board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Sun 09 Dec , 2018 8:46 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 438 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Back to the dark ages
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 12:14 pm 
His Rosyness

Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 3444
Location: Salisbury, England
Kansas State Board Votes to Teach Intelligent Design in Schools

This is something I truly cannot understand. It's just so backward.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 12:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 7:07 pm
Posts: 1105
Location: Member barely active
Why am I not surprised


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 12:41 pm 
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar

Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 6910
Location: Silly Suffolk
B-B-But the Spaghetti Monster is not intelligent! This is just plain disrespectful of other religions. :rage:

However the citizens of Kansas may hope there is intelligence up there somewhere. They sure are in need of it.

_________________
Image
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 1:59 pm 
The Man who Knows his Tools
User avatar

Joined: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:08 pm
Posts: 1651
Location: Near Tallahassee, Florida
Kansas is kind of backwards anyway. I have been through there several times.

The good news is they don't exactly have a lot of people so the effects of their stupidity should be minimal.

_________________
Image

The best measure of our accomplishments in life is not what goods we have accumulated or the recognition gained from actions we have performed, but what we leave for others who choose to follow the path we made for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 2:08 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
From what I hear, this swings back and forth each time there is a new school board election.

But personally I think the way evolution is presented as fact is problematic; I think it should be presented as the theory it is, not as fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Lancaster, CA
Well, remember that a scientific theory is more than just a good guess. It's basically treated as fact until it is either disproved or enough data is gathered for it to be modified.

_________________
Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:18 pm 
His Rosyness

Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 3444
Location: Salisbury, England
I have never heard any evidence against evolution?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14177
Iavas_Saar wrote:
I have never heard any evidence against evolution?


Why you asking me? ;)


The problem that Cerin talks about is a more general problem (that I experienced, at least) of science classes not making it clear enough what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. From the mega-gargantuan evolution thread in Manwe, it became clear that a lot of people simply don't understand the term "theory" scientifically, which is a real failure of the educational system. It's like getting out of high school without knowing how to do long division or who Shakespeare is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:46 pm 
Daydream Believer

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Posts: 5778
Location: Pac Northwest
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051110/tc_usatoday/intelligentdesignbackersloseinpennsylvania

Well Pennsylvania has spoken, pretty loud and clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:46 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Quote:
It's like getting out of high school without knowing how to do long division or who Shakespeare is.


Both of which are, alas, certainly possible. :(

The thing that is actually of the most concern is that the KS BoE has redefined science as the search for explanations of natural phenomenon, without restricting the explanations to the natural world. In other words, they have redefined science for their own ignorant, political ends.

If there were justice in this world, all of their children would grow to be evolutionary geneticists.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:50 pm 
Daydream Believer

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Posts: 5778
Location: Pac Northwest
Quote:
they have redefined science for their own ignorant, political ends.


Something like the world is flat. Or the sun revolves around the earth stuff. Weren't both of those theories put up by the religious political rulers of the time also?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:55 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Iavas_Saar wrote:
I have never heard any evidence against evolution?

There is plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution (hence the large group of people who continue to disbelieve it, including many scientists). I read a book on it once which was very convincing. Unfortunately, I didn't retain many of the scientific details. It has to do with problems with the fossil record and out of place artifacts, and I don't remember what else.

Perhaps yov could elaborate on his comments on theory, which I don't really understand. I don't have a problem with evolution being taught as a scientific theory, I just object to it being taught as the undisputed truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:58 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Ara-anna wrote:
Something like the world is flat. Or the sun revolves around the earth stuff.

Or that man evolved from lower life forms. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:00 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
There appear to be two separate issues here (with respect to the Kansas and PA articles). First is the objection to evolution being taught as fact. Second is the desire to have intelligent design taught as science.

I agree with the first, but not with the second.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:08 pm 
Daydream Believer

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Posts: 5778
Location: Pac Northwest
Well since I am from a planet way north of here, I have no idea where you people came from.


I am still waiting for a viable explaination as to the cold virus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14177
Cerin wrote:
Perhaps yov could elaborate on his comments on theory, which I don't really understand. I don't have a problem with evolution being taught as a scientific theory, I just object to it being taught as the undisputed truth.


Everything taught in a science class is going to be scientific theory, not "undisputed truth". Science doesn't have truth, but it does have theories. If this were made clearer throughout science education (this is where I think education doesn't do a good enough job of making it clear what science is), the students would know that a statement like "Pre-historic man behaved in such and such a fashion" isn't meant to be taken as gospel truth but as the currently reigning scientific theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:18 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Thanks, yov. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Cerin wrote:
Iavas_Saar wrote:
I have never heard any evidence against evolution?

There is plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution (hence the large group of people who continue to disbelieve it, including many scientists). I read a book on it once which was very convincing. Unfortunately, I didn't retain many of the scientific details. It has to do with problems with the fossil record and out of place artifacts, and I don't remember what else.

Perhaps yov could elaborate on his comments on theory, which I don't really understand. I don't have a problem with evolution being taught as a scientific theory, I just object to it being taught as the undisputed truth.


Um, there is not plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution. If there was, then it would no longer be a theory. That's the nature of science. Perhaps you need to review Answers In Genesis's rebuttal of Kent Hovind in an article "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use."

Every scientific theory is treated the same way in every science class: this is the best explanation we have to date based on the available data. That includes evolution, gavity, electromagnetism, gas pressure, germ theory, relativism, etc.

A good science class on day one will teach the scientific method, which includes the scientific definition of theory. The scientific word that approxmiates the common usage of "theory" is "hypothesis."

Hypothesis: based on available data, I suspect that things operate this way.

Testing: compare hypothesis to data. Do research to acquire more data, be it looking through a telescope or mixing compounds in the lab or digging in the ground.

Result: I have found contradictory data and therefore my hypothesis must either be modified or discarded.

Result: I have found data that confirms my hypothesis, and it is now a theory.

No scientic theory, none of them, are ever proven. A "proven" theory means you have determined that there will never be contradictory data, and that means you have proven a negative. Since you can't prove a negative, you cannot prove a scientific theory.

Instead a scientific theory is "well supported." There is a great deal of evidence that supports the theory and a distinct lack (not small but nonexistant) of data that opposes the theory.

And there is that distinct lack of data that opposes evolution. Quantum physisists wish they had as much data in support of their theories as Evolution has.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 7:07 pm
Posts: 1105
Location: Member barely active
yovargas wrote:

Everything taught in a science class is going to be scientific theory, not "undisputed truth". Science doesn't have truth, but it does have theories. If this were made clearer throughout science education (this is where I think education doesn't do a good enough job of making it clear what science is), the students would know that a statement like "Pre-historic man behaved in such and such a fashion" isn't meant to be taken as gospel truth but as the currently reigning scientific theory.


I find the notion of Gospel truth most amusing - who says our US friends don't appreciate irony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:47 pm 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

No scientic theory, none of them, are ever proven. A "proven" theory means you have determined that there will never be contradictory data, and that means you have proven a negative. Since you can't prove a negative, you cannot prove a scientific theory.

Instead a scientific theory is "well supported." There is a great deal of evidence that supports the theory and a distinct lack (not small but nonexistant) of data that opposes the theory.

And there is that distinct lack of data that opposes evolution. Quantum physisists wish they had as much data in support of their theories as Evolution has.


:clap:

I think only on very few occassions have a I heard someone clearly state you can't prove a theory. Thank You. I think only once a TA told me you can't actually prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it. Then it goes into the whole support issue that you mentioned. Thank You so much!!!!!!!!

:love:

I think where people get mixed up on validity of theories, is if that a theory can't be proved then that means it's crap . But then they don't really understand what a theory is in the first place.

I wish there was more education and clarification on basic fundamental principles in school. I know I it would have helped me.

_________________
Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 438 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group