Anticreationism legislation in Wisconsin

National Center for Science Education ^ | 08 February 2006 | Staff

[furball4paws]

In other words, he doesn't know what a "kind" is and doesn't want to have to deal with the scientifically very well defined "species".

It's too inconvenient and may lead to thinking.

[Dimensio]

What a bigot!

For insisting that only subjects that are science be taught as science? What, do you prefer affirmative action for non-science?

First of all there is no a scientific hypothesis!

What is this supposed to mean?

A hypothesis is just a hypothesis!

Semantic garbage. There is a distinction between "scientific hypothesis" and "non-scientific hypothesis".

Is the evolutionism a testable scientific hypothesis?

Not only is it testable, but it's stood up so well to testing that it's been elevated to the lofty status of theory.

If so, can anybody demonstrate that evolutionism or part of evolutionism was testable and scientifically proof to be true?

Evolution has been used to make predictions about what would be found in the fossil record and from DNA sequencing of various primates. But nothing, nothing at all in science can ever be "proven true", so the second part of your question is nonsense.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Karl Popper, the guru of science definitions himself, said that in that regard natural selection may be impossible to test."

That's an outright lie. You KNOW he said that it was testable. How do you sleep at night lying so much?

[RightWingAtheist]

I'm not sure that this is a step in the right direction; the language in this bill will probably only further galvanize creationists and evangelicals in the state. Instead of mandating an explicit "ban" on creationism, states should instead be crafting legislation that 1)Ensures that evolution is taught, and that the lessons thoroughly explain both the scientific method and overwhelming evidence for it and 2) Ensure that the Constitutionaly-guranteed separation of church and state is maintained in the curriculum. And anyways, Berceau seems more like an opportunist trying to make score image points among her Madison constincency than someone actually concerned about science; the other bill she is most famous more is one that would have forced Wal-Mart (specifically Wal-mart, that bete-noir of the anti-free market left) to pay employee's health insurance costs, but it thankfully died.

[Dimensio]

Look, another insecure creationist attacks what they don't understand by calling adherence to the scientific method "atheism". That'd be a real surprise to the many religious people who have no problem with keeping the proper bounds of science.

[atlaw]

Everybody knows what a new "kind" of animal means.

I don't. I honestly have no idea. For example, what "kind" is a bottlenose dolphin? Or a fruit bat? Or a spotted hyena?

[bvw]

He said it, I can read what he wrote. Those blindered by dogma have lowered reading comprehension scores. Sorry CG. But you can improve those scores! Vitamins, a varied reading diet, relaxation therapy -- all can help you. But you have to take off the tin-foil helmet and put down the Book of the Ori. In the end it is up to you, youself, to release yourself from the house of dogma.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Everybody knows what a new "kind" of animal means."

No, they really don't. That's why creationists use the word, because it is so vague and worthless. *Kind* has absolutely no scientific meaning, or usefulness.

[ironwoodchuck]

Here's a clue: A hyena is a creature which runs on padded feet (four) and kills other animals with its teeth. A hummingbird would be a different "kind" of animal from that.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He said it, I can read what he wrote."

That's a lie. He said the opposite, he said that natural selection WAS testable. You know this because I just posted this to you in the last few days. Why must you lie so much?
This is what he said:

""I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems."

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection."

[Dimensio]

A hyena is a creature which runs on padded feet (four) and kills other animals with its teeth. A hummingbird would be a different "kind" of animal from that.

So are wolves and large cats the same "kind"? Both run on four padded feet and both kill animals with their teeth.

What a bizarre classification system. Do you perhaps have a reference to various "kind" classifications for various animal groups? Maybe one that names the various "kinds"?

[RadioAstronomer]

Obviously not. In fact evolution can't either.

You are wrong here.

[bvw]

He never says it is testable in even that limited quote. In the full quote he says it may be not rigorously testable.

[longshadow]

"Under the bill, only science capable of being tested according to scientific method could be taught as science"

Need I point out the Achilles heel of this law? Need i point out the enthusiasm exhibited on an almost daily basis here on FR by anti-Evos to REDEFINE the meaning of "science" and the scientific method?

Verstehen Sie?

[bvw]

They don't really care except to hector. They find some reason to make words meaningless, for it assuages some deep psychological need in them to deny any foothold of design, or purpose to creation.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He never says it is testable in even that limited quote. In the full quote he says it may be not rigorously testable."

That's a lie. He says it IS testable:

" However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were"

What does *there are some tests* mean other than it is testable?

[narby]

I'm not sure that this is a step in the right direction; the language in this bill will probably only further galvanize creationists and evangelicals in the state.

I don't doubt that this is the real purpose of the bill. The left has been able to sit back and watch idiotic conservatives promote creationism to their detriment for a couple of years. Now that some of that is dying away, thanks to Dover, the left is throwing some gas on the fire so they can continue the fun.

It's all politics.

[Quark2005]

So are wolves and large cats the same "kind"?

How many times do I have to explain this? Everyone (or at least answersingenesis.org) knows that all cats evolved from a pair of common ancestors on the ark within the last couple thousand years:

Since there was no evolution prior to the Flood, it had to make up for lost time afterwards, apparently.

[furball4paws]

You will find it in The Book of Kinds. I understand the Discovery Institute is working on it.

[furball4paws]

That law appears to be alive and well in Maryland.