It makes me sad every time...

abandonallhope said:
A bad theory at that, in fact Darwinism is the quintessential enemy of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the way things really are, and when logic, evidence, and mathematical scrutiny cast grave doubt concerning the creative powers of the proposed Darwinian mechanism, those who offer such challenges are told to shut up and not ask stupid questions.

The core of Darwinism (random errors filtered by natural selection as a universal explanation for everything in life) should take its appropriate place at the summit of the ash heap of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Click to expand...

Lol, this was hilarious. Cant believe the Amish have Internet.
 
this really irritates me. If you dont want to understand science then kindly f**k off from teaching it and studying it in school and universities. im getting tired of people taking up places in schools of science in university getting qualified and sprouting that scripture BS.

keep them seperate. Science isnt a belief there is no faith in science only data

Like idiots that think they know too much "OMG polio vaccine causes autism dont vaccinate" - child dies of polio then the same people asks "why isnt there medical treatment for polio its a conspriacy" or idiots that go "that vaccine is not halaal" ok dont take it and let the damn disease ravage your kind and leave smarter people alive. Its obvious your gene pool isnt known for intelligence :mad:
 
Last edited:
RiaX said:
Science isnt a belief there is no faith in science only data
Click to expand...
Well, I think it is probably important to explain what you mean by "faith" and "belief".

For example, it can be argued that there is no religious faith in science. However, when I study the science of other scientists, I believe (and take in on good faith) that what they have published are in good order. I have no proof that what they did was correct or done correctly. There are very good reasons to not believe what scientists publish (e.g. False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research and Ethical Problems in Academic Research). To accept their results (or believe them) would be an act of faith since there is no proof. Science of course does not deal with proof and one of the definitions of faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust". In that sense, faith plays a central role in science since it is impossible to try and replicate everything just to prove to yourself that they were right i.e. you accept (for the most part) what other scientists did on good faith.
 
Techne said:
Well, I think it is probably important to explain what you mean by "faith" and "belief".

For example, it can be argued that there is no religious faith in science. However, when I study the science of other scientists, I believe (and take in on good faith) that what they have published are in good order. I have no proof that what they did was correct or done correctly.
Click to expand...
That's why they are peer-reviewed. It's not just a little club where everyone agrees with each other either, scientists risk mockery and their reputation, so they tend to try their best to ensure that their work is up to scratch.
 
RiaX said:
this really irritates me. If you dont want to understand science then kindly f**k off from teaching it and studying it in school and universities. im getting tired of people taking up places in schools of science in university getting qualified and sprouting that scripture BS.
Click to expand...

What would you rather have? Students being taught about creationism (who will no doubt come across evolution theory when they are a bit older) or students not being taught at all because of a lack of teachers? It's not like not believing in evolution theory is gonna do any harm to the world or end you up in hell?

RiaX said:
keep them seperate. Science isnt a belief there is no faith in science only data
Click to expand...

You have no faith in science? Faith only means that you trust a deity or a person or a movement's actions and properties.
 
be.plato said:
I agree with you that scientific theories cannot be proven "categorically". I also believe that scientific theories can be replaced or even discredited over time. This goes for the theory of evolution too :)
Click to expand...
Yea but so far it hasn't been disproven, only strengthened by an ever growing list of evidence and so discarding it as rubbish, as biblical literalist creationists so often do, is stupid.


That's why I said evolution cannot be proven categorically. Perhaps I just used the wrong words, semantics....:twisted:
Click to expand...
You said "proven as yet" which definitely implies that being proven is some sort of goal. It is not the same thing as saying it cannot be proven categorically. Even if you had said that my response would still have been the same: "yea... so what?".
 
Hamster said:
You have no faith in science? Faith only means that you trust a deity or a person or a movement's actions and properties.
Click to expand...
No in that usage of faith it means to believe something based not on convincing evidence but on spiritual conviction. When you use that definition his statement makes perfect sense.
 
porchrat said:
No in that usage of faith it means to believe something based not on convincing evidence but on spiritual conviction. When you use that definition his statement makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't even know where I was going with that. But the rest of the post still stands.
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
That's why they are peer-reviewed. It's not just a little club where everyone agrees with each other either, scientists risk mockery and their reputation, so they tend to try their best to ensure that their work is up to scratch.
Click to expand...
I know what the peer-reviewed system is and what it is like. I have peer-reviewed a few scientific articles and have been part of the process many times. When an article is peer-reviewed, you have to accept on good faith that that their experiments were carried out correctly and that they did not forge or manipulate their results. It happens (as pointed out above) and it is a major problem. It is not a perfect system, but the best we have and without good faith, the system will function even worse.
 
Hamster said:
What would you rather have? Students being taught about creationism (who will no doubt come across evolution theory when they are a bit older) or students not being taught at all because of a lack of teachers? It's not like not believing in evolution theory is gonna do any harm to the world or end you up in hell?
Click to expand...
Given the choice between the two, not being taught at all. Children are very impressionable, and once taught something, it is very difficult for them to change their views later on. I would rather have them not being taught anything at all, which makes it easier to learn the correct thing later on from an objective point of view, than have them taught the incorrect thing where it is difficult for them to learn and accept the correct thing later on.
 
Techne said:
I know what the peer-reviewed system is and what it is like. I have peer-reviewed a few scientific articles and have been part of the process many times. When an article is peer-reviewed, you have to accept on good faith that that their experiments were carried out correctly and that they did not forge or manipulate their results. It happens (as pointed out above) and it is a major problem. It is not a perfect system, but the best we have and without good faith, the system will function even worse.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but they will have to be able to replicate their results if requested.
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Given the choice between the two, not being taught at all. Children are very impressionable, and once taught something, it is very difficult for them to change their views later on. I would rather have them not being taught anything at all, which makes it easier to learn the correct thing later on from an objective point of view, than have them taught the incorrect thing where it is difficult for them to learn and accept the correct thing later on.
Click to expand...

And when these children grow up they'll still cling to what was taught to them in school? I was taught creationism is primary school and went to a Christian high school. I believe in evolution. And I'm sure everybody, or most, on this forum was taught creationism at school (even you) and most believe in evolution. No?

You'd rather leave them illiterate than having them taught creationism? And why should their views be changed later on? Why do you care so much what they believe? Is it going to make them terrible people one day?
 
Hamster said:
And when these children grow up they'll still cling to what was taught to them in school? I was taught creationism is primary school and went to a Christian high school. I believe in evolution. And I'm sure everybody, or most, on this forum was taught creationism at school (even you) and most believe in evolution. No?

You'd rather leave them illiterate than having them taught creationism? And why should their views be changed later on? Why do you care so much what they believe? Is it going to make them terrible people one day?
Click to expand...

I wasn't taught either, and took an interest to it on my own. The topic has no educational relevance or benefit to most people, other than those who will likely study it further, so I'm not sure where your illiterate (which btw refers to the ability to read and write) comment comes into play. It doesn't provide the logical thinking skills that maths and physical science provides, which is why biology is not as critical for university entrance.

As to the rest of your questions, I could just as well ask you why you care so much that they're taught creation. What you're advocating is instruction in faith, which is the job of religious institutions, not schools.
 
Last edited:
RiaX said:
this really irritates me. If you dont want to understand science then kindly f**k off from teaching it and studying it in school and universities. im getting tired of people taking up places in schools of science in university getting qualified and sprouting that scripture BS.

keep them seperate. Science isnt a belief there is no faith in science only data

Like idiots that think they know too much "OMG polio vaccine causes autism dont vaccinate" - child dies of polio then the same people asks "why isnt there medical treatment for polio its a conspriacy" or idiots that go "that vaccine is not halaal" ok dont take it and let the damn disease ravage your kind and leave smarter people alive. Its obvious your gene pool isnt known for intelligence :mad:
Click to expand...

You are a good example. :p
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
I wasn't taught either, and took an interest to it on my own. The topic has no educational relevance or benefit to most people, other than those who will likely study it further, so I'm not sure where your illiterate (which btw refers to the ability to read and write) comment comes into play. It doesn't provide the logical thinking skills that maths and physical science provides, which is why biology is not as critical for university entrance.

As to the rest of your questions, I could just as well ask you why you care so much that they're taught creation. What you're advocating is instruction in faith, which is the job of religious institutions, not schools.
Click to expand...

We missed each other. I'm assuming this is an elementary school where the class has one teacher for all their subjects (math, science, bible study, and whatever else). That is why I asked would you rather them be without a teacher or be taught about creationism which won't make all that big a difference in the end. Kids eventually figure out that Santa Clause isn't real so I'm sure they'll be ok.

I'm Christian so of course I'd want Christianity to be taught in school. I will kick up a fuss if hinduism or islam is being taught. It is unfair towards others though so it is more correct to remove religion from schools completely, but I'm definitely not gonna go out of my way to fight it though (not when my side is "winning").
 
be.plato said:
Protecting your own. I like that. ;)
Click to expand...
If by that you mean he is an atheist I'm not sure what his beliefs are but I think he is actually a Christian. Not that any of that matters.

My point stands. You swallowed anti-science propaganda videos as gospel seemingly without bothering to research a single unreferenced claim being made in those videos. IMO once you have done something as monumentally foolish as that you aren't exactly standing on the high ground when you start questioning the intelligence of others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X