NationStates Jolt Archive

"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription fro disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
[...]
Pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.
[...]
The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
Dr. Carl Sagan in The Deamon-Haunted World.

For general background, I reference:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417362
http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/ and http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Background.shtml

Science is on the defensive, at least in America. General lack of understanding of science and the scientific method, from children to parents to teachers to students, makes it easy for fundamentalists to sway people with their intelligent-sounding rhetoric. The forces of superstition and fundamentalism are on the rise; horoscopes and religous tracts seem to be everywhere one looks.

You can't look at a message board, even one so dominated by the Left as this one, without seeing countless examples of people: demonstrating ignorance of science; purporting the validity of pseudoscience; saying how their religion is entirely correct.

Out of the perhaps 500 people I see every day, I know that perhaps a few dozen of them, at most, are sane enough to reject this rise of superstition and see it for what it truely is.

...
1: To Europeans, Asians, Canadians... Are things so bad in your nations? Are people so ignorant of science? So inclined towards superstition? So hostile to the teaching of science?

2: To the fundamentalists, the supersticious, the haters of evolution and the big bang... do you realise what you are trying to do? Can you see the history of the world, or are you just sitting with your head in the sand? There was a time when people trusted God with all their needs, when they believed that every good thing was of God and every evil of the Devil. It was known as the Dark Ages.

3: To those who want to keep the flame of reason and science alive:
Do you agree with my fears?
What can we do?

3. I agree. In America the following poll turned out the results:

92% of Americans are religious (an increase from 87% in 1995)
83% pray regularly
66% go to church, synagogue, mosque, etc.
45% accept the Bible as ultimate truth
27% think the sun revolves around the earth
0.000000962% post regularly on Jolt

This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. And it's growing. Many fundamentalists have a lot of children who follow their parents' beliefs to the letter. That equates to about 250,000,000 people who will be religious by 2025. It's almost frightening.

1: To Europeans, Asians, Canadians... Are things so bad in your nations? Are people so ignorant of science? So inclined towards superstition? So hostile to the teaching of science?

Things are not so bad in my nation. Although the influence of the US is getting felt so we might have the same problem soon. However, like any social tendencies comeing from south of the border, it will never be as strong, go as far or be as big a problem. It's part of the Canadian heritage to strive for the middle and not go to extremes.

3. I agree. In America the following poll turned out the results:

92% of Americans are religious (an increase from 87% in 1995)
83% pray regularly
66% go to church, synagogue, mosque, etc.
45% accept the Bible as ultimate truth
27% think the sun revolves around the earth
0.000000962% post regularly on Jolt

This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. And it's growing. Many fundamentalists have a lot of children who follow their parents' beliefs to the letter. That equates to about 250,000,000 people who will be religious by 2025. It's almost frightening.
Wow. 45% of America is retarded.

When I read the title of this topic, I was thinking "Oh no. Not a primitivist!"
I thought you were going to post about how science and technology is evil and such.

Hey, ya know, I've never seen a primitivist here on NS. Odd.

Hey, ya know, I've never seen a primitivist here on NS. Odd.
They're all to busy reading the bible

Wait...27% of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Is that a matter of natural ignorance brought on by lack of education or enforced ignorance brought on by disbelieve in scientific fact (not scientific theory, but hard facts)? Anyone know?

Hey, ya know, I've never seen a primitivist here on NS. Odd.

I wonder why =P

The reason is this. 45% of Americans take EVERY WORD of the bible as truth. In the bible it is stated that the universe is geo-centric (everything goes around Earth) Why do you think they hated Galileo and all the other astronomers? They proved it wrong, yet 27% of us Americans still think the universe is geo-centric. I swear, some day I'm moving to Europe.

"...
1: To Europeans, Asians, Canadians... Are things so bad in your nations? Are people so ignorant of science? So inclined towards superstition? So hostile to the teaching of science?

It is unheard of here.





3: To those who want to keep the flame of reason and science alive:
Do you agree with my fears?


Just keep reminding people that the basic premise of intelligent design (aka Creationism) for example is antithetical to science. It is religion and it is Christian evangelism. It has utterly no place in science teaching anymore than flat earth theory (or even the heliocentric model of the universe) belongs in geology.

Well, no. Actually only 45% of those who responded to the poll offered such a belief.

Actually, we shouldn't start sweating blood about that poll until a few questions about it are answered.

Who commissioned said poll? Who wrote it, and what precisely were the questions? How big was the sample pool? How was the sample pool chosen? Where was the sample pool drawn from?

Were the members of the sample drawn from all strata of society? Was one group over or under represented?

What means were used to ensure answers were honest? Was this an oral poll or written? Did one part of the country over or under contribute?

Those are just the ones off the top of my head. I tend to take any poll with a grain of salt -- data can be skewed anyway you like, consciously or unconsciously.

Well, no. Actually only 45% of those who responded to the poll offered such a belief.

Actually, we shouldn't start sweating blood about that poll until a few questions about it are answered.

Who commissioned said poll? Who wrote it, and what precisely were the questions? How big was the sample pool? How was the sample pool chosen? Where was the sample pool drawn from?

Were the members of the sample drawn from all strata of society? Was one group over or under represented?

What means were used to ensure answers were honest? Was this an oral poll or written? Did one part of the country over or under contribute?

Those are just the ones off the top of my head. I tend to take any poll with a grain of salt -- data can be skewed anyway you like, consciously or unconsciously.
Not to mention that there's a statistics about Jolt forum in there which makes me suspicious about this poll....

Just keep reminding people that the basic premise of intelligent design (aka Creationism) for example is antithetical to science. It is religion and it is Christian evangelism. It has utterly no place in science teaching anymore than flat earth theory (or even the heliocentric model of the universe) belongs in geology.

To be fair, a literal interpretation of Intelligent Design would be a valid scientific hypothesis. All it says is that we were designed by some intelligence, never really naming any gods or other supernatural forces. Hell, the way things are presented in Robert Doherty's Area 51 series is basically Intelligent Design.

The problem comes from devising something that could test the theory. It does make the prediction that such fine genetic engineering is possible, so if we ever accomplished that ourselves, that would be satisfied.

Of course, evolution has more confirmed predictions and more evidence, so it's not like a scientific take on Intelligent Design will supplant evolution anytime soon (if ever), but still...

To be fair, a literal interpretation of Intelligent Design would be a valid scientific hypothesis. All it says is that we were designed by some intelligence, never really naming any gods or other supernatural forces. Hell, the way things are presented in Robert Doherty's Area 51 series is basically Intelligent Design.

The problem comes from devising something that could test the theory. It does make the prediction that such fine genetic engineering is possible, so if we ever accomplished that ourselves, that would be satisfied.

Of course, evolution has more confirmed predictions and more evidence, so it's not like a scientific take on Intelligent Design will supplant evolution anytime soon (if ever), but still...

It would remain at best a hypothesis because proving or disproving a deity is not possible however assuming one exists is NOT science; that is religion.

It would remain at best a hypothesis because proving or disproving a deity is not possible however assuming one exists is NOT science; that is religion.

Notice I said an interpretation that does not call upon a deity or other supernatural force?

I meant anything up to and including the far-fetched idea that we were designed and built by aliens.

Here, has anyone else ever heard of the Area 51 series?

EDIT:

Also, there are various ways it could be supported by evidence, indeed, it already has that one prediction that I put out up there, one that can be proven true or false. It already is a valid scientific hypothesis. It just may never be theory, at least not that valid a theory. Evolution will always have more satisfied predictions and heaps of evidence as it is simply a more accessible idea.

Of course, if we run across the remains of a billion year old alien space craft with records on designing various species and guiding their evolution through the ages, it would look a bit more likely, but I digress...

I am religious, and I have one thing to say.

Since science is right, how did we get here? Big bang you say right? So wait, sometime in the past, protons neutrons and electrons synthesized themselves into a giant ball that exploded? Under your own laws of science, matter cannot be created. So how did it get here?

Notice I said an interpretation that does not call upon a deity or other supernatural force?

I meant anything up to and including the far-fetched idea that we were designed and built by aliens.

Here, has anyone else ever heard of the Area 51 series?

Be it a supernatural entity or aliens makes no difference. There is nearly as little evidence currently for the existence of little green men as forGod. Assuming either to exist wihtout verifiable evidence is NOT science. It's either religion or if you prefer, mythology.

Simply proving a deity exists is enough to make me want to stick my head in the ground. Just doesn't seem feasible at all to me.

Be it a supernatural entity or aliens makes no difference. There is nearly as little evidence currently for the existence of little green men as forGod. Assuming either to exist wihtout verifiable evidence is NOT science. It's either religion or if you prefer, mythology.

Notice I keep saying hypothesis when refering to it?

Jeeze, there are such close-minded people on both sides of the Creation vrs Evolution debate. Most non-scientists who participate on the evolution side are so smug in the fact that they are right that they refuse to accept the possibility of even another valid scientific challenge.

Would scientific ID ever really challenge evolution? Not bloody likely. Could it concievably do so? Yes, it could.

Simply proving a deity exists is enough to make me want to stick my head in the ground. Just doesn't seem feasible at all to me.
Proving that science is the sole truth in the universe makes me want to stick my head in the ground.

I am religious, and I have one thing to say.

Since science is right, how did we get here? Big bang you say right? So wait, sometime in the past, protons neutrons and electrons synthesized themselves into a giant ball that exploded? Under your own laws of science, matter cannot be created. So how did it get here?

Here's a few thigns that may expand your thinking a bit. Cause and effect, at least how we understand it is meaningless without the existence of time and dimensions. Secondly the 'here' here when you say how did 'it' get here is not the same sort of 'here' here as existed then and there. There.:D

Here's a few thigns that may expand your thinking a bit. Cause and effect, at least how we understand it is meaningless without the existence of time and dimensions. Secondly the 'here' here when you say how did 'it' get here is not the same sort of 'here' here as existed then and there. There.:D

Well, at least you aren't a complete bumbling fool.

To expand on what this fine gentleman has already said, look at it like this.

Causality, or the idea upon which many people build cause and effect arguments, requires a before and after for things to work. The singularity that the Big Bang expanded out from was not just a conglomeration of all matter and energy in existance, but space-time itself was also folded up into this little itty bitty point. There was no dimension to anything (as is the definition of a point), meaning that x, y, and z all equaled zero as far as length, width, and depth go.

However, as time is integrated into the spatial sense as a temporal dimension, time must also have no measurement, meaning t = 0 as well. This puts Causality in a bit of a grind: without a before and after, causality means nothing, ergo, anything that happened at this point wouldn't necessarily need a cause for an effect. Indeed, it could not have a cause as the effect would then have to happen at the exact same time (as all things had the exact same temporal measurement at this point: 0).

Alternativily, you can look at quantum mechanics, which has effect preceding cause on a fairly normal basis. It also includes cause without any effect, effect without any percievable cause, etc.

Ever heard of the quantum foam?

Since science is right, how did we get here? Big bang you say right? So wait, sometime in the past, protons neutrons and electrons synthesized themselves into a giant ball that exploded? Under your own laws of science, matter cannot be created. So how did it get here?
The first thing i should point out is that most experts in the field now agree that the idea that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is wrong. Did you know that when you create a vacuum, small particles other than the usual ones materielize out of thin air spontaniously?

Here's a few thigns that may expand your thinking a bit. Cause and effect, at least how we understand it is meaningless without the existence of time and dimensions. Secondly the 'here' here when you say how did 'it' get here is not the same sort of 'here' here as existed then and there. There.:D

... what are you talking about?

The first thing i should point out is that most experts in the field now agree that the idea that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is wrong. Did you know that when you create a vacuum, small particles other than the usual ones materielize out of thin air spontaniously?

Sorry to post twice in a row but ok, sure, so somehow a vaccum spontaniously appeared and synthesized up the protons electrons and nuetrons in the oxygen I am breathing now? Wanna explain on how that works more?

Also, thats done in a science lab here on earth in modern day... I mean billions of years ago in the total vacuum that was the universe, how did the ball of gas and such get there?

Hey, ya know, I've never seen a primitivist here on NS. Odd.

it's probably because primitivism is "too marvelous for words". and if symbolic thought is problematic, then symbolic thought expressed in symbolic characters that are actually just representations of electronic states of the insides of the technological megamachine must be really problematic.

(i'm not a primmie but i play one on tv)

The reason is this. 45% of Americans take EVERY WORD of the bible as truth. In the bible it is stated that the universe is geo-centric (everything goes around Earth) Why do you think they hated Galileo and all the other astronomers? They proved it wrong, yet 27% of us Americans still think the universe is geo-centric. I swear, some day I'm moving to Europe.

I'm not sure how fair that poll is. When you talk about "truth" you get into philosophical areas, where religion dominates. if it's not "truth" what is it - lies? Insulting! Metaphor? Inapt, because a metaphor can be non-factual and yet tell a truth. 45% of Americans believe that there are no greater truths than in the Bible or that the Bible is not merely lies and/or metaphors.

But that doesn't mean 45% of Americans believe the Bible is 100% factual account. That puts 45% of Americans as Christian Fundamentalists, and frankly there just aren't that many of them.

The questions of the poll do need to be detailed more closely.

To address the question of intelligent design:

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

It can be couched in scientific language. It can be justified logically and argued as plausible. It is not, however, scientific. For one thing, it's not in the slightest bit falsifiable. There is no testability, no verifiability.

For that matter, the theory of intelligent design is so utterly generic that it fails to provide any sort of mechanism, which makes it of little use to science even when taken as the conjecture it is.

Wow. 45% of America is retarded.
Wow, 100% of Turkishsquirrels are flamebaiting. Knock it off.

It is unheard of here.
Wow, where in Alberta are you? I always thought Alberta was sooo Christian...

Joking, of course. I believe, that yes, this will be the downfall of Western (American) civilization. They will bring themselves back to the Dark Ages.

1) Assuming you are USA'ian from the point of view of the post... Why is it that some schools in the USA have and maybe still do conflict over the teachings of whether evolution and creation can co-ordinate?

Why is it, that I, from a Catholic school, from England, can be taught about Evolution and Religion? I am both a biology/chemistry/physics and a philosophy and ethics student with General Religious Educational qualifications at A/S levels behind me... And I can be taught both perspectives without conflict?

'Europe' is way too broad a term to use on these forums.

Also, there are various ways it could be supported by evidence, indeed, it already has that one prediction that I put out up there, one that can be proven true or false. It already is a valid scientific hypothesis. It just may never be theory, at least not that valid a theory. Evolution will always have more satisfied predictions and heaps of evidence as it is simply a more accessible idea.

(a) Your "prediction" is invalid. The idea that an intelligent designer designed life in no way leads to the idea that we will be able to do the same.

(b) It is not a valid scientific hypothesis, as it is untestable and impossible to disprove.

(c) Because it is not testable, it could never be a theory, as it cannot stand up to tests.

(d) Most of the statements IDers try to use to support their "theory" are absolutely ludicrous to begin with. Life is not as fragile as they would like to make out.

Notice I keep saying hypothesis when refering to it?

Jeeze, there are such close-minded people on both sides of the Creation vrs Evolution debate. Most non-scientists who participate on the evolution side are so smug in the fact that they are right that they refuse to accept the possibility of even another valid scientific challenge.

Would scientific ID ever really challenge evolution? Not bloody likely. Could it concievably do so? Yes, it could.

It has nothing to do with not accepting a valid scientific challenge or thinking that we are right. It is simply that we have yet to see one. There are plenty of challenges to aspects of evolutionary theory - these can be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals - and they are being worked out. I have yet to see a valid scientific challenge to evolutionary theory as a whole.

3: To those who want to keep the flame of reason and science alive:
Do you agree with my fears?
What can we do?

(a) Yes.

(b) I have no idea how to fix it. The currently applicable theories in science are far too advanced for a layperson to learn them without studying science for years. The best I can say is that we need to stop encouraging children to accept everything they are told without ever thinking about it. Critical thinking is taboo in this country, and shouldn't be.

This thread only tells me that people on both sides of science and religion are arrogant.

Also, thats done in a science lab here on earth in modern day... I mean billions of years ago in the total vacuum that was the universe, how did the ball of gas and such get there?
The Universe was not a vacuum, it was an adimensional point. All energy, space, matter, and time were in that point. That means the ball of gas and such was all concentrated in that single point, not as gas and such, but in a very different state. The point didn't come from anywhere, because there was no where it could have come from, and no time before it, you can say that it was always there.

The Universe was not a vacuum, it was an adimensional point. All energy, space, matter, and time were in that point. That means the ball of gas and such was all concentrated in that single point, not as gas and such, but in a very different state. The point didn't come from anywhere, because there was no where it could have come from, and no time before it, you can say that it was always there.

I can tell you where it came from. You know what I'm thinking and you dont like it, but hey, you dont have a good answer for where it came from and look at that, I do... Hm...

This thread only tells me that people on both sides of science and religion are arrogant.

People who place science and religion on opposite "sides" are generally pretty ignorant of one, the other, or both.

I can tell you where it came from. You know what I'm thinking and you dont like it, but hey, you dont have a good answer for where it came from and look at that, I do... Hm...

You have an answer. It is just as scientifically valid as any other answer, or no answer at all. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but it is the way it is.

I can tell you where it came from. You know what I'm thinking and you dont like it, but hey, you dont have a good answer for where it came from and look at that, I do... Hm...
No, I don't. Things get very complicated from here, involving 12-dimensional strings and other universes coming in contact with each other. And, yes, even supernatural beings creating the Universe spontaneously. So far none of these ideas can be tested.

You may think you have a good answer, but unless you can provide some way to test it and come up with evidence, its only a supposition at best.

The questions of the poll do need to be detailed more closely.

To address the question of intelligent design:

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

It can be couched in scientific language. It can be justified logically and argued as plausible. It is not, however, scientific. For one thing, it's not in the slightest bit falsifiable. There is no testability, no verifiability.

For that matter, the theory of intelligent design is so utterly generic that it fails to provide any sort of mechanism, which makes it of little use to science even when taken as the conjecture it is.

Of course it is not a theory. However, a Naturalist ID viewpoint is indeed a hypothesis. It does not call upon anything outside the scope of science as some imaginary force, it is testable (I will get to that when I address the next post), it makes a useful prediction. It just has yet to be (and may never be) substantiated.


(a) Your "prediction" is invalid. The idea that an intelligent designer designed life in no way leads to the idea that we will be able to do the same.

The assumption I was making here is that the proposed intelligence would be one that exists within and is confined by the laws of our existance. Whether it be aliens or some sort of bungled up time traveler trying to create as many paradoxes as he can, his/their doing it means it must be possible within science to accomplish it. Should we ever prove that it is possible, one prediction of ID has been fulfilled. Should we find it to be impossible, than ID is disproven.

This, of course, also assumes they did use evolutionary means to accomplish this end but rather directly engineered the species we see. If they did indeed use evolutionary ends than it is not a testable hypothesis and it makes no useful predictions.

(b) It is not a valid scientific hypothesis, as it is untestable and impossible to disprove.

(c) Because it is not testable, it could never be a theory, as it cannot stand up to tests.

See above.

(d) Most of the statements IDers try to use to support their "theory" are absolutely ludicrous to begin with. Life is not as fragile as they would like to make out.

As far as I know, I'm the first to propose a truely scientific form of ID that does not call upon some supernatural force as the designer. I'm sure there have been others, but they obviously fall in the background when it comes to the creationists who try to make themselves legitimate by stealing the name.

Of course it is not a theory. However, a Naturalist ID viewpoint is indeed a hypothesis. It does not call upon anything outside the scope of science as some imaginary force, it is testable (I will get to that when I address the next post), it makes a useful prediction. It just has yet to be (and may never be) substantiated.

The assumption I was making here is that the proposed intelligence would be one that exists within and is confined by the laws of our existance. Whether it be aliens or some sort of bungled up time traveler trying to create as many paradoxes as he can, his/their doing it means it must be possible within science to accomplish it. Should we ever prove that it is possible, one prediction of ID has been fulfilled. Should we find it to be impossible, than ID is disproven.

This, of course, also assumes they did use evolutionary means to accomplish this end but rather directly engineered the species we see. If they did indeed use evolutionary ends than it is not a testable hypothesis and it makes no useful predictions.

See above.

As far as I know, I'm the first to propose a truely scientific form of ID that does not call upon some supernatural force as the designer. I'm sure there have been others, but they obviously fall in the background when it comes to the creationists who try to make themselves legitimate by stealing the name.I'll ask you one question:

How would we find disproof of this theory?

The assumption I was making here is that the proposed intelligence would be one that exists within and is confined by the laws of our existance. Whether it be aliens or some sort of bungled up time traveler trying to create as many paradoxes as he can, his/their doing it means it must be possible within science to accomplish it. Should we ever prove that it is possible, one prediction of ID has been fulfilled. Should we find it to be impossible, than ID is disproven.

Logical contradiction. We can never find anything to be impossible. There is always the chance that we will figure it out later. Because we can never show that it is impossible, we can never disprove ID, and it thus cannot be a scientific hypothesis or theory.

As far as I know, I'm the first to propose a truely scientific form of ID

You'll have to try again if you are looking for a truly scientific form of ID.

The assumption I was making here is that the proposed intelligence would be one that exists within and is confined by the laws of our existance. Whether it be aliens or some sort of bungled up time traveler trying to create as many paradoxes as he can, his/their doing it means it must be possible within science to accomplish it. Should we ever prove that it is possible, one prediction of ID has been fulfilled. Should we find it to be impossible, than ID is disproven.

And yet more would have to be found to prove it: signals of the presence of these aliens, perhaps markers in our DNA that point to artificial intervention, etc.
It wouldn't explain the Universe itself, though, just the origin of life on Earth.

One of the basic points that is being overlooked by the OP, is that science itself is, in the way it functions in practice, a religion. There are many theories out there, that those that claim to be scientific in their thinking (and this isncludes me) take to be facts. They are not facts. They are simply the best explanation we have of something according to a specific set of rules which we take to be those that validate such explanations. For example, and only as one of many:


To address the question of intelligent design:

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

It can be couched in scientific language. It can be justified logically and argued as plausible. It is not, however, scientific. For one thing, it's not in the slightest bit falsifiable. There is no testability, no verifiability.


Intelligent Design is being rejected, not because it has been shown to be wrong in any way (it has not), but because it does not fit within the criteria used in science to determine if some idea is worthy of the validating label "scientific". "There is no testability, no verifiability" is the motive for its rejection.

What tests, what verifies, what validates science as a procedure? Science itself can not. If it did it would be as closed an argument as traditional religion is. However science does attempt to validate itself. It shows causal arguments in the sense of "look at what science has done for us", without realising that the style of argument being presented is exactly that that is being questioned.

I have made a case here of science being a religious style enterprise, and it is. This however does not mean that it should be ignored. It just means that because something has the approval of 'science' does not mean that it is more than a postulate that is supported in the scientific way of thinking.

Oh, and an aside. If ID is not scientific for the reasons given, nor is evolution. It is neither testable nor verifiable.

p.s. Science depends of falsification not verification, but the arguments made still hold if you just change the concepts over.

People who place science and religion on opposite "sides" are generally pretty ignorant of one, the other, or both.

yep and this thread has placed them on opposite sides and claimed the superiority of one over the other. They address different needs of existence and are not mutually exclusive at all. I am a Christian who is perfectly comfortable with science and does not see it as a threat to my beliefs in any way.
Science and religion are not enemies.
One is no better than the other. They have contributed evil and good to the world.

"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription fro disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
[...]
Pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.
[...]
The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
Dr. Carl Sagan in The Deamon-Haunted World.

For general background, I reference:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417362
http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/ and http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Background.shtml

Science is on the defensive, at least in America. General lack of understanding of science and the scientific method, from children to parents to teachers to students, makes it easy for fundamentalists to sway people with their intelligent-sounding rhetoric. The forces of superstition and fundamentalism are on the rise; horoscopes and religous tracts seem to be everywhere one looks.

You can't look at a message board, even one so dominated by the Left as this one, without seeing countless examples of people: demonstrating ignorance of science; purporting the validity of pseudoscience; saying how their religion is entirely correct.

Out of the perhaps 500 people I see every day, I know that perhaps a few dozen of them, at most, are sane enough to reject this rise of superstition and see it for what it truely is.

...
1: To Europeans, Asians, Canadians... Are things so bad in your nations? Are people so ignorant of science? So inclined towards superstition? So hostile to the teaching of science?

2: To the fundamentalists, the supersticious, the haters of evolution and the big bang... do you realise what you are trying to do? Can you see the history of the world, or are you just sitting with your head in the sand? There was a time when people trusted God with all their needs, when they believed that every good thing was of God and every evil of the Devil. It was known as the Dark Ages.

3: To those who want to keep the flame of reason and science alive:
Do you agree with my fears?
What can we do?

Luddite Troglodytes have always been with us, friend. One of the scarier developments has been the rise of Dogmatic Science- people who treat it like a Religion just like Fundy christianity-basically the rise, as you've noted, of "Pseudoscience".

A couple of examples of this:

Nuclearphobia and NIMBY

One of the results of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, is that it's prohibitively difficult to build replacement reactors, find somewhere to store the waste, and/or reprocess spent nuclear fuel. This is because of modern superstition. You say "Nuclear" and most people have an irrational reaction. The result, is that we're stuck with aging, increasingly dangerous, obselete technology in the Nuclear field, because it is virtually impossible to build reactors that take advantage of lessons-learned. What blocks it? Lawsuits, fearmongering, and lack of knowledge.

Global Warming-human originated
This one is part of the whole tree-hugging-dirt-worshipper crap that's created problems for viable alternative energy projects like Nuclear power. Proponents tend to ignore geological and astromomical evidence of global climate change, flog their data to create panic, and generally discredit real science with their doomsday chicken-little babbling. If a guy with only an associate's degree can prove the main 'hook' incorrect (thus breaking the Hypothesis) it's not science.
It's not science if you ignore data that doesn't support your Hypothesis, either. Just because a PhD says something is so, does not make it a fact-only by examination and elimination can you determine what is not a fact.

God does not exist, and everything is the result of random chance occurrance

This is unscientific, because it's untestable. Unfortunately, just like fundies on the other side, a lot of "Science-worshippers" will insist this is so-thus limiting their ability to motivate their debate-opponents to serious reasoning. Evangelical Atheism is just as obnoxious and unreasoning as Evangelical Christianity, or Evangelical Islam. It is also unscientific. Things you can not test effectively do not belong with the term "Science". The Scientific Process is one of Elimination, that requires first a testable Hypothesis. Science, and Religion do not mix well, but they are not mutually exclusive, either. Science tells us HOW things work, it tells us NOTHING about God, besides what mechanisms he may have set up in creating the universe.
Science does NOT tell you 'who' created the universe, it only tells you 'how' it might have been done. (note the weasel-word here, "MIGHT". As in without direct observation, even the most mathematically probable versions are no more than Hypothetical at best. It won't be testable until someone figures out how to create a Universe under lab conditions... Repeatably.)


Sir Isaac Newton (one of the founding fathers of modern Physics) was a Christian-you will note that this doesn't detract from his work as a scientist, given the technology of the time. So were a great number of other primary thinkers in modern science. It's only after the rise of Nietschian nihilism and "God is dead" that you find Atheists in prominent positions in the scientific community. Faith and Science are not mutually exclusive unless you're a Fred Phelps fanboy.

But, that does not mean there isn't a problem. Unreason is appealing to most people, I don't know why-but it is. People ascribe malice to inanimate objects (Guns, problem cars, computers), I sometimes wonder if it isn't simply endemic to the human condition to believe in an unseen world of powers rather than the world of the testable and proveable.

Check out James P. Hogan's excellent critique of irrationality in the Academic world, it's titled "Kicking the Sacred Cow", if you're fortunate, your library will have a copy.

Intelligent Design is being rejected, not because it has been shown to be wrong in any way (it has not), but because it does not fit within the criteria used in science to determine if some idea is worthy of the validating label "scientific". "There is no testability, no verifiability" is the motive for its rejection.

Note that it is not rejected completely. It is simply rejected as appropriate in a science class.

What tests, what verifies, what validates science as a procedure?

Thousands of years of use and philosophy.

I have made a case here of science being a religious style enterprise, and it is.

Only if you consider every process ever to pop into the head of a human being to be religious.
king.

Oh, and an aside. If ID is not scientific for the reasons given, nor is evolution. It is neither testable nor verifiable.

It is testable and disprovable. Evolution has been derived from test after test and all available evidence. Evidence that contradicts it disproves it. As such, it would be altered or discarded. There is no evidence that can contradict "There is an intelligent designer."

yep and this thread has placed them on opposite sides and claimed the superiority of one over the other.

Claiming that religion != science does not place science above religion. Claiming that people don't understand science is not placing science above reliigon. Pointing out that people attack science because of their religion is not placing science above religion.

In the end, it is the fundamnetalists on the religion side that place the two on opposing sides. I have seen only one scientist who claimed to be able to "disprove" religion, and he was just an ass.

In the bible it is stated that the universe is geo-centric (everything goes around Earth)
Excuse me? I spent a lot of time studying the Bible growing up...and I don't remember that ANYwhere. :wtf:

Excuse me? I spent a lot of time studying the Bible growing up...and I don't remember that ANYwhere. :wtf:

There is a statement that God caused the sun to hold still in the sky. It did not say that the Earth held still in its rotation This was used by the church for a long time to claim that anyone not believing the Earth to be the center of the universe was a heretic.

Claiming that religion != science does not place science above religion. Claiming that people don't understand science is not placing science above reliigon. Pointing out that people attack science because of their religion is not placing science above religion.

In the end, it is the fundamnetalists on the religion side that place the two on opposing sides. I have seen only one scientist who claimed to be able to "disprove" religion, and he was just an ass.

Exactly. Except there are "Anti Religion" fundamentalists who, unlike real scientists, also place the two in opposition. Most of the time, such folk are not directly involved in the Sciences at all-but they treat statements by degreed people as if they were the word from the Pope to a Catholic's ear.
You can turn anything into a Religion. Oddly enough, L.Ron Hubbard did just that as a five-dollar lunch bet with his publisher that resulted in Scientology.

Exactly. Except there are "Anti Religion" fundamentalists who, unlike real scientists, also place the two in opposition.

Yes, and they bug me just as much. LOL


You can turn anything into a Religion. Oddly enough, L.Ron Hubbard did just that as a five-dollar lunch bet with his publisher that resulted in Scientology.

Psst, be careful talking about Scientology. They sue everybody.

Claiming that religion != science does not place science above religion. Claiming that people don't understand science is not placing science above reliigon. Pointing out that people attack science because of their religion is not placing science above religion.

In the end, it is the fundamnetalists on the religion side that place the two on opposing sides. I have seen only one scientist who claimed to be able to "disprove" religion, and he was just an ass.

This thread was written to insult religious people. It was created to mock them and it was created to make people who reject religion feel superior to those religious hicks. That was the spirit of this thread. It only served to split not bring together. It was and is arrogant.
I have read and seen many scientist who mock religious people for their beliefs. I has seen many religious people who mock science people for their ideas. I do not belief for one second that this problem was created only by one side.

There is a statement that God caused the sun to hold still in the sky. It did not say that the Earth held still in its rotation This was used by the church for a long time to claim that anyone not believing the Earth to be the center of the universe was a heretic.
Then blame the Catholic church instead of the Bible. I still contend that NOwhere in the Bible does it present a geo-centric view of the Universe...or even the solar system, for that matter.

Note that it is not rejected completely. It is simply rejected as appropriate in a science class.
Fair comment. A science class is about science aftyer all.



Thousands of years of use and philosophy.
Actually only about 600 in total, and even if it were the thousands you claim it would not make it any more validated than the belief in tree spirits for example. The length of time something has been believed in does not make it correct.


Only if you consider every process ever to pop into the head of a human being to be religious.
I hold systems that are closed, those that depend only upon themselves for justification to be religious. "How do we know that God exists? Because the bible tells us. Why do we believe the Bible? Because it is the word of God" is visciously closed. Now apply the same to science. "Why do we believe science? Because it has falsifiable and testable theories. How do we falsify and test these theories? Using science." Do you see the point here?


It is testable and disprovable. Evolution has been derived from test after test and all available evidence. Evidence that contradicts it disproves it. As such, it would be altered or discarded. There is no evidence that can contradict "There is an intelligent designer."

This was an aside, as I do not wish to enter the whole debate here. I will simply say that I, personally, have never seen any scientific experiments that test evolution, nor does evolution make falsifiable predictions. It makes no predictions at all. You are welcome to consider it a valid scientific theory. For me it is simply an explanatory hypothesis as it does not meet the criteria necessary for it to be a theory.

It would remain at best a hypothesis because proving or disproving a deity is not possible however assuming one exists is NOT science; that is religion.
By your method, MACROevolution (aka Darwinian evolution) is still a hypothesis (yet it is taught as theory/fact).

Note that I do not include MICROevolution (aka mutation) in this, as it is proven/provable.

Due to lack of direct evidence/proof, I continue to state that "it takes just as much faith to believe in MACROevolution as it does in Creationism."

No, I don't. Things get very complicated from here, involving 12-dimensional strings and other universes coming in contact with each other. And, yes, even supernatural beings creating the Universe spontaneously. So far none of these ideas can be tested.

You may think you have a good answer, but unless you can provide some way to test it and come up with evidence, its only a supposition at best.

Ok, good. Here's the part that requires some faith. You can either believe that some 12 dimension strings or some other universe caused all this, which we, as you said, have no evidence of. Or you can believe in the Bible. Granted there's no solid proof of God's existance, but having solid proof around wouldn't be any fun, would it?

Ok, good. Here's the part that requires some faith. You can either believe that some 12 dimension strings or some other universe caused all this, which we, as you said, have no evidence of. Or you can believe in the Bible. Granted there's no solid proof of God's existance, but having solid proof around wouldn't be any fun, would it?
Yeah, but this is where things get complicated for the Bible too. I mean, if you are going to believe in the Bible, why not the Popol Vuh, the Bhaghavad Gitah, or the ancient Greek myths?

So, it's best to simply admit "I don't know. There may be a god, or maybe not, let's just keep going and see what we find."

Intelligent Design is being rejected, not because it has been shown to be wrong in any way (it has not), but because it does not fit within the criteria used in science to determine if some idea is worthy of the validating label "scientific". "There is no testability, no verifiability" is the motive for its rejection.

actually, it does make testable claims. it's just that almost all of its testable claims have been shown to be wrong. the main scientific line of reasoning behind id is that of irreducible complexity (ic). michael behe put up a number of examples of ic systems in his book, "darwin's black box". these, it is claimed, cannot have come about from an evolutionary process, because each of the components are necessary in order to have any functionality at all. but almost every one of the supposedly ic systems has at least one plausible evolutionary explanation available to it that we know of currently. hell, a number of them were published before behe's book.

and in true creationist form, idders faced with the utter destruction of their testable claims either continue repeating them anyway, or retreat even further into the realm of untestablity.

This thread was written to insult religious people. It was created to mock them and it was created to make people who reject religion feel superior to those religious hicks. That was the spirit of this thread. It only served to split not bring together. It was and is arrogant.

I highly doubt it. I saw nothing in the original post that insulted religious people.

I have read and seen many scientist who mock religious people for their beliefs.

Not in their capacity as scientists. There are assholes everywhere, in every profession. I have seen a comic book writer mock people for their religious beliefs. Does that mean that comics and religion are opposed?

actually, it does make testable claims. it's just that almost all of its testable claims have been shown to be wrong. the main scientific line of reasoning behind id is that of irreducible complexity (ic). michael behe put up a number of examples of ic systems in his book, "darwin's black box". these, it is claimed, cannot have come about from an evolutionary process, because each of the components are necessary in order to have any functionality at all. but almost every one of the supposedly ic systems has at least one plausible evolutionary explanation available to it that we know of currently. hell, a number of them were published before behe's book.

and in true creationist form, idders faced with the utter destruction of their testable claims either continue repeating them anyway, or retreat even further into the realm of untestablity.

Ah a communist post, not a Capital to be seen ;) Very fitting.

I was simply echoing the argument against ID placed by the person I quoted. I have no real knowledge of the ID debate, as it was not an issue when I was at school, and it is not being discussed where I live. (Not the USA)

The points I was making were about the nature of science itself, rather than about ID.

Then blame the Catholic church instead of the Bible. I still contend that NOwhere in the Bible does it present a geo-centric view of the Universe...or even the solar system, for that matter.

So you don't see the logic here? If the sun holds still in the sky, then the sun must be moving, while the Earth stands still.

Now, a logical person, when faced with the evidence to the contrary, can simply state that it appeared to those writing the text that it was the sun which was holding still. But that isn't exactly a literal interpretation.

3: To those who want to keep the flame of reason and science alive:
Do you agree with my fears?
What can we do?

A world compromised totally of reason would be inherently dull. Of course I do not advocate a world without reason.

However reason seems to be one trait that humanity lacks in large quantities. Take love. Why would a man throw his position, his career or indeed anything of value for a mere impulse, a mere biochemical reaction in the recesses of his brain? It does not sound reasonable. The human world is not reasonable: that is why it is human.

Science in itself is not always reasonable. For example the odds of a Big Bang occuring, turning nothingness into matter is several hundred billions to one: does that sound like a reasonable stastic? Probably not.

I will follow reason but there is about where even reason becomes unreasonable.

Actually only about 600 in total, and even if it were the thousands you claim it would not make it any more validated than the belief in tree spirits for example. The length of time something has been believed in does not make it correct.

The scientific method was derived from philosophy. How long has that been around?

I hold systems that are closed, those that depend only upon themselves for justification to be religious.

In other words, every process humankind has ever thought up is religious. Gotcha.

"Why do we believe science? Because it has falsifiable and testable theories. How do we falsify and test these theories? Using science." Do you see the point here?

Except that isn't how it works. We falsify and test theories using measurable evidence. Evidence, in and of itself, is not the scientific method. It is simply necessary for the method.

This was an aside, as I do not wish to enter the whole debate here. I will simply say that I, personally, have never seen any scientific experiments that test evolution,

Then you haven't looked.

nor does evolution make falsifiable predictions.

And apparently have no understanding whatsoever of the theory.

I highly doubt it. I saw nothing in the original post that insulted religious people.



Not in their capacity as scientists. There are assholes everywhere, in every profession. I have seen a comic book writer mock people for their religious beliefs. Does that mean that comics and religion are opposed?

The tone of the original post, in assuming scienctific knowledge is the greater good and in assuming holding onto faith has a negative effect on society was insulting and it was meant to be so.

YES!! Comic books and religion are opposed. . .oh wait. . .

I don't believe science and religion are opposed to one another in essence, I believe people in both groups are opposed to one another. Honestly I think we are debating right past each other.

This is intended as a fairly even-handed and moderate approach to some questions that have been raised. For more information about the physics, especially the quantum mechanics, I suggest you check out any decent first-year university physics textbook. The maths in the quantum mech. section won't be anything more than basic algebra, and you'll get a more detailed explanation than the following.

Let the games begin.

Point the First: Reference Geometry (interesting aside, geometry translates as earth measuring)

Asking what existed before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Or asking what God did before He created the Heavens and the Earth. Explore the mystery of His own existence? Wouldn't take too long. So this argument posits an infinte expanse of time with a Deity bored out of His mind, which would place limits on His power to entertain Himself, therefore He must have done the act of creation after a finite time of existence. However, this also places limits on His ability to exist for all time, leading to a paradox. Onto the next point.

Point the Second: Virtual Particles

It can be said that there are nine basic concepts that shape the universe, two of which are Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The former states that there are certain pairs of measurements that are inextricably linked, and so on quantum scales you cannot know both precisely at the same time. Examples are position and momentum, so you can know where something is or where it's going but not both, and energy and time. Since Einstein's wonderful equation E=mc^2 gives a relation between energy and mass, we can also say that mass is uncertain. Now, here's where it gets interesting; there is a definite and very small number that the product of the 2 uncertainties has to be equal to or less than. For instance;

(uncertainty in position)x(uncertainty in momentum) <= k

where k is a small number that I won't get into. Suffice it to say that it is really bloody small. Now this means that you can borrow small amounts of energy from nothing, as long as it returns to nothing in a very small amount of time. For instance, from out of the thinnest vaccuum you can imagine, there can appear a proton together with its antimatter partner. These two particles have mass, and therefore energy, which must be "repaid" to the universe within that certain small amount of time. This happens by the 2 particles meeting and annihilating eachother. Thus energy is neither created or destroyed but merely changes its form. This sounds weird, but has been seen to happen, and a slightly different form of its workings is needed for the operation of solid-state LED lasers, such as the one that reads the data of the CD in your computer.
This also keeps the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically states that you can't get something for nothing; the best you can ever hope for is to break even and that's bloody hard too. For the purists, yes I know about entropy, but I'm pitching this for the non-physicist.

Point the Third: History

In 1054 the was a supernova in our galaxy, which is a large old star exploding so that it is brighter than the rest of the 300 billion stars in our galaxy combined. It was written about for weeks in China, Japan, Korea and the Middle East, since it was bright enough to cast a shadow. There have even been found rock paintings in the southwest of the US depicting this event. You could even read by its light at midnight. However, there has been no recordings, drawings, writings or any other kind of documentation of this event found anywhere within Europe. However, Halley's Comet, which passed close to Earth in 1066, was used as an item for political gain in the Norman conquest of England and recorded in the Bayeux tapestry. An age is not dark because there is no light, but because people refuse to see it.

In every civilization there are those who see things differently. It is those folk who devise new and wondrous ways of looking at the world and thinking about things. Eventually, the members of this civilization become accustomed to having these wonders given to them on a silver platter, taking no thought to how they are made, how they get to the consumer and the myriad small acts that have gone into giving it to them. And so, the fat and happy members of these polities, instead of needing their energies for survival, turn on those different among there own poeple, demanding they halt their excesses, their immoral experiments exploring knowledge that Man Was Not Meant To Know. And so the scholars are thrown out, the infrstructure fails, the barbarians and looters sweep in and the candle gutters.
This is called progress.
It happened to the Greeks twice, the Romans, the Persians, Chinese, Japanese, Ethiopians, Moslems...... and it is happening to Western Civilisation now, most strikingly in the USA. Be afraid, for if this civilisation falls, the knock-on effects would devastate the global economy, possibly casuing it to fail. If so, 11 out of 12 people, at the very least, would starve to death.

The moral of this story is; be nice to nerds. They might not be on the football team or go out with supermodels, but they allow you to be something more than a hungry, grime-smeared savage worrying about where his next meal is to come from.

Ah a communist post, not a Capital to be seen ;) Very fitting.

all letters are created equal. but some are more equal than others (the letter X, for eXample).

So you don't see the logic here? If the sun holds still in the sky, then the sun must be moving, while the Earth stands still.

Now, a logical person, when faced with the evidence to the contrary, can simply state that it appeared to those writing the text that it was the sun which was holding still. But that isn't exactly a literal interpretation.
It's my contention that a great deal of the Bible (not all) is metaphorical. Also, if you read the surrounding portions related to the passage in question, it would make sense to interpret the "sun holding still in the sky" as a temporary cessation of the advancement of time. (Translation: God stopped the clock for a bit.)

Anyone who thinks the whole Bible is a literal document needs their heads checked. Do you really think "locusts with the faces of men" (Revelations) will be a scourge upon the Earth at the end of days? :roll:

The tone of the original post, in assuming scienctific knowledge is the greater good and in assuming holding onto faith has a negative effect on society was insulting and it was meant to be so.

The person making the post obviously thought that scientific knowledge is necessary for the greater good. Most would agree.

And it said nothing about having faith. Blind faith, perhaps, but not faith.

Point the Third: History

In 1054 the was a supernova in our galaxy, which is a large old star exploding so that it is brighter than the rest of the 300 billion stars in our galaxy combined. It was written about for weeks in China, Japan, Korea and the Middle East, since it was bright enough to cast a shadow. There have even been found rock paintings in the southwest of the US depicting this event. You could even read by its light at midnight. However, there has been no recordings, drawings, writings or any other kind of documentation of this event found anywhere within Europe. However, Halley's Comet, which passed close to Earth in 1066, was used as an item for political gain in the Norman conquest of England and recorded in the Bayeux tapestry. An age is not dark because there is no light, but because people refuse to see it.

In every civilization there are those who see things differently. It is those folk who devise new and wondrous ways of looking at the world and thinking about things. Eventually, the members of this civilization become accustomed to having these wonders given to them on a silver platter, taking no thought to how they are made, how they get to the consumer and the myriad small acts that have gone into giving it to them. And so, the fat and happy members of these polities, instead of needing their energies for survival, turn on those different among there own poeple, demanding they halt their excesses, their immoral experiments exploring knowledge that Man Was Not Meant To Know. And so the scholars are thrown out, the infrstructure fails, the barbarians and looters sweep in and the candle gutters.
This is called progress.
It happened to the Greeks twice, the Romans, the Persians, Chinese, Japanese, Ethiopians, Moslems...... and it is happening to Western Civilisation now, most strikingly in the USA. Be afraid, for if this civilisation falls, the knock-on effects would devastate the global economy, possibly casuing it to fail. If so, 11 out of 12 people, at the very least, would starve to death.

The moral of this story is; be nice to nerds. They might not be on the football team or go out with supermodels, but they allow you to be something more than a hungry, grime-smeared savage worrying about where his next meal is to come from.

You are referring to what I call affectionately 'The Great Reset' where we had a period of tremendous cultural and scientific advances. During the Roman era, regular baths, central heating using steam and other such modern touches were becoming common. Then the Roman Empire collapsed and we have what is called the Dark Ages. The reason it is caused that: because there are very, very few records because of plummetting literacy rates. The leaders of victorious groups (the Gauls, the Vikings, the Saxons) were rarely literate and there's was a society that did not promote literally leanings. During this time the Catholic Church (still in its infancy) had few priests and few outposts.

You blame the Dark Ages on religion and that is unsustainable as a historical theory. The Dark Ages were the product of barbarian society dominating over the politically corrupt and divided state of Rome. The few records we possess of that period belong to the few who were literate: in other words the clerics of the Catholic Church. Also the Catholic Church had not spread to all areas by 1099: indeed in vast swathes of Norway, German, Scotland, Ireland and Spain paganism was still rife. To blame the dark ages on religion is absurd and historically unviable.

The scientific method was derived from philosophy. How long has that been around?
The scientific method was placed in the public arena by Bacon in 1560 (or thereabouts, I can't be bothered digging out the exact date.) Philosophy, at this time was almost purely Aristotelian, with its four types of causes and the volition of inanimate matter etc. Sorry, but the scientific method was not derived from classical philosophy. It was derived from that highly frowned upon and heretical practice called alchemy. This however had been a one person at a time, guard your results jealously, process. Hardly the stuff of building a new world view. Science has a pretty clear starting date. Or do you still want to treat diseases according to the Galenic doctrine of the four humours. Sorry, science is a newcommer in human thinking.
That, however is no argument against it. As I said, being venerable is no reason why something is right.



In other words, every process humankind has ever thought up is religious. Gotcha. Re-read what I wrote, with less prejudice this time.

Except that isn't how it works. We falsify and test theories using measurable evidence. Evidence, in and of itself, is not the scientific method. It is simply necessary for the method.
In theory this is the case. Now go and read Feyerabend, or Kuhn on scientific practice. We take measurements, and when they are inconvenient, we ignore them. After all, if we are wrong we lose our funding. I know, I am going over the top here, but too much of this does happen. The point is that the evidence only supports the theories due to the way in which the whole process is set up. If we were to accept a declaration of belief, which is a phenomenon in the world, as being empirical evidence, which it is, then there is evidence for religion. Science decides what should validate science. Sorry that is too closed shop for me to place as much intellectual faith in it as many seem to do.



Then you haven't looked. I have looked very very hard for any such experiment. I have not seen any. If you have then please give references to them rather than just a flip meaningless insult.



And apparently have no understanding whatsoever of the theory. Of course I have no understanding of the theory. It is a hypothesis. I have on the shelf, behind me at the moment, Darwin's origin of the species. More than that I have actually read it. I have debated it at university level. I have an understanding of the idea, a very good one. As of the moment you have shown no evidence of understanding what science is, or how it works, or what is a theory and what is a hypothesis. It is easy to make these kind of ad hominem attacks, and at the moment you have made three to my almost one. Drop them and present arguments or ideas please.

The reason is this. 45% of Americans take EVERY WORD of the bible as truth. In the bible it is stated that the universe is geo-centric (everything goes around Earth) Why do you think they hated Galileo and all the other astronomers? They proved it wrong, yet 27% of us Americans still think the universe is geo-centric. I swear, some day I'm moving to Europe.

First of all, it does not say anywhere in the Bible that the sun rotates around the earth, not once.

Secondly, that figure that stated that 27% of American believe that the sun revolves around the earth, is either false, made up, or both. I have met 11000 people in my life so far and not one of them believes that the sun revolves around the earth, with a figure lke 27% I should know thousands of ignorant Americans, but they ain't here.

I highly doubt 45% of Americans take the Bible literally, either. It seems too high. It would be nice if it were true, but the vast majority of people I know don't even read the Bible, much less believe it.

There are in fact two different shapes of the universe given in the Old Testament.

One states that the heavens reach over the Earth as a tent does over the ground.

The other is that the sky is like the lid over a pot.

The former was adopted as the official Catholic church line, with a flat earth as an equatorial circle embedded within a sphere, with the various crystalline spheres of the heavens holding each astrological planet upon them extending outwards. In this cas, the sun and moons are planets, from the Greek, meaning "wanderer," as opposed to the fixed stars.

Science can be described as a collection of ideas that while impossible to prove wrong in an absolute sense, have consistently defied attempts to prove them to be wrong. Some might be flawed, in which case these ideas are adjusted to include these new results.

Also, the proposed mechanism for microevolution and macroevolution are the same, and has been observed in microorganisms. Evidence the growing number of antibiotic resistant bacteria, fungicide resistance affecting farm yields and the sharing of genetic material between bacteria of diverse origins. The difference between species can be quite small, and so a few well-placed gene mutations (literally "changings") can give rise to a quite different organism.
Of course, nothing is quite as simple as all that; while we do share something like 98.5% of our genes with pygmy chimpanzees, one tribe of said apes contains more genetic diversity than the whole human race.

Re-read what I wrote, with less prejudice this time.

By what you wrote, anything and everything human beings have come up with is religion.

We take measurements, and when they are inconvenient, we ignore them. After all, if we are wrong we lose our funding.

What a profound lack of understanding. Being wrong does not cause you to lose funding. In fact, it can greatly increase the amount of funding you get. Discovering results that no one, including you, expected is the exciting part of science.

I know, I am going over the top here, but too much of this does happen.

And becomes rather evident rather soon. Such "scientists" are then ridiculed and can no longer get jobs or funding.

The point is that the evidence only supports the theories due to the way in which the whole process is set up.

This is true of any process.

I have looked very very hard for any such experiment. I have not seen any. If you have then please give references to them rather than just a flip meaningless insult.

If you have actually looked, and not found, it is because you have decided that no experiment will count.

Just about all of modern biology is a test of the evolutionary theory. And all of it thus far supports the theory.

Meanwhile, I am sure you are aware of cloning experiments in which bacteria have developed antibiotic resistance? Are you aware of a process known as karyotyping and why it is necessary in cell culture?

Of course I have no understanding of the theory. It is a hypothesis. I have on the shelf, behind me at the moment, Darwin's origin of the species. More than that I have actually read it. I have debated it at university level.

There is much more to modern evolutionary theory than Darwin.

As of the moment you have shown no evidence of understanding what science is, or how it works, or what is a theory and what is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is little more than a supposition, an educated guess. It must be one which can be disproven to be a scientific hypothesis.

A theory is a hypothesis which has been around long enough to withstand many tests and the discovery of new evidence. With new evidence, it is altered to meet that evidence.

First...

I'm a Catholic (mostly, though I havn't been confirmed yet--currently am taking RCIA), and I'm also quite confident I'm not an idiot. It would be quite difficult for me to believe that all religeous people are idiots. When something I am taught about God, however, goes against something I see proven by science, I follow official Catholic doctrine and take science over religion. (I also believe the bible is only valid as an allegory).

Yes, and they bug me just as much. LOL



Psst, be careful talking about Scientology. They sue everybody.

I think we have a point in-common.

As for the Lawsuit-happy group, I doubt they'll sue me before I become rich and famous enough to be economically worth the effort. :D

By what you wrote, anything and everything human beings have come up with is religion.
So Shakespear's works are religion, as is the cogito etc. Sorry, but by what I wrote, only belief systems that are supported on their own assumptions are religion.



What a profound lack of understanding. Being wrong does not cause you to lose funding. In fact, it can greatly increase the amount of funding you get. Discovering results that no one, including you, expected is the exciting part of science.
I will respond by commenting on the naïvety of your position. Funding does depend upon results. It alkways has and it always will. See the works of Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, summarised in an easy to digest form here (http://www.philosopher.org.uk/) . In an ideal world, discovering results you did not expect is exciting. In the real world it is a cause of panic.



And becomes rather evident rather soon. Such "scientists" are then ridiculed and can no longer get jobs or funding. Rather soon can be a few hundred years. As science has only been going for a few hundred years, this seems a strange use of the term soon.

This is true of any process. True, I am simply saying that the scientific process is not special in any way. Most claim it to be special because it is not self supporting, but it is, as you have just recognized.



If you have actually looked, and not found, it is because you have decided that no experiment will count.
Show me an experiment that supports evolution. Second request.



There is much more to modern evolutionary theory than Darwin. To evolution, there is not. To genetics and ecological thinking etc. there is, but evoluition has added nothing since it was reproposed in the origin of species.



A hypothesis is little more than a supposition, an educated guess. It must be one which can be disproven to be a scientific hypothesis.

A theory is a hypothesis which has been around long enough to withstand many tests and the discovery of new evidence. With new evidence, it is altered to meet that evidence.

A theory is a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Length of time that a hypothesis is under consideration (an obsession with you it appears) is irrelevant in it becoming a theory. What matters is if it meets these two criteria, that and nothing else. A theory can be wrong or potential or the best available. A hypothesis is just an idea that explains some phenomenon, it can not be wrong, it can only be accepted or not accepted. There is no way of testing a hypothesis, without first upgrading it into a theory. I would suggest that you would benefit in learning something about theory formation and hypotheses. Try the works of Stephen French, or Bass Van Frassen, or any decent philosopher of science.

So Shakespear's works are religion, as is the cogito etc. Sorry, but by what I wrote, only belief systems that are supported on their own assumptions are religion.

There is no belief system that is not supported on its own assumptions.

I will respond by commenting on the naïvety of your position. Funding does depend upon results. It alkways has and it always will.

Darling, I am a scientist. I believe I am aware of how funding works. Yes, you need results, but they do not have to be the results you originally thought you would get. In fact, if they are, its all pretty boring.

Rather soon can be a few hundred years. As science has only been going for a few hundred years, this seems a strange use of the term soon.

It didn't take a few hundred years to catch the physicists making up data, now did it? It didn't even take 10.

Show me an experiment that supports evolution. Second request.

You apparently missed my edit.

To evolution, there is not. To genetics and ecological thinking etc. there is, but evoluition has added nothing since it was reproposed in the origin of species.

Incorrect. Again, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the theory

A theory is a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Length of time that a hypothesis is under consideration (an obsession with you it appears) is irrelevant in it becoming a theory.

Incorrect. A hypothesis must stand up to a great deal of testing and amass a great deal of support before moving up to the level of theory.

There is no way of testing a hypothesis, without first upgrading it into a theory.

Seriously, look up the scientific method and learn how very wrong you are.

I would suggest that you would benefit in learning something about theory formation and hypotheses.

I am well aware of the scientific definitions of these terms. I actually passed biology and numerous other sciences. On top of that, it is my job to know the scientific method.

<cough> thread being hijacked by 2 people <cough>

One of the basic points that is being overlooked by the OP, is that science itself is, in the way it functions in practice, a religion. There are many theories out there, that those that claim to be scientific in their thinking (and this isncludes me) take to be facts. They are not facts. They are simply the best explanation we have of something according to a specific set of rules which we take to be those that validate such explanations. Correct in part.

Science does ask that you believe in the scientific method, which relies on empiricism - that is to say, the way things have always acted in the past, they will likely continue to behave so, that basic behaviors can be general rather than specific, etc. For example, and only as one of many:
Intelligent Design is being rejected, not because it has been shown to be wrong in any way (it has not),It cannot. This is a very real problem.but because it does not fit within the criteria used in science to determine if some idea is worthy of the validating label "scientific". "There is no testability, no verifiability" is the motive for its rejection.That it fails to meet the criteria of being scientific means that it is not science and therefore should not be taught as such.What tests, what verifies, what validates science as a procedure? Science itself can not. If it did it would be as closed an argument as traditional religion is. However science does attempt to validate itself. It shows causal arguments in the sense of "look at what science has done for us", without realising that the style of argument being presented is exactly that that is being questioned. Science is validated by society by its sheer success. The basic precept of science (that past experience may be used to predict future experiences) is one that is widely accepted.I have made a case here of science being a religious style enterprise, and it is. This however does not mean that it should be ignored. It just means that because something has the approval of 'science' does not mean that it is more than a postulate that is supported in the scientific way of thinking. I.e., supported by all the evidence of experience and empiricism.Oh, and an aside. If ID is not scientific for the reasons given, nor is evolution. It is neither testable nor verifiable. Actually, it is. We can construct experiments to verify evolutionary progress in action; we can construct experiments that would, given particular results, firmly disprove evolution. In fact, the detailed theory of evolution as developed by biologists today is highly specific, highly refined, and could be falsified in an enormous number of ways.

It thus far has not been, but this is theoretically possible.

@Dem.
I really can not be bothered to argue any further against a closed minded scientist. It is too much like arguing against a fundamentalist of any religion. This was exactly the point I was making though. I too am a scientist by training and past employment (Physics,Physical Chemistry, and Virology) before I lost my blind faith in it. I too know how science works, and it is nothing like as clean as you are implying. So one of us is wrong. I believe it is you, you believe it is me.

Because someone works in a field does not mean that they really know the underlying thinking. If you wish to claim to know science, then study the philosophy of science. This may show you a thing or two. (I am an MA in the History and Philosophy of science, so I have reason to think this way)

That some people get caught quickly does not mean that they all do. Remember science is done by people, not by angels.

Yep. I did miss your edit. I will go back and look after posting this. If I find a test of evolution that tests the theory, I promise I will acknowledge it.

It is so easy to say the other lacks knowledge, and it is an ad hominem, again. STOP THAT TACTIC, it does not become you. If you think the other is wrong, be explicit in how, where and why. Do not just say "you don't know". I do know evolution very very well as I said, it was the subject of a complete course in my masters as an archetypal hypothesis that is not a theory, despite being taken as one.

I explained clearly the terms hypothesis and theory, and their appropriate usage. Saying I do not know how to use them is simply denying the correct and agreed conventions of the scientific community. A theory is, by definition, a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. A hypothesis is an explanation for one or more phenomena. If a hypothesis does not generate predictions of results of clearly defined experiment then it is not testable. If there is no result of an experiment that would eliminate the hypothesis then it is not falsifiable. Evolution meets neither of these criteria, to my knowledge. It may meet the testable criteria, depending upon what is in your edit.

This is my last post on the topic. You may have the honour of the final word.

(I will post concerning your edit, and only concerning your edit.)

@ Dem

Re Edit:

I am not arguing that mutation does not occur. I am not arguing agains genetics in any way. Karyotyping is simply the examination of the chromosones and the evaluation of these. No problem. What does karyotyping have to do with evolution?

Evolution states that, over a very long period of time, members of one species slowly change to become a different species. The mechanism by which this happens is not explained, although we now fill that gap with genetic mutation, thus explaining in the process the advantages of sexual reproduction.

Whilst mutation can account for variation within a species, it is not evidence of species formation. Evolution and survival of the fittest demand constant ongoing species formation for adaptation to changing ecosystems to occur. Mutation does not meet this demand, and you know it. It is too slow and too limited to generate the range of species needed for adaptative survival to have any evolutionary effect.

<cough> thread being hijacked by 2 people <cough>

sorry :rolleyes:

I really can not be bothered to argue any further against a closed minded scientist.

How exactly does having knowledge in my field make me close-minded?

It is too much like arguing against a fundamentalist of any religion.

I veer away from fundamentalism in all of its forms. I do not claim that science has the answers to everything, but I will argue when people like you misrepresent it. I do not claim that my religion is perfectly correct, as I logically know better.

This was exactly the point I was making though. I too am a scientist by training and past employment (Physics,Physical Chemistry, and Virology) before I lost my blind faith in it.

It's really cute to assume that anyone who sees science as a method of obtaining truth has blind faith in it, just because you did (despite the fact that blind faith completely contradicts the very idea of science.

I too know how science works, and it is nothing like as clean as you are implying. So one of us is wrong. I believe it is you, you believe it is me.

You know how *you* worked as a scientist. I know how the scientific community currently works.

I explained clearly the terms hypothesis and theory, and their appropriate usage.

And you explained them improperly. A hypothesis is an educated guess which can then be tested. (In lay-terms, it does not necessarily need to be falsifiable). A theory is derived only after a given hypothesis has withstood many tests. This is at the very basis of science.

I am not arguing that mutation does not occur. I am not arguing agains genetics in any way. Karyotyping is simply the examination of the chromosones and the evaluation of these. No problem. What does karyotyping have to do with evolution?

Karyotyping has demonstrated that changes in the genetics of a cell can lead it to be more or less well-suited to its environment.

Evolution states that, over a very long period of time, members of one species slowly change to become a different species. The mechanism by which this happens is not explained, although we now fill that gap with genetic mutation, thus explaining in the process the advantages of sexual reproduction.

"Filling that gap" makes it part of the theory. Surely you are aware of the fact that new information alters existing theories?

Whilst mutation can account for variation within a species, it is not evidence of species formation. Evolution and survival of the fittest demand constant ongoing species formation for adaptation to changing ecosystems to occur.

Incorrect. Speciation is not necessary for adaptation in any version of evolutionary theory.

Mutation does not meet this demand, and you know it. It is too slow and too limited to generate the range of species needed for adaptative survival to have any evolutionary effect.

Mutation is relatively slow, yes. But evolution does not claim that mutation occurs in response to the environmental change.

---
Now, please either answer one of the following questions,
1: To Europeans, Asians, Canadians... Are things so bad in your nations? Are people so ignorant of science? So inclined towards superstition? So hostile to the teaching of science?

2: To the fundamentalists, the supersticious, the haters of evolution and the big bang... do you realise what you are trying to do? Can you see the history of the world, or are you just sitting with your head in the sand? There was a time when people trusted God with all their needs, when they believed that every good thing was of God and every evil of the Devil. It was known as the Dark Ages.

3: To those who want to keep the flame of reason and science alive:
Do you agree with my fears?
What can we do?

Or talk about something directly related to them, or please get the off this thread, and argue pointlessly on one of the other dozen evolution vs idiocy threads.
---


Incidentally, thanks to those who replied from outside the US... it's good to know that things are better there. What do you think makes it better where you are? Is there anything that your government(s) or constitution(s) or laws have done or said that you think helps this? Is it some aspect of the population? An effect of the school system?


EDITS: Removed some extranious information and combined this post and the one immediately following it, which is now deleted.

... what are you talking about?

Causality, thermodynamics, string/M theoryand the big bang. :confused:

3: To those who want to keep the flame of reason and science alive:
Do you agree with my fears?
What can we do?

I answered these already.

Or talk about something directly related to them, or please get the off this thread, and argue pointlessly on one of the other dozen evolution vs idiocy threads.

Considering that those incorrectly talking about science are part of the problem, I really don't see how we were off-topic.

This may have been covered already, but as I've spent a couple years teaching in the U.S., I'll throw in my observations.

I fear that in the U.S., the necessary backgrounds in mathematics, language, and the percumbent logic skills are not broadly transmitted to enough people for science to hold an important place in people's daily lives. I've worked in a dozen public schools, and I've found that huge portions of American youth cannot apply simple analytical procedures, question or examine data of any kind, or even form a cogent elaboration of an idea.

There are, of course, many who can do all these things well, but the general trend is not encouraging. I spent so much time grappling with behavioural disruptions and trying to maintain some kind of order, I had little time to really challenge those children who showed genuine promise.

On the religious issue, I don't think we can place the blame entirely on the shoulders of fundamentalist zealots. I know some well educated religious people who support science, and I know some poorly educated atheists who think its a waste of time. I think if we want to integrate science and scientific thinking into the American mindset, a stronger foundation in math, reading, and personal discipline would yield the best results. I think this is best accomplished by education reform. I could be wrong.

So..... what exactly is this thread supposed to be? a support group for evolutionists? Yes thats right, keep telling each other how stupid your opponents are and pout that your being opressed. That will solve everything.

So..... what exactly is this thread supposed to be? a support group for evolutionists? Yes thats right, keep telling each other how stupid your opponents are and pout that your being opressed. That will solve everything.

Actually it seems to be more about how the US is moving towards being less aware of how the world works than the average European child.

It's possible to be both religious and scientific. I have a bible and a "New Scientist" beside my bed. If you believe the universe is God's creation, why wouldn't you want to know more about it?

What's funny, much of early science was fueled by an attempt to prove the existance of the Christian diety via proving the existance of natural laws, since it was suggested they were an adequate proof of a 'rational universe' that would have to be formed by a deity.

Funny how it ended up.

Kind of like how Disney is what inspired anime.

It's possible to be both religious and scientific. I have a bible and a "New Scientist" beside my bed. If you believe the universe is God's creation, why wouldn't you want to know more about it?

Although I'm not religious, I think this is a good point. As I mentioned earlier, there are also non-religious people who are anti-science (that is to say, they don't support the funding or practice of scientific research). The fissure between religious/atheist is not necessarily parallel or even closely placed with the fissure between scientific/unscientific.

In some individuals, it may have to be one or the other, but I believe there are many religions that would permit unfettered scientific inquiry.

um... whats so catastrophic about everyone believeing in religon?

the only problem i could see is prehaps a step back to lots of holy wars, but i doubt that would happen, christianity for one is more understood in its teachings than when the common man couldnt even read the bible, or afford one. so i doubt a pope could realistically talk people into crusading...

i dunno about muslims... buddists dont ever seem bothered to fight..

but whats so bad about religion? i believe in god, but i accept science, and do believe in most of the things science says(except the whole creation of the universe thing by a big bang, and those really really weird complicated theoretical physics thingys...they sound screwed.)

EDIT: oh im embaressed... i didnt read all the stuff that was said previously lol

This may have been covered already, but as I've spent a couple years teaching in the U.S., I'll throw in my observations.

I fear that in the U.S., the necessary backgrounds in mathematics, language, and the percumbent logic skills are not broadly transmitted to enough people for science to hold an important place in people's daily lives. I've worked in a dozen public schools, and I've found that huge portions of American youth cannot apply simple analytical procedures, question or examine data of any kind, or even form a cogent elaboration of an idea.

There are, of course, many who can do all these things well, but the general trend is not encouraging. I spent so much time grappling with behavioural disruptions and trying to maintain some kind of order, I had little time to really challenge those children who showed genuine promise.

On the religious issue, I don't think we can place the blame entirely on the shoulders of fundamentalist zealots. I know some well educated religious people who support science, and I know some poorly educated atheists who think its a waste of time. I think if we want to integrate science and scientific thinking into the American mindset, a stronger foundation in math, reading, and personal discipline would yield the best results. I think this is best accomplished by education reform. I could be wrong.


I think you're correct in this, I'll elaborate from the other end: I didn't learn how to do most of those things until I was out of school. Critical thinking, Logic, and problem-solving aren't stressed in Public schools at all-and in a lot of cases, it's because the 'educators' themselves are not very good at those things. Some are, I had all-too-few good teachers, trapped amongst the "Ditto" style (See the 1979 movie "Teachers" to get the reference) classroom babysitters. Lazy teachers come from timid administrations that cave to public pressures. Lazy Students come from Lazy teachers, and Lazy students become ignorant citizens.
We had money for athletic fields, grounds maintenance, and expensive visual arts equipment, textbooks seemed to change each year, and each year, they got smaller, had more pictures, and fewer words (in larger type, with fewer syllables).

My niece is entering eighth grade this coming year, and I would not say she's ready-were it not for the low esteem I hold for the Public School systems where she lives. I at least managed to convince my sister not to let them prescribe mind-altering substances to the girl in an effort to make her more controllable.

She isn't 'defective'. They wanted to give her Luvox or Ritalin or some goddamned thing because she's energetic, and bored.
Given the softball "Homework" she brought home last year, I'd say she has good reason to be bored.

um... whats so catastrophic about everyone believeing in religon?

the only problem i could see is prehaps a step back to lots of holy wars, but i doubt that would happen, christianity for one is more understood in its teachings than when the common man couldnt even read the bible, or afford one. so i doubt a pope could realistically talk people into crusading...

i dunno about muslims... buddists dont ever seem bothered to fight..

but whats so bad about religion? i believe in god, but i accept science, and do believe in most of the things science says(except the whole creation of the universe thing by a big bang, and those really really weird complicated theoretical physics thingys...they sound screwed.)

EDIT: oh im embaressed... i didnt read all the stuff that was said previously lol

History and Practice.

Religion gives power to people who can be making stuff up. "Jesus came to me in my dreams and said that gay people are trying to convert your children, they must be banned or converted!", et cetera.

Religion makes people unafraid of ruining the world or their own lives. They no longer hold value for what is proven to exist, but for what -might- exist, so some people told them.

Religion relies on 'faith'. Which is essentially trusting more in heresay and 'visions' (which can be gained by drug use and brain damage...) and dreams than on what you can prove. This leads to things like children dying because their parents think prayer works better than a doctor visit.

Religion, at least the more powerful ones, say that everyone of any other faith or lack thereof, no matter how good they are, is going to suffer forever. Worse, they say this is JUST and GOOD. Consider what kind of ideas that can lead to.

Religion even makes some people WANT the world to be destroyed, as soon as possible. Even the nice ones often can't wait for the rapture to hit.

Religion, of all things in this world, has the greatest potential for evil of anything human or nature has devised.

I think you're correct in this, I'll elaborate from the other end: I didn't learn how to do most of those things until I was out of school. Critical thinking, Logic, and problem-solving aren't stressed in Public schools at all-and in a lot of cases, it's because the 'educators' themselves are not very good at those things. *snip*.

I have no idea if its true, but I read somewhere that career educators come from the lower third of the collegiate academic standings. (I was a lowly business major myself, with a substitute teaching license). I would hate to think this is true, but it would explain a great deal.

Many of my coworkers were not lazy, but they spent a large portion of their time and effort dealing with counterproductive elements (including parents, students, and other teachers). I'm no expert on education, but I wouldn't mind seeing some information on stratifying students by aptitude (allowing gifted students to accelerate and be less bored, and letting struggling students concentrate on skills sets until they're actually internalized), instead of purely by age. I realize there would be social and cultural barriers to having gifted youngsters studying the same material alongside older students, and older students stuck on rudimentary material would feel stigmatized by being left behind, but differences in individual ability are evident regardless, so why not let ability govern placement instead of age? Maybe its already been tried, but I've never seen it done in my state.

the History and Practice.

Religion gives power to people who can be making stuff up. "Jesus came to me in my dreams and said that gay people are trying to convert your children, they must be banned or converted!", et cetera.

Religion makes people unafraid of ruining the world or their own lives. They no longer hold value for what is proven to exist, but for what -might- exist, so some people told them.

Religion relies on 'faith'. Which is essentially trusting more in heresay and 'visions' (which can be gained by drug use and brain damage...) and dreams than on what you can prove. This leads to things like children dying because their parents think prayer works better than a doctor visit.

Religion, at least the more powerful ones, say that everyone of any other faith or lack thereof, no matter how good they are, is going to suffer forever. Worse, they say this is JUST and GOOD. Consider what kind of ideas that can lead to.

Religion even makes some people WANT the world to be destroyed, as soon as possible. Even the nice ones often can't wait for the rapture to hit.

Religion, of all things in this world, has the greatest potential for evil of anything human or nature has devised.

i disagree, i feel that at least the western world and much of the rest(except the middle east) arent hostile like they used to be, it isnt socially acceptable to go kill some guys because you think they are heathens anymore. and i doubt it could ever go back to being okay either. And yes they do believe if you dont believe you go to hell, but that just means they want to convert you...

the

i disagree, i feel that at least the western world and much of the rest(except the middle east) arent hostile like they used to be, it isnt socially acceptable to go kill some guys because you think they are heathens anymore. and i doubt it could ever go back to being okay either. And yes they do believe if you dont believe you go to hell, but that just means they want to convert you...

You do realize that Dubya has used a deific communication as an excuse for going to war, right?

You do realize that Christians in the US still attack people based on their not being Christians, or not being the 'right kind' of Christian, right?

You do realize that Christians are constantly trying to control the lives of others, take their tax money, and lie about the uses of charity? Mother Theresa is a famous example of this. She had MILLIONS tucked away. And nobody knows how much, but at least 50 million in a single bank. Notably not in India, because they'd make it public. She also built churches rather than helping people become non-poor-and-dying.

Hell, I was attacked once, in a BIOLOGY class, when I told some kid about Lilith. I was half again his size. He and I had no other clashes prior. But that was enough for him to take a swing at me, all by itself. No taunting on my part of the like. It just made him snap.

Religion is also the a large excuse for the various genocides going on, around Africa especially.

Religion isn't hitting the same percentage as it used to, but it's still destroying people left and right.

You do realize that Dubya has used a deific communication as an excuse for going to war, right?

You do realize that Christians in the US still attack people based on their not being Christians, or not being the 'right kind' of Christian, right?

You do realize that Christians are constantly trying to control the lives of others, take their tax money, and lie about the uses of charity? Mother Theresa is a famous example of this. She had MILLIONS tucked away. And nobody knows how much, but at least 50 million in a single bank. Notably not in India, because they'd make it public. She also built churches rather than helping people become non-poor-and-dying.

Hell, I was attacked once, in a BIOLOGY class, when I told some kid about Lilith. I was half again his size. He and I had no other clashes prior. But that was enough for him to take a swing at me, all by itself. No taunting on my part of the like. It just made him snap.

Religion is also the a large excuse for the various genocides going on, around Africa especially.

Religion isn't hitting the same percentage as it used to, but it's still destroying people left and right.

nope. but freaks, pyschos and bad people exist in the whole world and probably take part in every religion(especially skitsophrenics(sp?) who are drawn to religion).

and i guess i aint ever going to america!

but i feel that any of those people would not be approved of by the rest of their fellow christians.

nope. but freaks, pyschos and bad people exist in the whole world and probably take part in every religion(especially skitsophrenics(sp?) who are drawn to religion).

and i guess i aint ever going to america!

but i feel that any of those people would not be approved of by the rest of their fellow christians.

Yes. But religion makes them much more powerful than usual. With science, you can disprove someone who's BSing you. Not so with religion.

Schizophrenics, by the by.

And yeah, America is proving what happens when Religion becomes too powerful. It happened in the Middle East, too. Did you know that the region used to be such an advanced culture relative to the rest of the world they -invented- Algebra and so forth? Now... now many of them live in caves... because they got more in to religion (and, for whatever reason, monotheism seems to be the most destructive one, overall. Polytheism seems to be fine and dandy in regards to progress, give or take.)

And dude.. every single Christian group has an amazing tendancy to call every other single Christian group "Bad Christians" or "False Christians".

None of you can back up anything to begin with, so it's all moot.

In europe we are not taught from childhood that the bible is the ultimate truth. We are taught to learn and think by ourselves. We are taught evolution as the most probable theory there is about the origin of species and such, but we aren't told to accept it as the ultimate and undeniable truth.


People, think for yourselves, don't be sheep.

your good at this, i dont agree with you, but i cant really agrue this anymore...

have fun with your cold hard pointless existence, i gtg.

your good at this, i dont agree with you, but i cant really agrue this anymore...

have fun with your cold hard pointless existence, i gtg.


Wha?

I have cuddly friends who give great head, purr when you rub their backs (or other areas), and I have a rewarding career ahead of me. What's cold hard and pointless about that?

Man. Religion really makes people cynical.

Now, please either answer one of the following questions,
1: To Europeans, Asians, Canadians... Are things so bad in your nations? Are people so ignorant of science? So inclined towards superstition? So hostile to the teaching of science?


I'm from the U.K and I think generally religion isn't taken as seriously over here... I saw a T.V program based in th U.S where there were these models competing for the chance to win - whatever, and this one model said she was an atheist. Haha - you should have seen the other models squirm. At first they wouldn't believe her then they were like "I'm so sorry for you". In the U.K, especially among young people, that wouldn't happen. There's this kind of belief that maybe there is and maybe there isn't a god but, you know, who cares really. Very few people are really pro-religion. I think in England it's almost seen as a bit embaressing to beleive in God. It's the sort of thing that, if you do believe, then you don't really talk about it much. Besides the C of E religion is pretty benign and not exactly high on the scare-o-meter. It's less 'hellfire' and more 'tea and cake'. Religion I'm not really worried about. Religion and science have disagreed alot over the years but they don't threaten each other. You can't use one to disprove the other you just make your choice and stick with it.

The thing that worries me at the moment is this superstitious claptrap that appears to be coming up everywhere. Spiritual healing, vibrating crystals which clear auras, energy healing.. I'm not against the idea per-se. If you think it works it probably does (placebo), and everyone feels better after they've laid down and been pampered for an hour or so. What really annoys me is when they try to pass off the energy work and spiritual healing as having a scientific basis.

My ex-girlfriend used to be a spiritual healer (she still is actualy), and the amount of crap she used to come out with to try and convince me (a Biologist) that there really were auras, and energy lines running up and down the body, was quite extreme. Her group even explined that the healing works by vibrating energy at different frequencies "like molecules", and that if we vibrated at the same frequncys it would promote good health and love and hippyness. (pun intended). She once told a lecture group that we were made up of one third dark matter. I mean! Ok....maybe I still have issues about her but the point is that this sort of thing seems to be growing. With a dissatisfaction of the modern world and stress and things like that, and a lack of something to believe in, I think more people are turning to the 'eastern' philosophys simply as a way to escape their boring lives. Also, because this sort of thing is alot easier to understand and is more accesible, people are turning away from good scientific parctice. It's so deprssing. She used to have about twenty books and I could pick any one of them up and find fault with something they were trying to augue in about thirty seconds. Admittedly they were quite well writtain, and without a background in science you would be hard pushed to try and find fault with the stuff they were saying...

They sounded believible basically but without the angst of having to 'believe' in it because it said it was, and sounded, scientific. Then because of these books, science (especially biology and physics), and scientific ideas, are taken out of context. They become 'myth' like and dumbed down for the masses.

I think this is probably the biggest threat to science at the moment but I will say this. It would be easy for scientists to reverse the trend. All they need to do is write articles and papers which can be read by people who don't have a massive scientific background. It's that simple. Make the understanding of science easier and less complicated and then people would be less likely to mess around with it and get it wrong.

Whoever was talking about aliens creating life on earth - that is a classic flawed argument and misses the issue... for if such was the case, we must then ask who created the aliens...

And what is this strange idea that "science" is some sort of aggressive belief system? It isn't. Science is simply the collective term for what results when intelligent people ask "why?" and try to find some sensible, evidenced answers. The reason it usually ends up in conflict with religion is because religion purports to answer the same questions, but does so without worrying about such little inconveniences as proof.

Actually, there's a lot of stuff in science that the layman can understand.

They just have to actually read a text book.

You do realize that we have a horrible literacy rate in the US? People graduate high school without a decent reading ability.

I mean hell, I know things about physics discoveries my physics major roommate doesn't, because I read science magazines while he's busy reading out of his massive pile of religious books.

Honestly, if you want to see what's wrong with the world.... see what how much effort they put in to "Making Learning Fun!" to get people to bother.

Right now they have the science museum or whatever it was featuring "Grossology!", with sphincter slides and nasty smells.

I wish I was kidding.

This is the BS it takes to get the EXCEPTIONAL kids to go and learn. Most still don't bother.

I remember when I was younger reading "Lord of the Rings" when I was about 10, and being able to understand it (and when I was ten it was the thickest book in the world!). I used to watch science documentarys for fun! Do you think it's a problem that lies with the parents, children, T.V, the education system, or the church.

Actually, (and I wouldn't necessarily be suggesting it might be), if the church did supress 'intelligent thinking', it would stand to gain from people falling back on it's belief system without questioning what was wrong with it. Or has it already done this?

hahaha.... that should open the debate up a bit :)

Actually, there's a lot of stuff in science that the layman can understand.

They just have to actually read a text book.

You do realize that we have a horrible literacy rate in the US? People graduate high school without a decent reading ability.

I mean hell, I know things about physics discoveries my physics major roommate doesn't, because I read science magazines while he's busy reading out of his massive pile of religious books.

That's 'cause religion is more important...

:D

I am religious, and I have one thing to say.

Since science is right, how did we get here? Big bang you say right? So wait, sometime in the past, protons neutrons and electrons synthesized themselves into a giant ball that exploded? Under your own laws of science, matter cannot be created. So how did it get here?


No offense, but this argument has always struck me as the dumbest one to 'prove' God exists.

"If you cannot explain scientifically EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE INCLUDING IT'S ORIGINS, then the bible must be true".

That being the case, God's existance must have been eroding constantly as humans have come to better and better understanding of things. But that is not the case now is it? God didn't exist more before we learned how to fly did He? God didn't exist more when the Black Death was one of His punishments rather than a well-understood disease?. God didn't exist more before Ben Franklin went flying a kite to prove that lightening was electricity? All of these things were once attributed to God's daily tasklist. Now we have an understanding of how and why they come about. If lightening is God's handiwork in action then the weatherman must know the mind of God.

Nor is the notion that "science is true" a smart way to start your premise. Science is not "true", it is simply the best way we have of describing what we know (and what we postulate based on available evidence). And theories have evolved and been discarded over time. The Big Bang theory may indeed also meet that fate, however the fact that we may not have it all figured out yet is not a valid indicator of God's existence.


I mean, the fact that you didn't know where all those presents came from when you were a kid did not prove the existence of Santa Clause did it? You couldn't explain the gifts, but you had been presented with a story that did explain it and so you accepted that as truth.


So if you ask me "Where did matter come from?" I'll respond with the simple fact that I'm not qualified to answer that. But that neither proves nor disproves anything besides my own lack of knowledge on this subject.

But on that level and to turn it around on you, if you are basing your argument on whether matter or energy can spontaneously come into being - then where did God come from?

No offense, but this argument has always struck me as the dumbest one to 'prove' God exists.

"If you cannot explain scientifically EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE INCLUDING IT'S ORIGINS, then the bible must be true".

That being the case, God's existance must have been eroding constantly as humans have come to better and better understanding of things. But that is not the case now is it? God didn't exist more before we learned how to fly did He? God didn't exist more when the Black Death was one of His punishments rather than a well-understood disease?. God didn't exist more before Ben Franklin went flying a kite to prove that lightening was electricity? All of these things were once attributed to God's daily tasklist. Now we have an understanding of how and why they come about. If lightening is God's handiwork in action then the weatherman must know the mind of God.

Nor is the notion that "science is true" a smart way to start your premise. Science is not "true", it is simply the best way we have of describing what we know (and what we postulate based on available evidence). And theories have evolved and been discarded over time. The Big Bang theory may indeed also meet that fate, however the fact that we may not have it all figured out yet is not a valid indicator of God's existence.


I mean, the fact that you didn't know where all those presents came from when you were a kid did not prove the existence of Santa Clause did it? You couldn't explain the gifts, but you had been presented with a story that did explain it and so you accepted that as truth.


So if you ask me "Where did matter come from?" I'll respond with the simple fact that I'm not qualified to answer that. But that neither proves nor disproves anything besides my own lack of knowledge on this subject.

But on that level and to turn it around on you, if you are basing your argument on whether matter or energy can spontaneously come into being - then where did God come from?

God always existed, right? So since religion explains and justifies itself, it must be true, whereas science does not prove itself correct, it is wrong. :p

(I am religious, and believe in science... :fluffle: )
(And in case you're wondering, NO, science does not prove anything true, it simply finds the most logical explanation of something, until it is proven -false-, meaning, you can't scientifically disprove Creationism, nor "evolutionism," so both exist. :D

That's 'cause religion is more important...

I hope that that is a joke. If we hadn't made advances in science, often in the face of opposition form the church, then we would still be burning witches, tripping over horse crap in the street, and struggling to cure such terrible illnesses such as diabetes, cholera, typhoid and small pox.

God always existed, right? So since religion explains and justifies itself, it must be true, whereas science does not prove itself correct, it is wrong.

Only if you believe in him. Besides which I'm not convinced by your augument that religion justifys itself. Why do we have to believe in god?

Actually your statement makes no sense at all.... How does science not prove itself? Because theorys can change if new information is find? Don't forget that the church and religion has undergone many many changes throughout history. Besides some religions contradict each other, how can therefore 'religion' explain and justify itself?

(And in case you're wondering, NO, science does not prove anything true, it simply finds the most logical explanation of something, until it is proven -false-, meaning, you can't scientifically disprove Creationism, nor "evolutionism," so both exist. :D

You just said it is only possible to disprove theories with the scientific process. Nearly all the evidence available contradicts creationism, therefore it is disproven.

I am religious, and I have one thing to say.

Since science is right, how did we get here? Big bang you say right? So wait, sometime in the past, protons neutrons and electrons synthesized themselves into a giant ball that exploded? Under your own laws of science, matter cannot be created. So how did it get here?

Would you shut up? Science can't answer everything (at least not now), but disregarding it in favor of religion is the worst choice anyone can make. In religion, you assume that you already know the answer rather than continuing to search. That's just plain idiocy!
I don't care if you want to think that there is a god, but at least understand that science is our future and has built the world we live in today. You want to live in the days without science? Go to back to the Dark Ages.

Who is to say which religion is right anyway? Science, generally, if a disagrement is found, is testable to the point where the disagrement is ironed out.... you can't do this with religion so how do you know who is right?

I'm from the U.K and I think generally religion isn't taken as seriously over here... I saw a T.V program based in th U.S where there were these models competing for the chance to win - whatever, and this one model said she was an atheist. Haha - you should have seen the other models squirm. At first they wouldn't believe her then they were like "I'm so sorry for you". In the U.K, especially among young people, that wouldn't happen. There's this kind of belief that maybe there is and maybe there isn't a god but, you know, who cares really. Very few people are really pro-religion. I think in England it's almost seen as a bit embaressing to beleive in God. It's the sort of thing that, if you do believe, then you don't really talk about it much. Besides the C of E religion is pretty benign and not exactly high on the scare-o-meter. It's less 'hellfire' and more 'tea and cake'. Religion I'm not really worried about. Religion and science have disagreed alot over the years but they don't threaten each other. You can't use one to disprove the other you just make your choice and stick with it.

The thing that worries me at the moment is this superstitious claptrap that appears to be coming up everywhere. Spiritual healing, vibrating crystals which clear auras, energy healing.. I'm not against the idea per-se. If you think it works it probably does (placebo), and everyone feels better after they've laid down and been pampered for an hour or so. What really annoys me is when they try to pass off the energy work and spiritual healing as having a scientific basis.

My ex-girlfriend used to be a spiritual healer (she still is actualy), and the amount of crap she used to come out with to try and convince me (a Biologist) that there really were auras, and energy lines running up and down the body, was quite extreme. Her group even explined that the healing works by vibrating energy at different frequencies "like molecules", and that if we vibrated at the same frequncys it would promote good health and love and hippyness. (pun intended). She once told a lecture group that we were made up of one third dark matter. I mean! Ok....maybe I still have issues about her but the point is that this sort of thing seems to be growing. With a dissatisfaction of the modern world and stress and things like that, and a lack of something to believe in, I think more people are turning to the 'eastern' philosophys simply as a way to escape their boring lives. Also, because this sort of thing is alot easier to understand and is more accesible, people are turning away from good scientific parctice. It's so deprssing. She used to have about twenty books and I could pick any one of them up and find fault with something they were trying to augue in about thirty seconds. Admittedly they were quite well writtain, and without a background in science you would be hard pushed to try and find fault with the stuff they were saying...

They sounded believible basically but without the angst of having to 'believe' in it because it said it was, and sounded, scientific. Then because of these books, science (especially biology and physics), and scientific ideas, are taken out of context. They become 'myth' like and dumbed down for the masses.

I think this is probably the biggest threat to science at the moment but I will say this. It would be easy for scientists to reverse the trend. All they need to do is write articles and papers which can be read by people who don't have a massive scientific background. It's that simple. Make the understanding of science easier and less complicated and then people would be less likely to mess around with it and get it wrong.


I agree with this very much. It's not religion that is the problem.. it's attributing to the supernatural things that shouldn't be.

Crystals, UFOs, auras, communing with the dead, sceances, God made it that way, it's the aliens, we're in a "matrix", etc...

They're all just as bad. They take critical thinking, science, logic, and replace them with willful, permanent ignorance, and not seeking new knowledge because, afterall, who needs to determine through science what you can attribute to being out of alignment to the universe's natural vibration?

IRT #1

Haha. I hope America becomes a religious fundamentalist state. Then, hopefully, the true face of the enemy will be known to the world.

IRT #1

Haha. I hope America becomes a religious fundamentalist state. Then, hopefully, the true face of the enemy will be known to the world.

I very much hope you are sarcastic. Theocratic states are nothing to wish on anybody. The whole purpose of the thread is that I am hoping that this can be stopped before the supersticious/fundamentalists actually manage to gain control of state and federal government--they already own many school boards and local governments, as demonstrated by my first post.

The idea that Bush is a fundamentalist, or that his presidency is an example of theocracy is not true. Bush is religious (it's practically impossible to survive in American politics if you don't at least claim to be--remember John Kerry and the "I was an alter boy!" speech), and he does pray and read the bible on a regular basis, and he does partially base his decisions on these.

However, looking to religion for wondering whether something is right or not does not constitute theocracy. Bush is not governed by a religious authority such as a priest or a pastor any more than FDR was a puppet of the Vatican.

Believing that since someone believes in a religion they are unfit for government is every bit as biased and bigotrous as the bigots who refuse to vote for any athiest.
--

As to the idea of fundamentalism or athiesm being somehow evil.

There are good people and bad people in the world. There always have been and there always will be. They will often do things in the name of something, but that rarely makes that thing immoral.

Anti-science-ism is dangerous, not because it is inherrantly immoral (though some forms certainly are, especially those who assert the need for conflict between believers and nonbelievers) but because it leads to throwing out the science that allows our society to progress and continue to exist.


This may have been covered already, but as I've spent a couple years teaching in the U.S., I'll throw in my observations.

I fear that in the U.S., the necessary backgrounds in mathematics, language, and the percumbent logic skills are not broadly transmitted to enough people for science to hold an important place in people's daily lives. I've worked in a dozen public schools, and I've found that huge portions of American youth cannot apply simple analytical procedures, question or examine data of any kind, or even form a cogent elaboration of an idea.

There are, of course, many who can do all these things well, but the general trend is not encouraging. I spent so much time grappling with behavioural disruptions and trying to maintain some kind of order, I had little time to really challenge those children who showed genuine promise.

On the religious issue, I don't think we can place the blame entirely on the shoulders of fundamentalist zealots. I know some well educated religious people who support science, and I know some poorly educated atheists who think its a waste of time. I think if we want to integrate science and scientific thinking into the American mindset, a stronger foundation in math, reading, and personal discipline would yield the best results. I think this is best accomplished by education reform. I could be wrong

and

I think you're correct in this, I'll elaborate from the other end: I didn't learn how to do most of those things until I was out of school. Critical thinking, Logic, and problem-solving aren't stressed in Public schools at all-and in a lot of cases, it's because the 'educators' themselves are not very good at those things. Some are, I had all-too-few good teachers, trapped amongst the "Ditto" style (See the 1979 movie "Teachers" to get the reference) classroom babysitters. Lazy teachers come from timid administrations that cave to public pressures. Lazy Students come from Lazy teachers, and Lazy students become ignorant citizens.
We had money for athletic fields, grounds maintenance, and expensive visual arts equipment, textbooks seemed to change each year, and each year, they got smaller, had more pictures, and fewer words (in larger type, with fewer syllables).

My niece is entering eighth grade this coming year, and I would not say she's ready-were it not for the low esteem I hold for the Public School systems where she lives. I at least managed to convince my sister not to let them prescribe mind-altering substances to the girl in an effort to make her more controllable.

She isn't 'defective'. They wanted to give her Luvox or Ritalin or some goddamned thing because she's energetic, and bored.
Given the softball "Homework" she brought home last year, I'd say she has good reason to be bored.

Very good points. While I don't think that education reform would completely solve the problem, it would be a good place to start.

Anti-scientism isn't necessarily bad in itself, I am not a big fan of mainstream secular humanism myself, but would it kill the fundamentalists to back their reasoning by something other than quoting the Bible? I'd like to see well-thought out defenses of Christianity and well-developed critiques of science. I sympathize with them in many ways, but I have no desire to live in a theocracy, either.

Critical thinking, Logic, and problem-solving aren't stressed in Public schools at all

imagine the revolutionary implications of entire generations of people who knew how to think clearly and in a systematic way...

which neatly explains why those things aren't stressed, i suppose.

You do realize that Christians are constantly trying to control the lives of others, take their tax money, and lie about the uses of charity? Mother Theresa is a famous example of this. She had MILLIONS tucked away. And nobody knows how much, but at least 50 million in a single bank. Notably not in India, because they'd make it public. She also built churches rather than helping people become non-poor-and-dying.

Just to be clear, all Christians do not do this, nor do all Christian-affiliated charities.

As for Mother Theresa - I had never heard of the money thing. The problem I have with Mother Theresa is that she intentionally denied any type of pain relief to those she was "helping". Children and adults alike were denied pain relief or anesthesia because "suffering would bring them closer to Christ."

I think this is probably the biggest threat to science at the moment but I will say this. It would be easy for scientists to reverse the trend. All they need to do is write articles and papers which can be read by people who don't have a massive scientific background. It's that simple. Make the understanding of science easier and less complicated and then people would be less likely to mess around with it and get it wrong.

It really isn't that simple. There are many things in science, especially biology, that a layperson simply isn't going to understand without incredible amounts of background. If you explain it at their level, you are dumbing it down, and allowing them to think that's all there is to it. (Thus becoming more part of the problem, than the solution)

I'd like to see well-thought out defenses of Christianity and well-developed critiques of science.

Well developed critiques of science? Whenever a scientific finding occurs, no one believes it. It's always been like that for centuries.

The endossymbiotic hypothesis, for example, was considered a joke, but is now commonly accepted (it's a theory now).

Just to be clear, all Christians do not do this, nor do all Christian-affiliated charities.


I think this is the third time you've bothered to say this.

I know.

But it damned sure isn't Wiccans doing it.


As for Mother Theresa - I had never heard of the money thing. The problem I have with Mother Theresa is that she intentionally denied any type of pain relief to those she was "helping". Children and adults alike were denied pain relief or anesthesia because "suffering would bring them closer to Christ."

Mother Theresa was a rich, psychotic bitch.

Plenty of info on it on the net, and in the book stores.

The idea that Bush is a fundamentalist, or that his presidency is an example of theocracy is not true.

Bush himself may or may not be a fundamentalist, but he certainly is a puppet of those who are.

However, looking to religion for wondering whether something is right or not does not constitute theocracy. Bush is not governed by a religious authority such as a priest or a pastor any more than FDR was a puppet of the Vatican.

No, he is governed by whatever he already believes (or what gets him the most money), regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary.

Believing that since someone believes in a religion they are unfit for government is every bit as biased and bigotrous as the bigots who refuse to vote for any athiest.

This is true. Of course, believing that someone is unfit for government because they completely refuse to listen to advisors, fire them to replace them with yes-men, all because the fundamentalists or lobbyists they truly work for say they have a better idea, is fine.

Anti-science-ism is dangerous, not because it is inherrantly immoral (though some forms certainly are, especially those who assert the need for conflict between believers and nonbelievers) but because it leads to throwing out the science that allows our society to progress and continue to exist.

And this would be why so many of us are anti-Bush. The man throws out good scientific advisors to replace them with yes-men who not only have no standing in their field, but espouse ideas that are laughed at throughout the scientific community. He puts people who refuse to prescribe birth control to unmarried women and prescribe scripture for cramps on FDA boards. The man is a menace to all that is scientific.

But it damned sure isn't Wiccans doing it.

No, it isn't. Of course, I have yet to see a Wiccan-affiliated charity (not to say there aren't any, but they certainly aren't in any majority).

It really isn't that simple. There are many things in science, especially biology, that a layperson simply isn't going to understand without incredible amounts of background. If you explain it at their level, you are dumbing it down, and allowing them to think that's all there is to it. (Thus becoming more part of the problem, than the solution)

I know it wouldn't be easy but I think it's necessary. This is why science should be taught at as early an age as possible. There are things that a layperson wouldn't understand but It wouldn't be bad dumbed down to some extent if it was good basic science.

The main problem I have is the mixing and muddling of science, philosophy, spiritualism and advertising to try and make a product/service which sounds credable, is backed by long words to make it incomprehensible and makes you feel like your missing something if you don't believe in it.

- Look... When you're young you get taught science at a basic level, then a slightly more advanced level and so on. The populace as a whole should be educated to at least a semi-science-literate level in this way. It is difficult to make popular a subject without it losing its auguments and logic and 'boringness'; even harder to do it when somebodys saying that God is right and Science is wrong. - But it must be done. Scientists must not allow themselves to be become 'elite' and alienated from the masses.

By the way, did you know that the Catholic Church with it's missionarys in AIDS ridden Africa continue to preach that condoms are 'unholy' and shouldn't be used. In some cases I think they also claimed that Condoms helped spread AIDS.

Hows that for Religion vs Sense, Science and Progress.

Not to mention that there's a statistics about Jolt forum in there which makes me suspicious about this poll....Actually, I made up the Jolt thing. It wasn't in the poll, it was in the "NSers Age, Sex, and Locations" thread.

Anti-science-ism is dangerous, not because it is inherrantly immoral (though some forms certainly are, especially those who assert the need for conflict between believers and nonbelievers) but because it leads to throwing out the science that allows our society to progress and continue to exist.I suppose some anti-scientists would like us to go back to the Dark Ages where you were stoned for not being Christian, computers were unheard of, and everyone had to pay tribute to the king. Is that why there's such voter apathy in the USA? Do Americans really want an oligarchy?

No, it isn't. Of course, I have yet to see a Wiccan-affiliated charity (not to say there aren't any, but they certainly aren't in any majority).

Normally, they don't advertise their religion, so their charity work would be secular. Remember, they're not out to win converts, so they don't need to say "Oh, and you can thank Zeus for this soup!"

However: Type "Wiccan Charity" in google. You get plenty of hits.

I think most religions/ spritualist groups charge some sort of money for something, even it is is just contributions, so it wouldn't surprise me to find wiccan charitys.

Don't get me wrong. Religion is not a totally bad thing. They do do some work for charity and give hope and stuff like that but it is definatly outweighed by controling peoples lives and disagreing with progress to the point that people will go and get medical advice/treatment from someone who's not a doctor and dosn't have to answer to it when it doesn't work, i.e. if if doesn't work it must be an 'Act of god/Karma/Fate/Angering of the spirit-world'; to me this seems just plain wrong.