- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,237
- Reaction score
- 402
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
laska said:Why not science classes concentrate on those principles that have been tested using the scientific method and have passed all the tests and seem to be true. The areas that try and predict the past and future in both the creationist and atheist models that either cannot be tested or fail tests, should not be studied in a science class but there should be seperate philosophy/theology classes where they are taught the theories from each of these models. It seems to me both sides need to understand the other's concerns. If a principle undermines one's paradigm so be it, but what parent who passionately believes in either a form of Creationism or that religion is just an opiate of the masses will want their kids taught unproven principles that undermine these paradigms. Obviously no one on the atheist side and even many on the creationist side wants their kids to be taught the earth is six thousand years old just because a segment of the religious community interprets the Biblical text this way when science shows strong evidence to the contrary. Below, I pasted part of an article by a Creationist scientist that illustrates how an unproven principle taught as fact can undermine the Creationist belief.
Consider the teachings of modern astronomy about just what stars are, where they came from and where they are going. That was the focus of my Ph.D. dissertation, so I'm more qualified to write on that subject than most others. Much of current belief about what stars are is well-founded on the scientific method. One can measure brightnesses, colors, and even the masses of stars and discover some important relationships between them. For example, the majority of stars follow the rule that if one arranges the stars in order of increasing mass, then the sequence (called the "Main Sequence") also increases in surface temperature and the color gradually shifts from red to blue and then ultra-violet. This is one of the most important "facts" (that is, "observations") of modern astronomy. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The problems begin to arise when scientists attempt to explain exactly how these stars got placed in this sequence, and exactly how things might change in the future. The problem is not that scientists try to explain the past and the future. After all, the objective of the scientific method is to be able to predict the outcome of future experiments. The problem occurs when a) science cannot perform the experiment to predict the future and b) it then declares with absolute certainty just what the past and future are, even those it has no solid basis of experiments to do so.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The temperature, brightness and blueness of most stars increase as the mass increases.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In this example from astronomy, we are told that stars formed themselves from gaseous clouds in the plane of the galaxy. We are told that the massive, hot bright blue beacons in the sky such as many of the stars in the constellation Orion, are the very youngest stars, and that they are rapidly burning themselves out, being some of the least permanent members of the galaxy. As for the future, we are told that the sun and most stars will someday exhaust their fuel and become cold, dark burned-out dwarf stars.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While this is the mainstream theory, taught as nearly absolute truth in beginning astronomy classes, there are other explanations of the same observed facts. One is that most stars are still gravitationally accumulating more and more matter from those gas and dust clouds in which they are now seen, and they are increasing in mass and getting hotter and bluer as they do so. If so, then the big, hot blue stars are some of the oldest patriarchs of the galaxy, rather than being "flash in-the-pan" youth.[/FONT]
To me, the more popular explanation is not inspiring at all, but rather depressing. The big bright stars are supposed to explode quickly before they have any lasting importance, and the rest of the whole universe just cools down to be a meaningless graveyard of burned-out star corpses. Without God, the universe would be a meaningless stage on which we act out meaningless lives, which ultimately end in futility.-(article by John Pratt.)
That would leave all Evolutionary Science and dump the creationism and ID completely. Well, that is how it is right now, so it is not clear what you are arguing.laska said:Why not science classes concentrate on those principles that have been tested using the scientific method and have passed all the tests and seem to be true.
Well, nothing in the creationists models have held up to the Scientific Method at all. Now, I don't know of any "atheist model" so that part of the argument doesn't make sense. But certainly, the Science that makes it into a Scientific theory, by virtue of this being the END PRODUCT of the Scientific Method, certainly meets your requirement. So right now, what is being taught in Science class is indeed just what you are talking about SHOULD be taught there. That makes your post kind of pointless.The areas that try and predict the past and future in both the creationist and atheist models that either cannot be tested or fail tests, should not be studied in a science class
What do you mean with "the theories"? You DO know what the Scientific Method IS, don't you? You DO know what a Scientific THEORY is, I hope, since you are using these terms!but there should be seperate philosophy/theology classes where they are taught the theories from each of these models.
We already understand the creationists' concern, namely that a literal retelling of the Bible is not yet in science class. And our concern regarding creationists is that what they spew is one big lie. So what is left to be understood?It seems to me both sides need to understand the other's concerns.
Irrelevant to science class, where only the data and the Scientific-Method-tested evidence matters (Just like you advocated).If a principle undermines one's paradigm so be it, but what parent who passionately believes in either a form of Creationism or that religion is just an opiate of the masses will want their kids taught unproven principles that undermine these paradigms.
Again, what is this "atheist side" you are talking about? What does any of this have to do with the Scientific Method and the evidence for the Scientific Theories?Obviously no one on the atheist side and even many on the creationist side wants their kids to be taught the earth is six thousand years old just because a segment of the religious community interprets the Biblical text this way when science shows strong evidence to the contrary.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What the heck kind of crap deception is this? This guy is posting utter nonsense. His claim is false.[/FONT]Below, I pasted part of an article by a Creationist scientist that illustrates how an unproven principle taught as fact can undermine the Creationist belief.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Consider the teachings of modern astronomy about just what stars are, where they came from and where they are going. That was the focus of my Ph.D. dissertation, so I'm more qualified to write on that subject than most others. Much of current belief about what stars are is well-founded on the scientific method. One can measure brightnesses, colors, and even the masses of stars and discover some important relationships between them. For example, the majority of stars follow the rule that if one arranges the stars in order of increasing mass, then the sequence (called the "Main Sequence") also increases in surface temperature and the color gradually shifts from red to blue and then ultra-violet. This is one of the most important "facts" (that is, "observations") of modern astronomy. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/images/051116/image003.jpg [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The temperature, brightness and blueness of most stars increase as the mass increases.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The problems begin to arise when scientists attempt to explain exactly how these stars got placed in this sequence, and exactly how things might change in the future. The problem is not that scientists try to explain the past and the future. After all, the objective of the scientific method is to be able to predict the outcome of future experiments. The problem occurs when a) science cannot perform the experiment to predict the future and b) it then declares with absolute certainty just what the past and future are, even those it has no solid basis of experiments to do so.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"explanations"? None that have any facts or evidence behind them. Once again, wishful thinking and "just because I say so" postulations are not part of the Scientific Method.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In this example from astronomy, we are told that stars formed themselves from gaseous clouds in the plane of the galaxy. We are told that the massive, hot bright blue beacons in the sky such as many of the stars in the constellation Orion, are the very youngest stars, and that they are rapidly burning themselves out, being some of the least permanent members of the galaxy. As for the future, we are told that the sun and most stars will someday exhaust their fuel and become cold, dark burned-out dwarf stars.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While this is the mainstream theory, taught as nearly absolute truth in beginning astronomy classes, there are other explanations of the same observed facts.[/FONT]
There is no evidence at all for this. This is not evidence of anything, this is a crackpot with a weird, unsubstantiated idea. If this was Ph.D. dissertation, is most certainly was NOT in astronomy, and likely not in science either.[/FONT]One is that most stars are still gravitationally accumulating more and more matter from those gas and dust clouds in which they are now seen, and they are increasing in mass and getting hotter and bluer as they do so.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no scientific evidence for this. At this point, he is NOT writing as a scientist, and as such for you to claim scientific relevance is VERY DISHONEST.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] If so, then the big, hot blue stars are some of the oldest patriarchs of the galaxy, rather than being "flash in-the-pan" youth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What difference does it make? Hopefully we have all seen a night sky filled with thousands of awe-inspiring stars. It can truly be a dazzling spectacle that can fill one with reverence for a great Creator.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So this guy deliberately sought an "alternative" explanation for astronomy, not because of the evidence pointing him to this, but rather because he wanted to have his conclusion validated and thus invented an alternative idea that would confirm his already-made up conclusion. That is not in any way science whatsoever.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To me, the brightest stars are the bright, old governing stars of our galaxy that have accumulated greatness through the ages. When I look at the dazzling constellation of Orion, I see some great stars for which I feel awe and even reverence. Someday they may "die" in a great supernova explosion, and as one star passes away, so shall another accumulate its recycled remnants. Thus, there is no end to the works of God, neither to his words.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Anthropomorphizing, non-scientific claptrap emotional appeal.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To me, the more popular explanation is not inspiring at all, but rather depressing. The big bright stars are supposed to explode quickly before they have any lasting importance, and the rest of the whole universe just cools down to be a meaningless graveyard of burned-out star corpses. Without God, the universe would be a meaningless stage on which we act out meaningless lives, which ultimately end in futility.[/FONT]
[/FONT]Who? What source??(article by John Pratt.)
Nonsense. :roll:CaliNORML said:It is this transience that causes human beings to sorrow and to suffer.
Axismaster said:Whenever this debate comes up, I like to say, why does it matter? We are here as it is. I don't see why science classes or anyone else for that matter would waste time on a question that in no way affects the future.
This is a "scientific" claim? Go ahead, show with scientific method that this is true. Here's a very simplified and quick overview of that method to get you started:laska said:Without God, the universe would be a meaningless stage on which we act out meaningless lives, which ultimately end in futility.
But you made the very point that this guy was a scientist.laska said:He never claims he derived this from the scientific method. You guys are not understanding the context of my post.
laska said:Scientists can have personal ideas of how things are in the universe that are outside of the ability of science to test for. He is not trying to set up these ideas as scientifc theories or principles.
laska said:That is the whole point I am trying to make. Those ideas that cannot be tested should be taught in a philosophy/theology class. Pratt gives an example where this is not being done.
laska said:I do not have the knowledge to know if Pratt is correct on that point or not. It would be interesting to hear someone also with an advanced degree in this to comment.
Hyperphysics said:The concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems naturally progress from order to disorder. If so, how do biological systems develop and maintain such a high degree of order? Is this a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?
Order can be produced with an expenditure of energy, and the order associated with life on the earth is produced with the aid of energy from the sun.
For example, plants use energy from the sun in tiny energy factories called chloroplasts. Using chlorophyll in the process called photosynthesis, they convert the sun's energy into storable form in ordered sugar molecules. In this way, carbon and water in a more disordered state are combined to form the more ordered sugar molecules.
In animal systems there are also small structures within the cells called mitochondria which use the energy stored in sugar molecules from food to form more highly ordered structures.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?