Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size)

Space is not nothingness… it is a description of the geometry of the universe. The universe may indeed be finite, and therefore space is finite as well. Sorry, off topic.

On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point). I would think that students should be encouraged to test everything that is taught to them. As long as students realize that the only thing human beings can do is provide descriptions of reality, is there really any harm in teaching anything?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point). I would think that students should be encouraged to test everything that is taught to them. As long as students realize that the only thing human beings can do is provide descriptions of reality, is there really any harm in teaching anything?

Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.

But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it. As people assimilate more information, they will incorporate this into what they believe to be facts. Creationism, though, is a very simple theory and isn’t dependent upon many observations (at the simplest level, only one observation is needed: people exist). The point is that I can test this. The presentation of the theory is independent of this. The distinction is subtle, but what I am trying to get at is that it is not the presenter’s (be that the teacher, school, government, etc.) responsibility to “classify” arguments into “facts” and “theory”; therefore, I tend not to see the teaching of creationism as crossing the barrier of church / state. Creationism isn’t a “religious” theory; it is a description of reality, like any other, though relatively simple. Perhaps it is better to leave the evaluation of the theories up to the students (hopefully with some guidance from their parents).

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it.

No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.

B

Bingo. There’s the distinction I was looking for. The idea that something should not be tested is religion; it is not the statement in itself that is “religious.” That’s where the line is crossed. Theories are not religion; believing that one possesses “facts” is.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point).

In science, there are no facts. No theory is certain enough to be a "fact" in the philosophical sense. The closest thing in science to a literal fact is what science calls "data", but any step in the collection and/or interpretation of the data is enough to strip it of literal facthood.

Therefore, whenever the word fact is used (if it is) in science, it is shorthand for "we're pretty damn sure".

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Therefore, whenever the word fact is used (if it is) in science, it is shorthand for "we're pretty damn sure".

Under that definition, a fact is a theory that has reached some arbitrary level of acceptance. I'm not saying this is incorrect, I'm just using it to illustrate a point; most everyone treats the definition of “fact” as an absolute. However, most people also agree that there are various degrees to certainty, especially with reasonably complicated issues. The complication (for me) comes in when the two are mixed. No description of reality can be presented as an absolute fact (mathematics doesn’t count, it is a language, not a description of reality).