![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derHeart on September 6, 2005, at 11:05:52
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:40:06
>> Maybe the class could focus not so much on how to evaluate all the theories...but focus on what the theories ARE. Just to inform and educate. Later on, the kids could learn how to evaluate as they get better at interpretation, and take more science and philosophy classes.
That's what I wanted to describe in my post. My class was just like this. My teacher did a remarkable job of keeping his personal views out of it. To this day I have no memory of them, or of him or any other high school teacher stepping outside boundaries there. Guess I could have forgotten, true, but remembering what I do about him/them, teaching styles, the overall "tone" of my school, etc., I think they were dedicated to getting the information out there because ..... I do recall vaguely (I AM getting old...)a lot of unanswered questions.
Like when a student dug down deeper and ultimately wanted to know, "well, what's true then?", or "What's the right answer, Mr.B.?" teachers would just smile, shrug and say, "Those are hard questions, aren't they? People take lifetimes thinking about them."
It seemed to work. I'd hate to think because something is hard and touchy, we can never even attempt it. Maybe better to give it every effort, then closely monitor those entrusted with the teaching...? I know I'm making it sound a LOT simpler than it is...don't envy schools at all. I'd imagine parents would do the monitoring for the school, in many cases, and you'd hear within hours when personal agendas of ANY type might be emerging....:-)
Posted by kid47 on September 6, 2005, at 12:56:23
In reply to Intelligent Design, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 0:14:46
> I'm not in favor of religion being taught in a science classroom per se, but I think the concept of intelligent design should be taught along with Darwinism.<
I think it is a pretty dicey premise to teach "intelligent design", in public schools, as a pure science. Maybe in a social science or history class...but even then I gotta believe our forefathers understood from experience how important a seperation of church and state is.
> SCIENCE is something that can be observed. Since neither creationism nor evolution can be observed, neither is science.<
That might really disappoint a whole bunch of paleontologists.
Peace
kid
Posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:24:36
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 1:53:47
Alex, I'm not a biologist by any means. It would take me some time to go through your post and respond to different things, which I would be glad to do. I guess my point is this: I don't think teachers should "teach" creationism, because you're right, that's a religion/philosphy topic. I just think that there should be mention of the fact that MANY people do not ascribe to Evolution, and that there is an Intelligent Design theory out there along with the Evolutionary theory.
I don't know how it is in other states or countries, but if a bio teacher here in CA were to merely mention the intelligent design theory here in CA, they would lose their job. Their instructions are to teach Evolution ONLY, and teach it as FACT. NO ROOM FOR OTHER POSSIBILITIES.
It seems to me that there is a tremendous fear behind a decree like that.
I know you don't think creationism is as viable like Evolutionism. I disagree. You might find it interesting to read literature written by a Creationist scientist (they do exist! more than you think).
I'd be happy to address other aspects of your post, but my lunch break is almost over. ;-)
Posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 8:30:59
> As a Catholic, I know that teaching evolution is in perfect step with the church. Just want to clear up any misconceptions out there about Catholocism and Creationism. I believe Catholics view Genesis as an ancient morality tale.>
My conservative Catholic friends would disagree with you. Would it depend on how devoted of a Catholic you are? What does the Pope say? I believe he takes the Bible literally, and wouldn't that be the "official" stance of the Catholic church? Wouldn't devoted Catholics follow what the Pope says?
I'm not Catholic, but I know there are lots of differences between Catholics in the many parts of the world.
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 14:41:58
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » Miss Honeychurch, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
> My conservative Catholic friends would disagree with you. Would it depend on how devoted of a Catholic you are? What does the Pope say? I believe he takes the Bible literally, and wouldn't that be the "official" stance of the Catholic church? Wouldn't devoted Catholics follow what the Pope says?
>
> I'm not Catholic, but I know there are lots of differences between Catholics in the many parts of the world.
>
>
My husband went through Catholic schools until college, and here's what he says: In biology class there was no mention of Creationism or Intelligent Design. Theology was confined to religion class. Evolutionary theory is not considered incompatible with the existence of God. Here's a link:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405245.htm
You might share it with your conservative Catholic friends.There shouldn't be disagreements among different Catholics. It's a top-down organization.
I.
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 15:11:38
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:24:36
I have a degree in biology (not that I ever used it). I currently live in California, and I'm glad that schools don't teach Creationism or Intelligent Design. If I thought otherwise, I'd send my kids to a school that thought the same way I do. That's what very religious people often do.
This is a political controversy, not a scientific one. The bedrock of science is to consider all explanations that fit the full range of evidence. Both Creationism and ID have been considered against that standard. Neither have met it. Evolution has. From a scientific point of view, no controversy or debate exists, any more than there is a debate that foul air causes Malaria. The current debate is now political. Politicians are (usually) not scientists. Politicians and scientists have very different rules concerning debates. What underlies this debate is a desire on the part of some politicians and the people they represent to change the rules about public education. The courts have ruled against a direct inclusion of theology in the classroom. In the political process, a controversy is necessary to a debate and to effecting a political change. That is what is at work here.
I.
Posted by 10derHeart on September 6, 2005, at 15:13:02
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » Miss Honeychurch, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
>> I believe he takes the Bible literally, and wouldn't that be the "official" stance of the Catholic church?
Apparently not *exactly*....it may depend on which part of the Bible we're talking about. Read on...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom1.htm
I like this website. Comes out of Canada...go figure!! Lovin’ my Canadian brothers and sisters more each day ;-) I like it because it’s an essay that lists sources at the end. Very important.
This thread is teaching me things – I like that. Mostly that few things – even those which we assumed/thought/were told were “black and white” –really are. There is a lot more gray area within certain faith groups than I was aware of, and I consider myself at least moderately educated about the basics of religion among my peers.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 16:11:11
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » Miss Honeychurch, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:27:47
I will check official Catholic teaching on this. As I said, I'm truly not 100% sure. Also, a lot of Catholics are not really well versed in the official church teachings, so I think beliefs are all over the place. Will get back to you!
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 16:12:47
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 14:41:58
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 16:43:32
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 6, 2005, at 8:30:59
To the best of my knowledge...
Most churches / organised religions are opposed to teaching creationism alongside evolutionary theory.They consider that it is teaching religion in the schools and they don't believe it is appropriate.
The 'intelligent design hypothesis' was supposed to be creationism divorced from any particular religion. Divorced from a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Because the 'intelligent design hypothesis' is divorced from any particular religion they present it as a scientific hypothesis rather than a religious one. They argue that the intelligent design hypothesis should be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
But... Most people who believe in the intelligent design hypothesis are protestants...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 16:57:19
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:51:01
I think comparative religion is an interesting topic. What I mean by comparative religion is treating religion as history / anthropology. A study of what different groups of people believe.
That is an observational process. Observing and learning about what these people do in fact believe.
With respect to evaluating what these people believe (are their beliefs grounded, are they true beliefs, should they believe those things)...
That is a topic in epistemology (study of knowledge / truth) which is a part of philosophy, and more in particular... It is philosophy of religion.
And that is an interesting topic...
But to make all interesting topics compulsory in the high school curriculum is an impossible task... One has to give the students options... And one must always select what is going to be compulsory as opposed to optional.
>How about you, Alexandra? Did you learn about religion while growing up?
Yeah.
I started attending church as a teenager for a while.
Pentecostal variety...
I read the whole bible...
Mostly so I could say I had :-)> I think it's very hard to argue and compare a scientific theory to a religious theory because you keep bumping up against that belief.
Yeah. Thats what the intelligent design peoples deny, however. The intelligent design hypothesis is considered (by them) to be a scientific theory rather than a religious theory.
And in response to that I can only reiterate what I've already said. The intelligent design hypothesis is either false or unflasifiable or not appropriately construed as a scientific theory. I go with the latter. If they are determined to construe it as a scientific theory then I have to say it is either false or unflasifiable.
Also...
Before one posits an intelligent designer as an explanation...
Hadn't one better get to work in proving the existence of an intelligent designer?Are arguments for the existence of god supposed to be scientific arguments now too????
> I think many religious Creationist people are very scared to think that evolution might be "right", because then the bible might be "wrong" and then all the foundations of religion could weaken and crumble, and God could dissolve into the mist.Yeah. None of that follows, though.
Literalist interpretations of the Bible don't work out anyways.
Evolutionary theory isn't inconsistent with religion
It is inconsistent with a strictly literalist interpretation of the Bible, though.
But IMO the Bible is a spiritual text
Teaching spiritual truths
It isn't supposed to be construed literally.
It is just the literalists who are having a problem.
Because if the Bible utters literal truths about the world then it seems to be an alternative to science.
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 17:26:24
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » JenStar, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 16:57:19
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:34:15
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 14:24:36
> Alex, I'm not a biologist by any means. It would take me some time to go through your post and respond to different things, which I would be glad to do.
I'm not a biologist either... If philosophy doesn't work out for me then I think I am going to do biology though. I don't have a terribly good understanding of evolutionary theory... I have a better understanding of creationism... And what it takes to be a scientific theory...
> I just think that there should be mention of the fact that MANY people do not ascribe to Evolution, and that there is an Intelligent Design theory out there along with the Evolutionary theory.
But once again... Intelligent design theory is not a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.
Evolution by natural selection is accepted by the scientific community as the best theory we have to predict / explain our observations of the world. And scientists are in the business of getting out there in the world and making systematic recordings of their observations of the world. The intelligent design hypothesis is accepted by a bunch of religious peoples who insist on a literal interpretation of their spiritual texts despite the fact that construed literally... what they are saying is either false or unflasifyable. Which is to say... That it is either a BAD scientific theory, or it is not properly one at all.
Compare the intelligent design hypothesis vs creationism to a case in the history of science where there is a genuine case of competition between theories:
Heat was thought to be a fluid (phlogiston) that could neither be destroyed nor created. Phlogiston was thought to flow from one object to another (e.g., from a fire into the room or from an element into water in the pot).
Compare that to modern chemical-atomic theory (Dalton) where heat is the vibration of molecules.
So here we have two rival (competing) theories of heat.
The crucial observation is as follows:It was observed that rubbing two things together produced heat. If heat is a substance that flows from one object to another (e.g., from a fire into a room) then it is an anomalous observation that heat can come from two objects that were initially cool. The phlogiston theory rules out this phenomena from occuring and the occurance of the phenomena shows the phlogiston theory to be false (or at the very least to require some substantial revision).
This observation served to falsify the heat-fluid theory. There were other observations too... Something to do with negative weights and things being burned...
That is something that is important (crucial) in scientific theorising... A theory must predict certain phenomena... It must rule out the occurance of other phenomena... Thats what gives it its predictive power... And there is always the possibility of an observation (such as the production of heat by friction) to show the theory to be false.
But the intelligent design hypothesis is unflasifyable...
1) How would the world be if there was an intelligent designer? (Just as it is now)
2) How would the world be if there was not an intelligent designer? (Just as it is now)
3) What possible observations could confirm the existence of an intelligent designer (There aren't any)
4) What possible observations could falsify the existence of an intelligent designer (There aren't any)Some people start to wonder if the hypothesis is even meaningful at this point...
The intelligent design hypothesis requires us to accept into our ontology one more kind of thing than we had before
God exists!
And what explanatory advantage does this extra entity provide for us?
Because God willed it so.
> I don't know how it is in other states or countries, but if a bio teacher here in CA were to merely mention the intelligent design theory here in CA, they would lose their job. Their instructions are to teach Evolution ONLY, and teach it as FACT. NO ROOM FOR OTHER POSSIBILITIES.
If they want to teach other possibilities they could teach the brain in a vat hypothesis (a modern varient on descates evil genius) ... Thats a good rival contender to pit against the intelligent design hypothesis because the very point to it is that there is no evidence that could count for or against... But once again this is philosophy not biology. And you can't go making everything compulsory...
Evolutionary theory is accepted by the scientific community comperable to how
Modern atomic theory is accepted by the scientific community which is comperable to how
Relativity is accepted by the scientific community.Thats not to say that all the details have been worked out.. There is still a lot of work to be done.
But at least these research projects are up off the ground.
Whereas 'because god willed it so' doesn't make for a terribly long thesis, article, book, or research project.
They seem to want to replace scientific inquirey with faithReplace observations of the natural world
With study of their spiritual texts
>You might find it interesting to read literature written by a Creationist scientist (they do exist! more than you think).Have done. Most creationist arguments rely on a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theorising (especially regarding falsifiability). They also make much of the fact that the scientific explanations are still incomplete (the evolutionary theorists can't tell us how every characteristic evolved as yet - but the intelligent design hypothesis can - because god willed it so!). They make use of most every formal fallacy in the book (the 'only game in town fallacy' - you can explain everything by saying 'god willed it so' and evolutionary theory doesn't have much to say about some characterisics at present). They are most persuasive due to their use of rhetoric.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:37:35
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » messadivoce, posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 15:11:38
yeah its politics
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:44:37
In reply to Re: Are male nipples intelligent design? ; ) (nm), posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 17:26:24
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 18:31:54
In reply to Re: i'm sure yours are lovely ;-) (nm) » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:44:37
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 18:54:07
In reply to Re: But not very intelligent, I'm afraid. : ( (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 18:31:54
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 19:35:12
In reply to Re: maybe god found them aesthetically pleasing (nm) » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 18:54:07
>So, the question must be asked: Should we teach ID in our biology classrooms even though ID is not a viable alternative to natural selection? The answer is "yes, if we teach ID properly." The answer is "no" if we are asked to teach ID as a viable scientific theory worth spending precious classroom time on. To teach ID properly would be to demonstrate to the students that nothing of scientific interest follows after one posits an external agent to explain something. To say the eye was designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of theory that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue. A good biology teacher ought to be able to explain why ID, even if true, is of little scientific interest in about 15 or 20 minutes. That should leave plenty of time for them to instruct their students in science.
From:
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
The link goes into a lot of detail...
It also has a commentary on the current state of legislation (in the US) near the end...I was very suprised at the poll results...
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 20:40:34
In reply to Re: link, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 19:35:12
I really enjoyed that link to the Skeptic's Dictionary. Thanks for posting it.
I.
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 20:51:12
In reply to Re: maybe god found them aesthetically pleasing (nm) » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 18:54:07
Posted by rainbowbrite on September 6, 2005, at 21:09:05
In reply to Re: Is god lactose intolerant? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 20:51:12
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 21:13:16
In reply to what? huh? lol (nm) » Toph, posted by rainbowbrite on September 6, 2005, at 21:09:05
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 21:19:11
In reply to Re: Is god lactose intolerant? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 20:51:12
Posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 23:17:37
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » messadivoce, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:34:15
<But once again... Intelligent design theory is not a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.>
Alex, you and I are not going to agree on this. I believe that it is...I just wish I could recall all the evidence I've read on this subject. I hope that someday I will be able to put my facts in order better. That may be something for me to work on and read up on.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that everything from the human body to penguins to platypuses (sp?) just happened, randomly and without a Designer. I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in a Creator. Either theory takes a tremendous amount of faith.
Not to say I don't believe God couldn't use evolution if he wanted to...
Putting all evidence aside, from either theory, I just find it really hard to believe that everything that exists in earth was a random series of events. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a beautiful designed sculpture or painting was made by someone. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that our fabulous bodies were created by someone? I don't understand why that's not a viable alternative.
If scientists are looking for God's literal "fingerprints" then they aren't there. If they are trying to "prove" the existance of God, they can't.
But if they try to prove the lack of a God, they can't to it either. So they have to have faith that no God exists.
It takes faith either way, Evolutionist or Creationist.
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 23:46:34
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 23:17:37
> It takes a lot of faith to believe that everything from the human body to penguins to platypuses (sp?) just happened, randomly and without a Designer. I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in a Creator. Either theory takes a tremendous amount of faith.
>
I don't think so. It takes faith to believe the words of the Bible are infallible, but scientists develop theories based on observable facts. They state their observations/experiments in a way that can be replicated by someone else. If no one else gets the same result, or if the results are widely varying, then their positions are weakened. Scientists use observations to develop theories. The definition of "theory" is different when used in science. It means an explanation of observations that makes predictions.One of the most difficult parts of evolutionary theory is getting a grip on the *vast* spans of time involved. Most people can imagine a century, and a thousand years is 10 centuries, 10,000 years is 100 centuries, 100,000 years is 1,000 centuries... after a while your imagination fails you.
> Not to say I don't believe God couldn't use evolution if he wanted to...
>
That's the position of Catholics.> Putting all evidence aside, from either theory, I just find it really hard to believe that everything that exists in earth was a random series of events. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a beautiful designed sculpture or painting was made by someone. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that our fabulous bodies were created by someone? I don't understand why that's not a viable alternative.
>
It's outside the realm of science because all the answers are the same: God made it so. You can't predict anything from that; consequently, it's not science.Maybe your body is fabulous, but mine isn't. Look through some medical books for seriously unfabulous bodies.
> If scientists are looking for God's literal "fingerprints" then they aren't there. If they are trying to "prove" the existance of God, they can't.
>
> But if they try to prove the lack of a God, they can't to it either. So they have to have faith that no God exists.
>
I don't quite understand your point. Science and metaphysics are different. Many, if not most, scientists are believers of one stripe or another.> It takes faith either way, Evolutionist or Creationist.
>
I think they exist in separate spheres of inquiry.
>
>
I.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.