"So I'll keep teaching science, not belief"

[MindMover]

A Science Teacher Draws the Line at Creation

As a science teacher, I am always curious about people's attitudes toward what I teach. Since more than 40 percent of U.S. adults believe literally what is written in the Book of Genesis—that Earth and the universe were created in six days about 6,000 years ago—and since I was in the neighborhood recently, I decided to visit the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., run by the Answers in Genesis (AiG) Ministry.

The museum has a brand-new planetarium and 70,000 square feet of exhibits claiming that the story of Genesis happened exactly as written. In the main lobby, a large display depicts life just after creation. Richly detailed with plants and rocks, it features a small boy playing, while two dinosaurs graze nearby. According to the exhibits, the stars are younger than Earth (they were created on Day 4), and Noah saved all animal species that we see today from the Flood. Earth had its one and only ice age, lasting a few hundred years.

What disturbed me most about my time spent at the museum was the theme, repeated from one exhibit to the next, that the differences between biblical literalists and mainstream scientists are minor. They are not minor; they are poles apart. This is not to say that science and religion are incompatible; many scientists believe in some kind of higher power, and many religious people accept the idea of evolution. Still, a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be reconciled with modern science.

Scientists tell us we live in a remote corner of a vast universe that existed billions of years before humans arrived. The universe and Earth could continue just fine without us. We are one species of many on a little planet with an ancient fossil record that shows that more than 99 percent of the species that once lived are now extinct. This speaks to a tenuousness of our existence as a species—an existence we need to protect vigorously.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-teacher-draws-line-creation&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_EVO_20130107

[Xipe Totec]

1. Point missed in this, is that God not only permitted, but required incest to propagate humanty

If we all descended from Adam and Eve, then brother had to lay down with sister (or mother/father) to create humanity.

Do you believe in the literal truth of the Bible?

Then you believe that fucking your sister or your mother is okay.

Have at it. I want no part of it.

[awoke_in_2003]

15. Blood's thicker than mud...

it's a family affair.



You youngsters may have to google Sly and the Family Stone

[Iggo]

21. Incest is best!

[Thats my opinion]

30. It's a story!! nt

[Xipe Totec]

44. Ancient porn. nt

[gcomeau]

2. I am so tired of people who say this ...

This is not to say that science and religion are incompatible; many scientists believe in some kind of higher power, and many religious people accept the idea of evolution.

Many scientists believe in some form of higher power, but they do not do so *scientifically*. They do so by taking the part of their brain that understands how science evaluates hypotheses and telling it to shut up, we're going into church. Science rejects unfalsifiable hypotheses as worthless, and "God Exists" is the mother of all unfalsifiable hypotheses. It cannot be made compatible with science. Every single last scientist I know who believes in God does so by completely compartmentalizing that belief from science and declaring that all the rules we deal with in science just *do not apply* when they are talking about God, because God is special. It's shameful to watch actually.


Same goes for religious people who accept the idea of evolution. Good for them, they accept basic facts. I'm sure they also accept that gravity exists. That doesn't mean their religious beliefs are compatible with the science behind those basic facts. They aren't.

Religion and science most certainly *are* incompatible.

[rug]

4. Design an experiment to prove or disprove God.

[gcomeau]

5. Look up "unfalsifiable" then get back to me.

[rug]

9. I take it then that the notion of a god is immune to evidence.

In that case, it's not science.

Therefore, your entire prior post is literal nonsense.

[gcomeau]

10. Are we speaking the same language?

"In that case, it's not science. "

Um, yeah. That was what I said in the first place. So congratulations on... agreeing with me while declaring I'm wrong?

[rug]

13. If it's not science, the scientific method is incompetent to determine anything.

If you cannot define the hypothesis, list the evidentiary parameters, and apply the scientific method, you're not dealing with science.

That belief is not science does not equate to incompatability. It equates to difference.

[gcomeau]

18. Know what else?

If it's incompatible with the scientific method it' **not compatible with science**.

Which was the point bring made, and which you seem intent on continuing to make for me while acting as if you think you're doing the opposite.

[rug]

22. You seem determined to see conflict where there is none.

com·pat·i·ble
/kəmˈpatəbəl/

Adjective: Able to exist or occur together without conflict.

[gcomeau]

24. You just said there was one.

And yes, that's according to the definition you just pointlessly posted.

[rug]

25. Difference does not equal conflict.

[gcomeau]

26. You explicitly admitted

That the notion of God was INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVIDENCE. Which makes it incompatible with science and the scientific method.

You can keep trying to dance around that and pass it off as an innocuous "difference" all you like. Reality is reality.

[rug]

35. "That belief is not science does not equate to incompatability. It equates to difference."

"the notion of a god is immune to evidence".

Doesn't seem to support your post.

Altering facts to support a hypothesis is poor science.

[gcomeau]

37. But that a specific belief is **incompatible with evidence** does.

You have already point blank admitted to this incompatibility with regards to belief in the existence of God. Now you're scrambling because you don't like the consequences.

[rug]

38. You haven't established "explicit". You haven't established "point blank".

Paraphrasing to salvage an argument is not argument at all.

I have been quite explicit and clear. You're free to disagree. You're not free to remold my words.

[gcomeau]

40. "Immune to" is equivalent to "incompatible with". You said it. Established. -eom

[rug]

41. Lol. Confirmation bias.

[gcomeau]

42. Or rather, english comprehension problem.

[rug]

43. Yes, that too.

[Phillip McCleod]

31. science and religion dont exist or occur together without conflict.

they exist together with conflict as both the premise of the article and this thread seem to suggest.

[rug]

36. Do you thinkt Scriptures are scientific texts?

[skepticscott]

16. It's been done, and you know that

Unless you have the idiotic notion that anything can be "proved" to an absolute certainty in the real world, as opposed to simply being supported by greater and greater weight of evidence.

[rug]

23. Oh, good. Post the link then.

[skepticscott]

27. First, let's hear you say

That you're totally unaware of any controlled study on the medical effectiveness of intercessory prayer ever having been done. Just so we have you on record as either a liar or a disingenuous bullshitter...or both.

[rug]

28. No, first let's see you post the link to your spurious claim.

You don't call any shots.

"The God Experiment". Sounds like cheap science fiction.

[skepticscott]

47. Here you go

Claim: The god that exists hears and responds to prayers for sick people to get better. IF that god actually exists, THEN we should see more sick people getting better if they are prayed for than if they are not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/05/15/study-concludes-intercessory-prayer-doesnt-work-christians-twist-the-results/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

So are you too ignorant to know these were out there? Or are you just a damned liar when you say it's not possible to design an experiment to provide evidence for the existence of a god that people's believe in? Your choice.

[rug]

48. Those are not experiments to establish the existence of God.

Clumsy goalpost shifting.

[skepticscott]

49. They are experiments to look for evidence

of the existence of god, as he is understood and believed in by most Christians. Simple concept. For most, anyway.

Clumsy backpedaling, but about what I expected from you.

[cbayer]

6. Bull. Many people, including many scientists, believe that they are very different but totally

compatible concepts. The same way that they can endorse a philosophical viewpoint, experience rapturous feelings during an amazing piece of music or fall in love based on faith.

These things may be worthless to you, but that doesn't mean they are worthless to everyone.

What's wrong with compartmentalizing? How interesting is a world in which science is the only way to see anything?

They are entirely compatible. Life and human beings are complex, thank goodness.

[gcomeau]

8. So...

...present a single justifying argument for accepting that belief.

One single solitary argument that makes the unfalsifiable hypothesis "God exists" compatible with a scientific methodology that declares unfalsifiable hypotheses null and void by virtue of their total lack of information content.

I'll wait.

[cbayer]

12. Don't need to make them compatible as in "one can prove or disprove another".

And don't have any interest in doing so.

What I do know is that some people's religious beliefs are leading them towards taking active positions in the climate change movement. That's the kind of compatibility that matters. That and about a dozen other causes I can think of.

Not who wins the unwinnable argument of whether god exists or not.

You can stop waiting now and go back to waging your war on religion, even when it is aiding in causes that you probably support.

[gcomeau]

20. Is that so?

Then you retract your "Bull" response to my original post? Great. See ya.

[Phillip McCleod]

32. i don't think 'compatible' is the right word for it.

i just don't. gould got it close with 'nonoverlapping magisteria' imo. we might as well be asking if windows 8 is compatible with cheeseburgers.

[cbayer]

33. Agree. They are entirely different things.

Can they co-exist? I believe so.

Can one person hold both as essential or meaningful at the same time. I believe so.

I like the concept of "non overlapping magisterial".

[Phillip McCleod]

39. we hold other null intersections in our heads so sure why not?

the capability for abstract thought takes us in a many a fanciful direction. mathematicians go rigorously. others do not feel so obliged. scientists, servants of empirical fact, don't get to go at all (except at the 'eureka' moment). one can only measure the measurable. isnt there a kabbalistic proverb to that effect?

hold on (bing) here it is: 'four entered paradise'. to try to know god means death or insanity. but to know the measurable? the cosmos in all its complexity? that requires reason and some extension of the senses to measure some 'observable'. sure people crack but the scientific method itself, the abstract concepts that correspond to observables, these can't be brought into prds. they don't apply.

likewise 6-day creation can't be brought into the geology or biology classroom. they don't apply.

[Xipe Totec]

45. There is a difference between religion and mysticism.

And there is room in the scientific mind for doubt.

Doubt, and realization that there are truths beyond our ken to understand.

[gcomeau]

46. There is a *requirement* in the scientific mind for doubt

The scientific method is built on the foundation of questioning all conclusions. Forever.

Which has nothing to do with what I posted.

[DreamGypsy]

3. The Science Teacher concludes his personal manifesto...

...with the following statement:

So I'll keep teaching science, not belief. Because if students do not understand how science works, we can destroy our country's future or even threaten our existence on this old Earth.

This is a noble agenda. However, even if everyone does understand how science works, we still are very likely to destroy our country's future and threaten the viability of life on Earth.

What we must do is to use our understanding of science in developing solutions to the problems we face, especially those problems we created and continue to exacerbate, and to find a way as a country and as a world to implement those solutions.

No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.

[cbayer]

7. There are some evangelical and other religious groups who are making climate change

a top priority. They believe that they have a sacred or religious obligation to care for the earth. They are very interested in understanding the science driving climate change, and I, for one, welcome any attention they can give it.

[DreamGypsy]

14. Yes! Native American spirituality comes immediately to my mind...

...for those who feel a sacred obligation to care for the earth. (This statement is obviously a gross simplification and does not capture the great diversity of Native American understanding of life and spirit. It expresses my naive view)

[okasha]

34. Your view isn'f naive.

Reverence for Selu, Ina Maka, whatever name we use for our mother, runs through virtually all indigenois religions.

[skepticscott]

17. Sheesh you and your father will never give up

trying to grab credit for religion for every cause that religious people are way late to the party for and fighting just as hard against as your precious little bands of "liberal" christians are fighting for. We wouldn't have to be fighting so hard to arrest climate change and other ecological damage if it weren't for the Republicans in Congress, who are....wait for it...totally and unabashedly CHRISTIAN

[dimbear]

11. This place sounds like a laugh to see, but I wouldn't pay to get in. My standards don't

allow me to support that stuff financially.

[jeepnstein]

19. I've been there.

It was an uncomfortable mix of people who were true believers in literal six day creationism and people who stayed awake during science class. It's a monumental waste of money that could have gone to much better use. At least I got a reduced admission because I'm a deputy sheriff.

The premise of the whole museum is if you don't accept their legalistic interpretation of Genesis then you are quite simply not a Christian. Just what Christianity needs, more division.

[struggle4progress]

50. +

[okasha]

29. I take it that the two dinosaurs nearby

weren't T. rexes or velociraptors.

Or there wouldn't have been any small boy.