prev <-> next
[2004-11-09 12:23:40] - Aaron: You could be right, I'll have to ask him when he gets back from lunch.
-Paul[2004-11-09 12:17:21] - paul: I think that's actually what he meant by his last post, was that he thought creationism was okay to teach as long as it wasn't in a science class, and as long as it was explained "this is an unfalsifiable theory, etc etc" - aaron
[2004-11-09 12:04:01] - Aaron: I agree (with both things said) but I don't think Pierce would agree with teaching any kind of creationism is a philosphy class (or maybe he would, I don't know). Seems like too much of an endorsement of a religion to me. -Paul
[2004-11-09 12:03:05] - Pierce: It's nothing so big as believing I'm a creationist, it's mostly little things which are entirely understandable (and isn't upsetting me at all), but that I think is causing confusion. -Paul
[2004-11-09 12:01:52] - *** pierce goes to lunch, and then has to get some stuff done after lunch. Adios.
[2004-11-09 11:58:13] - paul: I agree with pierce that in certain philosophy courses it might make sense to talk about more theoritical/unprovable concepts of how the universe was created - aaron
[2004-11-09 11:57:28] - paul: At a certain age, I think presenting kids with three or four varying theories on evolution might be too much for them to take in - aaron
[2004-11-09 11:56:48] - Paul: personally, I am not assuming you to be a creationist because I don't actually think you are. So if I've conveyed that impression, it was entirely a miscommunication. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:55:45] - Paul: I think only science should be taught in science classes. Religious beliefs, and theories about reality that are unproveable/unfalsifiable, should be presented in a CLEAR context of "this is what people believe, regardless of whether it's true or not" and without a representation of their accuracy. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:55:38] - Pierce: I'm not saying you always do it, I'm saying that I think a lot of our disagreement here is you assuming that I am supporting positions that I am not in fact supporting. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:54:56] - Pierce: A perfect example of why I find your writing confusing (you revel in using words like antidisestablishmentarianism).
-Paul[2004-11-09 11:54:48] - *** a goes to get lunch
[2004-11-09 11:54:10] - Pierce: So do you think that ONLY science should be taught in schools? -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:53:55] - pierce: manual. 'wasn't me. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:53:41] - Paul: you just asked me "What if it was presented as an unscientific alternative to evolution?". I offered my objection to that scenario. What am I presuming your views to be? I feel I'm just answering your questions and statements, I'm not assuming anything about your beliefs. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:52:17] - was the "new words" thing above automatic, or did someone put it in manually? BTW, I'm thrilled I got to use that word. I love it. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:52:11] - Aaron: Sorry, I think I started doing it as a way of not pissing people off by expressing my views (which seem inherently offensive to people for some reason) but I think it just makes people more mad for some reason. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:51:23] - Pierce: No, I totally understand that, but that's not what I'M doing. You and Adrian keep arguing against something that I'm not arguing for.
-Paul[2004-11-09 11:50:57] - Paul: there are infinitely many valid unscientific alternatives to evolution. Why present this one in particular, other than that it jives with people's religious beliefs? Also, why present it in a scientific educational context if it's unscientific? - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:50:45] - a: No, I know you're quoting me, I'm just wondering if I have to choose between evolution and creationism or if you're asking for my theory on X (X= origin of life or X=history of life, etc). -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:50:17] - paul: I know, it's what you always do. It's very confusing - aaron
[2004-11-09 11:49:37] - Paul: and what you seem to be confused about is that the topic at hand is people criticizing evolution (more or less accurately), FOR THE PURPOSE OF supporting creationism. And whether their motives represent unacceptable antidisestablishmentarianism. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:49:15] - Pierce: What if it was presented as an unscientific alternative to evolution? -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:48:53] - paul: i'm quoting you. you used "right" theory, not me. just search for "right", silly. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:47:56] - Aaron: I think that is a big issue of confusion between us right now. They seem to be hung up on the fact that I'm trying to criticize evolution WITHOUT supporting creationism. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:46:40] - a: Right theory of what? -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:46:06] - a: I hope after six years of arguments you've learned that paul reserves his right to shoot down incorrect theories without having to necessarily provide a correct alternative - aaron
[2004-11-09 11:45:34] - Paul: otherwise, what you have is a promotion of religion by publicly-funded institutions. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:45:14] - Paul: nonscientific theories have no place in a scientific educational context. There's a place for unproveable/unfalsifiable theories, and that place must represent them in their real terms: as things people believe despite alternative or better explanations to the contrary. Such as comparative religion. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:43:54] - paul: what do you think is the "right" theory? ~a
[2004-11-09 11:43:21] - Paul: but part of what we "know" (or what we should know, if we've been paying attention) is that scientific theories are falsifiable, not absolute fact. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:43:08] - Pierce: A bit of a tangent, why would you be against creationism being presented next to evolution? -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:42:28] - Pierce: There isn't as much controversy as the evolution debate though. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:42:14] - Paul: AFAIK, the reason for it's placement was a community petition arguing that alternative theories (specifically creationism) should be presented. The sticker was apparently a compromise. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:41:35] - Pierce: Hence why I put them in quotation marks. Algebra is the same way. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:41:18] - Paul: you'd be surprised, there's a lot of controversy about how true e=mc^2 is, because at that level you're dealing with phenomena that are difficult to measure. 1+1=2 is not controversial because it's not an observation, it's a definition (as, indeed, is all math). - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:40:46] - Pierce: And what's the reason for it's placement? -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:40:09] - Paul: what's "proven" about the laws of physics? They're merely rules describing behaviors, and most of the ones taught in elementary and high school are already known to be false (in that they're not the best theories for the job). - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:40:09] - Pierce: Evolution is being singled out because there is a controversy about how true it is whereas there really isn't a controversy over how true 1+1=2 is, or how true e=mc^2 is. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:38:50] - again, I think the sticker should stand once the "origin" thing is corrected, but I personally oppose the reason for its placement. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:38:44] - a: Evolution, appearantly.
-Paul[2004-11-09 11:37:56] - barring the error that it says evolution is about origins, which adrian has just reminded me of. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:37:18] - a: "what we know we've learned from our teachers" Exactly, and I worry that some teachers might be presenting evolution the same way they might be presenting algebra or the laws of physics, as something that more "proven" than it really is. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:37:15] - Paul: as I said before, the logical objection to the sticker is not what it says, but why it's there. Why is evolution singled out of all the theories presented in the text, other than to make creationist theory look better in comparison? - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:35:48] - but the sticker talked about the origin of life. that's a religious issue. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:35:48] - Paul: it is the "right" theory in that it's the most accurate theory we have at the moment and in that it's scientific and therefore disprovable in favor of a better theory. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:34:57] - paul: what is the "right" theory? ~a
[2004-11-09 11:34:32] - And I think this whole issue with the sticker on the textbook just proves it. It says nothing about religion at all and yet the ACLU wants to sticker removed because anybody who dares to imply that evolution is a theory must be advocating religion. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:33:39] - Pierce: I don't think that the majority of people will insist that evolution is fact when presented with the definitions of fact and theory, all I was saying is that I believe there is a general feeling in america that evolution is the "right" theory and anybody who believes it has flaws is a creationist and therefore a moronic Jesus freak. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:31:27] - paul: what we know we've learned from our teachers. and we know that theories are disprovable and we know that evolution is merely a scientific theory with evidence and observations. again, what we know we've learned from our teachers. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:29:39] - paul: i wanted to make sure you weren't confusing theory with scientific theory (it was phrased as a QUESTION if i remember correctly). also the lack of evidence => evolution is disproven thing was just a point i was making; i never said you believed the opposite. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:28:21] - Paul: and we've agreed that any teacher or scientist that presents a falsifiable theory as unfalsifiable fact is mistaken. However, I believe you're wrong in perceiving them to be in the majority, and you're also disregarding my previous point that science textbooks teach the real meaning of "theory". - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:26:15] - a: You just decided to throw out those phrases for the heck of it then?
-Paul[2004-11-09 11:25:46] - Pierce: As it relates to teaching of evolution in schools? Well, I guess I would be concerned that a teacher would teach evolution as a fact. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:20:28] - paul: incorrect. we are not doing those things. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:19:45] - Paul: what, exactly, is the purpose of your observation that stupid people are stupid, as it relates to the topic of teaching evolution in schools? - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:19:43] - exactly. methinks paul is getting stuck on the politics of evolution and not the merit of evolution itself. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:19:43] - It's been you two who keep trying to get me to say that evolution is disproven because there is a lack of evidence (don't agree) and that creationism is a scientific theory (don't agree) and other viewpoints. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:18:52] - Pierce: And I haven't been disagreeing with the logical arguments pertinent to this issue, nor have I ever advocated throwing out the entire theory of evolution because of stupid people. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:17:40] - So yes, stupid people are stupid. People who are wrong are wrong. Whoopdiedoo. But that has no bearing on the more logical arguments pertinent to this issue. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:16:39] - Paul: it means nothing if you pinpoint only the extremist and least logical viewpoints on a topic, to the omission of the moderate and logical ones. Discrediting parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't mean the Bush administration is superfantastic. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:15:20] - So if it happened, then that would mean something was wrong with either our statistical techniques, or (more likely) the theories themselves. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:14:52] - Paul: you're right, evolution doesn't strictly say that mammals can't give birth to snakes, because a mutation that drastic is theoretically possible. But based on what we know of microevolution, we can say within a statistical likelihood that the chances are insignificant. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:14:30] - paul: generally stupid people are wrong about lots of stuff. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:13:24] - Paul: and a theory that's wholly or partially disproven paves the way for a better, more accurate or more consistent theory in its place. That is the scientific progression. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:12:59] - a: My point is that I think those stupid people are wrong.
-Paul[2004-11-09 11:12:34] - Pierce: I don't see how it violates the theory though. Evolution doesn't say that mammals can't give birth to snakes, does it?
-Paul[2004-11-09 11:11:55] - a: yes, your examples are better. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:11:37] - Paul: a freak occurance that violates the theory means that it can't still be 100% true. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:10:42] - pierce: or if you find a dinnasaur (sp?) bone in rock that settled 1 million years ago, macro-evolutionists would have to start over from scratch. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:10:16] - Paul: I think the problem the "scientists" you describe have is when nonscientific theories are presented as similarly valid to scientific ones. In that case, what's being attacked is not a "cult of evolution", it's science itself. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:09:42] - paul: ok. so? people are stupid, what's your point? ~a
[2004-11-09 11:09:21] - Pierce: That wouldn't disprove macro-evolution at all, would it? Evolution could still be 100% true and the mammal giving birth to a snake could just be a freak occurence. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:09:02] - evolution could still be useful as a predictive ruleset despite being disproved, though. Just as we can still use Newton's laws to predict the speed of a ball dropping even though we know that they're not the most accurate theories available. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:08:36] - pierce: there are much easier ways to disprove some parts of macro-evolution. if you find (looks at "time" image) a Homo erectus skull in rock that settled 50,000 years ago, you'd throw a lot of scientists for a loop (and you'd get lots of grant money). ~a
[2004-11-09 11:08:31] - To the point where criticizing it makes you seem like a moron and a fool in their eyes. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:08:14] - Pierce: It's not the scientists that I'm worried about (they would be careful enough with the use of the word "fact" I think) and I'm sure if you got all semantical with people then most everybody would admit evolution is not a fact, it's more that I feel like most evolution supporters believe evolution much more strongly than they should. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:07:13] - or, more simply, if you found a mammal that gave birth to a snake, you would have disproved evolution. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:06:11] - a: In scientific textbooks? Probably not. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:06:09] - Paul: if you found fossil evidence that a single bacterium had spontaneously mutated into snakes, birds, humans, and trees, you would have disproved evolution within a scientific standpoint. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:03:26] - paul: it would be very easy to disprove macro-evolution. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:03:18] - Paul: no true scientist believes anything to be "fact". Everything is a theory or an observation, and anything scientific can be proven false (even such "obvious" things as newton's laws). I don't really think adrian and I are exceptions, unless you're only looking at the extreme die-hard evolution supporters. - pierce
[2004-11-09 11:02:54] - paul: do you think non-scientific theories should be mentioned in scientific textbooks? ~a
[2004-11-09 11:02:39] - a: Wouldn't it be really hard to disprove evolution? -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:01:58] - a: No, I didn't mean scientific theory,sorry for the confusion. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:01:48] - paul: i'm an evolution supporter and evolution is not fact nor scientific law. it's something that scientists are trying really hard to disprove and so far they've failed. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:01:31] - Well, I would possibly say that there is a compelling reason to teach creationism in a democracy, but I don't know if you want to get into that or not. -Paul
[2004-11-09 11:00:31] - you did say that "creationism is a theory" though. usually when people use the word "theory" they mean "scientific theory" and i wanted to be sure that's not what you meant. ~a
[2004-11-09 11:00:14] - a: I understand that you have said you agree that evolution is not a fact and everything, I'm finding no fault with you, it's just that I believe that you are more the exception than the rule. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:59:31] - I can't speak for others, but I know that all I really want is an acknowledgement from evolution supporters that evolution is not fact, it's a theory, and one with quite a few holes in it right now. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:59:02] - yes, both evolution and creationism are valid. However, evolution is scientifically valid and creationism is not. Also, there's no reason to present creationism as opposed to the infinitely many valid-but-not-scientifically-valid theories other than that it supports a popular religious belief. - pierce
[2004-11-09 10:58:58] - paul: just to update you on the disagreement: creationism is not a scientific theory (dave agrees), non-scientific theories should not be in textbooks (dave agrees), there is no scientific significant (latter being subjective) evidence against evolution (currently being discussed) ~a
[2004-11-09 10:58:33] - a: I never said evolution wasn't a scientific theory and I never said creationism was. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:56:03] - evolution is a scientific theory with evidence and observable data. creationism is not a scientific theory and even dave can admit that. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:55:53] - Because I think right now, there seems to be the general feeling among the population that evolution is more factual than creationism and that anybody who believes creationism is a moron. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:55:05] - a: And I think you're missing the point. I think most creationists aren't interested in trying to prove creationism. They just want everybody to admit that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that creationism is also a theory, and that both are valid and can't really be proved wrong right now. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:54:38] - macro-evolution being disprovable is the very reason i want to know more about it. creationism is just words on paper. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:53:56] - a: Right, well, I don't know what was being discussed before, I just jumped into the conversation when Dave was talking about there being a lack of evidence for transitional forms or whatever. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:52:32] - paul: i agree with both of your points. however, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" works both ways. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:49:12] - All that picture seems to show is that both apes and humans (as seperate species) existed a couple million years ago. It doesn't do anything to show that they have shared ancestors (except to imply that the skeletons look similar, I guess). -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:48:11] - a: Even that picture admits that there are holes. Look in the lower left, where it says that thay have found no fossils from the period when scientists believe apes and humans diverged. Isn't that the most important time period?
-Paul[2004-11-09 10:40:19] - dave/paul: do you believe micro-evolution exists? ~a
[2004-11-09 10:38:50] - http://aporter.org/pics/tmp/time.jpg ~a
[2004-11-09 10:32:48] - paul: former. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:31:19] - paul: stop taking thoughts out of my head ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-09 10:30:19] - a: but the transitional forms / fossils or whatever, seem to be the major point of contention between the two sides -dave
[2004-11-09 10:30:01] - dave: well i don't know what either of them mean. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:29:42] - a: I'm off to class. But yeah, it's kinda hard to get an objective view on the whole thing, since everyone's webpage is pretty much slanted one way or the other -dave
[2004-11-09 10:28:54] - a: beats me, seems like they should be synonymous? I don't really know too much about it -dave
[2004-11-09 10:27:58] - dave: oops. maybe i'm not up on my vocabulary. what's a transitional fossil and what's a transitional form? ~a
[2004-11-09 10:27:38] - a: Are you sure you saw actual transitional forms in museums and not just what scientists say they would look like? -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:25:33] - a: as to whether the explanation is valid or not, who knows -dave
[2004-11-09 10:25:17] - a: well, I did a quick search to try to see, but it's hard cuz everyone's biased. Looks like whenever someone comes up with a transitional from, someone else provides an explanation as to why it's not. -dave
[2004-11-09 10:22:56] - i've seen enough transitional forms IRL in museums to know that much can't be true. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:20:56] - a: 0_o well I don't really know much on the matter, but my perception was that there were very few, and those that were there were contested. I could easily be wrong -dave
[2004-11-09 10:20:02] - like millions if i can remember correctly. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:19:16] - a: and I think the biggest problem with trying to determine transitional forms is that the 'gray area' is probably large enough that you can interpret the fossils as transitional or non-transitional depending on your point of view -dave
[2004-11-09 10:18:40] - is that true? i thought there were tons of transitional forms. ~a
[2004-11-09 10:16:25] - a: I think one of the objections is that there is no fossil evidence of transitional forms. Fossils that have been found have either been 'fully apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds' -dave
[2004-11-09 10:15:22] - Travis: Yeah, I would like to see the second one again because I only saw it once. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:14:52] - Travis: I'm just holding out hope for slave girl Amidala.
-Paul[2004-11-09 10:14:19] - now that my anticipation for episode 3 is actually growing, i wanna go back and give the first two a second chance, although i still don't think i'll get past the "yippee"s and jar-jars of episode 1
- travis[2004-11-09 10:13:05] - paul: i think it looks like lucas could redeem himself with revenge of the sith - travis
[2004-11-09 10:09:19] - Travis: Evolution is obviously the lesser of two evils.
-Paul[2004-11-09 10:07:41] - a: I can't really recall any atm, HEHE. I just remember having some presented to me at some point and thinking they were quite valid -dave
[2004-11-09 10:06:01] - Travis: What do you think of the trailer? I think it looks good, but then again I also didn't think the first two movies sucked. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:05:31] - Pierce: Regarding the ACLU, Good to know. I had forgotten that case regarding the Nazis wanting to march although I remember being pleasantly surprised that they got involved on behalf of the Nazis. Thanks for the info. -Paul
[2004-11-09 10:03:00] - http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/041105f.php links for the episode 3 trailer (including wookies and amidala getting some leia hair on) - travis
[2004-11-09 09:59:50] - i.e. what problems do you propose including in the textbooks? ~a
[2004-11-09 09:57:36] - dave: specifically what problems though? ~a
[2004-11-09 09:56:44] - i have no idea if textbooks include problems with evolution. if they're scietifically valid and significant (the latter being subjective, of course), then i think they would be included. ~a
[2004-11-09 09:55:12] - a: then I agree with you ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-09 09:54:53] - dave: i disagree with that consensus. ~a
[2004-11-09 09:54:17] - a: I think the general consensus is that if you present problems with Evolution, you're an evil person -dave
[2004-11-09 09:53:55] - a: do you? -dave
[2004-11-09 09:53:27] - a: (shrug) there probably are. I just don't have any recollection of any problems with evolution being taught to me -dave
[2004-11-09 09:52:34] - travis: heh heh heh -dave
[2004-11-09 09:52:16] - you don't think there are scientific textbooks that include problems with evolution. ~a
[2004-11-09 09:52:02] - a: heck no. Me? A teacher? blech ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-09 09:51:30] - a: well, the textbook is the basis for what the teacher teaches. I think I like my suggestion of just including the current problems with evolution in the textbook. It seems like a beneficial thing to do all-round -dave
[2004-11-09 09:50:14] - i find it kind of ironic that pierce was arguing against people trying to "prove" creationism by disproving evolution while one of his latest journal entries supports people who wanted kerry simply because they saw problems with bush
- travis[2004-11-09 09:49:57] - dave: then your problem is not with evolution, or even the textbooks. your problem is with the teachers. maybe you should become a teacher then. ~a
[2004-11-09 09:49:14] - a: I guess not, which was the case Pierce was making. -dave
[2004-11-09 09:47:56] - a: I just hate it when I see someone teaching something and then watching all the students just take it on faith...not realizing the problems with whatever theory was being taught -dave
[2004-11-09 09:46:35] - dave: do you think non-scientific theories should be mentioned in scientific textbooks? ~a
[2004-11-09 09:46:33] - a: I think my concerns were more about students taking the theory of evolution as gospel, and not fully considering the matter in all its complexity. This is what I think the sticker seemed to be aimed at and what perhaps my suggestion would be better at doing -dave
[2004-11-09 09:45:35] - a: no I don't -dave
[2004-11-09 09:45:20] - Pierce: methinks that would address the concerns that I seem to have while not mentioning creationism, which you have made quite a good case for not including -dave
[2004-11-09 09:43:12] - dave: do you think creationism is a scientific theory? ~a
[2004-11-09 09:29:32] - errr, than posting that sticker -dave
[2004-11-09 09:29:12] - Pierce: it occurs to me that perhaps a better tact then posting that sticking on the textbook would be to present evolution and then present the current problems with the theory. I have seen this done in several other fields of research and find it quite helpful in sparking further thought on the matter -dave
[2004-11-09 09:24:50] - Pierce: have fun ^_^ I'm sorry if I got you worked up. I was just trying to present some other possible thoughts on the matter. I honestly don't think our views differ that greatly on the matter -dave
[2004-11-09 09:23:17] - Pierce: *nod* I find nothing wrong with presenting other theories as well. I understand all theories can't be covered, and maybe creationism shouldn't make the list. -dave
[2004-11-09 09:23:03] - I gotta go now. Good talking to you. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:22:38] - dave: yes, that's true, except Creationism as another possibility cannot be proven false if it's wrong, since any contradictory evidence could itself be defended as intelligent design, and it also fails as an improvement for describing and predicting the differentiation of species. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:22:14] - mig: I agree with you that it isn't great to say 'isn't it obvious God did it.' However, most of the presentations I have been to have intentionally steered away from it quite studiously. However, the audience generally makes the leap themselves and then castigates the lecturer for enforcing that jump on them, when he was in fact not trying to -dav
[2004-11-09 09:21:06] - dave: well, another unprovable theory is that at every instant in time, the universe is a completely random collection of atoms. This particular instant just happens to randomly have observable progressions of species. Who is to say that theory is wrong? Any critique of the theory can be presented as valid within the theory. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:20:29] - Pierce: I'm not really trying to justify it. It's just that in any field of research, when you come upon a problem with a theory etc, you generally start trying to move forward by canvassing all the other possibilities and studying them in turn -dave
[2004-11-09 09:20:27] - and when they do try to present evidence all they really do is say, "Hey look at this, this, and this. Isn't it obvious god did it?" That kind of logic is fine for a theological discussion but not a scientific one, which the latter is what they try to pass it off as. - mig
[2004-11-09 09:19:16] - mig: *nod* I believe pierce brought this up and I replied already -dave
[2004-11-09 09:18:02] - Pierce: I'm sorry, I never meant to imply that creationism should be presented as scientifically superior to evolution or anything. However, I do think that when there are problems with one theory, it is usually helpful to look at other explanation, no matter how ridiculous they may seem, and wonder if there is some bit of truth in them -dave
[2004-11-09 09:17:35] - this debate in a while, but i haven't heard a shred of evidence to support creationism in everything i've read about it. It's simply just finding holes in evolution, and not really doing anything to present evidence of creationism. - mig
[2004-11-09 09:17:08] - dave: what was your justification for listing it, beyond that it's a popularly-held belief? - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:16:17] - my only redave: i have no problem with people just pointing out problems with evolution either, in fact it probably should be done if there are valid points. What I do have a problem with is people doing that and then claiming that creationism is automatically correct because they found this hole in evolution. I haven't really read anything on
[2004-11-09 09:16:09] - So, for example, it makes sense to present irreduceable complexity as a critique of evolution in science classes. However, it does not follow that we should present the alternative as Intelligent Design. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:15:50] - ...thought that maybe there was still reason to list it -dave
[2004-11-09 09:15:38] - Pierce: I think I should say that I think you have misconstrued somewhat my stance. I'm not saying at all that creationism has, or can be proved. I agree that it is based on things that can't necessarily be shown. You may be right that that in itself qualifies it as being unfit to list in the textbook. (shrug) I was just musing that I.. -dave
[2004-11-09 09:15:24] - dave: no question about that; but there's a difference between presenting problems with a theory and presenting a scientifically inferior/unscientific theory as similarly valid. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:13:21] - Pierce: and honestly, I can't say that I think there's anything wrong with presenting problems with a theory. generally that's how research is progressed, by examining the problems or faults with something, and then attempting to correct them somehow -dave
[2004-11-09 09:13:15] - dave: then I ask you, give me an example of "proof" that creationism is true, or an observation thereof that is not simply a critique of evolution. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:12:10] - Pierce: well, I haven't seen whatever 'evidence' was presented to you. But you're right that many times people present just problems with the theory of evolution. However, where I differ in opinion is where you seem to think those people draw a direct line from that to a point where creationism is correct. -dave
[2004-11-09 09:11:33] - dave: what do you see when you look at that chart of the progression from lower primates to neanderthals to homo habilis, to homo erectus, to homo sapiens, if not an observable progression of environmental adaptation over a large time scale? - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:09:06] - a: yeah, that definitely seems like it'd be true ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-09 09:08:54] - the only other valid context is its status as a commonly-held belief. But by that argument, we'd have to present christian, muslim, jewish, hindu beliefs in every scientific context. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:08:28] - Pierce: well, to be honest, the large timescale seems to me really something we've introduced because of the lack of evidence, rather then the other way around. Not that I think it doesn't necessarily make sense to introduce, but I believe using the large timescale as a reason why the evidence doesn't exist is somewhat backwards -dave
[2004-11-09 09:07:26] - all of the "evidence" I've seen presented for creationisms scientific validity have taken the form "this shows that evolution is false, therefore the only remaining option is that there was a creator". This is the lack of imagination fallacy being used to promote a specific subset of religious beliefs. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:05:22] - pierce: ok nevermind; you agree. ~a
[2004-11-09 09:04:19] - dave: I'm not saying it has been scientifically proved as false, I'm saying it's scientifically unobservable by its very definition. It can't be proved true or false, so it's not scientific at all. - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:04:04] - pierce: i don't think you can get scientific evidence that a creator exists. ~a
[2004-11-09 09:03:15] - I mean, do we have evidence that a creator exists? a god-sized footprint outside a garden of eden? a blurry photograph of Him walking through the woods? what proof is there that would make it valid in a scientific context? - pierce
[2004-11-09 09:03:05] - Pierce: well ok. It appears that you believe Creationism has been scientifically proved as false. And if you hold to that, there's not much else I can say except that there is indeed 'scientific evidence' on the other side as well -dave
[2004-11-09 09:02:10] - dave: what "evidence" is there that creationism occurred? "irreduceable complexity" is a valid critique of evolution (though I disagree with it's accuracy), but it is merely that; it does not prove that there was a creator, it merely shows that evolution doesn't fully explain things. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:59:44] - dave: just as with geological theories, macroevolution occurs over too large a timescale to have explicit proof of its accuracy. Therefore, as with geological theories, we derive evolutionary theory from observations (such as the gradual progression from monkeys into humans) that seem to support it. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:59:23] - Pierce: 'Evolution is valid...creationism seems to meet neither criteria' well, this is subjective IMO. There are distinct parties on both sides who hold up 'evidence' upholding their respective sides. An example would be the person who offered alternative explanations for present geology that Paul and I were discussing earlier -dave
[2004-11-09 08:57:03] - dave: a comparative religion class has a specific context; that all of the topics studied are not at all represented to be true as part of the curriculum, but that they are being taught as representing common belief systems. A science class, is taught in the context that the topics presented are true to the best of our knowledge. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:57:02] - Pierce: it's true that there will always be people who hold to a belief no matter what evidence is presented to them to the contrary. However, personally, I would like to see clear, or more clear evidences of macro-evolution. The leap between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is the 'leap' that needs more 'proof' IMO. -dave
[2004-11-09 08:54:45] - Pierce: I don't know anything about what the supreme court has decided on the matter. In either case, I'm not exactly trying to argue about its legality, I'm just trying to discuss it in the larger context of whether it should be allowed or not (like I think abortion should not be allowed in many cases, but it is clearly legal atm) -dave
[2004-11-09 08:54:44] - evolution is valid both as a theory desribing what we've seen, and as a theory predicting what will happen. creationism seems to meet neither criteria. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:53:55] - dave: I mean, any evidence we find against creationism can be summarily dismissed as being itself part of the Creator's plan. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:53:13] - dave: besides showing sequences of fossils that show the adaptation of organisms to their environment over a series of generations, and the observable effects of microevolution and the reasons to believe they similarly manifest in macroevolution, what evidence is needed to disprove creationism as a theory of differentiation? - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:53:05] - Pierce: I don't quite see the analogy with the psychology class. From what I know, the soul doesn't really make decisions for you and would be somewhat irrelevant in that discussion -dave
[2004-11-09 08:51:34] - Pierce: "can be taught in the same context that a comparative religion class would be taught in." I think this is essentially what I am saying, just that I don't see the huge deal about making a footnote about creationism while you're teaching evolution (with the appropriate warnings etc) -dave
[2004-11-09 08:51:12] - dave: the supreme court has determined that laws that are bad for certain religious beliefs are constitutional as long as the intended purpose of the law is unrelated to disparaging those beliefs. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:49:33] - dave: would you not have to apply that logic to everything? wouldn't you have to present psychology classes as "we believe these theories explain human behavior, oh but also there's the theory that you have a soul that makes the decisions for you, and that there's a god that guides those decisions" - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:49:12] - some other such discovery -dave
[2004-11-09 08:49:05] - Pierce: shrug, when it all boils down, Evolution is a hypothesis based on some information about how things happened. Creationism is essentially the same. If you could 'prove' that life came about, ore evolved in a manner different from creationism, you would have proved it 'wrong' just as definitely as if someone 'proved' Evolution wrong by... -da
[2004-11-09 08:47:17] - pierce: and to play the devil's advocate (not that I necessarily hold to this belief) but you could say also that taxpayers are also subsidizing their children to be taught about Evolution, which is something that could be construed as slanting their children away from certain religious beliefs, which isn't necessarily desireable either -dave
[2004-11-09 08:46:31] - dave: by "true", I mean true the way I would describe evolution as true; the idea that it represents a valid application of the scientific method, and can be proven false if it is wrong. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:46:05] - pierce: Since Evolution is a theory, it isn't necessarily true either, just a theory, like creationism in some senses. Also, creationism wouldn't have to be taught in the same context as evolution. You could clearly state that this other 'popularly held belief' came from religious roots and should be treated likewise -dave
[2004-11-09 08:44:48] - As for topics like eastern medicine, which are potentially educational but not based in the scientific method, they can be taught (if the school district chooses) in the same context that a "comparative religion" class would be taught in. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:44:46] - Pierce: no I agree that it is religiously founded. However, I will take exception to your statement that 'children to be taught a religious belief as if it was true.' -dave
[2004-11-09 08:41:48] - As such, it's really taxpayers (who may or may not subscribe to a creationist religion) subsidizing their children to be taught a religious belief as if it was true. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:40:53] - Dave: I see your point, but the fact remains that creationism is religiously founded and promotes a specific subset of the religions of the world. Its presentation could (and should) be construed as a representation of those religious beliefs as valid in the context of modern science. - pierce
[2004-11-09 08:18:06] - http://arstechnica.com/columns/science/science-20041107.ars/2 haha, Indian farmers using Coke as a pesticide ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-09 08:12:30] - so why not make a footnote mentioning creationism, and then add a sticker cautioning that it is a theory or religious belief, and not fact? -dave
[2004-11-09 08:11:43] - research is only as good as the knowledge it's built on, and the more ideas that tossed around the better. -dave
[2004-11-09 08:09:40] - if nothing else, I would be curious to try to find a 'scientific' reason, if there was any, for these Eastern medicines that appear to work -dave
[2004-11-09 08:08:55] - but at any rate, if I was studying medicine, I would definitely want to know all about the scientific stuff, but I'd also want the eastern remedies mentioned, maybe just in passing, as a potential alternative -dave
[2004-11-09 08:08:08] - and many times, no one really knows why the remedies work, or if it is just the belief that the remedy will work that is the real cure -dave
[2004-11-09 08:07:39] - I'll be the first to admit that I'd rather have a traditional doctor who has 'scientific' reasons for prescribing me the medicine he does, etc etc, but many people find Eastern remedies effective as well -dave
[2004-11-09 08:06:28] - thinking about alternatives to science that actually work sometimes...it occurred to me, that Eastern medicine might be an interesting example -dave
[2004-11-09 07:52:02] - Pierce: I know that I would want to know all the 'popularly held views' of any topic I studied, regardless of what they were based on or whether they were scientific or not. -dave
[2004-11-09 07:51:23] - Pierce: In other words, if you're going to discuss a particular topic in class, you should discuss each of the major theories explaining the studied phenomenon. -dave
[2004-11-09 07:49:36] - Pierce: however, at the same time, there is something to be said for investigating the major schools of thought on any issue that is brought up into a textbooks, regardless of what the theory is based on -dave
[2004-11-09 07:48:48] - Pierce: I agree with you that putting creationism into textbooks is not necessarily the best of ideas, since, as you said, it isn't exactly based on science. -dave
[2004-11-09 07:46:05] - Pierce: not meaning to imply that believing in Evolution is tantamount to jumping off a cliff, but it was the easiest analogy that came to mind about warning signs that belabor the obvious -dave
[2004-11-09 07:45:07] - Pierce: An analogy might be a warning sign in front of a cliff that says 'watch your step' or somesuch caution. It's quite obvious to most people that there's a cliff there and that they should be careful, but people put the sign there anyways to make even more sure that people will pay attention to it -dave
[2004-11-09 07:43:00] - Pierce: hence the probable impetus behind the sticker. The people just wanted the students to pay particular attention to the fact that Evolution is a theory -dave
[2004-11-09 07:41:40] - Pierce: I also agree with you that people should realize that all theories that are taught in the classroom are indeed theories, but the fact of the matter is that everyone, even people who try to keep an open mind, tend to take things taught to them as more or less correct. If nothing else, it biases people in favor of whatever is taught -dave
[2004-11-09 07:39:53] - Pierce: it doesn't make too huge of a difference whether you believe quantum theory or not, but if believing or not believing in Evolution is going to affect what religion you ascribe to, then it's definitely 'more important' in that sense, and perhaps deserving of a sticker -dave
[2004-11-09 07:38:01] - pierce: I think a possibly valid reason is that whereas most theories or scientific postulations don't have much potential direct impact on someone's life, the people who put the sticker there believe that Evolution does. -dave
[2004-11-09 07:37:04] - Pierce: I'm undecided on whether it's a good idea for the sticker to be there or not, but I do at least see some justification or reason for it being there -dave
[2004-11-08 23:54:07] - They're not entirely consistent, such as their special treatment of the second amendment, but since I agree with them about it I find it hard (though not impossible) to criticize their choice. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:53:15] - I think the reason the ACLU is usually associated with liberalism is because, IM(biased)O, modern liberalism is closer to the constitutional descriptions of civil liberties than modern conservativism. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:51:24] - Paul: Regarding the ACLU, my understanding is that it has frequently been an ardent defender of free speech rights as applied to hate speech and pornography. For example, the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis to march in predominantly-Jewish Skokie, IL. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:34:02] - I just think it's scummy, and probably redundant because almost every science textbook I remember from school had a section describing the scientific method, the distinctions between "theories" and "laws" and "hypotheses" and anyone who reads that section should understand the message conveyed by the sticker. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:33:25] - To be honest, I think this sticker should probably hold up once the "origin" error is corrected. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:31:25] - So is "demotion of science" synonymous with "promotion of religion"? Does it matter if the demotion is based on accurate criticism (other than the "origin" error)? Does it matter if those pushing for the demotion have religious agendas associated with their goal? - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:29:34] - The obvious answer (given the information about the links to creationist support) is because there is a religious interest in getting students to question evolution in particular. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:27:40] - So, since the stickers are (more or less) correct, the important part of this controversy is the "why", not the "what". Why, of all the scientific theories taught in science classes, is evolution singled out for this "special message"? - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:24:56] - It's the best set of rules we currently have for describing and predicting organic differentiation, so it should be taught in schools as science. Creationism doesn't meet those criteria, and importantly it can't be used as a set of rules for predicting future differentiation, so it shouldn't be taught as science. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:20:47] - Evolution is just a theory, but then again just about everything we "know" is a theory when it comes right down to it. What separates it from the theory of creationism is that it is a scientific theory; founded on observations and falsifiable. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:15:01] - The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous, IMO. The lawsuit's objection that the stickers represent a promotion of religion seems (again, IMO) obviously false. Other than the error Adrian noted that they describe evolution as being about the origin, rather than the development of life, the stickers are correct. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:12:36] - I think I'll weigh in on the now-defunct evolution discussion. - pierce
[2004-11-08 23:10:03] - Mel: I've seen that poem before, and I think it's amusing up until the final verse. It breaks what little meter there was, and it sounds awkward and poorly worded as if they got bored writing it. Call me pedantic (cue Vinnie: "Pierce, you're pedantic. - vinnie"), but that really irritates me. - pierce
[2004-11-08 21:09:42] - Mel: Herbert -Paul
[2004-11-08 19:57:59] - sombody sent me this Dr. Seuss parody at work and I thought it was amusing enough to post. Not all of it makes sense, but enough for it to be funny, I think.
-mel[2004-11-08 19:57:17] - And your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss, so your icons in the window are as wavy as a souse; then you may as well reboot and go out with a bang, 'cuz sure as I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang -mel
[2004-11-08 19:56:17] - If the label on the cable on the table at your house, says the network is connected to the button on your mouse, but your packets want to tunnel to another protocol, that's repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall... -mel
[2004-11-08 19:55:53] - If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash, and the double-clicking icon puts your window in the trash, and your data is corrupted cause the index doesn't hash, then your situation's hopeless and your system's gonna crash.. -mel
[2004-11-08 19:55:28] - If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, and the bus is interrupted at a very last resort, and the access of the memory makes your floppy disk abort, then the socket packet pocket has an error to report. -mel
[2004-11-08 19:08:22] - a: wait, so what does the H stand for? -mel
[2004-11-08 18:58:31] - mel: now you should ask what the W stands for in George H. W. Bush
~a[2004-11-08 17:49:06] - mel: np -Paul
[2004-11-08 17:47:15] - Paul:
-mel[2004-11-08 17:46:25] - Paul: thanks. -mel
[2004-11-08 17:45:31] - mel: Walker -Paul
[2004-11-08 17:43:14] - what does the W stand for in George W Bush? -mel
[2004-11-08 16:04:25] - a: I'll agree to that -dave
[2004-11-08 15:37:34] - paul: i've lost interest
~aprev <-> next