Anti-science/education nonsense
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2016, 10:57 AM
Anti-science/education nonsense
I'm currently engaged in a debate with a theist who would appear to have swallowed the lie that "science is a religion" and that evolutionary biology can therefore be given an equivalence with religion because "science relies on faith just like religion does". He also thinks that "....both creation science and evolution have evidence supporting them. What both lack is concrete proof which science is not going to be able to provide for either."

I've responded by asserting that, "creation science" is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

I've also asked him to provide examples where "creation science" has evidence supporting it, that those examples should have been arrived at using the scentific method to support the evidence and conclusions that are arrived at.

I'll be interested to see what he comes up with................if anything. It'll also be fun to find out if he even understands the concept of a "scientific theory".

Interestingly he thinks that neither creation science or evolution should be taught as "neither have any real use in preparing students for their careers which as I understand it is the purpose of education." I have not yet asked him to justify this but I think that it is an appallingly regressive view of education. The irony that this guy is using the internet to broadcast his views is obviously lost on him.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
04-05-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
I think you're wasting your time. Most likely you will gain nothing from "discussion" with such specimen and he too won't be enlightened. It's your time though so I hope it will at least be fun for you.

About education - view held by him isn't exactly unpopular in my experience. Knowledge about history, literature, art is thought as useless by quite a few people that I've met and/or talked to in forums.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
04-05-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
I've heard that view (that education should be used only to prepare someone for a career) many times before and I simply disagree with it. Education should prepare someone for life, not just a career. But even aside from that I disagree with his point that neither view should be taught since they aren't helpful for career purposes, as I think they very much can be (I'm sure most people here are well aware of that fact). As someone who was taught the basics of creation science throughout my pre-university education, I know how much of an impact that subject can have depending on what field you plan to pursue a career in.

I'm really interested in seeing how this debate is going to play out. Keep us updated if you can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes debna27's post
04-05-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
(04-05-2016 10:57 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I'm currently engaged in a debate with a theist who would appear to have swallowed the lie that "science is a religion" and that evolutionary biology can therefore be given an equivalence with religion because "science relies on faith just like religion does". He also thinks that "....both creation science and evolution have evidence supporting them. What both lack is concrete proof which science is not going to be able to provide for either."

I've responded by asserting that, "creation science" is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

I've also asked him to provide examples where "creation science" has evidence supporting it, that those examples should have been arrived at using the scentific method to support the evidence and conclusions that are arrived at.

I'll be interested to see what he comes up with................if anything. It'll also be fun to find out if he even understands the concept of a "scientific theory".

Interestingly he thinks that neither creation science or evolution should be taught as "neither have any real use in preparing students for their careers which as I understand it is the purpose of education." I have not yet asked him to justify this but I think that it is an appallingly regressive view of education. The irony that this guy is using the internet to broadcast his views is obviously lost on him.

Science is the systematic application of reason in the study of nature. Reason is compatible only with the primacy of existence metaphysics. Faith on the other hand assumes the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. Therefore science as a method employing reason does not require nor is it compatible with faith.

And if science requires faith and this person thinks that science is wrong about evolution then clearly faith is not a reliable means of knowledge. It never ceases to amaze me that theists don't see this contradiction.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
04-05-2016, 03:25 PM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
(04-05-2016 10:57 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Interestingly he thinks that neither creation science or evolution should be taught as "neither have any real use in preparing students for their careers which as I understand it is the purpose of education."

Evoltion is the paradigm by which we understand the biological sciences. Failure to teach that at a high-school level excludes you from any career in biology, medicine, enviroment, etc. and makes any career in any of the sciences much more difficult since most universities have Biology 101 as a prereq for all science majors.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
05-05-2016, 02:03 AM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
Well................I asked the guy to provide evidence and guess what his response was?

"Peer reviewed research this is what gets me most with the atheists. Whom determines what is suitable for review? Are non evolutionary view points whether creationist or not allowed? Not that I have managed to find. You have to ask who gets to determine who can even be admitted for peer review."

"The amount of bias against non evolutionary viewpoints is incredibly great and smacks of both desperation and elitism."

"The following quote from William Provine from Cornell University and an evolutionist makes an excellent point I believe"

Quote:"'And I have a suggestion for evolutionists include discussion of supernatural origins in your classes and promote discussion of them in public and other schools. Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science classes. The exclusionism you promote is painfully self serving and smacks of elitism.""

So, in other words he doesn't have an iota of evidence and so resorts to special pleading.

My response was - "So you stated you have evidence. Yet you now have a problem with the standards of proof required. You see as explained earlier, science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks and balances and safeguards against human bias and error. Peer review is an essential component of that process as it provides a corrective mechanism that weeds out false claims. This process is applied to every field of science whether it's geology or chemistry or physics or medicine or biology or aerodynamics. You see why this is important don't you............because if the evidence and conclusions reached are incorrect or fraudulent or in any way false, that could have serious consequences. So tell me...........why should that burden of proof be any lower for your evidence? You said you had evidence. Provide it."

The quotation from William Provine is an interesting one. Provine was an American historian of science and of evolutionary biology and population genetics. He was a philosopher, atheist, and critic of intelligent design. So why would he say this? I tracked this quotation down to an article by Henry Morris on the Institute for Creation Research website entitled, "What are they afraid of?" which uses the quotation and provides its source. It turns out that it is from 1993 when Provine reviewed a Creationist book for the Journal "Biology & Philosophy". In the review Provine provides some background to his own teaching methods and relates that he teaches an evolution course for non-majors in biology at Cornell University and how he begins the course by advocating Creationism before gradually moving on to the theistic evolutionary view of the contemporaries of Darwin then finally a modern evolutionary perspective. It is in this context that Provine provides the quotation and as usual it has been taken out of context by a Creationist to imply support for a viewpoint that Provine certainly did not share.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Silly Deity's post
05-05-2016, 03:55 AM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
You're quite correct to say that your theist opponent has not only taken this quotation out of context, but has also misinterpreted its intended implication:

And I have a suggestion for evolutionists. Include discussion of supernatural origins in your classes, and promote discussion of them in public and other schools. Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science classes. The exclusionism you promote is painfully self-serving and smacks of elitism. Why are you afraid of confronting the supernatural creationism believed by the majority of persons in the USA and perhaps worldwide?

It's perfectly natural to discuss creationism in a biology classes, but simply to better illustrate just how illogical and unevidenced ID is—as versus evolutionary theory. Provine wanted ID discussed in order to reinforce the logic of evolutionism, whereas your opponent mistakes this as tacit support for ID, and uses it to further support his implied argument that each position has equal validity.

Due to the age of this quote, the "majority" claim is superseded. In 2014 only 70.6% of the US population described themselves as "Christian", with 22.8% describing themselves as "unaffiliated" (no religion, agnostic, atheist). In a 2010 survey, Protestants (67%), black Protestants (56%), Catholics (71%), and the religiously unaffiliated (62%) all agreed that religion was losing influence on American life. US weekly church attendances vary considerably from state to state. The 2014 figures range from a maximum of 51% in Utah to only 17% in Vermont.

Your opponent also asks "whom [sic] determines what is suitable for review? Are non evolutionary view points whether creationist or not allowed? You have to ask who gets to determine who can even be admitted for peer review." This is nonsensical, and illustrates that he doesn't even understand what peer reviews are. Why instead doesn't he cite a few of his peers' reviews in order to prove his point, rather than claiming that atheists are suppressing them—which we're not.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
05-05-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
Quote:"Peer reviewed research this is what gets me most with the atheists.

You mean scientists. Atheists generally don't bother with the whole peer-review process.

Quote: Whom determines what is suitable for review?

Editors. If I submit a paper on geochronology to Cell Biology the editor will bounce it. Submit your paper to an appropriate journal and you'll have no problem.

Quote:Are non evolutionary view points whether creationist or not allowed?

As long as they are the correct topic for the journal.

Quote:Not that I have managed to find.

Took me 60 seconds on Google: http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-221

Quote:"The amount of bias against non evolutionary viewpoints is incredibly great and smacks of both desperation and elitism."

Wah-wah, my religion isn't science so I can't publish as science. Poor oppressed little christian.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
05-05-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
Whenever someone says that sceince is faith based I tell them that the truth is not something that scientists just make up and then go out to try and prove, it's about discovery and then testing. Darwin discovered evolution through observation, he was very smart but he didn't have a full knowledge of the fossil record or DNA so he knew there were holes in his hypothesis but at this point we have been able to do a very good job of filling in those holes and even discovered more reasons to believe evolution is a fact of life, not an idea that scientists love because they hate God.

Also the biggest difference is scientists will admit when they are wrong, creationists can't. That would mean dismissing their holy doctrine. If we are to teach creationism we should teach every creation myth ever produced.

I learned about an African myth about the first man and woman who could not have children. The woman had magical abilities and would make children out of dough while her husband was out hunting and baked them in an oven, they would sometimes be under-baked or over-baked and that is why we have the different races. She imbued her children with a soul, emotions, intellect, etc. and raised them with love and they eventually spread across the world.

I wish I could remember more and her name of course but should we teach this story as well? It's just as valid a theory for diversity of life as "God did it!" The reason is because there is no evidence, observed or otherwise that enforces this idea of the mother of all humanity baking us into existence or of a sky wizard doing it either. I'd rather believe we evolved slowly, adapted to our surroundings, natural selection took place and now we have different races and species. It makes more sense and we have proof.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SitaSky's post
06-05-2016, 09:25 AM
RE: Anti-science/education nonsense
Surprise! Surprise!

No answers from my Creationist friend.

He's probably gone off to troll elsewhere.Drinking Beverage

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: