It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.
Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Hmmm. Curious - how exactly is evolution challengable or falsifiable, exactly?
And how exactly can you have a problem with "We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind"?
teaching creationism or intelligent design (let's face it - that is what they are talking about!) as "challengable scientific theories" is impossible - someone forgot to think critically about exactly what it is science is and what it is creationism is - it is not challengable, not falsifiable, and therefore not science - to say it has to be taught as a scientific theory shows some serious ignorance.
No concept should be put on a pedestal as unassailable or merely assumed true, whether it is creation or evolution.
Let the facts be presented openly, let conflicting opinions and arguments be presented, and let the chips fall where they may.
Equally, creation theory should be every bit as easy (or difficult, as you will) to shoot down as evolutionary theory - as fact continue to come out, these should continue to be presented, and if appropriate, let creationism die.
Your disbelief a the allowance of competing theories that are no more unfalsifiable or challengable that evolution baffles me, as is your reticence to allow these teaching to develop as new evidence comes to light.
Mountain out of a molehill, I believe is the proper phrase...and even that might be excessive.
find an organism for which there is no evolutinoary path.
Here is the relevant bit again: (reference your quoted bit)
and yet those 2 things only given those characteristics by creationists.
Scientists understand that evolution is challengable, and creationsits refuse to accept that the bible is challengable.
Indeed - what facts are there abbout creationism?
you completely miss the point
Please clarify. Both theories seem to suffer from the same defects, and merely differ in their interpretations of the evidence.
[quotethat is because you start from a position that evolution is not chalengable, and that is wrong. Indeed it is a common creationist tactic to try to justify putting creationism and science on the same level.
common, obvious, transparent, and wrong.
Wrong - I don't put creation and "science" on the same level". I put creation and evolution on the same level, and I don't believe that either are truly science under the commonly-understood definition, as I believe they are both equally insufficient under such. Whether you consider that an issue with the 'theories' or with the definition of 'science' is up to you.
Well now you know better - I am happy to have helped deny your ignorance
Well, I'm glad I could help you feel better with yourself Unfortunately, you haven't done much to address my concerns on the matter or anything that I've said regarding this post.
Take care!
- from here
....... any of the following would destroy the theory (of evolution):
-If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
-If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
-If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
-If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If microevolution occurs then why can macro-evolution not occur?
OK - since you do not know here is an example of some of the facts surrounding each:
One fact about creationism: the only supporting evidence for it is the bible
One facts about Evolution: there is a large body of research supporting it (clearly you do not think the research support it, but it is a fact that the research is there, and that the vast majority of scientists think they do support it)
That you consider these 2 bodies of supporting evidence to be at the same level of each other tells me you really have no idea about evolution or science at all, despite your protestations otherwise.
The reason it is difficult to falsify evolution is because of the vast amount of information that supports it - not because I cannot prove unicorns do not exist.
the ease with which it can be shown that creationism is not falsifiable and therefore not science is also not relevant to whether evolution is science or not.
I gave a simple answer to illustrate what would prove evolution incorrect - you chose to argue agaisnt that with an argument about unicorns, so here's the expanded version: (insert off-site quote here)
are these easy to do? I doubt it.
But there is nothing about falsifiability that says it has to be easy. Theories that are easy to falsify do not stay theories for very long precisely because of that characteristic! Evolution is difficult to falsify precisely because it has a mountain of evidence supporting it.
Creationism is not falsifiable. The whole creationist evidence is "the bible tells us it is so and the bible is gods inerrant word so it must be true" - effectively "you can't show it isn't true" - andyou have already pointed out that that is a non-argument.
The idea that the world was created 6000 years ago IS falsifiable - and has been as far as science is concerned - eg by evolution,
Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
The idea that the world was created 6000 years ago IS falsifiable - and has been as far as science is concerned - eg by evolution,
That's funny...I don't recall saying anything in support of young-earth creationism - which I shouldn't be expected to in light of my views on Genesis 1 and the hebrew language therein.
Not sure what your point here is, exactly. I would take it you erred in assumption here?
Then again, just for the sake of fun, I suppose we really could take up the matters of issues of radiological dating, stratigraphy, lensing, the gravitational effects on light speed, and all sorts of other issues...but I have no interest in doing so for multiple reasons, regardless of how long they might prolong this discussion. I have no personal qualms here despite the fun disputes that might arise.
I just started a thread about a similar topic in that Christians believe the country is theirs by God's will and they should be the ones who run it.
I am not sureprised you missed the point, because the point was to provide an example of somethign that is falsifiable, and we have already established that you do not know what that means.
Hey far be it from me to spoil your fun -- go for it
Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
I am not sureprised you missed the point, because the point was to provide an example of somethign that is falsifiable, and we have already established that you do not know what that means.
Clarify, please - otherwise I'm forced to assume that you are merely continuing your bloviations.
Take care, Aloysius. No hard feelings here, we just disagree and you haven't done much to validate your opinions for me. Your supposed clarifications of falsifiability regarding one topic but not applying to the other fall flat,...
Originally posted by TrueBrit
intelligent design has its merits (which are arguable, which is precisely the point) as an argument, it is only right that its implications are discussed as a part of a rounded education in critical thinking.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
First of all, I would like to request that the whole of part twelve of this document be displayed in thread, without reference to a downloaded pdf.
Not everyone has the capacity to download things, especially in my case. I use works computers and my sisters PC, and there are things that one does not do, no matter how clean a file is, when using others equipment, one of which is downloading documents that could just as easily be displayed in their wholeness by the OP.
Second, I cannot see from what HAS been presented, that the GOP opposes teaching critical thinking.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Critical thinking does NOT by implication mean that creationism is out of the window. In fact some of the most prodigious thinkers in physics and what have you, insist that the markers of intelligent design are evident throughout not only our composition as humans, but throughout the entire universe. This, in and of itself, suggests a creation, and by extension a creator.
There is no bloody mention of creationism being science in the statement or part thereof, which has been offered up in this thread.