![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 53. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 5, 2005, at 23:26:47
So they want to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory in the schools.
I didn't know they wanted to introduce philosophy of science at high school...
How you weigh competing theories to decide which is a better explanation...
We do that in first year at university in introduction to philosophy - but I don't know how on earth they are going to do it at high school...
I mean... Most people have to grapple significantly to get a good understand of the principles of evolution by natural selection. And now it isn't just that that you have to worry about - its creationism too.
Bizzare...
I mean... Creationism is derived from a literal interpretation of Genesis. Teaching Genesis in the schools... Do they teach from the Koran? Other scriptures from other religions? Why are they wanting to teach the views of one religion as opposed to another religion?
I don't understand how this can be considered not to amount to teaching religion in schools...
Creationism cannot be construed as a scientific theory. With respect to science... It is either false (because of carbon dating of fossil records etc) or unflasifiable (because god created the world including pre-aged fossils). And... It posits one more entity (god) with no explanatory advantage (because god willed it so).
Posted by JenStar on September 5, 2005, at 23:48:19
In reply to Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by alexandra_k on September 5, 2005, at 23:26:47
hi alexandra,
I agree with you 100%! Creationism is the CHRISTIAN theory of how man came to form on this world, but it's not the same theory held by the ancient Greeks, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Native American tribes in the USA, the First Nations in Canada, or the Aborigines in Australia. There are multiple religious theories that explain the ascent of modern man...all slightly different.The evolutionary theory is the only scientific theory based on current science.
It seems that if you teach ONE religious theory (Christian Creationism) then you should really teach a "religion of the worlds" class and cover how many different religions see the development of man. That way you'd really expose the kids to different world views. Plus it would be really interesting!
JenStar
Posted by 10derHeart on September 6, 2005, at 0:12:35
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 5, 2005, at 23:48:19
> Creationism is the CHRISTIAN theory of how man came to form on this world,
Let's not forget the Jewish people. That would be their belief, as well. Just a thought :-)
>> teach a "religion of the worlds" class and cover how many different religions see the development of man. That way you'd really expose the kids to different world views. Plus it would be really interesting!
I HAD this class as a sophmore in H.S. It was excellent - called "comparative religions", or something like that. It was an elective and one of my favorite classes. I agree that kids at this age need/deserve/enjoy (?) having the basics of all these different relgions taught, as least as an elective. If that's what you're saying....don't mean to speak for you. Because how on earth can you begin to understand economics, political science, sociology...or anything....if you have no clue about these relgions and how they shape cultures all over the world?
Tough road for schools to try to go down, though. I won't even try to discuss it further. I know emotions run high on this, and I can really only cope a bit over on Faith - and not always so well there, either...
My high school was in Massachusetts - New England was/is (?) known for it's fairly progressive and challenging public schools, or so I'm told :-)
Posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 0:14:46
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 5, 2005, at 23:48:19
I'm not in favor of religion being taught in a science classroom per se, but I think the concept of intelligent design should be taught along with Darwinism.
SCIENCE is something that can be observed. Since neither creationism nor evolution can be observed, neither is science.
Many would argue that Evolution can be observed, but you must admit that while we have watched speices change within themselves, we've never seen a species morph into a completely different species. Natural selection is one thing, Evolution is different. I know many will disagree. But if it cannot be observed, it should not be taught as science and/or truth. That goes for both theories.
It seems to me, however, that many Evolutionists are very scared of the concept of a Designer/Creator. All of the evolutionists I've heard speak have been VERY defensive and turned downright ugly when questioned about the Intelligent Design theory. If it really was THAT ridiculous, I don't think it would be such a hot button subject. Hmm.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:14:46
In reply to Intelligent Design, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 0:14:46
>I think the concept of intelligent design should be taught along with Darwinism.
Okay...
> SCIENCE is something that can be observed.
PHENOMENA are what is observed.
One offers a hypothesis and the phenomena are supposed to support the hypothesis or show it to be false.
Hypotheses fall out of theorietical frameworks.
Evolution by natural selection and creationism are such theorietical frameworks.
They explain observed phenomena with recourse to differential fitness, inheritance, mutation, and gods (or an intelligent designers) will respectively.> Since neither creationism nor evolution can be observed, neither is science.
Okay...
You sound like a verificationist.
They say that there are two kinds of terms - observational terms and theorietical terms. Observational terms refer to observable entities. Theorietical terms are not directly observable and thus they should be banished from science. They do not refer to anything (observable) and thus they do not refer to anything at all and they are meaningless.But they were wrong as the following example from the history of science shows:
Mendel wanted to explain the phenomena of pea flowers colour. I can't remember it exactly... He observed the flowers colour and then observed that the colour tended to be passed onto the next generation according to certain ratios. He came up with the theorietical construct 'gene' to dub whatever the inheritable componant was.
It took a fair few years before anybody ever observed such a 'thing' as a gene. This entity started out as theorietical and then became concrete as we discovered the 'thing' that played the functional role that 'gene' played in Mendels explanation for the observed ratios.
> Many would argue that Evolution can be observed, but you must admit that while we have watched speices change within themselves, we've never seen a species morph into a completely different species.
Thats because there is a very large time scale involved...
>Natural selection is one thing, Evolution is different.
???
How so?
Do you mean the notion that all life goes back to a common anscestor versus god made all the individual species fairly much exactly as they appear today and plopped them on the earth just so?> But if it cannot be observed, it should not be taught as science and/or truth. That goes for both theories.
You are a verificationist!!!!!
Past events can (no longer) be observed...
Future events can (not yet) be observed either...
But science gives us predictive leverage. One of the marks of a good scientific theory is predictive power.For example... Mendle could predict the ratios of observed colour via his theorietical construct 'gene'. Because this theory gives us predictive leverage it counts as a good explanation: why is this ratio observed? Because there is this thing called a gene which contains the heritable componant...
Compare to this: why are the ratios observed? Because god willed it so. Hmm. I see. And what ratios will we observe next time? Whatever god wills. Hmm. Is it impertinent to inquire into the will of god. yup. explanation has to stop somewhere etc etc.
> It seems to me, however, that many Evolutionists are very scared of the concept of a Designer/Creator. All of the evolutionists I've heard speak have been VERY defensive and turned downright ugly when questioned about the Intelligent Design theory. If it really was THAT ridiculous, I don't think it would be such a hot button subject. Hmm.
Ah. I think it is because some creationists make very persuasive use of rhetoric. And so in public debates... They slaughter the scientists, basically. Because scientists are used to working with particular hypotheses. They are used to testing particular hypotheses from within the framework of scientific theory. They aren't used to thinking outside that. Once you go into the realm of theories theory critique theory development theory evaluation then you are in the realm of philosophy.
It was the philosophers who worked out the scientific method. Then people went off to practice routine science from within that method.
Darwin himself wondered about intelligent design versus evolutionary theory.He contemplated the eye. The eye is an extremely complex organ. It has a lens for focusing the light and so on and so forth and all the parts work together.
He wonders 'what on earth could be an explanation for the eye?' He considers the intelligent design hypothesis...
And then he asks whether there could be another way. He considers there is another way... Just so... And he proceeds with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
If you teach creationism beside evolutionary theory
You might as well teach soul-stuff alongside modern atomic theory
There isn't any soul-stuff in the periodic table of elements
Should the scientists be allowed to get away with that one :-O
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:18:28
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » JenStar, posted by 10derHeart on September 6, 2005, at 0:12:35
I mean...
Comparative religions is fine...
Considering how to evaluate different theories
creationism versus evolution by natural selection
modern atomic theory versus descartes dualism
is fine...
but you need to know about theory comparison / evaluation, you need to know about the aims of science, the methods of science, what does and does not count as a scientific theory and why to be able to benefit from the topic.what is more likely to happen...
is that it will breed confusion...
as educators have their own agenda to push
and people make decisions based on half-baked ideas that involve a caricature of both objects under consideration...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:53:47
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:18:28
I just think that to teach evolutionary theory alongside creationism is to suggest that creationism is a viable alternative theory to evolution by natural selection.
But...
It is not.One way the creationist story runs is like this...
God made all the species fairly much exactly as they appear today. He made them in six days and then he rested. And the earth isn't anywhere near as old as the scientists say it is.Then there are some anomalous phenomena for the creationists theory:
- carbon dating of fossils
- human embryos develop gills very early on, and then they lose them.
- all living things share a common genetic code (a codes for adinine (or whatever, i forget...) yet this fact is arbitrary, it could have been otherwise.
- there is a great similarity between living things (arms are rather similar to wings etc).
- if god made the species you would have thought everything would be optimally adapted to its environment. pandas have a very crude thumb, they would do much better with an opposable one like ours for stripping bamboo.Creationism only has one thing to say: because god willed it so.
Evolution by natural selection tells us about what kinds of things there were initially... and then about the kinds of mutations, selection pressures etc that would have resulted in what phenomena we observe today.
The scientific theory has been useful to us. There are people who run computer simulations of genetic pools and vary mutations or environmental conditions etc to see how things evolve.
Dennett in particular goes on about the life game. You can download it for free from something or other... It shows how simple individual entities can become part of an entity with many parts and then how these entities can move around and 'eat' other entities or 'destroy' them or whatever.
I met someone once who worked with the common cold. He would subject the strain to current anti-biotics and keep the ones that survived. He would end up with mutant strains that were immune to current anti-biotics. Then he would work to develop a new anti-biotic that would work on the new strain. The idea was to speed up evolution in the lab in order to anticipate new strains in the world.
Whereas the creationist alternative has us conclude 'because god willed it so'. just because god willed that last time so that does not tell us about what he will will next time, however. creationism cannot predict half as well as evolution by natural selection.
creationism can only explain by saying 'because god willed it so'. evolution by natural selection offers the start of an explanation with respect to inheritance, mutation, differential fitness etc. then there is a whole heap to be done with respect to clarifying the nature and contribution of each. with respect to working out precisely what heritability amounts to and what characteristics are heritable etc etc.
in short: one is the end of explanation
and the other is just the start.no contest.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 8:30:59
In reply to Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by alexandra_k on September 5, 2005, at 23:26:47
As a Catholic, I know that teaching evolution is in perfect step with the church. Just want to clear up any misconceptions out there about Catholocism and Creationism. I believe Catholics view Genesis as an ancient morality tale.
Here's where I may have my facts not quite so straight. And please, if I am wrong, someone correct me! I do believe as well that Judaism is in step with evolution. I believe that Judaism looks at the story of Adam and Eve as a creation tale/myth.
Posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:40:06
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:18:28
I agree here too. Even if we did develop a fair comparative religion class, different schools/teachers in different parts of the country might focus (even somewhat subconsciously) on their own religion as being the "right" one and teach the others as "theories." I think it's incredibly hard to teach religions dispassionately, esp. if you're a religious person yourself!
But I still think there would be value in teaching a religions class. In high school (mine was a Catholic high school) I took a comparitive religions of the world class and found it eye-opening and fascinating. I loved reading about Sihks, Jains, Zen Buddhists and others of faith, in addition to Judaism and Catholicism and Islam.
I think it's good for kids to learn about other cultures and religions. I had learned a lot of "world religion" even in gradeschool, just because my mom is very educated and taught us a lot of things at home. But many kids don't have that, and learning it at school could be very mind-expanding.
Maybe the class could focus not so much on how to evaluate all the theories...but focus on what the theories ARE. Just to inform and educate. Later on, the kids could learn how to evaluate as they get better at interpretation, and take more science and philosophy classes.
Because even a dispassionate discussion on how to evaluate religious theories would probably fall apart, because faith becomes involved in religion and sort of "trumps" scientific evidence, no?
I'm glad I went to Catholic schools as a kid, because I DID get the religious education -- not only my own faith, but world faiths too.
How about you, Alexandra? Did you learn about religion while growing up?
J
Posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:51:01
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:53:47
I agree with all of this, because I'm a big believer in evolution / science/ rigorous analysis of evidence and predicting the future based on past performance.
BUT...that being said...I think people who have faith in creationism really DO feel that God's will was enough to make fossils and rocks and stuff like that. They simply believe it.
I think it's very hard to argue and compare a scientific theory to a religious theory because you keep bumping up against that belief. And people who are otherwise very analytical and detail driven can be very stubborn about it...I think because they don't even see the value in a debate, because they DO have faith in something else.
I know you said "no contest", but I am willing to bet that the people who believe in Creationism would also say "no contest" and really feel it to be so, because their faith tells them they are right.
It's so interesting. I think many religious Creationist people are very scared to think that evolution might be "right", because then the bible might be "wrong" and then all the foundations of religion could weaken and crumble, and God could dissolve into the mist. It's horrifying to think that your God might not be the "right" God, or that he/she might NOT exist after all. It's much more comforting to deny the doubts and just have faith.
I think that for Creationists it's complicated and difficult to use the Bible as an allegory or a symbol, and to think of the biblical stories as teaching fables and analogies, because if they're more "literature" to be interpreted than absolute truth, that also makes it more difficult to believe that they are divine.
I myself do believe that the biblical stories are not necessarily absolute truth but they are analogies or lessons...but that's not the formal Church teaching, i know!
If there are Creationists out there, please please realize that I mean no disrespect by what I wrote here. These are my interpretations of what I THINK other people might be thinking! That's MY theory, I guess.
JenStar
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 10:52:02
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 8:30:59
> Here's where I may have my facts not quite so straight. And please, if I am wrong, someone correct me! I do believe as well that Judaism is in step with evolution. I believe that Judaism looks at the story of Adam and Eve as a creation tale/myth.
There's more than one kind of Judaism. Mainstream groups probably regard Genesis as a metaphor. Extremely Orthodox groups take it literally, but they don't demand that everyone agree with them.
What most Christian Creationists have resorted to is Intelligent Design, which they *claim* is valid science, but hardly anyone in the larger community of scientists agrees with them. It's Creationism stripped of overt Fundamentalist Christianity. I once read it described as "Creationism Light".
I.
Posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:55:49
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 8:30:59
hi Miss H,
I think you're right for the mainstream Catholic Church. I know that in my Catholic school we were taught that evolution was the way people and modern animals came to be. We did learn the Creationism story too, but learned it as a bible story/myth, even in religion class.There was never any confusion about it -- we were very scientifically driven and noone really "believed" that the Genesis story was the way man was really made.
But I think that people who are "Creationists" truly DO believe that the creation story is THE story, and that evolution is just not right -- it can't be, if the creation happened the way the bible says it did.
So I think there is a big difference between the majority of Catholic churches and the Creationists.
I could be wrong too, so please, correct me if I got it wrong! :)
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by 10derHeart on September 6, 2005, at 11:05:52
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:40:06
>> Maybe the class could focus not so much on how to evaluate all the theories...but focus on what the theories ARE. Just to inform and educate. Later on, the kids could learn how to evaluate as they get better at interpretation, and take more science and philosophy classes.
That's what I wanted to describe in my post. My class was just like this. My teacher did a remarkable job of keeping his personal views out of it. To this day I have no memory of them, or of him or any other high school teacher stepping outside boundaries there. Guess I could have forgotten, true, but remembering what I do about him/them, teaching styles, the overall "tone" of my school, etc., I think they were dedicated to getting the information out there because ..... I do recall vaguely (I AM getting old...)a lot of unanswered questions.
Like when a student dug down deeper and ultimately wanted to know, "well, what's true then?", or "What's the right answer, Mr.B.?" teachers would just smile, shrug and say, "Those are hard questions, aren't they? People take lifetimes thinking about them."
It seemed to work. I'd hate to think because something is hard and touchy, we can never even attempt it. Maybe better to give it every effort, then closely monitor those entrusted with the teaching...? I know I'm making it sound a LOT simpler than it is...don't envy schools at all. I'd imagine parents would do the monitoring for the school, in many cases, and you'd hear within hours when personal agendas of ANY type might be emerging....:-)
Posted by kid47 on September 6, 2005, at 12:56:23
In reply to Intelligent Design, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 0:14:46
> I'm not in favor of religion being taught in a science classroom per se, but I think the concept of intelligent design should be taught along with Darwinism.<
I think it is a pretty dicey premise to teach "intelligent design", in public schools, as a pure science. Maybe in a social science or history class...but even then I gotta believe our forefathers understood from experience how important a seperation of church and state is.
> SCIENCE is something that can be observed. Since neither creationism nor evolution can be observed, neither is science.<
That might really disappoint a whole bunch of paleontologists.
Peace
kid
Posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:24:36
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:53:47
Alex, I'm not a biologist by any means. It would take me some time to go through your post and respond to different things, which I would be glad to do. I guess my point is this: I don't think teachers should "teach" creationism, because you're right, that's a religion/philosphy topic. I just think that there should be mention of the fact that MANY people do not ascribe to Evolution, and that there is an Intelligent Design theory out there along with the Evolutionary theory.
I don't know how it is in other states or countries, but if a bio teacher here in CA were to merely mention the intelligent design theory here in CA, they would lose their job. Their instructions are to teach Evolution ONLY, and teach it as FACT. NO ROOM FOR OTHER POSSIBILITIES.
It seems to me that there is a tremendous fear behind a decree like that.
I know you don't think creationism is as viable like Evolutionism. I disagree. You might find it interesting to read literature written by a Creationist scientist (they do exist! more than you think).
I'd be happy to address other aspects of your post, but my lunch break is almost over. ;-)
Posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 8:30:59
> As a Catholic, I know that teaching evolution is in perfect step with the church. Just want to clear up any misconceptions out there about Catholocism and Creationism. I believe Catholics view Genesis as an ancient morality tale.>
My conservative Catholic friends would disagree with you. Would it depend on how devoted of a Catholic you are? What does the Pope say? I believe he takes the Bible literally, and wouldn't that be the "official" stance of the Catholic church? Wouldn't devoted Catholics follow what the Pope says?
I'm not Catholic, but I know there are lots of differences between Catholics in the many parts of the world.
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 14:41:58
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » Miss Honeychurch, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
> My conservative Catholic friends would disagree with you. Would it depend on how devoted of a Catholic you are? What does the Pope say? I believe he takes the Bible literally, and wouldn't that be the "official" stance of the Catholic church? Wouldn't devoted Catholics follow what the Pope says?
>
> I'm not Catholic, but I know there are lots of differences between Catholics in the many parts of the world.
>
>
My husband went through Catholic schools until college, and here's what he says: In biology class there was no mention of Creationism or Intelligent Design. Theology was confined to religion class. Evolutionary theory is not considered incompatible with the existence of God. Here's a link:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405245.htm
You might share it with your conservative Catholic friends.There shouldn't be disagreements among different Catholics. It's a top-down organization.
I.
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 15:11:38
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:24:36
I have a degree in biology (not that I ever used it). I currently live in California, and I'm glad that schools don't teach Creationism or Intelligent Design. If I thought otherwise, I'd send my kids to a school that thought the same way I do. That's what very religious people often do.
This is a political controversy, not a scientific one. The bedrock of science is to consider all explanations that fit the full range of evidence. Both Creationism and ID have been considered against that standard. Neither have met it. Evolution has. From a scientific point of view, no controversy or debate exists, any more than there is a debate that foul air causes Malaria. The current debate is now political. Politicians are (usually) not scientists. Politicians and scientists have very different rules concerning debates. What underlies this debate is a desire on the part of some politicians and the people they represent to change the rules about public education. The courts have ruled against a direct inclusion of theology in the classroom. In the political process, a controversy is necessary to a debate and to effecting a political change. That is what is at work here.
I.
Posted by 10derHeart on September 6, 2005, at 15:13:02
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » Miss Honeychurch, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
>> I believe he takes the Bible literally, and wouldn't that be the "official" stance of the Catholic church?
Apparently not *exactly*....it may depend on which part of the Bible we're talking about. Read on...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom1.htm
I like this website. Comes out of Canada...go figure!! Lovin’ my Canadian brothers and sisters more each day ;-) I like it because it’s an essay that lists sources at the end. Very important.
This thread is teaching me things – I like that. Mostly that few things – even those which we assumed/thought/were told were “black and white” –really are. There is a lot more gray area within certain faith groups than I was aware of, and I consider myself at least moderately educated about the basics of religion among my peers.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 16:11:11
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » Miss Honeychurch, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
I will check official Catholic teaching on this. As I said, I'm truly not 100% sure. Also, a lot of Catholics are not really well versed in the official church teachings, so I think beliefs are all over the place. Will get back to you!
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 16:12:47
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 14:41:58
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 16:43:32
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 8:30:59
To the best of my knowledge...
Most churches / organised religions are opposed to teaching creationism alongside evolutionary theory.They consider that it is teaching religion in the schools and they don't believe it is appropriate.
The 'intelligent design hypothesis' was supposed to be creationism divorced from any particular religion. Divorced from a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Because the 'intelligent design hypothesis' is divorced from any particular religion they present it as a scientific hypothesis rather than a religious one. They argue that the intelligent design hypothesis should be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
But... Most people who believe in the intelligent design hypothesis are protestants...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 16:57:19
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:51:01
I think comparative religion is an interesting topic. What I mean by comparative religion is treating religion as history / anthropology. A study of what different groups of people believe.
That is an observational process. Observing and learning about what these people do in fact believe.
With respect to evaluating what these people believe (are their beliefs grounded, are they true beliefs, should they believe those things)...
That is a topic in epistemology (study of knowledge / truth) which is a part of philosophy, and more in particular... It is philosophy of religion.
And that is an interesting topic...
But to make all interesting topics compulsory in the high school curriculum is an impossible task... One has to give the students options... And one must always select what is going to be compulsory as opposed to optional.
>How about you, Alexandra? Did you learn about religion while growing up?
Yeah.
I started attending church as a teenager for a while.
Pentecostal variety...
I read the whole bible...
Mostly so I could say I had :-)> I think it's very hard to argue and compare a scientific theory to a religious theory because you keep bumping up against that belief.
Yeah. Thats what the intelligent design peoples deny, however. The intelligent design hypothesis is considered (by them) to be a scientific theory rather than a religious theory.
And in response to that I can only reiterate what I've already said. The intelligent design hypothesis is either false or unflasifiable or not appropriately construed as a scientific theory. I go with the latter. If they are determined to construe it as a scientific theory then I have to say it is either false or unflasifiable.
Also...
Before one posits an intelligent designer as an explanation...
Hadn't one better get to work in proving the existence of an intelligent designer?Are arguments for the existence of god supposed to be scientific arguments now too????
> I think many religious Creationist people are very scared to think that evolution might be "right", because then the bible might be "wrong" and then all the foundations of religion could weaken and crumble, and God could dissolve into the mist.Yeah. None of that follows, though.
Literalist interpretations of the Bible don't work out anyways.
Evolutionary theory isn't inconsistent with religion
It is inconsistent with a strictly literalist interpretation of the Bible, though.
But IMO the Bible is a spiritual text
Teaching spiritual truths
It isn't supposed to be construed literally.
It is just the literalists who are having a problem.
Because if the Bible utters literal truths about the world then it seems to be an alternative to science.
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 17:26:24
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » JenStar, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 16:57:19
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:34:15
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:24:36
> Alex, I'm not a biologist by any means. It would take me some time to go through your post and respond to different things, which I would be glad to do.
I'm not a biologist either... If philosophy doesn't work out for me then I think I am going to do biology though. I don't have a terribly good understanding of evolutionary theory... I have a better understanding of creationism... And what it takes to be a scientific theory...
> I just think that there should be mention of the fact that MANY people do not ascribe to Evolution, and that there is an Intelligent Design theory out there along with the Evolutionary theory.
But once again... Intelligent design theory is not a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.
Evolution by natural selection is accepted by the scientific community as the best theory we have to predict / explain our observations of the world. And scientists are in the business of getting out there in the world and making systematic recordings of their observations of the world. The intelligent design hypothesis is accepted by a bunch of religious peoples who insist on a literal interpretation of their spiritual texts despite the fact that construed literally... what they are saying is either false or unflasifyable. Which is to say... That it is either a BAD scientific theory, or it is not properly one at all.
Compare the intelligent design hypothesis vs creationism to a case in the history of science where there is a genuine case of competition between theories:
Heat was thought to be a fluid (phlogiston) that could neither be destroyed nor created. Phlogiston was thought to flow from one object to another (e.g., from a fire into the room or from an element into water in the pot).
Compare that to modern chemical-atomic theory (Dalton) where heat is the vibration of molecules.
So here we have two rival (competing) theories of heat.
The crucial observation is as follows:It was observed that rubbing two things together produced heat. If heat is a substance that flows from one object to another (e.g., from a fire into a room) then it is an anomalous observation that heat can come from two objects that were initially cool. The phlogiston theory rules out this phenomena from occuring and the occurance of the phenomena shows the phlogiston theory to be false (or at the very least to require some substantial revision).
This observation served to falsify the heat-fluid theory. There were other observations too... Something to do with negative weights and things being burned...
That is something that is important (crucial) in scientific theorising... A theory must predict certain phenomena... It must rule out the occurance of other phenomena... Thats what gives it its predictive power... And there is always the possibility of an observation (such as the production of heat by friction) to show the theory to be false.
But the intelligent design hypothesis is unflasifyable...
1) How would the world be if there was an intelligent designer? (Just as it is now)
2) How would the world be if there was not an intelligent designer? (Just as it is now)
3) What possible observations could confirm the existence of an intelligent designer (There aren't any)
4) What possible observations could falsify the existence of an intelligent designer (There aren't any)Some people start to wonder if the hypothesis is even meaningful at this point...
The intelligent design hypothesis requires us to accept into our ontology one more kind of thing than we had before
God exists!
And what explanatory advantage does this extra entity provide for us?
Because God willed it so.
> I don't know how it is in other states or countries, but if a bio teacher here in CA were to merely mention the intelligent design theory here in CA, they would lose their job. Their instructions are to teach Evolution ONLY, and teach it as FACT. NO ROOM FOR OTHER POSSIBILITIES.
If they want to teach other possibilities they could teach the brain in a vat hypothesis (a modern varient on descates evil genius) ... Thats a good rival contender to pit against the intelligent design hypothesis because the very point to it is that there is no evidence that could count for or against... But once again this is philosophy not biology. And you can't go making everything compulsory...
Evolutionary theory is accepted by the scientific community comperable to how
Modern atomic theory is accepted by the scientific community which is comperable to how
Relativity is accepted by the scientific community.Thats not to say that all the details have been worked out.. There is still a lot of work to be done.
But at least these research projects are up off the ground.
Whereas 'because god willed it so' doesn't make for a terribly long thesis, article, book, or research project.
They seem to want to replace scientific inquirey with faithReplace observations of the natural world
With study of their spiritual texts
>You might find it interesting to read literature written by a Creationist scientist (they do exist! more than you think).Have done. Most creationist arguments rely on a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theorising (especially regarding falsifiability). They also make much of the fact that the scientific explanations are still incomplete (the evolutionary theorists can't tell us how every characteristic evolved as yet - but the intelligent design hypothesis can - because god willed it so!). They make use of most every formal fallacy in the book (the 'only game in town fallacy' - you can explain everything by saying 'god willed it so' and evolutionary theory doesn't have much to say about some characterisics at present). They are most persuasive due to their use of rhetoric.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.