Questioning People's Scientific Literacy

[WinePusher]

Whenever a thread is created about science, it always seems that the nontheists on this board will disparage theists and claim that they have an inadequate scientific education. Here are just two examples I've come across in the past couple of days:

You don't understand the science you want to talk about.

You know nothing of science.

There are many more examples of this. There are also many examples of nontheists claiming that theists deny science and get their science education from church. Now, the scientific topics that are often debated here involve the big bang and evolution. Both of these topics are often taught in upper level university physics and biology courses and require much background knowledge.

Here are several basic physics problems that one should already know before discussing advanced topics like the big bang:

A Motion Problem: A projectile is shot upward from the surface of the Earth with an initial velocity of 120 meters per second. What is its velocity after 5 seconds and 10 seconds? Use the following position function to do the calculations: s(t)=-4.9t^2+Vot+So

A Related Rates Problem: The radius (r) of a circle is increasing at a rate of 4 centimeters per minute. Find the rate of change when r=8 centimeters and r=32 centimeters. Hint: the area of a circle is given by the equation A=Ï€r^2

A Work Problem: A force of 112 newtons is required to slide a cement block of 8 meters in a construction project. What is the work done by the constant force? Also, what is the physical quantity for newtons per meter? Hint: work is equal to force times displacement, W=F(D).

I'd invite all these non-theists who always make fun of Christians for being scientifically illiterate to answer these three basic science questions.

[Excubis]

[Replying to WinePusher]

120-(9.8x5)=72
120-(9.8x10)=22

A Related Rates Problem: The radius (r) of a circle is increasing at a rate of 4 centimeters per minute. Find the rate of change when r=8 centimeters and r=32 centimeters. Hint: the area of a circle is given by the equation A=Ï€r^2

This is too vague to solve, what rate do you want exactly? A rate of change in area would be a variable equation dependent on elapsed time and pi, so therefore a varying rate due to even expansion of a circle's radius.

112/8=14 or 14 newtons per meter
896J or 896 joules

Now these are not an indication of education or knowledge of physics only some basic algebraic functions. I do not see knowing any mathematics is needed when discussing the big bang or evolution since they are conceptualizations of known value amounts or biological functions to produce diversity but not a unified equation or defined force to cause such and are theories with current measurements applied to for model. I see majority of misunderstanding coming from the theoretical models and how they apply to overall study. I myself have only called certain literalists as ignorant when I am told fallacy for bringing up holes in their assumed scientific reasoning by way of logic, common knowledge, and/or evidence. Such have been my encounters so far, woo science, fallacy, and so on directed my way without any substantiation to show otherwise. Not all but literalist mainly.

[Bust Nak]

Different routes and different techniques, if applied correctly, will give you the same answer.

Hence our big objection, you are not REQUIRED to do any differentiation or integration at all for either of those questions.

Denying the big bang or evolution is not a scientific gaffe. It's called a disagreement, and you don't really have any right to make fun of someone's education just because you disagree with them.

I can agree with that much. But whether particular instances of denial qualify as scientific gaffes, as opposed to mere disagreement, that's a different question.

I also ask that you look at the two quotes in my OP and tell me if those comments were justified or not. I believe they would be somewhat justified if the comments came from an actual science expert. But the two nontheists who made those condescending remarks in the OP haven't demonstrated any expertise in science.

I don't really see what difference it make if they demonstrated their scientific knowledge by answering your quiz. Would you take it any more seriously if I was the one making those kind of comments?

As for whether they were justified or not, in the first instance science was referred to as big-bang Evolution religions indoctrination; false analogy with cars and organism were made; treating the big bang as something that happened in space. I say that qualify as a gaffe.

The second instance, you may have a point, he might be referring to the perception of science, rather than science itself. Science is certainly perceived by many to be all factual, when it is merely the best answer we have, always subject to change. That probably doesn't deserve a "you know nothing of science." But surely you could see how someone would react negatively when it is referred to as a dogma of science.

[Excubis]

A person can be very science literate with out calculus. Why well for one physicists do not sit there and think oh I need to use calculus. They simply understand the conceptual relationship of measurements. Mathematical formalism by definition of terms is a very very small part of any physics class. Especially post secondary, it is application that matters, knowing how to use to find a unknown above what the process is called is far more important. If I can find rate of a falling object, yet do not know this can be a rational expression(algebra) no not at all. Also if I can find torque yet not call it as differential equation does that matter. Not really, people can understand much without a formal education especially today and the internet. To be so warped up in definition or formalism really shows little intuitive conceptual use, things change, mathematics is not a one way road ever, neither is scientific inquiry. Methods vary always, concise interpretations due matter but even those change. Literacy is good to question as long in my opinion one inspires not disparages one from asking questions. There are no stupid questions only dumb answers. I like Bust Nak's post a person can understand without math, why analysis of variables is innate to all humans or we would not be able to walk, run or even talk, term definition is the formalists game and researchers, it is not a standard of intelligence nor comprehension of science. That is a true ad absurdum.