Take THAT religious nutters!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Since you have extensive knowledge and experience with 3, what exactly does the textbook lack?

Read the article. It explains exactly what it lacks.

Why are we around 60 posts and people still have to tell Ben to read the article?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Where does the article say that?

I've read it three times to try to figure out where you are getting it from. All it says is that the University is rejecting this textbook, and refusing to give credit.

[Blaupanzer]

In fact, UC does accredit first based on test results. If you pass the test with a high enough score, then you can get college credit for your knowledge. In that case, the question of textbooks, specific schools, or the mention of God don't even come up. The problem for the creationists often is the 6,000-year-old-earth THEORY seriously distorts the teachings of most hard and life sciences.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


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.

There is no observational evidence of the Higgs, yet it is the lynchpin of many many theories.

I agree that there isn't any scientifiic reason to beleive that God exists. (as science deals with mathematics and observation)

But there isn't any scientific reason to beleive He doesn't exist either.

Therefore, just like the Higgs, currently the theory of God is in agreement with theory. While an observation of the Higgs should take place in the next year, I can't think of anything that would provide an observation of God (That was purely dependent on scientists).

The lack of falsibility is why scientists (who are honest) don't investigate the question of God's existence. Not because His existence would be against science.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

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

I agree with you. It isn't science. Neither for that matter is atheism. Are atheists willing to have all atheist philosophy pulled from every 'scientific' textbook?

Just because a science textbook contains philosophy is not a justification for the removal of philosophy from the textbook, nor is it for that matter an indication that the science within the textbook is false.

This is why science is really irrelevant to this argument. It's a philosophical clash between the university and the high school, and the university wants to prevail before it will give credit to any course which teaches a philosophy contrary to theirs.

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.

It's not just science though. The article explicitly mentions history as well. This isn't an argument about science, but a conflict over politics and philosophy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
The problem for the creationists often is the 6,000-year-old-earth THEORY seriously distorts the teachings of most hard and life sciences.

It is not a theory. A theory must have a testable hypothesis.

[rah]

Ben, you're hopeless, please learn to read before answering.

The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

These books were not on the approved list and were rejected when submitted. Meaning the were not acredited in the first place. Hence they were never stripped of anything.

[Whaleboy]

There is no observational evidence of the Higgs, yet it is the lynchpin of many many theories.

Very good point. Would you agree that those theories would fall down if the Higgs hypothesis were to be disproved? By a similar token, if those theories function according to observational evidence, does that provide empirical evidence for the Higgs' existence?

I like to think of it as sailors using the geocentric model to aid in navigation. Fit for purpose but you wouldn't want to navigate through space on the same principle.

But there isn't any scientific reason to beleive He doesn't exist either.

If in that respect you are correct then that may form a good basis for being a Christian scientist... or at least, makes the fence a little more comfortable to sit on. We'll agree to disagree there because I think once you leave the scientific method and go into spirituality (two mutually independent realms imo) you're heading into an area where I can't follow.

[Whaleboy]

The lack of falsibility is why scientists (who are honest) don't investigate the question of God's existence. Not because His existence would be against science.

100% agree. It's non-science which I don't mean in a perjorative sense because you make no scientific pretensions with your belief. Others do (hence creationism) which is where the problem occurs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

OK, i think this is all the proof I need that Ben is beyond hope and completely deluded when it comes to this issue.

[Arrian]

I agree with you. It isn't science. Neither for that matter is atheism. Are atheists willing to have all atheist philosophy pulled from every 'scientific' textbook?

[Blaupanzer]

God's existence is irrelevant to a discussion of a given student's knowledge of scientific method and theory.

Science cannot and does not try to prove God exists or does not. A) Scientific method, depending on repeatable proof, establishes that supernatural intervention is an unnecessary postulate. B) Whether or not the analytical conclusions based on scientific methods called scientific theories postulate such intervention depends on the proofs presented. Since A does not permit such proofs, B can't possibly include them.

Intelligent Design is a philosophical presentation based on no evidence at all. It attacks perceived weaknesses in an actual scientific theory. It offers no alternative analysis based on the same or different proofs. ID is simply an attack, which cannot even be effectively taught or presented without teaching evolutionary theory first.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

So atheism is anti-science? I reject that interpretation. Philosophy is not 'anti-science', in fact science is based in the philosophy that we can derive true knowledge about the world by empirical means. It's impossible to teach science without also teaching some philosophy.

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.

The scientific method is philosophy Whaleboy. It makes the prima facie assumption that we can derive true knowledge of the world through empirical means. It attempts to define true science through the use of observations, and sets up a process for science. It isn't a scientific principle in and of itself, not the way that Newton's 3 Laws are, or Mendel's principles of heredity.

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).

God can't be empirical though. You can't control the experiment. He does exist, but you can't prove he exists using the scientific method.

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.

Agreed, but it is trial and error. Scientific breeding would mean that you could select an animal of a specific height and weight. We are moving towards that now, but animal husbandry isn't an exact science.

However, if I want to explain the physiology of a Great Dane, it's easy - there is plenty of evidence for humans breeding dogs.

Variation!=Evolution.

True, we know what a dane looks like, but we haven't been able to breed say a Mawg like John Candy.

There is zero evidence for God directing evolution so I return to the original point, it is non and anti-science.

There is zero evidence for evolution as the fable tells us of humans evolving over time from the muck.

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.

I could jump 40 feet in the air. It would be easy. Do you really want to go there?

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

Fair enough. My issue is the lack of observational evidence for the current fable of evolution. In my eyes, the two theories do compete, because evolution hasn't stepped up to the table.

Sure we can. We can predict that if an animal moves into a colder environment, it'll develop a thicker coat.

So is growing a beard evidence of evolution?

We can't model it precisely because of the complexity involved but complexity =| random and, before you say it, complexity =| design.

Just because a system is complex doesn't indicate that predictions cannot be made. That's a cop out.

Come again?

Science only applies to the empirical realm. It cannot be used to settle philosophical disputes, or theological disputes.

[Ben Kenobi]

If in that respect you are correct then that may form a good basis for being a Christian scientist... or at least, makes the fence a little more comfortable to sit on. We'll agree to disagree there because I think once you leave the scientific method and go into spirituality (two mutually independent realms imo) you're heading into an area where I can't follow.

This actually turned into a good discussion.

Well said Whaleboy.

[Whaleboy]

So atheism is anti-science? I reject that interpretation. Philosophy is not 'anti-science', in fact science is based in the philosophy that we can derive true knowledge about the world by empirical means. It's impossible to teach science without also teaching some philosophy.

I fail to see what this has to do with my original point:
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.

The scientific method is philosophy Whaleboy. It makes the prima facie assumption that we can derive true knowledge of the world through empirical means. It attempts to define true science through the use of observations, and sets up a process for science. It isn't a scientific principle in and of itself, not the way that Newton's 3 Laws are, or Mendel's principles of heredity.

Again, your point being... what exactly? Where did this mention of "philosophy" come from? Do you mean to say that teaching evolution (a principle that supports atheism) is tantamount to promoting one view over another, equally valid view? That's ridiculous.

Being taught evolution is not tantamount to having atheism thrust on believers (which imo is a fear at the root of much theistic polemic these days). God should stay out of the science class just as the bible is completely devoid of science.

God can't be empirical though. You can't control the experiment. He does exist, but you can't prove he exists using the scientific method.

Does not compute.

Variation!=Evolution.

Read the sodding thread!!! I hate to quote myself but:

Evolution requires...
- Heredity
- Selection
- Variation.

Indeed once you have these three things, you MUST have evolution.

Fair enough. My issue is the lack of observational evidence for the current fable of evolution. In my eyes, the two theories do compete, because evolution hasn't stepped up to the table.

The lack of evidence? Whatever you're smoking tonight pass it over!

So is growing a beard evidence of evolution?

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry! What does growing a beard have to do with a population of animals evolving a thicker coat in a colder climate?

Just because a system is complex doesn't indicate that predictions cannot be made. That's a cop out.

Indeed it would be if I actually said it.

Science only applies to the empirical realm. It cannot be used to settle philosophical disputes, or theological disputes.

By bringing in philosophical disputes you're opening a can of worms and creating a mess. I've no desire to clean up after you. As for theological disputes, I do agree that people who want to argue that 1 is 3 and 3 is 1 are living somewhere very far removed from the real world.