i wasn't wrong when i suggested that...

[acroyear]

...schools would increasingly introduce creationism into biology classes as if it was science???

here's the latest.

i'm all for teaching that there are different interpretations of evolution, that there are debates as to how convergent evolution works, that there are gaps in the fossil record (easily explained) that mean that there are holes in the chain of events we can confirm to trace one species to another, and especially that the nature of science itself is to BE a self-correcting mechanism for approaching the correct answer to a question by eliminating the alternatives that don't fit ALL of the evidence.

New evidence is discovered and things are sometimes thrown out, but far more often just modified. Newton is not wrong just because Einstein came up with what he did. The researchers of bio-chemists and psychiatrists today may have proved that most of Freud's techniques were misguided, but Freud's fundemental truths that human behaviour and psychology is affected by chemicals and by experiences and is greatly influenced by our childhood upbringings, rather than by "demons" we have no control over, have never been disproved.

these debates within the biological community in no way suggest that evolution is wrong, NOR do they suggest in any way that "creationism" (or its latest fad form, "intelligent design") is a *science*. It lends no hypothosis that can be tested; it has no basis for making any prediction of the future.

creationism is based entirely on faith. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it is not *science*, nor does it belong in ANY secular, government-paid-for classroom (outside of an explicit religion class that the student *voluntarily* takes). One aspect of the intelligent design hypothesis, that evolution is the outward appearance of the mechanisms by which God created the species that exist today, is a very attractive one, one which I *believe* in as a matter of my faith.

but belief is NOT science, and my belief is based entirely on my personal philosophy. it is utterly untestable, inherently unprovable, and does not belong in a classroom.

Comments

[lokifrost.livejournal.com]

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer . FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof . synonym see in addition OPINION ()

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

Science is the method of proving something in the lab, or that is directly observable outside the lab. Evolution is not science, it is a scientific theory.

My issue with *both* creationism and evolution is that neither can be "proven". They are not something that can be re-created in the lab, nor are they observable (as we have no method of time travel). For me, the jury is out. There is no reason to teach either, frankly. Why are we so desperate to teach something on this subject, anyway? We don't teach about theories of lifes existence on other worlds, we don't teach theories of what really exists at the bottom of the deepest ocean trenches...why is there this need to deal with this subject in the classroom at all?

As I see it, the only reason one or the other *is* taught is because people are dogmatic about their beliefs (whether they be scientific *or* religious), and they have this deep seated need to be right on this particular subject.

If evolutionists were not as dogmatic in their beliefs as the creationists, they would not have taken a single fossilized tooth in Nebraska, "built" a complete skeleton from it depicting what amounts to a "missing link" kind of man, and named it "Nebraska Man", only to find out it was not only a tooth only recently fossilized, but was the tooth of a pig. There are other examples, some right here in the Smithsonian, where they have built entire skeletons on the smallest bits of bone...sometimes only a fragment of the skull the size of a dime.

Until people stop going out looking for evidence to prove what they already believe (on both sides of this debate), and start looking at things with an impartial eye, it will always be so.

fit the first

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

this shows a misunderstanding of science, of research in evolution, and of the need to have a context for scientific knowledge to have any meaning.

science is not about "proving" anything. If anything, it is about disproving things, but the things is disproving are those already established by science, including the pseudo-science of past generations that nobody challenged before.

science is defining the mechanisms by which the world and universe is what it is.

ALL science is theory. "Fact" is merely a theory that has held up to an extremely large amount of data and observation over years, decades, new circumstances which the original proposer of the theory couldn't have forseen. Newtonian physics is just a theory, and our success at using it to get a man on the moon supports that theory, but it doesn't mean Newton is 100% right as Einstein showed.

Proof is not possible in science; data either supports an explanation of the world, or it contradicts it.

Observations can be used to show two seemingly contradictory interpretations of the world. The data didn't seem to fit the view that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Copernicus came up with the alternative. another alternate theory might still have been possible that explained the motions of the planets accurately in a geo-centric orbit, but it would have more complex a structure, with the mathematics of the time, to be useful.

Occam's razor comes into play here: when 2 ideas explain the data equally well, choose the simpler one (but don't forget the more complex one when new data arrives that doesn't fit the simpler model).

"lab" experiments are not to "prove" anything (in the sense that mathematical derivations through rules of logic and induction "prove" more mathematics). an experiment is taking a situation that can be controlled, isolating the variables, acknowledging a degree of probability by which the remaining varients can affect the outcome of the particular variable you're trying to test, and conducting the tests (control and experiment cases).

experiments only provide more data. nothing more. the data can support the theory, or it can contradict it. proving a theory FALSE is final, though many times the original theory just needs adjustment, not elimination. there's no proving anything true, but there's plenty of proving things false.

science has ALWAYS been about finding stuff to support a belief. by the same token, many scientists throughout history have made bold attempts to disprove Einstein, Maxwell, Schroedinger, and yes, Darwin. They've all failed. their belief is (and continues to be) that it can't possibily be right.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

charlatans in science are rampant. always have been. but take the example you cite -- he wasn't proving anything. he was actually trying to present data that contradicted the theory that primates evolved into man, and/or that man only arrived in North America starting around 10,000 years ago, by presenting "proof" of a man in Nebraska where he never should have been.

The man was jumping onto a fad, ignoring the true rules by which skeletons are constructed from scant fossil evidence. However, those themselves have changed and continue to change DAILY as a result of mistakes made in the past that don't fit new observations as more complete fossils are discovered.

this is how science is self-correcting, which NO other belief system is. the reason science is self-correcting are the rules by which is operates. absolute openness is key: 100% disclosure; anything less is not science. ALL data is relevant, ESPECIALLY if it indicates that an explanation might be wrong. Finally, for a theory to hold up, it has to hold up under circumstances which the original theorist could not have forseen.

This is the key to evolution's support. If Darwin was wrong and spontanious generation (whether "creator"-influenced or not), the proof *should* have been in genetics and DNA which Darwin couldn't possibly have forseen.

Yet genetics shows the exact opposite. Gene sequences for species contain hundreds and thousands of instructions that aren't carried out, but match almost precisely with instructions for other species that the original species should not have been in any way connected to, if evolution was wrong.

But its all there. And no, scientists weren't looking for data in genetics to support Darwin. The reality most were EXPECTING him to finally be corrected. The data had to show that species had no relationships to each other, but it didn't. It showed exactly how features of an animal or plant come along AND how features of predecessors are turned off.

In this, there are PLENTY of lab experiments happening daily, the most recent to gain any fame was that of getting a chicken to grow a tooth. The genetics showed that the birds have the sequences required to grow teeth, and (supporting evolution) that those sequences are nearly identical to the sequences in reptiles. Birds then have a second sequence to grow beaks. They also have a third sequence that actually turns OFF the first one, so they don't generate the hormone that triggers teeth to grow.

feed that hormone into a chicken and the chicken grew a tooth, a perfect, triangular, reptile tooth. (and if you think it was just because they used some chemical from a reptile, well consider this: the hormone is the same in us. it is exactly the same hormone in EVERY bone-based teeth-growing animal in the world).

historical evolution, the searching of the fossil record, is also science. yes there are gaps in the fossil record, an inevitability given how fossils are formed, but this just means that there is less data than is ideal. none of the data that has come out of the record, aside from the cambrian explosion, has contradicted anything. And the cambrian explosion affects Darwinistic theory only the same way that Relativity (the science of the very big and/or the very fast) affected Newton. Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have this information to use to tailor his theory to (as complex as Einsteins maths are, they simplify down to Newtonian physics as soon as you use them to describe things not going at relativistic speeds).

In the same way, Dawrin isn't wrong just because of the presense of the cambrian explosion data, there's just more information to use to produce a more complete picture of species development that incorporates his evolution as part of the process.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

As for "experiments" in evolution in the fossil record? Well, the simple answer is that Darwin is neither supported nor contradicted by gaps in the record, gaps mean missing data, which in and of itself is NOT data. so there is a degree to which attempts to assert Darwin wrong, strictly using the fossil record, are misguided. However, the data from the fossil record increasingly supports the theory, and one CAN experiment (in the sense of make a prediction, gather more evidence and see if the prediction holds).

The prediction i'm referring to concerns us. Man seemed to be unique among all other animals in that it didn't seem to go through a period of speciation -- this is the point where from a common successful ancestor, a wide variety of species develops and expands, and from there natural selection processes get into play to isolate them and make them distinctive to each other. All animals have gone through this, including most in the primate families, with the exception of the homonids (us). We seemed to have gone from "Lucy" to homo ergastor to hiedelbergensis, to cro magnon, with only isolated single-species branches in parallel (neanderthol). So if Darwin is to be correct for man, other species of homonids, those that DIDN'T become man, should also have existed. (Was this supporting the belief that Darwin was right? yes. But *more importantly*, it was trying to DISPROVE the theory that mankind was unique and special by having only a single-line of development and as such, must have been blessed by The Creator to be so unique).

Sure enough, the fossils were finally discovered. There now is theorised to have been as many has 100 different species of homonids in the million years between "Lucy" and homo ergastor. Now, which one became homo ergastor (and thus, us), we still aren't sure of. We CAN be sure of the ones we're NOT derived from, because that's science in action -- disproving what is obviously (as in, through observable data) false, and coming up with an explanation that fits ALL of the relevant data.

Evolution is science. It is the application of the scientific process to the data available, and it has held up to everything thrown at it so far.

The means by which it is studied and applied are different from those of chemistry or particle physics, and as such, doesn't fit the stereotypical "lab" environment. But then again, the planets aren't exactly things one can bring down into a lab, nor is gravity as a *mutual attraction* anything that could have been *proven* (that is, demonstrated using normal earth objects) in Newton's time. So we learn astronomy because we need to learn how the scientific process is applied to things we can't bring into the lab (planets). And we learn Evolution because we need to learn how the scientific process is applied to the fossil record and to the study of species relationships and genetics.

(and the truth is that "evolution" in a high school biology course is rarely more than a couple of weeks compared to all of the other stuff you pick up in that class including the initially FAR more controversial sex-education content. its only the emotional reactions of the creationist detractors that keep making this such a damn problem)

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

There is a definitive reason that some science has the word "theory" attached to it. Darwins "theory" of evolution never made it to the point where the word "theory" was dropped. There is a reason...it has not been proven. Gravity is an observable event...hence, it is not "Newtons theory of gravity".

Evolution relies nearly solely on data collected from non-observable events. Mainly, fossils and carbon dating (which can be wrong).

As to the tooth...I know exactly what the creationists would say: "Intelligent design does not negate the idea that the maker could use the same template from one species to the next. What it says is that there was a creator, and that man did not evolve from one celled life". Which is exactly what I have read from the Creationist camp when looking into both sides of this argument.

If there is controversy, it is because *both* sides are so emotionally attached to their POV's that they cannot allow for the existance of the other. That to me is a shame. Frankly, I'd rather see neither taught than both. There are plenty of speculative things that are not addressed in school...again, the existance of life on other planets, as an example. There is no concrete reason *to* teach either evolution *or* creationism to our kids. Especially not when there is this division in ideology and *belief*, and especially as it is not something that anyone *but* someone going into some fairly specified fields will ever need.

Yeah, I know...the same can be said of trigonometry. But, people aren't fighting over trig versus some other form of math as being "the valid" math.

So long as this issue raises the kinds of emotions it does, I just don't see that making either side required curriculum is doing anything more than fanning the flames, nor is it doing our kids any good.

As I see it, so long as there is this issue over whose theory is the "right" one, I say let the parents decide.

Please understand...I am proponent of neither. In my way of thinking, it is a major non-issue. I am as moderate as moderate can be on this. I only post here to give another outlook on it.

the people who still call evolution a "theory"

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

are rarely scientists. the VAST majority of scientists consider Evolution a FACT, regardless of its name. Fact again in this case means a theory that has held up to a great many challenges. Scientists still consider Gravity a theory. Again, the *mutual* attraction definition takes quite a bit of number-crunching to support (and it wasn't until we started looking at binary stars close-up through telescopes that we could see it in action for real -- Newton held up to within a degree of certainty, a degree which Einsteins maths easily accounted for).

there's also the fact that people call something, especially in science but also in technology, by the first name it was given, whether its relevant or not.

consider that basilosaurus is actually a mammal (its a type of whale), but was named like a reptile because the person who found it didn't know what he'd found.

Newton called Gravity a "Law of Nature" because he coined the term. Science itself was still new and the degree to which scientists consider everything a theory came about much later, during the late 18th century when the extreme precision instruments really started to muck about with known facts when it came to things like Light and electricity. Gravity would have been called a theory by any 18th century scientist, had it not already been named a "Law" a hundred years before.

Yeah, I know...the same can be said of trigonometry. But, people aren't fighting over trig versus some other form of math as being "the valid" mat -- ah, but they did! there was a major debate in the 1960s as to what maths were relevant to place in elementary and secondary school curricula, the whole "New Math" thing emphasising Set Theory and Boolean logic. This was big enough to have actually gotten Charles Schultz to actually turn Peanuts into a political statement for 2 months. In the end, the calculus mechanism won out, but the debate went for about 10 years, and "new math" still has a representative chapter, usually chapter 2, in almost every elementary-school math text even though its never taught until pre-algebra.

In the sense of asking the question, "what is more useful for our children to know", the case for "The New Math" is much like the evolution case, only without the religious overtones in the alternative theories.

the case for the two is NOT equal -- when you read about the school boards that bring in experts of evolution and ID to argue it out, and they come back feeling both sides seemed equal because the 2 members of each side talked equally eloquently, it totally misses the numbers, and the ID proponents PLAN IT THAT WAY. to get an accurate picture of "the controversy", have 2 ID proponents debating with 2,000 scientists, and see how the ID story holds up to the criticisms of 2,000. Then you will quickly see that there is no "controversy" among scientists.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

oh, and there are also plenty of *simple* lab experiments in evolution -- take a dozen plants of a species, subject them to extreme conditions like drought or cold, and then see if the children of the survivors have a better survival rate when put through the same conditions. EASY to do in a basic 7th grade biology class!

basic, right there in front of you, in terms ANY 13 year old can understand, support for natural selection. No fossils required.

we HAVE to know this. WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT CAN KILL US!

its that simple. we have to study natural selection and evolution because we have to know the consequences of how the environment affects the animals and plants we depend on. evolution is just as much a key to that understanding as "the food chain" -- it is just that purely fundemental to it. and its so fundemental that the vast majority of scientists don't question it.

its only because creationism appeals to the fundemental nature of faith in The Bible as being infallable that it makes any emotional connection whatsoever to appear like its actually seriously considered as a "theory".

to scientists, there is no controversy. there is plenty of controversy in the details of how an animal got the way it did -- evolution depends on the combination of mutations and recessive genes, and nothing science can theorize at this point of our ability to measure can prove that something other than "randomness" caused the mutations. Darwin and his contemporaries in this field freely acknowledged this, by the way, but most creationists refuse to remember that detail.

At this point, "divine intervention" is just as likely an explanation as "bombarded with exactly the right combination of cosmic rays to cause the DNA replication to hiccup". however, there's more support for the latter than the former (which has none except as a statement of faith). the support is TINY, but its there, where it isn't a single lick for the "intervention" and "design" hypothesis. I personally as a matter of FAITH believe the latter, but the evidence is not there, NOR WILL IT EVER BE.

If God hasn't "proven" his existence by now, why's he going to change his mind in our lifetime?

if "The Infallibility of The Bible" was not a part of people's emotional dependencies, this issue would never have been the divider it is.

the secret proof of God is in his creation. most scientists look at the universe and marvel at it FOR WHAT IT IS, and accept deep in the hearts at the benevolence of the creator for coming up with it all and the rules by which it operates, rules which they study and learn.

the few out there who think the only way to prove the existence of God to their own satisfaction, by trying to show cases where the Rules of Nature were broken by what had to be intervention, are misguided to the value of knowledge, science, and have (to my mind and the minds of many like the lates Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman and Stephen Gould) lost their wonder.

and to my mind, by having this need to PROVE the existence of God, I feel they have also lost their faith itself.

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

oh, and there are also plenty of *simple* lab experiments in evolution -- take a dozen plants of a species, subject them to extreme conditions like drought or cold, and then see if the children of the survivors have a better survival rate when put through the same conditions. EASY to do in a basic 7th grade biology class!

That's correct. But, creationists would not disagree that there is development from one plant to another...specialization and "survival of the fittest". Their issue is that a plant does not evolve into an animal, or that a reptile does not become a mammal (again, consider, these are not my thoughts, I am simply parroting what their POV is...again, I am a moderate on this subject).

And, Joe? You're proving my point. You, in addition to the religious right, are reacting to the debate in an amazingly emotional manner. You are as attached to your POV as they are to theirs...at an emotional level. I don't see the possibility of having a respectful debate wherein all POV's may shared when some of the participants are are so worked up they feel the need to yell.

Which is the main reason I say the jury is out for me. The subject matter just doesn't warrant the aggrevation it seems to stir up. Let parents decide, just as they do on sex and religion.

why am emotional?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

because of the fact that it is SCIENCE!

my whole point was establishing that evolution is science and creationism (or "intelligent design") is not. the question is not should creationism be taught in schools. I have no problem with the bible and/or other literal works and their interpretations being taught in, say, a literature class.

But CREATIONISM is NOT SCIENCE and does NOT belong in any science lesson.

That's is the extreme foolishness that we see, and we react emotionally because they only have emotional arguments to come at us with, no evidence at all except the words of the Bible (as interpreted through artifically-contrived "mathematics" to make it look real), and the people who NEED to listen to the arguments can only relate emotionally BECAUSE they don't think they can understand it all.

it may be that the average person will never really understand evolution. fine. so for the average biology class, take it out. but don't replace it with a non-scientific creationist story just because its "easier to grasp", and certainly don't waste time in the classroom "teaching the controversy" where one doesn't exist and hasn't for almost a hundred years.

as soon as we start teaching mis-information to students, to start having them treat pseudo-science as if it was the real thing, the future of this country is GONE. Done. over with. we will be permanently screwed into the dark ages like there's no tomorrow.

because there won't be.

so the other reason we're so emotional? because we are TERRIFIED at the alternative. because we saw it for over 2000 years, as Pythagorean "thought" overrode the Ionian standard of observation and experiment as the prevailing philosophy of Greece, freezing scientific development enough so that when the fall of Rome came 800 years later, there already wasn't a candle lit outside of Alexandria. And that burned down.

we've seen what happens when what one "thinks" or "feels" is treated more importantly by the evidence presented.

and we're scared.

Re: why am emotional?

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

I remain dispassionate on this (and other school related issues) because I, as a parent, know I can opt my kid out of *anything* I feel is inaccurate, misleading, or harmful...and have done exactly this in past. My kid is not in any danger of being exposed to information I think is fallacious, and no one elses child is either. I'd still prefer that neither one be taught, simply because it *is* a volatile issue. But, if both are there, that's fine with me. Because I am an involved parent. Everyone else has the same rights I do. If they don't want their kid learning creationism (or evolution, for that matter), it is *not up to the school system*. It is up to the parent. Be active, be involved, get a copy of the curriculum, ask teachers for information on all courses of study, take a look at what will be handed out before the school year begins, and if you don't agree with the information...tell the school, and make no bones about not wanting your kid to be taught whatever it is you disagree with.

As to "creation science"...they do actually have a few bonafied scientists on their side of the debate. There actually are some interesting things that they bring up that make me say "Hmmm...interesting". Not that I buy that their explanation is *the* explanation...just that it's of interest to consider. Some of it is just a mystery. Like that miles worth of the fossil record out in the midwest are flipped upside down and/or jumbled up. Interesting...perplexing...and worthy of note.

The fact is there *is* some science to creationism theory. There aren't a lot of folks out there to explain it, but for me...as someone who doesn't care one iota which way this pendulum swings, I find any kind of puzzle something of interest.

What I see though is this; So long as tempers flare on any subject, there will never be any understanding between the differing sides of any debate. Sure...you believe with your whole heart and mind that you are correct. You believe the facts support your premise. So do the fundamentalists that hold to creationism (even some with PhD's).

But, it's such a waste of emotion to get angry about it, because parents still have the right to choose for their kids...public schools or no. Again, I know because I have exercised those rights.

That is why I am as dispassionate on this as I am.

Re: why am emotional?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Just because someone is trained to be a scientist doesn't mean they actually are. PhDs mean nothing when you forget the rules. Consider the great Cold Fusion fiasco of 1989.

I'm sorry I can't convince you that creationism is not science. I'm sorry I can't convince you that this Intelligent Design garbage is not science.

Its not. Its that simple.

If you can read through the extremely high-tech terminology (even *I* have problems with how detailed they get in the debunking), its all there at http://www.pandasthumb.org/ . Day after Day they go through this, taking apart piece by piece the writings of the ID proponents to show how the science simply isn't there, how they repeat over and over again their statements that have already been disproved (and accepted to be disproved by the vast majority of scientists), how they react the typical way of victimhood by painting that there's some vast conspiracy behind it all, how they claim to not be trying to put religion into schools when they talk to school boards while at the same time declaring the exact opposite in their own semi-private writings, how they don't follow the true rules of science by actually publishing their works in peer-reviewed journals (which ALL scientists do) but instead go straight to books in order to get their word out sooner, how most of them are unqualified to be making any declarations about biology (Dembski is a mathematician, of all things).

They have actually named their approach for getting their message into schools "The Wedge". Scientists didn't call it that. They did.

If it weren't for the fact that they are bypassing the normal rules of science and going straight to the people through book publishing with sensationalist titles, they would have not have even stirred up a single bit of interest by true scientists.

Its all there, day after day after day they go through this stuff. If you want to read it, good luck to you.

But as long as they preach to the people who are more comfortable being preached to than taught, then members of the scientific community will also need to be preachers of the nature of science (and the science of nature) to get and keep this crap out of the schools.

Re: why am emotional?

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

Don't be sorry, Joe. It's OK, really. I can be friends with people even if our thoughts and beliefs are very divergent. I am a Christian married to a Pagan, and there simply is no problem here, even though we don't agree. Agreeing on things is not a criteria for me when it comes to those I want to spend time with. Intelligence is.

The thing is, I *have* read up on both sides. I've also read the accusations being slung from both sides. Sometimes, I have come away shaking my head thinking; "Jeez...both camps are acting like Jr. High kids". But, in the final analysis, I just don't care enough about the subject to form an emotional tie to anything, no matter how many scientists are on one side or the other. From Medicine to biology to paleontology to evolution...what I have found time and again is that Scientists and Doctors are every bit as dogmatic as their religious counterparts (ever read "Confessions of a Medical Heretic"? Good read, and, from my personal experience as someone who went through birth, very accurate). But, on this one subject, basically (as stated previously) because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that, if I don't want it being taught to my kid, I don't have to let them do so, it just doesn't worry me one iota. I've already pulled Katy out of two (supposedly) "required" bits of her curriculum because I didn't agree with their necessity, nor with either their content or potential for harm (dissecting frogs and a computer lab where the schools firewalls kept failing, and, because they didn't have enough adult supervision, kids were surfing porn).

It's OK if we don't agree. I don't think less of you, and I hope you don't think less of me. It just means two intelligent people have come to differing conclusions because of there being a difference in what is fundamentally important to them. No harm, no foul.

Re: why am emotional?

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

One last thing...

It's a big catch word these days..."tolerance". Some define this to mean (as it pertains to religion), the acceptance that all paths are equal to one another, and that "all Gods are Gods".

That's not what tolerance is, from my POV. Tolerance is being a mono-theist or a poly-theist, and being respectful of others rights to choose their own paths, no matter what we ourselves believe.

It's not an identical circumstance, but I do believe it translates to other areas where there are divergent ideologies. Politics, religion, and yes...even science. Respect is the key.

And I do respect you, Joe. You are someone who researches his thoughts and beliefs. You don't form your opinions upon scant little info and a "gut feeling". I have the deepest of respect for people like you, even if we don't agree fully.

I have enjoyed debating with you on this and other things. I just wish it didn't seem to make you so upset. I certainly don't want to piss you off.

Re: why am emotional?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

(this is probably the least-emotional reply I've made in this thread, so maybe its a good ending to it)

"tolerance" is acceptable in certain circumstances, in fact its ideal in most. However, science vs. pseudo-science is an exception to this, when it involves what is taught in a science classroom. As i said, I have no problem with creationism being taught, in the appropriate place.

(and as i wrote before, if half the student population can't grasp it, then teach neither as you would have it, but don't introduce the wrong alternative)

in this particular case, the student is learning something that is not science (there is no way to make a prediction from it, because it directly translates into faith terms as "God's Will" where most statements of faith already say we can't determine His will directly; even the fully human side of Jesus couldn't do it, as the Gospels clearly show.

How can science (as in the scientific process) be used to predict the future (which is its greatest asset to mankind), if just because something got too complicated we simply go back to our mythological past and say "God did it, and that's that"? Science loses ALL validity as soon as you introduce the idea of something that can't be predicted or controled.

We can make predictions of the future using our knowledge of evolution and natural selection. The predictions won't be 100% accurate...in fact, just going to 5% accuracy would be impressive when it comes to speciation. But through observation and analysis over the next few centuries, our predictions will get better.

God's Will is not something that can be predicted or controled, therefore it has no place in science.

Tolerance has nothing to do with it. Scientists simply can not tolerate something that is not science being treated as though it was. It would be the end of science entirely. Not just the "end of science as we know it". The end of science itself.

If we let in "God's Will" into Biology, what stops them from pushing it into interpretations of Relativity? Quantum Mechanics? Geology? Will prayer be considered an acceptable predictor/controller for Earthquakes to scientists? Will we simply call changes in the techtonic plates caused by "God's Will" and not movement of liquid iron underneath the surface? Will we be able to have mass prayers and songs within factories to hope the God will perform a miracle and eliminate a factory's Greenhouse Gas emissions? Do we have exorcisms to pull Demons out of malfunctioning cars?

Where does it stop? Why is biology different than anything else science is involved in, just because a book said "God created" and religious dogma (and our own ego) has decided "man is unique"?

The rules of nature are there. We discover them, we marvel at them (especially the stark simplicity of it all, like e=mc2) we use them to make predictions as to how the future will be. We make mistakes in them, and we fix them over time. As I said, science is the only "belief system" that has ever existed that is self-correcting. Science also has a prediction success rate that outdoes any Seer or Prophet that has ever lived, and any religion that has ever existed on this planet, as far as events on this planet and this universe go. Its is the clearest expression of human pragmatism at its best.

Those two aspects, self-correction and improving prediction success rates, are mutually bound together.

As soon as we take a part of science away from it and say "well, God did this part", we create the potential to destroy all we have achieved, because we take away self-correction.