Science under attack in Texas

[YWN666]

Let's just say that the wedge document confirmed the existing goal of creationism/ID. Why do you think, when it became clear that creationism wasn't going to be accepted in public school science classes, that they retooled it to become Intellignt Design by removing the overt references to God??? It was nothing but an attempt to dress up religion to look like science to advance their selfish agenda. As they say, if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig. Now that ID was embarrassed on a national level at the Dover, PA trial, they are making more attempts to disguise their intent.

That is nothing but conjecture on your part and doesn't belong in a science class.

Immie

Your faith is blinding you (did you follow the Dover, PA trial? Apparently not) and I never suggested that it belongs in a science class. You're being disingenuous.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Falling off a building is an observational phenomena. It does nothing to explain WHY things fall to the ground. That's the realm of gravitational theory. The modren consensus is that mass causes a warping of space-time, resulting in gravitational forces. But, no one is 100% rock solid certain if that's correct. We have equations that describe the acceleration due to gravity. We can observe the effects of gravity. But, why gravity exists and why exactly it does what it does, is 100% theoretical physics. .

I'm not talking about why gravity exists. I'm talking about the fact that it exists. And we are 100% certain that if a person on Earth steps off of the top of a 10 story building they will fall unless some mechanical intervention is applied.

It's not just "obervational." It's validated through experimentation. The fact that we're not "rock solid" certain about why gravity exists does not mean we're not rock solid certain about the fact that it exists or about what the effects will be within the realm in which we operate.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[

I addressed this already, reread the whole thing. It is NOT 100% certain you would fall.

Yes, Kitten, it is. If you step off of the top of a building on planet Earth and there is not mechanical intervention to stop you, you will fall. That is 100% certain.

And, again, I hope those who are neutral are noticing how ridiculous this is getting.

 

[Diuretic]

Isn't it the case though that while we can observe something or at least infer its existence from observation of a phenomenon, that's one thing but explaining it is another?

 

[JohnStOnge]

Isn't it the case though that while we can observe something or at least infer its existence from observation of a phenomenon, that's one thing but explaining it is another?

In the end, observation must play a role in explanation; and especially observation resulting from experimentation. Here are the basic steps of the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Step 4 is going to involve observations yielded by experimentation.

 

[Diuretic]

Isn't it the case though that while we can observe something or at least infer its existence from observation of a phenomenon, that's one thing but explaining it is another?

In the end, observation must play a role in explanation; and especially observation resulting from experimentation. Here are the basic steps of the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Step 4 is going to involve observations yielded by experimentation.

Sounds pretty good to me, not a scientist or science-minded but that make sense.

But when does a hypothesis become a theory?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Sounds pretty good to me, not a scientist or science-minded but that make sense.

But when does a hypothesis become a theory?

When accurate results which demonstrate no contradiction for each aspect of the hypotheses are achieved through reproduceable experimentation.

Like E=mc2 (don't know how to do superscirpt in this box). The equation accurately predicted the movement of celestial bodies, particularly the planets in our solar system, without error. We then, when the technology became available, put an atomic clock on a rocket, and that atmomic clock was synchronized to something like a millionth of a second with another atomic clock on the planet. The atomic clock on the rocket was shot into space, achieved a speed of something like 30,000 miles an hour, came back to Earth and showed that the clock had perceptively slowed when compared with the clock which had remained on Earth demonstrating that when mass moves through space that it slows its motion through time, therefore (and this is a little bit of a jump but there is a lot of typing to accurately write this whole thing out) space and time aren't separate and the implications of Einstein's equation were also accurate. However, since we can't prove every aspect of Einstein's equation (like going the speed of light or directly detecting the warp of spacetime around massive objects) it remains a theory instead of becoming a scientific fact. However, the equation, E=mc2, currently is scientific law because it continues to accurately describe and predict observable phenomena.

Its a little confusing. Just remember it like this, hypotheses are educated guesses to describe observable phenomena which haven't been tested to 100% accuracy, theories have been tested to 100% accuracy, scientific fact is observed phenomena (like gravity, evolution, the Earth being round) and not explanations, and scientific laws are, typically mathematical, descriptions of scientific fact i.e. the laws of thermodynamics, or the laws of gravity.

...I don't know if that helps, but you can at least see why, outside of the fields of science, there is so much confusion and controversy regarding what scientists claim or don't claim.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Good GRIEF Kitten. I didn't say anything about surviving. I said you will fall. And you will that is 100% certain. Let me know when you come up with an example of someone who stepped off of a 10 story building and didn't fall without some mechanical device preventing them from doing so.

I just hope those who are "neutral" are noticing how ridiculous the counter arguments are getting.

Have you ever heard of or read about the uncertainty principle? I think that it is one aspects of physics that N4md is referring to. Physical laws, when perceived through quantaum mechanics, are only guesses based on probability. Therefore, there is no certainty in the Universe. Even if since the Big Bang or the moment of Creation, you were to repeatedly drop an apple while on the surface of a massive object, each second until the end of the Universe (if there is any such thing) and that apple dropped to the ground every time, there still would be uncertainty (when perceived through quantum mechanics) that the apple would always drop. The probability that the apple is affected each time by gravity is almost 1, and I mean its so close that its like .999999 to a trillion places, but nothing is ever 100% certain. Never. That is the only thing that is 100% certain. There is a possibility that the apple would float off into space, its just that that possibility is so unlikely that it might never happen.

 

[Immanuel]

Let's just say that the wedge document confirmed the existing goal of creationism/ID. Why do you think, when it became clear that creationism wasn't going to be accepted in public school science classes, that they retooled it to become Intellignt Design by removing the overt references to God??? It was nothing but an attempt to dress up religion to look like science to advance their selfish agenda. As they say, if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig. Now that ID was embarrassed on a national level at the Dover, PA trial, they are making more attempts to disguise their intent.

That is nothing but conjecture on your part and doesn't belong in a science class.

Immie

Your faith is blinding you (did you follow the Dover, PA trial? Apparently not) and I never suggested that it belongs in a science class. You're being disingenuous.

Maybe you missed the

It was intended to mean that I was just kidding with you.

Immie

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

I would say that as far as scientists trained in a relevant biological or geological field "vast majority" is an understatement.


I'm actually glad to see this though, because I hate Texas. Its good to see them going down the road of moronic ignorance, I hope they suffer dearly for it.

They also might want to consider the number of scientific conferences they have in their state, and how much money that brings in.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/national_science_boycotting_lo.html

 

[del]

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

I would say that as far as scientists trained in a relevant biological or geological field "vast majority" is an understatement.


I'm actually glad to see this though, because I hate Texas. Its good to see them going down the road of moronic ignorance, I hope they suffer dearly for it.

They also might want to consider the number of scientific conferences they have in their state, and how much money that brings in.

National science group boycotting Louisiana in protest of Science Education Act - Breaking News from New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com

i do too.
with any luck, they'll wind up like louisiana.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

I would say that as far as scientists trained in a relevant biological or geological field "vast majority" is an understatement.


I'm actually glad to see this though, because I hate Texas. Its good to see them going down the road of moronic ignorance, I hope they suffer dearly for it.

They also might want to consider the number of scientific conferences they have in their state, and how much money that brings in.

National science group boycotting Louisiana in protest of Science Education Act - Breaking News from New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com

i do too.
with any luck, they'll wind up like louisiana.

Will never happen. Texans wouldn't know what to do with Mardi Gras.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I'm afraid I can not think of any other word, at the moment, besides dogmatic.

Sure, you might throw out tons of "documentation" backing up your beliefs, but the fact remains, that I am unwilling to take a scientist's word for it until he can show me how whales become dogs or monkeys become humans. Simply saying that it happens is not sufficient for me.

I understand that there is a lot of evidence supporting your beliefs. Yet, evidence does not always lead to the truth. Wasn't it you that earlier in this thread had an example of a murder where the evidence pointed to a husband murdering his wife? Every bit of evidence might lead the investigators to believe that the husband murdered his wife, but the truth could be that the husband was innocent and the lover killed her and framed the husband.

Evidence is not proof.

Proof is a video tape of the husband killing his wife. Proof is a confession. Proof is an eye witness who's testimony cannot be impeached. Proof is something that scientist have not found in regards to this matter.

Scientists may have very good reasons for standing by this theory. They have every right to say that the preponderance of the evidence points us in this direction, but that is not proof.

Immie

This isn't to get you to conform your opinions to the implication of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection of common ancestry or even speciation, but to demonstrate why scientists and those who believe what science is and does tend to accept why common ancestry and speciation are logical conclusions to make in light of all the evidence. If anything, I think you'll find it interesting.

This is a part of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series that deals directy with evolution (though this particular episode is about whether time travel is realistically possible and the implications of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity). This is about 6 minutes long and he doesn't get into the details but its just a rough example of what I was saying above.

Its a great series if you haven't seen it. I think it could be a great way for someone with as dated an education as yours (old man!) to update some of your scientific perspectives, despite having been filmed in '79 or the early '80s (man, when you see the haircuts...what were we thinking?!). He presents all the information scientifically and doesn't show his bias against religion often. Ever read the book or seen the movie Contact? So we know he resents religion's part in the suppression of science and information in the past and his apparent perception that those who aren't religious are persecuted, oppressed, or out of favor with general society. But he realizes he's biased and tries to deal with religion open-mindedly.

Anyway, check it out if you want to broaden your understand of science and people's (like mine, N4md, YWN, KittenKoder's) opinions regarding evolution. If anything you might get some ammo with which to fire back!

Cheers!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I would say that as far as scientists trained in a relevant biological or geological field "vast majority" is an understatement.


I'm actually glad to see this though, because I hate Texas. Its good to see them going down the road of moronic ignorance, I hope they suffer dearly for it.

They also might want to consider the number of scientific conferences they have in their state, and how much money that brings in.

National science group boycotting Louisiana in protest of Science Education Act - Breaking News from New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com

i do too.
with any luck, they'll wind up like louisiana.

Will never happen. Texans wouldn't know what to do with Mardi Gras.

They should teach in Texas public schools that Colorado is a hot bed for atheism and homosexuality so they'll stop coming here. Even though Colorado will go bankrupt from losing the majority of its tourism business, it'll still be worth it. Pretty soon, if things continue like they are, Colorado will be renamed Colorady.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

i do too.
with any luck, they'll wind up like louisiana.

Will never happen. Texans wouldn't know what to do with Mardi Gras.

They should teach in Texas public schools that Colorado is a hot bed for atheism and homosexuality so they'll stop coming here. Even though Colorado will go bankrupt from losing the majority of its tourism business, it'll still be worth it. Pretty soon, if things continue like they are, Colorado will be renamed Colorady.

Hey, with less Texans in Colorado, that might attract other tourists.

 

[N4mddissent]

[ But the core of modern physics is based on the idea that nothing is absolutely certain.l

Then the core of modern physics has a problem and physcisists need to work it out. There are things that are certain. If you step off of the top of a 10 story building on Earth, you are going to fall to the ground. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise. It's ridiculous to believe that there is any chance that you won't unless you have some mechanical device to prevent you from doing so.

I suppose you can hold that opinion if you choose. I see it as a conversation stopper. Despite your admitted unfamiliarity and lack of understanding of the mathematics, you unilaterally reject the conclusions of every modern physicist and most of the 20th century. Einstein, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Plank, Bohr, Feynman, de Broglie, and countless others, including many Nobel prize winners are all completely wrong. It is considered on of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century. Absolute certainty was a feature of Newton's classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics replaced classical mechanics because it works better. It works exponentially better. Countless experiments have confirmed that the quantum mechanical model of the universe will time and time again predict with more accuracy than anyone could have imagined, and far more accurately than classical mechanics which could not even account for certain anomalies in the orbit of mercury. Yet, all of this is just a huge mistake just because you don't approve.

That's an impossible position to argue with since you're not making an argument for. You're just dogmatically asserting that all of modern physics is wrong because you say so. You are stuck in a classical mechanics mindset. Einstein starting the crumbling by showing that contrary to classical mechanics, time and distance are relative and there is no fixed point of objective position temporally or locally- and his theory of quanta. Quantum mechanics was rejected at first, but soon, the greatest measure of an idea in science- does it work?- convinced the world of its accuracy.

Physics and science in general holds forth as a basic concept that postulates which provide the highest degree of harmony between predicted outcomes and observable outcomes most accurately reflect that actual nature of the universe. And no system of scientific understanding in the history of humanity has produced greater harmony than quantum mechanics.

It's ridiculous to believe you will win the lottery. It doesn't mean it is impossible.

 

[N4mddissent]

I still don't get it.

Evolution doesn't explain how life originated, only how the variations came to be, so it really has nothing to do with ID. Now if there was a science class on the "Origin of Life" (to which there are only theories as yet) then I could understand the complaint, but then again, teaching all creation myths would be ... well .. impossible.

Most "ID" proponents deny common ancestry and thus deny speciation. Not all- but most. This is why it is really a form of creationism advocating special creation rather than speciation. And it is why it creates such a reaction in the science community whereas Crick's ideas about pan-spermia were considered at face value- and interesting but unproven hypothesis. He wasn't denying already well-confirmed scientic models like speciation.

 

[N4mddissent]

You seem to assert that what you believe is true is true and that there is no room for discussion. That is dogmatic in my understanding. It would be like me saying that you had to be baptized by full immersion or you were going to hell because Jesus says to baptize all nations. Rather, you are saying believe "common ancestry" because I believe all these "facts" presented by scientists.

That is not my position. There is room for discussion. Early on I asked for anyone to provide me with a better explanation to account for common pseudogenes in primates. Specifically humans and chimpanzees. It fits perfectly well and indeed would be expected in an evolutionary model that includes common ancestry. Pseudogenes are the markers we use all the time to determine paternity and consanguine relationships. We use them in our legal system to convict or exonerate criminals. But when the same pseudogenes also show not only humanity's relationship with other animals but matches temporal distance of kinship expected by evolution in most cases, suddenly there must be some unnamed problem with using them as evidence. I feel that if someone denies genetic evidence for evolution then it is only honestly consistent that they adamantly oppose the use of DNA in our legal system for paternity or criminal conviction since it is based on the same understanding and same types of markers.

You see, these are not just statements. The evidence is tangible in the cells of every living thing. I believe you have a responsibility put forth an effort to understand what evidence leads scientists to accept a particular conclusion. Scientists are not accepting a statement. They are observing and interpreting and then justifying the interpretation with logical inference, deductions, experimentation, etc... It is wholly different than the baptismal example you gave. An example I am familiar with since I grew up in a complete immersion church.

The most obvious way the two are different is in the results. There is no general consensus opinion on baptism in christianity. It is given different weight and different meaning by a variety of churches. I would not expect christianity to ever reach a general consensus about baptism among all the churches throughout the world. But scientists have reached a general consensus about common ancestry throughout the world. How? They're people too, just like christians- with their own opinions, doubts, and beliefs. But it works because science relies on logic and observation of the world, not on authoritative sources like leaders or scripture. People can have differing opinions. But logic generates consensus. It's the same reason we don't have differing opinions on what 2 + 2 equals.

Sure, you might throw out tons of "documentation" backing up your beliefs, but the fact remains, that I am unwilling to take a scientist's word for it until he can show me how whales become dogs or monkeys become humans. Simply saying that it happens is not sufficient for me.

Scientists have shown "how" those things could happen. As I said, I believe you must take some responsibility to educate yourself on how scientists say these things could happen if you find it doubtful. Do you accept when scientists tell you the Earth goes around the sun? Do you accept when science tells that we are made of atoms? Do you accept when science tells you that germs cause disease? It is inconsistent to only accept scientists at their word when one chooses to. It is the same sort of mentality that lets people pick and choose out of religion the parts they want to accept and just conveniently deny the uncomfortable parts.

I understand that there is a lot of evidence supporting your beliefs. Yet, evidence does not always lead to the truth. Wasn't it you that earlier in this thread had an example of a murder where the evidence pointed to a husband murdering his wife? Every bit of evidence might lead the investigators to believe that the husband murdered his wife, but the truth could be that the husband was innocent and the lover killed her and framed the husband.

Evidence is not proof.

Proof is a video tape of the husband killing his wife. Proof is a confession. Proof is an eye witness who's testimony cannot be impeached. Proof is something that scientist have not found in regards to this matter.

Scientists may have very good reasons for standing by this theory. They have every right to say that the preponderance of the evidence points us in this direction, but that is not proof.

It is true that evidence is not the same as proof. And that is why science never declares itself to have proven anything in the ultimate sense. Have our experiments proven- in the sense of absolute certainty- that all matter consists of atoms? Scientists would say no. It may be confident enough to declare it irrational to disbelieve at this point, but that's not the same as absolute proof.

A video tape can be altered or unclear, a confession can be coerced. And I think it is most fitting that you mention eyewitness testimony. I believe it is one the most critical weaknesses in our justice system that we put so much weight on eyewitness testimony. Test after test in neuroscience and psychology show that eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable evidences available. The eyewitness usually doesn't even realize it. Case in point, 60 minutes recently had a story of a woman who was raped. She knew there was nothing she could do so she steeled her resolve and just stared at the guy trying to memorize his face in detail. Afterwards she reported to the police and gave a description. They captured a man fitting it nearby. She picked him independently out of two separate line-ups and identified him as her rapist. For 20 years she rested easy knowing he was in jail. She recalls getting chills when he looked at her at the trial.

Then they found out she was wrong. The real rapist was in prison elsewhere by now. DNA testing confirmed that the man she had accused was innocent. They have since become friends.

The irony is that you offered impeachable eyewitness testimony as "proof", yet it was the dna evidence that you deny (with regards to evolution) which ultimately set an innocent man free while your "proof" is what wrongly convicted him.

The evidence is all we have. If you are looking for absolute certainity in anything, you will not find it except in irrational convictions or true dogma- not science. It makes no claims to absolute certainty. But when you see examples like manipulation of a gene to cause chickens to grow crocodilian teeth (remnants of their dinosaur ancestry), observation of speciation events in fruit flies, the wealth of the fossil record, genetic similarites unexplained by any other theory to date, antibiotic resistance development in bacteria...it seems less and less rational to deny the implications of the evidence simply because they make one uncomfortable.

 

[N4mddissent]

[

I addressed this already, reread the whole thing. It is NOT 100% certain you would fall.

Yes, Kitten, it is. If you step off of the top of a building on planet Earth and there is not mechanical intervention to stop you, you will fall. That is 100% certain.

And, again, I hope those who are neutral are noticing how ridiculous this is getting.

100% certainty only comes with 100% knowledge, otherwise it is just the utterance of a fool. By making such a statment, you are implying that you know everything. Perhaps you can explain how to know the precise momentum and location of an electron simultaneously. That alone would earn you a nobel prize.

You seem to be so certain about the nature of things, then tell me- is light a wave or a particle?

 

[N4mddissent]

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

I would say that as far as scientists trained in a relevant biological or geological field "vast majority" is an understatement.


I'm actually glad to see this though, because I hate Texas. Its good to see them going down the road of moronic ignorance, I hope they suffer dearly for it.

They also might want to consider the number of scientific conferences they have in their state, and how much money that brings in.

National science group boycotting Louisiana in protest of Science Education Act - Breaking News from New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com

Come on, now. I don't live in Texas- but hating an entire state? That's not a rational position.