Turkey Will Stop Teaching Evolution in Secondary Schools

[gnostic]

Creation theory is quite valid. Wake up and smell the coffee before you go on a rant, you'll save face that way.

Creationism isn't "science", it is pseudoscience and (religious) myth.

There are no such things as "Creation Science", because creation is faith-based, not evidence-based like science, which make any claim to science as oxymoron.

Perhaps creationism is "theological theory", but it isn't a "scientific theory".

And the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are not organisation run by scientists. They are no better than the Discovery Institute (DI).

Both organisations are just propaganda machines, just spinning web of misinformation.

The funny thing is that even Old Earth Creationists think ICR is also a fraud run by a bunch of con-men, and a disgrace to Christianity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Written by a PhD. Enjoy.

So? Philosophers get a PhD. Biologists get a PhD. Doctors get a PhD. I wouldn't go to any of them over the subject of astronomy. Having a PhD makes you well educated in the area you studied, and does not automatically make you a scientist or knowledgeable in science. PhDs in musicology and music compisition, for example, are PhD holders who would not be extremely highly educated in science. But anything they would ever write is still "written by a PhD."

 

[Revoltingest]

There are no such things as "Creation Science", because creation is faith-based, not evidence-based like science, which make any claim to science as oxymoron.

I must slightly disagree.....only slightly.
There is actually "creation science" because some do employ real science in their arguments.
Of course, the arguments are typically bogus, but there's some real underlying science (eg, archeology).
But creationism itself isn't science because it's faith based, & lacks testability.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But creationism itself isn't science because it's faith based, & lacks testability.

It also lacks falsifiability.

 

[Revoltingest]

It also lacks falsifiability.

Aye, falsifiability goes hand in hand with testability.

I've long liked the irony that the most cromulent theories are the ones which can be disproven.
George Box said....
"All models (theories) are wrong, but some are useful."

 

[Polymath257]

As I understand "islamist," my initial response is no, they don't (see video, post #35). of course, I'd extend this to fundamentalist Christians, Navajos and Hindus, as well.

Fundamentalists tend to seek knowledge in scripture, rather than research.

Wasn't Islam was once progressive, but turned in on itself, rejected progress and sought to return to an earlier age?

Yes. A good deal of blame for the current lack of science in Islamic societies can be placed on Al Ghazali. It was because of his teachings that the 'foreign' sciences were neglected. Fortunately, the Europeans picked up the torch soon after.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ref....
Al-Ghazali - Wikipedia

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I didn't say that medical doctors don't need to know or understand evolution.

I know, I tagged your name because you were part of the conversation, not to correct you or anything.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It also lacks falsifiability.

So does believing in faeries.
But there is far more chance for the belief in faeries to be true, than is the belief in Creationism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here ya go:

Science Confirms Biblical Creation

Science Confirms Biblical Creation | The Institute for Creation Research

Written by a PhD. Enjoy.

 

[Ponder This]

I have no respect for ignorant parents promoting that ignorance in their children.

The Amish in the United States commonly pull their children out of school after eighth grade. Please try to understand that parents have rights regarding their children. You may not respect them out of intellectual snobbery but please try to at least understand that the rights of parents are important and real.

A "law of evolution" would describe what's found in the fossil record, what's observed real time, & simulations using biomimicry.
The TOE is the theoretical model of behaviors observed (which lead to the theory).

I wouldn't include biomimicry.

But I'd go further to say that the TOE is a theory which has risen to the level of fact.
It's an unavoidable system response with no contradiction or alternative theory.

Scientific Theories don't rise to the level of fact. They become established through experiments that support them.

The problem is that there was a shift in the terminology around 1900.
...much of this terminology is a reaction to calling the classical views 'laws' and then finding them to be incomplete. The tendency to call things in science 'laws' went out about 100 years ago because of these changes.

If we had the information 150 years ago that we do now, the theory of evolution would be called a law.

Science is allowed to admit when they were wrong. There are Laws that remained Laws the entire time. It's fine that scientists are cautious to name things Laws, especially seeing how they realized that got it wrong in the 1900s.

About the only concepts still described as 'laws' are the conservation laws (conservation of mass/energy, for example) which have maintained a similar form even after the shift to relativity and quantum mechanics.

Yup.

Did you know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics started out being "theoretical physics"?

Yes.
Maxwell also engaged in a similar process of speculation.

Although BBN is still theoretical, it is accepted by every astrophysicists and astronomers, including cosmologists.

Theoretical physics can become experimental or empirical physics, once evidences and applications are found.

Quite so. I really like it when people who claim to be scientists actually conduct experiments to support their ideas (Einstein did that too you know) rather than simply publish books as if it were real and leave to others who add additional layers of theory without experimentation.

As you said, you are no expert in biology, and neither am I. But I don't see biologists have to convince you of anything. You want to understand biology, pick up a biology textbook, then read and learn, or take up a course in biology and study.

Do not rely on creationists to tell you what is or isn't biology, because from my experiences here and other forums, creationists are incapable of being honest and impartial, and they seemed incapable of understanding science.

I have to agree. Self-Education is the ultimate form of Education.

I think people have this view that you plug your brain into the Matrix and download information and this is what education is. "I know Kung-Fu now." It doesn't work that way. That's just brain-washing. The real learning was Neo getting his butt kicked by Morpheus - that moment that he realized that it didn't matter what he'd been taught...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wait...so...you think something should be proven fact before it's taught in a science class????

A common misconception of people who have absolutely no idea what science is. Fortunately, there can't be but two or three people who are that ignorant.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't include biomimicry.

Perhaps that's cuz you're normal (not an engineer).
Genetic/evolutionary algorithms are evidence in my book.

 

[Polymath257]

The Amish in the United States commonly pull their children out of school after eighth grade. Please try to understand that parents have rights regarding their children. You may not respect them out of intellectual snobbery but please try to at least understand that the rights of parents are important and real.

Parental rights are limited. In this case, to not provide an education is a form of child abuse.


I

Quite so. I really like it when people who claim to be scientists actually conduct experiments to support their ideas (Einstein did that too you know) rather than simply publish books as if it were real and leave to others who add additional layers of theory without experimentation.

Which experiments did Einstein do to verify his ideas? As far as I am aware, you are wrong here and Einstein was purely theoretical. Others did the experiments and observations that showed his ideas were correct.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which experiments did Einstein do to verify his ideas? As far as I am aware, you are wrong here and Einstein was purely theoretical. Others did the experiments and observations that showed his ideas were correct.

I'm pretty sure, if I remember correctly, you are correct and Relativity didn't even have a chance to be demonstrated to be accurate until after Einstein's death.
If anything, theists who try to invoke Einstein in their debates not only betray his memory, they betray their own scientific illiteracy in horribly painful ways.

 

[gnostic]

I know, I tagged your name because you were part of the conversation, not to correct you or anything.

Sorry, my mistake then.

 

[gnostic]

So does believing in faeries.
But there is far more chance for the belief in faeries to be true, than is the belief in Creationism.

Of course, fairies are true.

When I was 6, I lost my first tooth, I found a dollar note near my pillow.

It must have been the tooth fairy who given me money. Who else could it be?

But when I lost my 4th tooth, at 9, I only got a 50 cent coin for my trouble. I swear I got ripped off.

 

[gnostic]

Scientific Theories don't rise to the level of fact. They become established through experiments that support them.

Scientific theory is an (A) explanation and (B) observation of fact.

When I am talking about observation of fact, I am referring to tests done or evidences discovered that substantiated and validated the explanation as true (through Falsifiability and Scientific Method), therefore making the "scientific theory" being FACTUAL.

Perhaps, you are confusing scientific theories with theories of theoretical science (such as Superstring theory, M-theory, Multiverse model, etc, these are fields in "theoretical physics").

Theories in theoretical science, I would agree with you are not factual, but they are "provable" through logical or mathematical models or solving mathematical equations.

Theoretical science rely on proofs (eg mathematical statements, like equations), not on empirical evidences.

Theoretical physics can become experimental or empirical physics, once evidences have been found or tested, like General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Scientific theory is factual, theoretical science isn't.

Do not confuse experimental or empirical science with theoretical science.

And as to evolution, it is empirical biology, because it is evidence-based, not theoretical because it is not proof-based. Evidences are found through fossils, and through medical studies of genetics, viruses and immunology.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are neither empirical (evidence-based), nor theoretical (proof-based). They are both pseudoscience.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's quite a tap dance there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's quite a tap dance there.

Present one testable prediction of creation theory.