• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    Votes: 27 54.0%

  • No; this amounts to the state picking sides on a religious matter

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Just1Voice said:
I'm afraid you can't. They are going to ask about it, and probably argue about it as well. I think the best you can do is encourage them to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that creationism is superstitious nonsense may not be PC or even terribly tactful, but it is nothing to make a big deal about.
 
sangha said:
Straw man. No one has claimed that theories are facts in and of themselves. And I haven't claimed that scientific proof is the same as absolute truth.

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

According to this definition, a theory must be well supported by evidence
Click to expand...

supported by evidence =/= proven. how many theories have later been disproven or modified as technological advances allowed us to gather more, better, or more detailed information? to say a theory has been proven is idiotic.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Pointing out that creationism is superstitious nonsense may not be PC or even terribly tactful, but it is nothing to make a big deal about.
Click to expand...

However prayer at a high school event, should go all the way to the supreme court. :roll:
 
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, I agree with you that evolution is the most accurate explanation for how life adapted and I agree that it clearly hasn't been proven until someone can time travel and bring back some evidence. And that list among other things is why I don't worship at the holy grail of scientific theory. I trust scientific theories to a certain extent, but I refuse to treat them as if they are absolutely set in stone and unworthy of ever being questioned.

However, my point about sangha being partially correct was a reference to recent observations of "microevolution". In other words, evolution has been observed on a certain scale, but not on the scale that sangha's talking about.
Click to expand...

my point is that he is totally and fully incorrect in his statement that according to science, something doesn't become a theory until it is proven. apparently he is confused as to the definition of "proven".

supported by evidence =/= proven
 
OscarB63 said:
eh, what sangha said is not true at all. theories are attempts to explain facts, not facts in and of themselves. throughout the course of history, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific theories that were later proven wrong.

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net

I believe the theory of evolution is currently the most accurate attempt to describe how life came to be and adapted, but it has not, and unless someone invents a time machine or window to the past, can never be scientifically proven.

sangha obviously has no idea how science really works.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. There is a significant difference between a mathematical theorem and scientific theory. The scientist will accept and explanation, declaring a theory, if many observations reveal no counterexamples or contradictions. The mathematician, on the other hand, will call it a conjecture until he has shown it is sound. That is, when it is validly deduced using known mathematics then it becomes a theorem. Therefore, a scientific theory can be disproven but a mathematical theorem can't.

Having worked in all three areas, there are some good jokes about the methods of the mathematician, scientist and computer programmer.
 
OscarB63 said:
supported by evidence =/= proven.
Click to expand...

well-supported by evidence = scientifically proven

how many theories have later been disproven or modified as technological advances allowed us to gather more, better, or more detailed information? to say a theory has been proven is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Which is why I was referring to "scientifically proven".
 
OscarB63 said:
my point is that he is totally and fully incorrect in his statement that according to science, something doesn't become a theory until it is proven. apparently he is confused as to the definition of "proven".

supported by evidence =/= proven
Click to expand...

Unlike you, tpd has recognized that I was referring to "scientifically proven" and not "absolutely proven". tpd has also clarified that he (for me) was referring to absolutely proven.
 
sangha said:
well-supported by evidence = scientifically proven



Which is why I was referring to "scientifically proven".
Click to expand...

ah,, so scientifically proven = just kinda sorta proven, where as absolutely proven = actually proven. thanks for clearing that up.
 
sangha said:
Unlike you, tpd has recognized that I was referring to "scientifically proven" and not "absolutely proven". tpd has also clarified that he (for me) was referring to absolutely proven.
Click to expand...

so what you are saying is that scientifically proven isn't really proven. thanks again for the clarification
 
sangha says

proven = proven

but sceintifically proven = supported by evidence.

therefore scientifically proven theories can later be disproven if new evidence comes to light. which means they were never proven to begin with.
 
OscarB63 said:
sangha says

proven = proven

but sceintifically proven = supported by evidence.

therefore scientifically proven theories can later be disproven if new evidence comes to light. which means they were never proven to begin with.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you continue mistating the definition of scientifically proven, when I have posted a quote that is different from your straw man argument

You are careless with words. You use the word "proven" when what you mean is "absolutely proven". When I used the word "proven" earlier, I was referring to "scientifically proven".
 
sangha said:
I don't know where you saw "isn't really proven".
Click to expand...

if something has been proven. that's it. it is proven. it has been proven that 2+2 = 4. it has been proven that a neutral atom has the same number of protons and electrons. it has been proven that when deprived of oxygen, humans die.

theories are mutable and can/have been altered when new evidence is found. they can never be proven. they can be accepted but never proven.
 
sangha said:
I don't know why you continue mistating the definition of scientifically proven, when I have posted a quote that is different from your straw man argument

You are careless with words. You use the word "proven" when what you mean is "absolutely proven". When I used the word "proven" earlier, I was referring to "scientifically proven".
Click to expand...

and you have yet to provide me with a definition (other than your own) for "scientifically proven"
 
sangha said:
I don't know why you continue mistating the definition of scientifically proven, when I have posted a quote that is different from your straw man argument

You are careless with words. You use the word "proven" when what you mean is "absolutely proven". When I used the word "proven" earlier, I was referring to "scientifically proven".
Click to expand...

I think you're the one abusing "proof".
 
OscarB63 said:
if something has been proven. that's it. it is proven. it has been proven that 2+2 = 4. it has been proven that a neutral atom has the same number of protons and electrons. it has been proven that when deprived of oxygen, humans die.

theories are mutable and can/have been altered when new evidence is found. they can never be proven. they can be accepted but never proven.
Click to expand...

No, words can have different meanings in different contexts.

And theories can be scientifically proven.
 
sangha said:
No, words can have different meanings in different contexts.

And theories can be scientifically proven.
Click to expand...

How about you use the more accurate phrase "scientific evidence"?
 
sangha said:
While teaching science, a teacher has every right to call creationism "superstitious nonsense" because that's what it is.
Click to expand...

There is no proof one way or the other. While teaching ANY class the child still has RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. The teacher is there to teach, not spread her opinion.
 
Just1Voice said:
Why do people keep trying to make this claim? You must realize that limiting teachers this way lowers their credibility and it makes them more vulnerable to accusations of teaching propaganda. Teachers should be encouraged to speak truth.
Click to expand...

To speak truth, one was must know what the truth is.
 
I have no problem teaching both sides of the argument, which is required in Alabama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom