[matmat]

on the other hand, you could study the rocks to see if they are the same material as the underlying rock. you could inspect them for chisel or other tool marks, check for pain residue (i think there might actually be some on the EI ones, but i am not sure). You could see if smaller versions, or earlier attempts of such heads exist. etc etc.

btw, I don't particularly want to sound like an @$$ here, but are you sure you understand the concepts of evolution?

[Gerben42]

Quote

The evolutionary model is great to explain variations within a species and is very useful to teach kids about basic genetics, but it doesn't explain how human beings got here.

Yes it does, that's the beauty of it. Creationism isn't a theory. It's a myth. It has no place in a science classroom, in fact it has no place in any classroom. If you ask my honest opinion rather than rating certain films R or whatever because some 4-letter word comes up more than a regulated number of times, creationism should be rated R. Keep away from children!

Teaching creationism = teaching children to not think for themselves.

Quote

I can't actually prove that the giant statues of Easter Island are man-made but the complexity of the carvings present a fairly strong scientific case that they couldn't have formed from random erosion. On the other hand, perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster was at it again.

We all know whoever ordered Earth had to pay extra for the statues. Maybe they were a 2-for-1 sale with the fjords, though.

[mike777]

if chatting about THEORY well can we back up and start with Popper for starters and go onto more difficult stuff for starters, please. Even forum poster JanM dad discussed the science of theory, yes?

[mrdct]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

<snip>
[*]Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here.
[/LIST]
<snip>

Let me reformulate your statement, if you dont mind:
The supporting scientific evidence makes 'Intelligent Design'
only 5% reliable at best (increase the number if you like),
the supporting scientific evidence makes 'evolutionary mode'
makes 95% reliable at worst (decrease the number if you like).

If you take the above numbers do you think both theories are
equivalent if it comes to the level of reliability?

I'm not sure that I understand your question. If I take your numbers, then obviously the evolutionary model is much more reliable. But, as it happens, I don't think the scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that the evolutionary model is 95% reliable for explaining how we got here.

Whilst I can't completely rule out the possibility that humans did in fact evolve from little microbes that spontaneously generated themselves billions of years ago, the scarcity of evidence to support that theory coupled with the incredible complexity of the human organism, causes me to be skeptical.

A theory doesn't need to be disproved to reach a conclusion that it's dodgey - case in point: the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

The advantage in presenting the 'Intelligent Design' theory to children in biology class is that they may become motivated to critically examine and assess the merits or otherwise of the evolutionary model through a process of scientific enquiry and analysis rather than blindly accept it as fact.

[mike777]

"....The advantage in presenting the 'Intelligent Design' theory to children in biology class is that they may become motivated to critically examine and assess the merits or otherwise of the evolutionary model through a process of scientific enquiry and analysis rather than blindly accept it as fact...."


Lets just assume all of this is true......so what? Is this the goal/number one goal of teaching science in school? If it is ok.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sun is 90 million miles away. It really doesn't look like more than a 1000 miles to me.

Seriously, how is this an example of scientific evidence? It's just your intuition.

I hope you are just being sarcastic here, I don't want to explain the bleeding obvious fact that the sun is on average 149.6 million km away (miles? what are that?)

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 03:23 AM, said:

Quote

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sun is 90 million miles away. It really doesn't look like more than a 1000 miles to me.

Seriously, how is this an example of scientific evidence? It's just your intuition.

I hope you are just being sarcastic here, I don't want to explain the bleeding obvious fact that the sun is on average 149.6 million km away (miles? what are that?)

on average?

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

Of course Icarus could not fly 1000 miles so anyone who says it is that far is silly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

[mrdct]

mike777, on Nov 19 2007, 03:22 AM, said:

Lets just assume all of this is true......so what? Is this the goal of teaching science in school? If it is ok.

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

[Gerben42]

Quote

on average?

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

Yes, and 50% of the time it is more! In January the Earth ist closest to the Sun, in July it is furthest from the Sun.

Quote

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

Me too, but only if they ARE alternative. Creationism is not a theory. If you start to teach that you will have to include theories that a dragon eats the sun during a solar eclipse in science class, and that Zeus creates thunder.

[matmat]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 03:26 AM, said:

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

let me point out that those who advocate teaching "intelligent" design to children are not, generally, interested in furthering the kids' ability to think for themselves.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

Quote

on average?

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

Yes, and 50% of the time it is more! In January the Earth ist closest to the Sun, in July it is furthest from the Sun.

Of course Icarus could not fly 1000 miles so anyone who says it is that far is silly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

[the hog]

Dave, I have known you for years and you are not a crackpot. So what's with this ridiculous idea that creationism should be taught is shools? I think you are trying to wind a few people up. If you want a good debunking of the creationist myth, (and it IS a myth), read some of Richard Dawkins' books, eg "Who made the watchmaker?" and "The God myth"

[mrdct]

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

Quote

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

Me too, but only if they ARE alternative. Creationism is not a theory. If you start to teach that you will have to include theories that a dragon eats the sun during a solar eclipse in science class, and that Zeus creates thunder.

I think teaching Greek mythology to children is a great idea as it helps them understand mankind's quest to explain and rationalise our existence. The evolutionary theory is part of the quest as are alternative models such as creationism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Is Greek mythology on your "Rated R" list for the education system also?

[mrdct]

The_Hog, on Nov 19 2007, 03:45 AM, said:

Dave, I have known you for years and you are not a crackpot. So what's with this ridiculous idea that creationism should be taught is shools?

I would never suggest that creationism should be taught as a fact, just as evolution should not be taught as a fact.

I'm merely suggesting that children should be made aware that alternative theories exist to explain our existence and they should make their own minds up as to the merits or otherwise of the various explanations for our existence.

[matmat]

if someone wants to teach creationism as a myth along side zeus, hera etc., that's fine by me. but if someone tries to teach it as a valid theory of how the world came into being...

[mrdct]

matmat, on Nov 19 2007, 04:04 AM, said:

if someone wants to teach creationism as a myth along side zeus, hera etc., that's fine by me. but if someone tries to teach it as a valid theory of how the world came into being...

It can be a fine line between "myth", "theory" and "valid theory". I guess the thing that they all have in common is that haven't been proven.

[helene_t]

Dave, since you mention the flying spaghetti monster, I suppose what you have in mind is some philosophy or mythology class in which children are taught different myths, learn why people believe in those particular myths, and why they need myths in the first place. Maybe they could be encouraged to formulate some of the myths of child culture (urban legends) and wonder what makes those myths plausible, viable, useful or whatever charactestic myths must have to evolve.

I'm not necesarily against that, but I thought this discussion was about science class, not mythology class.

As for whether evolution is a "fact". Maybe it is at some deep philosofical level not a fact of the same kind as 2+2=4, but it is a fact of the same kind as that the Earth orbits the Sun and that matter is made of atoms. Maybe it should be left to the philosophy teacher to discuss what the word "fact" means. But if the word "fact" ever applies in science at all, then evolution is a prime example

[mrdct]

Flying Spaghetti Monster = Myth.

Earth orbits the Sun = Fact.

"Intelligent Design" = Theory.

Evolution = Theory.

That so many people believe the evolutionary theory to be a fact is the scary thing to me and the principal reason why alternative theories ought to be put forward for consideration. At the very least it will teach children what the concept of a theory is.

I don't equate skepticism with the evolutionary model with a belief in creation under any of the various religious models. If one can separate God from the "Intelligent Design" theory (which I can quite easily) one can open one's mind to a range of plausible explanations for our existence.

Perhaps aliens are involved, but that of course only removes the problem to a different point in time and space; but perhaps it can establish a more plausible time frame for an evolutionary process to take place for which on a mathematical basis I find the generally accepted (by "real" peer-reviewed scientists) 4.54 billion years is (on my intuition) far too short for a largely random process to convert microbes to humans.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Flying Spaghetti Monster = Myth.

Earth orbits the Sun = Fact.

"Intelligent Design" = Theory.

Evolution = Theory.

Sorry, intelligent design = myth. No myths in science class, please.

Quote

Is Greek mythology on your "Rated R" list for the education system also?

Yes for science class.

Religion class as it is now is not right. I've had 2 years of it, basically "bible study" (torah, quran, ..., fill in blank). Rather it should be more like: There is this religion, and that one, and that one also. You can regonize them in the street because of symbols (cross, headscarf, traditional Jewish dress code, etc.). And teach them that all of these people are humans who ought to be respected. Also here one can say that in the past there used to be different religions. There your Greeks come in.

Quote

Perhaps aliens are involved, but that of course only removes the problem to a different point in time and space; but perhaps it can establish a more plausible time frame for an evolutionary process to take place for which on a mathematical basis I find the generally accepted (by "real" peer-reviewed scientists) 4.54 billion years is (on my intuition) far too short for a largely random process to convert microbes to humans.

More about evolution:

At the moment there are no acceptable alternatives to evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Just none that are ready for schools.

[Gerben42]

If it makes you feel better one can differentiate between evolution and natural selection. Natural selection works. This is a readily demonstrated fact that can be shown using creatures with a short "generation" like bacteria. It can even be demonstrated using genetic algorithms.

This stuff works.

This is not quite Darwin's theory about the "origin of species", which is an "established theory". And that is was Helene means with "science fact": A theory that fits the observations and explains them well.