Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:03:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1337 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> 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.
**snip of example**
I figured that you and I had been through all this already before. Proof in
scientific terms is most certainly not in the eye of the beholder, but "proof"
in that context doesn't mean the same thing as "proof" in a mathematical
context.
However, you're correct that in literal terms it's a greater burden to prove
something than to disprove it. However, scientific proof is not mathematical
proof; a theory is "proven" as long as no subsequent observation contradicts it.
By the way: in casual parlance, describing something as "proven" is really a
shorthand way of saying that something is verified beyond a reasonable threshold
of doubt. When I say that "Fritz just proved to me that he's a jerk" I'm
obviously not saying that Fritz showed me the mathematical proof by which he
logically proved his jerkishness. That threshold may be the "eye of the
beholder" that you describe, but that's really separate from the "proof" that
we're discussing.
> 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.
"Believe" is the wrong word to use here, especially in regard to scientific
theories. Strictly speaking, it is not up to you to decide if you believe the
theory; you may decide whether or not the evidence is sufficent to convince you
that the theory is a consistent explanation of a phenomenon, but that's very
distinct from belief.
** I snipped some Myers-Briggs stuff the rhetorical inclusion **
** of which would require me to endorse certain assumptions of **
** that test instrument, which I am not prepared to do. **
> Certain interpretations of creationism *don't* conflict. Neither does evolution.
For the record, any interpretation that posits a fundamentally incomprehensible
power (not even an Infinite God) is by definition supernatural and irrelevant to
science (you touch on this below). The creationist agenda currently being
pushed for public schools is expressly in line with (and endorsed by vocal
proponents of) evangelical Christianity. You may wish to discuss hypothetical
formulations of creationism, but these are irrelevant to me, since no one to my
knowledge is insisting that these be taught in public schools. If you can
provide an example of such a myth being so treated, I'll discuss it.
> 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.
The Genesis/Big Bang comparison falls apart as soon as we recognize that
according to Genesis God created the Earth, water, and plants before the Sun.
The metaphor is of no use in this context.
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!
That, likewise, is irrelevant; flood myths really only have currency among
river-bound our coastal societies. Regardless, "maybe it's true" is not
sufficient justification for including a myth in a science curriculum.
> 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.
Be careful! There is no independent and untainted historical confirmation that
Jesus existed at all, much less that he performed miracles. The Gospels are
generally considered adequate evidence that Jesus the *man* existed, because a
man's existence is a fairly mundane fact requiring only mundane evidence. The
Gospels are entirely inadequate as evidence of any miraculous deeds performed by
Jesus.
> 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.
If the force is a force unto itself, rather than an inferred phenomenon, then it
nullifies Darwin's model of evolution. Certain forms of creationism are not
incompatible with evolution, but they add nothing to the understanding of life,
the universe, or anything. All they do is say "The entity or force did it, so
stop looking for answers." Even the most vocal proponents of creationism, such
as Behe and Dembski, pretend that they have no interest in the designer but only
in the design. That's garbage, and it's directly contradictory to intellectual
honesty.
> 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.
On the contrary, "basic creationism" is exactly what is being pushed, under the
guise of "intelligent design." Many proponents are very careful to omit the
G-word from their propaganda, but no one doubts that they're pushing creation in
accordance with Genesis.
> Is it actually the case that evolution is *not* being taught to its fullest
> extent, or that creationism is being given equal time?
Well, I graduated from high school in eastern Pennsylvania in 89. At that time
my school district spent almost no time on evolution except to mention that
Darwin sailed to the Galapagos and checked out the finches. Creationism was
mentioned in a "World Cultures" class as part of biblical mythology, but to my
school's credit it was discussed only in passing and in the same context as
Greek creation myths. I also remember studying parts of Genesis in my English
class, but that was as a part of Elizabethan studies rather than as a discussion
of religion.
I don't know the current status other than what I've read, and the indication is
that evolution is taught more and more tepidly as time goes on. Consider the
recent IMAX flap about evolution, and you'll see how ridiculous and pervasive
the pressure really is.
> > 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.
But would anyone qualify as a "believer" in that case, or would you require the
believer to be some kind of authority on the subject? I would certainly hope
the latter; otherwise I need gather only a few hundred signatures in order to
enshrine Holocaust denial in the local curriculum.
You say that no one contends that Jesus stopped Stalin's A-Bomb plan, and I
agree that no one in authority makes that claim. However, no one in authority
makes the claim that evolution is false; instead, a few extremists are vocally
touting their myth and demanding that it be given equal credence.
If creationism were just a wacko theory being shouted by a nut on the corner, I
wouldn't care. But creationism is a wacko theory being shouted by several
well-funded nuts with extraordiary political influence rather than any relevant
scientific background.
> > 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")
If they're true, then let them be demonstrated as such. It's not sufficient for
them to be not-yet-proven-false, nor is it sufficient for them to be
possibly-true-if-we-make-certain-nonverified-assumptions.
> 2) They're worth exposing kids to because the theories are real-world
> (regardless of their validity)
Fair enough, but then it's a question of context. Creationism exists as a myth
in the real world, but that doesn't mean it should be taught as science. As I
mentioned before, it could be included in a Comparative Religion class, for
example.
> 3) You'll get crazy amounts of flak if you don't
That's true, and it's a shame. It's unfortunate that ignorant (literally,
rather than pejoratively) people can empower themselves to enshrine their
ignorance in a curriculum simply by yelling about it loudly enough.
> 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)
This is dangerously close to suggesting that even false education is better than
none, and I'm afraid I can't agree. Sure, the kids might learn math even as
they're learning pseudoscience, but that's an unworthy compromise. The goal of
education should be to provide as much factual (ie., verified with a great deal
of certainty) knowledge as is possible while giving students the tools by which
to assess information critically.
> 5) You can present both arguments, ensuring that kids can decide for themselves
> on areas of contention.
Again, this works only if children are given adequate tools for making such a
decision, and currently they are not.
> > I don't "believe" [that evolution is] 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 wish you wouldn't, because it's really central to the issue. Do you agree
that there is a significant distinction between "believing" and "accepting?" If
not, then we need to back up a few steps and rebuild the foundation of our
debate.
> > 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?
Both included as science? No dice, because creationism is not science.
If your contention is that creationism does qualify as science, then can you
summarize a few of its theories and the experiments that have confirmed these
theories? Can you also give me a bibliography of peer-reviewed journals in
which these theories have been published? Please describe the predictions that
have been made based on creationist theory and how these have been borne out by
observation and experiment.
You can't of course, because no such theories of creationism exist.
> 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.
If creationism is removed from the science classroom, I doubt that any sort of
perceived prohibition would drive the students to a defiant embrace of
creationism. And if it were discussed in Comparative Religion or the like, then
it's not likely that more students would embrace biblical creationism than would
embrace Norse or Greek creation myths.
> 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.
Holy smoke, we've reached an agreement! I disagree that it would be helpful to
teach creationism as if it were a science, but I wholeheartedly agree that
students should be taught to question tradition (even, ultimately, the tradition
of being taught to question everything!).
Also, although you mention it only in passing, I caution that the so-called
shortcomings of evolution are much less significant than creationists like to
pretend. The theory itself has few shortcomings, insofar as its predictions
have been borne out *and* it explains observed phenomena better than any other
theory.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
