Monday, October 01, 2007
“The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science..”
With Lisburn Council encouraging post-primary schools to teach neo-creationists’ untestable hypotheses as alternative theories to evolution, and the NI Department of Education apparently unsure about what they should do about it, James Randerson at the Guardian’s Science blog has pointed to the government’s new guidance to teachers in another part of the UK. And that guidance couldn’t be clearer - creationism and intelligent design are not alternative scientific theories to evolution and “should not be taught as science.” Perhaps someone could tell the spokeswoman for the Department of Education here?
From the post by James Randerson
The new guidelines could not be clearer:
“Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.” [added emphasis]That doesn’t mean it cannot be mentioned of course, but the guidelines state that it should only feature as part of discussions about what does and does not make a scientific theory.
The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science as a subject discipline because it is different from the everyday meaning of being little more than a ‘hunch’. In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community...Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole.
And also from those guidelines
Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. However, there is a real difference between teaching ‘x’ and teaching about ‘x’. Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.
If the Northern Ireland Department of Education haven’t issued these guidelines to schools here, they should do so now.
Adds here’s another snippet from the guidelines to teachers elsewhere in the UK
Which subject should deal with creationism and intelligent design?
Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons. If such issues were to arise there might be value in science colleagues working with these teachers in addressing them.
Pete Baker @ 08:45 PM
“And when did you have time to count all these atoms so that you can definatively state the total lol your math is worse than my understanding of the bible the difference is maths is real the bible is a really bizarre, sick and twisted fairy tale.”
This is meant to be an example of snakebrain’s civilised debate? I could cite numerous other examples from the front page of this thread alone.
If you want the answer just google it and you will discover my claim for the number of atoms in the universe is well within the recognised parameters from people of all persuasions.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 08:59 PMThe one who gave us these LAWS, and DESIGNED this universe created time so logically transcends time so HE does not need a DESIGNER or a CREATOR. I hope this is clear and I don’t have to go over this very basic philosophical point again and again!
Sam
Actually, I would agree with this, but it seems to point to a God rather different in nature than the highly anthropomorphic deity in which most fundamentalist Christians seem to believe.
For example, before Time, did this God have thoughts? Did He do anything? Did other ‘entities’ also exist in this timeless nothingness before creation? Is God still outside time, or is He now subject to its laws?
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 09:02 PM“… who is rumoured to be gay.”
And this is a problem for you?
Posted by Dawkins on Oct 03, 2007 @ 08:12 PM
Naw dawkins I just thought i would wind up the fundamentalists with that wee one
Thirdly, ID inferences are an intergral part of modern scientifc investigation. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time for the slow learners here making design inferences is an established and a fundamental part of modern science. We
see this in many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto-analysis, random number generation, and even to the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).The answers are very easy to come by if you just think.
Lets start at the begining
Archeology - the antithesis of ID as archeology accepts the world is more than 4,000 years old
Anthropology - is the study of human behaviors - kind of a science kind of not a science
Forensics is a system of invetigative techniques not really a science
jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law these are legal pursuits not sciences by any stretch of the imagination
reverse engineering is not a science it is simply a way around the patent laws where you take a product that works and then try and invent a process for it to work that is different then the original design - this is kind of like ID as they both start with an end product and invent a story for how it works with out any proof
Crypto analasys - best described as the study of secret codes - not a science in my book
random number generation, errr wtf how is generating randomn numbers a science
and even to the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Seti is technically the search of recurring patterns in the back ground radio waves generated by the universe. If there is another habital planet and they have a similar research programme they will eventually detect the recuring radio patterns emited by the human race but since the nearest star is hundreds of light years away and we have only been transmitting for 100 years and since radio waves travel at sub light speeds the chances of us being found or finding someone else are minimal at best. Having said that SETI is an investigation NOT a sciencePosted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 09:10 PMSam
Einsteins’ Theory of Relativity delineates that all space, time and matter come into existence in a fraction of a secondNo Einsteins theory of relativety states that the closer one approaches the speed of ligh the slower time till pass in relation to a staionery object
E=MC2 is simply Einsteins calculation for the force required to make any object aproach the speed of light Sooooooooo
to make a 10kg object move at the speed of light would be equivelent energy of E= 345,960,000,000 per kg/kmseconndsPosted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 09:18 PMSean,
I knew it was a wind-up for the Fundies! If anything, God must be lesbian. Read her book and it makes sense.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 09:33 PMSam, you’re saying that everything that existed before the universe needed a designer, except g-d. So, what’s so special about g-d - apart from managing to design himself before he even existed, of course? You are making a basic error in assuming that the laws of this universe apply to any state that may exist outside of it. There is, of course, no reason to assume that the laws of physics that are particular to this universe do not apply to any other universe (or entity) or to whatever pre-dated and interacted with this universe, but the crucial point is that there is no basis to assume that laws that are particular to this universe pre-date it. Indeed, since one of the missing laws of physics from this universe seems to be how to create a universe, it is more likely that there are laws outside of this universe that we can have no knowledge of. Your argument is self-contradictory in that it states that g-d does not need a designer because he existed prior to the universe but also states that anything that existed prior to the universe needed a designer. We have no knowledge of anything outside of our universe, since logic is also one of those laws that is a function of this universe. There may be a g-d. In that you are correct to state that both believe in g-d and atheism are faiths - something that is believed to be true without proof. We simply won’t know unless he appears and does a few miracles or whatever a g-d does when he gets bored.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 09:41 PMHMMM god as a Lesbian, Now there is a reason to get on your knees lol
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 10:22 PMCome to think of it, that doorwoman in the Kremlin did have quite a big beard....
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 10:26 PMSean,
Don’t mock.
All the proscriptions in the Bible apply to the male of the species. That’s to keep us chaps in our place, and give the gals free rein to “do what thou wilt”.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 10:30 PMwell I am sure not getting on my knees for a man even if he is benevolent and omnipotent
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 10:44 PMSean,
And what if she’s [God] volent and potent? :0)
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 10:59 PMStill not getting on my knees to any man
I am reminded of the old saying
Its better to die on your feet then live on your knees
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 11:04 PMSince Sam Hanna gas at least temporarily left I guess another “nutter” should step into the fray.
As I have stated before I accept and believe in six day creationism. I also do not believe it is a prerequisite for evangelical Christians.
As I explained above; whilst I once knew a fair bit about the various theories of creationism and stuff I no longer do. This is because I find them rather boring (as I find evolution). The world is here and I wish to just get on with living in a manner which I feel is as close as I can to how my Lord requires me (do not worry I know I fail endlessly).
This thread began discussing teaching in schools and I think this is very relevant.
The ID movement and the assorted attempts to teach creationism or other “theistic” views seem to come mainly from the USA. We must remember that in the USA religion is specifically banned in public (ie state) schools. Since there are large numbers of evangelical Christians in the USA they may well feel aggrieved that their taxes etc. are paying for and their children attending schools that have absolutely no religion. As such they may well (possibly justifiably?) want to find a back door to teach something to do with God in schools.
Here in Northern Ireland the vast majority of schools have at least some religion taught. The state (largely, but not exclusively protestant) grammar I went to had a brief morning assembly and compulsory RE to third year. As such religion (mainly Christianity) was taught and there was an active scripture union. Children whose parents wished could opt out of both assembly and RE (and clearly did not attend SU).
Because of assembly and RE evangelical parents could feel that some religion was taught. I guess this might have eased the concerns of some who feel that evolution is anti religion and so reduce the levels of concern re teaching evolution. Any thoughts?
Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 11:39 PMTurgon
Feel free to believe what ever creation myth you choose its not for any one else to object to. Its when you try to cram your creation myth down our throats the we object. Especially when even though they accept the creation myth they refuse to accept others creation myths are as relevant as theirs.Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 11:51 PMSean,
With respect I have no track record of cramming my religious beliefs down anyone’s throats. Indeed I have frequently pointed out the fact that I do not feel one must share my creation beliefs. I am suggesting a reason why craetionism /ID may be seen as important by some Americian fundamentalists.Posted by on Oct 03, 2007 @ 11:58 PMyes turgon the YOUR did not refer to you specifically I guess I shoudl watch my adjectives
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 12:00 AMI guess this might have eased the concerns of some who feel that evolution is anti religion and so reduce the levels of concern re teaching evolution. Any thoughts?
Posted by Turgon on Oct 03, 2007 @ 11:39 PMEvolution does not have to be anti-religion, ID does not have to be anti-science.
There may indeed be some kind of intelligent design, purpose or system as yet not understood. But what I object to is the current ID movement hijacking that notion, proclaiming their version as the only possible truth and scorning any views to the contrary.
Lastly, for the earth and everything on it, to be created in 6 days i.e. 144 hours, requires serious figurative interpretation on my part.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 12:46 AMThe British Centre for Science Education has a write up of recent events in Northern Ireland regarding creationism being taught in schools.
It can be found at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PaisleysPartyBacksCreationismInSchools
The BCSE was the first organisation to bring into the public domain the activities of the fundamentalist European Theological Seminary (ahead of William Crawley and BBC Radio NI).
Details can be found at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/EuropeanTheologicalSeminary
We’ve also done a lot of investigative work on the Caleb Foundation and its role in pushing creationism in the province.
That can be found at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CalebFoundation
I think you have some severe problems in Northern Ireland with the creationists.
Roger Stanyard
British Centre for Science Education
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:45 AM“Lastly, for the earth and everything on it, to be created in 6 days i.e. 144 hours, requires serious figurative interpretation on my part.” - McGrath
It’s g-d’s protestant work ethic. A Catholic g-d would still be sitting in the cab of a Transit van on the 11th day drinking tea from a flask and reading The Sun.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:21 PM“But here’s another snippet from the guidelines to teachers elsewhere in the UK”
Pete, if you’re still reading this thread, do you know if those guidelines apply in NI?
If not, shouldn’t Unionists be clamouring for them to do so? (As British as Finchley and all that.)
Also, do you happen to know what the score is in the Republic? Is there an equivalent to the science curriculum and does it explicitly exclude Creationism/ID from being taught as an alternative ‘theory’?
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 11:07 AMSam,
Get a grip of reality. You cannot simply dismiss people who believe in ID who have impecccable scientific and academic credentials just because they disagree with you.
Sam, I keep repeating this but it is just not getting through. Qualifications and credentials do not matter. An argument stands or falls on the basis of reason and evidence.
And yes, I can very easily dismiss anyone who argues for ID, because it is unscientific rubbish with no supporting evidence. See ? I just did it.
I’m still seeing this pseudo-academic name-dropping theme all the way your contributions. “You clearly haven’t studied mathematics”. “you clearly haven’t studied Karl Popper”. You seem to have an obsession with academics and people who spend a lot of time at school. Have you got some sort of inferiority complex thing going on ? Why don’t you try conducting your argument without naming anybody or pasting guff from webpages ?
Jastrow, Denton, Behe, Schroder et al are leading scientists in their field who are not Evangelical Christians yet full accept that ID is science
There are a zillion other leading scientists in their field who reject ID. There are zillions of religious people throughout the world who reject ID as well. Many Christians I know do not have a problem accepting either evolutionary theory or the current theories on the origins of the universe. Creationism is the preserve of weird fundamentalist nutters who do not represent mainstream religious belief in any way.
Philip Johnson has every right to speak about evolution has he has done copious amounts of research and is an expert at weighing up evidence - which ultimately, ironically, what this debate is all about. He brillantly demolishes Darwinism in his books as one of the greatest legal minds of American scholarship.
More argument by qualification. And I can hardly see how you can reasonably assess any critique of evolutionary theory given that you don’t understand it yourself.
My fundamental answer may be that the universe is designed because that is exactly what it is
There’s no proof of this. That’s the problem. The only reason why you think this is because of your faith. That’s fine, but don’t try to pretend that faith is the same as evidence.
but lets not pretend you have anything more to offer that “just so” stories.
As opposed to yours ?
You come up with a theory of lunatics that everything evolved because it “just did” and because of these secret mysterious forces of “natural selection” we all now can worship,
All scientists can do is observe and record phenomena, and make postulations about them, and attempt to derive theories about how the universe works. Only a primitive, closed mind would expect those observations to be consistent with any specific preconceived philosophy. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that the incomprehensible vastness of the universe has to make sense to a few billion bipeds residing on a small rock somewhere in it’s distant reaches. It would take a great deal of confidence to assume that our brains even have the processing or cognitive capacity to deal with all of the facts.
The second relevant point here is that nobody pretends that evolutionary theory is the answer. All we’re saying is that it’s the best we’ve got right now. Sooner or later, it may be replaced when a theory comes along that better explains the available facts.
debate, write in complex grammars,
Not my fault if you can’t keep up. I guess googling and wikipedia can only allow you to bullshit up to a point.
uncover the complexity of the universe from a process that comes from nowhere and is guided by noone.
Unlike the bible, which came from where ?
Please be honest and move your theories to the faith class also.
But they’re not grounded on faith. They’re grounded on repeatable empirical observations.
As for your freshman philosophical point that God could not have created the world as we would then face the problem, I despair.
“freshman”, there you go with that psuedo academic thingy. Have you ever been to university yourself ? You’re not fooling anyone.
Therefore, to give you the freshman answer - God made time
and therefore He had no beginning
and therefore He needs no creator.This reminds me of the theory which proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster :
P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection.
P2. Existence is a perfection.
C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.The FSM could beat your God in a fight with one blow from one of his noodly appendages.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 11:16 AMTestify brother Stalin
Can we get a ramen for Comrade Stalin
RAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMEEEEENNNNNNNNNN
May you be touched by his noodly appendage
Im off to set the main sail on the Pirate ship
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 12:15 PMSam:
“This fairy tale in the land of Darwin is sold to the gullible who don’t want a moral absolute framework for their life. It cannot be tested or falsified as we do not have the conditions on earth today that we are told was required for this evolutionary process to begin in promordial times. When asked to see at least something of the process of transition, we are told that we will not live long to even observe a incremental change so it is pointless to try and observe.”
That’s not the case, incremental changes have been observed within recorded history.
At school we were taught about a species of moth that lived in urban habitats, in which there was a natural variation in colouring between individuals, some were pale cream and some dark brown.
The proportion of paler coloured moths recorded in this species prior to the industrial revolution was much higher than was found to be the case in more recent surveys.
The explanation being that as the industrial revolution caused stonework in towns and cities to become blackened with soot from the chimneys and factories, the darker individuals became better camouflaged and less likely to be eaten and were therefore more likely to pass on their genes.
Thus the species incrementally changed over the decades.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 12:40 PMOne Anglican chap felt the Creationists put Christianity in a bad light. “It’s like the Enlightenment never happened,” he said.
Apart from a decade or so in a small area around Belfast in the late 18th century the ‘enlightenment ‘ was noticeable by it’s absence from Northern Ireland . Indeed from the early 19th century until quite recently the term ‘endarkenment ‘ would be more descriptive .
In the 85% of Ireland now termed the Irish Republic the ‘enlightenment’ was also noteable by it’s absence apart of course from a minority of political radicals .
Creationism is just a modern day prolonging of ‘endarkment’. There is no scientific proof that a God/Allah/Turtle etc etc created/designed the universe/planet/body/brain in which we all live .
If people want to believe in ‘creationism’ then it should be taught as part of religious indoctrination or as a ‘hobby’ subject like pottery , sewing, voodoo, or chiropractic.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 02:33 PMGreenflag @ 02:33 PM:
Off-topic, I know…
One Anglican chap felt the Creationists put Christianity in a bad light. “It’s like the Enlightenment never happened,” he said.
I keep running into that quotation, but haven’t yet traced its originator. Any clues?
By the same token, can anyone suggest who described Ian Paisley’s treatise on the Epistle to the Romans, written while in Armagh gaol, as the finest piece of exegesis on the topic written before the eighteenth century?
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 02:49 PM
