Should Teachers be Allowed to Mock Creationism?

[Skwim]

Evolution IS a theory. Anyone that thinks otherwise is simply uneducated or in denial.

Obviously you have only a cursory understanding of evolution, not that this is bad, it's quite common in fact, but it does put you at a disadvantage when talking about it. If you look into evolution you will find that science regards it as fact. Evolution does occur. Where the theory part comes in is in its old regard. Before evolution was proven to be actual fact it was only a theoretical construct. Today "theory" only comes into play with evolution in its operations: exactly how do organisms evolve? These are better known as the theories (plural) of evolution. Unfortunately, "The theory of evolution" like "Modern atomic theory" have become catch phrases---erroneous and misleading as they are---that no longer denote theories but accepted operational facts. And those of us who recognize evolution for what it is often let the phrase "The theory of evolution" go by without comment or correction knowing what the speaker has in mind. Perhaps we shouldn't.:sarcastic The only trouble being that it tends to derail the subject at hand. Just keep in mind when hearing or reading "The theory of evolution" that science considers evolution to be a fact, not a theory.

If you think Creationism has no evidence and is not scientific, impo, you (general) are either uneducated about creationism, closed-minded or don't know science very well.

I think those who understand evolution have a far better grasp on what science is and how it works than the vast majority of creationists. Of course not all evolutionists, maybe only a handful, have bothered to look into creationism, and may well be ignorant of it. However, I believe that those of us who have looked at creationists and their creationism have a very good understanding of it, and in particular its egregious failings; and I don't use "egregious" lightly. Time after time the professional proponents of creationism have resorted to duplicity and outright lying to make their case. Think this type of behavior would last in any science arena? Not for a minute, but creationism has no problem thriving in such slums. Then there's the evidence of creationism. I don't think anyone here disputes the claim that creationists have and present evidence, it's just that it's essentially worthless. It no more goes toward substantiating creationism than a barrel of pickles proves there's a god of cucumbers.

On to the so-called "science" of creationism. Aside from the fact that none of it conforms to the scientific method---yes, there is a prescribed way of doing science---but the evidence it uses is either contortions and distortions of real evidence, or irrelevancies and concocted nonsense. And to prove my point I invite you to present a piece, any piece, of creationists "science" evidence for our (all evolutionists on board here at RF) consideration.

 

[gnomon]

Evolution IS a theory. Anyone that thinks otherwise is simply uneducated or in denial. If you think Creationism has no evidence and is not scientific, impo, you (general) are either uneducated about creationism, closed-minded or don't know science very well.

Creationism has no evidence and is not scientific.

 

[Acim]

By the textbook definition, Evolution is irrefutably a fact.
You can disagree with that if you like, but that just makes you wrong.

According to link you provided, and Karl Popper criteria for scientific status:

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

Also from same link regarding Stephen Hawking's words on scientific theory:

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory

Your claim of irrefutability strikes me as hyperbole that is unnecessary for the theory to be valid and validated.

Science is not determined by popular vote.

Without consensus, there would not be 'popular theories.'

You continue to talk as if there are multiple Theories to choose from.
That is simply not the case.

I think where some theists come from is idea that there are various way to understand life in universe, and that a creator can still play role in that universe while TOE is still held as valid. While clearly not a scientific theory, theistic evolution is a way that some theists reconcile their belief in creator (God) and an acceptance of TOE.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think a lot more comedians should be mocking creationism because it is the greatest joke on earth.

 

[jarofthoughts]

According to link you provided, and Karl Popper criteria for scientific status:

Also from same link regarding Stephen Hawking's words on scientific theory:

Your claim of irrefutability strikes me as hyperbole that is unnecessary for the theory to be valid and validated.

I didn't say that the THEORY is irrefutable.
I said that the FACT that Evolution happens, by it's textbook definition, is irrefutable, that definition being 'change in allele frequencies over time'.

Without consensus, there would not be 'popular theories.'

And Scientific Consensus is reached through studying the evidence.

I think where some theists come from is idea that there are various way to understand life in universe, and that a creator can still play role in that universe while TOE is still held as valid. While clearly not a scientific theory, theistic evolution is a way that some theists reconcile their belief in creator (God) and an acceptance of TOE.

Good for them.
I'm not trying to attack anyone's belief in a deity.
But in a Science class, or when writing a Science paper, we stick to... Science.

 

[Noaidi]

Evolution IS a theory. Anyone that thinks otherwise is simply uneducated or in denial. If you think Creationism has no evidence and is not scientific, impo, you (general) are either uneducated about creationism, closed-minded or don't know science very well.

As you can see, several others have amply addressed your above point to me. Regarding evidence for creationism, lunakilo has started a thread asking for such evidence. Perhaps you could provide us with it.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/119852-proof-creation.html

 

[Blackheart]

As you can see, several others have amply addressed your above point to me. Regarding evidence for creationism, lunakilo has started a thread asking for such evidence. Perhaps you could provide us with it.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/119852-proof-creation.html

Can you show me some evidence of macro evolution? All I ever hear is that it is a fact but no one has ever demonstrated how evolution works. Its all just talk and no proof. Until someone can show a change in species through the millions of missing fossils that even Darwin stated would be needed to prove the theory I suggest we stay in tune with reality and call it a theory. Its better to believe in nothing than to believe in a lie.

 

[Tristesse]

Can you show me some evidence of macro evolution? All I ever hear is that it is a fact but no one has ever demonstrated how evolution works. Its all just talk and no proof. Until someone can show a change in species through the millions of missing fossils that even Darwin stated would be needed to prove the theory I suggest we stay in tune with reality and call it a theory. Its better to believe in nothing than to believe in a lie.

Would you care to state which fossils you think are missing? Also, you do realize how incredibly hard fossils are to find, right? However, we have a pretty good lineage of fossils thus far, despite the mis-information coming from creationists or those who just never bothered to actually devote time to investigating the issue.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Theories and facts are two different kinds of things. Much like gravity is a theory and fact.

 

[Blackheart]

Would you care to state which fossils you think are missing? Also, you do realize how incredibly hard fossils are to find, right? However, we have a pretty good lineage of fossils thus far, despite the mis-information coming from creationists or those who just never bothered to actually devote time to investigating the issue.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Theories and facts are two different kinds of things. Much like gravity is a theory and fact.

You see this is what im talking about. Pretty good llinage of fossils shows that you dont have conclusive evidence. When someone says that there is fossil evidence its so vague that you have to use your imagination to see how it could be a transitional fossil. As for how hard fossils are to find well it seems to me that there should be a higher porobability of finding altered fossils within the same species than it is to find the same fossil over and over as there has to be millions of transitions (and within that millions of replicas) to get from a fish to a human for example.

Calling it a theory and a fact is just another way of trying to legitimise what is unproven. If I were to say that God is a theory and a fact athiests would want to know where the evidence is that allows it to be called fact. Gravity (or the effect of) is a fact but the way in which it works is a theory. This does not apply to macro evolution as we have no evidence for any of it just people talking about facts.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Can you show me some evidence of macro evolution? All I ever hear is that it is a fact but no one has ever demonstrated how evolution works. Its all just talk and no proof. Until someone can show a change in species through the millions of missing fossils that even Darwin stated would be needed to prove the theory I suggest we stay in tune with reality and call it a theory. Its better to believe in nothing than to believe in a lie.

We're doing this again?
Look, I hate to sound arrogant, but we've been around this tree many many times before, and I'm getting kinda tired of it.
Please, PLEASE educate yourself a little and study the material.
If you want a 'real' transitional fossil that is evidence of 'macro evolution' (a term that actually makes no sense), I recommend you read a book called "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.
You can order it here: Amazon.com: Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (9780375424472): Neil Shubin: Books

 

[Tristesse]

You see this is what im talking about. Pretty good llinage of fossils shows that you dont have conclusive evidence. When someone says that there is fossil evidence its so vague that you have to use your imagination to see how it could be a transitional fossil. As for how hard fossils are to find well it seems to me that there should be a higher porobability of finding altered fossils within the same species than it is to find the same fossil over and over as there has to be millions of transitions (and within that millions of replicas) to get from a fish to a human for example.

Calling it a theory and a fact is just another way of trying to legitimise what is unproven. If I were to say that God is a theory and a fact athiests would want to know where the evidence is that allows it to be called fact. Gravity (or the effect of) is a fact but the way in which it works is a theory. This does not apply to macro evolution as we have no evidence for any of it just people talking about facts.

Do all of these fossils look the same to you?

 

[Skwim]

We're doing this again?
Look, I hate to sound arrogant, but we've been around this tree many many times before, and I'm getting kinda tired of it.

Agreed. It's as if we have an obligation to bring the ignorant up to speed. If they don't want to take the time to educate themselves I'm sure not going to do it for them. I just don't care that much. Let them wallow in their ignorance. :slap:

 

[Blackheart]

Do all of these fossils look the same to you?

Each of its type looks like its type and thats the problem. This whole topic is crazy anyway as I truely believe that evoltuionists have a completely different thought system to creationsits that cant be easily altered. Its like explaining to a horse why it rains and expecting the horse to understand. Our minds just work differently.

 

[Revoltingest]

Each of its type looks like its type and thats the problem. This whole topic is crazy anyway as I truely believe that evoltuionists have a completely different thought system to creationsits that cant be easily altered. Its like explaining to a horse why it rains and expecting the horse to understand. Our minds just work differently.

Very true dat!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Agreed. It's as if we have an obligation to bring the ignorant up to speed. If they don't want to take the time to educate themselves I'm sure not going to do it for them. I just don't care that much. Let them wallow in their ignorance. :slap:

Yeah, I mean, it's not as if the data and the evidence is locked away in a vault somewhere.
We teach it in school and at the universities, and you can buy any number of books explaining the Theory and the evidence at any decent book-store.
There are TV programs, youtube videos and the museums have the evidence on display for all to see.
Educating yourself about Evolution should be EASY! :sarcastic

Look, I have no problems answering honest questions from people who genuinely want to know more, and I'll be happy to direct them sites, books and videos that explain these things.
But I'm getting very fed up with this wilful ignorance and trollish baiting that Creationists get up to, for some reason thinking that the 'questions' they ask are somehow mind-blowing and that no-one has thought about them before.

Been there, done that, answered this, refuted it a hundred times over, and now it is time for you guys to do some effort.
Go educate yourselves.

 

[Tristesse]

Each of its type looks like its type and thats the problem. This whole topic is crazy anyway as I truely believe that evoltuionists have a completely different thought system to creationsits that cant be easily altered. Its like explaining to a horse why it rains and expecting the horse to understand. Our minds just work differently.

I agree, their minds do work differently.

 

[Acim]

I didn't say that the THEORY is irrefutable.
I said that the FACT that Evolution happens, by it's textbook definition, is irrefutable, that definition being 'change in allele frequencies over time'.

Splitting hairs are we?

Yes, you said evolution. Did you say biological evolution in that exact quote? So everywhere in say bible where something happens / changes or person A begets person B, then that would be FACT, that is apparently for you irrefutable.

"Evolution happens" is a bit redundant. Would be impossible I think for evolution to exist and not 'happen.' Or impossible for evolution to exist and things not change. Like saying because Creation creates, then by its text book definition it is irrefutable fact.

And Scientific Consensus is reached through studying the evidence.

See we agree. Lots of people study similar evidence (arguably the same) and gain consensus on findings (or not) and if there is enough agreement on findings then, by popular vote of sorts, there is a conclusion (which is more philosophical, than scientific). This conclusion by many is scientific consensus. It is virtually beyond any dispute within community of scientific practitioners and researchers. Even while there will likely always be some minority position for scientific data.

I'm not trying to attack anyone's belief in a deity.
But in a Science class, or when writing a Science paper, we stick to... Science.

If interested most in science, and principles of something that is rather neutral (in very good way), and really not interested in attacking anyone's beliefs, then I would consider it poor form (aka bad teaching) to mock something akin to Theistic Evolution. In fact, I can't think of why for science it would ever be good form to mock something. But being that this is something humans engage in, I can understand that sort of mistake occurring once in a while.

 

[Acim]

I agree, their minds do work differently.

Maybe we should separate the minds into 2 camps.

Wait, already done.

Maybe we should create a war between the 2 camps as if reconciliation is virtually impossible.

Check, we are doing that.

Maybe we should consider a little genocide to resolve the situation. I mean, its worked in the past, and since reconciliation is not possible...

 

[jarofthoughts]

Splitting hairs are we?

Yes, you said evolution. Did you say biological evolution in that exact quote? So everywhere in say bible where something happens / changes or person A begets person B, then that would be FACT, that is apparently for you irrefutable.

I have no idea what you're on about.
The text book definition of Evolution is "change in allele frequencies over time", which is an observable fact, which means that Evolution is BOTH a Theory (a scientific one) AND a fact.

"Evolution happens" is a bit redundant. Would be impossible I think for evolution to exist and not 'happen.' Or impossible for evolution to exist and things not change. Like saying because Creation creates, then by its text book definition it is irrefutable fact.

No, that is not the same at all.

See we agree. Lots of people study similar evidence (arguably the same) and gain consensus on findings (or not) and if there is enough agreement on findings then, by popular vote of sorts, there is a conclusion (which is more philosophical, than scientific). This conclusion by many is scientific consensus. It is virtually beyond any dispute within community of scientific practitioners and researchers. Even while there will likely always be some minority position for scientific data.

Again, I have no idea what your point is.
Science is determined through the study of evidence and the testing of hypotheses, not through some kind of popular vote.

If interested most in science, and principles of something that is rather neutral (in very good way), and really not interested in attacking anyone's beliefs, then I would consider it poor form (aka bad teaching) to mock something akin to Theistic Evolution. In fact, I can't think of why for science it would ever be good form to mock something. But being that this is something humans engage in, I can understand that sort of mistake occurring once in a while.

I have weighed in on that question several times in this tread.
That should be sufficient.

 

[Alceste]

Each of its type looks like its type and thats the problem. This whole topic is crazy anyway as I truely believe that evoltuionists have a completely different thought system to creationsits that cant be easily altered. Its like explaining to a horse why it rains and expecting the horse to understand. Our minds just work differently.

No, it's more like a horse trying to explain why it rains. You are in a position of total ignorance of the topic at hand - never so much as cracked a book on the subject - and are attempting to convince a group of very, very informed people (I've read quite a lot of books on the subject) that you know more about evolution than biologists.

You should read the Greatest Show on Earth. It will address all your concerns, and you won't have to be subjected to the dismissive attitude creationists get on RF any more when they try to critique evolution from a position of ignorance.