Originally posted by underfeltID and creationism are obscurantism, not science.
one last time for the hard of hearing.
(or maybe you could pretend i don't understand)
Do you have a point or do you wish us to continue this spamming? If you wish, just come to the Spirituality thread with your ideas. I'll be waiting.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaMy point, perhaps a little too subtley put, was just that if you have more knowledge you can make your own mind up. I thought that was fairly clear. You'll also note on reread that I did not suggest that either one was science, in fact i deliberately suggested that perhaps they should not be taught as truth.
ID and creationism are obscurantism, not science.
Do you have a point or do you wish us to continue this spamming? If you wish, just come to the Spirituality thread with your ideas. I'll be waiting.
What i don't understand, once again perhaps too subtlely conveyed, is firstly what "ID" is, and secondly why because they are not science they should not be taught.
Originally posted by underfeltID is Intelligent Design. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your posts, but your "come again?" sounded like a "what are you babbling about?", hence my defensiveness.
My point, perhaps a little too subtley put, was just that if you have more knowledge you can make your own mind up. I thought that was fairly clear. You'll also note on reread that I did not suggest that either one was science, in fact i deliberately suggested that perhaps they should not be taught as truth.
What i don't understand, once again perhaps ...[text shortened]... firstly what "ID" is, and secondly why because they are not science they should not be taught.
They are not science because there is no evidence put forth to support their claims that does not come from religious texts. Defence of their theories is made only through attack on other theories, not on any evidence found outside religious texts.
This is very important, Nobody can claim that ID is right, simply by denying TOE (theory of evolution). It's a classical non-sequitur fallacy:
If ID is right then TOE is wrong.
If TOE is wrong, then ID is right.
ID and creationism should not be taught for the simple reason that a religious group is trying to push interpretations of a religious text as science. This is dangerous and a form of obscurantism, in my opinion.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSo then we shouldn't study history or culture then either? Just science?
ID is Intelligent Design. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your posts, but your "come again?" sounded like a "what are you babbling about?", hence my defensiveness.
They are not science because there is no evidence put forth to support their claims that does not come from religious texts. Defence of their theories is made only through attack on other th ...[text shortened]... ons of a religious text as science. This is dangerous and a form of obscurantism, in my opinion.
Let's help you learn something new here, Palynka:
http://www.littleexplorers.com/Tisfor.shtml
Scroll down to where is says "Teach"
"When you teach someone, they learn something."
It doesn't say, when you teach someone, they become gullible braindead idiots. Should we not learn about Aristotle because he hypothesized that the earth is the centre of the universe?
Originally posted by hopscotchObvious strawman.
So then we shouldn't study history or culture then either? Just science?
Let's help you learn something new here, Palynka:
http://www.littleexplorers.com/Tisfor.shtml
Scroll down to where is says "Teach"
"When you teach someone, they learn something."
It doesn't say, when you teach someone, they become gullible braindead idiots. Shou ...[text shortened]... not learn about Aristotle because he hypothesized that the earth is the centre of the universe?
Originally posted by Palynkafair enough - but do you not think that creationism is a valuable topic to be taught in schools along with general religious education (once again, not presented as truth/science) as a way of helping people understand what, why and how other people experience the world?
ID is Intelligent Design. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your posts, but your "come again?" sounded like a "what are you babbling about?", hence my defensiveness.
They are not science because there is no evidence put forth to support their claims that does not come from religious texts. Defence of their theories is made only through attack on other th ...[text shortened]... ons of a religious text as science. This is dangerous and a form of obscurantism, in my opinion.
Originally posted by underfeltIf it is taught as part of a religious doctrine I obviously have no problem with that. I am fairly tolerant religiously.
fair enough - but do you not think that creationism is a valuable topic to be taught in schools along with general religious education (once again, not presented as truth/science) as a way of helping people understand what, why and how other people experience the world?
But to teach ID/creationism as an alternative to the TOE is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. Like I said:
Originally posted by Palynka
ID and creationism should not be taught for the simple reason that a religious group is trying to push interpretations of a religious text as science. This is dangerous and a form of obscurantism, in my opinion.
But please remember that there are many Christians who deny young earth theories and accept evolution, yet they are still creationists. My only problem is with the creationists that go as far as to deny evolution.
Originally posted by dylScience must be:
.....Sorry?
1. Observable
2. Repeatable
3. Failiable
Faliable of course meaning it can be proved false given a certain scenario. Example: If cars suddenly began floating, the scientific force called gravity would be in severe question. If the moon started flying away from the earth, the theory of relativity would be challenged. The thing is, no amount of evidence will change evolution believers from their views, even if they have to change the 'theory' a little, it will still be evolution.
What part of evolution fits any of these three? It's a belief, like creation. There is the geological and biological (both sciences) evidence for AND against it, but the theory of evolution cannot be science.
3 edits
Originally posted by CoconutEdited: Sorry, not all. Repeatable is not a condition for a scientific theory. It needs to make predicitions that could be proven wrong in the future, that is sufficient.
What part of evolution fits any of these three?
Edit 2: Sufficient for the purpose that you wrote repeatable.