Science under attack in Texas

[YWN666]

Not one fucking person here has said anything of the sort except you science only weenies.

But that's what this bloke is trying to pull on, it's absolutely transparent to anyone not befuddled with crazed ideas about ID and Creationism and all the rest of that muck masquerading as science.

Okay, your turn.

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

Are you saying that all of the scientific theories you learned in school have been completely disproven and tossed out the window? Or maybe they've been refined as new evidence becomes available. The latter is what science does - it is a strength, not a weakness.

What did you learn in science that has been proven to be "absolutely wrong"?

 

[YWN666]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been taught here since *I* was in the 5th grade. Regardless the "state" it is in, it's STILL a theory and should be taught as a theory.

And with respect, those of you that leap to explain the unexplainable without fact are STILL only theorizing. It most certainly IS guessing.

The idea that evolution has occurred is a fact and the theory of evolution explains the facts. I suspect you are not using the word theory in the scientific context. It does not imply doubt.

Correction--the theory of evolution TRIES to prove the facts.

Nope. A theory explains facts and that is what the theory of evolution does. A scientific theory is never proven - that's just not the way they work.

 

[dilloduck]

But that's what this bloke is trying to pull on, it's absolutely transparent to anyone not befuddled with crazed ideas about ID and Creationism and all the rest of that muck masquerading as science.

Okay, your turn.

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

Are you saying that all of the scientific theories you learned in school have been completely disproven and tossed out the window? Or maybe they've been refined as new evidence becomes available. The latter is what science does - it is a strength, not a weakness.

What did you learn in science that has been proven to be "absolutely wrong"?

I couldn't begin to count them.
Look---religion states that man will never understand it all and offers alternatives to relying on intellect. Science has set out to disprove that. So far religion is winning and I bet it continues to do so.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Hmmm....

I'm not so sure. The vast majority of scientists accept that ToE is the most likely explanation. Those that don't (I'm hypothesizing) probably either have a religious ax to grind or have only certain reservations that prevent them from agreeing with the majority.

So long as evolution is taught only as theory, I'm not sure what the benefit is of teaching children what the flaws in the theory are, when even scientists as a whole do not agree on those flaws. Surely it's sufficient to teach them that as a theory there are certain things that remain unclear or unexplained and that the issue needs to be continuously investigated in the pursuit of the truth. Anything more than that I see as college material.

I think that while Texas may not be taking a step in the wrong direction, it's an unnecessary step for them to take.

Do you agree it's ridiculous to be teaching kids that the earth is only 10,000 years old? When we know for sure there are writings older than that -- hell, even other RELIGIONS older than that! Never mind evolution, let's just go here!

This is the kind of fundy silliness, extremist idiotic beliefs, that make the point of whether evolution only should be taught totally moot.

No more silly that teaching children the theory of evolution is a fact instead of a THEORY. Duh.

The issue is only moot to you that keep your blinders on tight.

As long as they understand that theories in science in no way resemble the use of the word "theory" colloquially.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been taught here since *I* was in the 5th grade. Regardless the "state" it is in, it's STILL a theory and should be taught as a theory.

And with respect, those of you that leap to explain the unexplainable without fact are STILL only theorizing. It most certainly IS guessing.

That would be the colloquial use of theory. Evolutionary theory is not just a "guess."

Fact is, where origin is concerned, scientists overstep the bounds of science. Science doesn't have the answer and science cannot deal with not having an answer, nor can those who choose science as their religion.

That's more of an irrational aspect of human nature, i.e. making up answers for things we don't understand but really want to. The scientific method tries to control for that, but whenever people are involved you're going to have an imperfect system. Indeed, people seem unable to deal with not having an answer. That is precisely why religion exists.

If you're talking specifically about origins, evolutionary theory is not dependent upon that. Scientists have proposed many models to explain how life may have began, but these are not what can be called scientific theories.

Worst strawman ever award ?

If you re-define "science" so that it's not "science" isn't that some sort of strawman?

If science tries to explain what science can't and steps into another realm, is that not some sort of strawman?

What can't science explain?

Not one fucking person here has said anything of the sort except you science only weenies.

But that's what this bloke is trying to pull on, it's absolutely transparent to anyone not befuddled with crazed ideas about ID and Creationism and all the rest of that muck masquerading as science.

Okay, your turn.

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

There is no infallible explanation of the universe and there never will be. But science is, at least, self-correcting in the long-term, whereas other things are not. So, what were you taught that has been proven absolutely wrong?

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

It's been said already. Teach science in science class, teach religion in religous class and teach metaphysics in a philosophy class. If you were taught that science deals in absolutes then get your money back. Even I knew back then that science was tentative. No right-minded person is going to claim that science has the answers to everything, some may say it doesn't even have the answers to anything but has a range of pretty good ideas about why things are as they are. One of the things that solid science can do is predict things and explain why. But it is tentative, science is all about knocking down ideas. That's why science and religion can't be mixed up, they're totally different one from the other. To infuse religion into a science class is bloody ridiculous. It would be as stupid as infusing science into a religious class. Science is tentative, religion is not.

Both however attempt to teach children how things are and why they are. One uses and intellectual approach while the other uses a spiritual approach. Why is the spiritual approach banned from being taught in school ?

Because the spiritual approach doesn't lead anywhere?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been taught here since *I* was in the 5th grade. Regardless the "state" it is in, it's STILL a theory and should be taught as a theory.

And with respect, those of you that leap to explain the unexplainable without fact are STILL only theorizing. It most certainly IS guessing.

The idea that evolution has occurred is a fact and the theory of evolution explains the facts. I suspect you are not using the word theory in the scientific context. It does not imply doubt.

Correction--the theory of evolution TRIES to prove the facts.

It's a best-fit explanation for the sum total of our knowledge in biology and where other fields such as geology overlap.

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

Are you saying that all of the scientific theories you learned in school have been completely disproven and tossed out the window? Or maybe they've been refined as new evidence becomes available. The latter is what science does - it is a strength, not a weakness.

What did you learn in science that has been proven to be "absolutely wrong"?

I couldn't begin to count them.
Look---religion states that man will never understand it all and offers alternatives to relying on intellect. Science has set out to disprove that. So far religion is winning and I bet it continues to do so.

Most religions were written during times when "man" understood very little, and perhaps even contributed to our continued ignorance. Religion wins at least partly because people believe ignorance is bliss. I am guessing and hoping religion will die someday, but not in my lifetime.

 

[spymaster]

uhh.....dude....."beliefs" don't have anything to do with science. A proper science education teaches science. Beliefs can be taught in church.

The taliban teach "beliefs" in madrassas. We teach science in science class.

You should go back about 50 years and see what scientists "believed".

Science changes as we learn more, religion and creationism stays the same no matter what we learn or observe.

It's why in science they call everything a theory, because there's always a chance (even if it's a very small chance) that it's wrong.

Religion dwells into the unprovable and the untestable and says they have absolute facts.

I can't wait to see your faces when I'm in heaven...

 

[dilloduck]

Most religions were written during times when "man" understood very little, and perhaps even contributed to our continued ignorance. Religion wins at least partly because people believe ignorance is bliss. I am guessing and hoping religion will die someday, but not in my lifetime.

Ignorance will ALWAYS be part a humans make up. Or do you think we wil transcend humanity ? Science simply cannot explain everything and never will. The part that remains unknown is what religion speaks to.

 

[YWN666]

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

Are you saying that all of the scientific theories you learned in school have been completely disproven and tossed out the window? Or maybe they've been refined as new evidence becomes available. The latter is what science does - it is a strength, not a weakness.

What did you learn in science that has been proven to be "absolutely wrong"?

I couldn't begin to count them.

Humor me and give me 3 or 4 examples.

Look---religion states that man will never understand it all and offers alternatives to relying on intellect. Science has set out to disprove that. So far religion is winning and I bet it continues to do so.

Religion states it so it is the truth, eh? It's a cheap excuse as to why religion can't explain away its many inconsistencies.
It's very convenient when you've run out of answers to claim that your opponent just doesn't have the capacity to understand them.

 

[YWN666]

Most religions were written during times when "man" understood very little, and perhaps even contributed to our continued ignorance. Religion wins at least partly because people believe ignorance is bliss. I am guessing and hoping religion will die someday, but not in my lifetime.

Ignorance will ALWAYS be part a humans make up. Or do you think we wil transcend humanity ? Science simply cannot explain everything and never will. The part that remains unknown is what religion speaks to.

Just because science doesn't yet have an answer to something doesn't mean the religious explanation is the default.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's very convenient when you've run out of answers to claim that your opponent just doesn't have the capacity to understand them.

Haha! That's exactly what EnviroNazis do, the AGW religion.

 

[Shogun]

let me point out that since day 1 of the scientific method not a single epiphany of reality has been the product of faith, belief or dogma junkie bullshit. When believers can offer humanity their version of something as significant as penicillin then they can start talking about equivalence.

 

[YWN666]

It's very convenient when you've run out of answers to claim that your opponent just doesn't have the capacity to understand them.

Haha! That's exactly what EnviroNazis do, the AGW religion.

Thank you, Captain Non-Sequitur.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's very convenient when you've run out of answers to claim that your opponent just doesn't have the capacity to understand them.

Haha! That's exactly what EnviroNazis do, the AGW religion.

Thank you, Captain Non-Sequitur.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Diuretic]

You should go back about 50 years and see what scientists "believed".

Science changes as we learn more, religion and creationism stays the same no matter what we learn or observe.

It's why in science they call everything a theory, because there's always a chance (even if it's a very small chance) that it's wrong.

Religion dwells into the unprovable and the untestable and says they have absolute facts.

I can't wait to see your faces when I'm in heaven...

Gloaters don't get to go to Heaven

 

[N4mddissent]

Scientists attempt to understand objective reality, and as much as possible through corrective processes like peer review, independent lines of evidence, and experimental verification, try to give a view free from ideological biases that may vary among all the scientists. This junk in Texas is ideologically based. That's why alternative theories to evolution have gained no traction in the scientific community. Their explanatory power cannot stand up to the rigors of scientific testing and confirmation.

That is why you have a general consensus among scientists. The danger is not that students will become dogmatic about evolution and never question aspects of it. The danger is that people are trying to promote the message that it is legitimate to question scientific facts and the merit of scientific theories simply on the basis that it conflicts with your personal ideology. The Soviet Union did this, promoting Lamarkist evolution because they found it more compatible with their political ideology. Scientists who promoted the idea that "genes" played a role in evolution were sent to gulags. Despite Soviet technological advancement overall in launching Sputnik and developing rocketry and nuclear weapons, it always (and Russia still does) remained among the most backward industrial nations in genetic research.

If someone wants to truly offer an alternative, they need to present a theory that- explains the fossil record, anatomical atavisms and vestigial structures, commonality in placement of tranposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses, and the entire body of information we have discovered in biological research to date- better than evolution. Evolution happens to provide an elegant and logical explanation for the information we have in biology. If you have a better explanation to teach in science, please share it. And if science is taught correctly, it will show how evolution explains these facts and make it obvious why the theory of evolution is the basis of modern biology.

 

[Againsheila]

Dr. McLeroy believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago.

You know, I just don't know how anybody can believe that....not believing in evolution, that I get..evolution is a theory, not necessarily a fact.....but believing the world is less than 10,000 years old? He's just wearing blinders. How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

 

[Father Time]

Dr. McLeroy believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago.

You know, I just don't know how anybody can believe that....not believing in evolution, that I get..evolution is a theory, not necessarily a fact.....but believing the world is less than 10,000 years old? He's just wearing blinders. How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

No you see the dinosaur bones were put there to test our faith. Anything that makes it look like creationism is wrong is a test of faith ...

We all know it was the flying spaghetti monster that created everything and made sure that every scientific measurement was wrong. Now if only the classrooms would teach the controversy instead of sticking to that herectic evolution.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible because the MEN who wrote the bible didn't know about them! Oops! But the fundies don't care about little nit-picky things like that.

 

[N4mddissent]

Dr. McLeroy believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago.

You know, I just don't know how anybody can believe that....not believing in evolution, that I get..evolution is a theory, not necessarily a fact.....but believing the world is less than 10,000 years old? He's just wearing blinders. How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

I appreciate your recognition that a 10,000 year old earth is silly, but please don't perpetuate the "evolution is a theory" line. In scientific terms, the existence of atoms, germs causing disease, and the effects of gravity are all theoretical in the same way that evolution is considered theoretical. So unless you're willing to say that it's understandable to question whether atoms exist or whether germs cause disease then saying evolution is a theory not a fact is misrepresenting what the scientific understanding of theory means.

 

[Againsheila]

How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible because the MEN who wrote the bible didn't know about them! Oops! But the fundies don't care about little nit-picky things like that.

It doesn't matter, the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. No where in the Bible does it say dinosaurs never existed. There is nothing in science which contradicts the Bible, and even if there was, well, God is flawless, man isn't.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible because the MEN who wrote the bible didn't know about them! Oops! But the fundies don't care about little nit-picky things like that.

It doesn't matter, the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. No where in the Bible does it say dinosaurs never existed. There is nothing in science which contradicts the Bible, and even if there was, well, God is flawless, man isn't.

It wouldn't say anything about them either way, because the men who wrote the bible didn't know about them.

Men wrote the bible and also created god in their own image. All deities are such. God exists -- only in the human heart.