16 Percent Of US Science Teachers Are Creationists

baddog1 wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Neither Creationism or ID are falsifiable or even testable. No research can be done in these fields.

Same with the shape of the earth, human flight, and the wonders of penicillin... - just a few short years ago. :wink:

There's a big difference between those examples. Creationism and ID are un-falsifiable and untestable at a philosophical level. They will NEVER be testable or falsifiable. They are inherently non-scientific concepts.

The other examples you gave were all testable. The test just hadn't been devised yet.

String theory for example, isn't testable at his point in time with our current technology, but there could be ways to test it as technology improves. The only reason String Theory eeks through as a possible scientific theory is because enough scientists still believe that it will be possible to test at sometime in the future. If at any point String Theory becomes philosophically untestable and unfalsifiable, it will be discarded as a scientific theory.

(by the way, you really shouldn't put a "winky" symbol after a statement which is wrong because it makes you look like a fool) (Just trying to help)

0 Replies

Are my eyes deceiving me or did Baddog1 just post an entire list of testable and falsifiable discoveries and compare them to unfalsifiable and untestable ideologies?

Creationism is not falsifiable. You cannot prove or disprove that God created the Universe, because, by the definition of God as set by Christians, God is unknowable. That pretty much throws a spanner in the works right there. The causative agent cannot be tested for or shown to exist.

After much thought, however, I've changed my mind about ID. It is falsifiable. A shame, then, for ID proponents that it is based on a misconception about how evolution works. Irreducibly complex adaptations can evolve through the removal of components, just like a stone arch bridge can be built first by building a scaffold, then by putting the components in place, the final keystone and then removing the scaffolding. Yes, if you take away any stone in the bridge, it will collapse and cease to be a bridge, so it is irreducibly complex, but it was created stepwise through first the creation of a scaffold.

I don't know any examples off the top of my head, but as not all gain of function changes are gain of information changes (in fact, some are actual loss of information changes), the concept of irreducibly complex adaptations being evidence of a designer is pure bunkum.

If any teacher teaches ID as a valid alternative, then that means they don't know enough about Evolution to teach Evolution in the first place.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

here's a big difference between those examples. Creationism and ID are un-falsifiable and untestable at a philosophical level.

For each philosopher that you offer up as against Creationism and ID - I will provide a philospher that is for both. Nobody wins a philosophy contest. :wink:

rosborne979 wrote:

They will NEVER be testable or falsifiable. They are inherently non-scientific concepts.

Here we go again. If both subjects were not scientifcally interesting - then why do so many science-based publications, articles, papers, etc. have interest in both?

rosborne979 wrote:

The other examples you gave were all testable. The test just hadn't been devised yet.

You can easily make this claim now because the examples proved out. You cannot prove that they were considered testable prior to thought of invention. That is a preposterous position to take.

rosborne979 wrote:

String theory for example, isn't testable at his point in time with our current technology, but there could be ways to test it as technology improves. The only reason String Theory eeks through as a possible scientific theory is because enough scientists still believe that it will be possible to test at sometime in the future. If at any point String Theory becomes philosophically untestable and unfalsifiable, it will be discarded as a scientific theory.

There 'could be' many things possible as technology improves. Are you also saying that the String Theory could be scientifically proven not to exist?

rosborne979 wrote:

(by the way, you really shouldn't put a "winky" symbol after a statement which is wrong because it makes you look like a fool) (Just trying to help)

See above. :wink:

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

You can easily make this claim now because the examples proved out. You cannot prove that they were considered testable prior to thought of invention. That is a preposterous position to take.

I know this comment wasn't directed at me, but that is the most disingenious statement I have ever seen.

The Theory of Relativity wasn't testable until Einstein came up with it either. That means nothing about whether it is testable or not. All that matters is that the idea can be tested once it is conceived.

Creationism and ID are both ideas that have been conceived. One is untestable, the other uses just plain bad logic (although it is debatable about whether it is testable or not).

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So, am I to believe that Evolution is a fact in the same way as the Geocentric Universe was once fact?

Yes, only in this context rather than relying on special revelation and holy books written by very, very ignorant people, we have empirical facts, testing, etc.

The simple and direct way of putting it is that it is fact as in something which is considered to be accurate. This is most definitely true concerning the scientific community.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Same with the shape of the earth, human flight, and the wonders of penicillin... - just a few short years ago.

Correct. Excellent job at pointing out that things we can't now predict can turn out to be true. Then again, anyone arguing for the existence of penicillin (as we understand it) 2000 years ago would have been an idiot because they had no rational reason to think so. And of course, they didn't think so.

ID is not about a specific concept like the ones you list, it is a vague attempt to fight materialism based on fallacies and lies. This sounds extreme, but it is very accurate. One of the main arguments for ID, known as irreducible complexity, is simply an argument from ignorance with biochemical language thrown on top. Bill Dembski always pretends he has a fantastic idea and has actually shown it to be accurate, but never seems capable of presenting it in its entirety. Because of the vagaries inherent in this attempt, if the idea of a celestial designer is vindicated in the future it will not be because these people had reason to believe that to be the case.

Of course, you're just playing the Galileo Gambit, to which I respond with this quote by Carl Sagan:

Quote:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Of course, the point isn't merely about laughing, but about using the fallacious argument that because some strange ideas turned out to be true, ones that sound strange now are therefore vindicated and not be treated with scorn. The actions of IDers in general illustrate perfectly well why scorn is deserved.

0 Replies

baddog

Quote:

Same with the shape of the earth, human flight, and the wonders of penicillin... - just a few short years ago.

Any time you post an opinion, you should have a qualifier in bold letters that says" I am baddog and this is my opinion which is, as far as I know, pulled from my shiny brown ring"

History would disagree with your positions, even on the shape of the earth.

Human flight and penicillin were both discoveries that were based upon testability and falsifiablity, it just wasnt called that at the time since both predate Popperian pronouncement.

Shape of the earth, think ancient Greece.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Here we go again. If both subjects were not scientifcally interesting - then why do so many science-based publications, articles, papers, etc. have interest in both?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
(by the way, you really shouldn't put a "winky" symbol after a statement which is wrong because it makes you look like a fool) (Just trying to help)
See above. :wink:

I take it back. Please continue to put winks after your posts. It's hard to imagine anything more entertaining that seeing someone demonstrate new levels of breathtaking inanity, and then winking after them as though they actually said something meaningful. Priceless.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Here we go again. If both subjects were not scientifcally interesting - then why do so many science-based publications, articles, papers, etc. have interest in both?

Intelligent (non)response.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
(by the way, you really shouldn't put a "winky" symbol after a statement which is wrong because it makes you look like a fool) (Just trying to help)
See above. :wink:

I take it back. Please continue to put winks after your posts. It's hard to imagine anything more entertaining that seeing someone demonstrate new levels of breathtaking inanity, and then winking after them as though they actually said something meaningful. Priceless.

Emotion-based response.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

baddog
Quote:
Same with the shape of the earth, human flight, and the wonders of penicillin... - just a few short years ago.

Any time you post an opinion, you should have a qualifier in bold letters that says" I am baddog and this is my opinion which is, as far as I know, pulled from my shiny brown ring"

History would disagree with your positions, even on the shape of the earth.

Human flight and penicillin were both discoveries that were based upon testability and falsifiablity, it just wasnt called that at the time since both predate Popperian pronouncement.

Shape of the earth, think ancient Greece.

"...it just wasnt called that at the time..."

Bingo!

0 Replies

BBB
They are at it again

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=117471

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
(by the way, you really shouldn't put a "winky" symbol after a statement which is wrong because it makes you look like a fool) (Just trying to help)
See above. :wink:

I take it back. Please continue to put winks after your posts. It's hard to imagine anything more entertaining that seeing someone demonstrate new levels of breathtaking inanity, and then winking after them as though they actually said something meaningful. Priceless.

Emotion-based response.

Denial of reality based response.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
baddog1 wrote:

Here we go again. If both subjects were not scientifcally interesting - then why do so many science-based publications, articles, papers, etc. have interest in both?

Intelligent (non)response.

Two responses not really worth replying to Wink

. Should I explain precisely why your quote was hilariously ignorant? I don't think so.

0 Replies

baddog

Quote:

"...it just wasnt called that at the time..."

Bingo

Does this mean that you finally just got it?
If a concept hasnt a name , but is practiced in effect, does that mean that the concept doesnt exist?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If a concept hasnt a name , but is practiced in effect, does that mean that the concept doesnt exist?

Duh. Haven't you learned anything about creationist tactics? If something doesn't have a buzzword, it doesn't exist, you stupid Darwinist!

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Shirakawasuna wrote:
baddog1 wrote:

Here we go again. If both subjects were not scientifcally interesting - then why do so many science-based publications, articles, papers, etc. have interest in both?

Intelligent (non)response.

Two responses not really worth replying to . Should I explain precisely why your quote was hilariously ignorant? I don't think so.

I can't decide if your level of incapability or inadequacy is higher. Keep responding when not really worth replying to and I will eventually figure it out.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If a concept hasnt a name , but is practiced in effect, does that mean that the concept doesnt exist?

How can something be "practiced in effect" if discovery hasn't heppend yet?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

farmerman wrote:

If a concept hasnt a name , but is practiced in effect, does that mean that the concept doesnt exist?

How can something be "practiced in effect" if discovery hasn't heppend yet?

He didn't say it hadn't been discovered yet, he said it hadn't been given that name yet.

Oh my god.

0 Replies

16 Percent Of US Science Teachers Are Creationists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know