In my previous post, I mentioned that I thought we should teach how intelligent design impacted science in the classroom. After talking it over with a few people, I have come to a different conclusion.
Teaching anything about creationism in the science classroom is a foot-in-the-door for creationists looking for recognition of their unaccepted hypothesis. Similarly, such discussions in a science class may veer into the validity of intelligent design, something that should be discouraged. Science classrooms are not a forum for pseudo-science and religious beliefs.
Thanks Ginx.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is the difference between a Creator God and abiogenesis?
ReplyDeleteBoth assume by the evidence at hand as to what happened.
Naturalistic Scientists try to find out how life started but they first have a pre-conceived idea that it was done blindly and without God...
Is that real science?
Hang on, what if science can't find out how life started?
Does God get brought back in?
Why would He be brought back in?
Because naturalistic explanations would be gone.
Would God still then be an "unscientific" or "unacceptable" explanation? as the philosophy/science of "naturalism" becomes false.
I think science has its limits, even though it is portrayed and worshiped by its naturalistic followers.
Look at the evidence. Some say design, others take THE PHILOSOPHY OF NATURALISM as their "belief"...which is an atheist philosophy at the core when pulled apart.
Naturalism = The belief that matter is all there is.
Let all theories/philosophies be discussed and the best one chosen.
What is the difference between a Creator God and abiogenesis?
ReplyDeleteWho is talking about abiogenesis, Da Bomb? She is talking about Intelligent Design.
Both assume by the evidence at hand as to what happened.
Naturalistic Scientists try to find out how life started but they first have a pre-conceived idea that it was done blindly and without God...
Is that real science?
Well Kenneth Miller would be surprised that you are telling him he does science without God in mind. So would Freeman Dyson, Francis Collins and many others. Science eliminates the supernatural to study what is happening.
Hang on, what if science can't find out how life started?
Study on abiogenesis is on going, if we can't find out, then study will just continue on. What answers does adding God into the equation bring? It still tells us nothing about abiogenesis, like how did God do this. It brings nothing to the table.
Why would He be brought back in?
Because naturalistic explanations would be gone.
God does not get rid of naturalistic explanations, because God had to react with nature in some way. What was that way?
Would God still then be an "unscientific" or "unacceptable" explanation? as the philosophy/science of "naturalism" becomes false.
I already said adding God brings nothing to the table but just adds an extra layer of complexity. Saying God did it does not answer how, which is what abiogenesis is trying to determine. Instead it just asks where did God come from.
I think science has its limits, even though it is portrayed and worshiped by its naturalistic followers.
Whoever said science is unlimited? You do realize that a lot of scientists are Christians and see no conflict between science and Christianity?
Look at the evidence. Some say design, others take THE PHILOSOPHY OF NATURALISM as their "belief"...which is an atheist philosophy at the core when pulled apart.
You are projecting belief onto scientific methodology. For that you should just stop using the internet, your computer, cars, tv, any electronic, modern medicine, etc.
Plus you are claiming belief is bad in this instance but good when it is in your God. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Naturalism = The belief that matter is all there is.
Actually, Naturalism is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science.
Anything supernatural by definition (above or beyond what is natural) falls outside of this range. That does not mean it cannot exist, but that it is out of the range of study by science.
Let all theories/philosophies be discussed and the best one chosen.
They are discussed, now how do you choose which are the best? Well hey look we already have a system in place. People look at the evidence and make predictions on the evidence. Then they present their studies into the evidence and their predictions to others. These others then try to disprove this hypothesis. If they find no flaw, then it is published for the entire world to see. At that point every other person can attempt to recreate the study and disprove the study. If someone does they go through the same process the hypothesis did to getting published. This is called science.
To the actual point of Debunking Monkey's post. There is a time and place for everything. In grade school and high school it is a time for learning foundations so that they can be prepared for college, if going.
ReplyDeleteI agree that anything about creationism in science should not be allowed, unless one is willing to discuss a flat earth when talking about geology or a geocentric universe when discussing astronomy. Yes, it would be abused by people who think they are doing the right thing. In actuality they are doing a disservice to their students and their country.
The discussion on ID should be made in college, after the student understands the foundations of science.
Beam,
ReplyDeleteI remember in grade school the science teacher brought up flat earthers to mock them. In fact, it was in a elementary school science classroom where I first found out about the Flat Earth Society.
So, I don't see anything inherently bad with bringing up old beliefs and disproven hypotheses in science class as a way to contrast real science from psuedo-science or to exemplify the strength of the scientific method.
The problem with showing how intelligent design retarded scientific progress in the classroom is, like I said, that it's a foot-in-the-door for creationists. Maybe it could be taught at the teacher's discretion, but it shouldn't be mandatory or a standardized part of the curriculum.
I think it is only a foot in the door depending on how it is presented. Right now I think there is too much politics involved. In a few years, if the "debate" has died down, then it could be properly discussed within context.
ReplyDeleteNO!!! You've just ruined my day. My goal in life is to never change someone's mind. Damn you, Monkey!
ReplyDeleteRegarding abiogenesis/evolution: don't even try to explain the difference. Once you think you have them straightened out, they'll bring up the Big Bang and you're head will explode. It's all one continuous scientific conspiracy to them.
Who is talking about abiogenesis, Da Bomb? She is talking about Intelligent Design.
ReplyDeleteI am giving an analogy of assumption. You don't like assuming a creator yet I am pointing out that you choose to assume other things :)
Well Kenneth Miller would be surprised that you are telling him he does science without God in mind. So would Freeman Dyson, Francis Collins and many others. Science eliminates the supernatural to study what is happening.
Yes but God can and does influence our world. Take Him out of the equation and You "assume" He is not there. That is my point. I am talking about assumptions in science.
Study on abiogenesis is on going, if we can't find out, then study will just continue on. What answers does adding God into the equation bring? It still tells us nothing about abiogenesis, like how did God do this. It brings nothing to the table.
The well known analogy:
Ten oranges in a line under an orange tree. If we cannot find out how they got there in a line like that then should we always be looking for an answer when sometimes the obvious answer is a designer?
God does not get rid of naturalistic explanations, because God had to react with nature in some way. What was that way?
I don't know about your ideas, but since when was God part of nature?
I already said adding God brings nothing to the table but just adds an extra layer of complexity. Saying God did it does not answer how, which is what abiogenesis is trying to determine. Instead it just asks where did God come from.
I refer to orange analogy again.
Whoever said science is unlimited? You do realize that a lot of scientists are Christians and see no conflict between science and Christianity?
You should know I already know that!
I am arguing that belief in God is an explanation for the beginning of the universe and life etc ...depending on the belief. What is the harm in teaching that in schools?
It is simply saying that some people believe the (laws of creation etc) ten ranges were placed like they are and did not come about by themselves.
That is the point I am making.
Plus you are claiming belief is bad in this instance but good when it is in your God. That seems a bit hypocritical.
I am not stating that it is bad! I am stating that atheistic science is hypocritical in regards to Intelligent causation. I am turning your argument against God (that we assume a God to fill in the gaps) back at you and pointing out your "assumptions".
Just trying to bring a bit of balance...the atheistic metaphysical situation affects what is done in the science room.
cheers
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDa Pilgrim said,
ReplyDeleteYes but God can and does influence our world.
Followed by (his quote of me in italics)
God does not get rid of naturalistic explanations, because God had to react with nature in some way. What was that way?
I don't know about your ideas, but since when was God part of nature?
You are being a troll or are just too stupid to have any sense of reading comprehension.
You should know I already know that!
ReplyDeleteI am arguing that belief in God is an explanation for the beginning of the universe and life etc ...depending on the belief. What is the harm in teaching that in schools?
You have got to be kidding me. "God did it" is not a scientifically valid answer to any scientific question so far, and it certainly doesn't explain HOW God did it. It's not only only a useless explanation, it's a bald assertion with no evidence other than a "gut feeling" to back it up.
Order does not equal design.
Disorder does not equal lack of design.
I am not stating that it is bad! I am stating that atheistic science is hypocritical in regards to Intelligent causation. I am turning your argument against God (that we assume a God to fill in the gaps) back at you and pointing out your "assumptions"..
Science isn't "atheistic." It has no invested interest in disproving God. The only person here making wild assertions and assumptions about magical deities is you.
You are being a troll or are just too stupid to have any sense of reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteThankyou for your thoughtful comment mr beams.
My point,
We may not necessarily find where God interacted with nature because He is not part of nature. I don't know if you noticed in the Bible but God spoke things into being. He didn't cause chemical reactions between Himself and creation...though maybe He did? I don't know :)
I am unable to assure you where the reactions between God and nature are or if there even are any.
Clearer?
The only person here making wild assertions and assumptions about magical deities is you.
ReplyDeleteI am making a distinction between two "magical" (I'll use your language) beliefs.
One is mindless causation of the world/universe or mindful causation of the world/universe.
All of us assume one or the other.
One is mindless causation of the world/universe or mindful causation of the world/universe.
ReplyDeleteAll of us assume one or the other.
Like I said, I'm open to the possibility of an intelligent creator. I think it's highly improbable that an intelligent being would just pop into eternal existence.
What I do know is *your* god didn't create the Universe. Your god is too logically inconsistent and paradoxical to be real.
Thankyou for your thoughtful comment mr beams.
ReplyDeleteI am just stating what is apparent since you decided to put words in my mouth. Please point to where I said "God was a part of nature". You are constructing a straw man, again.
My point,
We may not necessarily find where God interacted with nature because He is not part of nature. I don't know if you noticed in the Bible but God spoke things into being. He didn't cause chemical reactions between Himself and creation...though maybe He did? I don't know :)
And how would one going about learning this? Ahhh yes, science, which was my point. The exact same experiments that are going on now. See, adding God to the equation added nothing to our knowledge of how the world works. That is my point and you seem to be in agreement.
I am unable to assure you where the reactions between God and nature are or if there even are any.
Clearer?
Perfectly, you are saying the same thing I am that we need to study to find things out. Assuming God does nothing to add to our knowledge, it doesn't tell us how.
I quoted you because you said the exact same thing I did. That God would have to interact with nature and the how of that is up to science, that is what it does. It is not a hard concept.
Although I am not talking about a Christian God here but more of a deistic. The Christian God falls flat on his own claims. Like Debunkey Monkey said.
Yeah well,
ReplyDeleteI obviously disagree with your and DM's stance regarding the Christian God.