[Tribas4u]

I like Texas.....I really, really do.
Hey, you have to like a state that is so tough that there's a sign outside of the Dallas Mall that has, along side the no smoking and skateboarding signs; a sign that says: (and I'm paraphrasing) "Please refrain from entering the mall with Firearms." (and the picture of a guy with a rifle "X"ed out.)
You HAVE to love that.


That said,

What in BLAZES??

[ElegeExcest]

I knew creationnists posed some problems in Texas but was not aware of the size of the problem.

Did anybody said to the creationnists that the flu virus changes every years, that's why there is a new vaccine each year?

Are the creationnist the only significant pseudo-science in the USA or are there other threats? (Flat Earth Society maybe?)

[BitStillrhile]

They figure that if W can become POTUS imagine what could be accomplished with an entire state full of really dumb kids.

[DavidShreder]

well in all fairness despite the fact that i don't agree with the decision to appoint this guy(he's obviously a moron). darwin himself was a intelligent design believer.

[JEWELMARGY]

They figure that if W can become POTUS imagine what could be accomplished with an entire state full of really dumb kids.

I'm gonna have nightmares tonight.

well in all fairness despite the fact that i don't agree with the decision to appoint this guy(he's obviously a moron). darwin himself was a intelligent design believer.

Ad hominem argument, a usual pseudo-scientists' tactic.
The evolution theory has evolued since Darwin's times.

[weO1bVp1]

well in all fairness despite the fact that i don't agree with the decision to appoint this guy(he's obviously a moron). darwin himself was a intelligent design believer.

Down, boy. Bad Parrot...

In his own words, Darwin was an agnostic.

[SodeSceriobia]

The movie "Idiocracy" comes to mind.

[parurorges]

Pugtm - how do we know this guy is a moron?

All we have is some exceprts that he has written but not the full text - unless you have previous experience of the said person or have seen the full text.

Creationism may seem daft but it is a theory like everything else. We do NOT know how the world was created. We do NOT know why it was created. We do NOT know how many dimensions there are...seriously. We know there are at least ten...and we consciously live in 5 of them ( assuming gravity is a dimension which is contentious).

Yes some ideas seem odd to us but here is a thought.

In the sixties many Americans walked round the US (and elsewhere) with placards round their bodies with text that said "the end of the world is nigh" -I am not sure there is much difference between those people and those that squeal about global warming.

It truly frightens me how many people jump aboard the media bandwagon about GW and talk as though it is fact when it is NOT. When it comes to the activities of planets we are truly clueless - we are trying to learn of course. But we must not mistake what is fact and what the media wish to tell us as fact. They ARE seldom one and the same.

Lee

[amotoustict]

Creationism may seem daft but it is a theory like everything else.

Here's a nice description of the real meaning of the word Theory as used in science (from Wiki):

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

So, I disagree. Creationism is not supported by objective, measurable evidence and is therefore not a theory. Neither is it's faintly cloaked sibling, Intelligent Design. They are beliefs, something very different and not at all related to accepted definitions of hypothesis or theory. Everyone (at least, here in the US) has the right to believe, but that does not make the belief a credible alternative to real science.

[CDCL7WKJ]

Lee, a voice of reason? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Unfortunately, I can believe this appointment. The religious fundamentalists are the ones that enabled Rick Perry to get re-elected. I'm sure this is part of his pay-off to them. However, they have to be careful of pushing too far. While there is a large block of religious fundamentalists in Texas, they are comprised of various different groups, and several of those groups will take a very dim view of dumbing down Texas education. Several of the fundamentalist groups have very large universities in Texas so they have a big stake in the education system. We tend to get pretty upset when folks try to make us do something that we don't want to do.

[Immonnaornach]

Ah, I see your logic. Because someone has written something on Wikipedia then it must be true.

Sorry Perry, this does not hold water. A Theory is something that can be tested but how it is tested i s not defined. Why must it be 'supported by objective, measurable evidence'? just because some person quoted by Wiki said so?

Please explain the difference between 'theories' and 'beliefs' in your view. I am genuinely interested.

I am also intrigued by your tendentious comment "everyone (at least here in the US) has the right...blah blah" are you implying that only people in the US have the right to believe anything? Curious.

Happy to discuss further without prejudice.

Lee

[Anakattawl]

It truly frightens me how many people jump aboard the media bandwagon about GW and talk as though it is fact when it is NOT. When it comes to the activities of planets we are truly clueless - we are trying to learn of course. But we must not mistake what is fact and what the media wish to tell us as fact. They ARE seldom one and the same.

Global warming is supported by objective observations and has been tested. It's a fact, even if it's hard to tell how it will evolve (it relies much on how people will behave). It's not a theory, it's a result from wider,older and fully known theories, mainly laws about fluid mechanic and heat transfer (obviously).

[Viafdrear]

Sorry Sparv it is NOT fact.

It is a theory which is widely accepted. there are many scientists around the world who disgaree with the idea and can corroborate there views with just as much evidence as those who purport Global warming as fact.

Personally I have no idea if it is true or not. It makes sense to me to reduce carbon emissions whether it is true or not just in case ( it wouldn't harm ).

what is very interesting is the fact that governments tell the populace to cut their pollutants and yet industry pollutes the planet at a vaster scale than anything else. I read recently that the chinese building programme polluted the planet more than the rest of the worlds population all together. This didn't include any other Chinese industry - just their building programme.

[lzwha]

A Theory is something that can be tested but how it is tested i s not defined. Why must it be 'supported by objective, measurable evidence'?

Because that's the way science works. If it's not supported, then it's not a theory anymore, it's at best a disproved theory. ID/creationist supporters keep wanting to apply their own definitions to these things, it's a semantic battle.

Scientists look at the data and find a way to explain it that makes sense. If the data doesn't support the explanation, they throw it away (the explanation, not the data) and think of a new one. So far in the 100-odd years that evolution has survived as a theory, all we get is more and better evidence to support it as the tools get better.

ID supporters have an agenda to push and are ignoring any evidence that doesn't support it. They aren't going to throw away their "theory" on the basis of anything so silly as facts and evidence.

[wrewsTear]

Please explain the difference between 'theories' and 'beliefs' in your view. I am genuinely interested.

Theory: A hypothesis based upon empirical data using the scientific method.

Belief: Whimsical musings based on personal feelings to explain natural phenomena: Subject to change depending on which side of the the gun-barrel you are standing on.

BTW: Evolution isn't a theory any longer, and if I am not mistaken it is currently, at least from the thousand mile up view, considered as scientific fact.

[BEyng6hj]

Ah, I see your logic. Because someone has written something on Wikipedia then it must be true.

That's bullshit: because wikipedia makes mistakes, everything on wikipedia is false. You aren't attacking what Paikea is saying, you're not attacking Paikea's sources, you're not attacking where Paikea has found his information, but attacking the sources from a cut and paste.

Maybe Paikea used his critic mind to test this article? Maybe he doesn't think that that is the definition of a theory because it is write on wikipedia, but because what is write on wikipedia is what he thinks?

I was writing a post which was nearly the same as Paikea, I was reading the same article when he posted. That is what I was thinking:
"I'm not good at clearly explaining things, has wikipedia something good? Yes it has! Whoou, that's exactly what I wanted to say, but well written! let's cut and paste it! obviously I'll put the source, i don't want to steal the work of other people".

I don't think you are aware of it, but that is one of the usual tactics of pseudo-scientists.
From wikipedia: Identifying pseudoscience, take a look at "ad hominem fallacy"

[viiagrag]

Because that's the way science works. If it's not supported, then it's not a theory anymore, it's at best a disproved theory. ID/creationist supporters keep wanting to apply their own definitions to these things, it's a semantic battle.

Scientists look at the data and find a way to explain it that makes sense. If the data doesn't support the explanation, they throw it away and think of a new one. So far in the 100-odd years that evolution has survived as a theory, all we get is more and better evidence to support it as the tools get better.

ID supporters have an agenda to push and are ignoring any evidence that doesn't support it. They aren't going to throw away their "theory" on the basis of anything so silly as facts and evidence.

Hmm?Not convinced by this. In my science classes I was always taught that a theory was something to be DISPROVED by objective measurable evidence. If it could not be disproved then it could be assumed it was no longer theory and therefore fact.

I am no expert on this subject. Are there any scientists out there that can enlighten on this?

[Greactbet]

That's bullshit: because wikipedia makes mistakes, everything on wikipedia is false. You aren't attacking what Paikea is saying, you're not attacking Paikea's sources, you're not attacking where Paikea has found his information, but attacking the sources from a cut and paste.

Maybe Paikea used his critic mind to test this article? Maybe he doesn't think that that is the definition of a theory because it is write on wikipedia, but because what is write on wikipedia is what he thinks?

I was writing a post which was nearly the same as Paikea, I was reading the same article when he posted. That is what I was thinking:
"I'm not good at clearly explaining things, has wikipedia something good? Yes it has! Whoou, that's exactly what I wanted to say, but well written! let's cut and paste it! obviously I'll put the source, i don't want to stole the works of other people".

Too aggressive. And way too vague. Have you been drinking?

[shiciapsisy]

Unfortunately we have people here who don't believe in evolution. Luckily they very rarely get appointed to high office or, of they do, they don't spout their beliefs for fear of being ridiculed.

I have very good friends who do not believe in evolution. For them, god created the world a few thousand years ago and dinosaurs never existed. I can see the fallacy of their beliefs but they are friends and so I don't say anything.

Anyone else is fair game though. I usually get "show me the cow that gave birth to a sheep then I'll believe in evolution" which just shows ignorance of what evolution is.

[9mm_fan]

First, Sats isn't attacking anyone. We are brothers in many areas of thought and I would very much like to pay him a visit at this mythical pub someday...

Ah, I see your logic. Because someone has written something on Wikipedia then it must be true.

Come now, by now you should know me better than that. This is just a handy example of a well-worded and widely accepted definition of theory. Today, it is all too common to use "theory" when what is actually meant is "conjecture" or "belief". If people are going to challenge scientific theory, then they have to do it on a level playing field, which means using the same definitions. If you're coming to play, you are required to play on my field, with my ball. Redefining what is and is not theory to suit the argument is a non-starter.

Sorry Perry, this does not hold water. A Theory is something that can be tested but how it is tested i s not defined. Why must it be 'supported by objective, measurable evidence'? just because some person quoted by Wiki said so?

Please explain the difference between 'theories' and 'beliefs' in your view. I am genuinely interested.

Easily. A theory is a description of the way something works, supported by objective evidence that can be measured and verified. A belief is a construct of human emotion in which it is permissible to exclude contradictory evidence. Science doesn't let you do that. Science and religion are two very different things, and not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I am also intrigued by your tendentious comment "everyone (at least here in the US) has the right...blah blah" are you implying that only people in the US have the right to believe anything? Curious.

Oh no, not at all. Sorry if it read like so much of that "America is bestest" crap. I mean that in some places not everyone is free to express their beliefs openly. All are welcome to do so, but please do not confuse religious belief and the scientific method. Please do not try to use the offices of government to indoctrinate my children, either.

As it turns out, in science (and like Nobel, for this bit of the argument I am prepared to exclude Mathematicians) there is really very little that can be expressed as "fact" - only well-supported theory and hypotheses.