Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by jockeys

the odds for the next series of coin flips will be the same as it always was, true.

the odds of getting heads three times in a row are 1 in 8. 15 million (5 million "sets") coin flips later, the odds of my next three flips being all heads are still 1 in 8.

BUT, if i have been flipping for so long, the odds that three concurrent heads HAS ALREADY OCCURRED is very high... in fact, out of 5 million sets, we can assume that with an ideal coin, I will have gotten triple heads about 5/8 million times.

you are confusing the statistical odds of a single instance (set of flips) with the odds of the event happening in a large number of "sets".

But if you have the precondition that you stop when you achieve the desired result, then those are not the odds at all. Are we conceding that life as we know it - in fact, the universe exactly as it is and has been may have occurred exactly the same way previously and may again in the future, with us having this exact conversation?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Not everything has a probability though (or, probability=0).
Is there a probability that matter, energy, time, and the laws that govern them should come into being from nothing? Is there a probability that they were always there? I don't think there's anyway to know whether or not a probability of such an event even exists

Is this one of the basic questions of this conversation: have nature and time always been, or did they have a beginning?

Big Bang theory says that space-time as we know it came into being at around 1 E-36 seconds after the "Big Bang". Prior to that time, temperatures were so high that matter, energy, and time were in another state that we cannot reproduce and the various theories (quantum gravity, string theory, etc.) are not refined enough to make accurate predictions.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Big Bang theory says that space-time as we know it came into being at around 1 E-36 seconds after the "Big Bang". Prior to that time, temperatures were so high that matter, energy, and time were in another state that we cannot reproduce and the various theories (quantum gravity, string theory, etc.) are not refined enough to make accurate predictions.

But you do get my point, right?
did temperature have a beginning?

I think my question is good: Is this one of the basic questions of this conversation: have nature and time always been, or did they have a beginning?

When you answer that you don't know, you must allow for the possibility of the existence of anything else beforehand don't you?


alright let me leave the thread alone for a bit for others to catch up. I think I'm starting to "hog" the conversation...

Originally Posted by jockeys

alright, so can we all agree that it's ok to have evolution taught in science class as long as the teacher prefaces with, "it's just a theory, so far" ?

and that ID can be taught in philosophy/religion class so long as it's labeled accordingly?

Ummm....evolution is and has been taught in public schools for longer than at least I have been alive. It is not what is being discussed, but whether creation should be allowed to be taught. Where the tangle seems to be coming is while one viewpoint (presumably yours and a few others here) assumes that any mention of a creative influence on life, or the possibility of it being intentionally manufactured is a direct challenge to their atheistic assumptions, and therefore cannot be "scientific" or allowed in class, while the other viewpoint (and there are variations, including Russel's pink unicorn theory) which point out the enormous probability against such things occuring by haphazard in the natural environment, resulting in reproducible life and therefore, as neither approach has been disproved (or proved) then neither should recieve preferential treatment (e.g. by putting one in philosophy/religion "hocus pocus" class and then falsely elevating the other to "science" when in reality neither has more evidence than the other).
It is this preferential treatment-proponents of one theory seeking to ban the other before even their own theory is demonstrated as being true (or at least the other disproved) that I and possibly others have issue with.


John P.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

As far as requiring a great length of time: why would that be necessary?

Because chemical reactions take time, just like baking bread takes time. Adding more ingredients or more heat will not produce the same end result as allowing the proper ingredients to be exposed to the proper amount of heat. You'll just char the outside of a huge doughball, trying to speed things up.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

That argument (the self-assembling) is saying that life can indeed form "naturally". Saying that it requires a extremely long period of time to happen is saying that it occurs "randomly" and that a long time is needed for it to happen by chance yet again.

No, not exactly. The natural mechanisms like atomic bonding and polymerization require time to form long enough chains of organic material to develop traits like photosensitivity, complex protein reproduction, etc.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Amino acids are amino acids, a living thing is a whole different ballgame. Life does not happen over time, it either "is", or it "is not".

But amino acids are not found in any other kind of chemical process, only in life forms. So if amino acids can occur naturally, life can as well, if given enough time for those amino acids to be replicated and arrange in enough different ways.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I would also say that the crumbs falling to the bottom of the bag (I realize that is perhaps not the best example either you or I can come up with, but let's work with it...) is a type of "sorting" not ordering. It belongs more in the department of entropy, as the chips are going from fully formed to crumbs.

Sorting creates order, but fine if you want to make that distinction, the environment on earth would sort polymers that can replicate in extreme environments from those that can't, creating order in the form of organic compounds and then life if enough time is alotted.

Originally Posted by JohnP

or the possibility of it being intentionally manufactured is a direct challenge to their atheistic assumptions, and therefore cannot be "scientific" or allowed in class, while the other viewpoint (and there are variations, including Russel's pink unicorn theory) which point out the enormous probability against such things occuring by haphazard in the natural environment, resulting in reproducible life and therefore, as neither approach has been disproved (or proved) then neither should recieve preferential treatment (e.g. by putting one in philosophy/religion "hocus pocus" class and then falsely elevating the other to "science" when in reality neither has more evidence than the other).
It is this preferential treatment-proponents of one theory seeking to ban the other before even their own theory is demonstrated as being true (or at least the other disproved) that I and possibly others have issue with.
John P.

it's not scientific because it's not scientific.
scientific (comparative more scientific, superlative most scientific)
Positive
scientific

Comparative
more scientific

Superlative
most scientific

1. Of, or having to do with science.
2. Having the quality of being derived from, or consistent with, the scientific method.

there is nothing about Intelligent Design derived from the scientific method. if you think philosophy class is "hocus pocus" I would say that has more to do with your preconceived notions about philosophy and religion than it does about the class itself.

or, to put it another way, is it appropriate to discuss, say, the Milley-Urey experiment in philosophy class? of course not. it isn't philosophy. there's nothing philosophical or religious about it, it's purely a chemistry experiment. Intelligent Design is purely a denizen of the philosophicial (or religious, if you prefer) realm.

I also have to take issue with "and then falsely elevating the other to "science" when in reality neither has more evidence than the other)."

evolution is, as demonstrated by the definition (from Wiktionary, btw) scientific. it is not a complete theory, but it is getting more complete all the time, thus:

evolution: based on the scientific method, thus scientific. no 100% proof or final theory arrived at yet, but humankind is working on it. all conclusions (that are widely supported and peer-reviewed) have thus far been based on observation and experimentation. some parts of the theory that are as-yet unproven remain within the realm of speculation, and are admitted as such.

intelligent design: not scientific, purely within the realm of speculation. not usually admitted as such. completely unprovable as the base initiator defies observation, logic, physics, etc, etc.

trouble is, by your own definition, abiogenesis is also not scientific. It requires belief in the impossible by claiming, that, given enough time, even the impossible is possible (again...why should this be a double standard...under this same reasoning God definitely exists..) and something coming from nothing. All with zero evidence of it ever happening. Unless you wish life's existence to serve as evidence, in which case creation can claim the same thing.
So....as long as abiogenesis is relegated to philosophy or religion class ALSO (and not science class-because face it-it isn't anything more than a pet theory) right along with creation, or both addressed in science class....neither should be taught.


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

trouble is, by your own definition, abiogenesis is also not scientific. It requires belief in the impossible by claiming, that, given enough time, even the impossible is possible (again...why should this be a double standard...under this same reasoning God definitely exists..) and something coming from nothing. All with zero evidence of it ever happening. Unless you wish life's existence to serve as evidence, in which case creation can claim the same thing.
So....as long as abiogenesis is relegated to philosophy or religion class ALSO (and not science class-because face it-it isn't anything more than a pet theory) right along with creation, or both addressed in science class....neither should be taught.
John P.

not to be antagonistic, but you are grossly oversimplifying abiogenesis. it is not the claim that something came from nothing, but rather the claim that something MIGHT POSSIBLY come from other, simpler somethings, and that those simpler somethings came, in turn, from yet simpler somethings, and so on, starting with hydrogen (or subatomic particles, depending on which theories you espouse).

while we have no direct evidence of the initial steps (i freely admit this... it is purely theoretical) it is NOT based on nothing... the theories about the first steps are based on long years of observation of later steps. once the later steps were observed, and (partially?) understood, the pattern was extrapolated (now I'm simplifying to maintain scope) and the precursors were theorized.

so, no evidence of the beginning, but neither is the theory totally baseless, as you accuse.

JohnP, would you like to show us some evidence, or proof, or theory about ID, or Creation, or Biblical truth please?

Then, can you explain the problem with an atheistic point of view while your at it, please?

Originally Posted by JohnP

... as neither approach has been disproved (or proved) then neither should recieve preferential treatment (e.g. by putting one in philosophy/religion "hocus pocus" class and then falsely elevating the other to "science" when in reality neither has more evidence than the other).
It is this preferential treatment-proponents of one theory seeking to ban the other before even their own theory is demonstrated as being true (or at least the other disproved) that I and possibly others have issue with.


John P.

John, I did not propose the pink unicorn.

Also, we're back to the definitions of science and scientific theories. Theories are not "proved" or "disproved" they are only supported. They need to make predictions (creation does not), and they need to be investigable (creation is not).


"The authors of this statement constitute a group set up for the purpose by the Executive Committee of the International Society for Science and Religion. Through a process involving consultation with all members of the Society, the statement has now been accepted by the Executive Committee for publication as a statement made on behalf of the Society.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. "

The ISSR is an organization of religious persons, creationists, evolutionists, impartial scientists etc, I think their definition should be as good as it gets.