Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Freethinker]

In other words, because god is, supposedly, unknowable, there is no way science could come up with a definitive answer either way, so saying that because science hasn't disproved it gives it a chance is in invalid statement? That makes sense, if science could never know one way or the other, then it can't have any bearing on it.

This is NOT what was said. At no point does

 

"It is impossible to PROVE non-existence"

 

become

 

Therefore science says nothing.

 

Plus your reply suffers from the irrational claim that a god is unknowable. If an entity of ANY kind does ANYTHING that interacts with our physical world it CAN BE KNOWN. It is that simple. If an entity can NOT interact with our physical world, it does not exist for all intents and purpose. As the concept of a god would require that it CAN interact with our physcial existence, as a god would be nothing if it has no interactions with our existence, it CAN be KNOWN.

 

So while science can not prove a non-existence, it CAN prove existence if there is any. And just like the famous greblington, if there is an absolute lack of any factual evidence of it's existence, it is irrational to pretend there is and accept it's existence.

[Freethinker]

Non-existance can be proven, just not easily. I can prove that there is not a car on top of my monitor by gathering facts of other cars and showing that the space above my monitor does not fit that definition. But you are right that an argument for god cannot contain that.

Ah, but you are requiring adherance to "facts of other cars" and I say this car is so small it is not visible or measurable. But it IS there. And you can not prove the type car I define is not there.

 

Just like the continual effort to invent a god defintion that can survive rational evaluation by creating irrational parameters and pretending that is god.

 

Yes we CAN prove the Christian defined god does not exist, if by nothing other than it's internal contradictions making it impossible, the same as you suggest for a car on your monitor. But will you acknowledge then that the Christian god can not exist? Or are oyu unwilling to use your own promoted logic?

I never said that it must be true, merely that it was in a limbo between true and false, neither proven nor disproven. If you are going to quote me as saying it's a possibility, you shouldn't try to say that I said it's true.

This violates the law of identity.

 

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity

 

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is... The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

 

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

[Freethinker]

So, science is circular logic as well. Try to prove science without using science.

This only shows that you fail to understand the difference between a THING, a religious belief, which is a specific set of characteristics and a PROCESS, Science. Yes we can use the PROCESS of science to PROVE a specific defined charateristic or claim. And yes by the repetitive correctness of that process we can PROVE that science works correctly as a process. Science uses FACTS for proof, not itself. "Religion" uses "religious claims" as proof, NOT facts.

[Freethinker]

i would say the abhorrance of the teaching of something else other than evolution is quite unjustified.

And I would agree... IF.... If that somethng else was able to be proven factually, supported by evidence and IF it provided accurate predictablity and was falsefyable. These are the tools of Science. Lacking these, it does not belong in the Science class room.

 

So yes, if some SCIENTIFICALLY VALID other theory existed, it should be taught.

 

Neither Creationism nor ID meet these requirements. They are NOT Science and as such do not belong in the science class room.

Before Einstein came up with his theories or rather being accepted fully(not still) is almost in his diying age.

You need to study the life of Einstein. His theories were well accepted way before his death. He spent almost his entire adult life in the limelight from Reletivity.

So i think let they teach whatever ideas they have and let see which is better preferred.

Yes let's teach alchemy, we have way too much extra time in Chemistry class to just stick to the known and proven laws of physics involved with chemical reations. And we should spend at least a semester on how everything is made of earth, wind and fire! Or more if the teacher so desires. They may not even want to teach the periodic table or atoms and particles, waste of time some would decide!

Hey its a democratic world out there.

Oh ya! Where? And remember I live in the USA.

 

Information taught in science class, or for that matter History, Language, ... should not be decided by majority vote of the local population. FACTS should be taught even if the locals find some other nonsense to their liking instead. Saudi Arabia passed a law in 1992 that ONLY flat earth can be taught (because that is what the bible and Koran say) under pain of death. So ya, let's only teach that the earth is flat if that is what the locals vote for!

[Freethinker]

Is it possible that an outside entity was critical to the creation of this universe, even if it is no longer involved, in your mind?

Is this directed to me?

 

Yes it is possible. We can know nothing about what happened prior to the existence of our spacetime. And if this entity had no physical interaction with our existence of any kind since then, we would not have any way of knowing anything about it.

 

But in what way does this meet the defintion of a god?

[Freethinker]

aha.. the philosophy of Tomas Aquinas.

He did not include non-invlovement in his philosophy.

[Freethinker]

getting back to the topic. evolution is limited to animal life. when we try to discuss what causes it, they say abiogenesis, and that's another topic. this shows a lack of completeness and coherence in an explanation of the universe. or perhaps, not unified.... So if this were true, then it is better than evolution since it unifies all of existence in a coherent theory in order to ultimately understand wwho we really are.

I don't know that Penrose fits into the discussion. But the big problem with your post is in trying to raise Evolution to levels it was never intended to fill. Based on your approach, General Relativity is also inferior because it does not explain the existence of the diversity of life on earth or the interactions at sub atomic levels.

 

Evolution is intended to explain the observations involved with the diversity of life on earth, It does this far better than any other theory we know of. That it does not provide details on wave/ partical duality of particles does not diminish it's effectiveness in the area it does address.

[TINNY]

Evolution is intended to explain the observations involved with the diversity of life on earth, It does this far better than any other theory we know of.

ah well. if only i can find that book by Penrose, maybe we can get deeper into his thought and consider it as a possibly better theory. but have any of you guys read something about that before?

 

General Relativity is also inferior because it does not explain the existence of the diversity of life on earth or the interactions at sub atomic levels.

that's why people seek GUTs and TOEs.

[pgrmdave]

If an entity of ANY kind does ANYTHING that interacts with our physical world it CAN BE KNOWN. It is that simple. If an entity can NOT interact with our physical world, it does not exist for all intents and purpose. As the concept of a god would require that it CAN interact with our physcial existence, as a god would be nothing if it has no interactions with our existence, it CAN be KNOWN.

 

Unless that god maintains the universe's physical laws, or alters them on a timescale that we cannot measure, or alters the future by altering the past, or is able to determine and affect the position and velocity of subatomic particles. All of these things are not only possible, but make sense with an omnipotent god. If he was perfect and created a perfect universe, it would be perfect from the beginning, he wouldn't need to tweak it. If he wanted to change it, he wouldn't need to do it on the timescale of a human, assuming he was truly omnipotent, time would have no true meaning for him, so he could take millenia to make the slightest of changes. As time has no meaning, he can alter the past, thereby altering all of the future, including all memory of any change. If he was all powerful, he would be able to affect every subatomic particle in such a way as to not be detected by us.

[pgrmdave]

Ah, but you are requiring adherance to "facts of other cars" and I say this car is so small it is not visible or measurable. But it IS there. And you can not prove the type car I define is not there.

 

Just like the continual effort to invent a god defintion that can survive rational evaluation by creating irrational parameters and pretending that is god.

 

Yes we CAN prove the Christian defined god does not exist, if by nothing other than it's internal contradictions making it impossible, the same as you suggest for a car on your monitor. But will you acknowledge then that the Christian god can not exist? Or are oyu unwilling to use your own promoted logic?

 

That is a good point, I cannot admit that god doesn't exist any more than you would ever admit that he does, but I will admit that you caught me in my own logic in that instance.

 

This violates the law of identity.

 

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity

 

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is... The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

 

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

 

 

But not everything has only one nature. Light is a particle and a wave. Matter is energy. Not everything has a definite nature, especially in a relative universe.

[pgrmdave]

To get back on the original topic, I think that Creationism has no right being taught within a biology course unless it is backed by actual biology. Science classes, especially in public schools, should not be used as pulpits.

[Aquagem]

To get back on the original topic, I think that Creationism has no right being taught within a biology course unless it is backed by actual biology. Science classes, especially in public schools, should not be used as pulpits.

 

The debate between creationism, ID style, and evolution could easily be resolved by resorting to a suggestion I have made that will offend BOTH camps.

 

I have always thought that some of the best reading I have done to clarify science in general and evolution in particular was that of creationists. Want to show budding scientists how NOT to do things? Use creationism as a case study and let the absurdities reveal themselves along the way. I can't think of a better foil to show what differentiates science from all other human intellectual activities, and why it is so important on the horizon of our own cultural evolution.

 

But still, I asked, where could creationism and evolution share the stage as equals? And this is where both sides will get really hot -- It would be in a class named "Comparative Mythology". What's that? you say -- include evolution as a MYTHOLOGY?? Yup. That's because, like all mythos, evolution purports to explain where we came from and how we got where we are. It has different underlying hypotheses, givens, etc., but it's a myth, just as creationism is a myth.

 

People get angry about this for one unfortunate reason -- our language has no positive connotations for the word "myth", and I believe that needs to change. To say that something is a myth automatically means it's false, that is, it's somebody else's idea of truth, which can't be right, because we already HAVE the TRUTH.

 

The use of "myth" has been diminished in its original sense, which was that of a creation story (like the Big Bang, vomit on the back of the cosmic turtle, arms and legs falling through empty space, and so on). If we open up the word to its original, non-judgmental meaning, it grants a new perspective on the argument religion has used to attack science.

 

Worldviews, over-arching theories of everything, cosmologies, and other general paradigms of nature consist of webs, webs of interlocking ideas that are intended to come together uniformly, with minimum cognitive dissonance remaining when all the forces adjust to one another. Scientific metaphor complexes differ from all others in being consciously, systematically tested against reality to see that they actually have some validity. Religious metaphors, on the other hand, are tested against the internal emotional needs and states of individual people, and are judged valid if they feel good, allay fears, and promise that we're really the good ones, after all.

 

(This is a vital distinction I want to develop at length -- in brief, my hypothesis is that religion and science actually occupy different masses of brain tissue, and reflect perfectly the major biological functions of those different centers.)

 

But, back to comparative mythology, picture a class of bright young faces, some of them skeptics, like Freethinker (and myself), and others religious fundamentalists, like ... (sorry, can't seem to find a bright face in that group) -- All of them are interested in finding truth (note the lower-case "t"), and are about to plunge into a systematic study of many kinds of myth, comprising, among other things, scientific metaphor complexes and religious metaphor complexes, as well as myths from other cultures and times. Along the way, of course, one would have to look in depth at the many religious PREDICTIONS (prophecies) that have proven utterly false, and the important scientific ones that have been correct (and false ones, too - they're just not as many).

 

The logical conclusion of that line of study is that science has a firm grip on a great deal of stable, demonstrable, and theoretically sound knowledge. It would be most useful to try to divine the underlying worldview behind a lot of religious beliefs, and construct a model of nature along scientific lines that would explain the phenomena observed using the model. For example, if the Flood happened and drained away in the space of a year, what would hydrodynamics say about the accumulation of fossils? A forty-day deluge of Noachian magnitude would have washed the surface of the world clean and left large, random placements of bones and other artifacts in a pattern far different from that which is observed.

 

Sorry to be so verbose -- I'm new at this. Anyway, I would suggest a nationwide push for putting ID and evolution together where they belong -- in a humanities class in comparative mythology. It could rescue a much maligned word (myth) and expand the minds of all concerned. And, as a fringe benefit, it would stop the waste of good scientific class time spent on pseudoscience.

[Tormod]

:D Good post, Aquagem.

 

like all mythos, evolution purports to explain where we came from and how we got where we are.

However, this is not the case. Evolution is not an explanation for humanity's existence but for the existence of all life. As compared to religious myth evolution does not place humanity on a pedestal - although many like to interpret evolution theory that way.

[pgrmdave]

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

 

A myth is often thought to be a lesson in story form which has deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for preliterate cultures, who preserve and cherish the wisdom of their elders through oral traditions by the use of skilled story tellers. Its truth is larger than the advent of critical history which may, or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story"

 

http://www.correspondence.school.nz/departments/social_sciences/history/web/home/Myth.htm

 

Myths are the subconscious stories or beliefs we all have that help us give meaning to our experience. Without them life is a meaningless jumble of experiences

 

http://www.wvu.edu/~lawfac/jelkins/mythweb99/definingmyth.html

For a contemporary definition of myth, see Webster's Seventh New Collegiate: Myth: a usually traditional story of ostensible historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon; parable, allegory; an ill-founded belief held uncritically especially by an interested group. Mythical: based on or described in a myth, especially as contrasted with factual history: imaginary; fabricated, invented, or imagined in an arbitrary way or in defiance of facts; synonym: fictitious.

[Freethinker]

I would suggest a nationwide push for putting ID and evolution together where they belong -- in a humanities class in comparative mythology. It could rescue a much maligned word (myth) and expand the minds of all concerned. And, as a fringe benefit, it would stop the waste of good scientific class time spent on pseudoscience.

You make some good points, if this was a perfect world....

 

But I can already guess what the reaction would be to putting Christianity in class called "Myth". Even in related classes, the problem shows what would happen.

 

My daughter's Social Studies class was studying "Creation Mythologies". While potraying various "other" Creation myths AS myths, the teacher added "But we all know that the only TRUE Creation story is the one in the bible." (One of my many battles with my kids' education system)

 

I would more suggest a "Critical Thinking" class. But I have learned the historical complications along the same lines when such classes ar started.

 

Yes I agree that the best way to teach the distinctions would be in some comparitive class. Oh but that we lived in that perfect world!

[Aquagem]

:) Good post, Aquagem.

 

 

However, this is not the case. Evolution is not an explanation for humanity's existence but for the existence of all life. As compared to religious myth evolution does not place humanity on a pedestal - although many like to interpret evolution theory that way.

 

 

Thanks, Tormod -- Your answer to my post set me off on a long train of thought -- not sure what station it will come to...

 

I'll see your quote and raise you one. I would contend (from numerous readings in history and philosophy of science) that the following is a bit closer to contemporary views:

 

Evolution, which is a concept that traces to the seminal work of Charles Darwin, has expanded to form the fundamental basis for understanding all science.

 

We speak comfortably of stellar evolution and cultural evolution, not because we have extended a metaphor, but because the processes of change and modification are closely related among many, or all sciences. From that standpoint, ALL sciences deal with our origins, as well as the origins and developments of all things in NATURE. Also from that standpoint, all things evolve, which is one defining concept that once again separates science from religion (western, anyway), in which all things are fixed, known, and determined from the beginning to make us the paragon of all and winner of the Big Reward in the (predictable) end of time.

 

Dethroning humanity from the predetermined pyramid of eternal bliss is one of the most valuable of scientific findings, and possibly THE most troubling to religion. Looking at how religion treated Galileo may presage the near future, if they have their way.

[pgrmdave]

We talk of stellar evolution and cultural evolution but those are not the same a life's evolution. We use those words to make it more understandable to us by using familiar words as a metaphor.

 

Not all things evolve, all things change, there is a difference. A river's path may change over time, but it does not evolve.

 

When you say that all sciences deal with our origins, you ignore many other sciences, like entomology, vulcanology, meteorology, and geology, all of which can be used in a way that deals with our origins, but the science itself does not deal with it.