”It's clear you have not grasped the reason I keep hanging out here, even tho I've said it repeatedly.”
Guess so. Care to re-state? I thought you came originally to point out that you wrote the article we’re commenting on.
”One question science can never answer: Where life, the universe and everything ultimately came from, how and why. You and I will die of old age and Science will still look at that question and shrug its shoulders.
Your response will naturally be "Ah, but how do you know that someday science won't explain __________?"
Simple: according to the commonly accepted definition of "science," there are things that will forever lie beyond the reach of science.”
What commonly accepted definition’? Science is the study of phenomena by observation, experimentation and objective verification. I agree that there are things currently beyond science’s ability to examine, but I think that’s a limit of technology, not of the definition and remit of science.
“Science was made for man, not man for science, and man will always have limits. Science will too. Honest scientists admit this readily. There will be questions of importance to all mankind which, while we may have factual clues from which to draw assumptions, science simply can't ever conclusively answer.”
Not assumptions, conclusions. Very different things. The idea of science is to eventually eliminate assumptions, whereas religion is always built upon one. Some of the scientific mistakes you listed (phlogiston, global cooling, etc.) were not assumptions, but conclusions based on incomplete evidence. When better techniques were developed, more precise conclusions were reached, replacing the old ones. In principle, those new conclusions could be replaced by more precise ones in the future. This is how science works.
”Which is exactly why this thread exists: answers purporting to be scientific - but which are either complete fabrications or are nothing more than interpretations of facts skewed by unexamined religious (atheism included) assumptions - have been deliberately dressed up as science and offered as FACT* to the uninformed masses.”
The facts are not skewed’, they are interpreted by available evidence. You clearly, as a self-professed Bible fundie’, would regard it as correct to interpret the evidence through the assumption of the existence of God. However, there is no evidence for God, so that would be a skew. Lacking evidence for the existence of God, or an intelligent creator, there is no scientific reason to factor those into theoretical frameworks. Religion just doesn’t matter. You’re also basically saying that there are outright lies involved in the teaching of evolution. What are these complete fabrications’?
”Exactly my point. And yet, all these textbooks (I have college level ones, too) present atheistic, materialistic generation and evolution of life as scientific FACT even though it has never been proved. Of the books I have on hand, none say it's only a hypothesis.”
It’s not a hypothesis. Please make sure you’re using the right terms. Hypotheses are theoretically disprovable, scientific concepts. Theories are supported by evidence (they used to be called Laws’), and are accepted as plausible. Facts are theories that have enough evidence to put them beyond an extremely high probability level.
”But there again, since it's the only option being presented, kids will accept it as science whether or not they label it a hypothesis.”
It is science. Even though I said it would be right to label it as a theory (along with a definition of what exactly that means the common usage of theory is synonomous with hypothesis’ or thesis’), it would be wrong to label it as unscientific’.
”They won't know any other model, or the weaknesses in this one, so they'll believe it. Either way, the educational establishment (theistic? hardly) gets the result it wants: conformity of opinion rather than decisions based on informed, independent, critical thinking.”
The problem is that there is no scientific theory to offer as an alternative, which is the reason there is such huge scientific consensus on the acceptance of evolution. Textbooks would be right to highlight the scientific debate and disagreement with evolution. You seem to have, as I said, disagreements with the structure of the education system, and as a teacher, I’m interested in your opinion, but it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution itself, and there is no reason to teach creationism or ID as scientific alternatives, because they are not.
”Is it just “science that agrees with my beliefs = science, and science that contradicts my beliefs = atheism?” “
”In my case, no.”
OK, but you haven’t answered what, in your opinion, separates science’ from atheistic science’, or what atheistic science’ is. As I said, the distinction seems to be whether it agrees with your religious assumptions or not. If you are using a different distinction, please explain it.
”But in the case of atheists (the ones writing the vast majority of texts), it most certainly is a case of "If I like a fact, it's science...if I don't like another fact, then it's not and I'll be damned if I let it get in print." “
What facts? What scientific evidence for disproving evolution is being left out?
”In younger level books that's pretty much how it is. Later books separate by chapters (more data, etc) but it makes no difference, for by then the foundation of thought conformity was already laid down in earlier grades.”
I get your concerns, but is it really reasonable to explain to children the difference between thesis’, hypothesis’, theory’ and fact’? I assume you’re talking about Elementary schools (Primary schools over here), so how would you, as a teacher, explain those differences, in a way appropriate way for that age-group? This isn’t a facetious point, as you probably do have an answer.
”But again, there's too many texts written this way for it to be simply a matter of poor writing as much as a deliberate agenda...or short of that, just the honest outflow of an atheistic worldview. Result is the same either way.”
Deliberate agenda? Maybe, but that agenda could just be to make the books understandable to elementary students,’ rather than something darker.
”If you'd seen his debates you know this but Hovind plays both sides of the street, providing evidence for creation and showing the weaknesses in the other side's ideas. He's very good at asking the foundational questions atheism purports to answer but really can't...once that's done their arguments fall apart.”
Watched some of his stuff on Youtube. Great orator, like I said, charismatic, uses the stage, has a good sense of humour, thinks fast. However, he simplifies and distorts a lot of facts, and constantly shifts the goalposts. He’s really good at what he does, really good. However, what he does isn’t science, or honest.
”The facts speak for themselves and the evos know it.”
Sure do. ;-)
” If you'd like free copies of what I've got (they're all several years old...I've not seen his more recent ones) I'll send them to you at my expense. Contact me thru the website.”
Thanks, but there’s plenty of his stuff on Youtube, and I’m always reluctant to hand out my address over the internet.
”Almost everyone he's debated has been considered a technical authority in some field relevant to the topic of that debate (else why do it?). The topic is laid out, as are the ground rules (you talk, then I talk, then you rebut, etc).”
Being a technical authority doesn’t make you good at debating. It’s a very separate skill. Being poor at debating doesn’t mean you’re bad at science, being good at it doesn’t make you good at science.
“Hovind's approach is pretty much the same every time because it works: knock the legs out from under your opponent's position and they'll be on the defensive for the rest of the show. “
The one that I’m watching has him arguing against evolution by bringing up Hitler and the Collumbine killings. That would knock the legs out from someone who came to debate science, because it’s kind of ridiculous, and non-scientific. Great orator, poor science.
”Considering those elements include everything in the PT apart from Hydrogen, they would have created more than just inert rocks.”
”Really? Like what?”
Well
everything? Every solid, liquid and gas? Everything is made from the elements on the periodic table. You know this, you’re a teacher. By saying hydrogen made inert rocks’, you’re twisting the facts, as a surely a number of reactive elements and compounds would have developed as well, in a number of states.
”Really? On what evidence? So far you're in "Sneezed out of the nose of the giant space goat" category.”
Well, there have been attempts to reproduce those conditions and substances, which have not yielded conclusive results, but make it plausible that the substances that form the basic levels of life would come about by reactions within that environment. I’m not stating it as fact, but as a plausible explanation with evidence to lend it some credence, which at least takes it further than space goat’ territory. It’s covered in that wikipedia article I linked to, along with criticisms from scientific angles for you to use.
”No, I think I read him correctly...I think you're the one who is confused here. Let's try again: Hydrogen eventually formed all the other elements, which in turn formed rock and water, which in turn were zapped yadda yadda lightning yadda yadda cosmic rays yadda *poof* and there was LIFE. No, I think the story is an essentially accurate cartoon of what you guys believe happened. And if not, is still dead on accurate of how your religion is taught to kids.”
Not rock and water, again you’re twisting my words to make it sound much more preposterous than highly reactive cocktail of the substances that form the bulding blocks of life today, along with lots of energy to catalyse reactions’. I’m not offering it as absolute fact, but as a reasonable explanation with evidence to back it up. If you have one to offer in opposition, offer it. And I’m not religious, but if evidence appeared for God, I’d accept it. A quote I read that I paraphrase would be, If your God appears to me, I’ll walk up to him, tug his beard and shake his hand. Until then, he’s living with the Easter Bunny.’
”Very blunt, very simple terms, deliberately couched so as to be implausible compared to the more complex and more plausible explanations it’s parodying.”
”They're the same. If one is implausible, so is the other.”
Explain driving a car in a way a five-year old can understand. You put a key in a hole to make it come to life, a special kind of fire goes off under the bonnet, and the car makes a noise and waits for you to push on a pedal before it starts moving. Or explain the process of a sperm joining an embryo, and the cell division that leads to zygotes, embryos and babies. Simplifying explanations of complex processes makes them sound implausible.
”Playing word games doesn’t disprove scientific theory.”
”Or prove them. Goose and gander.”
Science is proved by evidence, not word games. Stop playing word games. ;-)
