Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:14 pmScientists who express skepticism about evolution and have also signed some form of contract agreeing to work, study in some specific way.
Well that's kinda the point. Although the people who work at AiG and ICR express skepticism about evolution ("denial" is more accurate), they aren't scientists. They agreed to work under a specifically anti-scientific framework, which excludes them from the category of "scientists". Given the nature of those frameworks they're more accurately described as Christian apologists.
What is your reason for wanting to prevent a biology teacher from bringing alternative views to the attention of students?
For the same reason I don't want geography teachers to teach flat-earthism, a history teacher to teach holocaust denialism, a health teacher to teach that storks bring babies, or any other K-12 teacher to do anything like that.....it's not their job and it's not how K-12 education works. Specific to science, the job of a K-12 science teacher is to make sure the students get a good basic understanding of 1) how science works, and 2) what the state of the current science is.
And really, I think #2 is the key point here. Whether folks like you like it or not, the fact is creationism has absolutely zero standing in science (and that includes ID creationism). None. Nada. Zip. The world's earth and life sciences community has operated under an old earth, evolutionary history framework for well over a century, while creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our understanding of the world in
at least 100 years.
So there's absolutely no legitimate scientific or educational reason for a teacher to bring it into he classroom. I know Christians like you really would like them to, just as I'm sure there are flat-earth believing parents who'd like the geography teacher to introduce their beliefs into the classroom as well, but just because you believe something that doesn't justify teaching it in schools.
So a "creationist organization" is simply a collective that advocates that the universe was created? or does your definition require that it also has some statement of beliefs too?
No they don't have to have a statement of beliefs in order to be a creationist organization.
Indeed, rather than on whether they have or have not agreed to some statement of beliefs, the merits of their cases is the only thing that matters, agreed?
It depends on the audience. If we're talking about scientists, then yes the only thing that matters is the case a person makes. If Joe Schmoe off the street submits a good manuscript to a journal, they will evaluate it based on its contents rather than on who wrote it.
However, when it comes to the general public and who they trust, then from a practical standpoint most of the time the identity, background, and qualifications of the person
will matter. That's because most people have neither the expertise nor the time to fully and properly evaluate Joe Schmoe's arguments. Instead they'll see that he's just some guy off the street with no background, experience, or education in the field of science he's speaking to, and so they'll just stick with the general view of the actual experts.
No, and I never suggested that.
So you do think there should be limits on what sort of "alternative views" teachers can bring into the classroom? Okay, then perhaps you can describe how that should work. Who sets these limits? What should those limits be based on?
I asked if you think there should be some official definition of what is truth when it comes to science and that questioning that truth should be discouraged. I do not see how encouraging questions can be equated to a "free-for-all, where teachers can teach anything and everything they personally want".
No, there's no official definition of "truth" in science. And no, questions
from students should not be discouraged.
I think that it is the place do it, how else can students get familiarized with what it means to think, to question authority, to probe and challenge.
It's one thing for the students to ask questions, it's something else entirely for a teacher to prod them into questioning scientific conclusions that have been agreed to for well over a century, thereby giving the students the false impression that those conclusions aren't really solid.
Just as I don't want a history teacher giving students the impression that maybe the holocaust didn't really happen, I don't want a biology teacher giving students the impression that maybe evolution doesn't happen. Both would be a terrible disservice to the students.
Tell me what do you mean by "convincing the scientists" when the teachers might themselves be scientists?
If creationists want their ideas to be taught in schools, then they need to do what all others have done, i.e., convince the scientific community first. They need to submit manuscripts to relevant journals, present at scientific conferences, and the like.
Then if they manage to convince the scientific community that they're correct, it will become the current state of the science and schools will eagerly teach it.
But for decades, creationists have been trying to do an end-run around that process and take their talking points straight to schools even though they've not managed to convince the scientific community of their validity, and in some cases the scientific community has resoundingly rejected them (e.g., ID creationism). IOW, they want their stuff taught as science even though the world's scientists have rejected it.
Of course it's subjective, everything I experience is subjective and this is true for all of us, all our experiences are subjective and we must rely on our own reasoning and knowledge to make decisions including decisions as to who we agree or disagree with, I do not delegate my decision making to others, if I am going to believe some proposition is true then I am the one forming that belief not someone else, not some book, not some authority and not some pop-scientist.
That's why it's important to gauge your level of bias on this issue.
I don't know the answer to that question.
I find that difficult to believe. You honestly have no idea whether you agree with AiG about rejecting any and all data that conflicts with the Bible? Do you realize how that alone indicates a level of bias on this issue? A truly scientific approach is to evaluate data on its own merits; whether that data conflicts with the Bible or not is 100% irrelevant.
There is no continuity, only claims that the fossil record is evidence of evolution. I've looked at these claims for decades and I do not see the evidence, I have no reason whatsoever for example to believe that Anomalocaris or Trilobites actually had ancestors, or common ancestry.
Anomalocaris had a complicated compound eye, as complicated as any organism that lives today and there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that the structure "evolved". This is just one of many claims made by evolution advocates.
Well to be honest, given the above your opinions on those issues aren't really of consequence. You're free to have and express them of course, but I wouldn't expect very many people to take them seriously.
If you'd like to learn more about the magnitude of this glaring problem with the fossil record I'd encourage to read Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer, that has a wealth of scientific detail and scholarship that you can scrutinize.
I am of the view the fossil record is evidence of discontinuity not continuity, the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of fully formed, already "evolved" organisms with mineralized shells, compound eyes, brains, limbs etc actually
typifies the fossil record, it is not the exception. The fossil record looks exactly as one would expect it to look if these animals had not evolved, this is the point so many are missing or even unaware of.
I've read the book. Tell me, why do you think Meyer put his arguments in a book, rather than a manuscript submitted to a paleontology journal, or in an abstract as part of a presentation at a paleontology conference?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
