Creation vs. Evolution II

[Lon]

But your competing ‘theory’ is for a specific designer – Your conception of the Christian God. Since we are talking science, let’s keep science in focus. Can you suggest how to teach the science that has your preferred designer changing sticks to snakes, female bodies to pillars of salt, guys living for days inside of fish, etc… those Biblical accounts that make a mockery of biology and of the conservation laws of physics, and of thermodynamics?

Part of this, for me, is accurate description: Did dinosaurs 'evolve' themselves or is 'evolve' even the word we want to use here? I'd prefer, rather, when I'm learning science, to see 'Dinosaurs changed.' Creationists will see God as pre-programming or actively causing the adaptation. Evolutionists will simply look at mechanisms and what they suppose are mechanisms. I'm still looking for the smoking gun intermediate links, and the common ancestor fossils... (example, doesn't matter for this discussion). Discussion about 'what do this data mean?' would be a classroom science improvement rather than "Billions of years ago" or "Birds were once dinosaurs."
"Which dinosaurs? Which birds?" Giving the data and allowing students to draw their own conclusions is the better academic approach.

 

[6days]

Your advocacy of this "anything goes" approach to science reminds me of the time during the Dover trial when Michael Behe admitted on the stand that if we change the rules to allow ID creationism in, you also have to allow astrology.

Haha.....You are incapable of resisting your strawmen fallacy arguments.*

I didn't say anything goes. I said that the cirriculum has to be taught and teachers should have the freedom to discuss views related to the topic at hand.

(And.... I'm not sure, but I think Behe was advocating to have Intelligent Design taught in schools. Biblical creationists do NOT want teachers to be mandated into discussing anything, except the course materials).

That you creationists are willing to weaken science education that much just to get your religious beliefs in says a lot about you....and none of it good.*

Another strawman... Wow, you seem to really fear things could be discussed that are contrary to your beliefs.

I will repeat ..... teachers are responsible to teach the approved cirriculum. The teachers should be judged at least partially on how well their students know the material.*

Funny how the king of shouting "straw man"...

*Stop your fallacious arguments, then I won't need to point out how illogical you are.*

...keeps arguing against straw men, in this case the mistaken notion that if a student brings up something like a flat earth or creationism, teachers are prohibited from discussing them in any way.

Not entirely true. *No teacher in America would be afraid to discuss flat earth beliefs. It would be fun examining the 'Flat Earth Society' lead by Daniel Shelton, comparing their beliefs to evidence from science.

However, many... many teachers fear for their jobs in discussing evidence that contradicts various forms of evolutionism. Complaints from some teachers lead the state of Louisiana to make a law called the Academic Freedom Act. This law is meant to protect teachers from discrimination or job termination if they discuss material on controversial topics in the science classroom. Unfortunately most teachers do not have that protection

 

[Jose Fly]

Two plus two is four.

That you have to keep trying to analogize between math and God tells me a lot about the weakness of your position. If you could prove it on its own terms, you would.

I've made a bold assertion that is true: "If there is intelligence in the universe, it cannot have not been pre-existent.

Exactly. All you've done is assert it to be true and then expected me to just accept it as so.

I don't work that way.

Er, no. There is no point dodged.

Yes there is. I asked you what you mean by "creation" and you refused to say.

God is Spirit, YET He created the entire physical universe. That means He can touch you, speak to you and etc. in tangible ways. The Apostle Paul tells us that God touches us in real and tangible ways BUT He doesn't have hands like your and mine. We are finite creatures, thus I understand a desire to see, hear, and touch God. Paul says it is possible, but God is also logically tangible. He has healed. He has met needs. He does answer prayer of those who know Him.

So how did you know what you experienced was God? You didn't see God, you didn't touch God, you didn't hear God....so what exactly happened?

No, Jose. I did not dodge.

Yes you did. You implied that the reason I didn't encounter God was because I didn't wait long enough. So I asked if there was a time limit, and you have consistently dodged answering.

Er, this is a matter of differentiation. If a guy doesn't believe in apples, 'what kind of apple?' is secondary to the first.

Except we're not talking about apples.

Many of the things Christians tell me about God are directly contradictory to things other people tell me about God. If they're all merely bald assertions, why should I accept your assertions as true and not others'?

So, in fact, you shouldn't believe someone else 'over' me, but 'including' me in this instance.

Except much of what you say is contradictory to what others believe about God. Obviously someone has to be wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say anything goes. I said that the cirriculum has to be taught and teachers should have the freedom to discuss views related to the topic at hand.

And "views related to the topic at hand" are pretty much anything the teacher thinks applies. IOW, anything goes.

Not entirely true. *No teacher in America would be afraid to discuss flat earth beliefs. It would be fun examining the 'Flat Earth Society' lead by Daniel Shelton, comparing their beliefs to evidence from science.

What you don't seem to grasp is that class time is limited, and teachers typically have a lot to get through. So a teacher devoting chunks of valuable class time on geocentrism or creationist talking points is a waste of time.

Not only that, but you have consistently failed in one important aspect....you've not provided a single good reason to justify your call for teachers to be able to discuss "design". I've listed multiple reasons why they shouldn't, and you haven't refuted any of them.

However, many... many teachers fear for their jobs in discussing evidence that contradicts various forms of evolutionism.

Well yeah....because "evidence that contradicts evolutionism" is nothing more than the series of absurd creationist talking points and dishonestly mined quotes that you post here ad nauseum.

Complaints from some teachers lead the state of Louisiana to make a law called the Academic Freedom Act. This law is meant to protect teachers from discrimination or job termination if they discuss material on controversial topics in the science classroom. Unfortunately most teachers do not have that protection

Yeah, and all it did was open the door for creationism, exactly as the Discovery Institute (the authors of the bill) hoped.

 

[6days]

*What you don't seem to grasp is that class time is limited, and teachers typically have a lot to get through. So a teacher devoting chunks of valuable class time on geocentrism or creationist talking points is a waste of time.

Hooray!... We have agreement. And, you didn't even create a snowman.

This is how I had explained it..."I will repeat ..... teachers are responsible to teach the approved cirriculum. The teachers should be judged at least partially on how well their students know the material."

*

*
Not only that, but you have consistently failed in one important aspect....you've not provided a single good reason to justify your call for teachers to be able to discuss "design". I've listed multiple reasons why they shouldn't, and you haven't refuted any of them.

Why would 'design' bother you? It's a word used by atheists, biologists, cosmologists, Muslims, evolutionists etc describing the world around us. Are you wanting to censure textbooks that refer to design and fine tuning?

*Well yeah....because "evidence that contradicts evolutionism" is nothing more than the series of absurd creationist talking points and dishonestly mined quotes that you post here*ad nauseum.

I assume you know that isn't true. There is opposing views even amongst evolutionists. (Chemical, biological, stellar). *Students benefit when they are challenged to explore and compare competing ideas.

 

[Lon]

That you have to keep trying to analogize between math and God tells me a lot about the weakness of your position. If you could prove it on its own terms, you would.

Frankly it looks like a lame excuse on your part. You got bogged down in details. If it were me, I'd have kept asking questions along this line: "If there is a God, I really want to know and will keep asking." That guy isn't you, right?

 

[quip]

I think this is true, and maybe more so for you.

So, you agree that "god" is an abstraction wholly dependent upon believers such as yourself to give it meaning? (Which you go on to describe.)

It is similar to your other philosophizing as well in that only what 'matters to you' can matter or exist to you.

Sounds to me that your philosophizing is no different than mine...save the respective objects of each's desire.

 

[redfern]

Part of this, for me, is accurate description: Did dinosaurs 'evolve' themselves or is 'evolve' even the word we want to use here? I'd prefer, rather, when I'm learning science, to see 'Dinosaurs changed.' Creationists will see God as pre-programming or actively causing the adaptation. Evolutionists will simply look at mechanisms and what they suppose are mechanisms. I'm still looking for the smoking gun intermediate links, and the common ancestor fossils... (example, doesn't matter for this discussion). Discussion about 'what do this data mean?' would be a classroom science improvement rather than "Billions of years ago" or "Birds were once dinosaurs."
"Which dinosaurs? Which birds?" Giving the data and allowing students to draw their own conclusions is the better academic approach.

I don’t see much relevance of what you posted to what I said, so I will leave most of it without comment. Maybe others can see the connection that I missed.

I will comment on your final statement. Let me move what you said into a less academic setting.

I presume we can agree that the best thing for the students would be to maximize their “learning” during the time they are in school.

Now presume that in the course of a routine physical exam your doctor tells you that you have contracted a rare life-threatening malady. Surely you would want the best of the best treatment to save your life. But that is kinda what we want the students to have as well – the best of the best understanding of how to treat your illness. So, you have a choice. You can avail yourself of the services of an expert in your disease – a person who has spent decades (after grad school) studying, treating, understanding the disease, or you can follow the regimen you allude to – “the better academic approach” – by giving the data to a class of medical students and letting them engage in a spirited debate over how to save your life. If you opt for the experienced expert for your treatments, isn’t the expertise of that person what should be taught to the class?

Obviously this does not preclude the students from discussing the expert’s approach, but in fact students simply do not have the breadth of knowledge that comes only from years of hand-on experience in the field.

 

[redfern]

… Are you wanting to censure textbooks that refer to design and fine tuning?

I don’t mind design – nature has done a pretty satisfactory job of designing me (except for a few oopsies – like that stupid blind spot in my eye.).

Now fine tuning – I have several books on opposing sides of that argument written by scientists with decades of experience in physics. Presenting the pros and cons is fine, but in reality only the most advanced students will understand the intricacies enough to further the debate.

There is opposing views even amongst evolutionists. (Chemical, biological, stellar). Students benefit when they are challenged to explore and compare competing ideas.

But I am not aware of many of these competing ideas that have not long since been looked at and resolved to the satisfaction of all but a group of religiously motivated malcontents. You really think it helps students to present them one side that comes from the creationists, and the other side that mainstream science has long since accepted?

 

[redfern]

… No teacher in America would be afraid to discuss flat earth beliefs.

As a teacher, I wouldn’t be “afraid” of flat earth beliefs, but if I encountered a student that really held to those beliefs, I would ask that he (she) find another college, since they are hopelessly underqualified to attend where I am.

Complaints from some teachers lead the state of Louisiana to make a law called the Academic Freedom Act. This law is meant to protect teachers from discrimination or job termination if they discuss material on controversial topics in the science classroom.

Can you list for us the controversial topics that are mentioned specifically by name that are identified as needing the protection this act would afford?

 

[redfern]

If it were me, I'd have kept asking questions along this line: "If there is a God, I really want to know and will keep asking."

How about the lady that picked the wrong God (Pascal’s Wager) and wasted the last 60 years of her life waiting for her non-existent God to answer?

 

[redfern]

If there is intelligence in the universe, it cannot have not been pre-existent.

Why can’t intelligence be an emergent property of highly complex systems – systems that did not exist initially?

 

[Jonahdog]

Why can’t intelligence be an emergent property of highly complex systems – systems that did not exist initially?

Just because.

 

[MichaelCadry]

How about the lady that picked the wrong God (Pascal’s Wager) and wasted the last 60 years of her life waiting for her non-existent God to answer?

Dear redfern,

I've got to tell you that God answers my needs or questions every day. He's real, He's tangible, and He is so forgiving and loving. You don't know how deep His forgiving or loving is. I am blown away by His abilities. Just awesome!! I have a one-on-one relationship with the Lord God and I'm a incredibly blessed, lucky{?} guy. I have not touched Him, but I've heard Him, etc. His voice is like a commanding, booming, loud, helpful, loving voice. His voice is more powerful than an angel's voice. They are similar though. Someday you'll know I'm real and have had a lot of incredible experiences with the Lord and Jesus, and the angels since I was 18 years old. My life is forever. So I'm enjoying my time on Earth, but I also see a future life.

Michael

 

[redfern]

Dear redfern,

Dear redfern,

I've got to tell you that God answers my needs or questions every day. He's real, He's tangible, and …

Dear Michael,

Dear Michael,

Got any idea who this Pascal guy was that was wagering?

Got any idea who this Pascal guy was that was wagering?

Bye Michael,

Bye Michael

 

[6days]

I don’t mind design – nature has done a pretty satisfactory job of designing me

Yeah... not bad; but, did an awesome job on my wife!

We can explore your idea. We have that freedom here in TOL academy. Unfortunately, students in many public schools don't have that freedom.

(except for a few oopsies – like that stupid blind spot in my eye.).

Again... you have the academic freedom here to make your case. I will make the case that 'nature' can't create an information system and then design *a system some opthamologists have called optimal. And if I have the freedom, I would like to discuss statements from scientists who suggested the design of our eyes waa evidence against an intelligent Creator.

Now fine tuning – I have several books on opposing sides of that argument written by scientists with decades of experience in physics. Presenting the pros and cons is fine, but in reality only the most advanced students will understand the intricacies enough to further the debate.

So... its ok though to present the pros and cons gearing the conversation towards whatever level the students are at?

There is opposing views even amongst evolutionists. (Chemical, biological, stellar). Students benefit when they are challenged to explore and compare competing ideas.

But I am not aware of many of these competing ideas that have not long since been looked at and resolved to the satisfaction of all but a group of religiously motivated malcontents.

You seemed open for a few minutes there; I thought you might permit dissenting views to the majority. So in your classroom you would not allow discussions on things like the eye desig that you mentioned. Students are not allowed to challenge you?

 

[gcthomas]

I've made a bold assertion that is true: "If there is intelligence in the universe, it cannot have not been pre-existent. True, there are no new elements in the universe.

Intelligence isn't necessarily an element, but is a temporary arrangement of inert materials, as evidenced by the fact that if you physically or chemically rearrange the material of an intelligent organism then the intelligence fails. The only difference between an unintelligent brain and an intelligent one is one of degree of connectedness. Arrangements, in other words: intelligence isn't a component of the world, but an emergent property.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hooray!... We have agreement. And, you didn't even create a snowman.

This is how I had explained it..."I will repeat ..... teachers are responsible to teach the approved cirriculum. The teachers should be judged at least partially on how well their students know the material."

So once again the question becomes, do you have a short-term memory problem, or are you just plain dishonest?

Earlier when I posed the possibility that "teacher B wants to "discuss" the idea that the sun orbits a stationary earth, that's just fine too", you answered "Sure!"

So you have another contradiction. On one hand you say teachers should have the freedom to discuss anything related to a topic, including geocentrism, but later you agree that teachers shouldn't waste class time discussing geocentrism.

Why would 'design' bother you? It's a word used by atheists, biologists, cosmologists, Muslims, evolutionists etc describing the world around us. Are you wanting to censure textbooks that refer to design and fine tuning?

Sheesh, maybe it really is a short term memory problem. To reiterate...

It's already been proven that "design" is nothing more than a legal ploy to sneak creationist talking points into science classes.

No university requires incoming freshmen to be versed in "design", or anything like it.

No employers require new employees to have taken courses, or have an understanding of, "design".

Every scientific organization in the world that has weighed in on the subject has unequivocally stated that "design" is not only very wrong, but unscientific as well.​

I assume you know that isn't true. There is opposing views even amongst evolutionists.

Nope, you're wrong. There are no published papers or anything of the sort that make a case for "evidence against evolutionism".

 

[Jose Fly]

Frankly it looks like a lame excuse on your part.

No, it's an observation that your attempted argument for God by analogizing to math was lame.

If it were me, I'd have kept asking questions along this line: "If there is a God, I really want to know and will keep asking." That guy isn't you, right?

I asked a lot of questions. You dodged the majority of them.

 

[6days]

Sheesh, maybe it really is a short term memory problem.

Again... we agree.:yawn: