swordcane
Junior Member
~quappuccino~
Posts: 116 
|
Post by swordcane on Oct 7, 2007 1:57:24 GMT -5
which could be solved by presenting theories as theories instead of fact Please refer to my comment about average use of the word "theory" vs scientific use of the word "theory". Evolution is not a "theory" meaning "guess", it's a "theory" meaning that it's a model based on facts, laws, evidence, research, etc. In science, a theory (scientific usuage) can absolutely be a fact. Edited to add, this is the last I will say in this thread, I have no time for straw man arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 2:11:21 GMT -5
it's your argument about the scientific and common definition of what a theory is that is a "straw man" argument.... why not deal with creationism according to the scientific definition of what a "theory" is....would make an excellent demonstration for the kids, would it not? The OCR board admitted that a biology course due to be introduced in September encourages schools to consider alternative views to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Its new “Gateway to Science” curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised. It then asks teachers to “explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (eg creationist interpretation)”. OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, said that the syllabus was intended to make students aware of scientific controversy.
A spokeswoman for OCR said: “Candidates need to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin. Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence.”
John Noel, OCR’s science qualifications manager, told The Times Educational Supplement: “It is simply looking at one particular example of how scientific interpretation changes over time.
“The history of scientific ideas not only has a legitimate place in science lessons, it is a requirement of the new programme of study.” www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article739487.ecehonestly, it's much ado about nothing....if evolution holds up against creationism, as you all claim, what is the problem? peace |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 4:47:26 GMT -5
****smh,  **** you are basing your argument that the religious are trying to impose their beliefs on others in UK schools on a guesstimate by a single source.... that's hardly proof of a theory, whatever your definition of it is.... so, you are only proving that you are willing to believe what Reiss says - and even he admits it's an "estimate"...which makes him more logical and rational than you who's trying to claim " That is has happened is beyond dispute" and " In fact the lower the number of believers, the worse the transgression for imposing their beliefs on others" even tho NOWHERE in the article does Reiss claim anyone is trying to impose their beliefs on others.... talk about leaping to conclusions not supported by evidence in the BBCNews.com article or any other source in this thread: so Reiss says his "1 out 10" figure is an "estimate" and you claim it " is beyond dispute" that " the worse the transgression for imposing their beliefs on others"... or that " Many religions, by their very nature want to interfere with everything and in cases such as this become catalysts for spreading ignorance" (first post, first page)..... which brings me back to my point: aren't you as prone to jump to conclusions based on assumptions and beliefs that cannot be proven as the literal creationists are? in other words, your judgment on what is evidence and what is not appears...not very sound, innit? personally, i don't see what's wrong about teaching the history of science, which would include the theory of creationism......as part of Science class, or separately in a History of Scientific Theory or History of Science class...don't see what difference it would make.... but i think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.... this thread and the abject inability of the people advocating to keep any mention of creationism out of science classes to see that the "evidence" is based on a guesstimate...has been amusing! y'all did notice Reiss is a CofE priest too, didn't you? - talk about taking a religious man on his word....lol peace |
|
|
|
Post by long on Oct 7, 2007 5:21:16 GMT -5
miaim, before deciding whether to become a contributor to this forum I read through a good number of the threads.. within politics and society I consistently found myself most impressed by your posts. Not that I've agreed with everything you've said, but I characterized you as informed, articulate, eminently reasonable, generally open-minded (read: I think you're smart and I like what you have to say). In this thread, however, I think you'd be well served by rereading Zoff's posts. My meager contribution: - creationism (at least in the United States) implies a literal ( not a metaphorical ) reading of the creation story; God created each species out of whole cloth - there is no evolution whatsoever. This "theory" is in direct opposition to the theory of evolution.. if you took a deep breath I'm sure that you'd agree. - creationist beliefs (in the implied literal sense) are more prevalent than you seem to believe. According to a 2007 Gallup poll 43% of Americans believe in a literal creationist account of existence. as has been stated by Zoff and others in this thread: - the theory of evolution does not make any claims about the creation of the universe or the existence of God, it simply is concerned with the differentiation of species and the existence of life on this planet. It is a biological theory that is all. Creationism is generally understood to be at odds with evolution in this limited sense. - you don't seem to understand the definition of scientific theory, if you did you could never allow yourself to claim that creationism, or ID, is a theory in the same sense that evolution is. Creationism has no way to be tested, empirical evidence in its favor, or predictive power; these 3 criteria are the basis of science, sci. method, sci. theories. The theory of evolution meets these criteria, if you're not aware of this you should read up. The amount of empirical evidence for the evolution of species is staggering, and yes micro-evolution has been demonstrated in labs. - A metaphorical reading of religious creation accounts would not put you on the side of creationists in the creationism vs evolution debate. Rather, you'd simply not be taking a side in the argument. peace  |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 6:15:39 GMT -5
****smh, **** you are basing your argument that the religious are trying to impose their beliefs on others in UK schools on a guesstimate by a single source.... that's hardly proof of a theory, whatever your definition of it is.... You're missing the point. It's not a theory that it's being done. It is a fact. Pressure from creationists is causing teachers to not teach evolution. Therefore your argument about numbers and estimates are moot. empirical evidence that schools in the UK are are not teaching evolution because of the pressure from creationists, please? it's true in the US, to an extent - but you'll have a hard time proving it for the UK... nobody, at least i, is saying evolution should not be taught - and yes, i know the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in its favour...in which case, it should be easy to demonstrate, with scientific theory, that the theory of evolution is more valid than creationism, innit? alas, merely repeating that the evidence is overwhelming isn't working, is it? you are all missing the bigger picture: evolution cannot explain the creation of the universe...hence the persistent popularity of literal creationism.... and, if after around 10 years of compulsory science classes in schools, some/many people STILL believe in literal creationism, there is something deeply wrong with the way science is being taught.... in which case, maybe it's time to take another approach - such as using other previous theories, including creationism, to teach the history of science and how natural science theories have evolved by way of observation of empirical evidence....in which case, the logical, rational conclusion is that a lot of the non-evolution theories were metaphors for observations that could not be explained/proven.... get it? really, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game as you all believe.... peace |
|
|
|
Post by long on Oct 7, 2007 7:08:30 GMT -5
^
"empirical evidence that schools in the UK are are not teaching evolution because of the pressure from creationists, please?
it's true in the US, to an extent - but you'll have a hard time proving it for the UK..."
- Actually, all the empirical evidence you need is testimony from the teachers that have removed evolution from their curricula concerning their motivation behind the change. In the BBC article this evidence is summarized by the statements of the "Head of science at London's Institute of Education", Professor Michael Reiss, who more or less explicitly states that the increase in fundamentalist creationists (Muslims in this case) has led to evolution being avoided by some teachers in the UK. The ratio of creationists to the general population, something you seem quite interested in, is in this case irrelevant.
"yes, i know the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in its favour...in which case, it should be easy to demonstrate, with scientific theory, that the theory of evolution is more valid than creationism, innit?"
- Yes it is easy to demonstrate, and you'd see that if you understood what it is for a theory to be scientifically valid. Creationism has absolutely no scientific validity because in no sense is it actually a "scientific theory". It cannot be tested and no empirical evidence can be offered for it. It can neither be proven nor disproved. Evolution as a scientific theory does not have these weaknesses.
"alas, merely repeating that the evidence is overwhelming isn't working, is it?"
- Apparently not for you, but I don't see why.
"you are all missing the bigger picture: evolution cannot explain the creation of the universe...hence the persistent popularity of literal creationism...."
- As stated many times in this thread: evolution makes no attempt whatsoever to explain the creation of the universe. It is merely a theory of speciation. The evolution/creationism debate is strictly a biological one. I think you know this, you're simply avoiding this reality in your posts.
"if after around 10 years of compulsory science classes in schools, some/many people STILL believe in literal creationism, there is something deeply wrong with the way science is being taught."
- I think you're missing the bigger picture: literal creationism is not popular because of the deficiencies in evolutionary theory, rather it's popular because a literal belief in religion is (increasingly) popular. Some people will believe things against all reason and evidence, don't you agree?
sorry, miaim. and props to zoff for some strong posts in this thread.
yeah, i need to learn how to do the quote boxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 7:37:11 GMT -5
yes, you have a point that people will believe anything: just like people will claim Reiss' "estimates" which are not backed by data - in this case an opinion poll and a tally of the number of schools/teachers that have dropped the teaching of evolution - is *empirical evidence*, which it isn't.... that's why he says it's an "estimate" - because, unlike you lot, he knows perfectly well it's not evidence..... and Reiss, who you are all so quick to believe, doesn't have a problem with tackling creationism in science classes....
He argues in a new book that while evolution is the established theory of how life began, teachers should allow pupils to bring up creationist beliefs in class so they can be discussed openly.
"I'd like science lessons to be places where teachers take the views that students come in with seriously and respectfully, and then teach about evolution and about the early history of the universe," Reiss told BBC radio.
"There are lots of pupils who come to science lessons from families where they very seriously believe the world was created in a few days 6,000 or 10,000 years ago.
"I want to try and not ridicule those students but to help them understand the scientific way in which we can also understand the universe."uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKL0554949920071005i don't know if his "estimates" are at all accurate, but i agree with his approach to teaching the issue.... and those who accept his self-avowed "estimates" as evidence that he never claimed it to be (disregarding evidence and reason) disagree vehemently with his position....  peace |
|
|
|
Post by long on Oct 7, 2007 8:40:57 GMT -5
As Zoff said and I attempted to restate:
"You're missing the point. It's not a theory that it's being done. It is a fact. Pressure from creationists is causing teachers to not teach evolution.
Therefore your argument about numbers and estimates are moot."
Who in this thread is hyping the "estimates" as evidence? You're evading quite a few issues that Zoff and I had with the reasoning in your previous posts.
The article made no statement about the numbers of teachers or schools that have abandoned the teaching of evolution, it merely says "some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally". Empirical evidence for this would come from any number of teachers saying simply "I stopped teaching evolution because I felt pressure from creationists". Reiss seems to know some teachers that fit this criteria, I have no reason to doubt him. Empirical evidence does not have to be in the form of numbers.
FYI, I basically agree with the ideas that Reiss expressed in your quote above and in no way do I, nor have I seen anyone in this thread, "disagree vehemently with his position".
Nowhere in that quote does Reiss suggest that creationism is valid science.. simply that because many people believe in it it should be addressed (I agree with him). Do you believe creationism can meet the criteria of a scientific theory? Please answer this question explicitly in your next post. End the evasion k? ty..
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 10:19:52 GMT -5
er no: to establish the empirical evidence, according to the rules of modern scientific theory by which you all wish to judge creationism, you would have to conduct a controlled opinion poll of the UK school children and ask them whether they believe in literal creationism (tho the wording itself would be contentious, but i digress)... to prove that teachers have stopped teaching evolution, you would need to establish, with supporting data, that they have indeed stopped teaching evolution.... claiming without supporting evidence that teachers told them orally that they have stopped teaching evolution....would be thrown out as scientific evidence (or in this case, a social science peer review)....as the evidence is not supported by data and the sample is not controlled.... it's not all that important, except to demonstrate how quickly you, Zoff & co will play fast and loose with what exactly "scientific evidence" is....and you have a softer criteria for what you will accept as "evidence" that fits your belief than you do for theories that you have already dismissed as "irrational" and "superstitious"..... it's a shame, but evolution supporters tend to indulge in this hypocritical double standard of what exactly scientific evidence is....****shurgs**** noone is claiming that creationism is scientific theory - it's just a theory that seeks to explain how the world came into being....and isn't all that fantastical (particularly the Koran) if you see it as allegory or metaphor....and many accepted it was allegory from the early days on.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Days_of_Creationand some observations in the Koran are quite in sync with modern science, for example: www.submission.org/life.htmlas i said, it's not a simple, zero-sum game of science on the one hand and religion on the other....or keeping religion out of the science class room and in comparative religion classes.... and while i would agree that a modern literal creationist who can read and write is not being rational, the same cannot be said of the metaphorical creationists...since we all agree that noone can prove how the world came into existence.... and, whether you like it or not, that's a question evolution can't answer - yes, i know it's not meant to but that doesn't stop people from wanting answers.... as irrational and illogical it may seem to the non-believers.... peace |
|
|
|
Post by hapalicious on Oct 7, 2007 11:13:39 GMT -5
off topic and irrelevant but because of this thread, i ve been getting urang utan pop ups and "convert to........" ads.
*close* *close* *close* *close* *close* *close* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Oct 7, 2007 12:03:58 GMT -5
the thread title is extremely misleading... religion and education/science aren't in contention with eachother in Islam... education is actually very important for muslims... "He who acquires knowledge acquires a vast portion." AND "If anyone going on his way in search of knowledge, God will, thereby make easy for him the way to Paradise" "Acquire knowledge, for he who acquires it in the way of Allah performs an act of piety; he who speaks of it, praises the Lord; he who seeks it, adores Allah; he who dispenses instruction in it, bestows alms; and he who imparts it to others, performs an act of devotion to Allah." (Bukhari, Muslim) islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa100998.htmand as miaim has pointed out verses in the Quran are in line with modern science |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 23:19:03 GMT -5
oh dear, a classic case of can't see the forest for the tree....
1. noone has a clue whether Reiss is right: we just don't know how many teachers in the UK have stopped teaching evolution and if so, why....
2. even *if* Reiss' theory or claims are true, is it really religion's fault if some teachers don't know how to talk about evolution/creationism with a child? and is it the religion's fault if a teacher chooses to stop teaching evolution just because 3 kids in a classroom of 30 (assuming Reiss' estimates are correct) believe in creationism?
3. cuz it needs to be pointed out noone is trying to insist (or at least noone has produced any evidence to suggest) creationism be taught as a scientific theory that is as valid as evolution....so it could be said you obsession over whether creationsim is a scientific theory or not is equally as irrelevant as mine that you're getting upset about something you can't prove - e.g. that some teachers have stopped teaching evolution.....
also, why is it against a child's educational interest to talk about creationism in a science class?
and if teachers don't teach evolution because of a couple of kids in the room, isn't it the teacher, not the religion, that's at fault?
either way, since noone has yet to provide any evidence that the religious are demanding that evolution no longer be taught in UK schools, the entire hypothesis of the thread has yet to be proven....
as i said, much ado about nothing.....unless you're willing to believe things that cannot be proven....in which case, you must surely understand why people believe in things that cannot be proven - you're just as prone to believe irrationally in something that cannot be proven as the relgious are....and, as i have demonstrated, a good professor's claims is not evidence, let alone proof - they are just claims unless backed by the evidence (data) that i spelt out in my last post....
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by long on Oct 8, 2007 3:34:54 GMT -5
^ another nice post Zoff and thanks for the words of welcome. I'm not really sure why the discussion got stuck on the UK/Muslim issue (just because of the BBC article?), it seems to me that it's mostly because miaim is being evasive and avoiding her inconsistencies when faced with fundamental aspects of the larger issue. Sorry to keep singling you out miaim, but clearly you're the most vocal critic to the general run of this thread. here's an article that addresses the UK issue quite nicely with a survey of 1000 UK university students: Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say they believe in creationism and intelligent designfrom the article: "Opinionpanel Research's survey of more than 1,000 students found a third of those who said they were Muslims and more than a quarter of those who said they were Christians supported creationism. Nearly a third of Christians and 10% of those with no particular religion favoured intelligent design." -more interesting to me: "In the Opinionpanel survey, nearly 20% said they had been taught creationism as fact by their main school. Most thought it would be best to teach a range of theories, but nearly 30% of those who supported creationism felt that pupils should learn about creationism alone." - I think the relevance of these stats to the issue being discussed speaks for itself. This is just the UK, I assure you that fundamentalist beliefs are even more widespread here in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 8, 2007 5:30:30 GMT -5
huh? you guys are even more evasive about the fundamental inconsistencies of your positions than i am.... who's now confusing evolution with how life on earth started? 1. noone is saying Reiss is lieing - merely that his estimates have yet to be proven....his hypothesis has yet to be supported by evidence.... 2. belief in creationism does not necessarily negate an acceptance of evolution unless one believes in literal creationism....and the Guardian article you're sourcing does not distinguish between literal and metaphorical creationism....you'd actually need to see a copy of the poll to see how exactly the question was phrased - as everyone knows the phrasing of a question has a big influence on the responses.... opinion poll 101, if you like...apply some scientific methodology or simple critical analysis to newspaper articles.... i may also remind you that you were insisting that evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created or started....so i'm not quite sure why you're happy to confuse the two now.... ? 3. nor does your Guardian article say what kind of schools the sampled respondents attended: if private schools, often church-run, teach creationsim as fact, it's the parents' choice....it would be a different issue from state schools being forced to teach creationism as fact..... mind, i probably shouldn't have assumed we were talking about state schools... overall, i find it quite amusing that people who demand only theories that have been tested by the scientific method should be taught in a science class don't think the same rigorous analysis should apply to anything else..... that creationism should not be mentioned at all in a science class (Z's opinion) is just an opinion... so is the belief that only theories tested by the scientific method, which so many of you are quick to disregard in an attempt to support your opinion, should be taught or mentioned in a science class.... and ditto for the claim that religion is irrational superstition.... and no hard evidence, let alone proof, has been provided that the religious have pressured teachers or schools into dropping evolution in favour of creationism... see above for why the Guardian article doesn't.... you both may be right - but you haven't provided any empirical evidence to back up your opinions and assertions....and believing Reiss' estimates is a choice to BELIEVE his CLAIMS....no way round it, i'm afraid.....insisting its proof makes one wonder whether either of you who are so keen on "scientific theories" really understand what empirical evidence is.....no offence, but playing fast and loose with the definitions of empirical evidence and proof does not help make your original assertions any more credible.... peace |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 8, 2007 7:01:00 GMT -5
Again the numbers. Numbers are irrelevant to the argument. only because the numbers throw doubt on the validity of your argument that religious children/parents are putting pressure on teachers to stop teaching evolution....something you can't prove, except with an estimate and claims, not backed by data (doesn't have to be a sworn statement - a controlled opinion poll showing the wording of the questions will do)..... you're choosing to believe Reiss' claims - and your argument is not valid to anyone who doesn't believe Reiss' claims....just like creationism is not valid to anyone who doesn't believe in God.... False. That is precisely what it is, in much the same was as believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden is. Reiss is CofE priest, and according to you may as well believe in faries at the bottom of the garden.... In your attempt to win this argument you are demanding evidence that is beyond reasonable. The statement from someone we can reasonably assume is telling the truth is evidence. What would you like, signed witness statements taken whilst under the influence of truth serum and subsequently verified by a lie detector? an OFSTED report will do.... You only seem to think of statistics from polls as evidence, I would like to point out that people could be lying whilst taking part in a poll too. i never said he was lying - merely that his claims have not been backed with evidence....i don't know why you keep on claiming, without reason, i think he's lying....scraping the bottom of the barrel, as you would say? lol To provide the level of scientific proof you are suggesting would mean sending teams of independent observers to lessons, without teachers or pupils knowing they are being observed. er no, OFSTED could ask schools to send them reports of these incidents, for example.... Really Miaim, you're scraping the barrel for this argument. Not everything has to meet scientific levels of evidence, we are not discussing a scientific theory, but events which someone is giving an account of. His account (assuming he is reliable) is sufficient. Not everything has to be repeatable, measurable, statistically significant, have control groups etc. The fact that you are suggesting that everything does shows how desperate you are to undermine our arguments and that you really have nothing of substance to do so with. The fact that this type of event has now been reported numerous times, by different sources also gives it credibility, no matter how much you would like to deny it. says you...post the reports, then.... and what is taught in schools is monitored by OFSTED....so it should have records of teachers dropping evolution in classes....assuming evolution is part of the national curriculum.... also, my point about wording in opinion polls: depending on the wording, nearly 80% of USAmericans say evolution is true.....
Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct: 78%alas, it doesn't apply to humans, apparently:
Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life: 62%www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/well_at_least_w.htmlThere have been three fairly recent polls regarding UK beliefs in origins.
1. Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series (see here).
22% chose creationism
A further 17% favoured intelligent design.
(39% combined)
48% chose evolution.
Uncommitted 13%
2. The UK section of the Science magazine article by J.Miller et.al. (See here and here and here)
67-68% Accept Evolution as true using it seems a combination measure of several questions about evolution.
15% unsure
17% rejecting.
3. The recent Opinion panel Research poll reported in the guardian.
(This is focused on students.)
In this poll 12% of students chose creationsism.
A further 19% favoured intelligent design.
(31% combined)
56% chose evolution.
Uncommitted 13%
What these results show it seems to me (as always) is that a great deal depends on the precise questions that are asked and perhaps the context of the questions.idintheuk.blogspot.com/2006/08/putting-polls-together.htmlanyway, you have yet to prove, except with an estimate and claims by one professor, that a worrying number of teachers have stopped teaching evolution.... and no, the numbers aren't irrelevant: just like whether the schools are church-run or not isn't, either..... peace |
|
****
