Sorry to be late to the party, just noticed this link today. Anyway, “as one who has gone through the system”, I can tell you this was the case in my education. It’s also in the provincial curriculum. If your school doesn’t teach as I had described, then grab a megaphone and start raising a stink, because implying I’m a liar isn’t going to do anything.

I don’t think you understand what evolution is. There is no pre-defined outcome for evolution. We are not evolving towards anything, as if there was a final goal. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires the elimination of wars or flaws in people.

Yay! Links!

I’m not ignoring you, it’s just that I have a very important transition that I’m in the process of going through. I appreciate you taking the time to offer proper arguments for your side though. I will have more to say about this (probably in the form of another post though since I have some links) but it will be a bit delayed…

Are you interested in discussing this issue?

Or not. Here you go. It’s not too late, even for you: http://web.uvic.ca/philosophy/.....ourses.php

“220 - Introduction to Philosophy of Science

This course will introduce both the epistemological and ethical issues concerning science as a method of gaining knowledge about the world. Epistemological issues may include the distinction between science and non-science, the logic of explanation, and the logic of confirmation. Ethical issues may include the ethics of experimentation with humans, animals, or the environment; the social consequences of scientific knowledge or technology; and the community control of research.”

Clearly, this is just a joke. The degree of intellectual bankruptcy and ridiculous semantic ambiguities should have tipped you off. I believe there’s a webpage that will automatically generate random blog writeups like this; you just set the ‘ignorance’ and ‘predictability’ slider all the way up to maximum.

“Well said. Of course, these people aren’t interested in testing and refining existing theories.”

Can’t really agree with that. Darwin’s model of natural selection has evolved (har har) considerably since the publication of the Origin of Species. All subsequent iterations retain the core principle of evolution, which is about as well established as the notion of gravity.

“They want to pretend that the ideas, currently evolution, they’re in love with (mostly because they just think religion is icky)…”

Would that include the Vatican, which has endorsed the theory of evolution?

Would it include the legions of medical practitioners, biologists, geneticists, teachers, and plain folks who (a) accept the notion of evolution and (b) are Christian?

Well said. Of course, these people aren’t interested in testing and refining existing theories. They want to pretend that the ideas, currently evolution, they’re in love with (mostly because they just think religion is icky) are “proven” and that criticism of them is therefore beyond the pale. As though any theory can be proven - is it too much to ask these technicians that they pick up a book on the philosophy of science before spouting off on it in public forums?

Have you ever actually heard Dawkins speak? He sounds more like an ideologue and a politician than a scientist. But when you’ve invested your faith in science for ideological reasons, I guess that’s the sort of deficient intellect you would choose to follow.

““6)Someone still has to address for me how teaching an alternative view on the origin of species will forever ruin students’ lives”

As noted previously, I have no problem with all kinds of creation accounts being taught.

The ones that involve the application of the laws of physics and biology, as we understand them, should be taught in science classes.

The ones that involve the action of supernatural beings and forces NOT susceptible to scientific analysis should be taught in religion classes.

“the agnostic/atheist crowd just don’t get religion after all.”

I can’t speak for any “crowd”, but I believe I “get” religion. You’ll find that many, if not most, agnostic/atheists were formerly religious adherents, as I was.

“3)For those of you who like pointing out that science should teach one thing and beliefs should be kept in religion class, are you actually trying to torment these kids with confusion?”

Well, most of the folks in the world grow up with the capacity to distinguish scientific fact from faith. My son learned to read fiction, but understands that literary fiction, myth, religion and science represent different categories of narrative. In fact, it’s essential that a person do so, and the ability to distinguish between them begins as soon as a pre-schooler realizes that there, in fact, no dog named “Spot”. It’s really not that big a stretch.

“4)Science, real science was never about absolutes. If you look at applied science, it is all based on measurements and calculations but those rely on models; for example, the atomic orbital theory isn’t proven or absolute — it just works pretty well for explaining most chemical reactions. Make the situation more complex though, like in organic chemistry, and the whole thing leaves scientists clueless. Another great example is Newtonian mechanics, which has actually been rendered obsolete by Einstein’s work almost four hundred years later.”

I think what you’re saying here is that Science changes its models in response to new input, and that’s quite right. That’s one of its strengths.

Many apologists for “creation science” don’t (as you put it above) “get” science. Science isn’t a static set of beliefs. It’s a way of analyzing and understanding experience, based on observation and experiment. Of course it changes as we learn more. By contrast, religion is based on divine authority, which is absolute, eternal, and invariant.

By the way, Newtonian models still work wonderfully well in predicting the behaviour of bodies at all but the sub-atomic level: it was calculations based on Newtonian models that mapped out our solar system, a wonderful example of the predictive power of science.

“I have a strong hunch that a model like evolution won’t be so lucky as to stick around that long.”

I doubt that very much. The evidence FOR evolution has gotten stronger since Darwin’s work, the evidence against it is pretty much non existent, and the discovery of DNA has provided the mechanism by which evolution operates. You’re aware, I assume, that the Vatican has endorsed evolution?

“5)Creation science is a real scientific theory.”

No, it is not. I thought I addressed this in the preceding thread, but the simple form of the objection is this: Creation “science” does not present testable and falsifiable hypotheses. Any hypothesis which requires the action of a supernatural being, and in particular an omnipotent one, is not falsifiable.

I hope that wasn’t too “fancy” or “long-winded”…I tried to be brief.

“6)Someone still has to address for me how teaching an alternative view on the origin of species will forever ruin students’ lives and deny them jobs, houses and weekends up at the cottage.”

I don’t recall anyone making a silly claim like that. What I do remember saying is that there are NO leading creationist doctors, biologists, or research scientists in the life sciences.

“They’re not your kids so what do you care what they learn if it doesn’t affect you?”

Even atheists have children in school, you know. And to many of us, it’s essential that those children NOT be taught that there is no qualitative difference between science and religion. I want my kids to be able to distinguish between the two.

I have not comment on your other points. Not sure what naked gay men have to do with it.

Do you actually think your children and THAT stupid?

That’s it. End of story.

I am not sure whay you mean by calling Creationism a theory. It makes no predictions and relies on no evidence. It is equivalent of saying the toothfairy did it.