Evolution and theology aren't mutually exclusive, either. It's throwing in the idea of a "young Earth" that really puts anti-evolution proponents at odds with science.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Hopefully the version of scientific process rather than the version of 'facts'. Teach people to think for themselves and you will feed them knowledge for a lifetime.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

My understanding of "First Cause" is that it's one of the many attempts by Philosophers to prove the existence of a god by logical argument.

The basic idea is this: All effects must have a cause. Each cause, in turn, must have an earlier cause. If we "run the clock backward", we eventually come to a first event (that is, the creation of the universe), which must itself have a cause. Since before the universe existed, the cause of its creation could not be anything within the universe, there must be some unknown "First Cause" to explain the presence of the cosmos. Therefore, a Creator must exist, to act as the First Cause.

The difficulty with this line of reasoning is the problem of the "excluded middle". Theists claim that the First Cause must be a god -- indeed, God. Naturally, this corresponds to their own conception of God.

However, there are many other possibilities than the either-or cases of no god / my God.

For example, it might not be true that every event must have a cause. That premise forms the basis of the entire chain of reasoning, but it is merely an observation based on our experience, and it may not hold true in the very different circumstances at the beginning of spacetime.

Or, there could be a Creator, but it might be destroyed in the act of creation.

Or, it could be a very different sort of being than envisioned by the theist who's making the argument. That is, the First Cause may not be capital-G God.

And, finally, the logic is circular. After all, if a Creator existed to be the First Cause... where did It come from? You end up needing a cause for that... and another for that... an infinite regress.

Ahhhhhh!!!

The fundamental difference is observation, experimentation, confirmation, explanations that can predict, etc., etc, done using the scientific process!!!!!

I for one do not practice the religion of science.

And you think this is teaching science? Yikes!!! Tolerating diversity is a critical skill but it isn't science.

So if the teacher tells my son his assignment is to "suggest a way that there could be a reconciliation between these 2 theories", and there is no reconcilliation, just what is he supposed to write about?

Perhaps the teacher should suggest the kids go to the library and look up 10 different creation stories from 10 different religions or cultures. Then the kids could write a couple pages including ideas of how each of those creation stories might be presented as valid scientific theories of the beginning of the Universe and life on Earth. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

The biggest flaw in Aristotle's argument for a Prime Mover is the question "who moved the mover?"

The excluded middle (a thing is x or not x) doesn't come into play here. That's just a logical law--first stated by Aristotle--that demonstrates that every statement is either true or false. It's just a logical operator.

Anyhow, a theistic response to the question "who moved the mover" would involve the mover being God (or god, or gods, whatever), which means it is omniscient and omnipresent. In other words, that being is all-encompassing, so it doesn't need a mover. But that's not really a logical step, it's a theological position.

So anyhow, you can't logically demonstrate, irrefutably, that God (or gods, etc.) exist. Nor can one prove that God (etc.) doesn't exist.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

I'm sure this has been posted on the BABB many times but.... can't help it... must repeat again....

Religion: Long held beliefs and concepts passed down from generation to generation.

Science: A process, not a set of facts nor beliefs, (except belief with some disagreement as to how to go about the process), by which beliefs and concepts can be determined.

Religious Beliefs: Change slowly over time, can change abruptly such as when a new sect develops or branches off. Change is a result of psycho-social-cultural influences.

Scientific Theories: Change slowly over time, can change abruptly such as when major discoveries or breakthroughs occur. Change is a result of research, new or additional evidence acquired, new concept developed and tested.

Scientists are not 'closed' to the potential that religious beliefs might correlate with real concepts and events. Research along these lines is done all the time, especially in archeology and cultural sciences.

For example, evidence collaborating Biblical accounts like the story of Noah's ark has been sought many times. But the evidence for a worldwide flood isn't there.

There has been much research done to determine if the story of the 'Garden of Eden' originated from a real location on Earth or was purely from myth. There are possible locations but they are not where the evidence suggests humankind originated.

I suggest reading 'The Hero with an African Face, Mythic Wisdom of Traditional Africa', by Clyde W. Ford, Bantam Books, 1999. Here is a quote from the book, (pp 13-14) that I found particularly interesting:

"The mythic wisdom of Africa encompasses a wide terrain. ...within the body of traditional African mythology lie themes whose harmonies we know well even today. Here are tales of the miraculous creation of the world, intimations of the virgin birth, lessons of the fall, accounts of the death and resurrection of a spiritual hero, reports of the flood, records of the ark's voyage, and symbols of the chalice, blade, and, cross. But don't be misled; all this is not the evidence of some early Christianization of Africa's soul. These themes appeared in Africa long before the advent of Christianity, and they are found throughout the world's great mythologies as well, although some Christians might wish us to believe their faith has sole possession."

If you want science to address religious beliefs, be careful what you wish for, you might not like a true scientific scrutney of your religion.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

This has been pretty well answered by several others. I'll just add that there is one widely accepted (at least, by the scientists in the field) theory of evolution. Does it answer everything? No. Does it have holes? Yes. Is it perfect? No. Does it claim to be perfect? No.

It should be taught as the prevailing theory of the development of life on this planet. It's weaknesses should also be taught.

Creationism is not a theory. It is religion masquerading as science and has no place in a science class.

The more correct word is "falsified." A scientific theory is falsifiable. That is, an experiment can be conducted which can show the theory to be wrong. When that happens, the theory is either modified (and retested) or abandoned. So far, evolution has been tested, modified and retested many times, but it hasn't been abandoned.

I'd be interested to know how you think the existence of God can be falsified.

Does any one else find it odd that all these different ancient cultures from all over the world hav these same/similar stories/accounts? Might it be possible that these events actually happened, and that as the human population spread throughout the Earth the stories stayed with them? Hmmmmm.

Something else I'd like to ask. Scientifically, what is truth? Where does truth come from? Where does the concept of truth come from? Can science ever find truth if nothing can ever be proven? How then do we know what truth is?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Nebularian,

I think it some instances, it's true. There is evidence of, say, massive flooding in the Tigris-Euphrates valley that people who hadn't seen the rest of the world might construe as a flood of the WHOLE world. Other stories, it could be argued, are similar because of psychological and sociological similarities shared by humans. It's fascinating.

Also fascinating is epistemology. How we know things is at least as important as what we know, wouldn't you agree?

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

So Africa had its own Jesus before the Christian Jesus? What happened to that 'Savior' and why isn't he mentioned in the Bible? Were there 2 worldwide floods with 2 arks? God destroyed the population on the planet twice before deciding not to do that again?

The stories in the Bible about how and when 'god' made the Universe did have origins before they were written down. What Ford suggests after researching mythology around the world but especially in Africa is that many stories in the Bible originated much further back than the Christian-Judeo version claims.

If you read his book you probably won't like the many African versions, they have similar concepts as in the Bible, but, also dissimilar ones as well. The similarities in myths around the world are evidence that belief in gods was a natural consequence for humans with growing awareness of the world, but without automatic understanding of how things worked. The marked differences in religions are evidence that a 'real' god was not at the foundation of the development of religions.

I can guess how the physicists, mathematicians, and astronomers might answer that question. They seem to like to talk about absolute truth and proofs as an ideal that is only rarely if ever reached.

For me, with a psychosocial, medical focus in science, truth needs to be useful today. It needs to be open to change when evidence indicates it wasn't quite right. It needs to recognize many things have not reached the level of truth or proof.

I know penicillin kills bacteria. I know it is absolutely true. I know many bacteria have evolved an ability to not be killed by penicillin. I know this is absolutely true. I know bacteria can acquire genes from other bacteria that create penicillin resistance. I know this is absolutely true. The processes here have been directly observed.

It was believed stress led to increased acid in your stomach and subsequent ulceration of the stomach lining. It was believed bacteria did not grow in the high acidity of the stomach. Now, it has been discovered that the bacteria H-pylori most probably causes 90-95% of all stomach ulcers. In this case truth was relative and wasn't based on direct observation. De-acidifying the stomach contents did lead to ulcers healing. Antibiotics are now used to treat ulcers and they no longer recur frequently.

If I want to entertain the possibility of waking up and finding all of this is imaginary such as in 'The Matrix' I guess I could say there is no way to reach absolute truth. I think that's a waste of time and only a semantics argument not a real arguement about truth.

For me, proof and truth are relative and can best be viewed on a continuum rather than as an either or question. This is my personal viewpoint. I don't claim to be able to define truth for everyone or everything.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

No, I think it's teaching origin theory. You have the big bangers, the steady-staters, and the creationists. Within each, there are sects. There are also other-believers. You apparently have only one understanding if what a creationist can be. I have never not believed in evolution -- punctuated evolution. I do not not believe in the evolution of the universe. I do believe the universe is a creation. Does a cell know it is part of a bigger body? MUST there be no builder?

As for FIRST CAUSE, this is a term many astrophysicists have used on this site many many times to describe t-0. I have asked several times for someone to explain t- "-1" and have received nothing. Most times I have received "that is first cause, and since it is before time, no comment." I did not derive the term first cause, but can demand an explanation. Why? Because some are very confident as to what was like to reverse the clock to t-.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds before the big bang, but can't describe what it was that went BANG. I have a right to know in order to accept the theory.

Fact is, the determination of the above is in reality the validation or invalidation of creationism.

Why is it so hard to satisfy me? (Which is a different discussion than why should you try... why? because I will listen)


DJ

DJ, there are indeed speculations made into first cause paradoxes. Most famous of which (on the popular level) is Rich Gott's theory of the self-generating universe out of a wormhole. You can read about it in his popular-level science text, Time Travel in Einstein's Universe. Other than that, the problem has not been probed because no one can suggest how to do it. It's a basic point of "we don't know the answer".

However, the Big Bang theory is not only about primal cause. Steady State folks do not have a scientific theory because they cannot explain certain observations. Same thing for the creationists. The ONLY viable scientific theory left that explains the CMB, the Hubble Flow, and cosmic abundances of light elements is the Big Bang. No other theory can do it. This is why it is taught in schools, because the theory works... not because there is some scientific anti-God conspiracy.

There are plenty of Big Bang proponents who are theists. The pope happens to be one of them. You're going to have to make your objections a little more clear if you truly want to make a case for not teaching the Big Bang as part of origins theory.

By all means teach Big Bang theory. Never said not to. And as you teach it, make sure that you say "and every time we try to roll it back that nth of a second to get the initial state of the universe, everything breaks down."

But it CAN be taught alongside creationist thoeries.

To your point, if it's so obvious, then the logical assumption will be that everyone discards creationism. But give them that chance.

DJ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-08-25 14:53 ]</font>

The point to the argument is that creationism has no place in a science classroom, or science, in general. If creationism is going to be taught, it should be taught within a more appropriate setting. As it stands, though, the science classroom is not the appropriate setting.


-Adam

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Are you asking me if I believe in a "First Cause", as in do I believe in a God/creator? Or are you asking me if I think there must be a first cause in the first place, which can lead to a conclusion that there is a God?

Well, as for my beliefs, I consider myself to be a true agnostic. That is, I have realized that it is impossible to prove the existence of a God. It is an untestable, unfalsifiable concept. I can't prove his existence, you can't prove his existence, nobody can prove his existence. Therefore, I treat it as such. I don't deny belief, but I don't support it either. Belief must be taken on faith alone, and I think it's a futile gesture to even attempt any sort of rational proof. I find it insulting my intelligence to try to push "scientific" attempts at such conclusions on me. This is the main reason I am against any form of religion in schools. Unbackable claims should not be taught there.

Now, as to whether I believe in a first cause, once again, I don't know. Others here have put forth the very good point that our idea of the necessity of a first cause may be flawed. In any case, I consider it a moot point. Scientific theories do not need to even address it as question to be valid. Nobody needs to come forth with a reason why the Big Bang happened for it to be a valid theory on the existence of the universe. As long as it describes accurately what we are seeing, it will be a valid model. The same goes for any other scientific model of the universe.

In fact, it's only the Intelligent Design model that even attempts to explain the whys. It's the only "theory" that insists there must be a prime mover. All of the scientific theories ignore that point. Note, I said ignore, not deny. They don't care why, they only want to know how. To my mind, seriously asking for a prime cause is more of a reason for it to be suspect than to be accepted.

Of course, there are some people looking into the question of why the Big Bang/other theories happened, and perhaps someday someone will come up with a good answer, but personally I think all attempts in this direction will end up being idle speculation, as they will be untestable. The new ekpyrotic/brane theory attempts to explain a start mechanism, for example. But all this does in truth is just shift back the creation to whatever existed before this universe began (again, who created the creator). Once again, it only addresses how, not why.

So, to repeat again my attitude. Schools should teach supportable scientific theories only. Faith belongs to the churches.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

One needn't say "everything breaks down". What breaks down? "We just don't know" is the proper way of putting it.

There's no reason to waste the student's time on theories that aren't true. We could spend the rest of our lives exploring every crack-pot and lame-brained idea about the universe. Why just the Judeo-Christian literalists take on creationism? Why not Anasazi myths of creation? Why not the Babylonian conception of origins? Why not Adam's "the world as a computer simulation"? They are all equally invalid, how do you decide between them?

No, sorry, DJ, science is science. If something isn't science it has no place in the science classroom.

That doesn't mean that creationism can't be taught in a comparative religions or a philosophy of religion class. It just doesn't belong in a class about science.

If you want to have creationism taught in schools, then it should be taught in an appropriate structure. Have a social studies module "Theories of Creation" that not only teaches Christian creationism, but Hindu, Buddist, Native American, Aborigine, and as many others as you have time for. You can even include scientific theories. But one thing must be avoided: attempting to promote any one of these over the others. It must be purely unbiased in it's approach.

This would be the only acceptable version to me. But why do I get the feeling that this would be wholly unacceptable to creationists? Could it be because they have a different purpose than just simple education?

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Precisely, David Hall...

It's like the old story of the "It's only a theory" whining that goes on. Creationists love to point that out whenever scientifically educated folk begin to talk about evolution or the Big Bang. "It's only a theory, you know. You can't be 100% sure it's true. We should be telling kids this in science class."

The point is, such information IS conveyed in every science textbook I've ever read. Most of the time in the very first chapter. The one labelled "the scientific method". That's where all this gets discussed.

After talking about uncertainty in science in the first chapter, the teacher moves on to a unit on weather. No comment from the creationists (I guess that God making the rain fall on the just and the unjust doesn't discount meteorology). Then maybe onto chemistry. Still no comment (I guess the alchemical discussions in the Bible aren't relevant in the creationists' minds). But as soon as one starts teaching about evolution or creationism, suddenly an alarm is raised, "but it's only a THEORY! You have to tell them that!"

We did tell them that, back in the first chapter. To be totally consistent, we'd have to do that every other word we spoke. "Boys and girls, the jet stream moves weather patterns in a general direction from East to West in the northern hemisphere, BUT THAT'S ONLY A THEORY. The compounds you see every day are made up of atoms, BUT THAT'S ONLY A THEORY. The ocean tides are caused by the moon, BUT THAT'S ONLY A THEORY."

C'mon, that's not productive teaching. That's acting like a broken record. Scientific theories are scientific facts and that's all there is to it. If the creationist has a beef with science being taught, then they have a right to remove their child from the classroom. Why should they have a right to pick and choose which scientific theories sit well with them purely from their own, nonscientific judgments about them? The answer is, to be perfectly consistent, they shouldn't.

David, I agree with you 100%, except please don't include me in the last sentence. It is wholly acceptable to teach in a balanced form. Maybe that's just too much to ask.

I believe you have come full circle, and I can appreciate that. I don't necessarily expect you to agree with that assertion. No problemo.

There is a balance to everything, and that in itself is amazing. Just as you fervently zig in one way, I zag in another. And so goes everything else.

But in the end, something will come of all of this, there is no doubt in my mind. I look forward to meeting here when the time comes. It will indeed be interesting.

I asked a question before, and now I will answer it: Can the cell know of the body? No.

DJ

No, of course I'm not specifically referring to you. I'm talking about the creationist movement in general. Individuals will each have their own opinions. But it is obvious that the movement has an agenda behind it that is not educational, but dogmatic in nature.

Yes, I agree totally that it's acceptable to teach in a balanced form. The difficulty is sometimes to get people to understand just what "balanced" means. A lot of people have a simplistic notion that creationism is a direct opposition to scientific theories, specifically the big bang and evolution. But that's not correct at all.

What we're saying is that it doesn't belong in a scientific arena at all, and needs to be taught solely as a religious belief. As a religious belief, it falls directly under the seperation of church and state clause of the constitution, so it can't be given any kind of state support (or deprication for that matter). It should only be taught in an unbiased and objective way, and in comparison to other similar belief systems.

Put it in it's correct context, and we have no objection to it whatsoever. Push it as an opposing scientific belief, and we object highly.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

As long as you don't like the answer you are getting you will probably continue not to hear it.

In order to teach creationist theories regardless of how you modify them, you would have to teach erroneous interpretations of evidence. Erroneous, not merely differences of opinion on how to interpret that evidence.

You may not like that answer. You may wish to question the evidence because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Biblical account of the beginning of the current Universe. The point you are missing is creation theories have been discarded by science because tangible, visible, logical evidence led science to that conclusion.

Science recognizes multiple interpretations of evidence. That doesn't mean science allows all interpretations. For example, should we entertain the possibility that Zeus is the cause of lightning? I think we can safely say for all practical purposes that option is off the table. And, like it or not, so is Creation Theory.

Creationism has probably been more thoroughly evaluated than most alternative theories. Only by distorting facts can it be included with viable cosmological theories.

It sounds like you are trying to make the evidence fit your beliefs by shifting to the Intelligent Design concept or some version of it.

Science can consider a god as the cause of the BB or whatever other theories aren't ruled out for the beginning of our Universe. Once again, you are missing the message here and claiming no one has given that message.

Suggesting the hypothesis that god created the universe is one thing, saying there is any evidence for said hypothesis is quite another.

Intelligent Design proponents claim improbability, insufficient time, and various other similar arguments are evidence for intelligent design. Such evidence has been thoroughly considered and found not to preclude evolution as having occurred by a completely random natural process.

One can hold on to the belief that ID occurred, but can no longer use improbability arguments as evidence against evolution without ID. To continue using improbability arguments is to deny legitimate scientific evidence to the contrary. Again, it crosses the line of legitimate alternative interpretations of evidence to the side of false interpretations of evidence.

That is how the BB theory is taught.

As to a comment by JSP., above, that one shouldn't say, "it breaks down" but rather "we don't know", I thought it's the laws of physics that break down, IE the the math formulas that otherwise work when tested against measurements and observations.

_________________
For the record, that's Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-08-25 22:16 ]</font>

I hate to say it, but now you sound like the raving fundamentalist.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

wink wink nudge nudge know what i mean?

DJ

I'm still clueless as to why it is okay to teach pseudoscience in a science classroom.


-Adam

Bad news in Georgia? What do you say about

this?

The bottom is deeper and deeper...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-08-26 08:41 ]</font>

There is something you're missing here. Time and space exist within the Universe. The Universe does not exist within space and time. Therefore questions like "What happened before the Big Bang?" and "What is outside of the Universe?" are meaningless questions. The reason we can't get any closer to time zero than T+ ~10^-43 seconds is because there is no information that we have observed from before that time. If such information existed, I'm sure it would be most enlightening. But since we don't have any information, it really is meaningless to speculate.

Well, it's not so simple. To take a similar but relate example, the most naive version of what happens at grand unification energies breaks down, but that's the most naive version. There are other versions which try to approach the theory in a much more coherent way. As of yet we don't have a way to approach grand unification other than through super-symmetric speculation and theoretical considerations. However, physics doesn't just "break down". We simply don't know how to model it yet.

That's the same for any singularity. It's a common thing to say that a singularity is where nature divides by zero. The thing is saying simply that physics breaks down at the singularity belies the fact that the singularity is physical. Now, as to whether or not it is observable, that's a whole other issue. The heart of the matter is this: one way or another first cause HAS to be incorporated into a physical model of the universe whether it be by fiendishly clever mad scientists of the fifty-fifth and a half dimension or God or by some self-generating wormhole, there is a question to be answered that we do not have an answer to yet. Just because it looks absurd to us at this point doesn't mean physics breaks down. Just because someone divides by zero doesn't mean mathematics breaks down. In fact, there's a lot more to "dividing by zero" than simply throwing one's hands up in defeat.

This is why "we just don't know" is a better answer, because it is closer to the truth.

Oh dear, now I'll be in the FBI/CIA files as a visitor to that site. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

Actually, it's very interesting, almost like multiple religions competing to have science prove them right.

The sad part is they can't be satisfied with looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads. It's more of a fit the evidence into one's pre-existing model. Obviously we all do that, but at what degree does it cross into bad science?

It just dawned on me, (wow one of those aha! moments), I just saw a tele-classroom program the other day about kids learning science concepts. The main point was regardless of how you present concepts to kids, (also adults), they have to take that information and process it based on concepts they already have in their brains.

The example was, teach kids that we need light to see. Put them in a completely dark room and ask them if they think they will be able to see when their eyes adjust. Most if not all the kids said yes. Even after several minutes, when they still could not see, they didn't get it. Not ever having experienced complete darkness, the information, that one needs light to see, was not completely understood. It did not depend on how well or how complete the information was that they were taught.

This doesn't mean there is no way to teach such concepts without a demo. But it does mean that how the brain processes information may not be as straightforward as it would seem. And we need to do more research in this field if we want to improve our teaching skills.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Oh. I see.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Fundamentalist? Raving? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

As I said, As long as you don't like the answer you are getting you will probably continue not to hear it.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

[quote]
On 2002-08-27 05:33, beskeptical wrote:
I didn't mean to put you in jeopardy.

See what the religious people have done to us. It is sad that we, proud occidentals, the guardians of the Lights, heirs of the legacy of John Locke, Tocqueville, Rousseau, Jefferson, have to worry about what the government will think of our daily affairs. Doesn't it sound like living in the place we once called Soviet Union? The evil that we fought too hard to defeat?

It is a gloomy world now. Blame it on religion.

I don't want other Torquemadas telling me what I have to do. I don't want to be affraid to speak out. Lets speak frankly that religion is driving us to the swamp.

This tortured world is in extreme need of skepticism. Science is our only chance. As usual.

(*) Pardon me for my bitterness today.