Page 1 of 2
Small victory for science in GA
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:23 pm
by tnf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286937/
"ATLANTA - A suburban school board that put stickers in high-school science books saying evolution is “a theory, not a fact” abandoned its legal battle to keep them Tuesday after four years."
small progress, but at least its in the forward direction.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:33 pm
by Fender
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:03 pm
by Nightshade
Re: Small victory for scienec in GA
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:05 pm
by GONNAFISTYA
tnf wrote:
small progress, but at least its in the forward direction.
Drowning nutters in their own vomit...that's progress in a forward direction, too.
Re: Small victory for science in GA
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:12 pm
by seremtan
tnf wrote:evolution is “a theory, not a fact”
hm, creationist types spout stuff like this with an implied "A-ha! Got ya!", yet without understanding what it means, or how we distinguish between competing theories
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:15 pm
by tnf
most people don't realize what 'theory' actually means in the realm of science. gravity is a theory and the standard model of it has more problems than evolutionary theory due to the irreconcilable nature of quantum and relativity, yet you don't see creationists asking for stickers on physics textbooks to uphold the sanctity of the science. Funny that.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:46 pm
by axbaby
and in engrish that means?
all i know is gravity is a weak force .. one notch lower then a fart
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:21 pm
by bitWISE
axbaby wrote:and in engrish that means?
all i know is gravity is a weak force .. one notch lower then a fart
Einstein's theory of gravity works on grand scales (everyday life) but when applied to the quantum world (stuff so small you can't even see it with a standard microscope) it doesn't hold up at all. In the quantum world another theory has to take shape and, big surprise, that theory does not work on our everyday scale.
String theory joins the two realms of science but has yet to gain status as the grand unifying theory.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:29 pm
by seremtan
doesn't string theory posit that there are zillions of parallel universes, and gravity is distributed between them, hence it's such a weak force?
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:31 pm
by seremtan
tnf wrote:most people don't realize what 'theory' actually means in the realm of science. gravity is a theory and the standard model of it has more problems than evolutionary theory due to the irreconcilable nature of quantum and relativity, yet you don't see creationists asking for stickers on physics textbooks to uphold the sanctity of the science. Funny that.
they also don't understand how we decide between competing theories, because if they did they'd realise that it's pointless trying to promote creationism by pointing out gaps in the theory of evolution when the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:32 pm
by GONNAFISTYA
seremtan wrote:doesn't string theory posit that there are zillions of parallel universes, and gravity is distributed between them, hence it's such a weak force?
It does indeed.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:34 pm
by GONNAFISTYA
seremtan wrote:
they also don't understand how we decide between competing theories, because if they did they'd realise that it's pointless trying to promote creationism by pointing out gaps in the theory of evolution when the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety
Quite frankly...they don't want to understand.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:43 pm
by Tsakali_
seremtan wrote:
the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety
it has? gotta link about this?
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:55 pm
by werldhed
I think he refers to the Biblical view of creationism, which has been debunked by anthropological, archaeological, biological, genetic, and geographical evidence.
General creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) has been falsified as a scientific theory. It hasn't been proven/disproven, but it has been shown to lack scientific credibility.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:56 pm
by tnf
Tsakali_ wrote:seremtan wrote:
the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety
it has? gotta link about this?
You don't understand what he's getting at here.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:58 pm
by tnf
seremtan wrote:doesn't string theory posit that there are zillions of parallel universes, and gravity is distributed between them, hence it's such a weak force?
That's sort of one idea, yea.
String theory has come under a lot more scrutiny as of late, but whether it is right or wrong, the bottom line is you can't have quantum and general relativity, there MUST be something that can describe the subatomic world and the macroscopic world.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:13 pm
by Tsakali_
tnf wrote:Tsakali_ wrote:seremtan wrote:
the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety
it has? gotta link about this?
You don't understand what he's getting at here.
oops I see what just happened they basically shot their own foot.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:39 pm
by Hannibal
werldhed wrote:I think he refers to the Biblical view of creationism, which has been debunked by anthropological, archaeological, biological, genetic, and geographical evidence.
General creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) has been falsified as a scientific theory.
Best not to use 'falsification' talk regarding IE. Just say "it is not a scientific theory" and leave it at that.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:42 pm
by werldhed
That's what I was getting at. The theory itself hasn't been falsified (and can't be).
However, the debate of whether it's a valid scientific argument has been closed.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:51 pm
by Hannibal
Right.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:07 pm
by tnf
Hannibal wrote:werldhed wrote:I think he refers to the Biblical view of creationism, which has been debunked by anthropological, archaeological, biological, genetic, and geographical evidence.
General creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) has been falsified as a scientific theory.
Best not to use 'falsification' talk regarding IE. Just say "it is not a scientific theory" and leave it at that.
Can you imagine the challenge I have in trying to communicate these subtleties to sophomores in high school?
I'm always correcting them mid-sentence with stuff like "well...best not to use the term 'proof' there' or 'we can't really say 'false' but we can say...'
I don't think it really makes much of a difference in their understandings - but if I can get them to stop writing the phrase "THIS EXPERIMENT PROVED MY HYPOTHESIS TO BE FACT" and go to 'the data collected in this experiment support my initial hypothesis' I'm happy.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:07 pm
by R00k
Fucking hell. Another approach? As if it carries a bit more water than the "irreducibly complex" argument or the "archangels' destructive force" argument.
Obsessive nutjobs all of them.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:09 pm
by plained
they prolly get paid real well
so they try hard ey
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:12 pm
by zeeko
don't worry guys, we live in post-modern society nothing is really truth, this includes any creationist claims.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:12 pm
by tnf
plained wrote:they prolly get paid real well
so they try hard ey
don't derail this one please.
