Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I have not accepted everything that I've learned from striving to be educated. I take everything with a grain of salt but take articles in peer reviewed science journals a bit more seriously than 'well I don't know what happened here so...eh...God?'MarshallNoise, if you feel ID is taught in school alongside science can there be mandatory classes on other religions like Buddhism and Islam? If you don't feel ID is a religion then fine but can there be a separate ID class that explains everything is from the hand of multiple creators/gods? Eh? I understand that you simply don't believe in the possibility of a God. I get that and I understand that is why you rely so heavily on peer review journals, etc. Trust me, I KNOW where you are coming from in that regard. Sure, I am all for a separate religions of the world class, but that is usually studied in Social Science (whatever they call that nowadays). So it is already covered. What I think would be fair is that when a textbook goes along and states that the universe/earth/origin of life came about THIS way, that they would have a little asterisk that states that this is one view based on what scientists are working on currently but that other people believe that a deity is/are responsible for the universe/et al. Is that so rough? I understand that it is not scientific, but lots of things are passed along as science when they are not science. Particularly when "science" changes it's mind all the time about lots of random things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BadRonald Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 You could have learned the basic guiding principals of science in school but instead we're too busy worrying about upsetting Christians who think it's somehow counter to their religion to believe that science can be true without using God as an explanation.Dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 You just shot down the entire notion of religion, Christianity or otherwise. What gives one man (say a pastor) the right to try to explain something (in this case how to live ones life and what to believe) that he has no factual evidence of? Food for thought. -W No, I did not. The discussion was if ID should be allowed to be discussed along side (simultaneously, etc.) with Science courses. Since science discusses the observable and faith in any supernatural being is not observable, then it should not be taught along side of it. A pastor, or any man for that matter, has a right to explain his beliefs that are outside the "observable" so long as they stay outside the realm of science. But when science tries to assert that it can explain something that it simply cannot yet, then the pastor has a right to chime in. The way someoone lives their life is irrelevant here. I don't understand how you brought that up and expected it to correlate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Dude. I don't understand how "science" is a true/false proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I understand that you simply don't believe in the possibility of a God. I get that and I understand that is why you rely so heavily on peer review journals, etc. Trust me, I KNOW where you are coming from in that regard. Sure, I am all for a separate religions of the world class, but that is usually studied in Social Science (whatever they call that nowadays). So it is already covered. What I think would be fair is that when a textbook goes along and states that the universe/earth/origin of life came about THIS way, that they would have a little asterisk that states that this is one view based on what scientists are working on currently but that other people believe that a deity is/are responsible for the universe/et al. Is that so rough? I understand that it is not scientific, but lots of things are passed along as science when they are not science. Particularly when "science" changes it's mind all the time about lots of random things. That's not unscientific, that's an essential part of science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I understand that you simply don't believe in the possibility of a God. I get that and I understand that is why you rely so heavily on peer review journals, etc. Trust me, I KNOW where you are coming from in that regard. Sure, I am all for a separate religions of the world class, but that is usually studied in Social Science (whatever they call that nowadays). So it is already covered. What I think would be fair is that when a textbook goes along and states that the universe/earth/origin of life came about THIS way, that they would have a little asterisk that states that this is one view based on what scientists are working on currently but that other people believe that a deity is/are responsible for the universe/et al. Is that so rough? I understand that it is not scientific, but lots of things are passed along as science when they are not science. Particularly when "science" changes it's mind all the time about lots of random things. But the problem is that science doesn't "change its mind"-- that's a total mischaracterization of the process. That's like saying that Christianity changes its mind since the Protestant reformation lead to many different orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Actually, it's far worse than that but not worth getting into. More importantly, realize that science classes DO point out where there is scientific uncertainty and debate and often gives equal time to competing scientific conclusions. We're teaching science-- our burden is to accurately represent the current state of scientific understanding, not to introduce competing ideologies rooted in religion and not in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BadRonald Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I don't understand how "science" is a true/false proposition. You misunderstand.I was just giving him the because he was projecting his ignorance on me.He's got no idea what he is talking about in reference to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I understand that you simply don't believe in the possibility of a God. I get that and I understand that is why you rely so heavily on peer review journals, etc. Trust me, I KNOW where you are coming from in that regard. Sure, I am all for a separate religions of the world class, but that is usually studied in Social Science (whatever they call that nowadays). So it is already covered. What I think would be fair is that when a textbook goes along and states that the universe/earth/origin of life came about THIS way, that they would have a little asterisk that states that this is one view based on what scientists are working on currently but that other people believe that a deity is/are responsible for the universe/et al. Is that so rough? I understand that it is not scientific, but lots of things are passed along as science when they are not science. Particularly when "science" changes it's mind all the time about lots of random things. You can't compare science to faith. They're completely different things. Science rarely claims to "know" something. These somethings are called laws. Things like gravity and physical forces are explained by these laws. For everything else, there are theories. Science is the PROCESS of discovery. Science is not THE WAY IT IS.Here, pictures might help:-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 That's not unscientific, that's an essential part of science It may be, but it certainly lacks fortitude, doesn't it? Let's present the field of science as it was originally intended: Ever changing due to discovery and observation, constantly correcting itself. Is that not fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 It may be, but it certainly lacks fortitude, doesn't it? Let's present the field of science as it was originally intended: Ever changing due to discovery and observation, constantly correcting itself. Is that not fair? Scientific method, learn it. It should clear things up for you quite a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I don't understand how "science" is a true/false proposition. We have reached a scientific truth when it comes to this stuff. It does not exclude God because science by its own definition could never exclude God. However, simultaneously, science can never INCLUDE God either.That's fact. We have a great understanding of the science, and that science has the same scope of inquiry as all other science-- inclusive of naturalism and only naturalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BadRonald Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Scientific method, learn it. It should clear things up for you quite a bitTheory, learn it. It should clear things up for you quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 It may be, but it certainly lacks fortitude, doesn't it? Let's present the field of science as it was originally intended: Ever changing due to discovery and observation, constantly correcting itself. Is that not fair? That's exactly how it's presented. Except realize that science doesn't change in a random pattern of ignorance and exclusivity. Science is ever spiraling downward and inward towards objective truth and reality over time. All new ideas are inclusive of former experiments. Each improvement brings us far closer to reality. Over time our picture has become remarkably accurate and continues to be more and more accurate with each change. It's not like there is no progress in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Theory, learn it. It should clear things up for you quite a bit. Do you know the definition of a scientific theory?Do you know that gravity is still the "Theory of Gravity"?Do you know that I can post a picture of an individual atom that I took myself but it's still referred to as Atomic Theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Theory, learn it. It should clear things up for you quite a bit. Wat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 You can't compare science to faith. They're completely different things. Science rarely claims to "know" something. These somethings are called laws. Things like gravity and physical forces are explained by these laws. For everything else, there are theories. Science is the PROCESS of discovery. Science is not THE WAY IT IS. Here, pictures might help: -W Funny funny Dubya. I am well aware of what science claims and doesn't claim. My problem isn't with the process of science or scientists, just the idiots who write textbooks and the teachers who teach that science is indeed fact. This is the beef that most ID people can identify with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 The way someoone lives their life is irrelevant here. I don't understand how you brought that up and expected it to correlate. Religion is a set of instructions passed on from those in power to those not in power on how to live ones life. Storytelling and parables are used to convey the ideology of said instructions. These fictions include the "story of creation", "the story of salvation", and other such devices which help convey the message. The end is control, the means are ancillary. The reason this "fits in" has to do with sad misinterpretation of these parables and stories as truth in any form whatsoever. The creators of the various religions did not so much intend to explain the origin of the world as they simply intended to use these stories to convey a message. It's sad that these works of literature are so belittled by those who hold them in the highest regard, instead of studied for what they really are.-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 We have reached a scientific truth when it comes to this stuff. It does not exclude God because science by its own definition could never exclude God. However, simultaneously, science can never INCLUDE God either. That's fact. We have a great understanding of the science, and that science has the same scope of inquiry as all other science-- inclusive of naturalism and only naturalism. Right. I agree with you. You have effectively and accurately described the boundaries that science has jurisdiction over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 But you just stated that the notion of creationism should have an asterik in science textbooks? How does this fit in with the above statement?Religion is a set of instructions passed on from those in power to those not in power on how to live ones life. Storytelling and parables are used to convey the ideology of said instructions. These fictions include the "story of creation", "the story of salvation", and other such devices which help convey the message. The end is control, the means are ancillary. The reason this "fits in" has to do with sad misinterpretation of these parables and stories as truth in any form whatsoever. The creators of the various religions did not so much intend to explain the origin of the world as they simply intended to use these stories to convey a message. It's sad that these works of literature are so belittled by those who hold them in the highest regard, instead of studied for what they really are.-W I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that in the section where a textbook presents science as KNOWING exactly the origin of the universe (*), that is where some explanation is due. Oh jeze. I simply disagree with your analysis of religion so I will just refrain from discussing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Right. I agree with you. You have effectively and accurately described the boundaries that science has jurisdiction over. That was the jist of the post I wrote that Ronald quoted-- you cannot have a deity-based explanation in the scientific explanation ever, period. We have a really good scientific explanation, incredibly rigorous, well-supported, etc. It doesn't get rid of God but it cannot and never will include God. If you want to find a space for God it's easy without undermining or detracting whatsoever from the science. However, that space that you fill with God is not the realm of science and doesn't belong in a science classroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that in the section where a textbook presents science as KNOWING exactly the origin of the universe (*), that is where some explanation is due. Oh jeze. I simply disagree with your analysis of religion so I will just refrain from discussing that. No textbook says that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 That's exactly how it's presented..Not really in classrooms. I was there. Except realize that science doesn't change in a random pattern of ignorance and exclusivity. Science is ever spiraling downward and inward towards objective truth and reality over time. All new ideas are inclusive of former experiments. Each improvement brings us far closer to reality. So you hope. That is the desire of science, but once again, reality can change just as soon as a new experiment proves the previous reality false. Over time our picture has become remarkably accurate and continues to be more and more accurate with each change. It's not like there is no progress in science.But what is the definition of progress? Constant refinement? Ok, I'll buy that. But scientists once thought smoking cigs wasn't bad for you. Then lung cancer became common and that opinion changed. Totally reversed the world's view of smoking anything. My point is that science is hit and miss and sometimes that refinement totally uproots everything that was once discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 No textbook says thatOh holy hell...will you please read everything before commenting on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 That was the jist of the post I wrote that Ronald quoted-- you cannot have a deity-based explanation in the scientific explanation ever, period. We have a really good scientific explanation, incredibly rigorous, well-supported, etc. It doesn't get rid of God but it cannot and never will include God. If you want to find a space for God it's easy without undermining or detracting whatsoever from the science. However, that space that you fill with God is not the realm of science and doesn't belong in a science classroom. Except where science tries to explain things beyond what it really knows. AMIRITE? Or are you saying science in and of itself is infallable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted September 3, 2008 Members Share Posted September 3, 2008 Oh holy hell...will you please read everything before commenting on it? No scientist would ever make the statement that science knows everything about the origins of the universe, because it doesn't. We can only go back so far. However, we have some very strongly supported theories that explain what happens immediately after the universe was created. Its not a matter of science always being right, its a matter of science based on evidence. The big bang is supported by evidence, sure we could discover new evidence that changes everything we know, but the chances of that happening are very slim. Sorry if you were offended by a teacher who said "this is how it happened, you are wrong" But when all the evidence suggests one thing and you believe another, then yes you probably are wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.