State Legislators Seek Bills to Allow Questioning of Evolution Theory in Schools

Should they also search for evidence of humanity being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Garglwhoop? [credit to Douglas Adams]

How preposterous.

 

That is not the definition I would accept.

My working definition of the supernatural is "phenomena that is not limited to space/time and matter/energy as we know it." The question of whether or not it can be understood is entirely separate, and must be answered on the basis of a study of the phenomena, rather than an a priori assertion that they cannot be understood.

What is the basis for your definition?

 

The dictionary.

 

^ That's your problem, then. When you use dictionaries to do your thinking for you, you get their limited thinking.

 

Please tell me you're joking.

 

It's a shame the theory of evolution has become a political issue, a religious issue and clearly a more important issue than teaching students fundamental skills like reading, writing and mathematics.

Evolution is not about debunking religion anymore than religion is about debunking evolution. Yet it somehow has become the epic representation of man vs. god, a pay per view grudge match with the fate of all public school children hanging in the balance.

Enough already.

What does a god care about a scientific theory?

On the other side, scoring a victory against religion as the primary motivation for teaching evolution to school children is pathetic. It is simply using the playground as a battleground for an adult issue, putting ideology ahead of students best interests.

Guess what?

You can be successful in life without believing in creationism and you can be successful in life without learning the theory of evolution.

Public schools should be focusing on more important things.

 

Instead he should work using your definition and therefore let you do the thinking for him?
You were writing not long ago of how you have to understand the context a term is used in rather than sticking to a personal definition. Surely then in a case like this it is best for all to defer to a common source to establish the way in which it should be used?

 

Why would I be joking?

Can you imagine a scientist (this is, after all, a debate on scientific thinking) letting the conclusion of his research be determined for him, wholly or in part, by a dictionary? Dictionaries give various meanings, based on popular usage. Those definitions change with time and, has been pointed out recently, are often extremely varied. A scientist cannot afford to consider the meaning of a term as "set in stone" as if it was handed down by some higher power and could not be seen to be insufficient. Where would science be today if science had ever used that procedure?

Didn't say it, didn't think it, and didn't imply it in what I wrote. I am constantly amazed by the ability of people on internet to read "A is not B" and to interpret that as, "Oh, so you always think A is C?" or some other non sequitur.

And so it is. As I wrote to him, definitions are not set in stone. Since the whole point is to determine if there is or is not anything to the "supernatural" and, if so, what is the nature of the "supernatural," one should not use a definition that presupposes part or all of the answer.

If you cannot see that it is not, then I cannot think of anything that would convince you.

 

The theory of natural selection by biological evolution is the central component of modern biology. There is nothing more important in that subject at least.

 

Supernatural does seem to be that which by its nature is beyond the scope of the natural universe and so not bound by its rules and therefore not definable by them.
Trying to redefine it to make it explainable using our laws and theories is no different in my mind than saying you are going to redefine i to make it the square root of positive 1 in order to make a calculator accept it.

 

...like learning the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Edited to clarify.

Just a point in fact here:

Not all theories of Intelligent design have anything to do with religion at all.

Creationism is a theory that falls under ID, but ID is not Creationism.

For example:

http://www.scienceray.com/Philosophy-of-Science/The-Secular-Intelligent-Design-Hypothesis.116523

My point is, there is no reason why ID has to have occurred because of a God. ID could very well be a valid theory for entirely scientific reasons...discounting it out of hand is bad science, IMO.

 

It's the 21st century and we have congressman in this country that want to promote scientific ignorance. Dear God, it's no wonder our students are lagging behind the rest of the western world in math and science. This is fucking embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for anyone who would support this bill. I go to church every Sunday. I believe in God. That doesn't mean that this proposal isn't garbage, because it is.

 

And if there was any evidence to support it, it would be.

 

Reasonable enough.

But the point was never one of making it explainable using our laws and theories. Ryan's point was not that the laws of the supernatural might well be vastly different from those of the natural universe (which is a very real possibility, though it is also possible that in some ways they may be fairly similar), but that the supernatural "can never be understood," period. To say that the laws governing the supernatural are possibly or even likely different, and to say that they cannot possibly be understood, are two entirely different statements.

 

In terms of the supernatural, something is supernatural only until it is discovered, and then it by definition becomes a part of the natural world.

I'm not sure how that relates to what you were saying, but that's how I've always thought of it.

 

worth noting again.

 

I think people are misusing the word "supernatural". The supernatural is not merely something that we don't understand - although people may wrongly attribute such things to it. It is something which we can't understand due to not being bound by any physical laws.

And I concede Asyncritus's initial point. I presuppose its non-existence on logical grounds.

 

I've literally seen the definition of "theory" change in my life between grade school and college.

Ocenana has always been at war with Eastasia

 

The problem I have with education today isn't what or what isn't being taught in class, it's the fact that we are teaching these kids what to think instead of how to think. In a class room all should be open to discussion, whether it be the theory of evolution or the belief in intelligent design or anything and everything in between. It should all be open to discussion, evaluation, even mockery, there should be no taboos in the classroom.

 

Unfortunately language isn't precise, it evolved. The word theory is too slippery. Even among scientifically educated people it's misused.

My wife is taking a MSN (masters in nursing) course in "Nursing Theory". I was dismayed to see things like "using invented reality to derive theories" and "the theory of caring". If they can't get it right how do they expect middle school teachers much less the general public.

 

Well, no. It's even more problematic than that. The scientific understanding of the natural world readily admits of the possibility of natural phenomena that cannot be explained; in fact, current understandings of uncertainty principles and quantum mechanics demand the existence of natural phenomena that can't be explained or predicted by application of models of the universe to observations of the universe. Perfect models of the natural universe are, in any event, theoretically impossible, therefore there will always be unexplained phenomena.

"Supernatural" simply isn't a scientific term. It has absolutely no meaning whatsoever beyond being a categorization of various characteristics often attributed to fictional objects. Anything that can be observed is by definition part of the natural universe. That is, in fact the whole point of science. If a god or a sentient rabbit wizard existed and could be observed to do things that violate our understanding of natural law then science would not hold that the god or the peculiar animal is supernatural but rather than our understanding of natural law was mistaken and has to be revised. The concept of "supernatural" is completely incoherent when applied to the real world, and efforts to categorize anything that happens in the real world as supernatural do nothing but betray a misunderstanding of science.

The supernatural cannot be understood because it is by definition fictional.

 

The word "evolved" has simply replaced the words "adapted" and "changed".

This correlates with evolution. Darwin observed the changes in the different species on the Galapagos islands adaptive capabilities. No single species he observed had changed species. Every finch with the different beaks, sizes, colors, attributes,...were all STILL FINCHES. Same with the races, race is culturally defined, not biological. All the different forms we humans take, the different genetic traits, skin tones, nose shape, eye contour,...we're all humans. To think otherwise is racist and supported by different thinkers over the years, such as Margaret Sanger who started planned parenthood and believed in master races. Know who studied under her? Hitler. That's just a little bit of interesting history.

 

and you obviously have faith in it's validity, because you are still trying to argue. It doesn't matter that you change the words or deny, it does not change the meaning. However, I welcome you try to AGAIN.

Yet people are still PROVEN innocent or guilty.

I'm sorry, what I meant to say was you have your head up your ass. I don't know what came over me.

Well thank you for assigning a philosophy to my views. I was unaware of where I fit. You see, from time to time I need people slightly over my own age to exert their intellectual dominance over me by throwing in every little piece of information they were told in school or learned from wikipedia...

When and if I decide to debate with a, how you put it..."grown-up", maybe I'll give you a call, and you can come watch.

 

Because without common meaning words become useless and language itself breaks down. It's so completely and utterly preposterous to suggest we start making up our own definitions I can't believe you would actually say it.

 

Certainly not.

Oxford
Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

Merriam-Webster
Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.

Cambridge
Caused by forces that cannot be explained by science.

American Heritage
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

 

Try what again? Words have different meanings, and when I "change the words", that implies that I mean something other than what you would like. Not all belief is faith. I don't have faith.

Incorrect, in the epistimological sense. But then, you don't even know what that means, do you?

Wonderful argument.

Excellent. Once again, might I suggest avoidance of such a thoroughly discredited and stupid idea as Pascals Wager.

 

it implies you don't want to accept the fact that when you have belief in something, that belief is called FAITH. Go put it in a thesaurus and find another word if you like, it'll still mean the same thing. Words have meaning, and some words have the same meanings, when you change the words, you don't always change the meaning.

If you want to make yourself look more intelligent than your opponent as you so subtly attempt, you might want to refrain from using the same philosophical term three times, misspelling it EVERY time. Also, using Wikipedia as a source earlier really makes you look like a genius, and does in no way take away from your credibility... :repwank:

Despite the fact that you already tried to define an entire philosophical view point earlier in your Wikipedia, sentence-long "definition"...I'll give it a go.

As you said earlier:

-Under Epistemological thinking, this makes opinion all source for what you consider "evidence" and if evidence is conclusive, then it is not THEORY but FACT, so in philosophical logic: facts are proven events.

side note: Epistemology is bullshit anyway, due to it's relativistic nature. So, why not wise up just a tad and try shutting your fuckin mouth.

 

You will notice that none of those definitions, even if they are accepted as "authoritative," implies your original defnition, in which you claimed that the supernatural, by definition, cannot be understood. The one that comes the closest is Cambridge, and even they say only that it cannot be explained by science.

I think that by suggesting that the dictionary be used as the authoritative source for the meaning of a word (an approach that neither a scientist nor a semantician would ever use, but that doesn't seem to bother you; you must consider them "preposterous" as well), you are showing your original argument to be invalid.

 

It is not, and this statement shows how limited your thinking is. Epistemology is the most fundamental approach there is to knowledge. Saying that it is "bullshit" is like saying "science is bullshit."