Kentucky religious conservatives cannot wrap their head around theory of evolution

LarryC wrote:
Crispus wrote:

So, here's a tangentially related question: should the teaching of creationism be allowed in private schools and homeschools? If science has proven that creationism is false, should it be permitted as part of any curriculum, even those written by conservative Christian publishers?

I guess I'm struggling to come up with a reason why any book that falls into the "textbook" category should be allowed to spread misinformation. Thoughts?

Science hasn't proven Creationism false in the same way that it hasn't proven that God doesn't exist.

Rubb Ed:

Read closer, please. I don't recall having talked about rewording the science to be better in order to appease Creationists before.

Science hasn't proven that I am not a velociraptor that came to earth aboard a starship to begin the Rastafarian revolution 250 years ago, but that does not mean we should allow it to be taught in Science class as the reason that Marijuana is descended from hippy alien dinosaurs.

KrazyTaco[FO]:

I'll stand behind that position. However, it is incorrect to say that science has "proven Creationism false." It's not falsifiable. If it were the former, it would actually be something you could truly justify in a science class. That would make it like Theory of Gravity and Atomic Theory, both of which, since their heyday, have been shown not to be consistent with all the data.

As such, this is a fairly important distinction.

And no, guys, this isn't semantic, in case you were thinking that.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Science hasn't proven that I am not a velociraptor that came to earth aboard a starship to begin the Rastafarian revolution 250 years ago, but that does not mean we should allow it to be taught in Science class as the reason that Marijuana is descended from hippy alien dinosaurs.

Does this class have a lab section?

Taco, what kind of propulsion did your ship use?

Adam Savage addressed it well whenever Mythbusters is asked to do ghost or big foot or miracle myths. He still regrets the piece on pyramid power for that same reason. For some semblance of science you need some baselines and guidelines and points of reference.

You cannot objectively observe gods, or dragons, or angels, or ghosts.

Just to be argumentative. Even Dawkins has said that the bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita should be taught in schools. I myself got my primary, secondary, post secondary, and graduate education at religious schools. Genesis was taught as a myth, right along greek and other myths. But it was not in Biology lessons.

Should Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis be taught in schools? Yes. Just not in science classes.

Offer a class in various world religions. Maybe, just maybe the kids will get a lot of the truth on that their parents and preachers have withheld from them, or lied about. Have them meet a priest, a nun, a monk, a yogi, a rabbi, an imam. Might engender some understanding and tolerance.

If they are going to meet religious 'officials', then they should also meet shamans, Druids, Shinto priests etc. The breadth and history of all creation myths - including ones without folllowers - should be discussed, including the inherent contradiction in having so many.

clover wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Science hasn't proven that I am not a velociraptor that came to earth aboard a starship to begin the Rastafarian revolution 250 years ago, but that does not mean we should allow it to be taught in Science class as the reason that Marijuana is descended from hippy alien dinosaurs.

Does this class have a lab section?

Yes, but I don't remember how to sign up for it.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Taco, what kind of propulsion did your ship use?

Pure funk.

LarryC wrote:

KrazyTaco[FO]:

I'll stand behind that position. However, it is incorrect to say that science has "proven Creationism false." It's not falsifiable. If it were the former, it would actually be something you could truly justify in a science class. That would make it like Theory of Gravity and Atomic Theory, both of which, since their heyday, have been shown not to be consistent with all the data.

As such, this is a fairly important distinction.

And no, guys, this isn't semantic, in case you were thinking that.

Who cares if Science can't "prove Creationism false by 100%" Larry. It has no science background, so I don't understand why you are defending it. I can put you in touch with some real scientists if you are curious about learning about Science. **Cue Larry into saying he is a scientist and American Scientists don't understand Science**

This will be the last time I get sucked into a Larry thread, I hope you had fun trolling.

**Edit: It's also not falsifiable by your definition that the world was created yesterday and everyone but me and robot Bender are demon bananas bent on controlling the atmosphere of Mars through entomology.

Is there something in the adobo, that it seems like I'm the only one who understands what LarryC is saying? How did we get to the point where LarryC is being misconstrued as defending Creationism?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

everyone but me and robot Bender are demon bananas bent on controlling the atmosphere of Mars through entomology.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/NWfVD.gif)

Gravey wrote:

Is there something in the adobo, that it seems like I'm the only one who understands what LarryC is saying?

Maybe you have a brain tumor.

Gravey wrote:

Is there something in the adobo, that it seems like I'm the only one who understands what LarryC is saying? How did we get to the point where LarryC is being misconstrued as defending Creationism?

The problem as I see it is we're all talking about science education (particularly as it exists in the US), and LarryC is trying to turn the thread into a general debate about the philosophy of science.

LarryC wrote:
Crispus wrote:

So, here's a tangentially related question: should the teaching of creationism be allowed in private schools and homeschools? If science has proven that creationism is false, should it be permitted as part of any curriculum, even those written by conservative Christian publishers?

I guess I'm struggling to come up with a reason why any book that falls into the "textbook" category should be allowed to spread misinformation. Thoughts?

Science hasn't proven Creationism false in the same way that it hasn't proven that God doesn't exist.

But science has proven that the earth is not 10,000 years old, thus invalidating creationist arguments to the contrary...correct? To be more clear, I was referring to the teaching of young-earth creationism in my previous post, not the idea that God created the universe.

KrazyTaco[FO wrote:

But if they are teaching Creationism in a homeschool in the woods of West Virginia and don't know about tax breaks/incentives and aren't receiving public funding, then they are free to teach them the sky is yellow and the bird is not the word.

See, that's what I'm not sure about. In church, in clubs, in Christian newspapers, sure. But in schools? I can see reasoning for a line to be drawn there, whether or not they receive public funding, because intentionally teaching fallacies would seem to be in violation of a school's purpose. The purpose of a school - and whether it should be able to teach some of the things seen here - might be too general a topic for this thread, though.

LarryC wrote:

KrazyTaco[FO]:

I'll stand behind that position. However, it is incorrect to say that science has "proven Creationism false." It's not falsifiable. If it were the former, it would actually be something you could truly justify in a science class. That would make it like Theory of Gravity and Atomic Theory, both of which, since their heyday, have been shown not to be consistent with all the data.

As such, this is a fairly important distinction.

And no, guys, this isn't semantic, in case you were thinking that.

IMAGE(http://www.lonesausage.com/additional_images/journal/2010/Wallppr_2085DrTran.jpg)

Gravey wrote:

Is there something in the adobo, that it seems like I'm the only one who understands what LarryC is saying? How did we get to the point where LarryC is being misconstrued as defending Creationism?

No, you are not alone. He is absolutely right that Creationism can't be scientifically disproven, in that it cannot be scientifically discussed at all. It makes no testable claims and relies on no evidence, so it fails to meet the criteria of being in any discussed scientifically. That's why you can't prove/disprove that the version of God that doesn't interact with the world, at least in any measurable way. There is, scientifically, no difference between an existent God defined in that fashion, and a non-existent one.

There are many versions of God that can be scientifically disproven, including the generally-used benevolent, omnipotent, and interventionist American Christian one, but that is not an exhaustive definition by any means.

Thanks, Kraint, Gravey. Perhaps you guys can make the point better. I understand that American discussions can be very personality driven and I don't have a lot of stock with many GWJers, I'm afraid.

Leaving the Pimp My Thread aspect of this aside, here's something I think is interesting, that I came across a couple of weeks ago. It's about the early stages of how we got where we are with religion and evolution and science and government in America:

In 1921, when he was 61 years old, Bryan began a new campaign -- to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools. Many wondered if Bryan had given up his progressive ideals. Had his religious faith turned him against science, education and free speech? Few understood his reasons for opposing evolution.

As a young man, Bryan had been open-minded about the origins of man. But over the years he became convinced that Darwin's theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world. "The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate," Bryan said, "Evolution is the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak." He believed that the Bible countered this merciless law with "the law of love."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeyt...

I can't find the sources now, but I remember reading that this is when modern evangelical Christianity started to become a force in American culture, especially politics. It was a coincidence of a surge in populism in American politics, Bryan's anti-evolution crusade, and the sudden growth of evangelical Christianity that came together at this time. Don't quote me on that until we can find a source, but I'm almost certain I read that.

Stengah wrote:
Gravey wrote:

Is there something in the adobo, that it seems like I'm the only one who understands what LarryC is saying? How did we get to the point where LarryC is being misconstrued as defending Creationism?

The problem as I see it is we're all talking about science education (particularly as it exists in the US), and LarryC is trying to turn the thread into a general debate about the philosophy of science.

Thing is, that makes the debate about what kind of philosophy of science is part of science education in America.

How did we get to this point? I think what happens is you have two general sides in a debate. Like this one--Creationism vs. Evolution. If someone criticizes someone on one side of the debate or an idea in support on one side of the debate, they get lumped in as being on the other side. Disagreement gets treated like heresy.

This does seem to be a failing in science education in America. Like if you look up Evolution on Wikipedia, you'll see a lot about the Theory of Evolution, and then you'll see a section called Evolutionary history of life. These are not identical--related, but different concepts. Kind of like the relationship between, say, the Theory of Gravity and Giant Impact Hypothesis. Or how back in the day, we'd be having an argument a lot like this one, but about plate tectonics and the year 4004 BC

It's hard for me to believe this is just a matter of semantics. If it was, then when this happens people would much more easily end the conversation. They might get pissed that someone made them spell it all out, but they could to it. The things people say in these debates doesn't give me a lot of confidence that this is just trolling. And if everyone is as passionate about getting back to the REAL TOPIC as they say they are, the fact that our schools aren't doing a good job of teaching basic philosophy of science to even people who are supposedly gung-ho about science is a topic both worthy of discussion and very much on track.

To be honest, I wish my very-much-not-Creationist (don't take AP Biology because they WILL grind you down until you can pass that exam in your sleep) school had done a better job with these kinds of basic concepts--I know I sometimes feel like 'do I know what the hell I'm talking about?' and I consider myself to be pretty well informed on this topic for a well-read non-scientist adult.

any sufficiently advanced argument is indistinguishable from semantics

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:

The problem as I see it is we're all talking about science education (particularly as it exists in the US), and LarryC is trying to turn the thread into a general debate about the philosophy of science.

Thing is, that makes the debate about what kind of philosophy of science is part of science education in America.

How did we get to this point? I think what happens is you have two general sides in a debate. Like this one--Creationism vs. Evolution. If someone criticizes someone on one side of the debate or an idea in support on one side of the debate, they get lumped in as being on the other side. Disagreement gets treated like heresy.

Well, it's not so much the disagreement as telling people what they believe and being somewhat insulting while doing it. That and the fact that this is like the billionth time the particular disagreement has happened and shows no chance of faring any better at previous attempts.

Stengah:

FWIW, I thought that we reached somewhere productive when you agreed that "X is the truth," is the bit of concept that's so hostile to Creationists, and that we could do without that in science classes. That's both an improvement in the science curriculum, and a specific, implementable, sound strategic approach against Creationist movements in education.

The problem with these semantic arguments isn't that they're wrong. It's that they're very similar to, say, considering the possibility of solipsism. Sure, it's fun to think about solipsism for a little bit, and there are some good insights to draw from considering it--but most of us eventually come to the conclusion that it is a juvenile idea which is detached from reality, fundamentally unfruitful, and most importantly: it is tragically boring.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

FWIW, I thought that we reached somewhere productive when you agreed that "X is the truth," is the bit of concept that's so hostile to Creationists, and that we could do without that in science classes. That's both an improvement in the science curriculum, and a specific, implementable, sound strategic approach against Creationist movements in education.

Well, to be honest I don't care if science education is hostile to creationists because they're idiots.

"All data points to X" or "The current scientific consensus is that X" are better, but "X is the truth" is acceptable for the true/false and multiple question tests currently being used to measure science education up through high school. I'd prefer that everyone know how a scientific theory differs from the layman's use of theory, but I'll settle for everyone to at least know the right* answers, if not the reason why they're right.

*You know what I mean.

This is stupid.

What's more interesting is that at least two people immediately assumed that I was making the semantic mistake that apparently Malor was trapping me into making, when I said no such thing.

See, what you're not getting, Larry, is that if you think that trusting your mechanic is ever like religious belief, then you're just disconnected from reality. Even if someone clings to their trust in their mechanic and keeps bringing their car back, despite all the evidence that the guy or gal has no idea what he or she is doing, that's still not religious belief.

Being wrong about trusting someone is not the same as faith.

Tanglebones wrote:

Oh f*ck, here we go again.

This should be the required first post of any thread dealing with religion. Can you handle that, Tangle?

DSGamer wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Oh f*ck, here we go again.

This should be the required first post of any thread dealing with religion. Can you handle that, Tangle?

Sure, why not - it'll be my 'tagged' contribution

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/wnsqw.jpg)

I had never seen the word Christadelphian before, yet another sect? eesh. I'm curious if the added sign actually altered their conversation at all but I imagine it just got removed before many potential attendees saw it.

krev82 wrote:

I had never seen the word Christadelphian before, yet another sect? eesh. I'm curious if the added sign actually altered their conversation at all but I imagine it just got removed before many potential attendees saw it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christa...

Yup, hence my 'yet another sect?' comment. Sorry, should have clarified.

I can't find the sources now, but I remember reading that this is when modern evangelical Christianity started to become a force in American culture, especially politics. It was a coincidence of a surge in populism in American politics, Bryan's anti-evolution crusade, and the sudden growth of evangelical Christianity that came together at this time. Don't quote me on that until we can find a source, but I'm almost certain I read that.

Isn't that also smack dab in the middle of the Depression. I think that may have something to do with it too...