Creationism in Public Schools

[United Muscovite Nations]

But even if Quantum Physics is able to observe randomness, that doesn't mean that everyday events like coin-flips, card shuffles, or even macro-scale events like evolution by natural selection, are random. I'm not even using this as an argument for a God, I'm just arguing for a more deterministic view of the universe.

What or who is determining these events then? Brian Boytano?

The basic nature of existence could be sufficient.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

United Muscovite Nations, perhaps you could elaborate on the leap from effective randomness to “God did it”?

Also, I find your understanding of the uncertainty principle to be wanting. While we do not understand wave-particle duality, it is certainly not the case that there is a “definite” position for those particles. Experiments have confirmed as such.

[United Muscovite Nations]

United Muscovite Nations, perhaps you could elaborate on the leap from effective randomness to “God did it”?

Also, I find your understanding of the uncertainty principle to be wanting. While we do not understand wave-particle duality, it is certainly not the case that there is a “definite” position for those particles. Experiments have confirmed as such.

Why would I elaborate on a position that I haven't argued for?

If the particles do not have a position,how do they exist?

[Godular]

United Muscovite Nations, perhaps you could elaborate on the leap from effective randomness to “God did it”?

Also, I find your understanding of the uncertainty principle to be wanting. While we do not understand wave-particle duality, it is certainly not the case that there is a “definite” position for those particles. Experiments have confirmed as such.

Why would I elaborate on a position that I haven't argued for?

If the particles do not have a position,how do they exist?

That last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why would I elaborate on a position that I haven't argued for?

If the particles do not have a position,how do they exist?

That last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept.

Then explain it to me. I'm not a physicist, if I don't understand it, I don't understand it.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

United Muscovite Nations, perhaps you could elaborate on the leap from effective randomness to “God did it”?

Also, I find your understanding of the uncertainty principle to be wanting. While we do not understand wave-particle duality, it is certainly not the case that there is a “definite” position for those particles. Experiments have confirmed as such.

Why would I elaborate on a position that I haven't argued for?

If the particles do not have a position,how do they exist?

Ah, my bad, I seem to have misread your argument. I’ll ask a new question then: why are you letting your dogma get in the way of a scientific finding? What is so troubling to you, exactly, that makes you opposed to the idea of things being random?

Particles exist as wave functions. Chemistry would not work if they did not.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why would I elaborate on a position that I haven't argued for?

If the particles do not have a position,how do they exist?

Ah, my bad, I seem to have misread your argument. I’ll ask a new question then: why are you letting your dogma get in the way of a scientific finding? What is so troubling to you, exactly, that makes you opposed to the idea of things being random?

Particles exist as wave functions. Chemistry would not work if they did not.

What makes me opposed to the idea of things being random is that I don't think that randomness can be scientifically demonstrated. The exact circumstances of a supposedly random event cannot be exactly replicated (because we can only make scientific observations in one universe), and, as a result, the randomness of the event is not repeatable.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Ah, my bad, I seem to have misread your argument. I’ll ask a new question then: why are you letting your dogma get in the way of a scientific finding? What is so troubling to you, exactly, that makes you opposed to the idea of things being random?

Particles exist as wave functions. Chemistry would not work if they did not.

What makes me opposed to the idea of things being random is that I don't think that randomness can be scientifically demonstrated. The exact circumstances of a supposedly random event cannot be exactly replicated (because we can only make scientific observations in one universe), and, as a result, the randomness of the event is not repeatable.

Your epistemological beliefs, then, are incorrect. Statistics is the means by which we measure random phenomena. The mathematics and philosophy behind it are both well-understood and have equipped us with the tools to:
-Produce scientific studies
-Find correlations
-Understand the rates at which natural phenomena occur and for what reasons

[Godular]

That last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept.

Then explain it to me. I'm not a physicist, if I don't understand it, I don't understand it.

The uncertainty principle focuses on specifically that thing: Uncertainty. There will always be uncertainty regarding the momentum and the position of an electron. The more we narrow one down, the more uncertain we become of the other. The main reason for this is that in the act of observing an electron, we change the properties of that electron. While the exact location and momentum of an electron will be forever unknown to us, we can still predict certain aspects of its behavior based on its interactions.

But lets take things down another path. You say there is no way to observe randomness. I offer you a challenge:

Fill up an ice tray with water, put it in the freezer and leave it there for... oh... say... two months. After that period, you might notice that the ice seems to have shrunk. This is because even though the water is frozen, certain particles can through random interactions with other particles gain sufficient thermal energy to demonstrate the behavior of a gas. That is to say: ice can evaporate... thanks rather specifically to the power of randomness.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What makes me opposed to the idea of things being random is that I don't think that randomness can be scientifically demonstrated. The exact circumstances of a supposedly random event cannot be exactly replicated (because we can only make scientific observations in one universe), and, as a result, the randomness of the event is not repeatable.

Your epistemological beliefs, then, are incorrect. Statistics is the means by which we measure random phenomena. The mathematics and philosophy behind it are both well-understood and have equipped us with the tools to:
-Produce scientific studies
-Find correlations
-Understand the rates at which natural phenomena occur and for what reasons

I don't think the phenomenon are truly random. All events are caused by other events, which must surely mean that even the outcomes of supposedly random phenomenon are determined by the last sequence in a course of events. For a small example, we could say that the face of a dice that will end up is determined by its velocity and direction when tossed from a person's hand. For another example, we could say (perhaps, correct me if I'm wrong) that the naturally occurring mutations in an organism are caused by defects in the process of meiosis (or any other cause), and as such the likelihood of the outcome is, due to the lack of other possible outcomes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then explain it to me. I'm not a physicist, if I don't understand it, I don't understand it.

The uncertainty principle focuses on specifically that thing: Uncertainty. There will always be uncertainty regarding the momentum and the position of an electron. The more we narrow one down, the more uncertain we become of the other. The main reason for this is that in the act of observing an electron, we change the properties of that electron. While the exact location and momentum of an electron will be forever unknown to us, we can still predict certain aspects of its behavior based on its interactions.

But lets take things down another path. You say there is no way to observe randomness. I offer you a challenge:

Fill up an ice tray with water, put it in the freezer and leave it there for... oh... say... two months. After that period, you might notice that the ice seems to have shrunk. This is because even though the water is frozen, certain particles can through random interactions with other particles gain sufficient thermal energy to demonstrate the behavior of a gas. That is to say: ice can evaporate... thanks rather specifically to the power of randomness.

Counterpoint: the interactions with other particles are not random, they could only have happened exactly as they did, and there are no alternative possibilities.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Your epistemological beliefs, then, are incorrect. Statistics is the means by which we measure random phenomena. The mathematics and philosophy behind it are both well-understood and have equipped us with the tools to:
-Produce scientific studies
-Find correlations
-Understand the rates at which natural phenomena occur and for what reasons

I don't think the phenomenon are truly random. All events are caused by other events, which must surely mean that even the outcomes of supposedly random phenomenon are determined by the last sequence in a course of events. For a small example, we could say that the face of a dice that will end up is determined by its velocity and direction when tossed from a person's hand. For another example, we could say (perhaps, correct me if I'm wrong) that the naturally occurring mutations in an organism are caused by defects in the process of meiosis (or any other cause), and as such the likelihood of the outcome is, due to the lack of other possible outcomes.

Except that’s not always the case. For example, there is such a thing as the spontaneous appearance of bosons and antibosons in vacuum. That is not precipitated by anything that is inherently causal other than random energy peaks.

[Godular]

The uncertainty principle focuses on specifically that thing: Uncertainty. There will always be uncertainty regarding the momentum and the position of an electron. The more we narrow one down, the more uncertain we become of the other. The main reason for this is that in the act of observing an electron, we change the properties of that electron. While the exact location and momentum of an electron will be forever unknown to us, we can still predict certain aspects of its behavior based on its interactions.

But lets take things down another path. You say there is no way to observe randomness. I offer you a challenge:

Fill up an ice tray with water, put it in the freezer and leave it there for... oh... say... two months. After that period, you might notice that the ice seems to have shrunk. This is because even though the water is frozen, certain particles can through random interactions with other particles gain sufficient thermal energy to demonstrate the behavior of a gas. That is to say: ice can evaporate... thanks rather specifically to the power of randomness.

Counterpoint: the interactions with other particles are not random, they could only have happened exactly as they did, and there are no alternative possibilities.

Oh yes those interactions very much are, and there are a very wide variety of alternative possibilities. Some particles might behave like liquid, some like ice, some like gas. ON AVERAGE they will tend towards behaving as one form over the other based on their combined thermal energy, but individual motion of atoms is very much random. We NEED that randomness. We would not be able to exist without it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't think the phenomenon are truly random. All events are caused by other events, which must surely mean that even the outcomes of supposedly random phenomenon are determined by the last sequence in a course of events. For a small example, we could say that the face of a dice that will end up is determined by its velocity and direction when tossed from a person's hand. For another example, we could say (perhaps, correct me if I'm wrong) that the naturally occurring mutations in an organism are caused by defects in the process of meiosis (or any other cause), and as such the likelihood of the outcome is, due to the lack of other possible outcomes.

Except that’s not always the case. For example, there is such a thing as the spontaneous appearance of bosons and antibosons in vacuum. That is not precipitated by anything that is inherently causal other than random energy peaks.

That may be random, but what are the energy peaks caused by?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Counterpoint: the interactions with other particles are not random, they could only have happened exactly as they did, and there are no alternative possibilities.

Oh yes those interactions very much are, and there are a very wide variety of alternative possibilities. Some particles might behave like liquid, some like ice, some like gas. ON AVERAGE they will tend towards behaving as one form over the other based on their combined thermal energy, but individual motion of atoms is very much random. We NEED that randomness. We would not be able to exist without it.

How can we test their randomness when we cannot recreate the exact circumstances by which it happened? There are no alternative possibilities because there is only one universe and its circumstances, the only possible outcomes to every event that has ever happened are the outcomes which took place.

[United Muscovite Nations]

We've kind of ventured from the topic, do you guys want to make a thread on Determinism?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I’ll pass. You’ve shown a profound lack of understanding that I do not feel comfortable correcting.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I’ll pass. You’ve shown a profound lack of understanding that I do not feel comfortable correcting.

I just legitimately don't get how randomness could exist tbh.

[Godular]

Oh yes those interactions very much are, and there are a very wide variety of alternative possibilities. Some particles might behave like liquid, some like ice, some like gas. ON AVERAGE they will tend towards behaving as one form over the other based on their combined thermal energy, but individual motion of atoms is very much random. We NEED that randomness. We would not be able to exist without it.

How can we test their randomness when we cannot recreate the exact circumstances by which it happened?

I rather literally just told you one way.

There are no alternative possibilities because there is only one universe and its circumstances, the only possible outcomes to every event that has ever happened are the outcomes which took place.

That does not mean they were not random.

[Godular]

Except that’s not always the case. For example, there is such a thing as the spontaneous appearance of bosons and antibosons in vacuum. That is not precipitated by anything that is inherently causal other than random energy peaks.

That may be random, but what are the energy peaks caused by?

The fabric of space-time ripples like a flag in the wind. What causes it? Randomness.

[Rojava Free State]

I’ll pass. You’ve shown a profound lack of understanding that I do not feel comfortable correcting.

I just legitimately don't get how randomness could exist tbh.

Makes more sense than a sentient being that always existed

[Farnhamia]

It's probably just me, you know how Farn can be, but the discussion seems to have drifted from "Creationism in Public Schools."

[NeoOasis]

shouldn't that be taught in science class?

Sorry, we don't have science as a subject in the Netherlands. We teach science in different subjects like biology and chemistry and physics.

But yes, evolution theory should be taught as fact.
Creationist theory should be mentioned in religion classes as also existing belief. Just as other " how we believe the world/ live was created " theories in other religions.

I like this solution. Evolution is based in science, and should be taught in a science class... I'd assume biology. Creationism would be more fitting in theology, religion, or maybe philosohy... not science.

[The Alma Mater]

Sorry, we don't have science as a subject in the Netherlands. We teach science in different subjects like biology and chemistry and physics.

But yes, evolution theory should be taught as fact.
Creationist theory should be mentioned in religion classes as also existing belief. Just as other " how we believe the world/ live was created " theories in other religions.

I like this solution. Evolution is based in science, and should be taught in a science class... I'd assume biology. Creationism would be more fitting in theology, religion, or maybe philosohy... not science.

Except that, as has been mentioned ad nauseam already, "creationism" and "intelligent design" are not religious beliefs prescribed by any holy book, but explicitly designed pseudosciences to attempt to get such belieft taught as science. They are cons.

Teaching the Biblical creation story in religious class: fine. Teaching a few other religious creation tales as well: even better.
Teaching creationism or ID ? No.

[NeoOasis]

I like this solution. Evolution is based in science, and should be taught in a science class... I'd assume biology. Creationism would be more fitting in theology, religion, or maybe philosohy... not science.

Except that, as has been mentioned ad nauseam already, "creationism" and "intelligent design" are not religious beliefs prescribed by any holy book, but explicitly designed pseudosciences to attempt to get such belieft taught as science. They are cons.

Teaching the Biblical creation story in religious class: fine. Teaching a few other religious creation tales as well: even better.
Teaching creationism or ID ? No.

To me creationism and Genesis are the same and I see em as interchangable. Either way they shouldn't be taught in a sciences or even history course. And aboslutely society should cover as many creation stories as they can... otherwise we'd be doing other religions a disservice. Christianity does not stand alone in this regard.

Evolution should remain in biology textbooks, and the inane disclaimers taped to textbooks in the South should be removed.