Darwin/Evolution

R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Uh...our society IS lying to kids. Moreover, a lot of what's taught in schools is big fat lies.

"Abstinence-only," sex ed is a beautiful illustration. Why do we pretend to teach kids about sex, then teach them stuff that they know perfectly well is lies? because of political pressure from the right wing and fundamentalist Protestants.

One way to stop lying--and call me crazy, but while I agree with everything justv said about education, I nonetheless think that the foundation of teaching is, TELL NO LIES--is to dump the silly Pledge, which traces back to what sure as hell looks like a home-grown version of Nazism.

Or, again, we could teach the Pledge in terms of its original intent, as propganda for the UN.
 
Well lies in school. YOu are not told all that is known about an area of history. Then again consider what would happen if this was done to say a first grader. Imagine throwing a first grader into a graduate leve history class Wouldn't work.
It wouldn't work.
Now little is taught about African history. That which is taught is often wrong. Why few learn about much of the stuff that actually is correct. I say this partly because I am now taking a class in African History and I feel like I should be back in second grade for how little I know. And I'm not alone. I could talk on this subject on why and stuff but bah thats even farther off topic than I am already.
Now some teachers are just wrong in what they teach. simply mistaken taught wrong what ever but most tend to know what they are talking about.
now critical thinking is something that is even more rare than African or well none European history.
 
someguy said:
Well lies in school. YOu are not told all that is known about an area of history. Then again consider what would happen if this was done to say a first grader. Imagine throwing a first grader into a graduate leve history class Wouldn't work.
It wouldn't work.
Now little is taught about African history. That which is taught is often wrong. Why few learn about much of the stuff that actually is correct. I say this partly because I am now taking a class in African History and I feel like I should be back in second grade for how little I know. And I'm not alone. I could talk on this subject on why and stuff but bah thats even farther off topic than I am already.
Now some teachers are just wrong in what they teach. simply mistaken taught wrong what ever but most tend to know what they are talking about.
now critical thinking is something that is even more rare than African or well none European history.
Click to expand...
Yup. I do think that the system (should actually be 'systems' because each state runs independent curriculums and such) needs to move in a better direction on teaching "American History" by strengthening the "Global Studies" link so that the various ethnicities that make up USA are recognized as important to the American culture. Look at entertainment, music, invention, folklore...all hugelyl influenced by the wide variety of ethnicities/cultures and therefore influencial to political, social, industrial/scientific trends.

As far as the critical thinking thing... it is tough to teach 'content classes' (science, math, history...) when there is so much material to cover in a way that allows students to develop critical thinking within that context AND get all the content in AND keep students within a reasonable time frame and understanding level.... just the nature of the beast.

It is also harder to 'test for' critical thinking and easier to test for 'content/formulaic application/memorization' for state boards and political justifications for educational funding....uh oh there I go again....:)

Basically, IMO, if the discipline of 'learning how to learn' first and foremost was the main skill, you could lay the rest of the subjects with ALL the content like a trail of bread crumbs and eventually students would pick it all up...but that is a very hard approach to track and assess academically when you are dealing with the volume of students in public schools.
 
Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.
 
rmcrobertson said:
Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.
Click to expand...
None of this addresses, comments on or even contributes to what I wrote.

As far as the Darwin/Evolution thing. It isn't 'ripped out' (thanks for the exaggeration btw) but has to be described as a 'theory' of change as a sign of respect for other views of the world. It isn't just the "fundamentalist christians" that this could show some sensitivity/respect to though. THere are very spiritually devout Native Americans and people of other religious beliefs that were feeling 'stepped on' or 'disrespected' as well. Do I agree with their views? NO. Do I personally think that evolutionary/scientific explanations are more sound? Yes I do. But, I (and neither does the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM) have the right to teach evolution as if it is the ONLY theory that has any validity if it is going to be respectful of other cultural views...

"Critical thinking" is a technique. You couldn't 'learn' it if it was 'natural' btw.
My point is that I am teaching 'critical thinking' as a life tool to avoid being 'bent to another's will' and becoming a dupe of some overbearing person who is trying to convince you that your way is always wrong and that your foundation of thought and values is totally messed up and worthless. Call it a martial art skill of 'interpersonal skills' if you will.

I have always said that Critical thinking is basically the scientific method turned into a mental strategy that can be applied to a multitude of situations.

Though not shared by all my colleagues, I see this stuff as strategy and tactics of language use and comprehension to understand yourself and others better informationaly, philosophically and intentionally. Some work from a view that it is Literature based and not skill based...not my take on it at all.

I WISH that it was taught as an interdisciplinary skill instead of just 'that thing you do in English class to write that Regents Essay" as it tends to be presented now. The Data Based Questions are just a written way of applying it as well (for social studies), Scientific method (obviously) in that content area, problem solving formats in Mathematics...and like that.
 
First off, Mr. Martin, evolution IS the only theory of the development of life on earth that has any validity in a science class. The other claims you mention are all faith-based; moreover, none of them rely on basic scientific methodology for their claim to truth.

Therefore, they are perfectly valid approaches and beliefs that should be taught--but not in a science class. Unless, of course, you're willing to subject, say, the Bible to exactly the same standards of proof that any scientific theory would be subject to. In which case, you're really gonna get angry parents--because scientifically speaking, the Biblical theory of Creation is laughable.

By all means, teach the history of science. Explain, and teach, that science is a particular kind of discourse with a particular kind of history. Then, teach students how to play by the rules of that particular game. That's why they can learn critical thinking (the recent educational shibboleth) "pretty naturally," which is what I wrote.

Of course, the development of contemporary science out of humanist thought also has at its root the notion of advancing beyond superstition, and going through that process Freud called, "draining the swamp," of our irrationalism. I yield to nobody in being suspicious about all that--but nonetheless, I'd a hell of a lot rather bank on science and civilization.

I understand that you're teaching "critical thinking," as a "life tool." That's a big part of the problem: students enter college thinking it's all just a bag of tricks, a set of toold separate from who they are as people.
 
rmcrobertson said:
1. First off, Mr. Martin, evolution IS the only theory of the development of life on earth that has any validity in a science class. The other claims you mention are all faith-based; moreover, none of them rely on basic scientific methodology for their claim to truth.

2. Therefore, they are perfectly valid approaches and beliefs that should be taught--but not in a science class. Unless, of course, you're willing to subject, say, the Bible to exactly the same standards of proof that any scientific theory would be subject to. In which case, you're really gonna get angry parents--because scientifically speaking, the Biblical theory of Creation is laughable.

3. By all means, teach the history of science. Explain, and teach, that science is a particular kind of discourse with a particular kind of history. Then, teach students how to play by the rules of that particular game. That's why they can learn critical thinking (the recent educational shibboleth) "pretty naturally," which is what I wrote.

4. Of course, the development of contemporary science out of humanist thought also has at its root the notion of advancing beyond superstition, and going through that process Freud called, "draining the swamp," of our irrationalism. I yield to nobody in being suspicious about all that--but nonetheless, I'd a hell of a lot rather bank on science and civilization.

5. I understand that you're teaching "critical thinking," as a "life tool." That's a big part of the problem: students enter college thinking it's all just a bag of tricks, a set of toold separate from who they are as people.
Click to expand...
1&2. Yeah, and for a while people who thought that way were in the minority and considered 'hertical' by the majority....as you have pointed out "history is written by the victor" even if over time, the dominant thought structure is just that a 'thought' structure.

People were "SURE" that the earth was flat and the sun was carried on a chariot for a time as well - and would have been able to apply logic to the explanation to make you feel like an idiot for thinking any other way.

THE POINT of the shift in language isn't that science class is going to teach creationist ideas (or any other point of view) but that they can not posit Evolutionary theories as "THE ONE TRUE WAY" - which would be a form of state mandated ideology wouldn't it? It is just an attempt to demonstrate RESPECT for another group/person's ideology - even if you don't agree with it.

3. Again, if it was natural, it wouldn't need to be taught. Besides which 'critical thinking' isn't a 'thing you learn to do' whether natural or not. It is a method of structuring and organizing and observing where you are in the problem solving/thesis process so that you can figure out what techniques/tactics you need to apply for that phase. It doesn't make any sense to do a brainstorming activity to generate ideas when you are at the last phases of the scientific process and you should be putting the final polish on the presentation.

4. Part of the problem I find with 'surpassing superstition' as a prejudice is that some of those 'superstitions' under scientific examination have proven to be pretty valid in their own right. Also 'surpassing superstition' has reduced the importance of fine arts/literature at times from a rich part of a culture into a series of pneumonic devices that are no more than 'tricks' to the 'superior intellect.' So appreciation, respect goes right out the window. Again, I am not saying we all need to get out our hair shirts and 'purge ourselves' with whips, just saying that we SHOULD be recognizing what significance it might have within a different value system.

5. Since when does applying a concept 'across the curriculum' turn it into a 'trick?' If anything, I think it would/does instill a deeper sense of validity if this one problem solving, organizational/observational mental discipline process can work in so many different venues: Personal life, scientific studies, problem solving, literary criticism/interpretation, social/political examination....

I don't think that I am trivializing critical thinking or the scientific process at all. Actually, the fact that it has been taught as only applicable to 'science' things and 'critical thinking' has been likewise pigeon holed for ELA things, student have a heck of a time recognizing any validity in either use. At least this way, they might see it as a process that is useful because it can be tailored to fit a variety of situations/life...much like martial arts practices in Kenpo/FMA do with concepts/theories/techniques.
 
I apologize in advance, but you do not understand what science is, nor how it works.
 
loki09789 said:
People were "SURE" that the earth was flat
Click to expand...
AAARGGHH!!!!

No one ever thought the world was flat, it doesn't even look flat. Go to a high place and you can see the curve, watch a ship sail past the horrizon, it is not flat.

The myth is that "people once thought the world was flat"

Smaller yes, center of the universe yes, but not flat.

There is also some very good proof that it is center of the universe, but it can easily be proven wrong, you just need a really powerful telescope...

Before Copernicus Astronomy relied on Ptolmeny's basic model, which placed the ROUND earth at the center, the sun and moon orbiting it, and the planets orbiting it with a couple extra loops in there orbit. The stars were just beyond all of that, kind of like a outer Dome.

Copernicus switched the Sun to the center of the Universe.

Aristotle's model also had the earth as round and in the center...

[/end rant]
 
How science works:
a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study
www.coris.noaa.gov/glossary/glossary_l_z.html


The study of the natural world through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanations.
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm


Science is a way of acquiring knowledge. To do science, one must follow a specific universal methodology. The central theme in this methodology is the testing of hypotheses and the ability to make predictions. The overall goal of science is to better understand nature and our Universe.
www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/s.html


Today we have a much better system in place in which big corporations fund people to justify their own economic interests. It is more efficient than the orlder system, which involved old deformed women, large pots of water and various animal parts.
 
The myth is that "people once thought the world was flat"
Click to expand...

No myth here. People did think the world was flat.

To use one common example, the Jewish Torah (which, once you do a little editing, Greek-ing, and Hellenizing, is what became the Christian Old Testament), describes the Earth as a "circle" in the original Hebrew.

The notion of a "flat earth" had a theological basis to it:

The idea was that God was literally sitting his divine rump up in the sky looking down on us.... and, if the world were really round, then God could only see half the world at any given time. That, it was argued, denies God's omniscience and all-seeing divinity. Because, remember, God is just another name for A Really Big Human Man That Can Hurl Lightning Bolts.

The cosmology of the time saw the world as 3-tiered: heaven is vertically above us, the earth (where we are) is flat, and hell is vertically below us. Literalists argued that Jesus literally ascended into the sky because they literally believed that was where "heaven" was.

Tied into this was the notion that the earth is the center of the universe, which would make God all the more studious in watching us from above.

Of course, many of the enlightened philosophers of the time didn't believe this --- guys like Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, and Archimides all rejected many of these concepts. They also held to "evolution"-like ideas (that humans had "evolved" from animals), believed the world was round, and didn't believe astrological signs actually determined a person's behavior.

Oh yeah, and they also criticized the anthropomorphizing of the Divine. Those silly, silly guys... thinking that God doesn't look like us and all. Them and there silly Socratic method, mathematics, and science.

But, then again, the guys that ended up running the Church in Rome (the literalist Christians like Justin Martyr) were rarely all that educated. The more educated Christians leaned toward Gnosticism (such as Basilides) and Platonic Christianity (such as Origen).

Laterz.
 
ok, it has never been an accepted scientific theory that the earth was flat.

things that have been Translated a few times and speak in metaphor are not scientific sources...
 
ok, it has never been an accepted scientific theory that the earth was flat.

things that have been Translated a few times and speak in metaphor are not scientific sources...
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say anything at all about the "flat earth" myth being a scientific theory. Not a thing.

It was a cosmological belief rooted in the prevalent theology of the time --- flat earth, geocentrism, the anthropomorphized God, and the "3-tiered" universe were all part of a shared worldview.

Now, most of the actual scientists of the time --- guys like Archimides and Copernicus, for example --- didn't actually hold to these concepts that much. But, again, they comprised an educated minority.

Also, the Jewish scriptures do describe the earth as a "circle" and this was most definately taken literally until it was disproved by science. Allegorical interpretations of the scriptures, as seen by Philo, Origen, and the Gnostics, was also a realm of the educated minority.

Laterz.
 
rmcrobertson said:
Uh...our society IS lying to kids. Moreover, a lot of what's taught in schools is big fat lies.

"Abstinence-only," sex ed is a beautiful illustration. Why do we pretend to teach kids about sex, then teach them stuff that they know perfectly well is lies? because of political pressure from the right wing and fundamentalist Protestants.

One way to stop lying--and call me crazy, but while I agree with everything justv said about education, I nonetheless think that the foundation of teaching is, TELL NO LIES--is to dump the silly Pledge, which traces back to what sure as hell looks like a home-grown version of Nazism.

Or, again, we could teach the Pledge in terms of its original intent, as propganda for the UN.
Click to expand...

Man you just love to argue dont you? :) From the way I see it we can

A. Agree totally and the thread ends
B. Disagree and be told how silly we are
c. Change threads and........
 
I was thinking about why this is even a separate thread--I didn't start it, that's for sure--and I at least came up with why it is that these, "well, just teach all the theories about life in biology class," arguments bug me so much.

Beyond the fact that (as has often been mentioned) it's just a matter of correct classification, what bugs me about it that slice it however you like, it represents a caving-in to nutcakeism.

A lot of people, across the world and over the last few thousand years, worked hard--it sounds silly, maybe, but a lot gave their lives--to get us over the nightmare of superstition in all its forms.

The work of the Darwins, the Freuds, the Newtons, the Cricks, represent our collective attempt to crawl out of blindness and ignorance. Of course modern thought has brought its own horrors--but you know, when I read these, "we should just teach Creationism too," statements, I read a society trying to pull the covers up over its head and make the devils go 'way.

Sure, there are limits to science. Sure, it has its lacunae as an approach to reality. Sure, science is in part a culturally-constructed discursivity reflective of the animating ideological formation in which it is carried on. Sure.

But it's a helluva lot better than banging pots together to keep the dragon from swallowing the sun. Not to mention the fact that the considerable majority of the big fat fibs promulgated by our educational system fall apart if looked at scientifically for 30 seconds.
 
I was thinking about why this is even a separate thread--I didn't start it, that's for sure--and I at least came up with why it is that these, "well, just teach all the theories about life in biology class," arguments bug me so much.
Click to expand...

Well, Rob.... if you wanna be technical, what is being argued for here are not, in fact, theories. They're not even hypotheses.

What these are are, in fact, religious philosophies rooted in pre-modern traditions. Doesn't mean they're "wrong", mind you, but they are not based on science whatsoever. Neither theory nor hypothesis we have here, just "tradition".

I think the problem that a lot of these guys think is that the theory of evolution somehow precludes any spiritual or animating presence or force behind it all. This is not the case.

However, the creation myths of any culture have about as much place being taught in a biology class as the Pythagorean theorem has being taught in English literature. Its just silly, really.

But, hey, that's just my take. Laterz.
 
rmcrobertson said:
Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.
Click to expand...
Considering that you seem to put forth that all those who refute evolution and darwinism are riligious nutjobs, you might find this article interesting:

Holy war?
Who really opposed Darwin? Popular belief has it back to front …

by James Foard



In Discover Magazine March, 1998, an article by Matt Cartmill used the term ‘holy war’ to describe the current campaign against Darwin. He said that these ‘crusaders’ were not only Christians, but some of ‘the multicultural left’. Such emotive terms conjure up images of militant crowds of angry fanatics on a book burning crusade, marching through the streets on a jihad against the infidel.

Cartmill assumes that no intelligent, reasonable person could possibly have any serious doubts about evolution purely from a scientific point of view. The article starts with the declaration, ‘As far as we can tell, all of Earth’s living things are descended from a distant common ancestor that lived more than three billion years ago …’.1 Darwin’s theory, he says, has ‘been the accepted wisdom for more than a hundred years.’

That sounds powerful, doesn’t it? Accepted wisdom. The ultimate in peer pressure. Where would we be without it? If only Copernicus and Galileo had listened to ‘accepted wisdom’ in their day, we wouldn’t have this confusing sun-centred view of the solar system gumming up our astronomy texts. Hmm.

The thrust of the article is that most of the opposition to Darwin’s theory comes from angry, conservative, Christian anti-evolutionists, and that this sad situation goes back all the way to 1859, when Darwin published his Origin of Species. In reality, however, it was the scientific folk who didn’t believe in Darwin back then, but the religious folk just lapped it up like a bear goes for honey!

Sir John Herschel, famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society, disliked Darwin’s theory so much that he called it ‘the law of higgledy-pigglety [sic]’.2 The brilliant physicist James Clerk Maxwell strenuously opposed Darwinism.3 Renowned science philosopher William Whewell, author of the classic The History of Inductive Sciences, wouldn’t even let Darwin’s book into the Cambridge library.

There were many others, such as Adam Sedgwick the geologist (who taught Darwin the elements of field geology) and Andrew Murray the entomologist, who all decided firmly against Darwin’s theory. Sedgwick even wrote to Darwin after he read his book, telling him, ‘I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous.’4

Ever wonder where we got the word dinosaur from? It was coined by Richard Owen, the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum. Owen opposed Darwin’s work so much that in 1863, Darwin wrote to fellow evolutionist Huxley saying how upset he was with Owen’s criticism: ‘I am burning with indignation … I could not get to sleep until past three last night for indigestion.’ Later on, Darwin again expressed his feelings about Owen to his friend Hooker: ‘I believe I hate him more than you do.’5

This sounds more like it was the evolutionists who were the angry reactionaries.

Louis Agassiz, the founder of modern glacial geology, and Louis Pasteur (who pioneered immunization, developed the Law of Biogenesis — life comes only from life, the fundamental law of biology — and has often been called the greatest scientist of the 19th century) were both strenuously opposed to Darwin’s theory.

While all these scientists were lining up against Darwin, do you know something? There were many religious people in Darwin’s corner, cheering him along as if he was preaching the Gospel.

There was a famous preacher named Kingsley, who sent Darwin a letter congratulating him on the publication of his book. Another preacher called Josiah Strong wrote a famous pamphlet called America’s Destiny, where he said that Scripture and evolution go hand-in-hand. Others in the British Isles to praise Darwin were Frederick Farrar, James Orr, and Henry Drummond, all famous preachers during Darwin’s day. In America, A.H. Strong and Henry Ward Beecher championed evolution as a valid idea whose time had come.

When Darwin died, the accolades poured in from the churches. According to two historians, Desmond and Moore, the Church Times praised Darwin so much that they were ‘lost for epithets – patience, ingenuity, calmness, industry, moderation. Others added the Pauline graces, perseverance and faith, and depicted him as a “true Christian gentleman”’.6

They go on to report that some religious people said that when Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey, ‘Westminster did not bestow dignity on the naturalist [Darwin] from Down. His body was hallowed already.’ According to Desmond and Moore, The Times reported that, ‘The Abbey needed it more than it needed the Abbey.’ They said ‘This saintly man, who had “borne the flag of science,”’ … gave the Abbey “an increased sanctity, a new cause for reverence”.’7

It’s hard to imagine any Christian leader being given such a profusion of Christian accolades as Darwin received. In spite of the fact that, two years before he died, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.’8 Darwin had long realised that his message would corrode the very core of Christian belief.9 So it seems like we’ve gotten things all twisted around now as to who supported Darwin, and who was against him, but who am I to say that Discover author Cartmill didn’t do his homework? After all, he was only following the ‘accepted wisdom’ … wasn’t he?
 
rmcrobertson said:
Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.
Click to expand...
and as a point of interest for you with regards to "religious nutjobs", please note that the following is NOT an exhaustive listing...

Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
 
rmcrobertson said:
Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.
Click to expand...
and heres another article you may find interesting...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp‘It’s not science’

by Don Batten

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

Response

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Refute the current arguments for evolution![/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Refuting Evolution[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr Jonathan Sarfati[/font]



A general critique of the most up-to-date arguments for evolution to challenge educators, students, and parents. Thus it provides a good summary of the arguments against evolution and for creation. (High School–Adult)


Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at AiG are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias

The important question is not ‘Is it science?’ We can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that we don’t like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:


‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1



​
Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:



‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’2



​
So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.


Science a creationist invention

Discover the creationist basis for modern science!
Great Scientists who believed the Bible




Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution. In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

A valid distinction

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I’m sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don’t teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences. Organometallic chemist Dr Stephen Grocott, although having been through at least seven years of university training, later remarked [see The Creation Couple]:


‘Though I’d been working as a scientist for 10 years, I really only learnt what science was through Answers in Genesis. Some of the things people call “science” are really outside the realms of science; they’re not observable, testable, repeatable. The areas of conflict are beliefs about the past, not open to experimental testing.



​
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.


The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own ‘science’ and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so.

Do you believe in hot water?

Refute the false claim that ‘No real scientist is a creationist’!In Six Days—
Why 50 [Ph.D.] Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Dr John Ashton

Can any scientist with a Ph.D. believe in the idea of a literal six-day Creation? In Six Days answers this provocative question with 50 informative essays by scientists who say ‘Yes’ Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind.



Important questions about the Big Bang Theory, radioactive dating of rocks, light from distant stars, and the fossil evidence for evolution are discussed in detail. Reopening the origins debate with straightforward and wide-ranging analysis of the issues confronting both the scientific community and the general public, these essays examine the entire approach to science education and are essential reading for educators, politicians, parents, and students.




Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science. It does not matter if you are a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, or an Atheist, pure water still boils at 100°C at sea level. However, the true Hindu might still think it is all an illusion, and some atheists embracing postmodernism espouse that ‘truth’ is an illusion. However, origins science is driven by philosophy. One’s belief system is fundamental to what stories you accept as plausible. Now if the majority of practitioners of origins / historical science have the wrong belief system (materialism), then the stories they find acceptable will also be wrong. So a majority vote of ‘contemporary scientists’ is hardly a good way to determine the validity of the respective stories. And origins science, or historical science, is essentially an exercise in story telling—Lewontin alluded to this story telling in the quote above.

Define terms consistently!

It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’3 Many, perhaps inadvertently, perform this switching definitions trick in alluding to mutations in bacteria as corroborating ‘evolution’. This has little to do with the belief that hydrogen changed into humans over billions of years. The key difference is that the GTE requires not just change, but change that increases the information content of the biosphere.

Predictions or ‘postdictions’?

Many evolutionists proffer mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (operational science) as being some sort of prediction of evolution (origins science). In fact, genetics (operational science) was an embarrassment to evolution, which is probably the major reason that Mendel’s pioneering genetics research went unrecognized for so many years (Mendel’s discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwin’s idea of continuous unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational science—hence the neo-Darwinian synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc.

So, Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. See How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For a clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Popper’s notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. The evolutionist Gould has written at length on this conundrum.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Time and chance can’t explain life’s amazing design—get your answers here![/font]

Not By Chance!
Dr Lee Spetner



Dr Spetner, an Israeli biophysicist and expert information theorist, has dealt a death-blow at the heart of the neo- Darwinian story. The crucial battle- ground has always been the origin of new genetic information. Spetner shows that random mutations plus natural selection are an inadequate explanation of the encyclopedic information content in living organisms. This book is a must for everyone who desires to defend the Bible in this increasingly ‘educated’ society.

 Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information (see the book Not By Chance (right). In fact, evolution never ‘predicted’ antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches exactly what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Q&A Origin of Life for papers outlining the profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Falsified but not abandoned

So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

Light in the darkness!

Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature. He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘re-arranged pond-scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

CIA at War with Bush?

Previous Thread

Kobe Bryant, Redux

Next Thread

Similar threads

kenpo tiger
They're At It Again...
Replies
8
Views
2K
rmcrobertson
R
elder999
Is America A "Christian Nation?"
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
duckman
D
Andy Moynihan
Andy's martial arts/self defense philosophy distilled as much as possible into one post
Replies
3
Views
979
still learning
S
Blade96
Dojo dating. Don't do it!
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Blade96
Blade96
shesulsa
First negative feedback on self-defense seminar for girls
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
thegatekeeper
T

Latest Discussions

Back
Top