Science under attack in Texas

[Againsheila]

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

We came from the 12 colonies of Man, the Lords of Cobol say so. It is written. The thirteenth colony, far out in the universe, is lost. It's called..... Earth![ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=xHD1uPVkyk0]YouTube - Battlestar Galactica Opening Theme from 1978[/ame]

Yeah, I was a big fan of the original.

 

[Red Dawn]

And many Christians do, I think that problem is you only need one like the Dr in the article to make us all look bad. I still want to know how he got a doctorate without realizing that the world is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years.

I never tell anyone they can't have their religious views compatible with science. I try focus criticism on letting ideology (religious, political, or otherwise) trump scientific facts. I happen to not believe the bible, but it wasn't always the case, so I understand the arguments for compatibility and many of the creationist arguments that try to discredit science. That is the behavior that really frustrates me- When someone claims absolute certainty, with a conclusion based in their belief, and then tries to shoe-horn the facts into conforming with their ideas. I haven't seen you do that, but many do. A survey a couple of years ago suggested that as much as 40% of the U.S. population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's sad, really.

One last thing, and I don't mean this negatively, but it seems you were taught a common misconception. I actually had science teachers who taught me this as well, before I discovered that actual scientists think it is silly and wrong. I'm referring to the hypothesis-theory-Law chain of progression. Hypothesis gets some confirmation it becomes a theory. A theory gets complete confirmation it becomes a law. This whole idea is incorrect. Real scientists use the word theory to mean a broad explanation that covers a wide range of related natural phenomena. If a theory is accepted by general scientific consensus, then it is regarded as accurate as any fact in science. That is why scientists nearly have a stroke when they hear people criticize evolution as "only a theory". I don't think they realized how widespread the popular misconception of scientific theories is.

Um, I know actual scientists, one of my best friends is one. It's not a misconception, it's fact. Hypothesis, theory, law.....that's the way it goes. It's that way in Math too. A theory does have facts to support it, just not enough to make it law. Evolution is a theory, Gravity is law. Get it?

The problem is that since the 70's, public schools have been so out against Christian/Judeo beliefs that they teach evolution as fact more as an attack against Judeo/Christian beliefs than as science. So anyone that calls it a theory, which is what it is, is immediately attacked, as seen in this thread previously. I would rather they teach it as a theory and encourage those future scientists to go out and prove it.

They haven't yet found all the links...I want to know where we came from, why Caucasians are the way they are, why do Negros (and just so you know, I use the word negro here because when I was in school there were 3 races, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. You could be black AND Caucasian, believe it or not. Blacks that have the flat nose and big lips are Negroid the others are Caucasoid, it's not meant as an insult to anyone) have an extra tendon, why do Asians have slanted eyes? Evolution could explain it...but it doesn't yet.

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

You "know" scientists?

You don't belong on a science thread. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You have zero training is science. I don't talk about day care because I don't know shit about it. You are scientifically illiterate and should get off the thread before you look more foolish.

You incredible ignoramus, a scientific law is a mathematical uexpression that describes an observed natural relationship. It does nothing more than quantify a natural process. Its a math equation. E=MC squared.


Gravity, evoluotion, and relativity are and always will be theories. They never get eleevated beyond the theory status. Some theories are so well tested, they might become basic tenets of science. But science never elevates an interpretation into a 100%, guaranteed, iron clad fact. Atomic theory will always be a theory. We will teach kids atomic theory, but no one is ever going to physically "see" an electron. Its not possible to physically see them. The observational effects of gravity are an observational fact - things fall to the ground. But no one will ever know with bullet proof certainty what exactly the cause and nature of gravity is. The consensus is that mass causes a warping of space-time resulting in gravitational forces. But we don't know that for 100% certain. The fossil record and DNA evidence makes the theory of evolution so strong, that it is on a par with gravity and atomic theory. And any good science teacher will teach the kids that these are ALL theories. Nothing is science proves these things with absolute, iron clad certainty. Science is about is about probabilities.

You obviously had a horrible science education, or perhaps none at all.

Why are you so obsessed with pointing out evolution is a theory, but you're not obsessed with pointing out relativity and atoms are theories too?


Its becase you've been trained like a chimpanzee to fear that the theory of evolution will somehow disprove God.

Relax. Even the catholic church accepts evolution, and finds no dichotomy between it and science. Only people like the Taliban and the Pentacostals are so hostile to science.

 

[N4mddissent]

And many Christians do, I think that problem is you only need one like the Dr in the article to make us all look bad. I still want to know how he got a doctorate without realizing that the world is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years.

I never tell anyone they can't have their religious views compatible with science. I try focus criticism on letting ideology (religious, political, or otherwise) trump scientific facts. I happen to not believe the bible, but it wasn't always the case, so I understand the arguments for compatibility and many of the creationist arguments that try to discredit science. That is the behavior that really frustrates me- When someone claims absolute certainty, with a conclusion based in their belief, and then tries to shoe-horn the facts into conforming with their ideas. I haven't seen you do that, but many do. A survey a couple of years ago suggested that as much as 40% of the U.S. population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's sad, really.

One last thing, and I don't mean this negatively, but it seems you were taught a common misconception. I actually had science teachers who taught me this as well, before I discovered that actual scientists think it is silly and wrong. I'm referring to the hypothesis-theory-Law chain of progression. Hypothesis gets some confirmation it becomes a theory. A theory gets complete confirmation it becomes a law. This whole idea is incorrect. Real scientists use the word theory to mean a broad explanation that covers a wide range of related natural phenomena. If a theory is accepted by general scientific consensus, then it is regarded as accurate as any fact in science. That is why scientists nearly have a stroke when they hear people criticize evolution as "only a theory". I don't think they realized how widespread the popular misconception of scientific theories is.

Um, I know actual scientists, one of my best friends is one. It's not a misconception, it's fact. Hypothesis, theory, law.....that's the way it goes. It's that way in Math too. A theory does have facts to support it, just not enough to make it law. Evolution is a theory, Gravity is law. Get it?

The problem is that since the 70's, public schools have been so out against Christian/Judeo beliefs that they teach evolution as fact more as an attack against Judeo/Christian beliefs than as science. So anyone that calls it a theory, which is what it is, is immediately attacked, as seen in this thread previously. I would rather they teach it as a theory and encourage those future scientists to go out and prove it.

They haven't yet found all the links...I want to know where we came from, why Caucasians are the way they are, why do Negros (and just so you know, I use the word negro here because when I was in school there were 3 races, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. You could be black AND Caucasian, believe it or not. Blacks that have the flat nose and big lips are Negroid the others are Caucasoid, it's not meant as an insult to anyone) have an extra tendon, why do Asians have slanted eyes? Evolution could explain it...but it doesn't yet.

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

Don't want to disparage your friend, but according to the U.S. National Academy of Science

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena​

And the AAAS says,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[​

You can also find more information here:
What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

There is a relationship, but the idea that evolution is a theory means it is less teneble than any other scientific "theory" is wrong. Newton's Law of Gravity was actually wrong. Einstein proved it was not accurate. The theory of gravity is what has remained. Newton's understanding and Einstein's discoveries are within that broad theory. That's why Einstein could show Newton was incorrect, but the Theory of Gravity remained constant. Darwin's ideas have been changed and modified many times. But the Theory of Evolution is just as certain as the Theory of Gravity.

 

[Againsheila]

I never tell anyone they can't have their religious views compatible with science. I try focus criticism on letting ideology (religious, political, or otherwise) trump scientific facts. I happen to not believe the bible, but it wasn't always the case, so I understand the arguments for compatibility and many of the creationist arguments that try to discredit science. That is the behavior that really frustrates me- When someone claims absolute certainty, with a conclusion based in their belief, and then tries to shoe-horn the facts into conforming with their ideas. I haven't seen you do that, but many do. A survey a couple of years ago suggested that as much as 40% of the U.S. population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's sad, really.

One last thing, and I don't mean this negatively, but it seems you were taught a common misconception. I actually had science teachers who taught me this as well, before I discovered that actual scientists think it is silly and wrong. I'm referring to the hypothesis-theory-Law chain of progression. Hypothesis gets some confirmation it becomes a theory. A theory gets complete confirmation it becomes a law. This whole idea is incorrect. Real scientists use the word theory to mean a broad explanation that covers a wide range of related natural phenomena. If a theory is accepted by general scientific consensus, then it is regarded as accurate as any fact in science. That is why scientists nearly have a stroke when they hear people criticize evolution as "only a theory". I don't think they realized how widespread the popular misconception of scientific theories is.

Um, I know actual scientists, one of my best friends is one. It's not a misconception, it's fact. Hypothesis, theory, law.....that's the way it goes. It's that way in Math too. A theory does have facts to support it, just not enough to make it law. Evolution is a theory, Gravity is law. Get it?

The problem is that since the 70's, public schools have been so out against Christian/Judeo beliefs that they teach evolution as fact more as an attack against Judeo/Christian beliefs than as science. So anyone that calls it a theory, which is what it is, is immediately attacked, as seen in this thread previously. I would rather they teach it as a theory and encourage those future scientists to go out and prove it.

They haven't yet found all the links...I want to know where we came from, why Caucasians are the way they are, why do Negros (and just so you know, I use the word negro here because when I was in school there were 3 races, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. You could be black AND Caucasian, believe it or not. Blacks that have the flat nose and big lips are Negroid the others are Caucasoid, it's not meant as an insult to anyone) have an extra tendon, why do Asians have slanted eyes? Evolution could explain it...but it doesn't yet.

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

You "know" scientists

You don't belong on a science thread. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You have zero training is science. I don't talk about day care because I don't know shit about it. You are scientifically illiterate and should get off the thread before you look more foolish.

You incredible ignoramus, a scientific law is a mathematical uexpression that describes an observed natural relationship. It does nothing more than quantify a natural process. Its a math equation. E=MC squared.


Gravity, evoluotion, and relativity are and always will be theories. The never get eleevated beyond the theory status. Some theories are so well tested, they might become basic tenets of science. But science never elevates an interpretation into a 100%, guaranteed, iron clad fact. Atomic theory will always be a theory. We will teach kids atomic theory, but no one is ever going to physically "see" an electron. Its not possible to physically see them. The observational effects of gravity are an observational fact - things fall to the ground. But no one will ever know with bullet proof certainty what exactly the cause and nature of gravity is. The consensus is that mass causes a warping of space-time resulting in gravitational forces. But we don't know that for 100% certain. The fossil record and DNA evidence makes the theory of evolution so strong, that it is on a par with gravity and atomic theory. And any good science teacher will teach the kids that these are ALL theories. Nothing is science proves these things with absolute, iron clad certainty. Science is about is about probabilities.

You obviously had a horrible science education, or perhaps none at all.

Why are you so obsessed with pointing out evolution is a theory, but you're not obsessed with pointing out relativity and atoms are theories too?


Its becase you've been trained like a chimpanzee to fear that the theory of evolution will somehow disprove God.

Relax. Even the catholic church accepts evolution, and finds no dichotomy between it tnd science. Only people like the Taliban and the Pentacostals are so hostile to science. Maybe

You're right, I have zero training in science, it was my worst subject in school (by the way, I already admitted that), doesn't mean I don't know any scientists. I know an economist too, he teaches at Princeton. My science education was more than 30 years ago. Couldn't understand why my friend wanted to be a microbiologist. Later, she went back and got her masters in teaching and now she teaches science.

She was a big help to me when I was fighting the garbage incinerator in Tacoma, I, in turn helped her when the same idiot that sold that garbage incinerator to the city of Tacoma was putting one on a river back east that led into their water reservoir.

However, my lack of education when it comes to science doesn't take away the fact that a theory is a theory, not law.

As for the above, this thread is about evolution not being taught in Texas...why would I be discussing atoms?

And no, as you've pointed out and I already admitted, evolution doesn't disprove God. It's not contrary to the Bible.

I am sick of being attacked for being a Christian and the fact that public schools are so concerned with teaching against Christianity that they fail to encourage our future scientists to go out there and find those missing links.

My biology teacher in college was so against the idea of God, especially the Christian God that almost every sentence he spoke he would conclude with it disproving the existence of God. I got a B out of the class, in spite of the fact that I was always challenging him. "Yeah, it started with hydrogen and oxygen, but who put those there in the first place?"

He didn't like the fact that he couldn't shake my belief, or that I wouldn't kowtow to his "superior" wisdom.

Public schools, even public colleges today are so set on teaching against religion as a whole and Christianity in particular that you will forgive me for being defensive. Well, you should anyway, I doubt you will.

 

[N4mddissent]

I am sick of being attacked for being a Christian and the fact that public schools are so concerned with teaching against Christianity that they fail to encourage our future scientists to go out there and find those missing links.

Public schools, even public colleges today are so set on teaching against religion as a whole and Christianity in particular that you will forgive me for being defensive. Well, you should anyway, I doubt you will.

I don't think it would be accurate to say I attacked you for being a christian. Though I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a biology professor, I worked in a public school. The school I worked in had "inspirational" speakers from christian organizations, and frequently had posters and student work which praised jesus/god on the walls. The workroom for teachers always had church flyers lying around and in mail boxes. Did not seem like that school (or the teachers who often listened to gospel broadcasts during planning time) was against christianity.

In any case, it's irrelevant. Over 99% of American biologists agree that evolution is not only fact, but the entire basis of modern biology.

 

[Diuretic]

That biology professor needs a kick in the arse, how dare any teacher try to impose their own ideology on students, doesn't matter what it is.

 

[YWN666]

However, my lack of education when it comes to science doesn't take away the fact that a theory is a theory, not law.

It absolutely does because you don't know what you're talking about. Study up on the terminology used in science and you'll see how silly your comments sound to the rest of us.

 

[Againsheila]

However, my lack of education when it comes to science doesn't take away the fact that a theory is a theory, not law.

It absolutely does because you don't know what you're talking about. Study up on the terminology used in science and you'll see how silly your comments sound to the rest of us.

You mean to the people who think theory is law?

 

[YWN666]

However, my lack of education when it comes to science doesn't take away the fact that a theory is a theory, not law.

It absolutely does because you don't know what you're talking about. Study up on the terminology used in science and you'll see how silly your comments sound to the rest of us.

You mean to the people who think theory is law?

OK, define for us the words theory and law as used in the scientific context.

 

[Red Dawn]

However, my lack of education when it comes to science doesn't take away the fact that a theory is a theory, not law.

It absolutely does because you don't know what you're talking about. Study up on the terminology used in science and you'll see how silly your comments sound to the rest of us.

You mean to the people who think theory is law?

I don't think you can comprehend just how uninformed and scientifically illiterate you sound to those of us with more formal education in science beyond the 8th grade class you took dissecting frogs.


You could probably school me on the bible or on baking southern pecan pie. But you're out of your element here and you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. I try to stay away from topics that I don't have a clue about.......you don't appear to mind embarrassing yourself.

I already told you what a scientific law is. I don't care what you heard on the Limbaugh show.

I scientific law is a mathematical equation that describes an observed relationship. Nothing more. The law of gravity is just a mathematical equation that describes the rate acceleration due to gravity. It doesn't tell us exactly what gravity is, what causes it, or what it's fundamental nature is.

That is left to the realm of theory. And scientific interpretations of processes never get elevated beyond theory. They always remain theory. Some become so accepted, they become tenets of science. But theoretical interpretations never become "law".


Why aren't you afraid of atomic theory or the theory of relativity, the way you are of evolutionary theory? They're all on an equal par - so thoroghly tested and accepted that they have become basic tenets of science.

I know why you fear evolutionary theory, but it would be very honest and direct of you if you just came out and said it

 

[KittenKoder]

The sad thing ... even if scientific theory means what they think it does ... it's still more accurate than religious myth.

 

[TheNilvarg]

"Religion under attack in Western World," is a more significant headline. Atheists are more zealous and preachy than any Christian I've met. If anyone is fighting a crusade to eliminate the other side, it's those who lack the capacity to comprehend a higher being.

 

[KittenKoder]

"Religion under attack in Western World," is a more significant headline. Atheists are more zealous and preachy than any Christian I've met. If anyone is fighting a crusade to eliminate the other side, it's those who lack the capacity to comprehend a higher being.

LOL this is funny ... especially the irony of it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"Religion under attack in Western World," is a more significant headline. Atheists are more zealous and preachy than any Christian I've met. If anyone is fighting a crusade to eliminate the other side, it's those who lack the capacity to comprehend a higher being.

Militant atheists are very few in number. They're simply loud and screechy. Which makes fundies very nervous, almost like the truth is trying to break though their dogma shit-fogged consciousness. They're also overly defensive...

 

[Diuretic]

"Religion under attack in Western World," is a more significant headline. Atheists are more zealous and preachy than any Christian I've met. If anyone is fighting a crusade to eliminate the other side, it's those who lack the capacity to comprehend a higher being.

Who has the capacity to comprehend a higher being? By definition a higher being only has the capacity to comprehend itself.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This issue was decided, with both sides either disappointed or claiming victory, depending on where you read:

From The Scientific American:
Texas vote moves evolution to the top of the class: Scientific American Blog

From The Christian Post:
Texas Board Approves New Standards Requiring Critique of Evolution| Christianpost.com

From The Wall Street Journal:
Texas Opens Classroom Door for Evolution Doubts - WSJ.com

From SeeBS:​

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=plAJ4lJ2ktk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Notebook: Teaching Evolution[/ame]

 

[N4mddissent]

And many Christians do, I think that problem is you only need one like the Dr in the article to make us all look bad. I still want to know how he got a doctorate without realizing that the world is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years.

I never tell anyone they can't have their religious views compatible with science. I try focus criticism on letting ideology (religious, political, or otherwise) trump scientific facts. I happen to not believe the bible, but it wasn't always the case, so I understand the arguments for compatibility and many of the creationist arguments that try to discredit science. That is the behavior that really frustrates me- When someone claims absolute certainty, with a conclusion based in their belief, and then tries to shoe-horn the facts into conforming with their ideas. I haven't seen you do that, but many do. A survey a couple of years ago suggested that as much as 40% of the U.S. population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's sad, really.

One last thing, and I don't mean this negatively, but it seems you were taught a common misconception. I actually had science teachers who taught me this as well, before I discovered that actual scientists think it is silly and wrong. I'm referring to the hypothesis-theory-Law chain of progression. Hypothesis gets some confirmation it becomes a theory. A theory gets complete confirmation it becomes a law. This whole idea is incorrect. Real scientists use the word theory to mean a broad explanation that covers a wide range of related natural phenomena. If a theory is accepted by general scientific consensus, then it is regarded as accurate as any fact in science. That is why scientists nearly have a stroke when they hear people criticize evolution as "only a theory". I don't think they realized how widespread the popular misconception of scientific theories is.

Um, I know actual scientists, one of my best friends is one. It's not a misconception, it's fact. Hypothesis, theory, law.....that's the way it goes. It's that way in Math too. A theory does have facts to support it, just not enough to make it law. Evolution is a theory, Gravity is law. Get it?

The problem is that since the 70's, public schools have been so out against Christian/Judeo beliefs that they teach evolution as fact more as an attack against Judeo/Christian beliefs than as science. So anyone that calls it a theory, which is what it is, is immediately attacked, as seen in this thread previously. I would rather they teach it as a theory and encourage those future scientists to go out and prove it.

They haven't yet found all the links...I want to know where we came from, why Caucasians are the way they are, why do Negros (and just so you know, I use the word negro here because when I was in school there were 3 races, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. You could be black AND Caucasian, believe it or not. Blacks that have the flat nose and big lips are Negroid the others are Caucasoid, it's not meant as an insult to anyone) have an extra tendon, why do Asians have slanted eyes? Evolution could explain it...but it doesn't yet.

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

By the way, addressing the 3 "races" is silly. Genetically, there is only the human race. Recent studies have shown that there is greater genetic variation within groups than between groups. In other words, there is likely to be greater difference genetically between two scandanavian individuals than between a scandanavian and a north african. Race is a social classification created by humans, not a true classification created by nature.

And the fact that you would believe an urban legend like the "extra tendon" myth but still find evolution questionable despite fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and thousands of scientific papers along with statements from the most prestigious scientific organizations in America, makes your objectivity seem questionable. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your approach if you are interested in honestly considering the matter.

As far as the definition of a theory, I provided you with a statement from the most prestigious scientific organiztion in America ( NAS) and the largest scientific organiztion in America (AAAS) which both clearly state the power of a scientific theory. Without a theory, all the facts in science are like an unorganzied stamp collection.

"Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." ~Henri Poincaré

Theories tie facts together. Calling it a theory in no way implies it is questionable as true, at least no more than any other theory is true.

 

[HUGGY]

They study science in Texas? Who knew?

 

[belboz]

Texas is still insisting that Science should be spelled Sceince. They are unaware of the "except after c" rule....

 

[N4mddissent]

"Religion under attack in Western World," is a more significant headline. Atheists are more zealous and preachy than any Christian I've met. If anyone is fighting a crusade to eliminate the other side, it's those who lack the capacity to comprehend a higher being.

And of course, since this thread was about science and science makes no claims about religious belief, it is relevant how?

Science just explains the natural world. A lot of religious people get agitated by evolution, but as Walter Lippman once said,

The radical novelty of modern science lies precisely in the rejection of the belief, which is at the heart of all popular religion, that the forces which move the stars and atoms are contingent upon the preferences of the human heart.​

There are many people who find their religion does not conflict with scientific discoveries. And most people have accepted long-established science fact. I don't understand why biblical literalist do not complain about the heliocentric solar system? The bible clearly states that the earth does not move. But for some reason they accept the scientific contradicition here.

In any case, attacking science has nothing to do with atheism. Kenneth Miller is in no way an atheist and he is one of the champions of good science education. Rev. Barry Lynn is no atheist. The pope is not an atheist. All of these people support evolution. Fundamentalism attacks science and when rejected it claims all who rejected it are atheists attacking them.