Take THAT religious nutters!

[Ben Kenobi]

It's inconsistent with science because you have provided no evidence to support the proposition.

That's not enough. You are saying that this position is contrary to science. You are trying to prove that students who believe this are weak in their biology.

So the onus is on you to show which fundamental biological principle this contradicts. I can only think of one, that evolution is random, and as you've stated, that's not really a biological principle.

You would be better served by thinking not in terms of randomness, but in terms of variation.

Thanks. You might want to inform gepap, because his science is weak.

If evolution is not random, then what's the issue with God directed evolution, other then atheist philosophy which biases your perception? Going into a god of the gaps argument has jack-all to do with scientific principles.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Which principles do they fail to teach? The article mentions two things, neither of which has jack-**** to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

From the article:

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong,"

Are you even reading the article? This pretty much spits in the face of the Scientific Process.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think BK speaks of randomness in the same terms of "fully formed humans didn't just walk out of a primeval ooze". Randomness as you or I would understand exists as genetically determined variation which can respond to different selection pressures. That is a highly deterministic process.

Random in the sense, that we cannot predict how an organism will evolve over time, or precisely how an organism will adapt to a specific change in the environment.

Random also in the sense, that mutations are random. Many things have appeared to be random, radioactivity, planetary motions, brownian motion, etc, where upon closer scrutiny have been found to follow observable rules, which in turn have allowed us to derive fundamental principles as to how the world works.

The only real scientific laws in biology are those of genetics, and heredity, whereupon you can make accurate predictions based on your knowledge. I've done the experiments myself.

We are beginning to understand how mutations on specific genes are expressed, and beginning to understand how proteins work. Biology is still in it's infancy, like Chemistry prior to the periodic table.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


From the article:

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong,"

Are you even reading the article? This pretty much spits in the face of the Scientific Process.

It is fine in a religion class room. Which it is fine if they teach in highschool (private).

It isn't fine in the 'science textbook'. As Gepap noted.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you even reading the article? This pretty much spits in the face of the Scientific Process.

Actually, no it doesn't. If this were so, no one could be a scientist and a believer.

Science says that it can only apply to realms which are empirical. Whether the bible agrees or disagrees has no bearing on what science says.

This means two things.

1. Science cannot say that the bible is wrong about anything. It can say there is no empirical evidence for the teachings of the bible.

2. The bible can in fact say that science is wrong because science doesn't take into account spiritual realms, which cannot be tested empirically.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Actually, no it doesn't. If this were so, no one could be a scientist and a believer.

It does, and I do think that you can be a scientist and a beleiver. And I even think you can be a scientist and think that science is wrong about something (and the Bible is right). However, it isn't science that is being taught when you teach that if science and the Bible disagree, than science is wrong (it is the opposite of science).

Teaching such isn't teaching science.

Waht is being asked is if they have had a specific course teaching science. A class based on "Biology for Christian Schools" doesn't (from all evidence I have) teach science.

They can have as many non-science/etc books as they want in other classes. In the science class they need to teach science. That is it's purpose. Taht is why they are required to teach it.

JM

[Blaupanzer]

The actual ruling does NOT say the texts may be used if they struck any mention of God, Ben. It does say that scientific principles must be taught. (These include the provability regime. Sometimes called the "repeatability" proof. An experiment may be considered proved if the process, when repeated by another researcher, provides the same results. Divine intervention is notoriously difficult to repeat.) It also applies to the complaint at hand, which is the admission of high school graduates to UC.

Evolution, as posed by Darwin and taught in most schools, is about natural selection. That random changes will spread within a species if advantageous thru natural selection and die out if disadvantageous.

One extension of this theory has been the hypothesis that new species emerge fom the previous ones through a similar process. The creationists/intelligent design people object to that, contending that such crossovers have never been seen and that new species are a product of supernatural intervention. The creationists carry it farther, denying the basic tenets of most sciences (geology, archeology, astronomy, biology, physics, undsoweiter) by asserting that the universe and the earth are only ~ 6,000 years old. So, most of the evidence presented by geological and biological development are lies.

If a textbook teaches only the latter information as presented by the creationists, the student would be ill-prepared to take college-level science courses. UC's solution is to require remedial courses in science to catch such people up to the level of their peers. This is NOT discrimination, ruled the judge, but a reasonable solution to a major problem. Further appeals will determine the final status of that ruling.

[Ben Kenobi]

It isn't fine in the 'science textbook'. As Gepap noted.

Then both you and gepap need to brush up on your philosophy of science.

Science only concerns itself with the material realm because it can be tested empirically. The method cannot be used to assess the realm of things outside, which includes the bible.

[rah]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Up until now, the students have been receiving credit. I'd agree with you if the program had never been accredited, that it would be up to the school to do standardised testing in order to prove that their students understood the material necessary.

Since you've proved again that you can't read, I'm glad that you now agree with me since the program had never been accredited in the first place. I'll take a bow for you admiting you were wrong without even knowing it.

[Whaleboy]

That's not enough. You are saying that this position is contrary to science. You are trying to prove that students who believe this are weak in their biology.

Yes. I'm saying that teaching a position with no evidence behind it (on whatever basis, "teach the controversy" or however they market it) is not just non-science, it's anti-science.

I don't know about individual students or statistics showing their results. I've not been following the textbook strand of the argument because it's of no interest to me. I'm interested in a defence of the scientific method.

I can only think of one, that evolution is random, and as you've stated, that's not really a biological principle

Actually no. God-directed evolution is prima facie possible, given a hell of a lot of starting assumptions (many of which would render it impossible... the existence of god for one, his/her will + ability to do stuff, all of which would need to agree with observational evidence). Very much like how humans can direct the evolution of domestic animals. The principle of "that which survives, survives" doesn't require natural selection - artificial selection also works.

However, if I want to explain the physiology of a Great Dane, it's easy - there is plenty of evidence for humans breeding dogs. There is zero evidence for God directing evolution so I return to the original point, it is non and anti-science. It exists in the same realm as the human ability to jump forty feet into the air. Physically possible (if you agree with a whole bunch of crazy assumptions, many of which would render it impossible), but no evidence.

Thanks. You might want to inform gepap, because his science is weak.

From my understanding of GePap's views on the matter (as I actually try paying attention to what people say), the confusion was merely one of terms.

If evolution is not random, then what's the issue with God directed evolution, other then atheist philosophy which biases your perception?

My issue is a complete lack of observational and theoretical evidence, beyond your desire that it be true

Going into a god of the gaps argument has jack-all to do with scientific principles.

BS, for the aforementioned reasons.

Random in the sense, that we cannot predict how an organism will evolve over time, or precisely how an organism will adapt to a specific change in the environment.

Sure we can. We can predict that if an animal moves into a colder environment, it'll develop a thicker coat. We can't model it precisely because of the complexity involved but complexity =| random and, before you say it, complexity =| design.

The only real scientific laws in biology are those of genetics, and heredity, whereupon you can make accurate predictions based on your knowledge. I've done the experiments myself.

Evolution requires two of those things, plus one more...
- Heredity
- Selection
- Variation.

If this were so, no one could be a scientist and a believer

Do you not read?

2. The bible can in fact say that science is wrong because science doesn't take into account spiritual realms, which cannot be tested empirically.

Come again?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then both you and gepap need to brush up on your philosophy of science.

Science only concerns itself with the material realm because it can be tested empirically. The method cannot be used to assess the realm of things outside, which includes the bible.

Ben, you don't listen!

I am not talking about what is right, or correct, or whatever.

I am talking about what is science. And teaching such isn't teaching science.

The reason they are required to teach the course is to teach science. As I have repeatedly said, there is no problem if they choose to teach the other in non-science courses.

JM

[Whaleboy]

Reading through the rest of the thread - Ben what's up? We never agreed on this but back in the mists of time you always used to at least read what was being said.

[Jon Miller]

"the existence of god for one, his/her will + ability to do stuff, all of which would need to agree with observational evidence"

It does agree with observational evidence. There is no observational evidence that God can't act, or doesn't exist.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Reading through the rest of the thread - Ben what's up? We never agreed on this but back in the mists of time you always used to at least read what was being said.

I have noticed this also.

JM

[Whaleboy]

It does agree with observational evidence. There is no observational evidence that God can't act, or doesn't exist.

I'd take issue with the first point but methinks the burden of proof is on those who say that God can act and exist.