+quot;Nothing in the Bible can be proven wrong+quot; means that the Bible cannot be tested

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

"Nothing in the Bible can be proven wrong" means that the Bible cannot be tested. See, a hypothesis gets elevated to the status of "theory" through tests, and these tests have to be able to return either positive or negative answers. The hypothesis of Last-Wednesday-ism that someone else proposed can never become a theory, because there is _no_feasible_test_ that can tell us that the hypothesis is false. If it can't be tested, it can't become a theory. "Nothing in the Bible can be proven wrong" means that creationism cannot be tested. And if it cannot be tested, it can never, by definition, be a theory (and is thus not scientific). Reread those two sentences until you understand, they're the crux of the matter. Science is a process, not some kind of "dogma." Scientists come up with lots of crazy ideas, and--through the process of testing--accept some and reject others. Autogenesis is a good case study. The accepted idea of the day was that a steak would, over time, spontaneously create maggots. The test of this, done by Pasteur (?), was to put the meat someplace where flies couldn't get to it, and to see what happened. If maggots, then the autogenesis theory received strong support; if no maggots, then the theory was probably false. The result was that the theory was overturned. _That_ is science. _That_ is what we teach in schools. Your claim is that scientists' opinions should have no worth because the scientific process had not discovered 20th-century knowledge by the 10th century. If that's what you think, you are suggesting outlawing science classes entirely. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? Instead of that, how about this: we teach, in science class, what is _science_. Creationism cannot be tested via the scientific method, ergo it is not science, ergo it doesn't get taught in science class. Which part of that don't you understand? I've long thought that a "Critical Thinking" class is just what my high school needed. If I were teaching it, I would consider focusing on some creationist arguments for at least a section of the class. "Creationists say that, because the X tons of uranium on the Earth would have produced Y moles of helium after four billion years of decay, and because there are actually only Z moles (Z < Y) in our atmosphere, the Earth is therefore less than four billion years old. For Friday, give two alternative explanations for the fact that Z < Y. Explain which is the most probable. 30 points." But that section of the class would probably be too easy. Sure, students should think about lots of things, and maybe creationism should be one of them, and maybe there should be a class about it. But creationism is not science, and it should not be taught in science class. And its arguments against evolution do not hold water, and students should not be taught that they do. -- Jamie McCarthy Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank