Raw Story: Four states considering laws that challenge the teaching of evolution

[PeterMP]

I just wanted to point out that arguments from incredulity, those where people make arguments about the nature of reality based on their own feelings and perceptions, are known logical fallacies.

In other words, discussions about reality are discussions about evidence. It does not matter how unlikely, incredible, or implausible someting seems to some people.

But you accept all of basic science essentially as "fact" because you find it improbable that science could be wrong at a gross level.

If I start a thread on the probability that basic Newtonian physics is badly flawed in a manner not related to relativity, the responses are going to essentially be that seems improbable based on what we can imagine (i.e. given how well Newtonian Physics works for all sorts of things, like sending things to Mars, that is hard to imagine).

[Corcaigh]

I understand your point in that the scientific method can't prove the existence of a creator - but it also doesn't disprove it either. I take issue with your assertation that science has somehow proven "creationism" false.

Of course, "creationism" is such a broad term, so we could be referring to two different things.

I beleive there is far to much order in the universe, and in biological processes, for everything we see around us to exist without an intelligent designer. the liklihood of everything we see around us to have happened completely on its own, as explained by current scientfic knowledge and theory, is just to small to accept as plausible. Yet, I dont think its fair to lump me in the same group as other "creationists," who believe the universe was created in 6 literal days, the earth is only a few thousand years old, and satan buried dinosaur bones to trick everyone. Do you get what i'm saying?

None of this has anything to do with teaching evolution in school.

Creationism is based on religion. It does not belong in science class.

That your version of Creationism may be not as unscientific as others, doesn't give you a seat at the science table.

[talk show host]

There's a profoundly serious question buried in that humor. For all the misinterpretations of God's Word among His children over the centuries, to often horrific results, wouldn't it be a good thing for Him to come down and clear things up a bit? Just once. Sort of a 2,000 year reset. And I ask this in all seriousness.

replied to you via PM becuase i didnt want to take the thread more off topic.

[alexey]

But you accept all of basic science essentially as "fact" because you find it improbable that science could be wrong at a gross level.

Difference is accepting it because it "feels" probable vs. accepting it because there is good evidence for it.

If I start a thread on the probability that basic Newtonian physics is badly flawed in a manner not related to relativity, the responses are going to essentially be that seems improbable based on what we can imagine (i.e. given how well Newtonian Physics works for all sorts of things, like sending things to Mars, that is hard to imagine).

I suspect the answers will revolve around us having reliable evidence of things falling down.

[talk show host]

None of this has anything to do with teaching evolution in school.

Creationism is based on religion. It does not belong in science class.

That your version of Creationism may be not as unscientific as others, doesn't give you a seat at the science table.

I realize that my comments are off-topic from what should and shouldnt be taught in public schools. My comments are soley based on the idea being perpetuated that Creationism is somehow contradictory to science. By the same token, its unscientific to say God doesnt exist or wasnt involved in the Big Bang or subsequent events in the universe because it cant be scientifically proven/disproven either way. In the context of what shouldnt and shouldnt be taught in schools, science textbooks shouldnt comment on anything that hasnt been observed (either directly or through examination of the fossil record) one way or the other.

[Jumbo]

I beleive there is far to much order in the universe, and in biological processes, for everything we see around us to exist without an intelligent designe

I've enjoyed staying out of this one, but I will note that this is one of those endlessly repeated premises of which conveying existing refutation to the holder of its validity as a construct in formal logic is as realistic as obtaining meaningful connection in a conversation where one person describes alternate side of the street parking and the other person replies "green, and two across." :pfft:

Ok, it's not that bad, but it's close for practical purposes.

And there's absolutely no slam intended there to anyone---in my usage here, it's an assessment of the difficultly to communicate on the matter and reflects one way in how our brains can literally work differently in cognition on some matters.

The fundamental purpose to a large majority of such dialogue in these cases (which is to say it is not true in all cases of this kind of dialogue) is one where each party simply continues a long practice of self-affirmation in the matter.

A secondary goal can be to influence some observer of the dialogue who may be swayed, but that is also serving the fundamental drive mentioned. These conversations are more about maintaining (often at any “cost“) perceived solidity in self-identity at some of its foundational manifestations more than being about a "search for the truth." To many, the truth is already “known.”

But then that touches on one of the major differences between the way most religion and science is practiced and their fundamental tenets. As brilliant as people like Newton, Mendel, or Darwin etc. were, science had, has, and will always have, much to refine, correct, and sometimes change dramatically, even fundamentally. Though in such cases the knowledge is always built upon what was done before, still making all that preceded useful, and doesn't indicate what had occurred was "a waste" in some way.

Christianity for example, however, CANNOT allow itself to be in any position where some of its main contentions (or even most “minor” ones) are to be revised from having found to have been erroneous. It any important challenging fact or concept cannot be “spun” or argued in mentally/emotionally palatable manner to the believer (and there is inexhaustible cleverness in man for such cognition) to maintain support belief in its key propositions, then an absolute rejection is still required.

What happens in science, for all the human behaviors it is also subject to of course, is considerably different in its basic design.

I often have said (and still think) 5000 years from now the level of “sophistication”* (if you will) in how man frames his spiritual nature will be as different as now is from 5000 years ago. That's a rough or crude comparative form, but I’ll use it.

Unless we start teaching creationism in science classes, then we will be behind the rest of the world in that development. :evilg::pfft:

I will add in closing, that even in seriously exploring these matters in my earliest teens, I saw no reason a Christian (or follower of Islam or Judaism) couldn’t believe in a god at least somewhat like they already conceive and be perfectly accepting of good science, though believing in much of what their religion has claimed to be true may become increasingly challenging.

*Just like a reboot of the ways the OT had usually been considered (and was taught) as literal, and the story of Jesus enabled a "re-branding the OT God", was necessary for Christianity to persevere over the centuries in being as widely accepted a form of worship in its home nations. The use of "story" there is not to be taken as implying Jesus wasn't a real being, though I'm not one who believes the claimed Christian Son of God/Trinity/deity status.

[Corcaigh]

I realize that my comments are off-topic from what should and shouldnt be taught in public schools. My comments are soley based on the idea being perpetuated that Creationism is somehow contradictory to science.

Hold on. I think you have this exactly backwards. Science makes no statement on Creationism. (Some) Creationists take the position that science is false and that is what this thread is about.

By the same token, its unscientific to say God doesnt exist or wasnt involved in the Big Bang or subsequent events in the universe because it cant be scientifically proven/disproven either way.

Show me a science text book or peer-reviewed science paper which makes statements about God. By its very nature, the supernatural is outside the scope of science.

In the context of what shouldnt and shouldnt be taught in schools, science textbooks shouldnt comment on anything that hasnt been observed (either directly or through examination of the fossil record) one way or the other.

What high school science textbooks do this?

[talk show host]

I will add in closing, that even in seriously exploring these matters in my earliest teens, I saw no reason a Christian (or follower of Islam or Judaism) couldn’t believe in a god at least somewhat like they already conceive and be perfectly accepting of good science, though believing in much of what their religion has claimed to be true may become increasingly challenging.

*Just like a reboot of the ways the OT had usually been considered (and was taught) as literal, and the story of Jesus enabled a "re-branding the OT God", was necessary for Christianity to persevere over the centuries in being as widely accepted a form of worship in its home nations. The use of "story" there is not to be taken as implying Jesus wasn't a real being, though I'm not one who believes the claimed Christian Son of God/Trinity/deity status.

A quick note - I thought your entire post was good, but didnt want to quote the whole thing for space reasons. Instead, i just quoted your summary at the end.

Here is my perspective - I beleive the Bible was, as it claims to be, "inspired by God." As such, I believe everything stated in the Bible is 100% true (If God created the universe,, He would be the ultimate authority on, well, everything). However, everyone knows, people interpret various passages of the Bible in a number of ways. But just as scientific knowledge continues to advance, and our understanding of the world increases, man's understanding of the Bible can also increase, especially as archelology uncovers more and more about ancient cultures and languages.

The Bible is not a science textbook, and doesnt claim to be. Where it touches on science, it has always proven accurate. What's changed though, is that as science advances, Christians (who are also interested in Scientific truth) may have different understandings of certain scriptures in light of new scientific discovery. The problem, throughout history, is that many people claiming to be Christian decided to take an overly dogmatic position on things that the scriptures were not 100% clear on. In doing so, they perpetuated their own ideas when they should just let the scriptures speak for themselves. As a result, many people have misconceptions about things the Bible says (science-related and otherwise) because they were taught intrepreations of the Bible, as opposed to the Bible itself.

Although not directly dealing with science, Proverbs 4:18 indicates that the 'light would get brighter' as time goes on. I've yet to be shown any scientific fact that directly contradicts anything in the Bible.

Whatever people chose to beleive, i think they should base it on evidence. Nothing irritates me more than people who don't know anything about evolution.natural selection, but say its true because they have some basic understanding of the general concept and because people say its true. Similarly, i'm annoyed by fundamentalists who beleive its all a bunch of crock without examining the evidence. I have the same feelings towards those who take similar approaches towards intelligent design/creationism without doing a personal investigation. I can respect someone if they reject all pre-concieved notions they might have and do a thorough investigation and form an opinion - whatever that opinion might be. Atleast its their own opinion and theyre not just beleiving something because its what their teacher/preacher/rabbi/parents told them.

I only respect people if they are willing do whats captured in one of my favorite quotes:

So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.

You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.

[PeterMP]

Difference is accepting it because it "feels" probable vs. accepting it because there is good evidence for it.

I suspect the answers will revolve around us having reliable evidence of things falling down.

Your quote said:

"do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false. "

Something for which there is little no evidence would be "incredible". Something for which there is much evidence supporting being incorrect would be "incredible".

It would be "incredible" if beyond issues with relativity, Newtons laws were wrong because there is a large amount of evidence supporting him.

IF it is true the Universe has a large amount of order as compared to what one would expect based on science that would be incredible.

[talk show host]

Hold on. I think you have this exactly backwards. Science makes no statement on Creationism. (Some) Creationists take the position that science is false and that is what this thread is about.

Show me a science text book or peer-reviewed science paper which makes statements about God. By its very nature, the supernatural is outside the scope of science.

What high school science textbooks do this?

Its been so long since ive been in school, i dont know what textbooks say. All i remember is my high school biology teacher told us we didnt have to beleive what was in the textbook, when it spoke about evolution, but we needed to learn it and would be tested on it. i found that somewhat awkward, but she was probably trying to pre-empt any objections that could come from students whose parents had already taught them otherwise.

As ive stated before, within the main thrust of the thread, i agree with you. If i had children, i wouldnt want a science teacher trying to teach my children religion. I would want to learn the schools ciriculum (science, history, math, world religion, etc.), teach them what I beleive, and grow up to be responsible adults who could make up their own minds.

All of my comments are really in response to a tangent discussion because i objected to someones comment that seemed to imply that a person couldnt beleive in creation and also in science.

[Jumbo]

talk show, I think you're doing a fine job of navigating what can be testy waters for so many.

Peter...I think you should quit screwing around and just *****-slap alexy.

alexy, if I were you, I'd knock Peter's glasses off and take advantage of his handicap.

[alexey]

Your quote said:

"do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false. "

Something for which there is little no evidence would be "incredible". Something for which there is much evidence supporting being incorrect would be "incredible".

It would be "incredible" if beyond issues with relativity, Newtons laws were wrong because there is a large amount of evidence supporting him.

IF it is true the Universe has a large amount of order as compared to what one would expect based on science that would be incredible.

I understand that the word "incredible" describes a subjective state. When somebody says that they find something to be incredible, we say "thanks for sharing your feelings on that"

[PeterMP]

talk show, I think you're doing a fine job of navigating what can be testy waters for so many.

Peter...I think you should quit screwing around and just *****-slap alexy.

alexy, if I were you, I'd knock Peter's glasses off and take advantage of his handicap.

I'm only very slightly near sighted and only wear glasses to drive and it only really affects me at night.

So I wouldn't be at much of a handicap.

[Jumbo]

I'm only very slightly near sighted and only wear glasses to drive and it only really affects me at night.

So I wouldn't be at much of a handicap.

"Handicap" wasn't referring to your vision.

:pfft:

[PeterMP]

I understand that the word "incredible" describes a subjective state. When somebody says that they find something to be incredible, we say "thanks for sharing your feelings on that"

But isn't the case with anything.

Is there a non-subjective descriptor to describe the probability that Newton's laws are badly flawed?

How would you start to put a non-subjective value on the probability that Newton's laws are badly flawed?

[techboy]

I strongly suspect that if I had tried I would have been reproductively successful with many females.

Biochemistry professor smack talk.

[alexey]

But isn't the case with anything.

Is there a non-subjective descriptor to describe the probability that Newton's laws are badly flawed?

How would you start to put a non-subjective value on the probability that Newton's laws are badly flawed?

I would run experiments and compare predictions made by Newton's laws with measurments.

Let me put it this way... Is it incredible, improbable, and stupendous that every single person and animal on this Earth is a result of an unbroken chain of millions and millions of generations? I think that it is. Ancestors of every single animal have survived against incredible odds, over and over again, through mass extinctions, famines, floods and drougts, etc, and produced offspring that are alive today. You know all this. It is incredible and improbable indeed. So, how do you propose we handle an argument that goes like this: "I find this to be incredible/improbable, so I think it is not true?"

[PeterMP]

I would run experiments and compare predictions made by Newton's laws with measurments.

This shows an extremely poor understanding of what science is and what and how probabilities work.

The most basic point that I'll make is that you can't prove Newton's laws of motion correct. You can only falsify other options. Comparing predicted values from Newton's laws is not evidence that Newton's laws are "correct". It only has meaning in the context of more correct than something else.

And you can't falsify something when you don't know what it is.

In other words, your "test" has done nothing to show that Newton's laws are correct when compared to an unstated alternative.

It is possible that Newtons laws are badly flawed in manners that we don't understand or know.

I think that possbility is incredbily unlikely. I don't know how to put a value on it because I can't compare it to the unknown.

[techboy]

So, how do you propose we handle an argument that goes like this: "I find this incredible/improbable, so I think it is not true?"

Just a quick note, here. You are correct, of course, that such a thing as an informal fallacy of appeal to ignorance/incredulity exists (it's on Wikipedia, after all, so it must be true ). The problem is that you are stretching it way beyond its intended use, suggesting that we can never reject a proposed explanation because it is wildly improbable, which is silly.

Suppose, for example, my wife baked cookies for a party, and went upstairs to take a shower. She came back down to find the cookies gone, and the plate in my hands. I tell her that while she was showering, a burglar broke into the house, stole only the cookies, left (relocking the door), and I only came upon the scene afterwards, which is why I am holding the plate.

I think any reasonable person can agree that she would not be fallacious in rejecting my explanation as wildly improbable, even if it is technically possible that my story is true.

If, on the other hand, my house has a security camera, and I have the burglar on tape, and she still rejects the story because she just can't believe something like that could happen, then we have a proper application of the argument from ignorance/incredulity.

In the example you gave, we can reject such an argument because we have strong reasons to believe that as improbable as it was, it actually happened. A similar example would be me winning the lottery. The odds of that are miniscule, and if I told you I won the Powerball, you'd be right to discount my story.

Unless, of course, you saw me on TV with the lottery people. Then the situation changes.

People who reject evolution just because they can't believe it could happen are indeed committing such a fallacy, because the scientific evidence is so strong that this occurred.

The broader teleological argument (the fancy term for "intelligent design") does not commit such a fallacy for a variety of reasons which go beyond the scope of this thread.

That doesn't mean it's science, of course, and speaking as a science teacher (appeal to authority ) it has no place in my classroom.

[alexey]

This shows an extremely poor understanding of what science is and what and how probabilities work.

The most basic point that I'll make is that you can't prove Newton's laws of motion correct. You can only falsify other options.

And you can't falsify something when you don't know what it is.

In other words, your "test" has done nothing to show that Newton's laws are correct when compared to an unstated alternative.

You can answer my question or go with the alternative stated by Jumbo.

[PeterMP]

You can answer my question or go with the alternative stated by Jumbo.

I don't know if it is incrediblie or stupendues.

I have one data point essentially. I don't try and draw conclusions from one data point. I don't know what the entropy of the Universe should be to know if the "real" value is low or high.

I'd be curious to see somebody who does think it is incredible to try and put some numbers to it.

[alexey]

Just a quick note, here. You are correct, of course, that such a thing as an informal fallacy of appeal to ignorance/incredulity exists (it's on Wikipedia, after all, so it must be true ). The problem is that you are stretching it way beyond its intended use, suggesting that we can never reject a proposed explanation because it is wildly improbable, which is silly.

...

I am not saying that we should reject feelings and probability estimates made by our highly fallible brains. Those can be useful.

Scenario 1:

- I won the lottery!

- That's incredible! I do not think it is true. I do not believe you.

- Here is the winning ticket and my new Ferrari.

- I believe you now.

Scenario 2:

- Humans evolved over millions of years.

- That's incredible! I do not think it is true. I do not believe you.

- Here are loads and loads of evidence.

- ???

At that point, repeating the previous statement gets us nowhere. Yes it is incredible but yet it is true. Why are we having such a hard time with this?

---------- Post added February-6th-2013 at 10:46 AM ----------

I don't know if it is incrediblie or stupendues.

I have one data point essentially. I don't try and draw conclusions from one data point. I don't know what the entropy of the Universe should be to know if the "real" value is low or high.

I'd be curious to see somebody who does think it is incredible to try and put some numbers to it.

I think you're talking about Newton's laws and I am talking about evolution. I am sorry but I do not want to talk about Newton's laws. I think it's a horrible analogy that gets us nowhere, and you're not even trying to address or acknowledge the issue which started it all - fallacy of the argument from incredulity.

I find many aspects of the natural world to be incredible, stupendous, beatiful, and so on. Evolution is one of those things. It's counter-intuitive and mind bottling.

[PeterMP]

I think you're talking about Newton's laws and I am talking about evolution. I am sorry but I do not want to talk about Newton's laws. I think it's a horrible analogy that gets us nowhere, and you're not even trying to address or acknowledge the issue which started it all - fallacy of the argument from incredulity.

I find many aspects of the natural world to be incredible, stupendous, beatiful, and so on. Evolution is one of those things. It's counter-intuitive and mind bottling.

I'm talking about evolution and specifically the original claim that there was too much order in life w/ respect to what the Universe should allow.

I believe that Corcaigh is fond of saying that extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.

If it is in fact "incredible" that based on our understanding of the science and the current entropic state of the Universe is "incredible", partly because of life, then that we are here in a manner that is consistent with our current understanding of science would seem to me be an extraordinary claim (i.e. dependent upon something incredible), and it would have to supported by extraordinary evidence.

Which I don't know of any evidence that I would consider extraordinary.

It would suggest to me that we might badly need to rethink our understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the idea that the Universe is a closed system, or evolution and specifically how it related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Rather than state that science is a good explanation for how we are here (with some missing gaps), we should step back and say maybe missing big pieces and need to maybe majorly rethink somethings because our exsistance is based on an extraordinary claim (though I wouldn't rule out that maybe something "incredible" did happen, but it does make is seem unlikley, which would be worrisome).

I know less about the evidence that the Universe is a closed system and its entropy is decreasing and the reasonable allowable entropy of the Universe at this point in time as compared to its "real" entropy then I do evolution.

But based on what I know, I don't see any real reason to conclude that it is incredible that we are here.

It might be, but I don't see any real reason to conclude that it is.

So before I start a discussion based on IT IS incredible, I'd like to see somebody support that is the case.

[DaGoonie55]

I'm not Jewish, but this is a great write up on Creationism and Big Bang Theory. It has a long explanation, but it's a pretty good read. The perspective of humans being linked to the red shift of galaxies is thought provoking. Link : http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

The calculations come out to be as follows:

• The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

• The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

• The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

• The fourth 24 hour day ― one billion years.

• The fifth 24 hour day ― one-half billion years.

• The sixth 24 hour day ― one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

[alexey]

...

I believe that Corcaigh is fond of saying that extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.

If it is in fact "incredible" that based on our understanding of the science and the current entropic state of the Universe is "incredible", partly because of life, then that we are here in a manner that is consistent with our current understanding of science would seem to me be an extraordinary claim (i.e. dependent upon something incredible), and it would have to supported by extraordinary evidence.

Which I don't know of any evidence that I would consider extraordinary.

...

You're over-thinking it. When talking about magical claims, you can understand "extraordinary evidence" to mean evidence other than people having experiences and telling stories.

---------- Post added February-6th-2013 at 11:44 AM ----------

I'm not Jewish, but this is a great write up on Creationism and Big Bang Theory. It has a long explanation, but it's a pretty good read. The perspective of humans being linked to the red shift of galaxies is thought provoking. Link : http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

If your question is whether it is by chance that people look for patterns to make it seem like modern science supports the Biblical account, the answer is no

A good question to ask is how much we'd be able to learn about the universe without modern science from the bible alone. Not much.