Does Science Piss Off God?

[Gerben42]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sun is 90 million miles away. It really doesn't look like more than a 1000 miles to me.

 

Seriously, how is this an example of scientific evidence? It's just your intuition.

 

I hope you are just being sarcastic here, I don't want to explain the bleeding obvious fact that the sun is on average 149.6 million km away (miles? what are that?)

[mike777]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sun is 90 million miles away. It really doesn't look like more than a 1000 miles to me.

 

Seriously, how is this an example of scientific evidence? It's just your intuition.

 

I hope you are just being sarcastic here, I don't want to explain the bleeding obvious fact that the sun is on average 149.6 million km away (miles? what are that?)

on average?

 

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

 

Of course Icarus could not fly 1000 miles so anyone who says it is that far is silly.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

[mrdct]

Lets just assume all of this is true......so what? Is this the goal of teaching science in school? If it is ok.

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

[Gerben42]

on average?

 

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

 

Yes, and 50% of the time it is more! In January the Earth ist closest to the Sun, in July it is furthest from the Sun.

 

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

 

Me too, but only if they ARE alternative. Creationism is not a theory. If you start to teach that you will have to include theories that a dragon eats the sun during a solar eclipse in science class, and that Zeus creates thunder.

[matmat]

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

let me point out that those who advocate teaching "intelligent" design to children are not, generally, interested in furthering the kids' ability to think for themselves.

[mike777]

on average?

 

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

 

Yes, and 50% of the time it is more! In January the Earth ist closest to the Sun, in July it is furthest from the Sun.

Of course Icarus could not fly 1000 miles so anyone who says it is that far is silly.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

[the hog]

Dave, I have known you for years and you are not a crackpot. So what's with this ridiculous idea that creationism should be taught is shools? I think you are trying to wind a few people up. If you want a good debunking of the creationist myth, (and it IS a myth), read some of Richard Dawkins' books, eg "Who made the watchmaker?" and "The God myth"

[mrdct]

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

 

Me too, but only if they ARE alternative. Creationism is not a theory. If you start to teach that you will have to include theories that a dragon eats the sun during a solar eclipse in science class, and that Zeus creates thunder.

I think teaching Greek mythology to children is a great idea as it helps them understand mankind's quest to explain and rationalise our existence. The evolutionary theory is part of the quest as are alternative models such as creationism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

Is Greek mythology on your "Rated R" list for the education system also?

[mrdct]

Dave, I have known you for years and you are not a crackpot. So what's with this ridiculous idea that creationism should be taught is shools?

I would never suggest that creationism should be taught as a fact, just as evolution should not be taught as a fact.

 

I'm merely suggesting that children should be made aware that alternative theories exist to explain our existence and they should make their own minds up as to the merits or otherwise of the various explanations for our existence.

[matmat]

if someone wants to teach creationism as a myth along side zeus, hera etc., that's fine by me. but if someone tries to teach it as a valid theory of how the world came into being...

[mrdct]

if someone wants to teach creationism as a myth along side zeus, hera etc., that's fine by me. but if someone tries to teach it as a valid theory of how the world came into being...

It can be a fine line between "myth", "theory" and "valid theory". I guess the thing that they all have in common is that haven't been proven.

[helene_t]

Dave, since you mention the flying spaghetti monster, I suppose what you have in mind is some philosophy or mythology class in which children are taught different myths, learn why people believe in those particular myths, and why they need myths in the first place. Maybe they could be encouraged to formulate some of the myths of child culture (urban legends) and wonder what makes those myths plausible, viable, useful or whatever charactestic myths must have to evolve.

 

I'm not necesarily against that, but I thought this discussion was about science class, not mythology class.

 

As for whether evolution is a "fact". Maybe it is at some deep philosofical level not a fact of the same kind as 2+2=4, but it is a fact of the same kind as that the Earth orbits the Sun and that matter is made of atoms. Maybe it should be left to the philosophy teacher to discuss what the word "fact" means. But if the word "fact" ever applies in science at all, then evolution is a prime example

[mrdct]

Flying Spaghetti Monster = Myth.

 

Earth orbits the Sun = Fact.

 

"Intelligent Design" = Theory.

 

Evolution = Theory.

 

That so many people believe the evolutionary theory to be a fact is the scary thing to me and the principal reason why alternative theories ought to be put forward for consideration. At the very least it will teach children what the concept of a theory is.

 

I don't equate skepticism with the evolutionary model with a belief in creation under any of the various religious models. If one can separate God from the "Intelligent Design" theory (which I can quite easily) one can open one's mind to a range of plausible explanations for our existence.

 

Perhaps aliens are involved, but that of course only removes the problem to a different point in time and space; but perhaps it can establish a more plausible time frame for an evolutionary process to take place for which on a mathematical basis I find the generally accepted (by "real" peer-reviewed scientists) 4.54 billion years is (on my intuition) far too short for a largely random process to convert microbes to humans.

[Gerben42]

Flying Spaghetti Monster = Myth.

 

Earth orbits the Sun = Fact.

 

"Intelligent Design" = Theory.

 

Evolution = Theory.

 

Sorry, intelligent design = myth. No myths in science class, please.

 

Is Greek mythology on your "Rated R" list for the education system also?

 

Yes for science class.

 

Religion class as it is now is not right. I've had 2 years of it, basically "bible study" (torah, quran, ..., fill in blank). Rather it should be more like: There is this religion, and that one, and that one also. You can regonize them in the street because of symbols (cross, headscarf, traditional Jewish dress code, etc.). And teach them that all of these people are humans who ought to be respected. Also here one can say that in the past there used to be different religions. There your Greeks come in.

 

 

Perhaps aliens are involved, but that of course only removes the problem to a different point in time and space; but perhaps it can establish a more plausible time frame for an evolutionary process to take place for which on a mathematical basis I find the generally accepted (by "real" peer-reviewed scientists) 4.54 billion years is (on my intuition) far too short for a largely random process to convert microbes to humans.

 

More about evolution:

 

At the moment there are no acceptable alternatives to evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Just none that are ready for schools.

[Gerben42]

If it makes you feel better one can differentiate between evolution and natural selection. Natural selection works. This is a readily demonstrated fact that can be shown using creatures with a short "generation" like bacteria. It can even be demonstrated using genetic algorithms.

 

This stuff works.

 

This is not quite Darwin's theory about the "origin of species", which is an "established theory". And that is was Helene means with "science fact": A theory that fits the observations and explains them well.

[mrdct]

Does an "established theory" out-rank a "valid theory"?

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

If you take the above numbers do you think both theories are

equivalent if it comes to the level of reliability?

I'm not sure that I understand your question. If I take your numbers, then obviously the evolutionary model is much more reliable. But, as it happens, I don't think the scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that the evolutionary model is 95% reliable for explaining how we got here.

<snip>

First of all, it aint my numbers, I suggested that you

exchange the numbers, if you are not happy with them.

 

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement)

that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues

(yes those issues exists), but is backed up by lots of

facts, and the other theory, with some open issues as well

(your words, not mine), is backed up with very few facts.

 

And I just wanted to ask you, if you really believe, that

those theories should be taught to children with the same

breath, because they have similar reliability.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Please note, I am not saying in which theory I believe, and I wont do it.

For me the issue does not exists.

I read once, that jew take the words of the bible and dont care,

if those words are 100% true, because it does not matter, they are

more interested, if they find answers to some open issuse they face

in the current situation, and thats it.

And I also believe that children are better served, if they learn the

more reliable theory in sicence.

Sicence has proven that although a theory is universally believed and

taught in classes, and there were a few in the past, that it can abandon

those theories and replace them with better ones.

Because in the end it does not matter, what is written in books, you have

to use the model to get answers for the real world.

Although the catholic church did ban Copernicus books, they allowed ship

catains to calculated their way with the help of the forbiddein theory.

[mrdct]

Sorry, intelligent design = myth. No myths in science class, please.

I certainly agree that religious iterations of 'Intelligent Design' such as Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created heaven and earth, etc." are indeed myths as they comprise a story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form with the active participants generally being deities and/or heroes in a timeframe before recorded history began.

 

Generalist 'Intelligent Design' theory doesn't require the identication or specification of the entity or entities involved or indeed the mechanism by which the 'Intelligent Design' was implemented. 'Intelligent Design' theory provides a plausible explanation (albeit shallow) for the significant evidence gaps in evolution theory.

 

At the moment there are no acceptable alternatives to evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Just none that are ready for schools.

Acceptable to whom? Close-minded scientific bigots who refuse to give any consideration to concepts that can't be explained by known facts and require abstract or unconventional thought.

 

I stress that I'm not calling you or anyone else in this thread a "scientific bigot".

[Gerben42]

Generalist 'Intelligent Design' theory doesn't require the identication or specification of the entity or entities involved or indeed the mechanism by which the 'Intelligent Design' was implemented. 'Intelligent Design' theory provides a plausible explanation (albeit shallow) for the significant evidence gaps in evolution theory.

 

This sounds a bit like this:

http://www.mises.org/images4/HarrisMiracle1.jpg

 

(Image from www.mises.org)

 

I'm sorry but "intelligent design" by any means must explain the origin of the mechanism of the design, otherwise any theory based on this is based on circular logic, and thus invalid.

 

I am very open to new theories. But they must be consistent. There have been alternatives to Darwinian evolution, like Lamarckism.

[Codo]

Sometimes it is amazing how much believe scientists have in theories that they read about and did not check themselves.

 

"Earth is plate: OF course, else everybody would fall down who lives on the other side." People believed this for thousands of years. Disproved

 

"The sun is rotating around the earth." No need to check this, you can see it. Disproved

 

"People cannot drive faster then a horse can run. Obviously, because they are not build to move so fast." Disproved

 

"This stone must be 100. million of years old." No we had not been there, but if we check the Carbon -14 , it must be so old, because this method works in our theory and in the 20 years we watched the process.

 

"Conatgan is safe". We checked this with mice and rats. Disproved

 

"There must be evolution because the bones we found showed this and because this is true for bacteria."

 

I do believe in God and in evolution and I see no "either/or" in it, cause there is none. But it is quite funny how strictly the evolution theory is defended from some who did no own research.

My guess it that they simply prefer to believe Dawkins et al instead of other writers.

[mrdct]

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement) that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'.

 

And I just wanted to ask you, if you really believe, that those theories should be taught to children with the same breath

As it happens, I think that the evolution theory should be taught with more breadth (and breath) as there are lot of complex concepts around general biology, genetics, palaeontology and history that need to be covered to explain the theory properly; whereas the 'Intelligent Design' theory can be adequately presented quite succinctly if you leave all of the religious elements out of it.

 

Please note, I am not saying in which theory I believe, and I wont do it.

I will. I don't believe in either theory. Both are unproven theories with serious evidentiary and logical holes. This doesn't mean that either theory is wrong, and nor does it mean that either theory should be withheld from the education system.

 

And I also believe that children are better served, if they learn the more reliable theory in sicence.

I think we now have: "established theories", "valid theories", "reliable theories", "plausible theories" and just plain-old "theories". Maybe what the kids need is to have a term or so on the definition of a "theory" and then start introducing a few to them.

[Gerben42]

But it is quite funny how strictly the evolution theory is defended from some who did no own research. My guess it that they simply prefer to believe Dawkins et al instead of other writers.

 

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack evolutionary theory. I am quite okay with people like Codo who keep religion and science seperated.

 

But to keep religion out of science and fight against people like this Pat Robertson is a very worthy cause. THEY choose the battle ground. I didn't want a fight at all.

 

If someone comes up with a better theory, so be it. The old one will be discarded. Let me know when it happens. But so far, it's the best we can do and any other attempt to explain what we see around us has failed miserably.

 

There are many situations where there are more theories and no consensus, for example:

 

* We are at fault for the current temperature rise.

or

* Human effect on the climate is negligible, it's just natural variation.

 

I have my opinion on what is more likely, but the jury is out on this one and I am open to compelling evidence either way.

 

In the case of evolutionary biology, the fight is about details. Dawkins takes evolution to the gene level (see "The selfish gene"), whereas other evolutionary biologists don't buy this. No doubt this will keep them busy... The main idea is without alternative at the moment, though.

 

In my Ph.D. research field, planet formation, a similar situation is present. While no one doubts the main scenario (planets form in a protoplanetary disk around a young star, blah blah), the details on how to make gas giant planets differ.

 

One theory says bottom up: Start from planetesimals, build bigger rocks, these rocks finally attract the gas. Problem: Can we do this fast enough before the disk evaporates?

 

The other theory is top down: Density variations in the disk will collapse under their own weight, thus forming large gas giant planets in < 1000 years. Presto, no time problem.

 

So far this one is still open too, although leaning towards theory #1.

[mrdct]

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack evolutionary theory.

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack 'Intelligent Design' theory. But I'm equally disappointed that, by and large, advocates of 'Intelligent Design' tend to be religious nut-jobs which makes it difficult for a person not in that camp to question the veracity of the evolutionary model.

 

If someone comes up with a better theory, so be it. The old one will be discarded. Let me know when it happens.

Well that's a great way to advance thinking and discussion on the issue. Take the "I'm content with the unproven evolutionary model and won't give 'Intelligent Design' the time of day as it's tainted by religious fanatics.

[Gerben42]

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack 'Intelligent Design' theory

 

I'm content with the unproven evolutionary model

 

From this it appears there is some missing information in this discussion, and that is:

 

* What is "unproven" about the evolutionary model?

* What does a non-religious "intelligent design" model look like? (I am not aware a possibility that such a thing can exist, prove me wrong!)

[hrothgar]

Wow... Spend a few hours in bed and suddenly you're four pages behind in a brand new thread.

 

Here's a few (quick) comments.

 

1. As other's have already commented, the theory of Evolution does not provide a definitive explanation for every possible question that a scientist might pose. It is still a work in progress. At the same time, the Theory of Evolution is the definitive paradigm with the Biologicial sciences. There are no credible alternatives.

 

2. Intelligent design isn't science. I strongly recommend that people who question this watch the Nova documentary that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The development of the Dover trial does a wonderful job demolishing the claims of the Intelligent Design proponents. I also recommend that folks familiarize themselves with the so-called "Wedge Document" developed by the Discovery Institute. The Wikipedia has some good background material.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

3. I am very much opposed to the "Teach the Controversy" concept that MrDct is advancing. In principle, in a perfect world, I can see value in such an approach. In practice, I think that this would be an enormous mistake. On purely practical grounds, I don't think that most schools have enough time or resources available to add this type of material in to the curriculum. More importantly, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would spark political fights the likes of which you've never seen. The"Controversy" over intelligent design was deliberately manufactured by religious fundamentalists. Intelligent Design is not, in any way, Science. Done right, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would turn into a concerted attack on Intelligent Design and through that, Creationism. While I might find this highly amusing, perhaps even valuable, I don't think that its worth the cost. (Nothing galvanizes the nutjobs like the perception of persecution)