Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Free School due to open in September 2012 ‘teaches creation as a scientific theory’
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
Of course they confilict, one is based on logic and observable evidence.
The other was simply fabricated.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 1,317
Look up what a theory actually is.
Last edited:
Come on now, that isn't nice.
Of course they confilict, one is based on logic and observable evidence.
The other was simply fabricated.
You forgot to mention the significant a priori assumptions involved with the scientific method...
An a priori assumption in science is subject to change as and when new evidence emerges.
This is not true of religeon.
Im glad it wasnt taught at school as anything other than a belief. Dread to think how od hhave turned out.
Maybe its a play by the church to boost numbers..get em while they young? Works for pther cultures
But i do believe it should be explained in school for what it is, and also that the holes in evolution should definitly be pointed out. I guess i want to know the truth, or taught the truth at least. Evolution is 100% and sbould be taught as such
Maybe its a play by the church to boost numbers..get em while they young? Works for pther cultures
But i do believe it should be explained in school for what it is, and also that the holes in evolution should definitly be pointed out. I guess i want to know the truth, or taught the truth at least. Evolution is 100% and sbould be taught as such
As long as it's done properly I don't see the harm. The Roman Catholic school I went to taught both, but never forced one more than the other on you which meant you were free to make your mind up or even *gasp* believe in both.
I am a staunch believer of evolution and science yet I learned many lessons from the religious side of things too. Not all the crazy stuff, just the 'be nice to everyone' bits. For some reason most people get the 'be a dick to everyone' bits drilled in from religious teachings which is a bit of a bummer.
I am a staunch believer of evolution and science yet I learned many lessons from the religious side of things too. Not all the crazy stuff, just the 'be nice to everyone' bits. For some reason most people get the 'be a dick to everyone' bits drilled in from religious teachings which is a bit of a bummer.
if evidence emerges related to the assumption, it is no longer a priori.
however, how do you plan to provide evidence for the parsimony principle, or validate empiricism or more specifically logical positivism in order to allow science to be used to dismiss alternative views?
Last edited:
Just gonna wade in because this looks like fun. 
It doesn't change the fact that scientific assumptions are subject to ongoing scrutiny, and change over time. Science does not have any assumptions which are not open to change. So tautologies aside, mattyfez's point stands.
The parsimony principle is just a convenience and is not 'science', it is not a scientific 'a priori' so I don't see how it is relevant. Science is not a 'view', it is simply a process. Experiment, observe, model.
You can't provide evidence to show that basing one's beliefs on observation rather than whim (which you charitably describe as 'alternative views') is correct, but if you go down the latter route, then debate becomes simple opinion and no progress can be made.
It doesn't change the fact that scientific assumptions are subject to ongoing scrutiny, and change over time. Science does not have any assumptions which are not open to change. So tautologies aside, mattyfez's point stands.
The parsimony principle is just a convenience and is not 'science', it is not a scientific 'a priori' so I don't see how it is relevant. Science is not a 'view', it is simply a process. Experiment, observe, model.
You can't provide evidence to show that basing one's beliefs on observation rather than whim (which you charitably describe as 'alternative views') is correct, but if you go down the latter route, then debate becomes simple opinion and no progress can be made.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
NEW RULE!!!!
Answers this question brilliantly don't you agree?
Answers this question brilliantly don't you agree?
Just gonna wade in because this looks like fun.
It doesn't change the fact that scientific assumptions are subject to ongoing scrutiny, and change over time. Science does not have any assumptions which are not open to change. So tautologies aside, mattyfez's point stands.
The parsimony principle is just a convenience and is not 'science', it is not a scientific 'a priori' so I don't see how it is relevant. Science is not a 'view', it is simply a process. Experiment, observe, model.
You can't provide evidence to show that basing one's beliefs on observation rather than whim (which you charitably describe as 'alternative views') is correct, but if you go down the latter route, then debate becomes simple opinion and no progress can be made.
science as a process doesn't inherently contradict religion though. to do that, you have to move from the instrumentalism approach of experiment, observe, model, to the realist approach which presents the predictive model as how reality in in fact, rather than just as a model.
The parsimony principle isn't a convenience, it's a cornerstone of the modelling process, used as part of the mechanism to eliminate evidentially identical models. it is perfectly possible to present alternative models to many of the scientific ones that pass the evidence test but fail the assumptions test as the same results can be achieved with a smaller number of entities (the most obvious being intelligent design).
none of this means that science is wrong, or that religion is right by any means, but a great number of people rely on science in these debates without understanding it, much like many religious people rely on their books without understanding them.
The simple way to explain science is that its like play-do, you can play around with it, make shapes and use it for many things, but its always malleable, you can always make something different out of the previous shape or find more ingenious uses for it.
A lot of people just think its like concrete, utter fact, never able to change and only has one use.
Hell even a few scientists do, which flat out annoys me.
A lot of people just think its like concrete, utter fact, never able to change and only has one use.
Hell even a few scientists do, which flat out annoys me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Actually no.
I went to Catholic school for 7 years, then a further 7.
Most of our teaching ios actually new testament, and based on parables and allagories taught by Jesus, as reported in the new Testament.
I'm sure we did Genesis as some stage, but the first few lines of the first book which was eventually written down by someone based on the historic accounts that were passed down by word of mouth from one Jewish generation to the next, are not what was ever referred to as fact.
Its more a fundamentalist Christian approach to treat that text as the exact reflection of what God said (to the Jews.....) rather than anything in actual Christian teaching from 'Christ'.