternative is shutting down of the intellect, and refusing even to ask the questions, in my opinion it's better to learn to live with the uncertainty.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:17 AM

When something is in quotes, as was "believe in science", the quotes imply that the phrase is something other than a typical meaning.

I don't blame you for not understanding the distinction I'm drawing. I'm not the greatest at conveying my thoughts. And it may be the first time you've ever heard anyone question that there may be a distinction between actual science, and what is referred to as the "scientific" side of the evolution/creation debate...

... a "science" that believes it has concluded no creation.

A "science" that believes that adaptation and evolution are one and the same -- and don't understand that even the most hard-core creationist believes in adaptation too.

A "science" that accepts, when it comes to the jumps necessary in evolution to go from, for instance, inanimate matter to living matter -- that "because it did" is a more definitive conclusion than "I don't know".

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:39 AM

John, in that sense evolution is as solidly established as the "theory" of gravity. About which, at the lowest level, we don't know either. As Newton put it, hypotheses non fingo. Some questions just have to be left until we have more information.

Evolutionary biologists do not recognise a difference between adaptation and evolution. Indeed, "species" is nowadays seen as merely a convenient label for organisms that are more like each other (increasingly based on DNA content) than they are like other organisms. It is worth noting that groupings of species based on similariries of structure have been overwhelmingly confirmed by DNA analysis, and interesting and instructive when surprises have turned up.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:50 AM

GUEST,PMB

I think we're getting to quibbles about what the word "believe" means.

On the contrary, "belief" is the fundamental difference between religion and science.

You can believe in scientific theories, and you do; to the extent that you are prepared to bet your life on it.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested against the observed facts and found to correspond to the limits of experimental accuracy. That doesn't make it true, just your best bet.

Don't fly or go climbing if you don't believe in gravity.

Gravity isn't a scientific theory, it is an observed physical phenomenon which we experience in our everyday lives (unless you are in the International Space Station). People climbed trees and apples fell out of them and the planets followed their orbits perfectly happily before Newton came along with his theory which merely describes what they do.

Interestingly, it is the crew of the International Space Station who are staking their lives on the correctness of Newton's theory to do the calculations that allow the space shuttle to meet them at the right time and place. They don't need to worry that it isn't actually "true" because it is good enough for that purpose. In other areas, such as calculating the orbit of Mercury, it gives the wrong answer.

You can bet your life on Newton's theory but you can't "believe" it because it isn't true. Relativity isn't "true" either; it's just a better fit to the observations.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:05 AM

The scientific method is a tool, not a belief system. Science, from the Latin "scire", to know,
from Webster's, "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc."

Belief is opinion, supposition, conviction, creed or doctrine, without absolute proof,
from the Old English "belyfan", from ga-laubjan to hold dear or love. The root of
the meaning of "belief" shows us that without proof, people hold on to an idea
they hold dear or love. This attachment to the belief without proof shows us how
science has nothing to do with the belief. Creationists feel some need to try to
prove their belief now with pseudoscience, but in the past, people just acknowledged it as faith
without proof. Rather than try to re-define science or faith, they should acknowledge
that each has their own place. Science in science class... belief in religion class.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:25 AM

Alice

The scientific method is a tool, not a belief system.

OK. I'll go along with that.

Science, from the Latin "scire", to know,

But....

"Some people think that science is about knowing but they are wrong. Science is about not knowing. Knowing, we leave to religion."

Dr. Jack Cohen (reproductive biologist)

(May not be an exact quote. It's a long time since I heard him say it but that was the gist.)

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:32 AM

Again, yup. I get it.

And what I'm saying (again) is that there is a certain irony to a statement like:

"One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round."

The writer is convinced of the "scientific" nature of what he "knows" to be true -- all the while merely stating what he philosophically believes.

We all "get it" -- we understand that the creationist come from a philosophical "belief" system (though an interesting discussion for another day is the curious fact that the juggernaut of the academic world is effectively blockading anyone who comes from a creationist point of view from participation in their world).

What we seem to not grasp is that there is an "other" entrant in the debate. It is not the creationist (whom we understand as philosopher), it is not the scientist (whom we understand does not have a horse in the origins race) -- it is the "believer" -- the new disciple of Dawkins, if you will, who has extrapolated (very UNSCIENTIFICALLY) an end conclusion -- that creation could not have happened...

...and who, at their most extreme end is already talking about the extermination of the ignorant religious as "dangerous" (even though they, too, are merely "believers", as you put it).

I too am a disciple of Dawkins. Darryl Dawkins. Chocolate Thunder. And I want to invite everyone to join me on the planet "Lovetron".

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:33 AM

and I also score number 100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!