Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools • Hacker News Board

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#81

Post by HillOBeans » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 2:51 PM UTC

ryanjshaw wrote: post #27

philcoders wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I scanned the link you posted, found it actually is confirming one of the arguments on the blog post, about the Piltdown man Hoax. And it says in the link you posted that science corrects errors. On the blog post link i posted, one of the arguments is that in the bible it is written the shape of the earth (circle) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… ISAIAH 40:22 One of the argument of the writer of th…

The 'arguments' you refer to are meant to support the idea that the theory of evolution is "senseless" (the author's own choice of words). Given that evolution is pretty much a scientific fact, the author clearly believes that the Bible contradicts science. Now I'm going to be blunt: neither you nor the author have a sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science to be drawing any conclusions regarding science…

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code system that is our DNA must have somehow constructed itself. I am not aware of any experiments following the scientific process that have demonstrated that such a thing is even remotely possible. Instead you have a bunch of "just so" stories about the distant past that are untestable ancient history that we are supposed to believe because we are told to do so by "people who are smarter than you". Smacks more of religion than "science" to me. And don't tell me about any experiments that demonstrate rapid speciation as evidence of evolution - that is NOT the same thing and is an equivocation I see proponents of evolution use all the time. They are instead examples of genetic isolation and information LOSS and are incapable of generating more complex, "higher" organisms. It is for this reason that some scientists have adopted the idea of intelligent design: information can only be created by an intelligent designer. I would expect a forum populated by people who write code to see that. I think that the idea of even a simple computer being able to construct AND program itself would be preposterous to most people here. And yet that is what the GTE proposes. Perhaps that points too much in the direction of a god for some people to accept, but the evidence seems to be clearly on the side of ID, IF you are truly following a "scientific" process.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#82

Post by arethuza » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 3:05 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #32

tptacek wrote: post #6

Politics. Religion. Valence issue. Why is this on the front page of HN? It shouldn't be; I flagged it.

I'm not sure education counts as an entirely political issue. It's obviously an area that interests the HN community quite a lot - there's a bias towards science and engineering here, and everybody interested in those fields should find the teaching of creationism in a scientific context to be abhorrent. So I think it probably warrants discussion when the education system adopts policies which are actively hostile to…

To be honest, I suspect this counts as a political issue in the US and isn't one in the UK. As this is a US dominated site I can sort of see why people don't want it debated here as it'll just upset people - which it appears to have done.

Ironically, religion doesn't play a very large part in day the day political life in the UK even though most of the country has an official established religion.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#83

Post by iterationx » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 3:06 PM UTC

HillOBeans wrote: post #81

ryanjshaw wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'arguments' you refer to are meant to support the idea that the theory of evolution is "senseless" (the author's own choice of words). Given that evolution is pretty much a scientific fact, the author clearly believes that the Bible contradicts science. Now I'm going to be blunt: neither you nor the author have a sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science to be drawing any conclusions regarding science…

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code…

An organism made out of 100 trillion machines? "Science" says it happened by accident. Not much point in arguing though. I'll just leave people with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#84

Post by t__r » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 3:40 PM UTC

HillOBeans wrote: post #81

ryanjshaw wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'arguments' you refer to are meant to support the idea that the theory of evolution is "senseless" (the author's own choice of words). Given that evolution is pretty much a scientific fact, the author clearly believes that the Bible contradicts science. Now I'm going to be blunt: neither you nor the author have a sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science to be drawing any conclusions regarding science…

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code…

Evidence is not on the side of ID. ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be confirmed or falsified. It does not explain anything. Its premise is flawed (I don't know how X happened therefore Y must be true). Believe in ID if you want but don't confuse it with science.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#85

Post by harshreality » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 3:41 PM UTC

HillOBeans wrote: post #81

ryanjshaw wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'arguments' you refer to are meant to support the idea that the theory of evolution is "senseless" (the author's own choice of words). Given that evolution is pretty much a scientific fact, the author clearly believes that the Bible contradicts science. Now I'm going to be blunt: neither you nor the author have a sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science to be drawing any conclusions regarding science…

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code…

Indirect evidence, at least beyond the step of abiogensis, is overwhelming. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There are probably no documented examples of macroevolution that would satisfy you because what you're looking for are systemic functional changes in non-microscopic species, in the wild, which then forms a stable population as a separate species. Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (which have been observed), but are not observable in aggregate in modern times because there has not been enough time to observe them. And if such examples were given, you'd say that's just a variation of an existing species. The perspective required to judge a separate species in your view is longer than the time phylogeny has been rigorously undertaken by scientists. You are asking for the impossible and using that to declare a theory you don't like as invalid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The GTE as you call it is not a finished theory. There have been significant changes in the past few decades (Lynn Margulis's work on endosymbiosis, for example), and there will be more changes in the future.

Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that the progress of evolution is too small and too slow to have resulted in humans. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to macroevolution. ID rejects the theory of evolution on the grounds that there is too little direct evidence, or that the probability (not that anyone can calculate it properly, but Creationists pretend they can) of evolution is too low, and posits an alternate "theory" of a designer, for which there is no evidence, nothing that allows calculating a probability of such a designer, and which completely ignores where the designer came from, typically by punting and declaring the designer God, and stating that God exists inherently, which is riddled with assumptions, and regardless of whether it's true says nothing about the nature of that God or what it might want or do.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#86

Post by frou_dh » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

groovy2shoes wrote: post #53

tptacek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with that section of the guidelines.

I disagree with drug laws, but that doesn't mean I can possess drugs without penalty.

You know that doesn't work since you had to tack on "without penalty". I doubt tptacek expects to be shielded from disagreement and/or downvotes.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#87

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 7:42 PM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #78

tptacek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unlawful to teach religion in public schools in the US.

False. "Part of the problem is widespread misunderstanding regarding U.S. law. According to a 2010 Pew Forum survey, nearly two-thirds of Americans erroneously believe that the Constitution forbids public schools from offering a course on religion. "Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, said courts have ruled that schools must be neutral, but that doesn't mean they m…

I think you're playing a semantic game with the words "teach religion" in my comment.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#88

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 7:43 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #82

matthewmacleod wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure education counts as an entirely political issue. It's obviously an area that interests the HN community quite a lot - there's a bias towards science and engineering here, and everybody interested in those fields should find the teaching of creationism in a scientific context to be abhorrent. So I think it probably warrants discussion when the education system adopts policies which are actively hostile to…

To be honest, I suspect this counts as a political issue in the US and isn't one in the UK. As this is a US dominated site I can sort of see why people don't want it debated here as it'll just upset people - which it appears to have done. Ironically, religion doesn't play a very large part in day the day political life in the UK even though most of the country has an official established religion.

No, the problem isn't that it will "upset people" in the US. Virtually none of the readers of HN in the US see this issue as controversial.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#89

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 7:44 PM UTC

tehwalrus wrote: post #44

jwdunne wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to a catholic school and we were still taught evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. Even had compulsory religious education lessons (sane number per week as maths, english, science) and accompanying GCSE in Catholic Christianity and we were still taught evolution. Many teachers even said that the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally! It's quite rare I think and I'm surprised there are schools still teachi…

I was also at a Catholic school, same experience. I would point out that this stuff has only become a problem after Academies and Free Schools were: firstly, allowed to be sponsored/funded by random people and organisations who were allowed to set the "ethos"; and secondly were given license to choose whether or not to teach the National Curriculum[1]. This second point was supposed to be so that English teachers cou…

Same; Catholic school grades 1-12, taught evolution, and not in a "teach the controversy" way.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#90

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 8:18 PM UTC

Lambdanaut wrote: post #35

philcoders wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The rest of the article dealt with interpreting biblical statements to fit the current undeniable understanding of the universe.", (How do i correctly put a quote here in the replies?) In Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong.

The Earth is a sphere, not a circle. That's not a nitpick either. They thought the Earth was a flat disk back then. Regardless. Even if you were dumbly granted that the Earth was a flat disk, how would that have any barring on the rest of the Bible's arguments? Plato was right about a lot of things, but does that mean he was also right about the elemental nature of the universe? (Everything being created from the bas…

>They thought the Earth was a flat disk back then. //

Evidence?

FWIW the word here used for "circle" (in the ancient Hebrew, chuwg, [1]) is that used for the arch or vault [a bi-concave ceiling] of the skies; they'd need to also consider the skies to be a disc for it to make sense that it should be interpreted as disc in the Isaiah 40:22 [2] reference. I think the most obstructive interpretation would still need to be something like "dome" - definitely not flat.

So, why not a flat circle? Well there are other words used for that exact thing, as in 2 Chronicles 4 / or 1 Kings 7:23 [3]:

>Now [Solomon] made the sea of cast metal [of the altar] ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. //

This is the word for the plane shape "circle" ('agol) that matches the brim of a cup (or giant bowl-shaped altar!).

Note that the figures leaves the brim at 5 - 30/2pi ~= a hands breadth under some interpretations, just as Kings 7:26 suggests. But that verse 7:26 also says that the brim was like that of a lily, not a hands-breadth at the brim but fine and dainty ... and here in lies a very interesting piece of gematria [use of letters for numbers] associated with the Kings passage [4] which in short form encodes in a variant word form qava (=111) for qav (=106) in the oldest Hebrew version of the passage [that in Kings] is the ratio 111/106; the implication being that the true figures should be 30/10 x 111/106 which gives an excellent approximation to pi.

[1] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Stro...

[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa+40%3A22&vers...

[3] http://biblehub.com/niv/2_chronicles/4.htm or http://biblehub.com/1_kings/7-23.htm

[4] http://www.mathteacherctk.com/blog/2011/08/biblical-and-gema...