i wasn't wrong when i suggested that...
Nov. 7th, 2004 12:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
why am emotional?
Date: 2004-11-08 05:24 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 2004-11-08 07:00 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 2004-11-09 04:46 am (UTC)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?
Date: 2004-11-09 07:27 am (UTC)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?
Date: 2004-11-09 07:36 am (UTC)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?
Date: 2004-11-09 09:35 am (UTC)"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.