Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Teachers must explain theory of evolution

91 posts in this topic

In my 7th grade science class, the teacher wasn't specific about any creation theory, only that the theory (or theories) state that all life was created "at about the same time". I think the quoted part was intended to include all creation theories.

Like I said, it took a fraction of the hour to falsify the theory and it was a convincing demonstration of scientific evaluation of evidence. That's what we were supposed to learn, right?

The other theory, "adaptation through inheritance" was tougher to disprove. It explains evolution in a more understandable way than genetic mutation and it sounds like a better system. Too bad life doesn't actually evolve that way.

I have 3 friends that teach Science in public school,(High School) each has told me that they know they are going to get kids that are just sure/ think Creationism is actual science and they use Science to evidence that it is not(just as you described.) I have been told also that they also get kids that are anti- religion to a point they call other kids stupid. In fact, one of my Science teacher freinds sons went through this phase and my friend told him to chill out, she told him looking at other ideas in and of itself is not harmful/stupid, looking at other ideas can serve as a way to learn/teach what evolution is and is not and how science really works.

Edited by Sherapy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I talk about age during school I figure out the age like this.

mental age

physical age

emotional age

social age(Prof T would most likely call this ego)

Get the average to get a theoretical age.

You can use this to see if a child is really gifted, average, or slow. If you compare the theoretical age vs chronological age. You can do this easily get this during school with tests and long term observation(Snap judgements have a tendency to be wrong if you do not know how to do so).

Theoretical age is what I mean when I say age. A person with an average of 6 to me is what I consider to be a 6 year old. Put that to the grade the average 6 year old is in what 1st grade? So theoretically somebody could who is 20 can act and function like an average 1 first grader or like the average 6 year old.

I use my theoretical age instead of the 3 ages stated by experts(I use the term experts rather loosely) because when it comes to education there is the social aspect that we need to consider which is simply how we act towards others. (It also makes it easier to compensate for other things people find weird about age like people who date other people who vary wildly in ages.)

Now I can using this theoretical age instead of chronological age and a few small changes you could do wonders to our current public education system. I am going to touch on just a few changes because well, it is what I thought up when you replied to me.

The only thing I would change about our public education besides more teachers and better ones. Is add traits of high school and college down in to elementary school. So basically instead of homeroom being 4 years homeroom would be through all k - 12.

I would also change the utility of homeroom. In the beginning it would be the same as elementary school, kids would learn the same fundamental skills, This would also give the teachers a chance to discover any problem a child might have. Each year would spend less time in homeroom, and more time in other classes. Students would end up in the classes that actually fit their learning style and speed faster. Eventually students would just phase out of the system, problem children would get moved to teachers who can handle problem children, and kids who do not need that much attention can get to the classes that focus on their strengths.

So a class involving religion could actually be given to a student who can handle it. It takes a creative mind to understand religion and it also takes a creative mind to understand and apply scientific theory. This system would allow for both types of classes to exist and protect people who should learn things they are not capable of handling and allow people to choose one or not.

There are real world problems that I would need to address, like how much teachers get rewarded vs how much crap they sometimes have to take and a slew of other problems that I don't have time to think about quite yet. I can also think of a few details that would improve in the long run. If I work out the problems I can focus on turning students who would excel at teaching to actually become teachers so the next generations of students would become better and better, I also have an idea about clothes and uniforms which would address another social aspect that needs to be worked on, but that takes time and I don't want to derail this thread most then I already had.

This structure would fix the problem handling gifted students, would appease religious and science nuts, and making a secular educational system, instead of our current separatist system. The only people who would be unhappy are the people who are just unhappy.

Basically.

If you aren't mentally capable you cannot understand complex theories nor can you implement them, either from religion or science and you are going to lean either way.

Edited by Jinxdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheri, Frank, Chloe, scowl and all the gang...

Science teacher freinds sons went through this phase and my friend told him to chill out, she told him looking at other ideas in and of itself is not harmful/stupid, looking at other ideas can serve as a way to learn/teach what evolution is and is not and how science really works.

I've never actually had the problem of teaching evolution, but I've also long felt what this teacher articulates. So, no surprise that I like what scowl said about putting three broad-brush hypotheses up side-by-side, and let the evidence tell the tale. We know who wins, every time, when that's done honestly.

The difficulty, of course, is that legislation like Oklahoma's is dishonest. It's not protecting academic freedom and open discussion, it's protecting ignoramuses passing off religious horsehockey as if it were science, at taxpayer expense. If the next state over from me were proposing this thing, then I'd probably post like Chloe's doing here. Besides, Zack Kopplin rocks.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evolution is the continuing process of biological creation. ^_^ There are future creatures that have not been created yet.

*

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheri, Frank, Chloe, scowl and all the gang...

I've never actually had the problem of teaching evolution, but I've also long felt what this teacher articulates. So, no surprise that I like what scowl said about putting three broad-brush hypotheses up side-by-side, and let the evidence tell the tale. We know who wins, every time, when that's done honestly.

The difficulty, of course, is that legislation like Oklahoma's is dishonest. It's not protecting academic freedom and open discussion, it's protecting ignoramuses passing off religious horsehockey as if it were science, at taxpayer expense. If the next state over from me were proposing this thing, then I'd probably post like Chloe's doing here. Besides, Zack Kopplin rocks.

Yep, integrity and honesty is key and I agree with Chloe and could see myself easily arguing her points. I do not think we can just assume that every teacher has integrity as she points out.

I do share your inner optimism that Science can hold its own and does. The ideas are sound. They do what they are intended to do..

Great read 8ty!

Edited by Sherapy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Chloe,

I read your posts, I read your links and I share in your concerns. I do not advocate teaching Creationism as Science.

AND, I do not for one minute think that a sceince teacher could/would not teach science and have an agenda they could and do. If I was in a small town I'd make sure I knew what my kids were being taught, I'd keep open communication with my kids, I'd make sure I had cutivated a realtionship in where my kids could come to me and ask questions. It is in the asking of questions and open dialog I can teach, I can offer educatation. ( I stay informed too)

On Monday when I tutored ( I have tutored this girl for 3 years, she is 16) she asked me, she asked her grandmother if we believed in aliens or the Loch Ness monster. This did not come from biology class, this came from her peers. A lot of this nonsense comes from peers too.

I said No, I do not believe in either, her grandmother said neither did she, she also said to her grand daughter I have never seen evidence of these things, that is how I decide.(her grandmother didn't get past the 8th grade.)

This same girl asked me a year ago if I thought the world was going to end because all her friends were telling her it was, as her friends read this on line. I told her no, I didn't beleive that. I could see she was still worried, so I suggested she ask her Grandmother, she did and her grandmother said flat out it was BS. she also told her not to believe everything she hears from her friends or reads on line.

I showed her how to read the domain in the URL, we wrote a post it note-- .gov, .edu (credible) .com,.net( not credible) and stuck it on the computer.

Not every kid takes Computer Literacy.

So I ask myself is it possible that there be teachers that have agenda's, the answer is yes, should there be of course not, your concerns are well founded. For me, I address this by planning for it I stay on top of my kids teacher's,( I know them, I cultivate realtionships with them)I talk to my kids I talk to their friends. I stay informed and I long ago cultivated relationships with my kids so they can ask me anything in this I can teach them.

One more story, I recently was with a young man I have known since he was 13(he now is 21.) His family is very conservative and they do not support Evolution. When he went through biology his mom was freaked out that his teacher was teaching that we come from monkeys. The truth was his mom is in error, we do not come from monkey's as monkeys are an extant species. I was an avid reader of Copasetic at the time and I learned enough to be able to offer a perspective in a compassionate neutral way. The last thing I would do is infer or make someone feel ignorant for asking for being in error, as it would end the converstation; freindship therefore, the opportunity to exchange ideas or question would be lost.

When I saw him recently after a few years in college--(no surprise) he no longer dismisses Evolution; in fact, he said he beleives in being Christian, but he also thinks Science is how we as a culture learn new things and that one has to weigh things by the standards of science. This shows that even though our educational system can be flawed it still offers an education.

Well I specifically responded to you because your original response about way to go Oklahoma is what a lot of people would think (and just what the people behind this bill want you to think). like hey academic freedom act! This is awesome, open-minded exploration and all that jazz, but it's a sham. Hopefully with the Louisiana example, I provided a glimpse of what they truly want to do and have. Scowl's class sounds great, I'd have loved to had a class like that, but trust me, they aren't pushing these academic freedom bills (see below) all over the country to have creationism discussed and dismissed as his class did. If you ever get a chance, check out some of those homeschooling science books made by those Christian publishers, like Abeka, Bob Jones. That's what the Creationist teachers would probably try to start using and it's targeted at disproving evolution, and we see that so often even here, someone thinks if they disprove evolution, they've provided some evidence for Creationism, which is spiritual, and by definition, spiritual pretty much means something without evidence, but anyway I promise you it's their purpose. I get the religious objection to human cloning, but I've still not figured out why the religious people are so against global warming, but it seems like so many are as it's singled out in the bill as well. Maybe it's a earth is made for man to do with as he pleases and liking it too much is earth worship or something, who knows. I think the Pope made some comments about the green movement or environmentalism being earth worship before.

Academic Freedom bills are a series of anti-evolution[citation needed]bills introduced in State legislatures in the United States beginning 2001. They purport that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.[1] Critics of the bills point out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution.[2] An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it occurred.[3]

Based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute, from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that criticize evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism.[2]

They have spent years working school boards, with only minimal success. Now critics of evolution are turning to a higher authority: state legislators.

In a bid to shape biology lessons, they are promoting what they call "academic freedom" bills that would encourage or require public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science.

—"Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools",
Wall Street Journal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Freedom_bills

Edited by ChloeB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheri, Frank, Chloe, scowl and all the gang...

I've never actually had the problem of teaching evolution, but I've also long felt what this teacher articulates. So, no surprise that I like what scowl said about putting three broad-brush hypotheses up side-by-side, and let the evidence tell the tale. We know who wins, every time, when that's done honestly.

The difficulty, of course, is that legislation like Oklahoma's is dishonest. It's not protecting academic freedom and open discussion, it's protecting ignoramuses passing off religious horsehockey as if it were science, at taxpayer expense. If the next state over from me were proposing this thing, then I'd probably post like Chloe's doing here. Besides, Zack Kopplin rocks.

Yes he does rock and so does the Bits. But yes, Lousiana and Oklahoma, they're surrounding states above and beside, which is worrisome. I could see them getting it going there and next here. They've already been at the history textbooks here and all that controversy, you never know.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem is that there are teachers who can't teach Evolution very well, especially when debating a smart student. Adding alternate theories could make explaining Evolution even more difficult.

My teacher tried to use viruses as evidence that all life couldn't have been created at the same time -- they had to have come sometime later. Someone quickly pointed out that there was no reason that viruses couldn't have been created at the same time since they would immediately have hosts to infect. My teacher thought for a moment and agreed that viruses weren't good evidence for any of the three theories.

This is the kind of stuff I wish I had seen more of in high school. This teacher was excellent! Most other teachers would have told the kid to shut up or ignored him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another problem is that there are teachers who can't teach Evolution very well, especially when debating a smart student. Adding alternate theories could make explaining Evolution even more difficult.

My teacher tried to use viruses as evidence that all life couldn't have been created at the same time -- they had to have come sometime later. Someone quickly pointed out that there was no reason that viruses couldn't have been created at the same time since they would immediately have hosts to infect. My teacher thought for a moment and agreed that viruses weren't good evidence for any of the three theories.

This is the kind of stuff I wish I had seen more of in high school. This teacher was excellent! Most other teachers would have told the kid to shut up or ignored him.

I too would love to have only great teachers and for those that are open minded and informed, kudos, because they make leaning so much easier.

My youngest had a teacher last semester that was not strong in grammar, and (then the grammar curriculum sucked) as frustrating as it was and a pain ( because all the usual try to get in a new class, etc.. never works out, the red tape is a nightmare..) we had to find another way, fast. He needed to learn the grammar. We took it on ourselves, and my son still got the A--without her, her teaching was no reason for us not to find a way. Fortunately, (thankfully) we have a lot of resources (teachers/help). Now, in hindsight my son thinks it was a great experience-- he loved the challenge of finding a way himself--in truth it was fun.( I thought as the parent I would serve him best if I pointed out how this was an opportunity for him to grow towards maturity; as it cultivates a confidence/competence that only comes from being self sufficient. In a perfect world-- I wish that there were always amazing teachers, but the reality is there is not and a big part of maturity is finding a way.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution theory should be taught at school along with alternatives as academia is an open field and not dogmatic like religion can be, but unfortunately science today has all but become dogmatic as religion itself!

What people are really missing out on at all levels of academia is philosophy of science. You see if the latter was taught more people would be aware of the role of science in our lives and its scope and limitations. However the leaders of academia and science don't want people to study or know philosophy of science cause if they did, they would realise and understand evolution it's scope and limitations. But they rather keep critical thinking out of people's minds and rather preach scientific theories like dogma and the new clergy are the scientists. I mean even most credible scientists don't know philosophy of science, they rather not because it puts their dogmatic science into perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is about observation and experimentation. At one time it was thought the sun went round the earth but through observation and experimentation it was found to be other way around. Science can change over time as new observations come to light, but they must go through scientific method so they can be shown to be true. This is not dogma.

Religion is about faith without observation. As long as it is written down it doesn't change, even if other ideas come to light. That is dogma. Religion has no place in a science class.

Sorry, but God is not observable so it is not science, evolution is, so it is science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if I was so smart; I didn't ever hear of Santa Clause, but we had other similar things mainly about the equivalent of what you might call the bogeyman, and she (a woman in the Vietnamese version) was scary. I believed until older kids set me straight: then confronted my mom and got the truth.

Teachers are something holy here; one respects them beyond measure and they get gifts and bows and all sorts of other tokens, so I just can't imagine thinking the kinds of things I read in one of the above messages about one of my teachers. Even in college in the States, where one used "Mr." and so on to address teachers, I so often wanted to use the Vietnamese pronoun for teacher (it would probably translate something like "honorable" or "venerable,") although of course I had been instructed that this was not part of American culture.

Perhaps one of the weaknesses of Asian teaching is that children do not think for themselves. They are to repeat verbatim what they have memorized, end of story. Nowadays I still run into that, trying to get students to figure things out, when all they want is to be told, so they can write it down and take it home and memorize it. I really can't imagine a situation where the parents believe one thing and the teacher teaches another. I suppose it must happen, but the child is going to have to bury it and not argue or contradict or even question either of them.

I do not exaggerate. Children do not question, and watching US kids on TV where they talk back to adults just amazes them. (Of course this TV is also having its influence). I would also say that the Vietnamese approach does not necessarily work better -- Vietnamese kids get into their share of trouble too.

Hmmm interesting. I think your mistaken if you think children question what they are taught in the west or question their teachers. Critical thinking no longer exists in any level of academia, students whether children or young adults only regurgitate the stuff their lecturers have regurgitated over the years.

If critical thinking existed, then you would find people stopping sitting, pondering and reflecting, but in today's overly materialistic and busy life styles there is no time to be critical, but there is only time to regurgitate information dogmatically input in our minds from kindergarten to universities!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is about observation and experimentation. At one time it was thought the sun went round the earth but through observation and experimentation it was found to be other way around. Science can change over time as new observations come to light, but they must go through scientific method so they can be shown to be true. This is not dogma.

I agree with most of what you say....however science today is dogmatic, and what a scientist says is gospel! You can reject all day long but its reality, whether you like it or not!

The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge. A concise definition of science has been accurately stated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell,

"The attempt to discover, by means of observation and reasoning based upon it, … particular facts about the world, and the laws connecting facts with one another."

So I agree about the scientific method I also agree evolution on micro level is scientific fact (but there is a difference between scientific fact and certain knowledge, you won't understand this as your thinking is not broad enough to encompass philosophy of science)!

The limitations of the scientific process are rarely discussed. One key reason for this is that science has become a social enterprise. A social norm has developed that exclaims that science has replaced religion and is now the new gospel truth.

Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world’s most innovative biologists and writers, who is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, highlights this point in his new book The Science Delusion,

"Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and technology seem to be at the peak of their power, when their influence has spread all over the world and when their triumph seems indisputable, unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Most scientists take it for granted that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, but some, including myself, think they are symptoms of a deeper malaise…science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas."

The scientific method is limited due to: Sensory perception:

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

"It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science."

What the above means in layman terms is that what can't be observed is beyond sciences scope and limitations! So questions like do we have a soul or does god exist are beyond the scope of science and its limitations (yet you'll harp on about it saying "there is no scientific proof of god or a soul" but in reality to people knowledge it only shows the deficiency is your own knowledge and capacity).

The questions " does god exist or does the soul exist" are outside the realm of the scientific method. This does not imply that such questions are meaningless, rather it exposes the limitations of the scientific process, as there are other methods that can provide answers to the above questions. However I'm not going to go into that as I believe most of what I said is beyond most of you who hold fast to empiricism or scientism! Hence why I said philosophy of science ought to be taught as it puts theories, data, science etc into perspective especially with an epistemic approach!

Religion is about faith without observation. As long as it is written down it doesn't change, even if other ideas come to light. That is dogma. Religion has no place in a science class.

Maybe so, but what's your point! I also said religion can be dogmatic, but so is science today! You'll believe in all sorts of theories which have no empirical backing or provable via scientific method, so you believe in the science and clergy in faith, ie dogmatically!!!!

Sorry, but God is not observable so it is not science, evolution is, so it is science.

Sorry what ever is not observable is beyond the realm of science as already established. But I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is science I never said otherwise its clearly an intellectual product of science and its methodology. However what's scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.....this is where you need the philosophy but I don't want to fry your brain :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you say....however science today is dogmatic, and what a scientist says is gospel!

Only to people who don't understand science.

The limitations of the scientific process are rarely discussed.

That's because these limitations are usually expressed in the form of "Science is wrong! It has to be because I know with absolute certainty that...".

The scientific method is limited due to: Sensory perception:

Yes, we only have our five senses to tell us what is true and what isn't and those senses are easily fooled.

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

"It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science."

That's exactly true. We are only human.

What the above means in layman terms is that what can't be observed is beyond sciences scope and limitations! So questions like do we have a soul or does god exist are beyond the scope of science and its limitations (yet you'll harp on about it saying "there is no scientific proof of god or a soul" but in reality to people [ack?]knowledge it only shows the deficiency is your own knowledge and capacity).

However look at the alternatives. Uh, what are those again?

Sorry what ever is not observable is beyond the realm of science as already established. But I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is science I never said otherwise its clearly an intellectual product of science and its methodology. However what's scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.....this is where you need the philosophy but I don't want to fry your brain :)

You're only frying my brain with these jumbled run-on sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I specifically responded to you because your original response about way to go Oklahoma is what a lot of people would think (and just what the people behind this bill want you to think). like hey academic freedom act! This is awesome, open-minded exploration and all that jazz, but it's a sham. Hopefully with the Louisiana example, I provided a glimpse of what they truly want to do and have. Scowl's class sounds great, I'd have loved to had a class like that, but trust me, they aren't pushing these academic freedom bills (see below) all over the country to have creationism discussed and dismissed as his class did. If you ever get a chance, check out some of those homeschooling science books made by those Christian publishers, like Abeka, Bob Jones. That's what the Creationist teachers would probably try to start using and it's targeted at disproving evolution, and we see that so often even here, someone thinks if they disprove evolution, they've provided some evidence for Creationism, which is spiritual, and by definition, spiritual pretty much means something without evidence, but anyway I promise you it's their purpose. I get the religious objection to human cloning, but I've still not figured out why the religious people are so against global warming, but it seems like so many are as it's singled out in the bill as well. Maybe it's a earth is made for man to do with as he pleases and liking it too much is earth worship or something, who knows. I think the Pope made some comments about the green movement or environmentalism being earth worship before.

Academic Freedom bills are a series of anti-evolution[citation needed]bills introduced in State legislatures in the United States beginning 2001. They purport that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.[1] Critics of the bills point out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution.[2] An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it occurred.[3]

Based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute, from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that criticize evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism.[2]

They have spent years working school boards, with only minimal success. Now critics of evolution are turning to a higher authority: state legislators.

In a bid to shape biology lessons, they are promoting what they call "academic freedom" bills that would encourage or require public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science.

—"Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools",
Wall Street Journal

http://en.wikipedia....c_Freedom_bills

OMG, this was a whole can of worms (the home schooler's who purposely taught creationism in place of science.) California had a big issue with this a few years ago.

Jack O'Connell ( CA superintendent of Education at the time) took the position that CA is open to the idea of different approaches to education, but we have to give our children educations that prepare them for the global economy and the reality of the world.

“I admire the dedication of parents who commit to oversee their children’s education through home schooling. But, no matter what educational program a student participates in, it is critical that the program prepares them for future success in the global economy. I urge any parent who is considering or involved in home schooling their children to take advantage of resources and support available through their county or district offices of education.”

http://justenough.wo...-homeschooling/

To graduate High School here a kid has to take 2 years of science, 3 years to get into a university.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scowl your response is a clear illustration of why philosophy of science ought to be obligatory! Most of my post was clearly beyond your intellectual capacity! Your post is not even worthy of a response!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.

You see scowl thats from a leading evolutionist, but I bet you dont even know what it means!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you say....however science today is dogmatic, and what a scientist says is gospel! You can reject all day long but its reality, whether you like it or not!

The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge. A concise definition of science has been accurately stated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell,

"The attempt to discover, by means of observation and reasoning based upon it, … particular facts about the world, and the laws connecting facts with one another."

So I agree about the scientific method I also agree evolution on micro level is scientific fact (but there is a difference between scientific fact and certain knowledge, you won't understand this as your thinking is not broad enough to encompass philosophy of science)!

The limitations of the scientific process are rarely discussed. One key reason for this is that science has become a social enterprise. A social norm has developed that exclaims that science has replaced religion and is now the new gospel truth.

Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative biologists and writers, who is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, highlights this point in his new book The Science Delusion,

"Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and technology seem to be at the peak of their power, when their influence has spread all over the world and when their triumph seems indisputable, unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Most scientists take it for granted that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, but some, including myself, think they are symptoms of a deeper malaise…science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas."

The scientific method is limited due to: Sensory perception:

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote,

"It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science."

What the above means in layman terms is that what can't be observed is beyond sciences scope and limitations! So questions like do we have a soul or does god exist are beyond the scope of science and its limitations (yet you'll harp on about it saying "there is no scientific proof of god or a soul" but in reality to people knowledge it only shows the deficiency is your own knowledge and capacity).

The questions " does god exist or does the soul exist" are outside the realm of the scientific method. This does not imply that such questions are meaningless, rather it exposes the limitations of the scientific process, as there are other methods that can provide answers to the above questions. However I'm not going to go into that as I believe most of what I said is beyond most of you who hold fast to empiricism or scientism! Hence why I said philosophy of science ought to be taught as it puts theories, data, science etc into perspective especially with an epistemic approach!

Maybe so, but what's your point! I also said religion can be dogmatic, but so is science today! You'll believe in all sorts of theories which have no empirical backing or provable via scientific method, so you believe in the science and clergy in faith, ie dogmatically!!!!

Sorry what ever is not observable is beyond the realm of science as already established. But I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is science I never said otherwise its clearly an intellectual product of science and its methodology. However what's scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.....this is where you need the philosophy but I don't want to fry your brain :)

Classy, the cab driver who lectures about the philosophy of science and the perils and problems of academia: Who simply rips off others works as their own, lol! You know the give away is easy for anyone who has read your posts that is your original material. It's pretty easy to tell when you are copying others works.

Wunder wut dem academnicks wud say to dat, LOL!

By the way the site you copied your "astute" observations on the "philosophy of science" from is found here;

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/has-evolution-been-misunderstood-revelation-science-and-certainty/

What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh by the way a little more back story for you. The blog you ripped off and plagiarized was Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. After you claim that PhD carrying scientists don't "understand the philosophy" of science you quote someone who's credentials are?.......

Ohhhh I see what he is going for with this whole "academic thing"... He just rips off William Lane Craig's "arguments" and changes Christian mythology to Islamic mythology. Classy, very academic of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scowl your response is a clear illustration of why philosophy of science ought to be obligatory! Most of my post was clearly beyond your intellectual capacity! Your post is not even worthy of a response!

Woe is us lesser mortals who tremble in your superior intellectual capacity. You know that capacity to <left click>, <highlight text>, <right click>, <copy>, <right click>, <paste>. Like freaking brain surgery.

Clearly there were some people that went through 'western' schools and only learned to regurgitate information (apparently they did a p*** poor job of that too)--And no, it isn't Scowl.

3 Guesses to who it could be!!! Step right up and win a prize, 3 guesses!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears a reminder is in order: when you use words that aren't your own you must provide a source quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I used hamzas words to illustrate the points clearly to learned of you....

However if you wish to bring it on I can easily present the same argumument in my own words.

So shall we dance?

So as said science and by the same token evolution dont provide certain knowledge. What is scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.

Using induction as a method can give percantages of certainty or truth but its always below 100%. Thus not certain knowledge!

I have discussed many issues in the past and always quoted a source, I tried to do so, but my phone was playing up, but thats still no excuse! So apologies if you felt I was trying to decieve, your assumption would be correct if I did not know what I was talking about or understand what I presented. As a cabby on a friday night I an little tied up for time, so it was easier to use hamzas words. But if you wanna test the substance of his words or my own, then bring it on! By the way I am graduate and im a cabby by choice because I own the business in my town with 30+ cabby working for me!

The points still stand whether in my own words or hamzas, so break em down address them and we can take it from there!

The blog may help you guys to in understanding hiw hidden metaphysical assumptions in scientific methodology dictate the bias in theories and interpretation of data!

A metaphor in relation to you is that of a donkey laden with books on ita back, it does not make it a scholar!

So regardless of hamzas or my words. The points made still stand! As you said it quite clear when its ny iwn words and when their not so lets dance Copa!

Edited by Lion6969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus my argument was and still is that philosophy of science ought to be taught because it stumps empiricists and atomists (which you profess to adhering to), who have hidden metaphysical assumptions which dictate your theories and bias intepretation if the data rather dogmatically! Hence proving the point that science today is dogmatic and the scientists are the clergy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I used hamzas words to illustrate the points clearly to learned of you....

However if you wish to bring it on I can easily present the same argumument in my own words.

So shall we dance?

So as said science and by the same token evolution dont provide certain knowledge. What is scientific fact does not mean its certain knowledge.

Using induction as a method can give percantages of certainty or truth but its always below 100%. Thus not certain knowledge!

I have discussed many issues in the past and always quoted a source, I tried to do so, but my phone was playing up, but thats still no excuse! So apologies if you felt I was trying to decieve, your assumption would be correct if I did not know what I was talking about or understand what I presented. As a cabby on a friday night I an little tied up for time, so it was easier to use hamzas words. But if you wanna test the substance of his words or my own, then bring it on! By the way I am graduate and im a cabby by choice because I own the business in my town with 30+ cabby working for me!

The points still stand whether in my own words or hamzas, so break em down address them and we can take it from there!

The blog may help you guys to in understanding hiw hidden metaphysical assumptions in scientific methodology dictate the bias in theories and interpretation of data!

A metaphor in relation to you is that of a donkey laden with books on ita back, it does not make it a scholar!

So regardless of hamzas or my words. The points made still stand!

So what are you trying to say here....I'm a donkey?

Got me there dude.

Convenient you were so rushed for time you just happened to slip and plagiarizer someone's work. "Ohhh, **** sorry guys my texting fingers have a mind of their own when they are browsing the internets on my smart phone. Damn"

I mean, NOT LIKE THAT"S NEVER HAPPENED WITH YOU BEFORE.... :clap:

About your only worthwhile quote that was on topic;

So I agree about the scientific method I also agree evolution on micro level is scientific fact (but there is a difference between scientific fact and certain knowledge, you won't understand this as your thinking is not broad enough to encompass philosophy of science)!

was that.

Looks like you didn't gradumuate and learn how evolution works. there is no "fact of micro evolution". Biological evolution is simply that allele frequencies change across time (generations). That is the fact of evolution. All evolution. Not "micro" or "macro", ALL EVOLUTION.

That is a fact of nature.

How those allele frequencies change is what theory explains; natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection etc.

When populations become isolated from similar populations, they become reproductively isolated. This is another fact of nature. Isolated populations undergoing changes in allele frequencies is biological evolution. When two formerly similar populations experience different changes in allele frequencies because of those theories above you have speciation. There are scientific theories which explain that too; allopatric, sympatric etc.

All of these theories are consistent, parsimonious, falsifiable, testable and useful (useful being they make predictions about our world and how it works).

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Pretty sure we've been over this before. If you haven't gotten it by now you either;

1. choose to remain ignorant about evolution

2. need to lay off insulting others intellects, because people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.....if you follow me here, but then again if you're as glass-house-bound as I seem to be implying here you probably aren't following me. In fact your mind has probably melted through your face right now just trying to keep up! Need I spell it out then? Course that wouldn't too sporting would it?

Lets not let that all slow you down though Lion. You were just going to argue about the topic at hand in your own words without copying others.

So here it is, I'll even help you setup the framework for your argument.

You want to argue that evolution occurs in scales ("micro", "macro", etc). Then you need to put forth a hypothesis that stops changes in allele frequencies over time, such that evolution is limited to "micro" processes (by the way, while your at it define "micro" processes of evolution).

Since you're the l33t-Sci3nZor philosophizer you ought to understand how that scientific process works (you know you hypothesizing and all, then supporting your ideas with some evidence).

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Plus my argument was and still is that philosophy of science ought to be taught because it stumps empiricists and atomists (which you profess to adhering to), who have hidden metaphysical assumptions which dictate your theories and bias intepretation if the data rather dogmatically! Hence proving the point that science today is dogmatic and the scientists are the clergy!

You keep using words and.....

I+do+not+think+it+means+what+you+think+it+means.jpg

I'm an "atomist" now am I?

Pneumoconiosis grandiloquent eccedentesiast catoptromancy...See what I did thar?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.