Science uses quantitative methods to discover certain rules governing the universe, make predictions based upon those rules and produce technologies. As such, it occurs to me that if we accept the notion that God could not be described using quantitative measures that the best science can say is that science cannot prove the existence of God.
On the one hand you find proponents of scientism sometimes taking it one step further and declaring that “there is no God”. On the other hand, you find may evangelicals trying to get Intelligent Design to be taught in classrooms, in addition to the theory of evolution. In my opinion Intelligent Design is not science and has no place in courses on biology. It deserves to be in courses on theology.
Nonetheless, using Wedge strategy, some evangelicals have clamored for an equal status of Intelligent Design, as science:
One very interesting evangelical, Reverend Michael Dowd, has stated that there is no conflict between evolution and spiritual perspectives: http://thankgodforevolution.com/the-author
[quote]entheogens wrote:
proponents of scientism[/quote]
Please point to one example of a self proclaimed “proponent of scientism.” Scientism is a word only used by religious nutjobs who are angry that science is exposing their silliness.
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
As long as they teach kids when things are indeed theory or a “best guess” type situation, I have no problem with it.
For example they used to teach kids that if you were doing manual labor, you should be taking salt tabs. That used to be a “fact”.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
As long as they teach kids when things are indeed theory or a “best guess” type situation, I have no problem with it.
For example they used to teach kids that if you were doing manual labor, you should be taking salt tabs. That used to be a “fact”.[/quote]
All scientific endeavor is “theory” as scientific predictions are tentative and falsifiable. Science will always be “theory” no matter how much supporting evidence exists, because there is always the possibility that falsifying evidence will turn up. That is why the things you mentioned are referred to as a theory. It is not because it is some sort of “best guess” conjecture.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
As long as they teach kids when things are indeed theory or a “best guess” type situation, I have no problem with it.
For example they used to teach kids that if you were doing manual labor, you should be taking salt tabs. That used to be a “fact”.[/quote]
The very existence of “facts” or “natural laws” is dubious at best.
However, just because science is based on theories does not make the argument of intelligent design any more strong as it is presumes certain conclusions with no empirical, observable, or testable support.
Evolution belongs in the science classroom; Intelligent design belongs in the philosophy classroom.
My point is that there is a difference between saying, “this is a beaver”, and “the beaver and the chipmunk have a common ancestor.”
There are a lot of things taught with no direct evidence.
Edit: I’m not arguing for teaching bible study in science at all. I’m just saying I think kids should be taught that most known scientific truths aren’t absolute and that a lot of them will probably eventually be proven wrong.
[quote]Gael wrote:
entheogens wrote:
proponents of scientism
Please point to one example of a self proclaimed “proponent of scientism.” Scientism is a word only used by religious nutjobs who are angry that science is exposing their silliness.[/quote]
Well, I am not a religious nutjob, but here is how I understand scientism. It is one thing when science states that science can find no evidence of God. It is quite another when a scientist qua scientist goes further than that and makes the argument, “there is no God”.
The first statement, I consider as good science. The latter statement I see as science spilling over into the realm of theology. I call the latter, “scientism”.
Like the study that launched a crusade against saturated fat and it’s effects on heart disease. It compared country’s sat. fat intake with rates of heart disease. never taking into account balance of fats, or activity levels, or genetics, or intake of preventative foods. And a lot of that framework is now starting to fall.
I guess I would add to that that “scientism” would be the belief that science can explain everything. That it has a monopoly on truth and ontology. Perhaps, when some of the religious “nutjobs” you mention use the term they are using it differently than I am…or maybe not.
I guess, an example of scientism, would be the attitude of Richard Dawkins. Carl Sagan, on the other hand, would not be an example of a proponent of scientism.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that there is a difference between saying, “this is a beaver”, and “the beaver and the chipmunk have a common ancestor.”
There are a lot of things taught with no direct evidence.
Edit: I’m not arguing for teaching bible study in science at all. I’m just saying I think kids should be taught that most known scientific truths aren’t absolute and that a lot of them will probably eventually be proven wrong.[/quote]
“This is a beaver” is a statement defined to be true that doesn’t need evidence.
“The beaver and the chipmunk have a common ancestor” is a statement that has plenty of direct evidence.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Like the study that launched a crusade against saturated fat and it’s effects on heart disease. It compared country’s sat. fat intake with rates of heart disease.
Never taking into account balance of fats, or activity levels, or genetics, or intake of preventative foods. And a lot of that framework is now starting to fall.[/quote]
That is merely a failure of statisticians not taking into account other variables and possibly ignoring other causal factors for heart disease.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Like the study that launched a crusade against saturated fat and it’s effects on heart disease. It compared country’s sat. fat intake with rates of heart disease.
Never taking into account balance of fats, or activity levels, or genetics, or intake of preventative foods. And a lot of that framework is now starting to fall.[/quote]
To me this is nothing more than intellectual dishonestly when it come to correlation .vs causation. It happens all the time. I wouldn’t blame the science. The bodies producing results that get headlines and research dollars are to blame.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m still waiting for the day or current model of the atom to be shown incorrect and the entire world of chemistry to come crashing down.[/quote]
Usually, “theories” are not entirely discarded. They are modified, adjusted, revised in light of new evidence. Sometimes they are altered to be more general, simple, or consistent. The current model does have some inconsistencies and incorrect predictions, but attempts to resolve them have not led anywhere.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Like the study that launched a crusade against saturated fat and it’s effects on heart disease. It compared country’s sat. fat intake with rates of heart disease.
never taking into account balance of fats, or activity levels, or genetics, or intake of preventative foods. And a lot of that framework is now starting to fall.
To me this is nothing more than intellectual dishonestly when it come to correlation .vs causation. It happens all the time. I wouldn’t blame the science. The bodies producing results that get headlines and research dollars are to blame.[/quote]
Scientists in biology and chemistry often do this though. It’s why I’m a math and physics guy.
[quote]Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m still waiting for the day or current model of the atom to be shown incorrect and the entire world of chemistry to come crashing down.
Usually, “theories” are not entirely discarded. They are modified, adjusted, revised in light of new evidence. Sometimes they are altered to be more general, simple, or consistent. The current model does have some inconsistencies and incorrect predictions, but attempts to resolve them have not led anywhere.[/quote]
The previous atom model was completely discarded.
But mostly I just don’t like chemistry, to the point I consider it pseudo-science.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
[/quote]
The problem is in certain classrooms you could never teach the structure of the atom without confusing students. Should teachers just not teach things that cannot be stated as fact?
How do you teach third graders about a statistical universe?
This is why education should be a private matter between teachers, parents and students. There is no problem teaching intelligent design if that is what the parents want. I would have a hard time accepting it being taught with money stolen from my income.
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing.
Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist. That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God.
I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people. They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking.
Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.
[quote]Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that there is a difference between saying, “this is a beaver”, and “the beaver and the chipmunk have a common ancestor.”
There are a lot of things taught with no direct evidence.
Edit: I’m not arguing for teaching bible study in science at all. I’m just saying I think kids should be taught that most known scientific truths aren’t absolute and that a lot of them will probably eventually be proven wrong.
“This is a beaver” is a statement defined to be true that doesn’t need evidence.
“The beaver and the chipmunk have a common ancestor” is a statement that has plenty of direct evidence.[/quote]
No, there is no direct evidence to evolution at all. There is indirect evidence of a lot of animals, but oddly almost no evidence, direct of indirect, of human evolution.
And no, I’m not skeptical of a lot of the research because of religious views but because it has become way to involved in politics. You have a lot of scientists hell bent on proving their point of view rather than following evidence.
For example, the “lucy” missing link skeleton. The components of that skeleton were discovered years apart, at completely different soil depths and literally miles apart. That in my opinion boarders on a hoax and should constitute fraud. They were a group dedicated to proving certain beliefs, not science.
Yes, that is one group, but in political areas that sort of work is not uncommon. Further, the scientific community never retracts and corrects those kind of claims with the fervor they promote them.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
The problem is in certain classrooms you could never teach the structure of the atom without confusing students. Should teachers just not teach things that cannot be stated as fact?
How do you teach third graders about a statistical universe?
This is why education should be a private matter between teachers, parents and students. There is no problem teaching intelligent design if that is what the parents want. I would have a hard time accepting it being taught with money stolen from my income.[/quote]
I’m not saying don’t teach it at all, just teach it appropriately. If a child is too young to understand the difference between fact and theory, it can wait in my opinion. This is also why I tend not to like the idea of public education at all. your money goes to teaching what politicians deem appropriate.