Posted on 08/02/2008 5:57:18 PM PDT by Kevmo
Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:44:19 AM by Soliton
don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
I think this is where the problem is. You are unwilling to acknowledge that the scientific method can be used in studies of the past, particularly with studies of evolution.
Nothing I can do to convince you of this, but there are tens of thousands of scientists from archaeologists, geologists, palynologists, sedimentologists, paleontologists and all the rest who are managing to follow the scientific method into the distant past. And there are astronomers who study the insides of stars and distant galaxies without repeating the exact conditions. The list goes on and on.
I suggest you do some research and perhaps rethink your ideas on the scientific method.
If you actually take the time to look at it, it falls down completely, and you get an inlook onto the psyche's of the men advancing it.
If you actually take the time to look at it, it falls down completely,
***I’ve never had that kind of time. I do appreciate it when Freepers who have dug deeper share their insights with those of us who can only afford to go trench deep.
You don't seem to appreciate my comments nearly as much, and I spent six long years in graduate school -- with half of my time spent studying fossil man, evolution, osteology, anatomy, human races, primates and closely related subjects.
And so far as your view on philosophy and theology, I can't fault you... what I proposed is an idealistic but not necessarily realistic thought.
Regardless, have a good night.
“The theory of evolution is a theory.” [excerpt]Scientific theory?
You are unwilling to acknowledge that the scientific method can be used in studies of the past, particularly with studies of evolution.
***I think the problem is that the past cannot be replicated, so the issue simply cannot be proven. The scientific method can be “used in studies of the past”, but by your own words in post #26, “The theory of evolution is a theory. The problem is not the theory itself, but the implications.” So why should such un-replicatable theories be taught to school children when the implications of the theory are evil?
there are tens of thousands of scientists ... managing to follow the scientific method into the distant past. I suggest you do some research and perhaps rethink your ideas on the scientific method.
***The problem isn’t “ideas on the scientific method”, it is the implications of a theory being taught to the captive audience of our children in guvmint schools. You say that “ Some folks object to the implications for religious reasons, and hence attack the theory using flawed science.” Where is the flawed science from xjcsa? I see none.
When you further build upon your flawed premise, saying “This, of course, annoys scientists who have a lot invested into the scientific method — because it works.” It brings to my mind the fact that christian parents are annoyed by schools teaching an ungodly philosophy when they have much invested in rearing Godly children, because it works.
So what do you expect them to do when the theory is attacked using flawed reasoning?
***Where’s the flawed reasoning? I think xjcsa’s reasoning is perfectly valid.
And when they use the same flawed reasoning to promote their religion to school boards in the guise of science?
***This is a further building upon your flawed premise, and it opens up several cans of worms that I choose not to open at this time. I will point out that there are atheists who “their religion to school boards in the guise of science”.
You don’t seem to appreciate my comments nearly as much
***That’s because I do not agree with you.
In my experience, the Toe-ees start running down anyone who dares to disagree in any way with whatever they’re saying.
***Well, I’ve had 3 good threads so far, so I’m going to go into marketing mode and call this a success. Not only do you want this product, but you need this product, and it comes with this lovely Ginsu cutlery gift...
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear Kevmo! And thank you for mentioning our book!
Ph nor any of his threads were ever nice.
I don’t know what scientism is. Science requires evidence for belief. Religion relies on faith and revelation. Science isn’t religion, but maybe your definition of scientism is.
The “scientific method” of early science is much diferent than today’s.
The method of Isaac Newton was,”Now let’s see if I can discover what God was up to.”
Now it’s,”Now let’s see what data I can provide Al Gore in order to rationalize his holy dream for the greater good of mankind.”
Leftist Academia is only diferent from the MSM in that they actually work for their lies.
It is offered as a scientific theory, somewhat debatable. The mathmatical improbability of it explaning the development of all species, including intelligent life,renders the theory colloqiual. Such a leap requires an agenda, a belief system, a faith, a religion of sorts. It simply is not scientific.
I’d say discuss (i.e., “teach”) it all - especially the doubt from whence good science arises - and let it take wing, or fall by gravity.
Perhaps that was your experience in High School. My own was that after High School and four years in the Air Force I went back to college. When in basic Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Calculus, etc, people would say “Wow, where did you learn that?” I would say “A little place we liked to call High School.” But then again I took all college prep courses, and I guess they worked as advertised.
Why did you have to repeat those classes in College? Why couldn't you have just done your undergraduate work when you were a freshman in high school? In fact, why couldn't you have just gone straight from Jr. High to college?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.