h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wilma, you're right that legislating creationism into science classes is asking for trouble. It pisses god off. He and I had a little chat about it yesterday, he told me so. He said that if he'd not wanted people to think he'd not have given them brains, would have just *programmed* them to worship him and been done with it. If he'd not wanted them to pay attention to the way the Universe works and try to figure it out, he'd not have given them senses to explore it with. He was so irritated with Kansas for their ID foolishness he decided it was time to give 'em a Sign, so he smote them from On High with tornados, made a special point of targeting the University of Kansas in Lawrence, just so they'd *know* what it was their Angry God was twisted about.

Now, y'all might not believe god talks to me, but he does sometimes, especially when he gets bored with whispering at president Bush to see just how disastrously his words will be mangled. He's about like any kid, mostly calls when he's got problems or needs money, pretty much forgets I exist the rest of the time. Typical. *humph* Here's the proof in action, though. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=3987116

Consider it a Warning, ok?

Great suggestions anhaga, much better than relativity and ether - those are kind of advanced. Another one might be the old Greek concept that matter is infinitely divisible...


The National Academy of Science here in the US is roughly our equivalent of the Royal Society, and it takes a similar stance. It commisioned a study on whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution, published it as a book. The conclusion was a resounding no.

They actually took action as well. In 1999/2000 when Kansas tried to get creationism into the science class, the NAS refused to grant them a license to use their science textbooks. So they had to hold off putting it in for a year until they could get new books. At which point, the state board of education was voted out of office.

Wilma: <[creationism] is not a scientific subject and is not proven>

Well yes, that's so, but science also is not proven, but that doesn't detract from its usefullness. Contrary to the expectations of many people, science doesn't do that much 'proof'.

[General comment follows; aimed at no-one in particular, especially not Wilma! ]

Again and again in these discussions, committed sciencists froth at the mouth at the very thought that a form of religion might be presented as though it was part of their own sacred scriptures! Poppycock.

The differences - and the similarities - between creationism and evolution are easy to see and to understand. No-one is going to be mislead. But some people may consider the information they've been given, and come to different conclusions than you/I did. We must all try to remember that this is not necessarily wrong!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

There was a teacher on the radio the other day that said he wanted to teach the creation story as fact but kept getting into trouble for it, he welcomed this from the exam board because it gave him a way to do it legitimately.

If you look at what is in the syllabus then it is clear that no one could accidentally confuse the history of our understanding of how species differentiation might occur, it is the deliberate confustion that is the problem...

to Mother of God, can you tell Him for me that my little compartments are well labelled 1) Blind Faith and 2)Enquiring Mind... and to quit with the weather signals already!

PC - I think we have established that I have the hide of a rhino so aim away and don't worry 'bout me. I am fascinated by all the different views - and you never know, I may even learn something new (a regular occurrence for me since I joined hootoo). I so agree with you on this: 'committed sciencists froth at the mouth at the very thought that a form of religion might be presented as though it was part of their own sacred scriptures! Poppycock..' but I also say that science is a vehicle for understanding. It is not foolproof but it has served us well so far (despite the mistakes and omissions) The beauty of science is that it evolves (good word, eh?) I have just found out, for example, that the whole shenanigan of DNA testing is bl*l*loxy given the existence of chimeras in possession of two sets of DNA in different parts of their body - who'd have thought it?

I *do* worry that this new legislation will be abused by teachers with hidden agendas. However, I am confident that both the "art" of science and personal beliefs can survive this challenge. The worry is because those who teach creationism and ID are not following hallowed scientific methods of proving. .. and in this sense, science is a lot more proven than either of these two theories. Science has a rigorous (though not perfect) system of proving and explaining phenomena around us. These guys are just massaging the information to fit the Bible - a document I have great difficulty with when it is quoted as the [verbatim] Word of God

I have no problem or conflict between my belief that there is a higher being and the science because I think we have developed science as a way of comprehending the world we have been born into. Where is the conflict?

It is in the dishonesty of presenting information to our children that I struggle. They need to know "this is the accepted view" and " but some people think this" or "some people thought this". I personally don't think this information is relevant in a GCSE class, more at uni when you are looking at the history or conflicts of/within science. Before they can debate intelligently on the subject, they need the information in full and I know my 13 year old would be confuddled by all this conflicting evidence when all he wants is to be a mechanic

W

<...those who teach creationism and ID are not following hallowed scientific methods of proving. .. and in this sense, science is a lot more proven than either of these two theories. Science has a rigorous (though not perfect) system of proving and explaining phenomena around us.>

No, science really *doesn't* have a means of proving things. [That is, to show beyond any doubt at all that something in the physical universe is the case.] Observations, supporting evidence and prediction of future behaviour is what science does, and it does it well. Proof, in the absolute sense, is unecessary for or to science. So unnecessary, in fact, that what you said stands up perfectly well (if not better! ) when "proof" is entirely removed:



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

'Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.'

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

PC: What you said stands up perfectly well (if not better! ) when "proof" is entirely removed..

W: Yep, you're right

I have learnt something today! Yay

anhaga: <'Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.' - Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)>



As I said in another forum recently, this is a *vital* point to keep in mind. It is true to say, for example, that nothing about evolution is proven. However, all the evidence we know of is in accordance with evolution: we know of no evidence to contradict it. Although there is no evidence to contradict creationism either, the evidence in its favour is not as strong nor as plentiful as that for evolution.

I just get when people start saying that evolution is 'proven'. Tommyrot!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

'I just get when people start saying that evolution is 'proven'. Tommyrot! '


(does the mean you don't really mean what you're saying?)

In fact, evolution has been proven in a very real sense. It has been tested, which is a perfectly valid meaning of the word 'proven'. (Think of military 'proving grounds' where weapons systems are tested.) Evolution has spent over a century in the proving grounds and continues (as does everything) to be proven each day. Evolution has not failed yet. ID/creationism, on the other hand, has been standing about the proving ground for millenia and each time evidence defeats it, ID/creationism says 'that one didn't count. Let's have another' until there's now nothing left to throw at it because ID/creationism doesn't actually explain any fact in the real world. It is nothing other than an appeal to magic.

No. I mean what I say, and the smiley hopefully conveys that I am being cool and laid back, and intend no offence to anyone.

Although I acknowledge what you say about 'proof', the term also has the connotation of absolute proof, whereby we show that something is definitely and absolutely right. In the context of the 'something' being in the real, physical universe, we cannot prove it absolutely. Whatever it is, and however we try.

When people are asked what they mean by proof, they generally say what you have said. But when they use it in their arguments, they often use it to mean 'absolute proof' without noting the change in meaning.

I am anxious to balance the outpourings of those who support ID and creationism, because I feel they preach that which cannot be relied upon, and is not useful. But I will not stand by to see their beliefs trashed for spurious reasons! All this does is to strengthen their case. So when people claim the evolution is proven, I challenge them. Evolution has substantial supporting evidence. This is true. Say that instead!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

'Say that instead!'


I prefer to say

'ID/Creationism has been thoroughly tested in the crucible of science and it has been found to be hopelessly wanting. Evolution, on the other hand, has been similarly tested and has been found to be 24K gold.'

Though you cannot prove any scientific theory to be true (unlike a mathematical *theorem* - science deals in probabilities, not certanies), scienctific theories can, given enough evidence, be seen as "effectively proven", or "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Evolution is a good example of one of these theories.

It's sort of akin to circumstantial evidence - though each scientific experiment permits conclusions to be made far stronger that "circumstantial". If you have one bit of evidence, by itself it is nothing Earth-shattering, but if you build up these "circumstantial evidences" over a century and they are all pointing to the same conclusion, then you have proof in the scientific sense.

Language is flexible enough to allow other, non-absolute meanings of the word "proven" - words have different connotations depending on the context. If you're talking about a court case, "proof" means a different thing than if you're talking about mathematics, or if you're talking about science. Scientific "proof" is not proof in the absolute sense of the word, but its meaning is implicit.

Use of the word "proof" is fine, as long as you know what it means.

Ste

Words are created by humans, and they mean what we say they mean. And 'we' don't always 'say' the same thing!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Lucky you PC, it's you're favorite debate!!

Sorry Wilma, I don't see how chimera DNA makes the whole of DNA testing "bulloxs"

Arnie: Sorry Wilma, I don't see how chimera DNA makes the whole of DNA testing "bulloxs"

W: No need for apologies, Arnie! I probably said it clumsily 's all... What I meant was in terms of paternity suits and criminal evidence... because we now know that DNA does not in absolute terms identify a person nor that person's genealogy (in some very rare cases) although we were led to believe for years that it did. Another case of: it depends.

Does that make sense?

"Words are created by humans, and they mean what we say they mean. And 'we' don't always 'say' the same thing!"

Two people reading the very same sentence are probably going to come away with two different understandings of it. In this case the word "proof", for all intents and purposes, is good enough. The differences in meaning are subtle, but do not effect the overall meaning of the sentences they find themselves in.

You can try to tie down language to its strictest definitions but it will always squiggle away from you. Humans are messy and so is language. It doesn't mean we can't communicate.

Ste

For Arnie:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18024215.100

Chimera Article (preview only but I do have the full text if you want it)

W

I think you just made my point, Ste! Very eloquently too.

And yet the difficulties of communication shouldn't make us stop trying, they should encourage us to try harder. So I shy away from words like "proof" "certain", and maybe even "is", because of the connotations of certainty they can (often inaccurately) convey.

Isn't it a cop-out to say "'proof' is a great word as long as you knwo what it means", when you know that it can imply a degree of certainty which you cannot claim (in the context of the discussion you're having)? Surely it's better to say "strongly supported, and never contradicted, by all available evidence"? Yes, it's longer, but if we're trying to express ourselves precisely, perhaps a little wordiness is a price we should be willing to pay?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"...but if we're trying to express ourselves precisely, perhaps a little wordiness is a price we should be willing to pay?"

If I was writing a scientific paper, yes. If I am talking to the layman, no. I choose clarity over precision. When wordiness gets in the way of understanding for the sake of precision, it is a slef-defeating excercise.

Ste