Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

iflscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#61

Post by btilly »

pjc50 wrote: post #26
geomark wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting. I would have thought this was one of the factors dragging down math and science test scores in many western countries. The latest OECD rankings of 15 year olds in math and science put the UK at 20th and US at 28th. Seems pretty poor considering a country like Vietnam which was ravaged by war only a generation ago ranks 12th. FYI Top 10 [1]: 1.Singapore 2.Hong Kong 3.South Korea 4.Japan (joint) 5.…

I think the Western poor performance is a result of (a) terrible disorganisation in the education bureaucracy and (b) a lack of belief by people at the low end in the value of education for social mobility. It's very easy for someone who didn't get educational opportunities to believe that making their kids do well will go better for them. In the West, there are a noticeable minority of people who did OK in the stand…

There are claims that sampling errors for the best known one hurt the US. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Stu... for more.) I have heard anecdotes that suggest some Asian countries (notably Singapore) pick unrealistically good students for their sample to make themselves look good. And also there is a question about mismatch between the test and the curriculum - certainly the US does better on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathema... than on PISA.

None of this is to say that the US actually has a good education system. But it is not necessarily as bad as people think.

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#62

Post by gizi »

olavk wrote: post #55
gizi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you produce a link to a repeatable experiment in which one species is being "evolved" from another?

Sure: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

An experiment must be conducted in a controlled environment. Merely staring at iguanas that they found on an island, does not constitute an experiment. What are the inputs, the outputs and the function that they have unleashed during their experiment in order to transform input into output? Furthermore, into what did they try to transform their iguanas? Into cats or dogs?

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#63

Post by gizi »

mikeash wrote: post #57
gizi wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may indeed try to evolve a species out of another. In all examples in your link, they stay within the same species, however. There is simply no convincing experiment in which they evolve one species out of another. It does not exist.

"Species" is an artificial distinction that human biologists use to make it easier to talk about what's going on. There is no objective distinction between species. The idea that the universe somehow permits evolution within a species but does not permit evolution from one species to another is nonsensical, on roughly the same level as thinking that it's possible to walk one mile but not possible to walk ten miles.

Indeed, the first problem starts already with just the title of that notorious book: On the origin of species. What exactly is a species? If we cannot etch a reasonable definition for that term in stone, then all statements that make use of that term are questionable, on that basis alone. Evolutionism then becomes a theory about things that we cannot define that evolve into other things that we cannot define ... How could that ever be science?

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#64

Post by Oletros »

itsybitsy wrote: post #31
kbart wrote: post #14

I find it funny and sad that in 21st century we still have to explicitly prohibit such thing. Up next -- "Tooth faery theory banned from dental schools".

If you're comparing creationism to the tooth fairy, it's fair to point out that the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of nothing, like Dr. Who's telephone box. I'm not arguing for either theory, and certainly not arguing for the teaching of creationism in schools.

> the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of nothing

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#65

Post by zimpenfish »

gizi wrote: post #62
olavk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

An experiment must be conducted in a controlled environment. Merely staring at iguanas that they found on an island, does not constitute an experiment. What are the inputs, the outputs and the function that they have unleashed during their experiment in order to transform input into output? Furthermore, into what did they try to transform their iguanas? Into cats or dogs?

> Field experiments are so named in order to draw a contrast with laboratory experiments, which enforce scientific control by testing a hypothesis in the artificial and highly controlled setting of a laboratory. Often used in the social sciences, and especially in economic analyses of education and health interventions, field experiments have the advantage that outcomes are observed in a natural setting rather than in a contrived laboratory environment.

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

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#66

Post by olavk »

gizi wrote: post #62
olavk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

An experiment must be conducted in a controlled environment. Merely staring at iguanas that they found on an island, does not constitute an experiment. What are the inputs, the outputs and the function that they have unleashed during their experiment in order to transform input into output? Furthermore, into what did they try to transform their iguanas? Into cats or dogs?

A laboratory experiment on fruit flies is also described a bit further down the page.

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#67

Post by Oletros »

gizi wrote: post #51
tomp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand what evolution is. It really a name, and needs no proof. Basically, there are a few known facts: (1) organisms die, (2) organisms reproduce, (3) the offspring are different from each other and from the parents, (4) the differences are more or less random, (5) dying is not random but a consequence of external forces, and (6) external forces are relatively constant. From these facts, it logically f…

If it needs no proof, it is not science either, and that was exactly the point I was making.

You don't know much about evolution, it seems

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#68

Post by Oletros »

gizi wrote: post #44
olavk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not correct. Evolution have been observed in nature and artificially reproduced many many times. Just look at dogs. Separate species of fruit flies have been evolved in a laboratory setting.

Can you produce a link to a repeatable experiment in which one species is being "evolved" from another?

Lenski experiment

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#69

Post by Oletros »

gizi wrote: post #63
mikeash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Species" is an artificial distinction that human biologists use to make it easier to talk about what's going on. There is no objective distinction between species. The idea that the universe somehow permits evolution within a species but does not permit evolution from one species to another is nonsensical, on roughly the same level as thinking that it's possible to walk one mile but not possible to walk ten miles.

Indeed, the first problem starts already with just the title of that notorious book: On the origin of species . What exactly is a species? If we cannot etch a reasonable definition for that term in stone, then all statements that make use of that term are questionable, on that basis alone. Evolutionism then becomes a theory about things that we cannot define that evolve into other things that we cannot define ... How…

And another post that shows more clearly that you don't know much about what evolution is

Re: Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government

#70

Post by mikeash »

gizi wrote: post #63
mikeash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Species" is an artificial distinction that human biologists use to make it easier to talk about what's going on. There is no objective distinction between species. The idea that the universe somehow permits evolution within a species but does not permit evolution from one species to another is nonsensical, on roughly the same level as thinking that it's possible to walk one mile but not possible to walk ten miles.

Indeed, the first problem starts already with just the title of that notorious book: On the origin of species . What exactly is a species? If we cannot etch a reasonable definition for that term in stone, then all statements that make use of that term are questionable, on that basis alone. Evolutionism then becomes a theory about things that we cannot define that evolve into other things that we cannot define ... How…

Are you seriously attempting to discredit evolution as a science based on one word in the title of a single book?

You don't need a definition of "species" to understand or work with evolution.

Post reply on HN