board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Back to the dark ages

Post Reply   Page 1 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 522 »
Author Message
Iavas_Saar
Post subject: Back to the dark ages
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 12:14 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
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.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
eborr
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 12:22 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 7:07 pm
Location: Member barely active
 
Why am I not surprised


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 12:41 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
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.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Fixer
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 1:59 pm
The Man who Knows his Tools
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:08 pm
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.

_________________

[ img ]

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 Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 2:08 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
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 Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:01 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
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 Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:18 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
I have never heard any evidence against evolution?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:37 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
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 Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:46 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200511 ... nnsylvania

Well Pennsylvania has spoken, pretty loud and clear.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:46 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
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 Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:50 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
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 Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:55 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
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 Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 3:58 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
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 Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:00 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
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 Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:08 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
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 Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:09 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
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 Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:18 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thanks, yov. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:20 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
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 Quote
eborr
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:25 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 7:07 pm
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 Quote
Wilma
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:47 pm
Takoyaki is love
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
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:

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 522 »
Jump to: