This obviously rules out science's ability to prove or disprove or really speak at all about Creationism, since by definition a supernatural being is involved. However, this also refutes any and every claim that something having to do with evolution has been scientifically proven, correct?

This statement by itself should be enough to back up the issue I have with anyone who speaks of any part of evolution as concrete fact. Here I am speaking of evolution as that natural process which results in speciation through the increase in genetic information, not ANY process which results in changes due to a loss of genetic information.

Claiming concreteness or proof is bad science and only proves the validity of this statement.

Claiming concreteness or proof is bad science and only proves the validity of this statement.
I contend that any and all scientists who are communicating their interpretation of data as "what happened" are not using science properly.

You're not questioning evolution.

You're not and you can't You have a personal agenda because you don't like the way some people on here talk to creationists.

Newsflash, we're not scientists. If we find it foolish that people think ridiculous things without proof then we're free to say it.

You see some evolution agenda but scientists aren't out there picketing churches or trying to force evolution into the bible.

There's a slew of anti-evolution books published by creationists every year, all with little or no science background. You'll note the scientific community doesn't respond to such drivel. It does it's work. Please show me where there's a scientific agenda when it comes to evolution.

Bear in mind evolution has been part of the school cirriculum for 40+ years and it was no problem.

It's just a problem now because fundamentalists find it untenable though their alternative is without scientific merit. And that rise in fundamentalism is recent.

Throughout this entire discussion all that's been stated by your party is "Science has an agenda". Nothing but an unsupported, unfalsifiable claim.

Be more specific. Who is at the forefront? What is their goal? How are they pushing it?

I said I was done with this thread, but you have grossly misinterpreted these statements for your benefit. Allow me to correct you.
This obviously rules out science's ability to prove or disprove or really speak at all about Creationism, since by definition a supernatural being is involved. However, this also refutes any and every claim that something having to do with evolution has been scientifically proven, correct?

Evolutionary theory does not need proven. Dawkins et al, don't even argue evolutionary theory is proven. By the way, evolutionary theory is falsifiable.
This statement by itself should be enough to back up the issue I have with anyone who speaks of any part of evolution as concrete fact. Here I am speaking of evolution as that natural process which results in speciation through the increase in genetic information, not ANY process which results in changes due to a loss of genetic information.

I can see how that would confuse you seeings how you have not shown such a great understanding of science thus far. There is a key word here. That word is produces. Science does not produce absolute facts. That is entirely correct, however Nature does produce absolutes on occasion, and on occasion we observe them. Evolutionary theory does not need proven for exactly this reason. Because it is our best explanation for adaptation and variation.

Evolution is a fact of nature because its observable. It happens, but why? That is question science tries to answer. Just as with gravity. Gravity is a fact, but why and how does gravity happen?

Science answers questions of the Natural 'facts' we observe. This is where your short coming is. You seem so wrapped up in thinking "evolutionary theory" has to be proven you fail to see it does not, Evolution happens whether you choose to believe it does or not.
Claiming concreteness or proof is bad science and only proves the validity of this statement.

Hmm, again, you are misinterpreting. It is not bad science to say an observation of nature is a fact of nature. Again you seem confused by this concept. There are concrete things in science, there are facts in science. That does not mean science made up the fact.

Lets go back to Young's Double Split experiment here to change gears for a moment, because you seem to shun anything involving the word evolution.

Young created an experiment where he shined light through two slits.
The setup looks something like this


What we see from the experiment is the fact that light produces interference pattern. It is a fact, an observation we have made. We did not make the fact, nature did. We merely designed and experiment to observe Nature's laws at work. So how do we explain why we get an interference pattern such as this? That is the question science is interested in. Science would be useless without the questions of how and why, the world is full of facts. Nature is full of facts, but simply having a fact means nothing, unless you can explain it.
Claiming concreteness or proof is bad science and only proves the validity of this statement.
I contend that any and all scientists who are communicating their interpretation of data as "what happened" are not using science properly.
That is clear, number 8 that is. Here you are a 40 year old adult and you are not using or explaining science properly. I contend, that one must understand what data is and what facts are, before they go around tooting the horn on what science is. I know you wish desperately to be seen as intelligent here Iams, but your blatant disregard for what science actually is, is frankly annoying and irresponsible on your part. Now, you very well could have made these statements in your own ignorance of what science, as I understand you are not a student of the sciences. I have a passing thought however, that your statements are more to support your agenda then anything else and you are aware of the misrepresentation you have posted here.

Which really begs the question of how moral of a person you are, or how honest of a person you are for that matter. This board is frequented by all kinds of people, some of them still learning what science is. I think they could do without your misrepresentation of science just as they could do without the misrepresentation of science by television and fundamentalist institutions, or evolutionists who misrepresent it for that matter.
Anyway, I expect in the future you will maybe consult someone more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself before you post such a misleading and mis-representative post on what science and is not.

How sad. All of that and you ruin any possibility of me seriously considering it because you just can't help throw a couple of barbs in there. I also think it interesting that you specifically kept yourself to criticizing my comments instead of addressing the statements about what science is not. I admit it was a bit of a trap. I wanted to see if you would be capable of acknowledging the points made by the article or not and it seems the answer is mostly NOT. Since you did not have an issue with statements 1-8 made in the article I will assume you are in agreement with them... or do you disagree with them?

Raptor
The agenda is to stop Creationists. I don't know why this is, but when Stephen J Gould the laureate of the Evolution field starts stating the Evolution is a FACT BECAUSE OF THE CREATIONISTS

I say we see a clear example of NON SCIENCE influencing the way science is expressed. This is clearly agenda driven.

Like I said, I'm no longer weakened under the bullying of Evo henchmen. Just because you refuse to accept what I'm saying doesn't make it false.

Its true.

Let me ask you this Raptor. What exactly would constitute PROOF to you?
See to me the proof is right there but you refuse to see it...

...It doesn't need to be a vast right wing conspiracy. The EVO scientists are now stating across the board that evolution is a fact. That language is not like other science. Science doesn't state things are facts. Its alway theory.

I have shown that National Science Foundation supports these kinds of shifts in language. And that the AAAS supports and even recommends using shows that have these kinds of shifts in language. Its not just one person. Its a lot of people and its a new trend.

Raptor
The agenda is to stop Creationists. I don't know why this is, but when Stephen J Gould the laureate of the Evolution field starts stating the Evolution is a FACT BECAUSE OF THE CREATIONISTS

Just because you refuse to accept what I'm saying doesn't make it false.

Its true.

To me most of the skeptics are just opinionated fools, that won't ever bother taking in whatever is offered, because in their arrogany mind, they are right period. Now, some skeptics, actually use logic, prove certain points that makes you think. That's cool. but the arrogant are nothing more that pains in the asses

I want you to show me where evolutionists are trying to inform the public that evolutionary science is fact where it's not warranted.

Science does accomodate for facts and theories are composed of them, but a theory does not become fact. Evolution does occur, that is fact; no one is trying to say that theory of evolution is fact.
Just to make sure, are you talking about the "Origins" series that was oh-so terrible because they said "In its infancy, Earth was a primeval hell" instead of saying "In its infancy, we think Earth was a primeval hell", or something else?

God put all those fossils in the ground just to fool us.

Harte

Let me ask you this Raptor. What exactly would constitute PROOF to you?
See to me the proof is right there but you refuse to see it.

You keep saying that its ONE person or ONE scientist or rogue scientists. But throughout this thread I have shown that its not ONE person or ONE scientist.

I have shown that National Science Foundation supports these kinds of shifts in language. And that the AAAS supports and even recommends using shows that have these kinds of shifts in language.

Its not just one person. Its a lot of people and its a new trend.
And even though I've shown quite clearly this I've never seen you pause to stop for a second and REALLY consider what I am saying.

You are simply determined to think what I am saying is not true. But its pretty damn clear that what I am saying IS true.

What's interesting is that when some of you have gone back to see what I am saying as Shaftsbury did just a few posts ago, you say "OH I misunderstood what you were saying." But then you continue on suggesting that I've gotten it wrong. No. You have been biased from the start and are insisting that I'm saying something I am not. What I am saying is very clear and very simple.

It doesn't need to be a vast right wing conspiracy. The EVO scientists are now stating across the board that evolution is a fact. That language is not like other science. Science doesn't state things are facts. Its alway theory.

Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, though we use it every day, is not called a FACT. Its still a theory.

It doesn't matter if its TRUE or not what matters is WHY they are doing this. And clearly they are doing this to answer the creationists who have twisted the word Theory to make it sound weak.

It should not matter to Scientists what Creationists think. Creationists are not scientists.
Let me say that again because you keep missing it.
It should not matter what Creationists think. It should have no impact whatsoever on SCIENCE.

As was pointed out when Creationists publish their books chock full of mythology it is not taken seriously by Evo Scientists.

So why the push in the way SCIENCE IS COMMUNICATED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC?

It is because they want to "win" so to speak. Its wrapped up in emotion etc.
Now when I say agenda to me its clear. But you seem to think an agenda has to be something like the KKK in order for it to matter.

As I said earlier a lot of leeway seems to be being given since if they are not bombing Churches then its not a real issue. The attack on Creationists per se is not what bothers me so much. Although its pretty obvious and interesting to me that Evo Scientists like to bash down the Creationists more than any other God theory believer.

But what bothers me is the way the LANGUAGE used by the EVO SCIENTISTS has changed in response to the creationists.
Now your other question as to WHY? Were I to wager a guess I'd say because they are human beings and they are angry that Creationists have legions of fans who actually prefer their version over the scientific explanation. I would say its based on EGO that they are mad that people don't accept them as the expert when most of them have spent a lot of time researching evolution and to have someone off the cuff say "I'm sticking with what this 2000 year old comic book is telling me, I don't accept your theory and anyway its JUST a theory."

I think it pisses them off. And I don't know why you'd even ask me that because its pretty obvious that this is why.

To me its never warranted.

To your second point about think. Yes. That is all I am saying. When you notice that Evo science has gotten into the habit about making declarative statements because of Creationist argument then yes it does seem like it is changing science habit for religion.

Because some many people have already succinctly got this across I'll just add a bit.

The FACT of gravitation's existence is not the same as the theory of gravitation. Go ask any physicist if gravity is a fact and see what they'd say. Wait, I'll tell you. Gravity is an absolute observable fact. The THEORY of gravitation is an effort to consolidate this factual observation (gravity exists) with many other factual observations about the universe to arrive at a model that is predictive and falsifiable. Difference is nobody is asking physicists if gravity is a fact because it doesn't go against their beliefs. The theories of general and special relativity never get questioned on the basis that the speed of light is not a fact. The speed of light is an observable FACT. Theories are models that bring together facts (observed phenomenon) to arrive at conclusions about the relationships of these various observed phenomenon.

The same exact can be said of evolution and the difference between the fact that evolution happens and theory that describes all the mechanisms of and influences on that factual observation. This is only a hot-button issue because of creationists pushing an agenda. It would be no different if there was a religious sect that said gravity went against their beliefs and began attacking physicists at every turn. It would be just as ridiculous.

I agree. And to allow the Creationists who are doing this to INFLUENCE the science is something that is what I am against.

I don't know how much clearly I can state this.

In my mind the Creationists should be IGNORED by the Evo Scientists because its NOT SCIENCE>

When they start addressing Creationist concerns........
You know I'm sick of saying it.
Keep sticking your heads in the sand for all I care.

The problem is, if creationists are completely ignored, it will start being taught in public schools as though it is science. That's a slippery slope. But these confrontations are brought about creationists, not the other way around. That's my main point. It's a creationist agenda not a science agenda. We wouldn't even be talking about this if creationists didn't start a public war against reason and rationality.

How about when it actually is fact?
What makes you think that they're only doing it because of creationists?

Not true. Show me this is true. That's a fear.
We wouldn't even be talking about it if the science community had just ignored it.

But their ego got the better of them. If they had just shrugged it off rather than Dawkinsing it, it wouldn't have escalated.

And they continue to do it.

A. Like when?
B. Because that's all they seem to talk about? And Iders.

A. Like when?

B. Because that's all they seem to talk about? And Iders.

The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

Why did AAAS boycott the recent Kansas State Board of Education hearings on evolution?

The Kansas State Board of Education, which is dominated by intelligent design advocates, scheduled a series of hearings beginning May 5 on proposed revisions to state science standards. AAAS was invited to testify and "provide expert opinion regarding the mainstream scientific view of the nature of science." After much consideration, AAAS respectfully declined to participate, honoring a boycott called by the grassroots pro-science organization, Kansas Citizens for Science. We saw little purpose in a forum where evolution would be juxtaposed against "intelligent design," an unsubstantiated alternative that is a matter of religious faith, not facts. The State Board established a format which implied that scientific conclusions could be based simply on the weight of witnesses' opinions rather than on scientific evidence. We chose to support leaders of the Kansas science community, who promoted the boycott and described the hearings as rigged by proponents of intelligent design. In the end, with the exception of a Kansas civil rights attorney, who pointed out the farcical nature of the proceedings, only ID proponents testified.

Right. You never ever see "Real Scientists" bringing up religion. This is what I'm talking about.

You ask me to post examples. I've posted the same example for pages and you have the nerve to write what you just did?

You have to be kidding me. Here's one again by that little known evolutionist Stephen Gould

Right. You never ever see "Real Scientists" bringing up religion. This is what I'm talking about.

You ask me to post examples. I've posted the same example for pages and you have the nerve to write what you just did?

You have to be kidding me. Here's one again by that little known evolutionist Stephen Gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html
A snippet
Why is it you keep insisting this stuff Raptor? Imean its tantamount to LYING to say what what you just wrote, since it came after pages and pages of me proving this is NOT true that its NOT only message board forums. If you actually read any of the things you asked me to post then how could you possibly say you have never heard a evo scientist bring up religion. Dawkins brings up religion all the time. You know the God Delusion, you know Viruses of the Mind.
I mean that's just a ridiculously absurd thing to say.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
A snippet
The Scopes Trial happened in 1925 so if you are using that as Evidence that's pretty laughable.

You're a still not making the point that evolution is the agenda. Everything you keep posting is responses to creationism attacking science. Also, the god delusion is an atheist treatise that mentions evolution at points. It's not a book about evolution. The point is there would be no discussion about this if creationist interests were making a constant and concerted effort to supplant science in the classroom with religion. Even the gould you posted, which was just an essay in Nature, was in response to the rise of creationism and the religious right in the early 90's when they started attacking science through trying to change textbooks. You still don't seem to understand that, by definition, that means creationist have the agenda. They are the ones trying to subvert truth. Their the ones that write endless books, sue schoolboards, make endless websites and lobby politicians. That's an agenda.

Its a hysterical argument that's a tactic you are using to bat away what I'm actually saying by trying to make me seem way more extreme than I really am.

Of course I see that. But that's got nothing to do with science. I've agreed with every statement you have made about the creationists.

IT STILL SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON SCIENCE SINCE IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
There should be no "response to the rise of Creationism and the religious" in the world of science.

If there is then its no longer about SCIENCE. Its about RELIGION. This is not the blame game. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Basically your argument is "THEY STARTED IT!" Science should be above this kind of thing.

I get you, true. I think where we differ is that if creationist attacks aren't responded to then this gives undue weight to their stance. I know you don't agree with that, so we'll just have to agree to differ. I see where you're coming from though.

Thanks for saying that. Its much appreciated.
I can see why you'd think that as well. But I think that if there were no debate the average American would not care at all that creationism isn't taught in school. Most would actually not want it to be because they believe in Separation between church and state.
Where I see the problem is that when Science gives these arguments the time of day it actually gives them more weight.

Like I said there is no separation between science and state.

But I can agree to disagree.

Have you ever heard of the choice of two closes?

Its propaganda. You can't see what people won't care about by asking them what they do?
Here you can try this at home. (First of all I don't believe in Polls) but you can try this.
If you give people two choices they will usually choose one. So here's an example
Do you like Chocolate Cake or Lemon Pie?
If you go ask 20 people this I can pretty much guarantee you that most people will say chocolate cake.

Now a poll taker would then say Most people like chocolate cake.

But its not unbiased.

If you ask people what their favorite dessert is you are going to get a lot more varied responses than this.

Try it and see.

Where I see the problem is that when Science gives these arguments the time of day it actually gives them more weight.

But if some scientist did not debate or point out the fallacies in the arguments, then the supporters of said arguments would use that in further support of their beliefs because they would say science cannot refute what they say. They would then spread things presenting them as facts just because you don't want science to refute them. Science talking about these arguments does not give them more weight, it just lets people realize that there are two sides to the story.

What your poll says is that more people like chocolate cake than they do lemon pie. That is all that it says. Not as you said, "most people like chocolate cake." You kind of twisted the words of the results.

Have you ever heard of the choice of two closes?

Its propaganda. You can't see what people won't care about by asking them what they do?
Here you can try this at home. (First of all I don't believe in Polls) but you can try this.
If you give people two choices they will usually choose one. So here's an example
Do you like Chocolate Cake or Lemon Pie?
If you go ask 20 people this I can pretty much guarantee you that most people will say chocolate cake.

Now a poll taker would then say Most people like chocolate cake.

But its not unbiased.

If you ask people what their favorite dessert is you are going to get a lot more varied responses than this.

Try it and see.

in all honesty does it really even matter whether you believe or not? i mean in all the vastness of space, all the infinite number of units of matter that make up this reality, does it really matter?

What matters is not having kids being taught myth as science in school. The US is already falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in properly educating our kids. For a whole lot more pertinent reasons the subject of this discourse, of course, but it certainly doesn't help. Big American tech companies are getting in the habit of hiring foreign kids right out of college and paying for their visas because they're better prepped than your average US college grad. Another thing, more personal, is at stake as well. I don't want my kids (which I don't have yet) indoctrinated into a religion in school before they're able to really figure things out for themselves and make their own decisions. So, yeah, it really matters.

Thanks for posting that but it still doesn't show accuracy as far as I am concerned. I would need to continue to question this.
I do not believe that 44% of the American public believes the earth was created in 6 days.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is true.

Now if you polled in a heavily religious area MAYBE but I don't know more than a handful of people that believe 6 actual days.

Recently in my class at school we had this discussion at there are very religious people in the class but we all held our tongue in cheek when one girl said she believed this.
Numbers can all be manipulated AND I didn't say that I thought that, you got the point exactly. Pollsters would say this.

Just like they say the majority of people believe in God theory when if you add up the other numbers they don't support that.

No what really matters is having children being taught science in school. If its that big of a deal then focus on other things.

It makes me laugh that Scientists always say the average American doesn't understand the scientific process and then wastes all this energy on Creationism.

If you taught kids the scientific process and method correctly all of this would be a non issue.

They are being taught correctly, but when a large percentage of them get home from school their parents or their pastors are telling them what they're being taught is false and that it's against god and they'll go to hell for believing such things.

I am skeptical about these results. I'm sorry I have always been taught to doubt "statistics" I do not believe that if you asked the average person how long it took for the planet to form they would say 6 days.

What I think, is what is pointed out in the article that when you use loaded language the people can be manipulated into replying the way you want.

So if I say "Do you REALLY believe that the earth was formed in 6 days" its a loaded question to begin with.

I'm not isolated. I grew up in red neck central. But see if you ask them to think rather than asking them what they think its entirely different.
Hmm
Hey Capeo!!!! Good show! I think you managed to get it back on skepticism again.
But your own statement you admit that the studies have had the number at 44 % for the last 30 years.

Sorry but that makes no sense to me. I think people prove what they want it to prove. Namely that Americans support Creationism which is why its a threat and why it needs to be stopped from "corrupting our youth" who apparently go home to get lashes for thinking outside the bible.

Most people don't care that much about half the stuff that polls like to examine.

Exhibit A Gay Marriage.
If you ask a person do you support Gay marriage they will say No in most cases.
But if you ask a person "Do you honestly care whether Gay people get married? " Most people will say no. And that includes religious people as well.
Media makes NEWS. Skeptics think about it.

Baloney.

They aren't being taught correctly. Otherwise it wouldn't drop off when they left the classroom.

Their parents are not going to tell them the scientific theory is against God. Ok? Its only when evolution comes up that there is going to be a problem.

What irritates me in this whole thing is that as I said scientists will say "People don't even know the difference between theory and scientific theory"

So why not slow it down massively and really teach kids properly what science means. Then when they get home, the parents can say what they want and it won't matter.
See this all boils down to instead of teaching kids WHAT to think, teaching kids HOW to think.
Difference. Difference.

The definition of scientific theory is one the first things in every junior high science textbook. People don't remember it the same way the don't remember basic algebra or geometry. If you don't use it, or it doesn't interest you, you forget it. Ask a random adult on the street how to figure out the area of circle. Most won't remember. That doesn't mean they weren't taught it.

Also, if you think a kid is going to believe his teacher more than his parents, his pastor, his church group and his friends when they're all saying the teacher is wrong, well, that's just not going to be the case everytime.