The issue was as follows:
”The dispute began in 2007 when Chad Farnan, then a 15-year-old sophomore in Corbett’s class, took issue with comments about creationism the teacher made during his lectures.Deduction is scientific nonsense? Let’s take these issues one at a time.
And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.”
He continued: “The other possibility is, it’s always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.”
“All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it,” the transcript says.
Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”
”Aristotle … argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense,” Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. “I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know.”Aristotle is dismissed without any discussion of his reasoning, as “nonsense”. The reason given for the rejection is “deduction”. So deduction is inappropriate, according to this person.
“And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.”Really? And where is the fault? Just what logic are you using?
” He continued: “The other possibility is, it’s always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.”
The ignorance here is eyebrow deep: an ignorant Atheist teacher in charge of “educating” California students. The expanding universe convicted Einstein of a universal beginning 76 years ago. Scientists have pursued and accepted this from then until now. But not in this California classroom. So here’s my “call”: the universe had a beginning, and the beginning very likely had a cause; the other option, “it was always there” is too ignorant to even discuss.
But apparently PZ agrees with this. The teacher continues:
”“All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it,” the transcript says.This is buffoon-Atheist-speak, using a straw man as logic. Consider that this person is not only teaching children his Atheist foolishness, but that the courts refused to consider the constitutional aspect (which they repeatedly apply to religious content) – indicating that the courts are unrelentingly Atheist-bound also. And consider that PZ, who is also “teaching” science - consider that all of these approve of this teacher’s fully faulty reasoning and perpetration of that upon his students.
Deduction is a full stage of the scientific process. Pared to a minimalist
sequence it is as follows:
Induction : Hypothesis : Deduction : Test : Adjust Hypothesis : Repeat Deduction : continue in this loop until the test results coincide with the hypothesis.
It would be interesting to know what this “teacher” thinks science consists of, if deduction is as evil as he portrays it.
But it is not surprising that PZ agrees with any court decision that favors Atheism, no matter what the fallacies are that support that decision. For PZ, fallacies exist only in the logic of the opposition.
Now, I do agree that "creationism" in the form of "Intelligent Design" seems to be deductive. But deduction is not the problem with ID; the problem with ID is that it is a rationalist pursuit with metaphysical overtones, so it is not science. Science is voluntarily hobbled to materialist pursuits due to the inability to test non-materialist claims. That is the point which should be made when teaching science, its possibilities and its limitations. The Philosophy of Science, and the Philosophy of Knowledge should be taught before any science is taught. But first it would have to be taught to teachers.
The other problem is that science is not the only road to knowledge, or even a major road to knowledge. Science depends on rationalist knowledge for its limited legitimacy: mathematics, logic and axioms. Science teachers seem to be blissfully unaware of the full intellectual landscape, and since that fits in with Atheism, it is just fine by them. But it actually makes them unfit to teach: they are too filled with training theory and are totally innocent of intellectual underpinnings. They can't pass on what they don't know. They also are victims of the Dewey philosophy, and they pass that along to the next generation.
However, ignorance can also be considered willful. For the Atheist who claims reason and rationality, willful ignorance challenges that claim.
10 comments:
Agree with everything here (except maybe that the courts are "atheist"; that seems a bit of an overshoot).
the problem with ID is that it is a rationalist pursuit with metaphysical overtones
The problem with ID is that they try to apply teleology from the outside, artificially, rather than having teleology inherent in nature.
had’s lawyers argued that questioning “Creation Science” violated the First Amendment, but American law gives no special place to any religion. One person’s religion is another person’s superstition. To Jews, Muslims, Hindus and dozens of other religions, the New Testament is “Christian Superstition,” just as their views are superstition to Christians. When I referred to a religious belief as “superstition,” I sought to show respect for all by favoring none. My classes have Jews, Hindus, Bahai, Muslims, Buddhists, and others. Chad would demand a special place for his views, but in America, all beliefs should be treated equally by government.
Finally, here are two stanzas from Robert Service Poem (Reagan's favorite poet) that have been with me for 50 years--since my father read it to me when I was a teenager. At the time, he was fighting the blacklisters (and lost).
Carry On"
And so in the strife of the battle of life
It’s easy to fight when you’re winning;
It’s easy to slave, and starve and be brave,
When the dawn of success is beginning.
But the man who can meet despair and defeat
With a cheer, there’s the man of God’s choosing;
The man who can fight to Heaven’s own height
Is the man who can fight when he’s losing.
Carry on! Carry on!
Fight the good fight and true;
Believe in your mission, greet life with a cheer;
There’s big work to do, and that’s why you are here.
Carry on! Carry on!
Let the world be the better for you;
And at last when you die, let this be your cry!
Jim Corbett, still hokey after all these years. Born with nothin and still got most of it.
Mr. Corbett,
The transcripts above tell a different tale from the one you are presenting here (presuming that you are the same Corbett as in the case). The argument made regarding the Spaghetti Monster is not an attempt to demonstrate other viewpoints that are perceived as valid by their holders; it is specifically a strawman fallacy which is created specifically to ridicule the concept of a creating being.
Perhaps while you are here you would care to expand upon your statement of "Faulty logic. Very faulty logic." Perhaps you could provide a syllogistic explanation of the logic failure rather than just the accusation.
Also maybe you would explain your position on deduction, as well as your opinion that it is scientific to claim that the universe has always been there?
Your poem notwithstanding, you seem to have won your position in court, not to have engaged in the fight futilely. So if your positions are justified, please explain them... thanks.
Martin,
It seems to me that the courts should be a-theistic and a-a-theistic, in the sense that they should do absolutely nothing but interpret charges in light of existing law. Here's what the article said:
"In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”
Neutrality, in the view of the Ninth Circuit Court, means that hostility is allowed, positivity is not allowed. This indicates a prejudice in the Ninth Circuit Court which favors hostility, which is commonly found in Atheism.
Hostility is not written into law so far as I know. The Ninth Circuit Court is making up things under their own prejudice. They commonly operate outside the law, and this is just one more example.
So here’s my “call”: the universe had a beginning, and the beginning very likely had a cause; the other option, “it was always there” is too ignorant to even discuss.
As far back as we know there always was "something". We can unexpand big-bang expansion back to singularity but there is no "beginning" in the sense you mean. What you've created is called "a god of the gaps". Quantum physics is counter-intuitive. The "First Cause" argument that 13th century monks rediscovered is now "too ignorant to even discuss".
Anonymouse Catcher,
The "First Cause" argument that 13th century monks rediscovered is now "too ignorant to even discuss".
Ignorance of the cosmological arguments is the ONLY thing that allows you to say that
Martin,
Thanks for that summary of the Unmoved Mover. Quite succinct and I found to be very helpful.
82411 Anonymouse catcher said,
”As far back as we know there always was "something". We can unexpand big-bang expansion back to singularity but there is no "beginning" in the sense you mean.”
Interesting. Because the existence of a primitive original singularity is not certain. It seems that it is in fact an artifact of the simplification of some of the original equations, and the assumptions made by following equations, such as Hawking-Penrose. Math done subsequent to Hawking-Penrose has produced the possibility of a singularity-free origin. A pertinent history is here:
http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v69/p23/fulltext.pdf
As far as I know, String Theory still posits that universes are made when “branes” collide. This is a second singularity-free theory.
Regardless of the actuality, there is no empirical evidence to declare that there was no beginning; that is a presumption based on incomplete mathematical models of a region within which even mathematics might fail as far as we can know. If an original singularity was the source, it is legitimate to ask “what is the cause of the existence of the singularity,” and “what caused the singularity to reverse its gravitational warp into a rapid expansion (contra black hole singularities which are posited to slowly evaporate)?” Perhaps satisfactory mathematics will someday arise, but even then there will be no empirical confirmation/falsification.
Singularity cosmology and string cosmology both step across the separating border from science into philosophy. Neither prevents the need for an infinite regression to support its own existence. But neither refutes the idea of a preceding cause, either. So both cosmologies are philosophically unsatisfactory in answering the question of origin.
Granted, nothing said here suggests a God; But the existence of an originating cause seems likely, and the advanced characteristics of such a cause also seem likely. The idea hinges on “seems likely”, which is a probabilistic assumption; the calculation of such a probability is not possible – for either side of the issue. So taking a side requires taking a position on what “seems” likely, and taking that position is necessarily without empirical backing. Any position is therefore a position of informed faith. Agnosticism is never a satisfactory philosophical position.
”Quantum physics is counter-intuitive. The "First Cause" argument that 13th century monks rediscovered is now "too ignorant to even discuss".
Quantum Physics is also embryonic, as shown. Even to suggest that the original singularity, if it in fact existed, was the end of the subject in the sense that the north pole is the point beyond which north has no meaning, is without basis as “Fact” in the knowledge base. To believe that the singularity “always existed” or that it is meaningless to discuss a cause are without philosophical standing.
For example, the idea that a singularity always existed seems based on the idea that the time dimension was crushed into the r = 0 singularity along with the other characteristics of the universe: space, mass and energy. One might be tempted to think of a tiny crust surrounding time, which just runs on and on. But there is no crust or anything else at r = 0. Or else it is infinite in certain terms. Mathematics and human comprehension fall apart when something is divided by zero, and infinities are found to be necessary. (e.g. infinite mass density in a singularity, assuming that mass exists there as mass.). When time is bound in a warp of dimension zero, then outside the singularity there is no time, and the singularity came into existence in an environment without time. While we are unable to conceive of this environment, we still can legitimately ask, philosophically, how and why, if not when and where. And quantum cosmology does not prevent this.
FOI-RE: Comment on the recordings of my lectures--
My attorney advised me to seek a "summary judgment" rather than a jury trial. He believed the law was on our side and the case would be disposed of quickly. I wish I had not taken his advice because, in a summary judgment, the facts, as presented by the plaintiff must be taken to be true. Had i been given the opportunity to challenge Chad and his "facts," I could have demonstrated that he edited the recordings, leaving out contest that made it clear that each comment related directly to the curriculum. Chad, a boy who admitted he didn't do his homework, likely used the courts to cover up for his lack of work ethic. The Advocates for Faith and Freedom, likely used Chad to fund raise and, so, regularly quoted me out of context for the purpose of getting potential donors to ante up. If these people are Christians, it's a form of Christianity that eludes me.
falkowitz,
Are you the same person who previously commented as James Corbett? If so why the moniker change? If not, then who are you in relation to Corbett?
You said,
"Chad, a boy who admitted he didn't do his homework, likely used the courts to cover up for his lack of work ethic. The Advocates for Faith and Freedom, likely used Chad to fund raise and, so, regularly quoted me out of context for the purpose of getting potential donors to ante up. If these people are Christians, it's a form of Christianity that eludes me.
You have made serial presumptions here, three in a row. Do you have evidence to support this, because if you can provide that I will publish it on this blog. I will also publish your version of what was presented in class and how it was corrupted if you can provide such evidence.
I realize that you probably do not record every class session merely for defense in court. I also realize that many of today's students are more than casually hostile to teachers and education (I was a substitute in high school).
However evidence still must rule. Do you have a copy of Chad's tapes? Feel free to present your case here if you wish.
Post a Comment