Re: why evolutionist want to teach your kids

On Dec 8, 2:36 pm, michael <yost...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:32:02 -0800 (PST),

richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 8 Dec, 22:27, michael <yost...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course science should be taught!

Not evolution as undisputed scientific fact, as it
hasn't been proven like other sciences ...

Oh dear. Evidently you didn't learn much about science.

Science does not offer proof.

RF

I already argued this with you a long long time
ago fool.

Chemistry offers proof.

Physics also offers proof.

No, they don't. They offer a wealth of accumulated data, and testable
models that explain those data. that's all that science does, and as
far as I can tell, that's the best that humans can do.


What are all those pictures after atom smashers
collide atoms and smaller pieces of atoms fall off and are
photographed?

What about those
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
The nested hierarchies of morphology, vestigial organs, biochemistry,
genomes.
The fact that all of these nested hierarchies parallel the others is
evidence in itself.
Behavioral sciences are illuminated by the understanding of common
descent via modification.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
?


Evolution should not be taught in school
any more than intelligent design or creationism.

It is arguably the best supported (by different types of evidence)
scientific theory.


That is philosophy or religion of origins.

No, it is a testable model that fits a wealth of data. In what way
does the model not fit the evidence? (Hint: simply asserting it
doesn't does not establish this.)


No one knows.

Well, nobody who is unwilling to read, that's true.


Let the parents teach their kids what they want
about the philosophical origins.

If US parents don't want their kids to learn science well, they always
have the home school option. There are standards that the kids have to
meet in general knowledge, but those standards are pretty low :(


That is fair.

That's insane, and is why we are falling behind in science. You can't
brag about the US winning Nobel prizes and such, and then tell
scientists that they don't know what science is.


If not, you are promoting one religion:
darwinism

Religion makes assertion about the universe, without, or contrary to,
evidence, and discards evidence that conflicts with their stories.
Science changes the stories to fit the evidence.

Religion embraces the alleged authority of a founder or several
personalities in the history of the religion. Science follows the
evidence, and honors most those who overturn the work of earlier
scientists.

Religion has no way of confirming claims; in Christianity alone there
are sects with opposing vies on nearly every issue - thousands of
denominations. In science there are sometimes dozens of hypotheses in
a new field, but as data is accumulated, the scientists in that field
gradually come to a consensus.

Science is nothing like religion. and less than one in a thousand
scientists deny that mainstream evolutionary theory is science - and
they do so for *religious reasons.


over all the others.

Ignorance is knowledge. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.

The big lie doesn't work here, son.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... qualify the repeat requirement that science places to prove an event. ... evidence, you move on to the questions that are implied by the results, ... As far as I can tell, religion contains zero pieces. ... Scientists are always looking for more ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary
    ... scientifically investigate the origin/evolution of religion. ... There is no such thing in science as ... We have to look at the evidence dispassionately. ... scientists believed in frenology, social darwinism, and many other ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: canRe: Moderatorial Note
    ... > where possible are pretty much the core of it. ... > Evidence, rationality, ... I presume that if one were to omit "quantitative" from that list, one might no longer be talking about science, though even there you seem to regard it desirable but not essential. ... even among scientists, puts some limits on how severe any ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)