Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Ben Stein's upcoming movie) (1 Viewer)

IMO, science will always be looking for a better answer.But, why teach something as science that is speculative at best?
If you are teaching something that is 75%(not 99% or 100%)correct, you are teaching a possibility not a fact.
And,please spare me the "You evidently do not understand the scientific method" speeches.

What?

To which issue are you referring? The ToE or Abiogenesis? The ToE is well beyond speculation.

Abiogenesis should always be taught as "This is what we have so far. It's plausible, fits in with the evidence at hand, but truthfully, since it happened 3 1/2 billion years ago, we'll probably never know for sure."
 
Wow,that's mighty arrogant of you...to think that just because I disagree with something doesn't mean that I don't understand it.


It's not your disagreement with it that makes me think you don't understand it. It's what you seem to think the process and goal of science is that makes me think you don't understand it.
 
It's intellectually dishonest to require that science be taught in a science class? You yourself admit that your spiritual beliefs are not science. Why should they be taught in a science class.

And, the evidence for evolution is out there. Is it correct on all small points? No, but it is on the big ones and science isn't about teaching "TRUTH", it's about presenting a theory and then continually trying to disprove it. That's being done all the time with Evolution and it hasn't happened yet. Therefore, until it is, or an equally viable scientific alternative is found, the only thing you can honestly teach in a science class is Evolution. Beyond that, a scientific "Theory" is a lot more than just some wild guess about what might have happened. Evolution is no more of a guess that the Theory of Gravity. I assume you buy that one.

If you want to teach your kids other wise and tell them god created it all, do it. Just don't teach it to my daughter.

I wonder how you would feel if they also presented the Zoroastrian Creation Myth, the Ancient Greek Creation Myth, the Harri Krishna Creation Myth and the Hindu Creation Myth in science classes. Or, is the Christian Creation Myth the only one that is "intellectually honest"?

Widge (and others), you really have to stop with pre-supposing what my position is on these things and let them come out in conversation. It is clear that you have labeled me as part of "that group." I have never, nor has anyone here, if I can remember, presented a position that you should teach a Christian view of creation in science class, maybe religion class or world cultures class, etc.

That said, the problem is that things are being taught as fact, and not as theoretical concept, and that is not being honest. But that would not bother you, because you believe the whole thing as fact. IF we are using science as our rule in science class with my daughter being taught, then lets teach her in a truthful way (as per science) not with bias. Lets not make it so much of a history class either, as in, this is what DID happen.
 
Last edited:
Because it's true that science is always looking for a better answer. That's what science is. If you don't like it then you should just not send your child to science classes. And, it is not speculative. It's as close to fact as you can get scientifically. Science isn't about finding "Truth." That's what religion and philosophy are for.

And, whether you like it or not, the fact is you obviously don't understand the scientific method.

No, I am assuming that abiogenesis is being taught in many classrooms (perhaps your classroom) as fact, when it is actually conjecture.

I believe certain spiritual things as fact, based on faith. To believe that abiogenesis is indeed fact, and the actual truth of what happened, at this point would be based in a faith, or instead hope.

Perhaps "speculative" is not the most accurate word, but it is indeed not fact. To say that abiogenesis, for example, is as "close to fact as you can get scientifically" makes me wonder what your bias is and what your understanding is of the scientific method.
 
Last edited:
So, now you're back to questioning Evolution again? I know the evidence for that has been given over and over again.

Cards on the table time. Do you "buy" evolution? Do you "buy" ToE? Do you "buy" abiogenesis? Do you "buy" that the Earth is over 7,000 years old? Do you think that humans exist because they were instantly created just as we are by a creator and that we have not evolved?

I "buy it" in the sense that there is a logical process based in science and random chance that has been presented, in other words, it makes logical sense. I mean, science would not be science, if not presented in the language of and a method involving logic. For instance, this could happen, then this could happen, then this could happen google times over. [Forget that the second LAW of thermodynamics and that the universe should be finding a state of equilibrium and perfect internal disorder]

But I think you have "bought it" as fact, meaning you go through your life understanding your origin in abiogenesis as being the truth of what happened, which is something different.
 
That said, the problem is that things are being taught as fact, and not as theoretical concept, and that is not being honest. But that would not bother you, because you believe the whole thing as fact. IF we are using science as our rule in science class with my daughter being taught, then lets teach her in a truthful way (as per science) not with bias. Lets not make it so much of a history class either, as in, this is what DID happen.
First, I don't think this is the case nearly as much as you state. I don't think that there are teachers teaching in biology or other science classes that 1) The Theory of Evolution as a whole is 100% undeniable fact (not to be confused with teaching that most elements of the ToE are INDEED fact, which is the truth), or that 2) Abiogenesis is 100% undeniable. To be truthful if any science teacher is teaching that Abiogenesis (or how life came into being) is fact no matter WHAT position it is would be laughable. Even if an experiment could reproduce the instantiation of life from "non-life" there is no way we can prove that is what actually happened billions of years ago (or thousands of years ago, or hundreds, or millions, if that is what you believe).

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact for examples and good explanations about this.

Abiogenesis is a Hypothesis -- an educated guess. It's not just a wild guess, like "life started when two nuclear rocks collided for the first time" but has basis in some observation. An early Abiogenesis hypotheses was spontaneous generation (maggots would appear from decaying meat, rats would appear from decaying grain) which was then proven to not be true. Similarly the current prevailing consensus on Abiogenesis could be shown to be impossible, in which case other hypotheses will be proposed and debated just as they are now. Even though there is scientiic consensus on what likely happened, new hypotheses are always being suggested, tested, strengthened, or weakened. That's how science works.
 
But I think you have "bought it" as fact, meaning you go through your life understanding your origin in abiogenesis as being the truth of what happened, which is something different.


When I think of it, and it's not often at all since it's really not important in my everyday life, I think abiogenesis is the likely explanation. However, I'm not invested in it as a theory and am willing to accept a more supported explanation if it comes along.
 
Widge (and others), you really have to stop with pre-supposing what my position is on these things and let them come out in conversation. It is clear that you have labeled me as part of "that group." I have never, nor has anyone here, if I can remember, presented a position that you should teach a Christian view of creation in science class, maybe religion class or world cultures class, etc.

That said, the problem is that things are being taught as fact, and not as theoretical concept, and that is not being honest. But that would not bother you, because you believe the whole thing as fact. IF we are using science as our rule in science class with my daughter being taught, then lets teach her in a truthful way (as per science) not with bias. Lets not make it so much of a history class either, as in, this is what DID happen.

That's not what is being done or what is being advocated here. On the other hand, the Ben Stein movie that started all of this does support the idea that the Christian Creation myth should be taught as an alternative to ToE and Abiogenesis. Although, many times it is done more subtlely by just wanting teachers to be allowed to teach that ToE and Abiogenesis are less scientifically supported then they actually are. Which of course is just an intellectually dishonest way of sneaking the idea of god into science classes and is the generally strategy being used by the supporters of ID and Creationism these days. And, that is what I am arguing against. If you don't want the above to happen then I guess we don't have any disagreement on the issue.


Beyond that, ToE has many parts of it that are facts and should be taught as so. Abiogenesis, does not have as much support and is not fact. But, at this point, it's the best scientific hypothesis we have and should be taught as such while noting that it is a hypothesis and has not risen to the level of being a Scientific Theory, but it's the best explanation we have right now.

But, I'm curious how you think these two things should be taught? Or, should they be taught at all? Do you think children in a science class should be told here is what science currently thinks the answers are and here is what Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zorastrians, etc. think the answer is? Or do you think something different should be taught.
 
That's not what is being done or what is being advocated here. On the other hand, the Ben Stein movie that started all of this does support the idea that the Christian Creation myth should be taught as an alternative to ToE and Abiogenesis. Although, many times it is done more subtlely by just wanting teachers to be allowed to teach that ToE and Abiogenesis are less scientifically supported then they actually are. Which of course is just an intellectually dishonest way of sneaking the idea of god into science classes and is the generally strategy being used by the supporters of ID and Creationism these days. And, that is what I am arguing against. If you don't want the above to happen then I guess we don't have any disagreement on the issue.


Beyond that, ToE has many parts of it that are facts and should be taught as so. Abiogenesis, does not have as much support and is not fact. But, at this point, it's the best scientific hypothesis we have and should be taught as such while noting that it is a hypothesis and has not risen to the level of being a Scientific Theory, but it's the best explanation we have right now.

But, I'm curious how you think these two things should be taught? Or, should they be taught at all? Do you think children in a science class should be told here is what science currently thinks the answers are and here is what Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zorastrians, etc. think the answer is? Or do you think something different should be taught.

I think that in science class, at certain beginner levels, the issue of ID should be brought up. It should be brought up to educate the kids on the differences and limitations of science versus faith. That is, some people believe a worldview of our origins that is not scientific, instead they are matters of belief in a supernatural worldview to explain our origins. That way kids understand the difference between matters of faith and matters of science, and it is not one of hearsay. It should be brought up in a non-biased way by people that do not have an agenda either way, or have been educated on the way to talk about the subject in an ubiased manner. A completely honest objective approach would serve our kids best. But to not spend a class day on the issue out of the school year does not serve the best interests of the education of our children IMO. I can visualize how this should happen, but a bias either way will not present this issue in a way that serves our kids, and I am afraid that there is that bias. To be honest, outside of maybe Spam, I would have to assume that a lot posters on this thread would not do it (educating) in an unbiased manner.
 
I think that in science class, at certain beginner levels, the issue of ID should be brought up. It should be brought up to educate the kids on the differences and limitations of science versus faith. That is, some people believe a worldview of our origins that is not scientific, instead they are matters of belief in a supernatural worldview to explain our origins. That way kids understand the difference between matters of faith and matters of science, and it is not one of hearsay. It should be brought up in a non-biased way by people that do not have an agenda either way, or have been educated on the way to talk about the subject in an ubiased manner. A completely honest objective approach would serve our kids best. But to not spend a class day on the issue out of the school year does not serve the best interests of the education of our children IMO. I can visualize how this should happen, but a bias either way will not present this issue in a way that serves our kids, and I am afraid that there is that bias. To be honest, outside of maybe Spam, I would have to assume that a lot posters on this thread would not do it (educating) in an unbiased manner.

So, we really do have a disagreement on the issue and I wasn't just imagining it.


The problem with what you propose is that it's not science and has nothing to do with science. Beyond that, you won't find a single person that is not biased one way or the other. Spam is biased on the issue, I'm biased on the issue and you are biased on the issue. The mere teaching of the idea that there is a creator to a science class is biased since it has no basis in science. The only unbiased way to approach it is to teach what is science in the class and leave the issues of non-scientific alternatives to religion classes and the family.

And, to be honest, there is no non-biased way to present what you want. By it's nature it is a Judeo-Christian interpretation of creation. Why not use the Zoroastrian or Hindu version or all of them? Would you have a problem with that?

Personally, I think science should be taught in science classes and religion/faith should be left up to the family or a private school to teach. Even if we ignore the separation of church and state issues, do you really want the public schools deciding what should be taught about faith/god? What if they decide to teach it from the point of view of Hindus? Or are you so confident that it will be taught as the Christian version, you are willing to take the chance?
 
So, we really do have a disagreement on the issue and I wasn't just imagining it.


The problem with what you propose is that it's not science and has nothing to do with science. Beyond that, you won't find a single person that is not biased one way or the other. Spam is biased on the issue, I'm biased on the issue and you are biased on the issue. The mere teaching of the idea that there is a creator to a science class is biased since it has no basis in science. The only unbiased way to approach it is to teach what is science in the class and leave the issues of non-scientific alternatives to religion classes and the family.

And, to be honest, there is no non-biased way to present what you want. By it's nature it is a Judeo-Christian interpretation of creation. Why not use the Zoroastrian or Hindu version or all of them? Would you have a problem with that?

Personally, I think science should be taught in science classes and religion/faith should be left up to the family or a private school to teach. Even if we ignore the separation of church and state issues, do you really want the public schools deciding what should be taught about faith/god? What if they decide to teach it from the point of view of Hindus? Or are you so confident that it will be taught as the Christian version, you are willing to take the chance?

I disagree. It is perfectly capable a subject for science class as an illustration of what is and is not science. Is that not a redeemable concept to present in a science class towards the education of young people? In a science class would you not present what views persisted in the past and how science was able to show them as being incorrect? Could they not bring up that there are various viewpoints of different religions in this way, not to make it a class on religion, but to say, for instance, what the difference is between faith and science. Can you not define science using this example, for children, to also educate them as to what is science and was is not, to show where that difference is?

Sometimes I think you and others here have a view on this issue that is more plaqued by your past experiences with bad examples of religion or religious types. I am not sure if it is too much TV watching of televangelists, or single minded people in your community, or you grew up in a messed up church, or bad parenting, or bad schooling. Being a person who loves science and loves things of their faith, is not a weakness, no matter what it may be for you.
 
Okay, a lot of people don't like my "I just don't buy it" approach. Let's try to approach it from a different perspective:

1) My understanding of the prevailing scientific sentiment is that, at some point in the past, there was no life on earth. Then, through only natural means using no designer, life began. From that initial life, all life that is now on the earth evolved.

2) The beliefs stated in part 1 above are accepted as scientific.

My problem is that science cannot reproduce the events as stated above and that science cannot even provide me with the causal specificity to go from one stage to another. To me, this is as much science as alchemy is. If you can't reproduce it and you can't tell me exactly how it happened, how can you call it science? Basically, you're just telling me that it happened and calling it science.

I don't think we've been able to create or alter hurricanes, but we know how they work, that they exist and what causes them. You also cannot re-create the process by which dinosaurs become oil, but they do!
 
I don't think we've been able to create or alter hurricanes, but we know how they work, that they exist and what causes them. You also cannot re-create the process by which dinosaurs become oil, but they do!

Well the first one is physics and the second one is chemistry. For me, its when you combine biology with chemistry and history that it gets funky.
 
I disagree. It is perfectly capable a subject for science class as an illustration of what is and is not science.

I know I must be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you want ID brought up in science class as an example of what is not science?
:idunno:
That's like saying we should discuss laziness and sloth as examples of what is not Physical Education, or we should bring up Latin or Spanish as examples of what is not English, or French History as an examnple of what is not US history.

Sometimes I think you and others here have a view on this issue that is more plaqued by your past experiences with bad examples of religion or religious types. I am not sure if it is too much TV watching of televangelists, or single minded people in your community, or you grew up in a messed up church, or bad parenting, or bad schooling. Being a person who loves science and loves things of their faith, is not a weakness, no matter what it may be for you.
Actually with all due respect, I think your view on this issue is the one tainted by your background. I don't think anyone here has said that being a person of faith is a weakness, and even if someone did the vast majority of people here are (IMO) going out of their way to come across as not having that implication.

You said earlier in the thread (and implied it numerous times) that there was God-hate on the EE, or that those who believe in "science" look down on those who believe ID, or are religious/spiritual -- that they insult, mock, jeer, and don't even want to hear anything faith related. While I am sure at some point there have been bad things said, I think not only now but as long as I can remember the tone is civil, and depends more on how one takes a comment rather than how it was intended. For example, your post above said

"I am not sure if it is too much TV watching of televangelists, or single minded people in your community, or you grew up in a messed up church, or bad parenting, or bad schooling"

That could easily be taken by someone as you implying that people who rely on science grew up watching too much TV (evangelists), or had bad homes/parents, or went to crappy schools -- the inference could easily sway to "something is wrong with you guys for thinking the way you do." Now I know you didn't mean it that way, but just wanted to point out that it is quite easy to read something into a statement or take offense when none was intended.

:9:
 
I know I must be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you want ID brought up in science class as an example of what is not science?
:idunno:
That's like saying we should discuss laziness and sloth as examples of what is not Physical Education, or we should bring up Latin or Spanish as examples of what is not English, or French History as an examnple of what is not US history.


Actually with all due respect, I think your view on this issue is the one tainted by your background. I don't think anyone here has said that being a person of faith is a weakness, and even if someone did the vast majority of people here are (IMO) going out of their way to come across as not having that implication.

You said earlier in the thread (and implied it numerous times) that there was God-hate on the EE, or that those who believe in "science" look down on those who believe ID, or are religious/spiritual -- that they insult, mock, jeer, and don't even want to hear anything faith related. While I am sure at some point there have been bad things said, I think not only now but as long as I can remember the tone is civil, and depends more on how one takes a comment rather than how it was intended. For example, your post above said

"I am not sure if it is too much TV watching of televangelists, or single minded people in your community, or you grew up in a messed up church, or bad parenting, or bad schooling"

That could easily be taken by someone as you implying that people who rely on science grew up watching too much TV (evangelists), or had bad homes/parents, or went to crappy schools -- the inference could easily sway to "something is wrong with you guys for thinking the way you do." Now I know you didn't mean it that way, but just wanted to point out that it is quite easy to read something into a statement or take offense when none was intended.

:9:

I understood that there would be some response to the bringing up non-science in science class that would show it as out of place. I understand this because there exists here a dogma that science and faith should not occur in the same intellect, or at the very least a classroom discussion. It is a parallel mentality to the example of church and state. However, to speak to your examples, I think that sloth could be brought up in PE class, and it makes sense to bring up Latin in English class if you are dealing with origins of words. I understand what you are saying though, but disagree. I am saying that you define science in a way by defining what is not science. Also, for many fields, say engineering, there is no discussion or mystery of what you have, it is there in front of you. Proven by theorem, formular, physically testing, etc. Not the case with our origins, so IMO, it is a valid subject (for a day) in science class.

For the remainder I would say that we all have bias by being human, its just that IMO many here will not offer some transparency on why they feel as strongly as they do about these issues, that this is all somehow motivated by the purety of science, or whatever. I feel that there are biases here that affect this discussion on an emotional level on both sides, regardless if one side is science. I am just trying to draw attention to that to challenge the issue and see if we can be self-aware of the motivations for our position. This can be done without name calling, and this thread has been pretty civil, although it is clear to me still that issue relating to religion get some people's heart rates up more than others.

I would also say that yes, more so than embracing science for all of life's mysteries, I would say that those who have a near "hate" or so it seems towards matters of belief outside of science, did have events that shaped that current position. I only threw that in there, again, to try to understand the full "view" of why people feel as strongly as they do. Did not mean to offend, although I admit to being a bit flippant in my statement. However, not here on this thread, since I know you have asked again, but when it comes to religious topics there are plenty of posters not afraid to offend on purpose, to a certain degree. I remember a thread on Kirk Cameron that initiated innocuosly and just got bad fast. I could not find it in the records as I wanted to fact check first, but to the best of my remembrance, that was an example.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom