Creationist Appointed As Maine Education Commissioner

[Orange_Crush]

Um yeah, we do, at least a great deal of them. They start with the conclusion that there is a God/higher power and work to "prove" what they already believe. Not to mention the missing testable data that abounds for any kind of ID. Why should it be given equal ground in a SCIENCE class when so much that makes up the ID movement is patently unscientific?

So a scientist can't try to prove what they believe? They only present hypotheses that they don't believe? Interesting.

(BTW, from what I can tell, ID has been very careful not to use the term "God".)

And ID does make testable predictions. As a matter of fact, some of their predictions are exactly what we find... Such as rapid appearance of complexity in organisms, etc... Some of the very things that Darwinian Evolution has problems explaining are what ID predicts we should find.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Um, what?

You would disagree that when a scientific theory is proven wrong, it's a good thing and proves that the scientific method is working?

Apparently, MP was holding Newton to a standard that he refuses to hold other scientists to--i.e. Newton should have been right about everything or his ID framework for science didn't work.

 

[MercyPercy]

Apology accepted. No worries.

I promise I intentionally avoided the current direction of this thread. In fact, the only way my post can be interpreted as science versus creationism is to make the illogical leap that ONLY big government supporters favor science. We both know that isn't true.

My point is the most foundational, imo. We have given control of our school to the State...and we are gravitating towards Federal control. Because we don't control our schools, the people who do now have complete discretion. They exercise that regardless of what you and I believe.

How are our students falling behind?

U.S. students improving in math and science, but still lag internationally | Pew Research Center

I understand the wariness. Government control is rarely ever the answer, much less the best solution. I just don't see any other way public schools, in theory, prepare students equally for the concepts they are expected to know in college. This effort to undermine and contradict what 97% of scientists believe regarding the actual concept of science itself is extremely unique in that, if this were any other subject with any other number of extremely unpopular theories, most here wouldn't have anything to say about it. It's just this one which has caused such a stir because of the perceived religious contradictions. I think these conflicts are counterproductive and only slow down the process of trying to catch up to the other developed countries kicking our asses in STEM fields.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

So a scientist can't try to prove what they believe? They only present hypotheses that they don't believe? Interesting.

(BTW, from what I can tell, ID has been very careful not to use the term "God".)

And ID does make testable predictions. As a matter of fact, some of their predictions are exactly what we find... Such as rapid appearance of complexity in organisms, etc... Some of the very things that Darwinian Evolution has problems explaining are what ID predicts we should find.

You obviously aren't very familiar with many ID movements then, that or you are splitting hairs with semantics.

Your last paragraph.....citation please.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You would disagree that when a scientific theory is proven wrong, it's a good thing and proves that the scientific method is working?

Apparently, MP was holding Newton to a standard that he refuses to hold other scientists to--i.e. Newton should have been right about everything or his ID framework for science didn't work.

I think it's pretty clear you don't understand MP's point, and for someone who was chastising him for creating a strawman so he could throw a temper tantrum, well....pot meet kettle.

 

[Orange_Crush]

[Methodological Materialistic] Science only deals in natural explanations because that is what its pursuit is. That's it. The philosophical implications and/or shortcomings are another matter altogether. Nobody is saying we should quell the philosophical debate, or even quite the critics. They are simply saying it doesn't belong in the discussion on how this specific framework works.

(FYP a bit...)

OK. It hasn't always been that way, and has been proven effective under competing frameworks, so I vote we give equal time to the competing framework. Teach equal time ID science classes in school.

Science is defined through a certain philosophy. Everything taught in that class will fall under that umbrella. Whether that philosophy is right should be reserved for a philosophy class. That is not the snake eating its own tail, that is simply stating up front we are not discussing the merits of this methodology, only how this methodology explains natural phenomenon.

OK. I'm on board. Teach ID Science in equal time and you don't get to come in and question its philosophy during class. I think we're making headway. I really do.

It is taught as a pursuer of "truth" (your words, not mine) under a certain bounded framework. The merits of that framework should be discussed elsewhere. How things work within that framework is the focus.

I'm loving it. In ID class, they will discuss how things work within that framework, and you can discuss the merits of that framework elsewhere.

What you are advocating is a scientific philosophy course, where other competing philosophical claims can be compared and contrasted. Cool, I'm on board.

Awesome! We'll have a materialistic science class, where no one can question it, an ID science class where no one can question it, and a philosophy of science class where it's no-hold-barred. I really think this would be awesome.

By definition, supernatural explanations are not taught in a science course. And that isn't to shut out competing ideas, it is to teach how a certain framework works.

That's cool. They can pick up the alternate perspective in third period and debate it all in fifth. I like how your brain works.

 

[rjd970]

So a scientist can't try to prove what they believe? They only present hypotheses that they don't believe? Interesting.

(BTW, from what I can tell, ID has been very careful not to use the term "God".)

And ID does make testable predictions. As a matter of fact, some of their predictions are exactly what we find... Such as rapid appearance of complexity in organisms, etc... Some of the very things that Darwinian Evolution has problems explaining are what ID predicts we should find.

Belief =/= hypothesis. Not even close.

That's not the way science works, or what he was saying. He's saying hypothesis are presented to see if they offer utility to the question. Scientist aren't out to prove the hypothesis (or as you are saying, "belief"), they are out to seek answers if it is true.

Scientists hypothesized (not "believed") that the higgs-boson particle existed, so they spent billions of dollars building the particle accelerator. As a result, they found the particle, confirming the hypothesis. But if they didn't find it, it still would have been a success because it would have showed that the particle doesn't exist, and the hypothesis (not "belief") was wrong. That is a fundamental difference being overlooked in this discussion.

Likewise, there are countless ways to falsify theories like evolution. And if they do falsify it, then they regroup, refocus, or even discount the initial hypothesis altogether. And they do it in that same philosophical framework they started with.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think it's pretty clear you don't understand MP's point, and for someone who was chastising him for creating a strawman so he could throw a temper tantrum, well....pot meet kettle.

Perhaps I misunderstood him. He was saying that Isaac Newton's ID science didn't work because he believed in things that have been proven false?

I don't see that as a straw man. If I misunderstood, he can correct me.

But, as I pointed out, he then turned around and confessed that his ID science worked. Maybe you're right. I must have misunderstood him.

MP. Can you come clarify your points as to why Sir Isaac's belief in alchemy invalidated his ID-based science?

Thanks in advance.

 

[MercyPercy]

So, let me get this straight... When Isaac Newton's ID science wasn't right about everything, it disproved ID science. When materialistic science isn't right about everything, it proves the methodology works.


Gotcha. :good!:

But you just affirmed that science can be successful in an ID paradigm. Bet you missed that, huh? I bolded it. Ouch!



You just proved that you conflate ID and Creationism. You undermined yourself, not my position.



No it doesn't. It sounds like a logical fallacy, actually.

Look, OC. We've been through this rodeo before. It's blatantly obvious that you are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending this very simple concept that I have been arguing and that rjd has concisely stated here.

I fail to see how it is "smuggling" when it is stated up front that Science deals only in the natural explanation of phenomenon. It is actually quite open about it. It's the assumption upfront.

Philosophical reasons for why it may or may not be a good method should be reserved for a philosophy class. Not introducing such discussions in a science class.

That's about as plain as it can be put, and none of your objections are particularly convincing as much as they are purposefully obtuse. But thankfully for all of us, I don't get to decide what is taught. I implore you to use your excellent arguing skills and submit a paper for peer review. I promise the Atheistic Science Cabal won't blackball you if your ideas and arguments are worth their salt.

 

[rjd970]

(FYP a bit...)

OK. It hasn't always been that way, and has been proven effective under competing frameworks, so I vote we give equal time to the competing framework. Teach equal time ID science classes in school.



OK. I'm on board. Teach ID Science in equal time and you don't get to come in and question its philosophy during class. I think we're making headway. I really do.




I'm loving it. In ID class, they will discuss how things work within that framework, and you can discuss the merits of that framework elsewhere.



Awesome! We'll have a materialistic science class, where no one can question it, an ID science class where no one can question it, and a philosophy of science class where it's no-hold-barred. I really think this would be awesome.



That's cool. They can pick up the alternate perspective in third period and debate it all in fifth. I like how your brain works.

If it makes you feel better I will call it [methodological materialistic] Science because that is exactly what it is.

I seriously 100% agree, and don't see an issue with it. Teach ID all you want. Just don't call it [methodological materialistic] Science, and don't teach it in a [methodological materialistic] Science course. Because it isn't [methodological materialistic] Science.

 

[MercyPercy]

Perhaps I misunderstood him. He was saying that Isaac Newton's ID science didn't work because he believed in things that have been proven false?

I don't see that as a straw man. If I misunderstood, he can correct me.

But, as I pointed out, he then turned around and confessed that his ID science worked. Maybe you're right. I must have misunderstood him.

MP. Can you come clarify your points as to why Sir Isaac's belief in alchemy invalidated his ID-based science?

Thanks in advance.

I never said Newton's belief in alchemy invalidated his science, just that even brilliant men, especially ones from 300 years ago, could have a blind spot. My main point regarding Newton was that his theism had nothing to do with why his science was successful. Theist or atheist, the method remains the same, and the method still only describes the natural.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Belief =/= hypothesis. Not even close.

That's not the way science works, or what he was saying. He's saying hypothesis are presented to see if they offer utility to the question. Scientist are out to prove the hypothesis (or as you are saying, "belief"), they are out to seek answers if it is true.

Scientists hypothesized (not "believed") that the higgs-boson particle existed, so they spent billions of dollars building the particle accelerator. As a result, they found the particle, confirming the hypothesis. But if they didn't find it, it still would have been a success because it would have showed that the particle doesn't exist, and the hypothesis (not "belief") was wrong. That is a fundamental difference being overlooked in this discussion.

Likewise, there are countless ways to falsify theories like evolution. And if they do falsify it, then they regroup, refocus, or even discount the initial hypothesis altogether. And they do it in that same philosophical framework they started with.

You probably should have picked anything besides the Higgs Boson as an example. Poor choice, ol' chap.

And maybe it’s not such a bad nickname after all. Lederman invented the name the "God particle” because it was “so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive.” Nobody had seen it back in 1994. And they’re still not sure whether they’ve really seen it today. Yet this isn’t seen as a massive problem. The idea seemed to make so much sense of things that the existence of the “God particle” has come to be taken for granted. It has become, I would say, a “particle of faith”. The observations themselves didn’t prove the existence of the Higgs boson. Rather, the idea of the Higgs boson explained observations so well that those in the know came to believe it really existed. One day, technology might be good enough to allow it to be actually observed. But we don’t need to wait until then before we start believing in it.

Some tell us that science is about what can be proved. The wise tell us it is really about offering the best explanations of what we see, realising that these explanations often cannot be proved, and may sometimes lie beyond proof. Science often proposes the existence of invisible (and often undetectable) entities – such as dark matter – to explain what can be seen. The reason why the Higgs boson is taken so seriously in science is not because its existence has been proved, but because it makes so much sense of observations that its existence seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an indicator of its truth.

Higgs boson: the particle of faith - Telegraph

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

I never said Newton's belief in alchemy invalidated his science, just that even brilliant men, especially ones from 300 years ago, could have a blind spot. My main point regarding Newton was that his theism had nothing to do with why his science was successful. Theist or atheist, the method remains the same, and the method still only describes the natural.

Then you made a non-point since my argument has not been that [theism is required for science], but is that [science can and has been successfully performed from with an ID paradigm].

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You probably should have picked anything besides the Higgs Boson as an example. Poor choice, ol' chap.




:hi:

Not really.

 

[MercyPercy]

If it makes you feel better I will call it [methodological materialistic] Science because that is exactly what it is.

I seriously 100% agree, and don't see an issue with it. Teach ID all you want. Just don't call it [methodological materialistic] Science, and don't teach it in a [methodological materialistic] Science course. Because it isn't [methodological materialistic] Science.

Well, wrap it up boys, I think we've got this puppy figured out. All we needed were some damn bracketed labels to fix this misunderstanding. Next up, world peace. :hi:

 

[rjd970]

MP. Can you come clarify your points as to why Sir Isaac's belief in alchemy invalidated his ID-based science?

Thanks in advance.

His alchemy didn't, but Laplace basically made his assumption that a God was necessary where there were holes in his math on planetary motions look stupid.



Some fun history...

In Exposition du système du monde, Laplace quotes Newton's assertion that "the wondrous disposition of the Sun, the planets and the comets, can only be the work of an all-powerful and intelligent Being".[64] This, says Laplace, is a "thought in which he [Newton] would be even more confirmed, if he had known what we have shown, namely that the conditions of the arrangement of the planets and their satellites are precisely those which ensure its stability".[65] By showing that the "remarkable" arrangement of the planets could be entirely explained by the laws of motion, Laplace had eliminated the need for the "supreme intelligence" to intervene, as Newton had "made" it do. Laplace cites with approval Leibniz's criticism of Newton's invocation of divine intervention to restore order to the Solar System: "This is to have very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God."[67] He evidently shared Leibniz's astonishment at Newton's belief "that God has made his machine so badly that unless he affects it by some extraordinary means, the watch will very soon cease to go"

On his mathematical treatise book:

Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

 

[Orange_Crush]

If it makes you feel better I will call it [methodological materialistic] Science because that is exactly what it is.

I seriously 100% agree, and don't see an issue with it. Teach ID all you want. Just don't call it [methodological materialistic] Science, and don't teach it in a [methodological materialistic] Science course. Because it isn't [methodological materialistic] Science.

I am absolutely amazed, astounded, and just pooped myself that we reached this point. Seriously. Except for the poop bit.

I jumped into this conversation just for a bit of boredom relief, but this is cool moment.

I'll buy you a beer when next we see one other.

:good!:

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Then you made a non-point since my argument has not been that [theism is required for science], but is that [science can and has been successfully performed from with an ID paradigm].

Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm.

 

[rjd970]

You probably should have picked anything besides the Higgs Boson as an example. Poor choice, ol' chap.




:hi:

Poor choice of a quote. The experiment proved what the hypothesis stated, that the particle could be shown to exist through interaction from other particles, while not directly observing the particle itself. Just like black matter. They were looking for that interaction in building the accelerator. I would go back and re-read the second paragraph of your quote for the full story. Seriously, thanks for not cherry picking a quote, appreciated.

That's beside the point, and irrelevant to the actual point that you casually overlooked, that your implication hypothesis = belief is 100% wrong.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm.

You're entitled to that opinion. My point was that there are more than one workable paradigm that can coexist and better one another. Is it really the gov't's job to dictate the philosophical indoctrination of our youth? (Your political ideals will help inform this.) And if you think that it is the gov't's job, then you are doing what you claim ID is trying to do--indoctrinate out youth into a philosophical viewpoint.

 

[MercyPercy]

Then you made a non-point since my argument has not been that [theism is required for science], but is that [science can and has been successfully performed from with an ID paradigm].

Okay.. You can be a believer and do good science. I know that. Obviously most of the great early scientists were theists/deists. I'm saying that their theism(and/or ID paradigm) is irrelevant to the process of conducting natural experiments as it cannot be tested or proven, and their science followed naturalistic methods to describe the natural world. They made discoveries about the natural world- their discoveries do no suggest ID is correct, much less necessary, or even helpful. It only suggests their methodology was correct.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You're entitled to that opinion. My point was that there are more than one workable paradigm that can coexist and better one another. Is it really the gov't's job to dictate the philosophical indoctrination of our youth? (Your political ideals will help inform this.) And if you think that it is the gov't's job, then you are doing what you claim ID is trying to do--indoctrinate out youth into a philosophical viewpoint.

What I said is not an opinion.

 

[Septic]

Damn long lunches, I've missed so much!

But that 5 guys burger tho.

I regret nothing.

 

[theFallGuy]

Damn long lunches, I've missed so much!

But that 5 guys burger tho.

I regret nothing.

your arteries disagree

 

[Orange_Crush]

Poor choice of a quote. The experiment proved what the hypothesis stated, that the particle could be shown to exist through interaction from other particles, while not directly observing the particle itself. Just like black matter. They were looking for that interaction in building the accelerator. I would go back and re-read the second paragraph of your quote for the full story. Seriously, thanks for not cherry picking a quote, appreciated.

That's beside the point, and irrelevant to the actual point that you casually overlooked, that your implication hypothesis = belief is 100% wrong.

Sorry. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. Maybe I should have been less sarcastic and a bit more literal. Does belief in a hypothesis invalidate it as a hypothesis?

That was my point in the quoted article. They tested it. But they tested it because they believed it existed. Even without firm proof, they believe it exists.

My point is that "belief does not disqualify a hypothesis as a hypothesis".

As to the second paragraph of the quote (was that the one you referenced?), I thought it was awesome and couldn't agree more.