Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[6days]

It would be sloppy design, if it were designed. But of course, it evolved. The fact that our retina is inside out.....

You are at least 20 years behind times ...
But apart from that you didn't answer the question.
Evolutionists have often taught that something which doesn't have function.... or which they think is poor design is evidence against the Designer.
So.... Is it fair to use the opposite argument... Functionality and good design is evidence FOR the Creator?

 

[PureX]

Haha... so philisophical conclusions that involve common ancestry are fine to discuss..... and philisophical conclusions (that ended up being correct) *allowing for a designer is not ok to discuss?

As Dialogos said, you are promoting censorship of ideas... not science.*

Discuss it all you want in philosophy or religion class. But it's not science. And trying to force it into a science class is trying to proselytize religious dogma as science, which is both dishonest and confusing to students.

 

[6days]

Discuss it all you want in philosophy or religion class. But it's not science. And trying to force it into a science class is trying to proselytize religious dogma as science, which is both dishonest and confusing to students.

I don't think the state of Alabama or any other state wouldn't mind keeping such discussions in the philosophy class....if that were possible. What are you going to do...start jailing teachers, who argue that poor eye design is evidence against the Creator?*

And...also contrary to your statement, it does not confuse students to present them with all the evidence. It seems to me that a good teacher would want to encourage students to compare opposing ideas...to think for themselves.*

Evolutionists seem to think students should be taught 'what' to think and 'not' how to think.

 

[The Barbarian]

What are you going to do...start jailing teachers, who argue that poor eye design is evidence against the Creator?*

If they can't keep religious ideas out of science class, they shouldn't be teaching at all.

 

[chrysostom]

If they can't keep religious ideas out of science class, they shouldn't be teaching at all.

what about political ideas?

 

[PureX]

I don't think the state of Alabama or any other state wouldn't mind keeping such discussions in the philosophy class....if that were possible. What are you going to do...start jailing teachers, who argue that poor eye design is evidence against the Creator?*

There is no need for a science teacher to even bring it up. It's not a science issue. And if a student brings it up, the teacher can simply point out that it's not a science issue.

And...also contrary to your statement, it does not confuse students to present them with all the evidence. It seems to me that a good teacher would want to encourage students to compare opposing ideas...to think for themselves.

There is no "evidence", and nothing is on trial, or being debated. Science is a process based on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and more observation. It's not a debate, where propositions require "evidence". That's called philosophical debate, and it belongs in the philosophy class.

Evolutionists seem to think students should be taught 'what' to think and 'not' how to think.

"Evolutionism" isn't science. It doesn't belong in a science class, either.

 

[6days]

If they can't keep religious ideas out of science class, they shouldn't be teaching at all.

So what do we do with evolutionists? Are we going to fire 75% of public school teachers? Or, are we willing to allow a discussion of competing ideas in the classroom?

 

[6days]

I don't think the state of Alabama or any other state wouldn't mind keeping such discussions in the philosophy class....if that were possible. What are you going to do...start jailing teachers, who argue that poor eye design is evidence against the Creator?

There is no need for a science teacher to even bring it up. It's not a science issue. And if a student brings it up, the teacher can simply point out that it's not a science issue.*

That would be great....Creationists would love that. In the science class, teachers stick to science and avoid all conclusions about origins.*

For example a teacher could teach about non coding DNA.... how scientists are discovering complex layers of functionality in what was once described as junk. The science can be taught without discussing common ancestry beliefs.

 

[PureX]

That would be great....Creationists would love that. In the science class, teachers stick to science and avoid all conclusions about origins.

They do, except in your imagination, where "evolutionists" are running amok in our schools preaching the non-existence of God.

For example a teacher could teach about non coding DNA.... how scientists are discovering complex layers of functionality in what was once described as junk. The science can be taught without discussing common ancestry beliefs.

The common ancestry of life on Earth is one of the active scientific theories being investigated, based on a lot of past experimentation and observation, so it's part of the scientific endeavor. Students should know this.

Creationism is not a scientific theory being actively posed or investigated by science, and so does not belong in a science class. Not currently, anyway.

 

[6days]

The common ancestry of life on Earth is one of the active scientific theories being investigated, based on a lot of past experimentation and observation, so it's part of the scientific endeavor. Students should know this.

Thats what the Alabama bill adresses. Teachers should have the academic freedom to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of theories, and discuss competing ideas.*


The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

 

[Dialogos]

Science doesn't make "statements". It develops theories based on observations, and then tries to test those theories through experimentation to see if they align with observed results.

Science curricula absolutely does make "statements." They may not be scientifically sound statements, but statements are made nonetheless.

For example,Physics for You A science resource used in public school systems makes the following "statement" regarding the age of the universe and the nature of the "big bang":

“By measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe as it is now, astronomers can calculate that the big bang was about 12,000 million years ago!”​

That is a statement that assumes at least three HIGHLY debatable variables.

First, it assumes that the big bang happened, this is purely theoretical.
Second, it assumes that we are accurately measuring the rate of the expansion of the universe (an assumption that does not enjoy unanimity). Third, it assumes that the rate of expansion has always been constant (another unproven and unprovable theory). Fourth, the methodology is challenged even today as the most recent estimate according to the Lambda CDM model is 13.8 Billion not 12 Billion.

A student giving the "textbook" answer would be be approx 1.8 Billion years off (give or take the +/- 37 million years).

:chuckle:

I do think it is highly amusing that there is a plus or minus of a mere 37 million years.

It just goes to show how little confidence we actually have in our interpretation of the cosmological data.

Creationism is not a scientifically postulated theory.

Why don't you tell us, specifically what criteria scientific creationism must meet in order to be considered a "scientifically postulated theory?"

It is not a theory about the nature of reality based on observations of reality.

Yes it is. It takes the observations of the appearance of design and concludes that what looks designed, looks designed because it was designed.

That's not all that far of an intellectual leap now is it?

It's a religious dogma,

Which religion?

If you are going to charge people with trying to sneak their religious through the back door of the science department at the public school then you are going to have to be more specific and tell us which particular religion you think the creationists want to be dogmatically taught.

...based on religious mythology,

You are just wrong here. You are mindlessly parroting the party line.
What makes you think that the notion that all life on earth came from some single celled organism that spontaneously generated from the primordial soup isn't mythology?

What experiments have duplicated abiogenesis PureX?

I'll save you some research.

The answer is 0.

...in direct denial of observable reality.

This is false.

Even the most ardent atheists and committed macro-evolutionist will admit that the both life on earth and the physical world appear designed. One must actually deny "observable" reality in order to believe what can't be observed (such as abiogenesis) in order to believe macro-evolution.

]

 

[PureX]

Thats what the Alabama bill adresses. Teachers should have the academic freedom to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of theories, and discuss competing ideas.

They do. But creationism is not a scientific theory. That's what you keep refusing to recognize.

The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It should not be discussed in a science class.

Creationism is a religious dogma, and so should be discussed in a religion class.

The existence and nature of God is a philosophical (theological) question that should be addressed/discussed/debated in a philosophy (theology) class.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand, and accept? (Unless, of course, you just want to proselytize other people's children.)

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

High school students have no business "critiquing" or "reviewing" current scientific theories. Their place is to learn the scientific process, and what the current major working theories are.

This bill is all about getting them to doubt and second-guess the whole scientific endeavor because you know it contradicts your religious dogma. I don't fault you or them for what you choose to believe, but you creationists should all be ashamed of yourselves for the dishonest and underhanded tactics you keep trying to use to force your views on other people's children.

 

[PureX]

Science curricula absolutely does make "statements." They may not be scientifically sound statements, but statements are made nonetheless.

For example,Physics for You A science resource used in public school systems makes the following "statement" regarding the age of the universe and the nature of the "big bang":

“By measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe as it is now, astronomers can calculate that the big bang was about 12,000 million years ago!”​

That is a statement that assumes at least three HIGHLY debatable variables.

First, it assumes that the big bang happened, this is purely theoretical.
Second, it assumes that we are accurately measuring the rate of the expansion of the universe (an assumption that does not enjoy unanimity). Third, it assumes that the rate of expansion has always been constant (another unproven and unprovable theory). Fourth, the methodology is challenged even today as the most recent estimate according to the Lambda CDM model is 13.8 Billion not 12 Billion.

A student giving the "textbook" answer would be be approx 1.8 Billion years off (give or take the +/- 37 million years).

:chuckle:

I do think it is highly amusing that there is a plus or minus of a mere 37 million years.

Every scientific theory is called a theory because it is a theory. Do you understand this? Scientists posit theories. Scientists observe facts and then hypothesize theories that may or may not account for those facts, so that the theories can be tested by themselves and other scientists observing other related facts. They are not proclaiming truths. Just facts and working theories.

So if you don't like their facts, or their theories, then you can ignore them. Or you can invent your own facts, to go with your own theories. Whatever. It's your "reality", do whatever you want with it.

But grade and high school kids learning basic science in a science class need to learn the scientific method of collecting observable facts, positing a theory explaining those observed facts, and then testing the theory to see if it produces the expected results. They also need to learn the more prominent working theories that real scientists are currently using and testing in various fields of inquiry.

That's it.

They don't need to critique or debate the value of the scientific method, nor do they need to critique or debate the various major and minor working scientific theories currently being used and investigated by real scientists. Not only would this be beyond their capabilities, but it would only serve to confuse them about what science is and how it works.

Even the most ardent atheists and committed macro-evolutionist will admit that the both life on earth and the physical world appear designed. One must actually deny "observable" reality in order to believe what can't be observed (such as abiogenesis) in order to believe macro-evolution.

What you don't seem to understand is that this is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Science already assumes the physical inter-connectedness of existence, and based on that assumption it then seeks to identify and understand that inter-connectedness. If you want to investigate the idea that this inter-connectedness is an intentional "design", then you have to leave science and move on to philosophy, because science cannot investigate beyond the physical inter-connectedness, itself.

But the truth is that you aren't interested in any of this, which is why you will continue to ignore whatever I post. Because all you're really interested in is proselytizing your religious beliefs to other people's children, against their parent's, and most of society's, will.

The courts and public consensus have told that you can't do that, but you don't care what they say, or about what they want; not even for their own children. All you care about is proselytizing your creationist religious dogma at them, by whatever dishonest and underhanded means you have to use to do it.

Isn't that right?

 

[6days]

Thats what the Alabama bill adresses. Teachers should have the academic freedom to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of theories, and discuss competing ideas.

They do. But creationism is*not a scientific theory. That's what you keep refusing to recognize.*

Creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past. Nobody has claimed they are scientific theories.
You are creating a strawman.

The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It should not be discussed in a science class.

Evolutionism is not a scientific theory either... I think you already agreed about that?

Creationism is a religious dogma, and so should be discussed in a religion class.

[Bb]Evolutionism is a religious dogma, and so should be discussed in a religion class.[/quote]
If discussion is allowed about one belief system in science class, then the opposing view also should be allowed.

The existence and nature of God is a philosophical (theological) question that should be addressed/discussed/debated in a philosophy (theology) class.

Sure..... and in science class if the evidence leads towards an intelligent designer. Science is about knowledge....Not about beliefs.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand, and accept? (Unless, of course, you just want to proselytize other people's children.)

Its easy to understand you want students indoctrinated in your belief system... and everything else censured.

Its also plain to see you are afraid of academic freedom so misrepresent the Alabama bill.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

High school students have no business "critiquing" or "reviewing" current scientific theories. Their place is to learn the scientific process, and what the current major working theories are.

It seems you keep confusing your beliefs about the past with science. What you are afraid of is that students would be able to critique your belief system.

Fortunately most students are a lot brighter than you give them credit for. They understand things like adaptation, selection, genetic drift etc are observable science. They also understand common ancestry beliefs or common designer beliefs are not observable science.

This bill is all about getting them to doubt and second-guess the whole scientific endeavor because you know it contradicts your religious dogma. I don't fault you or them for what you choose to believe, but you creationists should all be ashamed of yourselves for the dishonest and underhanded tactics you keep trying to use to force your views on other people's children.

Haaa. ...it seems like that is a talking point straight from a couple atheist sites I looked at.

Your representation of the bill is quite dishonest.
As you have already been told teachers are still required to teach the curriculum. They are not allowed to teach religion.

Here is example of things such as false info in textbooks which might be discussed. (which I previosly posted.)

This article (http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Document.../25_1_Kuhn.pdf) describes three serious problems with Darwinian evolution in a paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism" for the school's medical proceedings. The paper discusses how incorrect information is still in many textbooks and many teachers don't understand they are teaching outdated and false information, such as...

1. The improbabilities of chemical origins of life, and the failure of the Miller Urey experiment.

2.The non scientific beliefs that IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF CELLULAR SYSTEMS can happen through mutation and natural selection.

3. The poor evidence of transitional forms. Students should be shown how evolutionists have attempted to prop up the theory with fraudulent fossils, interpretations and drawings such as the fake embryo drawings by Harckel that were used in textbooks for 100 years even though it was a known fraud.

Conclusion from the article...
"Th e Texas State Board of Education guidelines do not propose
teaching any other alternatives to Darwinian evolution.
Rather, the students of tomorrow and teachers of today should appropriately recognize that there are weaknesses that have been pointed out by reasonable scientists. In this dissection of Darwinism, we have cut into the weaknesses of the fossil evidence
for human evolution, the failure of the fossil data to
demonstrate substantial transition species, and the awareness of
the sudden formation of most species in a short window of time,with no significant subsequent variation...... "

 

[The Barbarian]

This article (http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Document.../25_1_Kuhn.pdf) describes three serious problems with Darwinian evolution in a paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism" for the school's medical proceedings. The paper discusses how incorrect information is still in many textbooks and many teachers don't understand they are teaching outdated and false information, such as...

And here we go again...

1. The improbabilities of chemical origins of life, and the failure of the Miller Urey experiment.

And our earnest young pseudoscientists make their first error. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Darwin, for example, just thought that God made the first living things, but made no claims about how. And it wouldn't matter to evolutionary theory.

So your guys are immediately tagged as ignoramuses, criticizing something they don't even understand.

2.The non scientific beliefs that IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF CELLULAR SYSTEMS can happen through mutation and natural selection.

Barry Hall, in an experiment with bacteria, documented the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. So that's refuted by actual example.

3. The poor evidence of transitional forms.

That's a testable claim. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if we can find a transitional. Every creationist I've ever challenged on this has cut and run. You want to be the first to stand up and face it?

Students should be shown how evolutionists have attempted to prop up the theory with fraudulent fossils, interpretations and drawings such as the fake embryo drawings by Harckel that were used in textbooks for 100 years even though it was a known fraud.

Creationists were infuriated when textbooks dropped the drawings and instead put in actual photographs. Which showed the same things. Would you like to learn about that?

Ironically, the TEA, by trying this dodge, increased the number of science teachers explaining evolution in public schools. They are back at the drawing board, trying to find something that is legal and effective. Which is like trying to develop an theory of YE creationism that is both creationism and science.

It's like watching a walrus try to pick a padlock.

 

[6days]

This article (http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Document.../25_1_Kuhn.pdf) describes three serious problems with Darwinian evolution in a paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism" for the school's medical proceedings. The paper discusses how incorrect information is still in many textbooks and many teachers don't understand they are teaching outdated and false information, such as...

1. The improbabilities of chemical origins of life, and the failure of the Miller Urey experiment.

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Aw you have been shown before, many evolutionists connect the dots.

If the Miller Urey experiment is used to say the "building blocks of life" can be created or formed spontaneously. .... then teachers should also be able to show the impossibility of life arising spontaneously.

So your guys are immediately tagged as ignoramuses, criticizing something they don't even understand.

Or..... perhaps you get upset and call people names who want the freedom to discuss opposing views in science?

2.The non scientific beliefs that IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF CELLULAR SYSTEMS can happen through mutation and natural selection.

Barry Hall, in an experiment with bacteria, documented the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. So that's refuted by actual example.*

Like the Miller Urey experiment, the Barry Hall experiment was nothing close to what ssome have claimed.

Its fine to present students with the Hall experiment... but then don't censure information exposing the exagerated claims.

3. The poor evidence of transitional forms.

That's a testable claim. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if we can find a transitional.

You can claim anything is transitional but its your belief system. .. it is not science.

If you want to discuss transitionals in a classroom, then the students should have the freedom to discuss other intetpretations of the evidence.....including the "poor evidence of transitional forms".

Students should be shown how evolutionists have attempted to prop up the theory with fraudulent fossils, interpretations and drawings such as the fake embryo drawings by Harckel that were used in textbooks for 100 years even though it was a known fraud.

Creationists were infuriated when textbooks dropped the drawings and instead put in actual photographs. Which showed the same things. Would you like to learn about that?

If you wish to discuss how Haeckels fraud was used in textbooks to prop up evolutionism, then of course you should be able to discuss creationist viewpoints. (But I thought you were opposed to discussing creationist viewpoints?)

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by 6days

describes three serious problems with Darwinian evolution in a paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism" for the school's medical proceedings. The paper discusses how incorrect information is still in many textbooks and many teachers don't understand they are teaching outdated and false information, such as...

First strawman:
1. The improbabilities of chemical origins of life, and the failure of the Miller Urey experiment.

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Aw you have been shown before, many evolutionists connect the dots.

Nonsense. As you learned, even Darwin just suggested that God created the first living things.

(more stuff about the origin of life)

I don't blame you for trying to change the subject. It's tough arguing against evolution.

Barbarian chuckles:
So your guys are immediately tagged as ignoramuses, criticizing something they don't even understand.

Or..... perhaps you get upset and call people names who want the freedom to discuss opposing views in science?

No, I'm merely pointing out that they don't even know what the theory is about. That's what an "ignoramus" is. If they want to criticize a theory, they should learn what it says.

2.The non scientific beliefs that IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF CELLULAR SYSTEMS can happen through mutation and natural selection.

Barbarian observes:
Barry Hall, in an experiment with bacteria, documented the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. So that's refuted by actual example.*

Like the Miller Urey experiment, the Barry Hall experiment was nothing close to what ssome have claimed.

What it did show was a new enzyme system that also evolved a regulator, meaning that all three of the components had to be present for the system to work. That's Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity."

Its fine to present students with the Hall experiment... but then don't censure information exposing the exagerated claims.

I notice that you didn't provide any "information." We all know why.

3. The poor evidence of transitional forms.

Barbarian suggests:
That's a testable claim. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if we can find a transitional. So far, every creationist I've challenged on this has cut and run. Maybe you'll be the first to step up and answer it.

You can claim anything is transitional but its your belief system. .. it is not science.

Pity. I really thought you might have enough confidence in your belief to test it.

If you want to discuss transitionals in a classroom, then the students should have the freedom to discuss other intetpretations of the evidence.....including the "poor evidence of transitional forms".

And creation fairies. Don't forget those. Or is it that you have to have some kind of evidence to make it science? If you can't even show us one example of missing transitionals, isn't that a clue about the supposed "poor evidence?"

Students should be shown how evolutionists have attempted to prop up the theory with fraudulent fossils, interpretations and drawings such as the fake embryo drawings by Harckel that were used in textbooks for 100 years even though it was a known fraud.

Barbarian observes:
Creationists were infuriated when textbooks dropped the drawings and instead put in actual photographs. Which showed the same things. Would you like to learn about that?

If you wish to discuss how Haeckels fraud was used in textbooks to prop up evolutionism, then of course you should be able to discuss creationist viewpoints.

Science classes aren't the place for religion. It's legal to have creationism, and ID taught in comparative religion courses, of course. But as you know, modern textbooks use actual photographs. Haeckel was wrong about recapitulation, of course. We don't become fish, then lizards and so on, in our development, but the same tissues that form gill arches in fish become jaws and other structures in tetrapods. They aren't the same thing any longer, but our development is constrained by what went on before.

Why it works like this is a complete mystery to creationists, but it's quite understandable in evolution.

You might want to reconsider my challenge. It might be interesting. There are still a few cases for which we haven't found major transitionals yet. You might get lucky. Think about it.

 

[6days]

Here is example of things such as false info in textbooks which might be discussed. (which I previosly posted.)
This article (http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Document.../25_1_Kuhn.pdf) describes three serious problems with Darwinian evolution in a paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism" for the school's medical proceedings. The paper discusses how incorrect information is still in many textbooks and many teachers don't understand they are teaching outdated and false information, such as...
1. The improbabilities of chemical origins of life, and the failure of the Miller Urey experiment.

No, I'm merely pointing out that they don't even know what the theory is about. That's what an "ignoramus" is. If they want to criticize a theory, they should learn what it says.*

If the Miller Urey experiment is mentioned along with 'the building blocks of life', then students should have the academic freedom to discuss "the improbabilities of chemical origins of life, and the failure of the Miller Urey experiment."

2.The non scientific beliefs that IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF CELLULAR SYSTEMS can happen through mutation and natural selection.

Barry Hall, in an experiment with bacteria, documented the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. So that's refuted by actual example.

Its fine to present students with the Hall experiment... but then don't censure information exposing the exagerated claims.

I notice that you didn't provide any "information." We all know why.

We all know that if claims are made in the classroom that students should have the freedom to test and discuss the claims

3. The poor evidence of transitional forms.

And creation fairies. Don't forget those. Or is it that you have to have some kind of evidence to make it science? If you can't even show us one example of missing transitionals, isn't that a clue about the supposed "poor evidence?"

If a teacher states there are no missing transitionals, students should have the academic freedom to challenge that faith based belief system. They should have the freedom to look at statements from evolutionists who say fossils show 'evolution' happened slow and gradual...They should examine validity of evolutiinists who claim fossils show 'evolution' happened rapidly and in bursts. And they should have the freedom to examine claims from scientists who claim 'evolution' did not happen at all.*

Haeckel was wrong about recapitulation, of course. We don't become fish, then lizards and so on, in our development, but the same tissues that form gill arches in fish become jaws and other structures in tetrapods. They aren't the same thing any longer....

Those and other false beliefs have Haeckels should be discussed. For example Haeckel called the Austrailian aboriginees an animal. As a result Tasmanians were slaughtered, justified by evolutionary beliefs that they were non humans. Tasmanians. Many of these people were stuffed and placed in museums as a missing link.

Sad end to that story, and to the Tasmanians. The last surviving Tasmanian woman (Truganini) asked that when she died, that she be buried with her ancestors. However.... she too was stuffed and used in a museum display to promote evolutionary beliefs.

 

[The Barbarian]

So what do we do with evolutionists? Are we going to fire 75% of public school teachers?

And the gravitationists? And the electricists? And all the rest? Your agenda is showing.

Or, are we willing to allow a discussion of competing ideas in the classroom?

So you're O.K. with Wiccan claims being taught as science? Seriously? Once you open the door to your new doctrines, anything goes.

You're an adult, presumably with at least high school education. You have no way of (for example) evaluating the issue of transitionals in the fossil record. Do you think the statistical and anatomical evidence is something that a high school student might be able to do?

No, everyone knows that this is just another attempt to force your new religion into public schools. Who hates academic freedom?

Here's a way to check that:
Stephen Gould himself willingly took on a PhD candidate he knew to be a YE creationist. Consider that and then apply to the Institute for Creation Research graduate school without making a pledge of loyalty to creationism.

Who hates academic freedom? Creationists. When they had the power, they banned teaching of evolution. Now that they don't have it any more, they try to censor ideas by stealth. It's their religion.

 

[6days]

Science curricula absolutely does make "statements." They may not be scientifically sound statements, but statements are made nonetheless.

For example,Physics for You A science resource used in public school systems makes the following "statement" regarding the age of the universe and the nature of the "big bang":

“By measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe as it is now, astronomers can calculate that the big bang was about 12,000 million years ago!”​

That is a statement that assumes at least three HIGHLY debatable variables.

First, it assumes that the big bang happened, this is purely theoretical.
Second, it assumes that we are accurately measuring the rate of the expansion of the universe (an assumption that does not enjoy unanimity). Third, it assumes that the rate of expansion has always been constant (another unproven and unprovable theory). Fourth, the methodology is challenged even today as the most recent estimate according to the Lambda CDM model is 13.8 Billion not 12 Billion.

A student giving the "textbook" answer would be be approx 1.8 Billion years off (give or take the +/- 37 million years).

:chuckle:

I do think it is highly amusing that there is a plus or minus of a mere 37 million years.

It just goes to show how little confidence we actually have in our interpretation of the cosmological data.


Why don't you tell us, specifically what criteria scientific creationism must meet in order to be considered a "scientifically postulated theory?"


Yes it is. It takes the observations of the appearance of design and concludes that what looks designed, looks designed because it was designed.

That's not all that far of an intellectual leap now is it?


Which religion?

If you are going to charge people with trying to sneak their religious through the back door of the science department at the public school then you are going to have to be more specific and tell us which particular religion you think the creationists want to be dogmatically taught.


You are just wrong here. You are mindlessly parroting the party line.
What makes you think that the notion that all life on earth came from some single celled organism that spontaneously generated from the primordial soup isn't mythology?

What experiments have duplicated abiogenesis PureX?

I'll save you some research.

The answer is 0.


This is false.

Even the most ardent atheists and committed macro-evolutionist will admit that the both life on earth and the physical world appear designed. One must actually deny "observable" reality in order to believe what can't be observed (such as abiogenesis) in order to believe macro-evolution.

]

Hey Dialogos.... Appreciate that even though you and I disagree on many things, that you still believe students should be allowed to discuss opposing views. Nice to see not all evolutionists believe in cencureship.