Teachers must explain theory of evolution

[Lion6969]

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.

Whether he uses Williams argunents or anothers the words are where the substance is, but its quite typical of you to use an argument from authority ie where are his acadamic credentials. This proves my point about being dogmatic regarding your clergy and science as a whole. When you cant deal with the substance you simply try and malign the messenger. Classy very classy but expected from you!

Christian theology and philosophy carry similiraties with islamic theology and philosophy its inevitable yet you seem to think of it as a negative, thats simply based on your hidden assumptions which dictate your dogmatic bias againts any theology which challenges your dogma and clergy.....your simply proving point yourself!

[Lion6969]

You keep using words and.....

I'm an "atomist" now am I?

You professed to be an atomist along with somone who adheres to empiricism. Im no good a digging past posts, this is what you said as you adhere to dead philophical world views

[Frank Merton]

Trying to teach philosophy of science is I think far too ambitious. I read the first chapter of almost any high school level textbook and am embarrassed by how simplistic and misleading it is. Still, I can see the authors doing the best they can within a limited space. The course is in physics or biology or chemistry or general science, not in philosophy, so they cannot get into all the debates about the nature of experiment, the limits of observation, the meaning of measurement accuracy, the need for repeatability and falsifiability and when exceptions are appropriate, and so on and on. There are also the issues of peer revue and scientific expertise and reputation. It goes on and on.

Instead, you get a nice little story about observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory. This is not a waste of time, and the vocabulary, if properly presented, can prevent some problems, but it does not prepare the student for a scientific career, nor even the ability to distinguish science and pseudo-science.

It is my opinion that creationism should be dealt with in one sentence: "This is a religious teaching outside the scope of this course."

[Lion6969]

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....

About your only worthwhile quote that was on topic;

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).

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).

This is a joke right? You use induction as a means ie observe changes are a micro level then make a logical general assumption ie the small changes accumulate over time to create massive changes ie change one specie into a whole other brand new specie. Yes its a logical extension and intepretation of the micro level obervations which you then assume based on some hidden metaphysical premise that one specie can change in to a whole new specie with time and accumlative effect of the smaller changes that occur. There is no empirical proof of the logical extention if your theory that you hold onto dogmatically!

However as you know the argument is not about this, the argument is whether evolution is certain knowledge and whether science provides certain knowledge. Did you not read the blog?

[Copasetic]

You professed to be an atomist along with somone who adheres to empiricism. Im no good a digging past posts, this is what you said as you adhere to dead philophical world views

.......Put.....pipe......down.......

[Copasetic]

This is a joke right? You use induction as a means ie observe changes are a micro level then make a logical general assumption ie the small changes accumulate over time to create massive changes ie change one specie into a whole other brand new specie. Yes its a logical extension and intepretation of the micro level obervations which you then assume based on some hidden metaphysical premise that one specie can change in to a whole new specie with time and accumlative effect of the smaller changes that occur. There is no empirical proof of the logical extention if your theory that you hold onto dogmatically!

However as you know the argument is not about this, the argument is whether evolution is certain knowledge and whether science provides certain knowledge. Did you not read the blog?

Stop being a scaredy cat. You are the one who claims there is "micro changes". I asked you define them. You are also the one who claim that these "micro" changes are a fact while "macro" changes are not.

I am assuming then, you think--as illustrated by your post above, that "macro" changes are "changes in species". I asked you to provide a hypotheses that supports this. Surely such a great philosopher of science, such as yourself understands how science works---no?

[Lion6969]

Stop being a scaredy cat. You are the one who claims there is "micro changes". I asked you define them. You are also the one who claim that these "micro" changes are a fact while "macro" changes are not.

I am assuming then, you think--as illustrated by your post above, that "macro" changes are "changes in species". I asked you to provide a hypotheses that supports this. Surely such a great philosopher of science, such as yourself understands how science works---no?

The argument here is not about the credibility of the theory itself as I said evolutiin at a micro level is observed ie allele frequencies etc simply species adapting. I mean even 11th century arab Muslim scholars had theorised this aspect of evolution. However your claim is that the logical extension of these observations ie that one specie can change into a whole new specie due to the accumulative affect of the changes at a molecular level over time is also fact, but its not it has no empirical basis nor observed.

The argument on this thread I posed was whether evolution or science provide certainty as you claim. Entertain me on this our science guru and I will use the philosophy

[Copasetic]

It is my opinion that creationism should be dealt with in one sentence: "This is a religious teaching outside the scope of this course."

Would that it were that easy Frank.

Unfortunately for here in the states (and apparently the Islamic fundies in the UK; example see Lion's posts above) that's not good enough. You see when creationism got its bum spanked by science it made like that last little piggy and went wee wee wee all the home, but it didn't stay at home. It ran crying to its friend, the fundie lawyer and thought to circumvent science by legislating its way into the classroom. It had to do this because a few creationists realized they were selling bull**** and it was never going to hold up under the lightest scientific scrutiny.

In fact some of these fundie lawyers even got together and started a club, called the discovery institute. One night while sitting around their conference table eating baby hearts and plotting to take over the world (we assume) they wrote down this little story called "the wedge" (cue scary fairytale music now). Well it turned out that one member of the club must have been p***ed about something and he leaked this "the wedge" out to the rest of the public. Alerting them to the fact that the DI was planning on putting lasers on sharks heads (sorry wrong story) on going around the country and trying to legislate creationism into classrooms.

Needless to say they have been caught, hands in cookie jars, numerous times: cdesign proponentsists

So that's where we're at now. The creationists, trying to get to the kids via legislation.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

The argument here is not about the credibility of the theory itself as I said evolutiin at a micro level is observed ie allele frequencies etc simply species adapting. I mean even 11th century arab Muslim scholars had theorised this aspect of evolution. However your claim is that the logical extension of these observations ie that one specie can change into a whole new specie due to the accumulative affect of the changes at a molecular level over time is also fact, but its not it has no empirical basis nor observed.

The argument on this thread I posed was whether evolution or science provide certainty as you claim. Entertain me on this our science guru and I will use the philosophy

First off, your not using anything unless you learn to type coherently. Second off you've yet to do what I asked you to do. You haven't defined this mysterious "micro" evolution you keep referring too, though made some alluding remarks to it being "adaption".

Surely you know that adaption in biology is traits favored by natural selection. I suppose, if we wanted to be more specific we would say they are alleles favored by natural selection. So no, that isn't your mysterious "micro".

Thirdly, where is this hypothesis that limits "evolutionary change"? You've yet to produce, not that I'm pinching my ass off in angst or anything.

Come on Lion, you can do better than this. I mean you are a philosophizer (by the way, it's just the cutest little thing how all you British Islamist claim to be philosophers, I mean you guys can't even get that title to stick on wikipedia: see your previously plagiarized hero). You're like the sad little punching bag on the end, missing half its stuffing right now. Hardly worth spending anymore time of my Friday night of change weekend on!

Edited March 2, 2013 by Copasetic

[Lion6969]

First off, your not using anything unless you learn to type coherently. Second off you've yet to do what I asked you to do. You haven't defined this mysterious "micro" evolution you keep referring too, though made some alluding remarks to it being "adaption".

See again proving the dogmatic nature of your belief in science and ridicule regarding my typing skills on a phone!

Again what is only observed in evolution theory are changes on a molecular level! These are the micro evolutionary observations. Whereby molecular changes take place in a specie adapting to an environment or other factors!

Surely you know that adaption in biology is traits favored by natural selection. I suppose, if we wanted to be more specific we would say they are alleles favored by natural selection. So no, that isn't your mysterious "micro".

Again this is not about micro or macro, I believe in the evolutionary aspects observed at a molecular level, what I dismiss is the logical extension derived from these observations that overtime with accumulative alleles, combined with other mechanisms can produce a whole new specie from another! This is not empirically proven nor observed!

Thirdly, where is this hypothesis that limits "evolutionary change"? You've yet to produce, not that I'm pinching my ass off in angst or anything.

Limits evolutionary change? Its you who hypothesise by means of induction that from the limited observations of molecular level changes can generate a whole new specie from another; whilst it has no scientific empirical or observed proof!

Come on Lion, you can do better than this. I mean you are a philosophizer (by the way, it's just the cutest little thing how all you British Islamist claim to be philosophers, I mean you guys can't even get that title to stick on wikipedia: see your previously plagiarized hero). You're like the sad little punching bag on the end, missing half its stuffing right now. Hardly worth spending anymore time of my Friday night of change weekend on!

Lmao! Thats quite funny! However the ridicule you display is a clear indication of how you wish to ignore the truth, you claim evolution is fact and certain, whilst your conclusions have been derived from an induction process which st best can only provide probabilities, but never certainty or fact! It maybe a bit beyond you what im inferring here, but simply put science and evolution at best through nesns of a induction embedded in its methodology can provide probabilities but never certainty or 100% fact!

You simply cant grasp this can you, hence why your desperately trying to create a micro macro debate, when the actual problem for you is that science and your beloved evolution at best provide probability but can never be certain. Just like the same methodology has a scope and limitations, hence what you call scientific fact are probabilities only, thus if evolution and science cannot provide certainty, to claim so is simply being dogmatic. Clearly you're struggling to understand this! Cause you believe everything your clergy dictates and methodology of scientism induces dogmatically as fact!

[Lion6969]

Lastly as my battery will die now

The inductive process in scientific methodology does not provide certain facts but probabilities only never 100% certainty

My whole argument is not debate evolution theory itself scientifically. Rather to you use an epistemic approach towards science and evolution combined with philosophy of science, which then puts your theory, methodology into perspective exposing its scope and limitations. All youve done so far is shown how dogmatic you are and the dogmatic nature of science today and its zealot followers ie you, who live by its dogma! Because of your dogma you make the classic error assuming that the theory itself is at debate when its clearly not, second mistake is that you assume that science is the only way to get knowledge or the only standard of knowledge, its only one of many with its scope and limitations exposed by applying epistemology!

Basically because of your dogma you think this standard of knowledge provides certainty when it all does due its scope, limitations inductive method is provide probabilities not facts!

You should have read the blog! Lol

Edited March 2, 2013 by Lion6969

[+Paranoid Android]

all does due its scope, limitations inductive method is provide probabilities not facts!

If the probabilities fit all known data, contradict none of it, and no plausible alternatives are presented, then for the sake of understanding, it's fair to say that it is as close to fact as we will ever get. Sure, some discovery down the track may throw all of it into chaos and require us to radically review all the material, but as we increase in knowledge that possibility grows slimmer and slimmer. And until such time as a hypothetical discovery does require us to radically change, I see no reason why we should not rely on science as a tool to explain how things on our planet work, how they got here and developed through the centuries and millennia.

Sorry to butt in, I just thought I'd add my thoughts

~ PA

Edited March 2, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Lion6969]

If the probabilities fit all known data, contradict none of it, and no plausible alternatives are presented, then for the sake of understanding, it's fair to say that it is as close to fact as we will ever get. Sure, some discovery down the track may throw all of it into chaos and require us to radically review all the material, but as we increase in knowledge that possibility grows slimmer and slimmer. And until such time as a hypothetical discovery does require us to radically change, I see no reason why we should not rely on science as a tool to explain how things on our planet work, how they got here and developed through the centuries and millennia.

Sorry to butt in, I just thought I'd add my thoughts

~ PA

Good post PA. What you state above is the definitions of a scientific fact. So when we say evolution theory is a scientific fact (the observed, tested snd empirically proven aspects) we are actually saying that the scientific method has provided us a probability of s high value towards the fact, but by its nature ie scope and limitations it can never provide a certain fact because the probability is always below 100% therefore its a scientific fact but not an objective certainty. Science is a standard of knowledge with limitations too what is scientific fact today can be low in probability the next day. So it can fluctuate and it never provides an objective truth or certainty!

So we can accept them as scientific fact closes probable truth for now, understanding this exposes one to the limitations of science providing objective truths. It allows one to understand the nature of science and therefore know that evolution is scientific fact but not an objective certainty. Therefore science is a tool to combine with other standards of knowledge to obtain an objective truth but cannot be depended alone solely as a standard to know or obtain the truth!

Hence why questions like "do we have a soul or does god exist"? Exist outside the realm of science thus other standards of knowledge can be used along with science as a tool to obtain such truths like gods existance etc

But if you solely rely on science which can only deal with the present and has the above limitations, then apply solely to the questions outside of its realm ie god, your are limiting yourself not only that but it would also be impractical and illogical to apply a standard which can never provide a certain fact but only probability then apply on something beyond its scope and limitations is very naive.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Lion6969

[Jinxdom]

All I get from all of this is that some people can't out the difference between science(The wonderful art of figuring things out) and a theory.

[eight bits]

Howdy, Copa, you old atomist you. Now with extra empricism.

It was kind of Lion to drop by and illustrate the Oklahoma game plan. Lots of talk about respectable things, philosophy of science, academic freedom, open discussion, ..., motherhood, apple pie. These are respectable things, when they refer to what most people refer to when they use them.

But the same words can be used to refer to other things. And what do you know? Ooga jooga, and "academic freedom" becomes indoctrinating students in Bronze Age superstition at taxpayer expense; oonka boonka, and "philosophy of science" becomes God of the gaps.

The honest names for these things won't get through the word filters here.

[Jinxdom]

Question now how exactly the evolution not a scientific fact, when the only debate is about species?

Since species is a categorization made by men with language, its definition gets obscured by people's personal prejudice.

If you watch people acting just following the same laws that apply to everything, ends up grouping up forming another name. A group of people can become a team, or a larger one can become a community. There is less argument against this because everybody agrees on the language. Putting words in to a line to form a sentence in sequential order to change something to something else. Words can become sentences and sentences can become words, which are just called definitions. Words can also have their definitions split, so now the words can have multiple meanings.

When do dots and lines form a symbol, a letter? When do letters become a whole word? When do those words form up a new language?

Same problem for species.

Lol 8; you had the answer to my questions long before I asked them. You are right they won't get through the word filter.