Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

Yay after reading this thread I find that gravity is only a theory and not a fact. As soon as I wake up I will be flying in first life and not on an airplane.

Thanks to whoever it was that explained how 99.999999% of us have been so delusional for so long.

Oh and by the way to whoever thinks that gravity is just a theory I suggest you stay away from them West Virginia hollers in the future. They make some mighty potent stuff up there.

The 'theory' is about why and how gravity works. Not whether it exists. Newton postulated an inverse square law proportional to mass. Mostly, this worked. Einstein's theory predicted light bending and explained the precession of Mercury, which does not move according to Newtonian motion.

Humans are complex, intelligent (mostly) and here. The theory of evolution is how we got here. ID does not improve or extend current scientific theory. It shouldn't be taught as contemporary to evolution. If it could be called science, it would be in the same category as phlogistron and the ether; i.e. historical anachronisms in the same vein as drinking radioactive materials makes you better...

Doc

At this point, we have no idea how life came to be on this Earth or how the Earth came to be. It's all a big guess. Why do evolutionists fear allowing all possible explainations to be explored by students?

Because dogma isn't science and it never will be I'm afraid.

The theory of Macroevolution is a dogma..

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

This is a false statement. There are books filled with information on the creation of the solar system and development of the Earth that are testable and well-grounded in science. You are employing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, where one uses the claim of ignorance as a justification for the existence of something fantastic.

The argument from ignorance is usually seen when individuals attempt to claim the existence of the supernatural. For instance, these are all the same logical fallacy:

1. We don't know how the cow died, therefore an alien spacecraft must have dissected it.
   
2. I felt a chill in the room, therefore a ghost passed by me.
   
3. No one knows how the Earth was formed (a false premise), therefore god exists.

Your ignorance is not sufficient to prove the existence of god.

~Ulrika~

Ok, fair point. I accept that Science can be dogmatic.

But religion (Hindu, Muslim, or Christian) should not get involved with scientific debate, they're discussions on mythology.

As had been said before if one view is included in the curriculum, the other three Creationist views will want to be aswell.

I cannot accept the Flat-Earth Creationist Society of California (aka the International Flat Earth Society.. as if they've left their cabins in the woods) adding their views to geography text books, or Geocentric Creationists saying that the Earth is the center of the universe. It's political correctness gone mad. Why should minority beliefs be taught outside their respective organisations no matter how strongly you believe them.

If you don't accept science as viable, don't go to a science lesson. Go to church instead.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people thinking the Earth is flat, as long as they don't try and say it's got ANY scientific evidence.

Opps, sweety,

you made a boo-boo. But I still love you...

Let's explain what "arguement from ignorance" really means.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is the assertion that if something is currently inexplicable to some people, then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been scientifically proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is an adage used to explain that one's own "ignorance" (or, one's "absence of evidence" does not disprove anything (or, "is not absence of evidence". In other words, mere personal belief, poor logic, or closed-mindedness masquerading as certainty is not logical.

This is similar to (but not the same as) the Argument from Personal Incredulity (also known as Argument from Personal Belief or Argument from Personal Conviction), where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true.

Please apply this to your own beliefs as well as others. TY

Correct. Gravity is an observed fact and Newton's inverse-square law and Einstein's general relativity are testable theories which explain it.

Oops. This is false. Evolution is an observed fact and Natural Selection and ID are competing theories, which explain this observed change in time of organisms (evolution). Natural selection (as well as sexual selection and selective breeding) have tomes in the fields of biology, chemistry, genetics, and evolutionary biology with testable and repeatable theory and data to support it. The theory of ID is an untestable and unrepeatable supernatural explanation, which exists only to hide the incongruity between 2000-year old religious dogma and modern understanding.

~Ulrika~

Plus, what works for Christianity must apply to other religions.

What would people think if Islamic views were included in science text books?

ID proponants don't discuss religion. They point to the fact life can't be explained(at this point, the origins of life is a complete mystery), and is far too complex to have appeared without design.

The idea of a creator isn't limited to Christians.

It's a shame students are denied access to certain information because some people can't imagine a creator is possible.

That information was taken selectively without a reference from the wikipedia entry on Argument from Ignorance. Unfortunately, the first two sentences defines the fallacy only in its negative form, however it can be used in the positive as well. A sentence lower on the page one finds:


In the sentence above, you'll see I was accusing you of the former, whereas you attempted to misrepresent the definition as being solely the latter.


I should add too that your original post also contains elements of wishful thinking and a dash of special pleading. I've included links.

This has been your official slapdown of the day.

~Ulrika~

This statement is known as special pleading and is often used to promote the adoption of pseudoscientific theories and mysticisms without critical analysis.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika darling, Are you not arguing God can't exist because God can't be scientifically proven?

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an argument from ignorance?

Kisses and hugs. Oh, btw, if you want to believe the last part of your post, please do.

I personally disagree with things being too complex to have evolved over millions of years. But you know that anyway



No indeed, many religions are based on a monotheistic belief, and many have versions of how the world came about.

Hindus believe Lord Vishnu gave birth to his servant (Brahma) by bringing forth a lotus flower from his Navel. Brahma was then told to create the world by his master.

Islamics believe that all living things were created from water. But they share similar views to Christianity about Adam and Eve. (Seeing as Christianity is a middle eastern religion anyway it's not hard to spot the similarities)

Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading... which sounds a lot like evolution to me.

The point I'm making, is that in a multicultural society, having one religious belief accepted as a scientific theory isn't fair on the others.

I could imagine science text-books getting pretty bogged down with it all.




I've never said 'God doesn't exist', because unless he tells me otherwise, in person, I'll remain neutral on the matter.

Why not offer students the right to explore the possibilty of a creator of creation?

It's clearly an issue of insecurity on the part of the dogmatic evolutionists in my humble opinion.

hehe

that's what Churches are for. I've got nothing against them

Churches are for worship and praise. Schools are for exploration and sharing ideas.

I can't say I've been to a church recently, but I did attend Sunday School for a bit (my grandmother was the organist). Surely that should be the place to learn about one's faith.

Holy shit, you're stupid!

~Ulrika~

ID theories are not about one's faith. It's about exploring all possibilities. ID proponants don't demand the dogma of macroevolution be removed from schools because they think all information should be avaliable to students.

It's the evolutionists who have become the book burners, sensoring what students can study in school.

Now this is truly a logical argument

Hehe I think we've gone full-circle here. Not much else I can say dude.

I'll leave it there. Thanks for the discussion.

All theories start with guesses, educated or otherwise. What makes it science is how you demonstrate your theory is right or wrong.

We have some pretty good models of how the earth came to be and astronomers can observe star formation to check their models. In addition, studying objects like the other planets, meteorites, comets, the moon, asteoids etc, we can test the theories about the formation of the solar system. Have you never heard of any of this?

There are also many theories about the origin of life on earth, from the famous primordial soup to seeding from meteorites. There are probably more, but i'm not up to speed on that. However, research is being conducted to test and refine these theories based on observable, repeatable experiments. For example, taking a mixture similar to the early earth atmosphere and adding electricity similar to lightening and producting amino acids. Other scientitsts are looking at meteorites for evidence of bacteria fossils (remember the excitement when they thought they found something?).

Be careful about mixing up biogenesis and evolution. As I understand it, Evolution explains how one species evolves into another. I'm not aware that evolutionary theory explains the origin of life on earth. Anyone correct me on this?

So, to your question.... Evolutionists do not fear exploring explanations of the origin of life. What you don't seem to be able to comprehend (based on how you always ignore what we're telling you over and over) is that the opposition is to creationism being taught as science when it is not. If you want to talk about creationism in schools, do it in the appropriate class, like a theology or maybe (depending on the theory) a philosophy class.

Thanks, it was fun