Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
piasan

In One Science Classroom

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, piasan said:

Correct

Quite surprised you said that the idea of the common single ancestor has been discarded. Where are you getting this from ?

Why do you think there are multiple origins for life given the commonality of the DNA code ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

There shouldn't be such a silencing of the opposition, and the opposition is NOT only creationists but a fairly large group of people including creationists, and many of them are very knowledgeable and educated and know what they are talking about.

Speaking of the situation in public schools only.....

The history of the issue in the United States clearly shows it was the creationists who used the power of law to silence the opposition.  There were at least four states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Mississippi) who passed laws banning the teaching of evolution.  In 1987, Louisiana enacted a law requiring the teaching of creationism when evolution was taught.   I don't know about the other states, but in 1968, the Attorney General of Arkansas testified to the Supreme Court that the mere mention of evolution was a violation of the law.

No state has ever passed a law banning the teaching of creationism or creation science.

 

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

It's that the establishment basically makes out any contrary argument does not exist which is repulsive. The whole, "no argument in science" card is also a MOOT point because the point is you can make strong non-scientific arguments or partially science arguments as to why the truth is NOT natural.

There are all kinds of arguments in science and I don't hesitate to bring them up.

In my science class, you may take your non-science arguments down the hall to the philosophy or theology departments.

 

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Anatomy in and of itself is basically an insight into the design in lifeforms, anatomists will usually have no problem alluding to design simply because design is what they are looking at. That in itself is genuine science, the design of life is factual. 

As I've pointed out, ID is good philosophy but not really a matter of science.  In terms of teaching ID in a public school science class in the United States ..... that's not going to happen any time soon.

A school district in Dover, PA tried to introduce ID in their library.   It became a legal case (Kitzmiller v Dover) and the ruling was that ID is not (currently) valid science.   The Dover district ran up over $1 million in legal bills.  No district is going to take that kind of risk to teach ID.  

There are two paths for ID into the US science classroom.... (1) get ID accepted as science or (2) get a state (with deeper pockets) to mandate teaching ID and win a multi-million dollar court fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wibble said:

Quite surprised you said that the idea of the common single ancestor has been discarded. Where are you getting this from ?

One of those things I read .... I don't recall where but it was a trustworthy source.

And it wasn't that the single ancestor idea was discarded but that there was evidence of multiple ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piasan said:

Does explaining there are some things science will never solve and all proposals for the origin of life are speculative from a scientific standpoint count?

45 minutes ago, what if said:

yes, if you give specific examples.

 

I give two specific  examples.... the origin of the universe and the origin of life.  

It's not like I'm going to spend a lot of time on subjects I'm not going to cover.

 

51 minutes ago, what if said:

why do you believe abiogenesis will not be solved?

are you going to say something like it's impossible to determine the conditions or are you going to say there appears to be an irreducible quality to the cell?

I just don't think we'll ever figure out how all of the chemistry came together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, piasan said:

I just don't think we'll ever figure out how all of the chemistry came together.

apparently science has ruled out the pond of goo scenario.

it's ruled out amino acids as the starting point.

every hypothesis science has advanced has failed.

another thing in this regard is we have the cell to work from, it's a simple matter to determine its exact makeup.

for example one of your cells.

we take one of your cells, determine the molecular makeup, then synthesize those molecules in exact proportion, then put them all together inside a pre-existing cellular membrane.

do you think science has already tried that?

it isn't that we don't know what the cell is made of, it isn't we don't know how it works, it's the fact we can't duplicate it.

this type of thing cannot be applied to such things as the universe, simply because we can't get it inside a test tube.

there is more to this than simply not knowing the conditions, the cell employs concepts that are utterly impossible to explain by happenstance.

you are correct, science follows rules and laws, and i believe its those very things that science has run up against in the matter of abiogenesis. IOW abiogenesis CANNOT be explain by the rules and laws of chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, piasan said:

I give two specific  examples.... the origin of the universe and the origin of life.  

It's not like I'm going to spend a lot of time on subjects I'm not going to cover.

 

I just don't think we'll ever figure out how all of the chemistry came together.

"I just don't think we'll ever figure out how all of the chemistry came together."

Spoken like a true Atheist.. Sometimes that mask slips just a little, LOL...   

OOPS... (Sorry Mike I promise to behave! I think the only way I will able to do that however is to bow out gracefully from this painful trainwreck of a Thread... Over and OUT!

 

ATHEISTS LAUGH AT OVAL EARTHERS

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”  “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist


"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’
earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. 
Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth,



"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity,
 with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—
the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).

 

"The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.'" Frank Zindler

 

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, piasan said:

The history of the issue in the United States clearly shows it was the creationists who used the power of law to silence the opposition...No state has ever passed a law banning the teaching of creationism or creation science..............................No district is going to take that kind of risk to teach ID.  

I don't think you quite got the context of what I was saying Pi, all over the west it is mandatory that children and teens are taught that human beings are apes and are descended from apes. (depending on what evolspeak is in vogue, given in the noughts I wasn't allowed to mention the term, "ape" but you had to say, "ape-like" for everything. Lol)

So when I say, "silencing", that is what I am referring to, that the arguments against evolution are not part of the science curriculum. 

So when you say creationists are the ones to ban evolution, you do realise that in 95% or more of schools in the west there would be no attempt to teach anything contrary to evolution? So in terms of percentages you would be BLOWING UP/INFLATING, a truly tiny percentage of the cases.

In reality creationists are so few by proportion that the majority of all schools would have no challenge to evolution. 

No, but rather the silencing of creation or anything, "not" evolution is that there is no mention of any opposing argument in that their tactic is to simply not mention anything non-evolution, and this is WIDESPREAD.

No, what I am talking about is how "science" in schools, should operate. 

That's why I mentioned the big questions of life. You miss the main theme of what I am saying. I am saying that for ALL of human history human beings because they are different to animals, have asked the big questions of life such as, "why are we here?" or, "does God exist?" etc, etc.....so what I am saying is that evolution is the only, "science" to IMPOSE itself upon that aspect, in that it is basically declaring that a natural cause exists which answers those philosophical, religious questions. 

So when you say, "go down the hall and teach it in philosophy", but that is the very point! Evolution is IMPOSING it's natural philosophy onto students where gravity does not. Exotic air does not. Forces do not. The periodic table does not, the melting points of various elements does not, and so on, and so on.

So I am saying that evolution should be PRESENTED not in isolation, because presenting it so is to silence those big questions and basically brain wash individuals into thinking that the natural philosophy you have to assume in order to believe such theories as evolutionogenesis, is factual. 

Conclusion: Let's not pretend the war is with the tiny few creationists that are in a position of power, (Bubba and his mates). No, but rather the natural philosophy that we descended from slime, where a blobecule invented itself, THAT simply has to be defined as, "science", and the job of silencing any opposition, is already achieved!

THAT, is widespread, Pi, and you know it!

For example are the students taught that forces or germs or exotic air don't depend on any philosophical beliefs or assumptions such as GRANTING evolution's ancestor a scientific cause which does not exist?

They should be told why evolution is different, because evolution incorporates a naturalist philosophy/ atheist belief, that plainly miraculously designed things with all of the factual features of design contained therein invented themselves by a science-fiction event called, "abiogenesis".

Do you tell them that?

Is there such a belief with germ theory for example, or oxygenated air? If we seal a rat under a dome and it passes out do we need to believe in some fantastic story for example, in order for the experiment to work? what experiment could ever show an anatomy design itself by evolution, as evolution claims? Yet the creationist claims that you get devolution by natural selection is easy to be proven. Reversion to the mean is easily proven, and breeders could tell you that themselves.

But what science is there that shows the ancestors for the intermediates of insect-wings, bats, pterodactyls, pterosaurs? There is none, because such facts don't exist. Do you tell them you have to believe by faith those intermediates exist? That is the honest thing to do!

Arguably the, "philosophy" part of evolution is greater than any science contained therein. Largely evolution is a circumstantial case, if it wasn't for the HEAT it gets from the knowledge of what it does for atheism, and if it had no bearing on the big questions of life then likely more than half of the scientists would regard it as untenably tenuous, indeed too tenuous to be even counted as science, given you have to assume a scientific cause for the ultimate ancestor, and the tree Darwin predicted is not there, and it turned out to be a lawn instead.

These critical-thinking objections are not even technically, "creationist", they simply teach the null hypothesis of evolution, which is the conclusion of, "NOT evolution".

That is what I was saying, that there are a whole bunch of people, not just creationists alone, that have a whole bunch of intelligent objections to evolution theory but you won't see any of that in textbooks. No but what we did see in textbooks for decades was fraudulent attempts to prop up evolution such as Haeckel's fraudulent drawings. 

But any teaching whatsoever such as how to critically analyse evolution? Not a mention!

THESE are the things I was talking about Piasan, not some simple war with a few schools that Bubba and his mates got involved in. I was talking about the INTELLECTUAL HIJACKING of thought by natural philosophy imposed upon modernity by evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, what if said:

i believe those that teach evolution to grade and high schoolers should tell students evolution hasn't been solved to everyones satisfaction and that there are certain critical aspects of evolution that can't in principle be solved.

the idea that all life came from a single ancestor for example.

the emergence of life from accretion of biomolecules in a pond of goo is another.

these 2 ideas must be explained to students before evolution is taught to them.

IOW, teach students the truth.

i don't see why creationists get all worked up about this, i have found NOTHING that outright discounts the god scenario.

i find it telling indeed that given the vast strides science has made over the years, it still hasn't dethroned god as creator of both life and the universe.

I appreciate this post. But let's face it, you would be in the, "silence him", group like I am in. I think you know that deep down.

After all, I think it was, the member "Tangle" on EvC forum that thought you were a creationist.

And that is the very point I am making! That it is a portion of atheists DEPICTING reality falsely. That the debate is even seen as, "science versus religion" just goes to show how effective the propaganda has been from atheists, in their silent assassination of any opposition.

Even anyone on the fence like you is burnt at the stake as a creationist-witch, metaphorically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

After all, I think it was, the member "Tangle" on EvC forum that thought you were a creationist.

 

i've been discussing evolution online for about, i dunno, 15 or so years.

you wouldn't believe the nonsense i've had to endure.

i've been outright denied posting some of my evidence, especially that from koonin, i've had posts deleted, i've been banned (more than once), i've been called a closet creationist, a creationist, i've been told i was uneducated, i didn't understand evolution, i quote mined, the authors of my papers didn't mean to say what they said, etc, etc.

some of those sites were so called religious sites.

so yeah, i understand completely what a creationist faces, it's one of the reasons i defend them, another important reason is the fact that they have said some things about evolution that proved true.

what really alerted me to the shadiness of evolution was what ayala said in an issue of "science". the more i uncovered about this quote the more suspicious i became. i was finally able to determine the alleged "retraction" by ayala was entirely bogus.

it was then that i realized evolution as i knew it was a sham.

Quote

That the debate is even seen as, "science versus religion" just goes to show how effective the propaganda has been from atheists . . .

i believe science is shooting itself in the foot by this approach.

most scientists will welcome ways to prove their hypothesis and theories wrong.

but you are correct, if it alludes to ID then it is either flat out removed or reworded to downplay the meaning.

i think the major reason this happens is that no one can put their finger on what this intelligence is.

creationist will immediately say "it's god you dumbtard !"

unfortunately, in science, you have to demonstrate your reasoning.

this is the major problem with god and science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 7:49 PM, what if said:

you are correct, science follows rules and laws, and i believe its those very things that science has run up against in the matter of abiogenesis. IOW abiogenesis CANNOT be explain by the rules and laws of chemistry.

The same is true of the Big Bang ..... but we digress from what is being taught in the classroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Blitzking said:

Pi wrote:   "I just don't think we'll ever figure out how all of the chemistry came together."

Spoken like a true Atheist.. science teacher ..... 

Fixed it for ya, Blitz.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

I don't think you quite got the context of what I was saying Pi, all over the west it is mandatory that children and teens are taught that human beings are apes and are descended from apes. (depending on what evolspeak is in vogue, given in the noughts I wasn't allowed to mention the term, "ape" but you had to say, "ape-like" for everything. Lol)

So when I say, "silencing", that is what I am referring to, that the arguments against evolution are not part of the science curriculum. 

So when you say creationists are the ones to ban evolution, you do realise that in 95% or more of schools in the west there would be no attempt to teach anything contrary to evolution? So in terms of percentages you would be BLOWING UP/INFLATING, a truly tiny percentage of the cases.

OK .... I understand your point.  

In 95% or more of the schools in the west, there isn't enough time to adequately cover the material for just about anything in a science class.   I didn't even get to evolution until the end of the year.   Once "Spring Break" happens in mid-March, it gets really difficult to move forward because of state mandated testing and extracurricular activities.  It wasn't unusual for me to miss entire chapters on evolution.

I would still argue that when I was told that if I wanted to teach at that school the following year, I wouldn't teach that "evolution crap" that's a blatant example of an attempt to "silence" the teaching of evolution that I personally experienced.   Not too long after that happened, the National Science Teacher's Association published a survey of science teachers that found nearly a third of them avoided teaching evolution because of such pressure.  Nearly a third much more than "a truly tiny percentage of the cases."

 

20 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

In reality creationists are so few by proportion that the majority of all schools would have no challenge to evolution. 

No, but rather the silencing of creation or anything, "not" evolution is that there is no mention of any opposing argument in that their tactic is to simply not mention anything non-evolution, and this is WIDESPREAD.

No, what I am talking about is how "science" in schools, should operate.

Understand .... I don't have time to cover mainstream science adequately.  I'm certainly not going to go into various "fringe" proposals.

How science in schools actually operates varies widely based on locality.   IOW, just because teachers KNOW the rules doesn't mean they FOLLOW them.  In this part of the country I've had teachers tell me they invite their minister to their class to teach creation after they cover evolution.  I've been told by teachers they won't teach evolution at all.  At least one said he teaches creation anyway.

And what I'm talking about is how science is taught "in one science classroom."

20 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

That's why I mentioned the big questions of life. You miss the main theme of what I am saying. I am saying that for ALL of human history human beings because they are different to animals, have asked the big questions of life such as, "why are we here?" or, "does God exist?" etc, etc.....so what I am saying is that evolution is the only, "science" to IMPOSE itself upon that aspect, in that it is basically declaring that a natural cause exists which answers those philosophical, religious questions. 

It's not the job of biology or a biology teacher to answer "the big questions of life."  Those philosophical and religious questions are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.  If they come up I explain the limitations of science and tell my students they should be discussing those matters with their parents and pastor, not me.

 

20 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

They should be told why evolution is different, because evolution incorporates a naturalist philosophy/ atheist belief, that plainly miraculously designed things with all of the factual features of design contained therein invented themselves by a science-fiction event called, "abiogenesis".

Do you tell them that?

First, I tell them we will NOT discuss "abiogenesis" because all proposals regarding it are speculative from a scientific standpoint.

With respect to evolution = atheism ....  the logical error should be glaringly obvious to you, Mike.   I have had students ask how I can believe in both God and evolution. The conversation goes like:

  • Student:  How can you believe in God and evolution?
  • Me:   What can an all powerful God do?
  • Student:   Whatever He wants.
  • Me:  <not a word, just>  :dono:  (That has always ended the discussion.)

 

20 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

But what science is there that shows the ancestors for the intermediates of insect-wings, bats, pterodactyls, pterosaurs? There is none, because such facts don't exist. Do you tell them you have to believe by faith those intermediates exist? That is the honest thing to do!

What you describe as intermediates is different from what are classified as intermediates.  They're covered in about a half of one class.  Speciation, on the other hand gets 2 or 3 days.

I do point out the fossil record is highly fragmented and much is inferred.  Mention is also made that if an apparent intermediate is found, it creates a gap on each side.

 

20 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

That is what I was saying, that there are a whole bunch of people, not just creationists alone, that have a whole bunch of intelligent objections to evolution theory but you won't see any of that in textbooks. No but what we did see in textbooks for decades was fraudulent attempts to prop up evolution such as Haeckel's fraudulent drawings.

Teachers don't get to write the textbooks.    They do, however, overrule the textbook with considerable regularity.   I don't recall a single class I've taught that I didn't overrule the text several times.  I've asked my students and they tell me it isn't unusual in other classes either .... especially math and science.   And I remember when I was a student, teachers would often update or correct the text.

It's a bit off topic, but the weirdest textbook glitch I ever saw was in a geometry class I taught.  About a third of the students missed the answer with the same mistake.  When going over the problems after handing the students paper back, they asked me to work that problem so I did.   One of the students said I had added parentheses.  I checked my book and the parentheses were there.  Checked books of a couple students and they had parentheses.   Then I looked at that student's book and there were no parentheses.  It turned out about a third of the books had no parentheses.   Same text, same edition, same ISBN, same publication date, same page, same problem number, same problem (except for the parentheses), two different answers.   (I just gave everyone extra points for the problem.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, piasan said:

The same is true of the Big Bang ..... but we digress from what is being taught in the classroom.

although this is true, it's an incorrect analogy.

we do not know the starting material of the universe.

we know for a fact that the starting material of life HAD to be the chemical elements.

you are refusing to acknowledge that the cell possesses a irreducible quality for some reason, why is that piasan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, piasan said:

In 95% or more of the schools in the west, there isn't enough time to adequately cover the material for just about anything in a science class.

this is a cop out.

how much time does it take to say "evolution is rife with frauds, deceits, incorrect claims, and unproven hypothesis"?

OTOH, i understand at the time frame in question you might not have been aware of the problem.

science has learned more about evolution in the last 15 years than in the preceding 150.

some of this knowledge has been "kept secret" for almost 80 years.

why?

simply because it was a direct threat to the "progressive slow gradual accumulation" view of what evolution was assumed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, piasan said:

Understand .... I don't have time to cover mainstream science adequately.  I'm certainly not going to go into various "fringe" proposals.

45 minutes ago, what if said:

this is a cop out.

how much time does it take to say "evolution is rife with frauds, deceits, incorrect claims, and unproven hypothesis"?

 

About the same amount of time it takes to say:  "Creation science is rife with frauds, deceits, incorrect claims, and unproven hypotheses."   But I don't say that either.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, piasan said:

About the same amount of time it takes to say:  "Creation science is rife with frauds, deceits, incorrect claims, and unproven hypotheses."   But I don't say that either.

another incorrect analogy.

this is supposed to be a science classroom, not a religious one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms