Tennessee makes it safe to teach "alternative" science.

LarryC wrote:

The Theory of Evolution. When was the last time this was tested rigorously by a scientist who didn't already fully buy into it? Only specifics of it are being investigated. The overarching theory itself is now almost never questioned.

For that matter, Gate-Control Theory in the propagation of pain sensation. No one I know is actively working to test its validity.

It is important to keep in mind that "THEY" are people. WE are people. We have limitations, we have biases, and no, we are not all testing every hypothesis everywhere all at once. We generally pursue our interests and just as there are fads and movements in pop culture, so there is also in science.

Pretty sure the first one is under assault constantly. Now, from people who know what they're doing, I'll give you. (To be fair, I look at that one a lot like Gravity. We know that it happens, we're more focused on the "why"... and there's not a huge amount of alternate theories that are testable for the data.)

Gate-Control Theory is well outside of what I know... so I'm in the dark on that one.

The Theory of Evolution. When was the last time this was tested rigorously by a scientist who didn't already fully buy into it? Only specifics of it are being investigated. The overarching theory itself is now almost never questioned.

This is not true. There have been numerous changes in the overall theory since it's inception, and these continue. Many of them came along with better understandings of genetics, for example. Others (like the hypercompetitive idea of "nature, red in tooth and claw", have been overturned by better understandings in the social sciences and studies of other animals and insects. Lately, it's been discovered that experiences can change gene expression; that evolution can occur in profoundly short time scales and still have strong effects; and that evolution does not actually leave "unused" or "junk" DNA sitting around in the genome, but rather instead uses that to encode information that serves as a repository for unused genes. All of these things affect the large scale understanding of evolution, and yes, that's under constant study.

The Conformist wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Several people in this thread have attempted to engage with you honestly and respectfully. Declining to respond in kind, and instead take offense at other posters as an excuse to leave, is a choice.

For my part, I would have loved to hear your responses to Robear and Katy.

And to them an you I thank you for being so kind and respectful I would LOVE to be able to sit and discuss these things with the many of you. However I knew better before going into this topic that all this usually leads to negative places. And ultimately what it boils down too is I believe that God created/has allowed this world to exist, it's all based on my faith, my sheer faith in God. I have no Science to back that up, I have nothing. Not to mention that I do not have the knowledge to conduct such studies to prove such a thing, without referring to the Bible itself, which would do no good since it would hold no weight with anyone here. Faith is what I have, in my life it is all I've had, it's helped me survive through so very much. I know that confuses many people, irritates them, and baffles them, but that's what I believe in.

Nothing wrong with that, actually. It's your right to legislate your beliefs into schools which we take issue with - aside from the atheistic/scientific viewpoint, how are your views objectively superior to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Wiccan, Pagan, Norse mythic, Shinto, African tribal or other beliefs; should all of these be taught in Science class, when none of them are actually scientific?

The Conformist wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Several people in this thread have attempted to engage with you honestly and respectfully. Declining to respond in kind, and instead take offense at other posters as an excuse to leave, is a choice.

For my part, I would have loved to hear your responses to Robear and Katy.

And to them an you I thank you for being so kind and respectful I would LOVE to be able to sit and discuss these things with the many of you. However I knew better before going into this topic that all this usually leads to negative places. And ultimately what it boils down too is I believe that God created/has allowed this world to exist, it's all based on my faith, my sheer faith in God. I have no Science to back that up, I have nothing. Not to mention that I do not have the knowledge to conduct such studies to prove such a thing, without referring to the Bible itself, which would do no good since it would hold no weight with anyone here. Faith is what I have, in my life it is all I've had, it's helped me survive through so very much. I know that confuses many people, irritates them, and baffles them, but that's what I believe in.

Which is fine, and none of us will tell you can't have those beliefs. JUST DON'T TEACH THEM IN SCIENCE CLASS.

That's it. Your faith is your business. Keep it out of the science classroom. It's not science.

LarryC wrote:

The Theory of Evolution. When was the last time this was tested rigorously by a scientist who didn't already fully buy into it? Only specifics of it are being investigated. The overarching theory itself is now almost never questioned.

For that matter, Gate-Control Theory in the propagation of pain sensation. No one I know is actively working to test its validity.

It is important to keep in mind that "THEY" are people. WE are people. We have limitations, we have biases, and no, we are not all testing every hypothesis everywhere all at once. We generally pursue our interests and just as there are fads and movements in pop culture, so there is also in science.

It doesn't take thorough and rigorous testing by a skeptic to disprove something. A single experiment, intended to reinforce and expand a theory, that fails reliably can be enough to force a lot of re-examination. Don't forget that breaking a major scientific theory is a great way to get a lot scientific acclaim and funding in academic circles, so there is major motivation to find edge cases that show a theory is incomplete or incorrect. Getting something added to a list like this is a huge deal.

It is also a good idea to keep in mind the difference between claims that directly contradict good scientific observations and claims that cannot be measured scientifically.

Consider:

A: The Earth is 15,000 years old.

B: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.

The first one is demonstrably wrong. The second one has no scientific evidence to support its belief, but it is not directly contradicted. It falls into an "irrational or unscientific" belief category. We all have lots of beliefs that are not scientifically testable. Pie is better than cake. Beach vacations are more fun than mountain vacations. Redheads are hotter than blonds. Single malt tastes better than blends. Monogamy is morally better than polyamory. We can inform these beliefs with evidence, but we can't really test them for various reasons.

In terms of polite conversation, statements of the first kind (that directly contradict what we can prove to be true) are not required to be respected. It is better (IMHO) to respectfully prove them false, but we don't need to accept assertions that are demonstrably false. Flat earth theory, young earth theory, and dinosaur denying theories do not get the same respect that scientfically valid theories do. We have a perfect right and expectation to privilege fact over falsehood.

As for beliefs that are not falsifiable, it is good policy to respect the people that hold them, but the beliefs themselves, without evidence to support them, do not have a right to expect respect. For example: if someone in public asserts that women shouldn't hold public office because Paul wrote in the scriptures: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." That opinion need not be respected. It can and should be treated as misogynist horse-shyte. On the other hand, if someone asserts that everyone should love their neighbor as themsevles and to do unto the least of their brothers as they would have done unto them, that belief should be respected, because the idea itself is worthy of respect.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Which is fine, and none of us will tell you can't have those beliefs. JUST DON'T TEACH THEM IN SCIENCE CLASS.

That's it. Your faith is your business. Keep it out of the science classroom. It's not science.

Tanglebones wrote:

Nothing wrong with that, actually. It's your right to legislate your beliefs into schools which we take issue with - aside from the atheistic/scientific viewpoint, how are your views objectively superior to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Wiccan, Pagan, Norse mythic, Shinto, African tribal or other beliefs; should all of these be taught in Science class, when none of them are actually scientific?

"I think the only problem I would have with my child in school, in a class, is if the Science instructor were to say that we didn't come from God, but simply evolved into existence. After sitting here and reading all of the comments here, I suppose it would be best to just keep all of that out of school. It just causes too many problems and issues with people."

I actually said this a few pages ago

I have no issues with keeping them separate. As long as a instructor doesn't go out of his or her way to denounce someone's beliefs in the process

The Conformist wrote:

And ultimately what it boils down too is I believe that God created/has allowed this world to exist, it's all based on my faith, my sheer faith in God. I have no Science to back that up, I have nothing. Not to mention that I do not have the knowledge to conduct such studies to prove such a thing, without referring to the Bible itself, which would do no good since it would hold no weight with anyone here. Faith is what I have, in my life it is all I've had, it's helped me survive through so very much. I know that confuses many people, irritates them, and baffles them, but that's what I believe in.

Again, if you're talking about how life was created, you're talking about abiogenesis. You aren't talking about evolution. They are separate and distinct.

I have absolutely no problem with what you might personally believe, but I get tremendously upset when people decide that their unproven beliefs must be taught in school on an equal basis with what we have learned through science. Creationism is not science and it has no place in any school's science curriculum.

It's not my problem that the world around us is better explained by science than the bible.

The Conformist wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Several people in this thread have attempted to engage with you honestly and respectfully. Declining to respond in kind, and instead take offense at other posters as an excuse to leave, is a choice.

For my part, I would have loved to hear your responses to Robear and Katy.

And to them an you I thank you for being so kind and respectful I would LOVE to be able to sit and discuss these things with the many of you. However I knew better before going into this topic that all this usually leads to negative places. And ultimately what it boils down too is I believe that God created/has allowed this world to exist, it's all based on my faith, my sheer faith in God. I have no Science to back that up, I have nothing. Not to mention that I do not have the knowledge to conduct such studies to prove such a thing, without referring to the Bible itself, which would do no good since it would hold no weight with anyone here. Faith is what I have, in my life it is all I've had, it's helped me survive through so very much. I know that confuses many people, irritates them, and baffles them, but that's what I believe in.

I suspect that I'm one of the ones in the vanguard of the mocking you perceived.

For what it's worth, I wasn't mocking your faith. I was mocking your assertion that evolution is "just a theory", and therefore somehow invalid or on a par with "creation science."

In fact, had I accepted your assertion that anything that isn't stone-cold-incontrovertible-truth or is "just a theory" isn't worthy of acceptance, then what does that say about faith in general?

The Conformist wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Which is fine, and none of us will tell you can't have those beliefs. JUST DON'T TEACH THEM IN SCIENCE CLASS.

That's it. Your faith is your business. Keep it out of the science classroom. It's not science.

Tanglebones wrote:

Nothing wrong with that, actually. It's your right to legislate your beliefs into schools which we take issue with - aside from the atheistic/scientific viewpoint, how are your views objectively superior to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Wiccan, Pagan, Norse mythic, Shinto, African tribal or other beliefs; should all of these be taught in Science class, when none of them are actually scientific?

"I think the only problem I would have with my child in school, in a class, is if the Science instructor were to say that we didn't come from God, but simply evolved into existence. After sitting here and reading all of the comments here, I suppose it would be best to just keep all of that out of school. It just causes too many problems and issues with people."

I actually said this a few pages ago

I have no issues with keeping them separate. As long as a instructor doesn't go out of his or her way to denounce someone's beliefs in the process :-)

Well ok, then! Now we just need to get the rest of your co-religionists to be as enlightened as you

Jonman wrote:

I suspect that I'm one of the ones in the vanguard of the mocking you perceived.

For what it's worth, I wasn't mocking your faith. I was mocking your assertion that evolution is "just a theory", and therefore somehow invalid or on a par with "creation science."

In fact, had I accepted your assertion that anything that isn't stone-cold-incontrovertible-truth or "just a theory" isn't worthy of acceptance, then what does that say about faith in general?

Same here. One of my best friends has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and is a ultra-super devout Protestant. And he would think someone was completely wrong if they said religion is science. Because it's faith.

The Conformist wrote:

And to them an you I thank you for being so kind and respectful I would LOVE to be able to sit and discuss these things with the many of you. However I knew better before going into this topic that all this usually leads to negative places.

It's because the people involved have had this discussion over and over. And over.

And over.

It won't wind up being a discussion, it'll wind up being a lecture on things like why it is NOT in any way a bold statement to call Creationism simply wrong. People aren't so much mocking as they are expressing their "not this again" reaction.

It sounds less like you want to have a discussion about science and education, and more like you want to have a discussion about how the theory of evolution makes you feel, personally.

Oso wrote:

Redheads are hotter than blonds. Single malt tastes better than blends.

You shut your damn mouth! The above two statements are absolute fact!

Robear:

Ha! It's certainly a common enough one in scientific circles. I can't even begin to count the number of people who refuse to accept new theories because it clashes with their old practices. Good thing they're old.

TheConformist is not saying that he disagrees with the teaching of the Theory of Evolution; he is only stipulating that it must be taught as a scientific theory, and not as a belief. That is in keeping with the interest of public schooling. The instructor must NOT say that God did not create us, because he is not in a position to say that, and he undermines the entire thing altogether by doing so. He should keep his teaching to science, his position does not give him carte blanche to evangelize his own beliefs.

This is not true. There have been numerous changes in the overall theory since it's inception, and these continue. Many of them came along with better understandings of genetics, for example. Others (like the hypercompetitive idea of "nature, red in tooth and claw", have been overturned by better understandings in the social sciences and studies of other animals and insects. Lately, it's been discovered that experiences can change gene expression; that evolution can occur in profoundly short time scales and still have strong effects; and that evolution does not actually leave "unused" or "junk" DNA sitting around in the genome, but rather instead uses that to encode information that serves as a repository for unused genes. All of these things affect the large scale understanding of evolution, and yes, that's under constant study.

I consider all those to be minor bullet points under the overall heading. No one has tested the overall heading for quite some time.

OG_Slinger:

It's not questioned because all the specifics being investigated support it. It's only when observations and experimentation contradict the theory that you have to either revise or discard the theory.

This is an incorrect view of the situation and of scientific inquiry in general. When you pursue specific items overarched by a larger Theory, you are assuming the veracity of the overarching Theory; you are not simultaneously testing the overarching one - just the one you're testing. This is a stipulated limitation of every conscientious study made in this manner.

Example: Our study is about the efficacy of using light touch impulses to mitigate ghost limb pain in post-amputees. Failure to elicit response does not invalidate Gate Control Theory, just the immediate hypothesis.

This is similar to the way the rules of Euclidean geometry only apply to Euclidean geometry. You assume the truth of the assumptions, and work from there. It's not the same process, but the dependencies are similar.

MilkmanDanimal:

I would guess the overarching theory of evolution is questioned about as often as the overarching theory that the Earth is not, in fact, the center of the universe. There comes a point to where questioning the basic facts of science have become pointless. It's clear evolution as an overarching theory is correct. It's not even in question. The specifics of how it occurs are tested every day via research, and particulars will change. That doesn't mean someone has to say "Is Evolution wrong?", because it clearly isn't. It's as proven as "Earth not flat".

This is the point at which I will observe that you are no longer discussing science but practicing faith, and pursuing the removal of Creationist Theories under this guise only undermines the cause even more. All you're doing is telling them that your faith is better than theirs so you have a right to teach yours in school. That may not be how it sounds like to you, but believe me, that is how it sounds like to them. You won't win this way, IMO.

The Conformist wrote:

I have no issues with keeping them separate. As long as a instructor doesn't go out of his or her way to denounce someone's beliefs in the process :-)

When you teach Intelligent Design that is EXACTLY what you do. You are denouncing the view of everyone who doesn't believe a particular sect of Evangelical Christianity.

Tanglebones wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Which is fine, and none of us will tell you can't have those beliefs. JUST DON'T TEACH THEM IN SCIENCE CLASS.

That's it. Your faith is your business. Keep it out of the science classroom. It's not science.

Tanglebones wrote:

Nothing wrong with that, actually. It's your right to legislate your beliefs into schools which we take issue with - aside from the atheistic/scientific viewpoint, how are your views objectively superior to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Wiccan, Pagan, Norse mythic, Shinto, African tribal or other beliefs; should all of these be taught in Science class, when none of them are actually scientific?

"I think the only problem I would have with my child in school, in a class, is if the Science instructor were to say that we didn't come from God, but simply evolved into existence. After sitting here and reading all of the comments here, I suppose it would be best to just keep all of that out of school. It just causes too many problems and issues with people."

I actually said this a few pages ago

I have no issues with keeping them separate. As long as a instructor doesn't go out of his or her way to denounce someone's beliefs in the process :-)

Well ok, then! Now we just need to get the rest of your co-religionists to be as enlightened as you :)

So, how about the science teacher told the truth? For instance:

"We have found no evidence that serves to prove nor disprove any involvement by God in the genesis of humanity."

Nevin73 wrote:
Oso wrote:

Redheads are hotter than blonds. Single malt tastes better than blends.

You shut your damn mouth! The above two statements are absolute fact!

That reminds me: am I the only one who couldn't put their finger on why Christina Hendricks looks so familiar until I remembered Montana from The Real World: Boston?

Nevin73 wrote:
Oso wrote:

Redheads are hotter than blonds. Single malt tastes better than blends.

You shut your damn mouth! The above two statements are absolute fact!

Redheads taste better than blended scotch.

SCIENTIFIC FACT!

NathanialG wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

I have no issues with keeping them separate. As long as a instructor doesn't go out of his or her way to denounce someone's beliefs in the process :-)

When you teach Intelligent Design that is EXACTLY what you do. You are denouncing the view of everyone who doesn't believe a particular sect of Evangelical Christianity.

It's the whole Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster thing, but I would love to see how an Evangelical would react their kid being instructed in a modified ID curriculum being taught in a Wiccan or Hindu centralized area.

Jonman wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Oso wrote:

Redheads are hotter than blonds. Single malt tastes better than blends.

You shut your damn mouth! The above two statements are absolute fact!

Redheads taste better than blended scotch.

SCIENTIFIC FACT!

Nope, just a theory - one I'm going to have to test thoroughly, and repeatedly

Anyone want to underwrite me with a grant?

LarryC wrote:

This is similar to the way the rules of Euclidean geometry only apply to Euclidean geometry. You assume the truth of the assumptions, and work from there. It's not the same process, but the dependencies are similar.

LarryC, I love ya man, but we have been down this road before. It feels like no matter what is explained to you in prior topics, you go right back to saying the same thing once the issue pops up in another topic.

The Conformist wrote:

"I think the only problem I would have with my child in school, in a class, is if the Science instructor were to say that we didn't come from God, but simply evolved into existence. After sitting here and reading all of the comments here, I suppose it would be best to just keep all of that out of school. It just causes too many problems and issues with people."

I actually said this a few pages ago

I have no issues with keeping them separate. As long as a instructor doesn't go out of his or her way to denounce someone's beliefs in the process :-)

Evolution applies to all living things. Humans don't get to opt out of it because a religious tract written several thousand years before the discovery of DNA says we were created from mud.

It's up to the religious to figure out how their beliefs fit within the reality of the world around us, not for science to ignore facts, experiments, observations, and other proof so as not to "offend" the religious.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Oso wrote:

Redheads are hotter than blonds. Single malt tastes better than blends.

You shut your damn mouth! The above two statements are absolute fact!

That reminds me: am I the only one who couldn't put their finger on why Christina Hendricks looks so familiar until I remembered Montana from The Real World: Boston?

I just did some research on this subject and my theory is that you need a good slapping for comparing those to ladies. Christina is WAY hotter.

Kannon wrote:

Hell, it's what I gave em a brain for, right?

Or the impending zombie apocalypse.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I suspect that I'm one of the ones in the vanguard of the mocking you perceived.

For what it's worth, I wasn't mocking your faith. I was mocking your assertion that evolution is "just a theory", and therefore somehow invalid or on a par with "creation science."

In fact, had I accepted your assertion that anything that isn't stone-cold-incontrovertible-truth or "just a theory" isn't worthy of acceptance, then what does that say about faith in general?

Same here. One of my best friends has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and is a ultra-super devout Protestant. And he would think someone was completely wrong if they said religion is science. Because it's faith.

And they're not mutually exclusive, either. Going literal, the Bible was pretty much explained to someone in the Bronze age. There's a TON of zeros in the age of the world... That'd make most people now go cross-eyed if they really tried to understand it. Third or fourth-hand accounts aren't allowed in court for a reason.

Personally, if I was a deity, I'd be pretty proud that my desciples were trying to figure out things for themselves. Hell, it's what I gave em a brain for, right?

CheezePavilion wrote:
LarryC wrote:

This is similar to the way the rules of Euclidean geometry only apply to Euclidean geometry. You assume the truth of the assumptions, and work from there. It's not the same process, but the dependencies are similar.

LarryC, I love ya man, but we have been down this road before. It feels like no matter what is explained to you in prior topics, you go right back to saying the same thing once the issue pops up in another topic.

That's because people keep trying to say things that contradict the very nature of scientific inquiry.

"Science is a process, not a belief."

is wholly undermined by

"You should just accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact."

It boggles my mind how people can't see those two as inherently contradictory, except if they have strange notions of what the Scientific Method is and what theories are. I take exception to lay people explaining to me what the scientific method is, especially when it's bent all out of recognition. Repeating that to me is just the same as me trying to explain what science is; only I'm an actual experimental and clinical scientist.

If you notice the process here, people are engaging TheConformist on a faith level, which is why he is taking such exception. I engaged him purely on a science level and he was perfectly okay with it.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Hell, it's what I gave em a brain for, right?

Or the impending zombie apocalypse.

Yeah, but that's supposed to be a surprise.

NathanialG wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Oso wrote:

Redheads are hotter than blonds. Single malt tastes better than blends.

You shut your damn mouth! The above two statements are absolute fact!

That reminds me: am I the only one who couldn't put their finger on why Christina Hendricks looks so familiar until I remembered Montana from The Real World: Boston?

I just did some research on this subject and my theory is that you need a good slapping for comparing those to ladies. Christina is WAY hotter.

One may be hotter than the other, but I knew there's a reason Christina looked so familiar. Especially the Undressed version of Christina.

I also think you could throw Abbie Heppe into that mix.

Kannon wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Hell, it's what I gave em a brain for, right?

Or the impending zombie apocalypse.

Yeah, but that's supposed to be a surprise.

IMAGE(http://img3.etsystatic.com/il_570xN.116573883.jpg)

LarryC wrote:

Using science to justify or evangelize atheism just plays into the hands of the Creationists.

This statement hurts my brain in ways I find difficult to put text around.