Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[chipbennett]

How would the level of complexity be "evidence" of creation?

Are you not familiar with Darwin's falsifying concept of irreducible complexity?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Are you not familiar with Darwin's falsifying concept of irreducible complexity?

No, not specifically, but I believe I know what the general concept is.

 

[eldirector]

Are you not familiar with Darwin's falsifying concept of irreducible complexity?

Yeah, a bit. I suppose it is an argument.

 

[Jludo]

Creationism...is one that many (way more than 1/2) of the students brought up! There's a lot of research and corresponding validation of atoms (which no one can break down any father than an atom) responding in different ways to sound (voice, tone of voice, varying notes and pitches in music, etc.)...if one relates to God's 'speaking' and ensuing things obeyed and were formed!

When one asks, "What or who directed the different atoms to work together to arrange molecules, cells, organs, systems, bodies, species, etc. to work together to form what we call 'earth'?" many clearly begin to understand that nothing this complex just 'happened' without a reason...hence the discussion for what purpose, then, was it designed? Evolution cannot answer this question without leaving many gaps unexplained.

Just curious, but have you ever studies Krebs Cycle in human physiology? I highly recommend people spend a few months studying that, in-depth...and I'm convinced that it's complex enough to destroy the 'everything-just-happened' theory of evolution...in and of itself as a 'sole' theory of the Earth's creation and everything on it. There's absolutely no way complexity of the balance of that just 'happened'!

There's more that could be said/explained...but this is good enough for now.

My mom used to tell me questions I had about faith was the devil whispering in my ears. Now she's manic depressive and believes shes being punished by God/hallucinates shes seeing demons at night. If you had asked me in high school which "theories" should be taught, I'd have sided with my mom that creationism was how it happened.
That said I believe you should teach accepted science in science class and psuedoscience should be taught by their parents on their own time. If you encouraged them to question and seek out answers I'm all for it. If you believe the correct answers are in a particular book I'd be adamant that particular teaching be left out of the school.

 

[chipbennett]

My mom used to tell me questions I had about faith was the devil whispering in my ears. Now she's manic depressive and believes shes being punished by God/hallucinates shes seeing demons at night. If you had asked me in high school which "theories" should be taught, I'd have sided with my mom that creationism was how it happened.
That said I believe you should teach accepted science in science class and psuedoscience should be taught by their parents on their own time. If you encouraged them to question and seek out answers I'm all for it. If you believe the correct answers are in a particular book I'd be adamant that particular teaching be left out of the school.

I do not believe that Creationism as a science should be taught in science class. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong or incompatible with explaining that the natural opposite of life evolving from non-life is that life came into existence through the intervention of an external being/force - because it is.

Thus, Creationism should be taught as the logical alternative to evolution, even with the explanation that it is a theory that cannot generally be tested through scientific means. It can be the context for presenting such scientific concepts as irreducible complexity. It can be used as the context for presenting the myriad issues with, and questions unresolved by, evolutionary theory.

None of that requires teaching any form of religion, nor does it require teaching non-scientific principles in a science class.

 

[rhino]

There are no fundamental Darwinian/evolution principles that that preclude their design and initiation by the intent of an intelligent creator. There is nothing in the Bible that precludes evolution as a mechanism by which God chose to create and develop the diverse forms of life that have existed on this li'l planet.

 

[chipbennett]

There are no fundamental Darwinian/evolution principles that that preclude their design and initiation by the intent of an intelligent creator. There is nothing in the Bible that precludes evolution as a mechanism by which God chose to create and develop the diverse forms of life that have existed on this li'l planet.

I'm not talking about macroevolution/speciation - which I would agree with you that there is nothing that directly contradicts that theory, as a matter of biblical doctrine.

I'm talking about the origin of life. Darwin's theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. As a matter of scientific method, evolutionary theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. And yet: life came from somewhere.

In that regard, evolutionary theory is equally as unscientific as creationist theory. Neither can be observed. Neither can be tested. Neither can be falsified. And yet, one if fair game to present in science class, and the other is not.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If you had asked me in high school which "theories" should be taught, I'd have sided with my mom that creationism was how it happened.

That's interesting. I remember sitting in Catholic mass with my family as maybe a five or six year-old, listening to the priest, looking around the church, and wondering "Do all these people really believe these things?"

I'm not an atheist, and I'm not an agnostic. I remember listening to a scientist on NPR, and he referred to himself as a "Possibilist", since he believed in the possibility of god, if not the certainty (one way or the other). I tend to agree with that guy, and I have no problem labeling myself "Undecided". Maybe when I grow up, I'll take a side.

I do not believe that Creationism as a science should be taught in science class. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong or incompatible with explaining that the natural opposite of life evolving from non-life is that life came into existence through the intervention of an external being/force - because it is.

I agree.

 

[Amishman44]

My mom used to tell me questions I had about faith was the devil whispering in my ears. Now she's manic depressive and believes shes being punished by God/hallucinates shes seeing demons at night. If you had asked me in high school which "theories" should be taught, I'd have sided with my mom that creationism was how it happened.
That said I believe you should teach accepted science in science class and psuedoscience should be taught by their parents on their own time. If you encouraged them to question and seek out answers I'm all for it. If you believe the correct answers are in a particular book I'd be adamant that particular teaching be left out of the school.

In Indiana...all 'external' theories had to be those which students introduced and proposed...my job was to help them research their particular theory and better understand their choices in the midst of evidence available...and to facilitate a 'productive' discussion. Instructing them to believe a particular way (or not) was not 'allowed'...but helping them to further research their belief was okay. Keep in mind...the ability to 'question' Darwin's theory of evolution was a stated objective in the textbook in 2008-09...so it's not just me presenting the argument but the state encouraging young students to study the facts and draw their own conclusion or develop their own belief!

While I did not tell a student that he/she was 'wrong' per say in their particular belief set...other students were allowed to 'argue' their belief set against the student who was in disagreement. MY RULES: each side had to 'explain' their beliefs + substantiate it and were allowed to 'question' the others beliefs but not 'knock' it!

Many students (again, way more than half) questioned why 'evolution' was taught in the public schools when the many holes in Darwin's theory were so evident. The main question from students was "Why do we have to spend time learning this crap when it's so obvious that it's not true?" (With the acceptance of any other 'theory' as 'fact' or 'better' not withstanding!)

Just relating my experience...not trying to tell others how to believe!

 

[Amishman44]

I'm talking about the origin of life. Darwin's theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. As a matter of scientific method, evolutionary theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. And yet: life came from somewhere.

Hence the issue which encouraged the discussion on where life originated in high school biology class! The point was to look at the theory of evolution...assess it's 'deficiencies'...and then consider other theories + research + be able to substantiate them as a belief and why?

When one looks at Creationism...it includes the concept of 'purpose' which includes the concept of 'self-esteem' or 'value' which no other theory appropriately addresses...yet in the big picture of life...still matters! The concept of 'self-esteem' or 'value' is a topic covered in Health class...of which I also taught!

Helping the students to work their way through understanding how these separate issues are tied together is what led to many of the discussions in both classes! Students who had me a teacher in both subjects walked away understanding the value of 'purpose' in life...and I had many parents thank me for helping their teen understand that aspect of life...and never had a parent speak negatively about it!

As teacher, what was my true purpose...teach 'facts' or help students master + understand topics that helped them work toward the bigger picture of improving themselves, find purpose, and contribute towards the betterment of society? (I have had parents speak towards both sides of that question.)

 

[rhino]

I think we're on the same page.

A similar argument can be made about the origin of the universe itself. "The Big Bang" is widely accepted as the most plausible explanation as to how "everything" got started, but what made it happen? Anyone who understands the rudiments of Thermodynamics knows you can't get something from nothing.

Oh, man. Now my head is hurting. I hate trying to wrap my head around The Big Stuff.

I'm not talking about macroevolution/speciation - which I would agree with you that there is nothing that directly contradicts that theory, as a matter of biblical doctrine.

I'm talking about the origin of life. Darwin's theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. As a matter of scientific method, evolutionary theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. And yet: life came from somewhere.

In that regard, evolutionary theory is equally as unscientific as creationist theory. Neither can be observed. Neither can be tested. Neither can be falsified. And yet, one if fair game to present in science class, and the other is not.

 

[eldirector]

I'm not talking about macroevolution/speciation - which I would agree with you that there is nothing that directly contradicts that theory, as a matter of biblical doctrine.

I'm talking about the origin of life. Darwin's theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. As a matter of scientific method, evolutionary theory is wholly incapable of explaining the origin of life. And yet: life came from somewhere.

In that regard, evolutionary theory is equally as unscientific as creationist theory. Neither can be observed. Neither can be tested. Neither can be falsified. And yet, one if fair game to present in science class, and the other is not.

Interesting position to take. From my studies, Evolution by Natural Selection never attempted to explain the origin of life. Much like General Relativity does not attempt to explain the origin of life. Different theories for different purposes.

There ARE several genesis hypotheses or theories, though. Lighting creating the first amino acids and simple sugars, and the good 'ole "Primordial Soup" theories are popular today. The former has actually been tested and replicated (in the lab of course).

Like Rhino, I don't find Science and Religion to be incompatible. Then again, I don't subscribe to a strict interpretation of religious texts.

I had several good teachers in Jr. High and High School. One, in particular, made the whole "science" thing pretty easy. If your idea is testable, it is science. If not, it is religion. One cannot be substituted for the other, as they serve different purposes.

 

[pudly]

Well. This thread jumped the tracks in a big way.

 

[eldirector]

Well. This thread jumped the tracks in a big way.

Better call the RR cops.

 

[danielocean03]

Better call the RR cops.

Woo Woo!

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

When one looks at Creationism...it includes the concept of 'purpose' which includes the concept of 'self-esteem' or 'value' which no other theory appropriately addresses...yet in the big picture of life...still matters! The concept of 'self-esteem' or 'value' is a topic covered in Health class...of which I also taught!

I don't understand how one would see any "purpose" in creation that is necessarily lacking in evolution. And, I definitely would disagree that evolution excludes the concepts of "self-esteem" or "value".

I believe that I am a creature that is descended from other creatures that were much different than me, and yet, as a human being, and a member of a family and a culture, I fully well know what my purpose(s) in life is/are. I value my place in my family, country, and culture.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

"The Big Bang" is widely accepted as the most plausible explanation as to how "everything" got started, but what made it happen?

Ironically, the term "The Big Bang" was originally coined as a derisive, humorous term to poke fun at that Theory by a religious objector, whose name escapes me.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Creationism...is one that many (way more than 1/2) of the students brought up! There's a lot of research and corresponding validation of atoms (which no one can break down any father than an atom) responding in different ways to sound (voice, tone of voice, varying notes and pitches in music, etc.)...if one relates to God's 'speaking' and ensuing things obeyed and were formed!

When one asks, "What or who directed the different atoms to work together to arrange molecules, cells, organs, systems, bodies, species, etc. to work together to form what we call 'earth'?" many clearly begin to understand that nothing this complex just 'happened' without a reason...hence the discussion for what purpose, then, was it designed? Evolution cannot answer this question without leaving many gaps unexplained.

I hope you weren't teaching chemistry or physics. Atoms most certainly do break down, and the particles you get break down further. Different elemental and compound chemicals and mixtures do have many different interactions and responses, and those include acoustics. It does leave the door open, but to make a declaration regarding the formation of these things is presumptuous.

I also take issue with people "understand[ing] that nothing this complex just 'happened' without a reason". It's still a belief. It's filling in one of the blanks with an unfalsifiable statement. Until you can show me the ruler by which you can "measure" it to be true, I can't sign off on it. By statistics and probability, the likelihood of "just happening" may be vanishingly small, but rejecting it for that reason is taking the easy way out.


Anyway, back on track: "AGW cultists are poopyheads". Discuss.

 

[eldirector]

Anyway, back on track: "AGW cultists are poopyheads". Discuss.

OK.. Since the current climate models can't predict EVERYTHING, they must be bunk.

Better?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

That's a good start, then someone says "Well, they haven't been able to predict the past yet", and we go from there!