Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong

[JJRod]

Ok...is there any particular relevance or purpose to this splicing of science you're doing? What difference does it make if one theory pertains to origin and another pertains to evolution? You still teach both, expect the student populace to accept it, and criticize and dismiss any other theories as fairy tales or people just sitting around taking guesses.

And again, back to the original topic, theism is a viable theory.

I differentiated between the two theories because not only were you confusing both, you were attributing things the theories didn’t state; creating straw man arguments.

Back to the topic, other theories such as intelligent designed are and should be dismissed because once again they are not testable and hence not verifiable. They don’t follow the scientific method.

[JimRaynor]

I differentiated between the two theories because not only were you confusing both, you were attributing things the theories didn’t state; creating straw man arguments.

Back to the topic, other theories such as intelligent designed are and should be dismissed because once again they are not testable and hence not verifiable. They don’t follow the scientific method.

What does this part even mean, if we were actually created then how would you be able to test that?

Creation is not a far fetched idea, life is created every single day, through birth or vegetation.

[JJRod]

What does this part even mean, if we were actually created then how would you be able to test that?

Creation is not a far fetched idea, life is created every single day, through birth or vegetation.

Okay Jim let me explain. When you say life is created through birth this can be verified because we know the components needed to create that life. We know how those components come together and using them we can apply the scientific method to test and verify. This applies to vegetation as well.

We can’t do this with Intelligent Design and other such theories.

It may very well be that an intelligent designer set the laws of physics in motion that created everything, BUT there is no evidence that allows us to test this and verify it. If it can’t be tested using the scientific method it shouldn’t be placed in the same arena as theories that can.

[BostonGuy]

Science is under attack by both the left and right.

Actual slide at a conference for science teachers in the US state of Washington pic.twitter.com/6BSVuv1AzB

— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) November 16, 2019

[GGG Gloveking]

I differentiated between the two theories because not only were you confusing both, you were attributing things the theories didn’t state; creating straw man arguments.

Back to the topic, other theories such as intelligent designed are and should be dismissed because once again they are not testable and hence not verifiable. They don’t follow the scientific method.

There is no strawman argument. The big bang theory actually is taught in schools. The theory of evolution is taught in schools. To my knowledge, these theories haven't been verified. That's why I said, "maybe I missed those experiments..." Additionally, there are volumes of books that are science based in support of theism. And quite frankly, it seems like you're playing a bullsheit semantics game, because I never attributed origin of matter to the theory of evolution.

I'm not a scientist, but I have to imagine there is some way to demonstrate in a controlled environment that a system that is designed would be more efficient, and more likely to succeed, than one that is left to nothing but randomness.

[The Noose]

Okay Jim let me explain. When you say life is created through birth this can be verified because we know the components needed to create that life. We know how those components come together and using them we can apply the scientific method to test and verify. This applies to vegetation as well.

We can’t do this with Intelligent Design and other such theories.

It may very well be that an intelligent designer set the laws of physics in motion that created everything, BUT there is no evidence that allows us to test this and verify it. If it can’t be tested using the scientific method it shouldn’t be placed in the same arena as theories that can.

Great posts.

[CauliflowerEars]

I must have missed the experiments that proved something can come from nothing, the experiments that proved said something which came from nothing could be set into motion of it's own accord, and the experiments where said something which came from nothing, was set into motion of it's own accord, somehow evolved into a living being which subsequently evolved into other beings. I must have missed that.

Until then, we both, theists and atheists, are operating under some level of faith in an unknown, we both are operating under some type of guess. Regardless of how you want to dress it up, and how much intellect you wish to ascribe to your guess, it is, essentially just a guess.

One guess should not be given more educational credence than the other

Makes total sense to me and I have to agree with you 100%.

[The Noose]

My bias is im an atheist.
Gotta be candid about our biases me thinks.

And it seems to me that it would be a good idea or maybe extremely important, for all schools to discuss at length the definition of 'the scientific method'.
It seems that so many of us are unclear what is actually regarded as "science". What is meant by "observations" and "facts" and "theories".
What does "scientific theory" actually mean as oppose to "theory".

People get into these debates about beliefs and faith when it has little to do with the actual science. But it shouldnt be dismissed because religious faith is obviously an issue that clashes with what they are taught in science class.

They should discuss if science is actually about 100% proof or not, and whether faith influences scientific theories.
Or is the scientific method successful in countering our personal biases?
Can we rely on peer review and how that all works.
Is there a better system?
I think they should address the flaws and make the nuts and bolts of science more transparent.

Too many people think of science as some imposing authority. Telling us what to believe.

So people can question the science they are taught to learn how those theories formed, but to dismiss them because it conflicts with a persons religious beliefs, isnt scientific.

Beliefs arent evidence.

[CauliflowerEars]

It wasn't a guess that they pulled out of their ass, obviously it was based on best available evidence, but its still far far and I mean far from proven, it takes faith to believe that just as much as it does the creation story.

I hear what you are saying and think you're absolutely correct.

Have you ever seen or heard this regarding Darwin ? >>>:

Charles Darwin said::

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true. For if so, the plain language of the text (Bible), seems to show that the men who do not believe , and this would include my father, brother and all my best friends, would be everlastingly punished - and that is a damnedable doctrine."

Now, do you see anything about SCIENCE in this statement ?
NO, you see a Darwin's rejection of the bible based on his being ACCOUNTABLE to God.

What Darwin understood was, that IF he could somehow free himself from the biblical account of creation then that would be enough to free himself from the biblical account of DAMNATION.
If there was no Adam then there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, then he can not be held accountable for that sin and therefore, no damnation or accountability for sin. If you do not need to be saved from sin then why do you need a Savior ?

We have now learned that Darwin's reason for his endeavor to construct his, Theory of Evolution has Nothing to do with SCIENCE.

This is why the unbelieving world CLINGS to the doctrine of evolution - because it is a tool which can be used to justify rejection of a Creator.
The atheist cry for evidence is a ruse. The truth is, no evidence will suffice for the committed atheist as the real reason for rejection of God, is the same as Charles Darwin - ACCOUNTABILITY for ones actions...

Darwin thought only with the natural mind for a very long time. Apparently, he thought it foolish that he and those close to him, could receive everlasting punishment, while his own wife inherited Heaven and eternal riches. I find this to be a suitable example of how the wise man of this world ( the natural mind ), with his pride of great carnal reasoning, is in opposition to the sanctified mind, which discerns the real beauties of holiness.

[The Noose]

I hear what you are saying and think you're absolutely correct.

Have you ever seen or heard this regarding Darwin ? >>>:



Now, do you see anything about SCIENCE in this statement ?
NO, you see a Darwin's rejection of the bible based on his being ACCOUNTABLE to God.

What Darwin understood was, that IF he could somehow free himself from the biblical account of creation then that would be enough to free himself from the biblical account of DAMNATION.
If there was no Adam then there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, then he can not be held accountable for that sin and therefore, no damnation or accountability for sin. If you do not need to be saved from sin then why do you need a Savior ?

We have now learned that Darwin's reason for his endeavor to construct his, Theory of Evolution has Nothing to do with SCIENCE.

This is why the unbelieving world CLINGS to the doctrine of evolution - because it is a tool which can be used to justify rejection of a Creator.
The atheist cry for evidence is a ruse. The truth is, no evidence will suffice for the committed atheist as the real reason for rejection of God, is the same as Charles Darwin - ACCOUNTABILITY for ones actions...

Darwin thought only with the natural mind for a very long time. Apparently, he thought it foolish that he and those close to him, could receive everlasting punishment, while his own wife inherited Heaven and eternal riches. I find this to be a suitable example of how the wise man of this world ( the natural mind ), with his pride of great carnal reasoning, is in opposition to the sanctified mind, which discerns the real beauties of holiness.

Evolution says nothing about God.

Anyone is free to believe God is behind evolution if they choose.
But its not part of the theory.