Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:20:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1189 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > But even so, creationism *does* have "proof".
>
> Frankly, that's either an outright lie (which I doubt you intend) or a
> reckless misstatement (which I suspect). Creationism, as it pertains to the
> Christian God, can by definition have no proof. Beyond that, any creationist
> mythology that espouses an incomprehensibly powerful creator can likewise
> have no proof.
I'm gonna skip down to here, because here's the meat of the argument, I think.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. *DISPROOF* is far more objective.
I'm thinking of a number sequence. The first number is 1. A creationist (I'm
gonna go back to our other debate and call this person a Decisive Intuitivist)
at this point might conclude that the sequence is F(n) = F(n-1) + 1, hence
yielding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Now I reveal that the 8th number is NOT 43. Is that
proof that the n+1 idea is correct? I would say yes. It's information that has
the potential to make you believe that the theory is true.
Let's say I reveal that the 2nd number is, in fact, 2. Proof? Again, I would say
yes. Ok, the 5th number is between 4 and 19. Believe the theory yet?
How much proof do you need before you think the theory is likely to be true (IE
"believe it")?
Personally, I think the answer is that as long as your theory doesn't conflict
with existing evidence, it's up to your experiences and personality type to
decide if you believe the theory. If you're more intuitive, you'll probably come
up with theories based on less evidence, and if you're more decisive, you'll
believe them much sooner. And just to throw on another trait, if you're more
extraverted, you're more likely to believe what everyone else is saying. Heck,
while I'm at it, the more Feeling rather than Thinking you are, the more likely
you are to believe the theory if it's presented in a friendly fashion.
Certain interpretations of creationism *don't* conflict. Neither does evolution.
And you could argue that things we've discovered since the advent of biblical
creationism have been in agreement with it, like the 1st thing existing being
light, or the fact that a myriad of animals existed before man was created. Or
that the Earth existed before they did. Further, you can use the sort of "proof"
that I always hate using wherein you compare similar cultures' beliefs.
Different cultures have seperate accounts of the flood? Maybe it's true! There's
lots of references to the fact that Jesus actually existed? Probably true.
Heresay evidence, and entirely unimperical, but it's commonly regarded as
evidence nonetheless.
Now, the catch (for me) is that biblical creationism has had to undergo lots of
"interpretation" in order to still be valid. They said "day"? Oh, well, back
then a day was longer. Stars came *after* the Earth? Oh, well they meant SOME
stars, not ALL stars, because some are included in with the whole 'first there
was light' bit. AFAIK, evolutionary theory hasn't changed at all since its
inception. Hence, that's yet another bonus point for evolution, and another
reason not to believe biblical creationism.
Of course, I'm ignoring a big point here, which perhaps where there's some
contention-- biblical creationism versus "basic" creationism. And in this
aspect, you're totally right insofar as I don't think you actually could
*possibly* find evidence which *DISPROVES* basic creationism, hence, it's a
useless theory. Basic creationism could even encompass the idea of evolution by
saying that a supernatural force "guided" evolution, and hence not be found in
contention with it at all.
So I'll grant you that. Basic creationism with no details shouldn't be taught in
schools. But nobody's arguing that I don't think.
> > Lots of [evolution] stuff to fill up a couple weeks for a class.
>
> I admit that that would be a vast improvement over the current curricula,
> most of which, due to reactionary pressure from regressive fundamentalists,
> have been pared down so severely that evolution (the foundation for all
> modern biology, zoology, and comparative anatomy) is mentioned only briefly
> if at all. A few weeks of serious, factual discussion would be of immense
> value.
Is that true? We spent at least a week (probably 2) on evolution, and all of 30
minutes on creationism. The rest of the 50-minute class period we actually sort
of chatted about why we had to get taught creationism to begin with.
Is it actually the case that evolution is *not* being taught to its fullest
extent, or that creationism is being given equal time?
> Does the educational system, in your view, have no obligation to instruct
> children in ways of thinking that are more consistent with reality?
Yes! Which is why (I'd hope) kids would decide in favor of evolutionary theory.
> Why not teach that Jesus personally stopped Stalin from dropping the A-Bomb
> on Tokyo, and then let kids decide?
Because there isn't any real contention on that. Nobody's saying that happened,
nobody believes it's a valid theory. At least to my knowledge. But if enough
people believed it were true and advocated its teaching? Sure, present it as an
option.
In principle, I admit that idea is pretty crazy, but in practice, I think I'd
advocate it.
> Why not teach that it's safe to mix chlorine and ammonia in a
> poorly-ventilated closet and let the kids decide?
No, I'd teach them (or show them) what happens when you do it, and then let them
decide what's "safe". And that's far easier to demonstrate (IE "proove") than
evolution, creationism, or even Stalin's adventures in A-bombing, because you
can show kids firsthand, unlike the reported existance of such concepts as
"Stalin", "A-Bomb", "Jesus", or "Tokyo".
> It seems clear to me that the theory that most strongly coincides with
> observed reality should be heavily favored in school curricula. You're
> advocating that creationism be taught as a weaker theory; why teach it at
> all? How do you exclude any crackpot theory from the lesson plan if you're
> already willing to allow an entirely non-scientific myth?
Who said I'm excluding crackpot theories? :) If they're popular cultural
beliefs, chances are:
1) There may be a good chance they're true (note "may")
2) They're worth exposing kids to because the theories are real-world
(regardless of their validity)
3) You'll get crazy amounts of flak if you don't
4) People will be less likely to pull their kids out of school because you're
not teaching their beliefs (hence potentially more educated youth)
5) You can present both arguments, ensuring that kids can decide for themselves
on areas of contention.
> Of course not. And I don't "believe" it's correct, either. Instead, I
> **accept** that the theory of natural selection most accurately explains the
> broadest range of observed data and phenomena.
I'll chalk that one up to semantics.
> I am confident that children will not judge the competing theories accurately
> as long as a motivated and organized religious group seeks to promote its
> views in the classroom to the exclusion of actual science.
Are we actually talking about the exclusion of evolutionary theory being taught?
Provided that evolution is excluded, yes, I agree. But if both are included? I'm
fairly confident that the majority of children will accept evolution.
> The majority of the population of the United States currently lacks the tools
> needed to judge accurately in this regard. This is evident from the
> overwhelming popularity of speakers-to-the-dead, UFO-belief, and the
> willingness to believe that Saddam destroyed the WTC with his weapons of mass
> destruction. Children who have not even been exposed to the methods of
> critical thought can't be expected to make an informed decision regarding the
> creationist propaganda of a well-marketed and politically organized religious
> fringe.
In that case, I doubt removing creationism from class cirriculum would help
anything. In fact, it would probably make it worse. Sorta like prohibition,
where people just lost respect for the government. If your parents, your
preacher, your friends, and your friends' parents all advocate creationism, and
your school refuses to teach it? You're less likely to believe anything they
tell you to begin with.
In fact, I think the enemy here is *lack* of information. Teach kids to question
authority. Question W for his policies. Question religion for its morals.
Question evolution for its shortcomings. And you don't get that if you teach
kids only one option. But if you let them be the ones to decide, then they're
the ones who have to evaluate it, and they're the ones who weigh the information
presented. Teach them to get both sides of the story, not ignore one that lots
of people believe in.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
