Music Banter - View Single Post

Kevorkian Logic · 03-22-2009, 09:22 PM

ok, it's been a bit of time since I studied this matter of creation vs. evolution teaching in schools. But i'm going to try to argue the point that even if creationism is a scientific theory it is a poor one compared to evolution, and is solely religiously driven and therefor violates the constitution.

Two scientific theories to consider:
1. Scientific theories that make no empirical prediction are not the concern of science

2. Scientific theories cannot be proved true, but a can be proved false through making a false empirical prediction (this is called falsification).

Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, because it makes no empirical predictions (makes claims about the supernatural).

However, a creationist might argue that the Duhem-Quine thesis (scientific theories are not testable on their own, need auxiliary hypothesis) undermines these two legends because even a claim about the supernatural makes empirical predictions when it is combined with auxiliary hypotheses. Therefore, it is falsifiable, and is a legitimate scientific theory.

An evolutionist would then argue that even though it might make empirical predictions many of them are false, so although creationism might be techinically a scientific theory, it is a very poor scientific theory.

So should poor scientific theories be taught in class? Because if they are should we not teach poor grammar as well? Poor theories are generally not taught in science classes. The only motivation I can see for teaching creationism is its religious significance to some people. So, for the state to teach creation theory in public-school science classes would be for the state to promote a particular religious view, which last time I checked is unconstitutional.

There's another argument I could make against an intelligent designer, but that would take another 3 or 4 paragraphs of typing that i'm really not wanting to do and I don't remember it nearly as well as I remember the first argument, so if that above doesn't convince you, I will unearth my philosophy book, re-read, and make my second argument

03-22-2009, 09:22 PM	#93 (permalink)
Kevorkian Logic Imperfectly Perfect Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 1,290	ok, it's been a bit of time since I studied this matter of creation vs. evolution teaching in schools. But i'm going to try to argue the point that even if creationism is a scientific theory it is a poor one compared to evolution, and is solely religiously driven and therefor violates the constitution. Two scientific theories to consider: 1. Scientific theories that make no empirical prediction are not the concern of science 2. Scientific theories cannot be proved true, but a can be proved false through making a false empirical prediction (this is called falsification). Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, because it makes no empirical predictions (makes claims about the supernatural). However, a creationist might argue that the Duhem-Quine thesis (scientific theories are not testable on their own, need auxiliary hypothesis) undermines these two legends because even a claim about the supernatural makes empirical predictions when it is combined with auxiliary hypotheses. Therefore, it is falsifiable, and is a legitimate scientific theory. An evolutionist would then argue that even though it might make empirical predictions many of them are false, so although creationism might be techinically a scientific theory, it is a very poor scientific theory. So should poor scientific theories be taught in class? Because if they are should we not teach poor grammar as well? Poor theories are generally not taught in science classes. The only motivation I can see for teaching creationism is its religious significance to some people. So, for the state to teach creation theory in public-school science classes would be for the state to promote a particular religious view, which last time I checked is unconstitutional. There's another argument I could make against an intelligent designer, but that would take another 3 or 4 paragraphs of typing that i'm really not wanting to do and I don't remember it nearly as well as I remember the first argument, so if that above doesn't convince you, I will unearth my philosophy book, re-read, and make my second argument __________________ "it is only through a limitless accumulation of the imperfect that a certain type of perfection can be attained"