I would like to ask a question to the defenders of creationism in school:

What exactly is "Creationism" for you?
Could you give us a definition? Maybe just a tentative one; you can change it later, if you feel that it is necessary...

Please note: I am not asking "Is the creationism that you propose Cristian, or Judeo-Christian", or anything of that sort. I would just like to know: as a theory, how would you describe creationism?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-08-27 11:01 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-08-27 11:10 ]</font>

I'll use the generally accepted definitions found on dictionary.com:

Which I do not agree with. Here is a definition that for the same reason, scientists would not agree with from the same source:

So, we are caught in a battle of words and definitions -- thanks to the thoughtlesness of common-day language.

To me, creationism is the conjecture that the universe was created.

DJ

Let's consider this simple, and broad, concept of Creationism for a while. It doesn't require that you be a Christian to accept it. It doesn't even require that you follow an organized religion.

But my question to you, DJ, is how would you attempt to prove it - or disprove it - scientifically?
How, according to you, could this be done?

(I am of course appealing to your personal notion of what "science" is. I am hoping that we will agree on that...)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-08-27 12:26 ]</font>

Another way of asking that is "is creationism belief testable under the scientific method?" If not, then it is not science.


-Adam

[quote]
On 2002-08-27 08:25, Argos wrote:
You do know I was kidding. I ain't afraid of no government man. I'm and old hippie from the Nixon era.

Whoops, I've revealed too much. I hear the FBI file being entered into the data base right now.

Well here's a bit of opinion that might surprise a few folks, I don't believe religion is the root of all evil. I believe evil people use religion to manipulate others. (Don't get excited folks, I'm not saying all religious leaders are evil.)

When believers of any religion want to start forcing others to obey their religious laws, that is also a big problem. We do have to be vigilant of our free country or we risk losing it. The threats can come from corporate greed, religion promoters, power hungry politicians, and ??? maybe someplace else I'm forgetting right now.

Well, way off topic and way more than I should say here, but too late, I don't want to rewrite the post. I'll try to keep the soapbox limited to clarifying science and communication issues in the future. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

BTW, Argos, aren't you supposed to be taking it easy and enjoying the Pleiades? Why be upset, the world is what the world is. I see change as the 5 and 10 year plans. That helps when I feel my power is insignificant.

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

I have a question. I don't mean to offer this as any form of proof or argument or anything like that. I would just like some honost thoughts.

Enter the realm of "The Supposed." Suppose there is an alternate reality, a parallel dimension to us. Suppose some people have found ways to tap into that alternate reality, that parallel dimension (some more than others, of course!). Through these "taps" there is interaction between our reality/dimension and the other reality/dimension. Because of the nature of this "tapping," it has been found and observed to work within the realm of religion, and they call it "the spiritual realm". How could a scientist go about finding evidence for the existance of such (allowing for the assumption that this is real)?

In the same way, suppose the universe was created by some being. Suppose this being established the Laws of Physics, the principals of mathematics, and whatever else will influence things to form, and then did whatever to make it or shape it (i.e. caused the Big Bang, created the DNA codes, ordered certain DNA codes to be put together in certain ways to make new species, etc.). Again, allowing for the assumption that this is real, how would a scientist go about finding evidence for such an occurrance?

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-08-27 20:01 ]</font>

There are two different supernatural phenomena to look for. The miraculous and the physical.

For the first case, the thing to do is look for phenomena that are unexplainable using physical law and fall outside of theory. For example, the Earth stops spinning suddenly and then starts spinning again. An occurrence such as this with no with no seeming physical explanation would be an extreme case of falsification for science.

However, it's not that simple. Say the world did stop spinning. Then the question becomes one of cause. What CAUSED it to stop spinning. The scientist, assuming the physical universe is self-contained, looks for a physical cause. One is speculated about or observed and the problem is solved. Or one is not observed and science remains flummoxed. This leaves room for supernatural interpretations of the miraculous to take hold. In short, if the miraculous supernatural was an effect on the world, it should manifest itself in UNPREDICTABLE ways and science would be impossible. Think of my example of the world stopping its spin and taking it to the level where every predictable phenomenon in the world has enormous observed deviations from what is predicted. This is where the case for the supernatural gets made. Some cultural anthropolgists declare this battling with the unpredictable as the cause of religion and mythology. I remain neutral on the subject, except to say that all that science has observed up until now has been predictable and it is up to the claimant for the miraculous to prove otherwise. This is the skeptic's position, true, but it has yet to be falsified.

The other form of the supernatural is the physical supernatural... the Deist form. This one is inherently UNprovable scientifically because it will always move itself away from science as more and more get discovered. Right now, the Deist can claim divine clockmaker status for God and point to the fact that the universe exists as God's handiwork. Before inflation came on the scene, there were those that could point to fine tuning of various constants as evidence for God's existence. Now, inflation provides, in part, an explanation for how some of these constants get driven toward the values we see, but Deism can just push further back where science cannot look. In this way it is unfalsifiable because it is constantly putting itself outside the observed universe. Therefore it is unprovable scientifically.

So there you have it, two versions of theism... one has been falsified (in most skeptical scientists' minds) and the other remains unfalsifiable. This is part of the reason scientists claim that religion and science deal with separate issues because it looks, superficially at least, like there is not much overlap.

OK, I understood your mood. I was playing with the (fantastic, out of purpose) idea of an American Age of Darkness. I'm sick of hearing of the absurd proposals to get us more "security" and "stability". Remember "1984"? I oppose these liberty-killing freaks [the ones who lived under a dictatorship, as I did, don't have tolerance with the slightest hint of "control"]. Of course all the world trusts the solid American democracy. But the price to pay for liberty is the perennial watch.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
All right, Beskeptical. I'm doing very fine, actually. Don't take my bitterness too seriously. It was just a stumble on my way to Nirvana.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img].

By the way, last night i had a wonderful naked-eye tour in the region of Scorpius, and I could resolve various nebulae and clusters. I just can't wait to see the Pleiades back to my sky. I'm feeling like an Eagle. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Best regards

PS. I'm having some difficulties in finding good titles in voiced-books.

Nebs - it's not really the same argument or discussion.

The original discussion was about teaching something in a classroom. The argument is being made that because something is not "Science" (although take a look at the definitions because seeking the Why's is part of it -- not just the How's as a few will claim here [scientific method type stuff]) it should not be taught, presented, or otherwise represented.

I have disagreed with this vehemently. Just because something is not Science does not mean it should not be taught, in schools.

I think, for example, that when we teach a class on origins of the universe, we need to include all theories, not just scientific ones. That is all. It just freaks people out for some reason.

DJ

I think you still don't get what we are trying to say. We aren't saying that alternative theories can't be taught, we just say they shouldn't be taught as scientific alternatives. I have no trouble with a class designed to discuss various creation theories, as long as it's unbiased. But such a class belongs in the social studies department, not the science lab.

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

I don't see the problem. Take a good astronomy textbook by, say, Hartmann. Chapter One begins with ancient times, and quickly summarizes various creation myths: Egyptian, Sumerian, Australian, American, Indian, Chinese, etc. It mentions the Bible and Genesis.

It then moves on to Egyptian and Babylonian astrology, and explains their contribution (non-trivial!) to our knowledge. It mentions a bit about the origins of star names, and the constribution (also non-trivial!) of Arabian astronomers.

Then it hits the usual business with the Greeks and their early measurements of the earth's diameter, etc.

What's the problem? Alternative origins *are* taught, as a legitimate part of the history of astronomy.

Would it really kill anyone to have a footnote saying, "Some people believe in these to this very day?" That's all that needs to be taught. Heck, that's all that can possibly be taught, since, other than "Some people believe in it," the creationist view has abolutely nothing else going for it. There are still flat-earthers, too, and that should not be glossed over or denied. Teach the truth: there are still geocentrists in our very midst.

Then, in Chapter One, section Two, start teaching science.

Silas

The original discussion was about teaching something in a classroom. The argument is being made that because something is not "Science" ... it should not be taught, presented, or otherwise represented.

The original topic was the teaching of evolutionary theory and creationism in a public secondary school as competing theories.

I don't think anyone here has a blanket objection to teaching a non-science topic in school. It's allowing that non-science to masquerade as science that bothers me and, I think, others.

Surely you have an objection to teaching non-science as science?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

DJ, you wrote:

Seeking the "whys" is usually a part of science, too, I agree. But I think an important difference is that there is no science without the "hows" (i.e. how to prove, to refute, or to test your claims).
I can think of no "hows" in any of the versions of Creationism that I recall. But maybe I'm missing something, and that was why I asked for a definition.

Let me add that I do not object to creationism being taught in school (not even if it's just Christian creationism). I just think it should not be mandatory to present Creationism as an equivalent alternative to science in a science class.

Folks, I got it. You must think my head is a bit thick or something. Let me recount what I understand:

Please, by all means, do not force science to compete with creationism. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

But, since we only have one universe available, and we are within it, it is a bit risky to try and claim complete understanding of the system at large. '

I think any scientist would agree that if you are "within the system," it may give you an unbiased view. Just ask any that are trying to keep their research grants!

No, grasshopper, the cell cannot know of the body.

DJ

DJ
If you want creation as origen to be presented in schools you'll have to find someone to come up with a curriculum. The so called creation scientists haven't got anything.

Has anyone ever read their literature? Granted, I haven't made an extensive study but from what I've seen there isn't anything in it. All they do is take pot shots at evolution and BB and that's it. Where's the theory? What are you going to teach? Creation science theory is just this: evolution's wrong.

"Real short class today students, we're covering creation science."

BTW, I've got religion coming out my ears. I love the stuff. I agree with (was it beskepical? I wish I could see the board from this reply screen), people have done some nasty things in the name of and using religion. Also, as we all know, people have done some nasty things in the name of and using science. "Say, wasn't that a city down there?" "Yep. Look at all them tens of thousands of people we just blew up."

__________________
She gave up trying to understand herself, and joined the vast armies of the benighted, who follow neither the heart nor the brain, and march to their destiny by catch-words.
--E.M. Forester

I often wonder at what level our science and technology would be if organised religion had not stood in the way of every scientific advancement since the dawn of recorded history.
Burning the library at Alexandria, the distrust of Arabic science, the persecution of Galileo, anti-Darwinism, stem cell research, the list is endless.
We could have reached the stars by now.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

We might still be tossing people into volcanoes to control the weather so the crop will be better.

Or, spreading our own form of space-trash talkin' Vegas-dealin' "legal here and only here" sort of society around the nearest stars.

BTW: Have you ever seen the process to make vinyl? (I am guilty, there's probably some on my telescope somewhere.)

Thank Goodness sometimes ethics'n'morals catch up with us, giving us a moment to wallow in our own crapulence.

DJ

I really hadn't thought about it... although earlier in the thread we discussed some possibilities to get it started. Check out page 2 of the thread.

I see evidence for evolution all over the place, and really buy the theory of punctuated evolution, thus sort of answering the "why haven't we evolved in 3000 years" kind of question.

Yet, when I look at the same process of evolution on a different scale, I can't help but smile at the... well... "majesty" of it.

So the good news is, we're looking in the same places, at the same thing. I just tip my hat to the builder.

DJ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-08-28 22:56 ]</font>

DJ
Based on the record of organised religions over the millenia, ethics and morals seemed to play a very minor role. A right-thinking human only needs to consider case-effect-consequences to know what's right and wrong.
Who threw people into volcanoes to control the weather? Some power-hungry shaman. Who worked out how volcanoes form and what causes weather? A thinker.
It's been about 15 years since I bought vinyl. I'm into CDs now.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

Am I to assume you believe morality and ethics derive from religion alone?


-Adam

Sorry. This is a cheap shot. But....

Who blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A secular nation state with the seperation of church and state in its constitution. (Using a bomb built by scientists)

__________________
She gave up trying to understand herself, and joined the vast armies of the benighted, who follow neither the heart nor the brain, and march to their destiny by catch-words.
--E.M. Forester

Well, here's another way of looking at it. If the Roman Catholic Church had not "united" Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire (not your typical union, but it did somewhat keep the pieces together), would the European Rennaissance have ever come about?

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

Oh I was just referring to the original thrust of the thread. The whole equal time debate usually comes about when Young Earthers try to force school districts and state legislatures to put their formulation of Creation Science next to evolution in the classroom. Like back in the early '80's in Arkansas. I've read some of the literature of the Creation Science Research Institute and there's nothing there. I think someone's already mentioned this--the Creation Scientists just trot out the same tired stuff: "missing link" "contrary to thermodynamics" etc.
The only theory I've seen in it is the "Deluge" theory. All the mysteries of geology and fossils explained by world-wide flood.
They don't care about science, they don't care about equal time. They're just out to damage evolution. It's a publicity stunt.


But---First Cause. Yes. I did read the whole thread and I agree with David Hall and others. First Cause doesn't seem to be something that science has the tools to look into at this juncture. Isn't First Cause metaphysics? How about a philosophy class?

__________________
She gave up trying to understand herself, and joined the vast armies of the benighted, who follow neither the heart nor the brain, and march to their destiny by catch-words.
--E.M. Forester

Virtual history is an endless topic for discussion. What if......?
Good and evil are not confined by the boundaries of religion or secularism.
Ebony and ivory, live together in perfect harmony....
Perhaps the renaissance may have come earlier or later. Would there have been a Dark Age from which to emerge, anyway?
Imagine....

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

This is a simple one to solve. Underneath the reply window is a link to "topic review". Clicking this will open up the original thread in a new window.

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

I wholeheartedly agree with you Beskeptical! Religion has often been cited as the cause of conflicts when it is no more than the excuse.

Back on topic though...walking to work today I saw a sign outside a Unitarian church which said "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind" and attributed this to Albert Einstein. Typing "Religion without science" into Yahoo brings up this page as the first choice. Maybe this quote and document will be regarded as 'not that old chestnut' by some, but it does make for interesting reading. I found this quote very relevant -

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible."

(The whole thing can be found at http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesi...instein2b.html )

"Science can only ascertain what is" - is this why other so-called pseudo-sciences that try to prove what 'could be' have a hard time?

_________________
"I just like to say Quark a lot. Quark,quark,quark,quark."



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hemlock on 2002-08-29 04:10 ]</font>

Teaching the history of astronomy or science would include the things you note. But you know the creationists want to be in 'part two'. They want teachers to tell children that all the evidence that supports evolution and geology is questionable, not just tell them that some people think a mountain of evidence isn't credible.

It would be just as bad to leave this information out of the curriculum. It could be included in science or another class. It's OK to present factual information that relates to science in a science class.

History and social-political subjects that relate to science are one thing. Teaching creation stories as science is another.

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

Senor M - I thank you very much for getting that infernal song in my head today [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

__________________
"I just like to say Quark a lot. Quark,quark,quark,quark."

There seems to be lots of ways to do things on this BB. I hit the back button. When done, hit forward, and you are back to your post.

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

As long as you don't forget that 'religion' in this context has to be broad enough to include those of us who think morality is not synonomous with religion.

Which ties in to the other comment I wanted to make. (Still off topic, but I'm hoping ya'll will forgive and forget. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] ) It seems to me that human behavior is fairly universal whether one is religious or not. Lots of good in most people, lots of bad in some people, and the rest inbetween.

I don't know why I felt compelled to add that. Probably possessed by loose alpha waves in the area. I am back in control now.

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