NationStates Jolt Archive

i'll give you fame - nothing short of a revolutionary scientific breakthrough gets you more famous in science than being exposed as a fraud. and i'll also give you money, as all the best money in science is to be found in not doing science while on the payroll of various big corporations trying to muddy the waters. but neither of these seem to be what you have in mind, so i have to wonder how much familiarity you have with science at all and peer reviewed journals in particular.

I'd like to add my $0.02 here. Speaking from personal experience actually working in a lab with a physics professor, I can safely say that even while commanding three quarters of a million dollars in grants, a physics professor himself only makes about $80k, combined from his pay from the university and the stipend from his grants. That's after 4 years for a B.A. or B.S. in Physics, around 3.5 years as a graduate student to get a Ph. D., and around 4 more years of post doctoral work to obtain a position as faculty at a university.

Most post docs aren't even necessarily that lucky.

We DO NOT do this for the money.

Hey wow thanks for an insightful and intelligent post. Where would this dicussion be without you?

Well, considering the ten other posts before yours that pointed out exactly how the idea that it takes faith to deal with science is wrong on every level that you ignored, the exact same place.

i refuse to answer on the grounds that if i see this thread one more time i'm going to shoot somebody ;)
*Kicks you in the crotch for making me think you might have said something awesome here, and reading this thread because of it*

Okay, great. So a court decision explains how it ruled and why. But that's not what I asked. I asked what YOU think. :)

And I told you what I think -- the premise of your question is absurd and impossible -- I just backed it up with the 139-page analysis of a federal district court.

Sorry if having some substance rather than playing at fantasy patty-cake offends you.

I cited the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and their opinion earlier in the thread. (Include some links to excellent free books and pamplets) Here is more on that from Kitzmiller (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html):

As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter "NAS") was recognized by experts for both parties as the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science."
...
Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich)). Initially, we note that NAS, the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, views ID as follows:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

P-192 at 25. Additionally, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (hereinafter "AAAS"), the largest organization of scientists in this country, has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it "has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims" and that "the lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as part of science education . . ." (P-198). Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community. (21:37-38 (Behe); Fuller Dep. at 98-101, June 21, 2005; 28:47 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 89, May 26, 2005).

It just ain't science. It can't be science. It's religion. And we won't be snacking on moon dip.

i refuse to answer on the grounds that if i see this thread one more time i'm going to shoot somebody ;)

Historical and social? So you're suggesting that because most people have historically linked ID with a specific religious mythos, then it must necessarily always continue to be so for all people?


Inherent in the concept of ID is a specific religious mythos.

But in addition to that ID is merely creationism by another name. It has no philosophical or scientific roots of its own.

EDIT: Are you familiar at all with "Intelligent Design" and its proponents?

Fine, it's flexible, but it's still UNPROVEN!

The only part of evoloution that is grounded in fact is subevoloution, which has been proven.

Someone's probably already said this, but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
Go read up on the scientific method.

Sorry for the caps. I just get so annoyed about the whole 'proof' thing because there's a global warming skeptic who keeps demanding a proof of the theory - and though I try and try to explain why a scientific proof is impossible, they always repeat it! :mad:

Sure. At least then I don't have to pretend that a guy somewhere with large student loans and an ambition to get published couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced by money or fame. :D
Like Michael Crichton? Phail.

I see your Pope and throw in an Archbishop: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/

So that's the heads (albeit losely in the AofCs case) of two of the 3 biggest christian denominations... that should be telling.
*bows*
Nicely done. :)

So yes, having seperate religion classes can be good to allow a debate of various issues in relation to your individual religion, but it should be a forum for discussion not indoctrination.
Well put.

All that can be said about a belief that is held by a majority of the population is that the belief is popular. When it is untestable and irrelevant, why waste the time and energy to teach such ideas in the public school system? We should be focusing on the topics that will train future generations of teachers, scientists, doctors, lawyers... citizens. The American education system is lacking in all areas: math, science, history, and reading comprehension. Perhaps if we spent more time on educating our children and less time letting the religious right feel like their opinion matters, things would turn around for our country.Agreed. Less regression should be taught, for the most obvious of reasons.

:rolls up sleeves:

Let's do this.I'm a cashew!
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1273394.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6ECF3A3FD9F5992B99930FDCFC4C15FBB
Mmmphumph!
;)

I'd like to add my $0.02 here. Speaking from personal experience actually working in a lab with a physics professor, I can safely say that even while commanding three quarters of a million dollars in grants, a physics professor himself only makes about $80k, combined from his pay from the university and the stipend from his grants. That's after 4 years for a B.A. or B.S. in Physics, around 3.5 years as a graduate student to get a Ph. D., and around 4 more years of post doctoral work to obtain a position as faculty at a university.

Most post docs aren't even necessarily that lucky.

We DO NOT do this for the money.


QFT. You do not go into an academic career unless you are passionate about what you do. It takes at least 6 years to get a PhD (in the UK, you can do 3 years undergrad and 3 years for a PhD, but generally it'll be 7 as they'll generally want a masters first) and in some countries even longer... and that's assuming you can get funding to do it in the first place. The hours are long, the pay is poor, even at the top of the career ladder AND that's assuming you can get a faculty position. Chances are for the first 5 to 10 years of your career you'll be going from short term contract to short term contract doing Post Doc work and hoping you can get the grants needed to do the next bit of it (or often, working on someone else's project which is not quite your area of interest but it's the best you could do).

Getting published in any sort of decent peer-review journal is very difficult and most of the big ones reject 70% (or more) of submissions, those they don't reject often come back with a number of revisions that either need to be made or you need to make a very good case as to why not. Once it's published, especially if it's controversial, chances are you'll have someone writing a rebuttal tearing all your work to shreds. So then you need to do more research to support your position, assuming you can get the grant money to do so...

Well, its my personal belief that creationism and evolution don't contradict each other. The theory of evolution still leaves questions. And I don't see anything wrong with God creating life, with the creative power to evolve itself or for us to be changed.

Not making issue with your overall idea, but a question (or two) to be hopefully answered honestly:
Do the two concepts, evolution and creationism, even answer the same questions?
For you?
If you think evolution still leaves questions, and when you impose the same to creationism, what exactly is filling the holes? And vice versa?
Upon actual inspection of creationism, are there no questions left for you?

Well, its my personal belief that creationism and evolution don't contradict each other. The theory of evolution still leaves questions. And I don't see anything wrong with God creating life, with the creative power to evolve itself or for us to be changed.

As for ID being taught in a science classroom...ummm...no. Its not the right place for it. Although, seeing as majority of people (Muslims, Christians and Jews) all believe in it...?
But at the same time, I don't think evolution should be taught as if it is 100% accurate. I think, if you're going to teach science you should be objective and include the holes in the theory of evolution. I was always very appreciative to my science teachers, who gave us the facts for and against, instead of enforcing their own beliefs.

i refuse to answer on the grounds that if i see this thread one more time i'm going to shoot somebody ;)

You can borrow my gun.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e5/Skorp88/ToysOfWar/marshmallowgun.jpg

:)

As for ID being taught in a science classroom...ummm...no. Its not the right place for it. Although, seeing as majority of people (Muslims, Christians and Jews) all believe in it...?

The thing called Intelligent Design people wish to teach in schools is not exactly the same as the idea that some Creator designed us all. It is the Creator idea combined with the claim that that idea is scientific and that there is clear and abundant scientific evidence for it - which is a blatant lie.

Not making issue with your overall idea, but a question (or two) to be hopefully answered honestly:
Do the two concepts, evolution and creationism, even answer the same questions?
For you?
If you think evolution still leaves questions, and when you impose the same to creationism, what exactly is filling the holes? And vice versa?
Upon actual inspection of creationism, are there no questions left for you?

Excellent questions. These are the sorts of things I always mean to ask but end up being too distracted/innarticulate/sleep-deprived to bring up. I am reminded of a certain quote about Creationism and the reason it doesn't belong in science.

"To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there', and be done with it." --Richard Dawkins

The thing called Intelligent Design people wish to teach in schools is not exactly the same as the idea that some Creator designed us all. It is the Creator idea combined with the claim that that idea is scientific and that there is clear and abundant scientific evidence for it - which is a blatant lie.

I'm not saying teach it.
So, I have a question...Is ID taught as a theory or as a fact?
Because I don't see why teaching it as a theory would be so terrible (refer to above statement as to my personal views before tearing me to shreds pls)

I'm not saying teach it.
So, I have a question...Is ID taught as a theory or as a fact?
Because I don't see why teaching it as a theory would be so terrible (refer to above statement as to my personal views before tearing me to shreds pls)

The problem with teaching ID as an alternative theory is that it is instantly legitimized then as a viable scientific alternative. In reality, whether ID exists or not, it is not scientific, since it can not be tested or measured, therefore it does not belong in science. And if you're going to open the door to non-scientific "theories", you can't stop at ID. There must be thousands of theories of the origin of life that aren't currently represented in schools, and excluding any of them while allowing one particular brand of ID would be... well... exclusive.

Excellent questions. These are the sorts of things I always mean to ask but end up being too distracted/innarticulate/sleep-deprived to bring up. I am reminded of a certain quote about Creationism and the reason it doesn't belong in science.

"To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there', and be done with it." --Richard Dawkins
I don't see faith as a lazy way out. DNA and other scientific finds, are within our grasp to discover. If there is a God, then he created the earth and the universe, and the 40 odd bigger universes, within we don't know how many galaxies. This God, would be beyond what our science could measure, and beyond what our intelligence could understand.
And I don't think creationism belongs along side science...I've never said that :) I think evolution describes part of the how, and creationism explains the why.

Not making issue with your overall idea, but a question (or two) to be hopefully answered honestly:
Do the two concepts, evolution and creationism, even answer the same questions?
For you?
If you think evolution still leaves questions, and when you impose the same to creationism, what exactly is filling the holes? And vice versa?
Upon actual inspection of creationism, are there no questions left for you?

:) I'll try to answer honestly.
From what I've seen in my life and in asking other people. The religious people I know, use creationism to disprove evolution. And people use evolution to disprove the existence of God. The common question between the 2 concepts, is how we got here. How humanity came to be.
I think at some point, an element of faith does come into it. Because evolution explains part of the how...but I think demeans us a little bit.
As far as i'm concerned, and I'll probably get stoned by my church for this. But when the Bible describes creation, it says that Adam, was formed from dust/earth/dirt...who is to say, that without our scientific termology, the writer wasn't saying a form so small, to the naked eye, it would look like dust. And then it says Eve was formed from Adam's rib...a different type of sexual reproduction is produced....for me anyway, the 2 concepts can fit together. What I dislike about evolution, is that it is treated as fact. I dislike that a lot have people have lost faith because of it. And I find evolution, without adding in a purpose to humanity, other than to breed...is a little pointless.
I still have a lot of questions for both sides.
I'm not sure if I answered your questions :confused:
"Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control." Martin Luther King Jr.

The problem with teaching ID as an alternative theory is that it is instantly legitimized then as a viable scientific alternative. In reality, whether ID exists or not, it is not scientific, since it can not be tested or measured, therefore it does not belong in science. And if you're going to open the door to non-scientific "theories", you can't stop at ID. There must be thousands of theories of the origin of life that aren't currently represented in schools, and excluding any of them while allowing one particular brand of ID would be... well... exclusive.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But if we're measuring what is classified a theory, by how it can be measured, tested or observed....then evolution also falls short. ??? Or am I confused again...

I'm not saying teach it.
So, I have a question...Is ID taught as a theory or as a fact?
Because I don't see why teaching it as a theory would be so terrible (refer to above statement as to my personal views before tearing me to shreds pls)

Considering ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense teaching it as if it were would be wrong, yes.

The problem is that "theory" and "scientific theory" are two completely different things - but that

A. many people do not know that
and
B. Some unscrupulous interest groups exploit that lack of knowledge by pretending they are the same.

Now answer me this: is it good to teach lies and deceit ?

Considering ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense teaching it as if it were would be wrong, yes.

The problem is that "theory" and "scientific theory" are two completely different things - but that

A. many people do not know that
and
B. Some unscrupulous interest groups exploit that lack of knowledge by pretending they are the same.

Now answer me this: is it good to teach lies and deceit ?

well, I was just posing a hypothetical with the ID theory thing.
And I don't pretend to be an authority on this, I'm asking questions cause I genuinely would like to know a bit more.
As far as I know...to qualify as a theory in the scientific community...it needs to be based on observable, empirical and measurable evidence. And evolution doesn't meet those either...does it?
No, lies aren't good. But I don't think the issue is as black and white as that. Seeing as some people think evolution is deceitful too.

And evolution doesn't meet those either...does it?

Evolution itself is a fact. You are not a genetic duplicate of your parents (assuming they were not really deep into inbreeding and that you are not a freakish cloning experiment)- and that is what we call evolution.

The consequences of the fact of evolution and a mechanism that may "guide" it is described in the theory of evolution through natural selection. That theory can be tested, predictions can be made with it and it seems to describe reality quite well - so it is scientific.

That however does not mean it is right.

No, lies aren't good. But I don't think the issue is as black and white as that.

Saying that ID in the version pushed into classrooms by the discovery institute is deceitful is 100% correct. There are no shades of gray there.

Seeing as some people think evolution is deceitful too.

And if they can offer decent arguments for that the scientific community would be happen to listen.

I'm not saying teach it.
So, I have a question...Is ID taught as a theory or as a fact?
Because I don't see why teaching it as a theory would be so terrible (refer to above statement as to my personal views before tearing me to shreds pls)To my knowledge, they want it taught as a full-fledged theory instead of an hypothesis.

Evolution itself is a fact. You are not a genetic duplicate of your parents (assuming they were not really deep into inbreeding and that you are not a freakish cloning experiment)- and that is what we call evolution.

The consequences of the fact of evolution and a mechanism that may "guide" it is described in the theory of evolution through natural selection. That theory can be tested, predictions can be made with it and it seems to describe reality quite well - so it is scientific.

That however does not mean it is right.

Saying that ID in the version pushed into classrooms by the discovery institute is deceitful is 100% correct. There are no shades of gray there.

And if they can offer decent arguments for that the scientific community would be happen to listen.

How can evolution be fact and not necessarily right? Sorry :( you've lost me.
And I thought evolution was more complicated than one set of offspring? Isn't evolution the idea that a simple cell evolved over millions of years into complex beings and that through natural selection has evolved to fit different environments?
Isn't me being 2 sets of different genes just a form of sexual reproduction...instead of an organism that reproduces asexually? And if so, does that mean the asexual organisms haven't evolved?
But aren't there significant holes in the fossil records? Disputes over whether different homoids (sorry about spelling) are actually ancestors of humans..disputes over the 'eve' theory by DNA testing etc....
I think if evolution is going to be taught in classrooms, then ALL the info about evolution should be taught...including reasons why it might not be correct. Its a good answer, its a great beginning...but to be scientific and objective, then a wholistic approach to teaching our kids?
I'm not exactly sure what I think of ID. I think just put creationism in the religion class....i'm not sure whether ID fits anywhere really...

How can evolution be fact and not necessarily right? Sorry :( you've lost me.Newton's formulae are false, because they do not take special relativity into account. They are, however, accurate enough to describe events that do not occur anywhere near the spead of light. Until they were disproven, they were essentially fact.
And I thought evolution was more complicated than one set of offspring? Isn't evolution the idea that a simple cell evolved over millions of years into complex beings and that through natural selection has evolved to fit different environments? Yup.
I think if evolution is going to be taught in classrooms, then ALL the info about evolution should be taught...including reasons why it might not be correct. Its a good answer, its a great beginning...but to be scientific and objective, then a wholistic approach to teaching our kids?We don't need to teach every reason why it might not be correct because plenty of them (aliens bringing animals to earth, "God did it") are simply not plausible without evidence.
I'm not exactly sure what I think of ID. I think just put creationism in the religion class....i'm not sure whether ID fits anywhere really...ID is creationism with a new layer of paint on it. I suggest reading through Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) as to the details on why this is so. Interestingly enough the judge that presided over the case was a Republican church-goer, and not some "liberal activist judge bent on destroying America!"

How can evolution be fact and not necessarily right? Sorry :( you've lost me.

The process of evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution through natural selection does not have to be right. It is by far the most consistent explanation we currently have, but a better one could surface one day.

And I thought evolution was more complicated than one set of offspring? Isn't evolution the idea that a simple cell evolved over millions of years into complex beings and that through natural selection has evolved to fit different environments?

No, that is a consequence of the theory of evolution through natural selection. Basicly "many small changes of which some are more succesful than others will in time add up".

Evolution itself really is just that offspring does not have to be identical to its parents.

I think if evolution is going to be taught in classrooms, then ALL the info about evolution should be taught...including reasons why it might not be correct.

It is. At least in good schools. You should also get alternatives to "Darwins" idea (like Lamarck) and the parts Darwin himself got wrong.

Newton's formulae are false, because they do not take special relativity into account. They are, however, accurate enough to describe events that do not occur anywhere near the spead of light. Until they were disproven, they were essentially fact.
Yup.
We don't need to teach every reason why it might not be correct because plenty of them (aliens bringing animals to earth, "God did it") are simply not plausible without evidence.
ID is creationism with a new layer of paint on it. I suggest reading through Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) as to the details on why this is so. Interestingly enough the judge that presided over the case was a Republican church-goer, and not some "liberal activist judge bent on destroying America!"
I don't understand how something can be fact until disproven. That seems to be a little odd. Because then how can you demand proof for God? You need to disprove God...
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say thought to be fact....just like scientists thought the world was flat, and had scientific proof to back it up...until it was disproved.
Well, actually, in order to be objective teaching the pro's and cons of any theory which cannot be observed or measured would be smart wouldn't it? No human can live long enough to observe evolution taking place, and the there is dispute over how reliable the measurable evidence is. Any rational scientist would simply say, this is the best we;ve got....here are the newest developments....which means that this theory is evolving too.
I'm not talking about evidence like 'God did it' or 'aliens did it', I mean scientific evidence...like holes in fossil records and new DNA testing which has disproved different links between the homoids they originally thought we evolved from.

The process of evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution through natural selection does not have to be right. It is by far the most consistent explanation we currently have, but a better one could surface one day.

No, that is a consequence of the theory of evolution through natural selection. Basicly "many small changes of which some are more succesful than others will in time add up".

Evolution itself really is just that offspring does not have to be identical to its parents.

It is. At least in good schools. You should also get alternatives to "Darwins" idea (like Lamarck) and the parts Darwin himself got wrong.

I agree that its the best explanation to date. But like with all science, its limited by our knowledge. And like i've said before, I don't think faith and science need to be in competition. But I don't think they need to be taught in science class together either..

Well, actually, in order to be objective teaching the pro's and cons of any theory which cannot be observed or measured would be smart wouldn't it?

Actually, by rights you should teach the issues with any theories even if it appears you can directly observe their predictions. Newton being the classic example, we could observe/measure that it appeared true, because it's a very good explanation of how things work under one specific set of circumstances (our earth), it's only once you start expanding it that it falls apart.

Actually, by rights you should teach the issues with any theories even if it appears you can directly observe their predictions. Newton being the classic example, we could observe/measure that it appeared true, because it's a very good explanation of how things work under one specific set of circumstances (our earth), it's only once you start expanding it that it falls apart.It does not really fall apart. It's still a pretty good approximation in most circumstances.

I don't understand how something can be fact until disproven. That seems to be a little odd. Because then how can you demand proof for God? You need to disprove God...Scientific method. You formulate a hypothesis and then you test it. If it fails the test, it is disproven. Otherwise, you can use it to make predictions about similar situations. And now comes the funny part about adding God to the equation:
You can't prove God's existence. Therefore, in a scientific frame, God does not exist (or, better put, has no relevance). Science, in the sense of "how things work", has no God or any other supernatural force involved. It is unnecessary baggage that needs to be removed.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say thought to be fact....just like scientists thought the world was flat, and had scientific proof to back it up...until it was disproved.There's been evidence that the world was round long before the Church stamped out any opposition to Church doctrine. Science had nothing to do with determining that the world was flat.
Well, actually, in order to be objective teaching the pro's and cons of any theory which cannot be observed or measured would be smart wouldn't it? Indeed. The idea that these cons include creationism is laughable, though. How evolution happens is highly disputed. That it happens is not.
No human can live long enough to observe evolution taking place, and the there is dispute over how reliable the measurable evidence is. The first is incorrect and the second is incorrect if applied to people who know what they are talking about.
Any rational scientist would simply say, this is the best we;ve got....here are the newest developments....which means that this theory is evolving too.Yes. There used to be the hypothesis that God created the Earth in 6 days and took a break on the 7th. That this is how the earth was created has been disproven, there is no need to return to it.
I'm not talking about evidence like 'God did it' or 'aliens did it', I mean scientific evidence...like holes in fossil records and new DNA testing which has disproved different links between the homoids they originally thought we evolved from.There are a lot fewer holes in the fossil record than a certain crowd of people would have all of humanity believe. Paleontology has come very far since the days of Darwin.

It does not really fall apart. It's still a pretty good approximation in most circumstances.Not if you watch TV.

I think evolution describes part of the how, and creationism explains the why.

And I find evolution, without adding in a purpose to humanity, other than to breed...is a little pointless.

You're making the mistake of assuming/hoping that there's a point, don't worry about that you're only human and it's natural for you to want to feel like you're achieving something.

I don't see faith as a lazy way out. DNA and other scientific finds, are within our grasp to discover. If there is a God, then he created the earth and the universe, and the 40 odd bigger universes, within we don't know how many galaxies. This God, would be beyond what our science could measure, and beyond what our intelligence could understand.And therefore he would have no place in scientific considerations.
And I don't think creationism belongs along side science...I've never said that :) I think evolution describes part of the how, and creationism explains the why.This isn't true. Creationism seeks to explain the how. Religion and spirituality may be suited for competing with philosophy in explaining the why, but creationism is a clear example of religion attempting to explain the how.
And I find evolution, without adding in a purpose to humanity, other than to breed...is a little pointless.Not everyone needs religion to find purpose in their lives. In fact, I pity someone who cannot come up with their own and must rely on a deity for their purpos.

As far as I know...to qualify as a theory in the scientific community...it needs to be based on observable, empirical and measurable evidence. And evolution doesn't meet those either...does it?

In science, a theory is an explanation or testable model for the behavior of some natural phenomena(or -non), which is capable of generating future predictions/observations, and which can be tested through experiment or falsified through empirical observation.

The theory of evolution via natural selection more than rises to this standard. Indeed, evolutionary theory is one of the most well-examined and thoroughly-tested scientific theories in the history of human science.

"Intelligent design," more accurately referred to as Creationism, does not even remotely attempt to rise to this standard. It presents no testable hypotheses. It generates no testable predictions. It produces no possible avenues of research. No empirical observation can falsify it. It is not in any way, shape, or form a scientific theory.


No, lies aren't good. But I don't think the issue is as black and white as that. Seeing as some people think evolution is deceitful too.
Some people think the world is flat. They are wrong.

I've yet to encounter a single person who "thought evolution is deceitful" who had even the most rudimentary grasp of what evolutionary biology really is.

I pity someone who cannot come up with their own and must rely on a deity for their purpos.

Why?

Every time I've either seen a documentary or an academic debate on the issue, creationists and ID'ers simply get laughed off as a ridiculous. Why is this even an issue for those who are not gun toting bible bashing hicks?

It does not really fall apart. It's still a pretty good approximation in most circumstances.

Ah, but the evidence still disproves it, therefore it can no longer be considered an accurate model of how the universe works, even if it may give approximately the right solution most of the time. Bah... I was trying to make a point and you go on at me about semantics :p

Why is this even an issue for those who are not gun toting bible bashing hicks?I believe you meant Bible Thumping hicks... The bible bashers would be those in the opposing camp. ;)

If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.:p

Every time I've either seen a documentary or an academic debate on the issue, creationists and ID'ers simply get laughed off as a ridiculous. Why is this even an issue for those who are not gun toting bible bashing hicks?

Because it's everyone's responsibility to keep their eyes open.
Sure, in serious publications and even on TV documentaries IDers get laughed off the stage. But the problem is that not everybody reads those publications, nor do they watch those TV documentaries. The majority of the population, even in most Western nations, do not know nor fully understand why ID is pointless and counterproductive to any scientific endeavour. Evolution can be rather complex to grasp for many, and the lure of the "God did it" argument is strong.
Yet this majority of people get to vote. They get to decide who will run the country. They get to decide what scientific projects and research tax money gets spent on.
We do have a tangible, real interest in informing those people about what is scientific and why, and what isn't and why.

I believe you meant Bible Thumping hicks... The bible bashers would be those in the opposing camp. ;)

In the UK and I think here too bible basher is used as he used it. For no reason I can see, as far as I know that's the only usage of bash that's positive instead of negative.

Because it's everyone's responsibility to keep their eyes open.
Sure, in serious publications and even on TV documentaries IDers get laughed off the stage. But the problem is that not everybody reads those publications, nor do they watch those TV documentaries. The majority of the population, even in most Western nations, do not know nor fully understand why ID is pointless and counterproductive to any scientific endeavour. Evolution can be rather complex to grasp for many, and the lure of the "God did it" argument is strong.
Yet this majority of people get to vote. They get to decide who will run the country. They get to decide what scientific projects and research tax money gets spent on.
We do have a tangible, real interest in informing those people about what is scientific and why, and what isn't and why.

Evidence, if ever it was required, that religion becomes more of a mental illness by the day, and that the average voter should not be allowed anywhere near a ballot box.

In the UK and I think here too bible basher is used as he used it. For no reason I can see, as far as I know that's the only usage of bash that's positive instead of negative.

True but I can think of another one. Errrm 'bash the bishop'!

In the UK and I think here too bible basher is used as he used it. For no reason I can see, as far as I know that's the only usage of bash that's positive instead of negative.Really? hmmf... over here a 'Bible-basher' would refer to someone dumping on religion... go figure..

Evidence, if ever it was required, that religion becomes more of a mental illness by the day, and that the average voter should not be allowed anywhere near a ballot box.

Rubbish condesending crap.

Evidence, if ever it was required, that religion becomes more of a mental illness by the day, and that the average voter should not be allowed anywhere near a ballot box.

"Democracy is the worst system we've tried. Except for all the others"
Can't remember who said that, but if you can think of a system that works better for everyone, feel free to publish. There might be a Nobel Prize in it for you ;)

Rubbish condesending crap.

Not at all. Anybody capable of believing in ID, or for that matter even contemplating putting it in a science class, is clearly unable to make any sort of reasoned, informed electoral decision.

"Democracy is the worst system we've tried. Except for all the others"
Can't remember who said that, but if you can think of a system that works better for everyone, feel free to publish. There might be a Nobel Prize in it for you ;)

I quite agree, however, I do feel that the existence of the ID debate at all says much for democratic electorates in the west.

Not at all. Anybody capable of believing in ID, or for that matter even contemplating putting it in a science class, is clearly unable to make any sort of reasoned, informed electoral decision.

Agreed. The rubbish condesending crap I was refering to is that religoin is becoming more of a mental illness, or ideed is a mental illness.

We all have the right to vote, wether you feel we are worthy or not.

Agreed. The rubbish condesending crap I was refering to is that religoin is becoming more of a mental illness, or ideed is a mental illness.

We all have the right to vote, wether you feel we are worthy or not.

I'm not sure. It may have been a little excessive, however, I ask you to consider the majority of the acts of lunacy, inhumanity and massacre committed in the world. At least half are done so with religious motivation.

I'm not sure. It may have been a little excessive, however, I ask you to consider the majority of the acts of lunacy, inhumanity and massacre committed in the world. At least half are done so with religious motivation.

I can on the surface agree to that, but it does assume that you have full knowledge of what is within the normal operating parameters of the human condition, and what is not. I don't think you do, so I can easly call your positing of religoin as mental ill health, for the rubbish that I see it as.

I quite agree, however, I do feel that the existence of the ID debate at all says much for democratic electorates in the west.

Keep in mind that they tend to be, on average, the most educated ones. Scary, huh?

I can on the surface agree to that, but it does assume that you have full knowledge of what is within the normal operating parameters of the human condition, and what is not. I don't think you do, so I can easly call your positing of religoin as mental ill health, for the rubbish that I see it as.

I don't think the "normal parameters of the human condition" apply, unless you seek to distance yourself psychologically from suicide bombers and the like. I can readily understand the necessity to emphasise the inhumanity of those who commit despicable acts, however, to deny their humanity is illogical. Take the example of Ulster if you will; the atrocities committed were justified to a large degree by a mutual belief in the divine justification of their actions, just as Al Quaeda believe they possess a divine mandate to massacre in the name of Islam.

Keep in mind that they tend to be, on average, the most educated ones. Scary, huh?

Yep.

I can on the surface agree to that, but it does assume that you have full knowledge of what is within the normal operating parameters of the human condition, and what is not. I don't think you do, so I can easly call your positing of religoin as mental ill health, for the rubbish that I see it as.

Oh, those parameters are wide. Possibly much, much wider than we even begin to suspect.

I don't really feel good about agreeing with TBC (I'll have to have a long shower later on I think), but people who believe very strongly in anything have a tendency of becoming a danger to others.
And I'm not limiting that to religions, simple philosophies can have much the same effect.
Look at fantatical Christians both in the past and today, look at fanatical Muslims, look at fanatical Nazis, look at fanatical communists, nationalists... the list is long. Too long.

Creationism belongs in history or religion class. Evolution belongs in science class.

The phrase "intelligent design" is just a sad attempt to repackage creationism as a scientific theory.

I don't think the "normal parameters of the human condition" apply, unless you seek to distance yourself psychologically from suicide bombers and the like. I can readily understand the necessity to emphasise the inhumanity of those who commit despicable acts, however, to deny their humanity is illogical. Take the example of Ulster if you will; the atrocities committed were justified to a large degree by a mutual belief in the divine justification of their actions, just as Al Quaeda believe they possess a divine mandate to massacre in the name of Islam.


Of course the 'normal working parameters' apply. Other wise how else would you like to explain what you mean by 'mental illness'.

The question you must answer to sway me to your side, is are relgious thoughts NOT within the bounds of the 'normal working parameters' of the human brain.

Oh, those parameters are wide. Possibly much, much wider than we even begin to suspect.

I don't really feel good about agreeing with TBC (I'll have to have a long shower later on I think), but people who believe very strongly in anything have a tendency of becoming a danger to others.
And I'm not limiting that to religions, simple philosophies can have much the same effect.
Look at fantatical Christians both in the past and today, look at fanatical Muslims, look at fanatical Nazis, look at fanatical communists, nationalists... the list is long. Too long.

I'm not diagreeing with any of that, on a side note TBC talks about suicide bombers and those that kill for their faith, what about the countlesss that do not?

You cannot take a bad aspect of the whole and then apply it to thw whole.

What I do disagree with is TBC calling religoin a mental illness. Can he show me evidance for that?

I'm not diagreeing with any of that, on a side note TBC talks about suicide bombers and those that kill for their faith, what about the countlesss that do not?

You cannot take a bad aspect of the whole and then apply it to thw whole.

What I do disagree with is TBC calling religoin a mental illness. Can he show me evidance for that?

Where's the line between feeling down for a while and depression?
Where's the line between an overactive immagination and schizophrenia?
Where's the line between going on diets and an eating disorder?
Where's the line between having a few drinks now and then and being an alcoholic?

It's very, very difficult. We only started to be able to research our own minds, the discoveries are startling (I'd recommend anything by Stephen Pinker for a very good and informative read on the subject, especially anything dealing with the question of free will and biological pre-determination).
I think any form of behaviour or thought becomes a mental illness the moment the individual loses control over the process. It's not an illness to feel down and sad. The moment you can't stop feeling down any more is when it becomes dangerous.

The problem with religions in that respect is that many if not most actively encourage their followers to give up this control, to "give themselves over to god", to no longer doubt or question.
Even the most mainstream ones will promote acceptance, subordination of your own will and unquestioning loyalty.
I personally would classify an individual at that stage of religious devotion seriously mentally sick.

Where's the line between feeling down for a while and depression?
Where's the line between an overactive immagination and schizophrenia?
Where's the line between going on diets and an eating disorder?
Where's the line between having a few drinks now and then and being an alcoholic?.

Which is exactly my point. We don't know, it is fine for TBC to prclaim that religoin is a mental illness, but he doesn't know that now does he? In the same light, the strenght of his proclimation leaves him open to me calling his faith in this idea akin to mental illness.


It's very, very difficult. We only started to be able to research our own minds, the discoveries are startling (I'd recommend anything by Stephen Pinker for a very good and informative read on the subject, especially anything dealing with the question of free will and biological pre-determination).
I think any form of behaviour or thought becomes a mental illness the moment the individual loses control over the process. It's not an illness to feel down and sad. The moment you can't stop feeling down any more is when it becomes dangerous.

I can also agree with that, it seems a resonable rule of thumb.


The problem with religions in that respect is that many if not most actively encourage their followers to give up this control, to "give themselves over to god", to no longer doubt or question.

You would be truley mentaly ill if you just stopped questioning, but can you point me towards any dogmatic rule that asks this of it's followers? Or is this a massive assumption on your part?


Even the most mainstream ones will promote acceptance, subordination of your own will and unquestioning loyalty.
I personally would classify an individual at that stage of religious devotion seriously mentally sick.

No I totaly diagree. To hand over your will into the charge of a higher power is not the same as this losing control you talked earlier about.

My son does the washing up everyday as part of his chores, he has surrendered to me completely in this matter. He still though retains the control over his thoughts, he can and indeed he does quite frenqently think that he does not want to do this.

You would be truley mentaly ill if you just stopped questioning, but can you point me towards any dogmatic rule that asks this of it's followers? Or is this a massive assumption on your part?

No I totaly diagree. To hand over your will into the charge of a higher power is not the same as this losing control you talked earlier about.

My son does the washing up everyday as part of his chores, he has surrendered to me completely in this matter. He still though retains the control over his thoughts, he can and indeed he does quite frenqently think that he does not want to do this.

No assumption, 10 years of convent school ;)
I'd have to go looking for a few sources and can't right now, I'll find you some later today.

But just by deduction : Faith is not rational. It can't be, since it can't be proven or disproved one way or another. So in order to believe, you have to give up being rational. You have to surrender your higher brain functions to your belief.
You have to believe in things that in any other circumstances, you would know to be not true.
You have to give up your inate moral judgement and surrender to an imposed system of morals instead.

I think the example of your son's chores is rather faulty in this way : If you went to your church/temple/synagogue every day, and prayed every day, but thought all the time that you don't really want to do this and that you don't want to believe this, that wouldn't be faith, it would be a lie.

honestly it doesn't have to be discussed in public schools. they can simply discuss genes and adaption, but they do not need to go into evolution unless it is a more advanced science class in which case the student should be smart enough.

i get the feeling that alot of people that promote evolution being taught in school only support it for the fun of pissing off Christians. and Christians that are against it are mainly against it to feed the conflict.

honestly it doesn't have to be discussed in public schools. they can simply discuss genes and adaption, but they do not need to go into evolution unless it is a more advanced science class in which case the student should be smart enough.

i get the feeling that alot of people that promote evolution being taught in school only support it for the fun of pissing off Christians. and Christians that are against it are mainly against it to feed the conflict.

Why wouldn't it be taught in public schools?
We teach them about gravity, about the Relativity Theory and about biochemistry, why not teach them about how we came to be the hairless, story-telling monkeys that we are?

No assumption, 10 years of convent school ;).

Ahh God bless the Irish huh.


But just by deduction : Faith is not rational. It can't be, since it can't be proven or disproved one way or another. So in order to believe, you have to give up being rational. You have to surrender your higher brain functions to your belief.

Well I agree with you on the lack of rationality, but surrendering your higher brain functions, not at all.

There are lots of irrational aspects to life, we lie to ourselves everyday, and we falsely rationalise our actions so that we can feel comfatable with who we are and what we do. Would you equate this also with mental illness? Or would you say that this is with the normal working parameters of the human condition?


You have to believe in things that in any other circumstances, you would know to be not true.
You have to give up your inate moral judgement and surrender to an imposed system of morals instead.

Again I dissagree, yes it is ttrue that soem do, but you don't have to, and I certianly do not. Morality does not come from religoin, and that's me, a religous man, saying that.



I think the example of your son's chores is rather faulty in this way : If you went to your church/temple/synagogue every day, and prayed every day, but thought all the time that you don't really want to do this and that you don't want to believe this, that wouldn't be faith, it would be a lie.

Of course it would be a lie, but it still works to illustrate that religous thought does not mean loseing control.

Ahh God bless the Irish huh.

Germans. And they were extremely liberal, as I found out later. But even they couldn't get around issues like this ;)


Well I agree with you on the lack of rationality, but surrendering your higher brain functions, not at all.

There are lots of irrational aspects to life, we lie to ourselves everyday, and we falsely rationalise our actions so that we can feel comfatable with who we are and what we do. Would you equate this also with mental illness? Or would you say that this is with the normal working parameters of the human condition?

There's irrationality and then there's irrationality. Of course people aren't rational 24/7, they're human after all. Yet, everyone is irrational in their very own and specific way. Every little irrationality is utterly unique, based on their physical condition, previous experiences and several hundred other factors.
Accepting someone else's irrationality and making it your own, however, is quite a different league. Convincing yourself that that other irrationality is in any way better than your own is in my view a sign of a not very happy, stable or even normal person.


Again I dissagree, yes it is ttrue that soem do, but you don't have to, and I certianly do not. Morality does not come from religoin, and that's me, a religous man, saying that.

So you would defy a direct command by whatever god you believe in if your moral sense told you that it was wrong?
So you would, in essence, believe that god exists but that he/she isn't always right?


Of course it would be a lie, but it still works to illustrate that religous thought does not mean loseing control.

You have to enlighten me here... how? :confused:

No human can live long enough to observe evolution taking place, and the there is dispute over how reliable the measurable evidence is.

This is actually untrue. We may not be able to live long enough to directly observe evolution in, say, giant tortoises, but we can very definitely live more than long enough to observe evolution in fruit flies or bacteria. (We can also inspect past accounts of giant tortoises and the remains of giant tortoises and their ancestors and thereby get a very good picture of giant tortoise evolution, anyway.)


Any rational scientist would simply say, this is the best we;ve got....here are the newest developments....which means that this theory is evolving too.

Theories quite definitely do evolve, but the theory of evolution as it exists has been so very thoroughly researched and so very thoroughly challenged that we can honestly be as confident about it as we are about pretty much anything in science. I have no doubt that there are little details that we don't have quite right yet, but the fact that evolution occurs and does so pretty much as biologists expect it to is frankly indisputable.

I'm not talking about evidence like 'God did it' or 'aliens did it', I mean scientific evidence...like holes in fossil records and new DNA testing which has disproved different links between the homoids they originally thought we evolved from.

I know of no such testing. Are you thinking of something specific?

Also, I think you may be slightly confused about what evolution entails. Evolution is not a framework for explaining Homo sapiens - it's a framework for explaining ALL species. Even if we've totally screwed up our own evolutionary pathway, that would in no way invalidate the theory of evolution.


I agree that its the best explanation to date. But like with all science, its limited by our knowledge. And like i've said before, I don't think faith and science need to be in competition. But I don't think they need to be taught in science class together either..

With this, I can totally agree. :)

There's irrationality and then there's irrationality. Of course people aren't rational 24/7, they're human after all. Yet, everyone is irrational in their very own and specific way. Every little irrationality is utterly unique, based on their physical condition, previous experiences and several hundred other factors.
Accepting someone else's irrationality and making it your own, however, is quite a different league. Convincing yourself that that other irrationality is in any way better than your own is in my view a sign of a not very happy, stable or even normal person.

And again I disagree. We all except others irrationalities as our own. Anybody that feels pride for the country of their birth does this. Anybody that promotes one artistic endevour over another does this. We are born to be socialble, we copy each other, this is all quite normal, why section off one part of this normal human behaviour and call it mentall illness? Isn't that in itself also irrational?


So you would defy a direct command by whatever god you believe in if your moral sense told you that it was wrong?
So you would, in essence, believe that god exists but that he/she isn't always right?

Damn right I would. But again doesn't that assume that I am in contact with God, or that I automaticly belive everything written in holy scripture as true and coming from God? If I did not question both the tenants and dogma of my faith that would truely make me mentaly ill.



You have to enlighten me here... how? :confused:

You said that surreding your will to that of a higer power equates to mental illness because it means lossing control.

My expample showed that you can surrender your will, without this lose of control of you thoughts.

honestly it doesn't have to be discussed in public schools. they can simply discuss genes and adaption, but they do not need to go into evolution unless it is a more advanced science class in which case the student should be smart enough.

i get the feeling that alot of people that promote evolution being taught in school only support it for the fun of pissing off Christians. and Christians that are against it are mainly against it to feed the conflict.

Evolution is the entire foundation of biology. Why the hell wouldn't we teach it? It'd be like not teaching about atoms in chemistry.

well i have to say what makes a god a god the power of life and death well we have that even if it is on a small level but!!!!! compared to what religion has stated



but if given a choice which i have been given i rather believe in evolution for starters with all the random possiblitys i make life and the future (also the pass) so much more interesting yeah i could believe in a god that i will always fear because of the power he is supposed to have but then that get us no where so evolution is the key.



also with the rate we are advancing at we will one day find the truth that we are literally luck (in a evolution sense) that out of the random possiblity we emerge as we did not perfect but just right



also when you look at all evidence we never originally come from earth we were a few single ell organsm on an astroid and with the combing elements we became us so that throws the question of "Does god existece" also to quote something classic



"I THINK SO THERE FOR I AM" (throwing god out of the equation(the hichhickers guide to the galaxys lol))


:gundge::sniper::mp5::upyours::headbang:

"I THINK SO THERE FOR I AM" (throwing god out of the equation(the hichhickers guide to the galaxys lol))

There is...an extraordinary irony to this post which I lack the strength to explain right now.

"I THINK SO THERE FOR I AM" (throwing god out of the equation(the hichhickers guide to the galaxys lol))



*cough*cough*. "I think therefor I am" is a quote by a french philosopher Descartes and frankly has little to do with religion

I believe the passage disproving god from the HGttG you are looking for is (paraphrasing here because I haven't read it in a couple of years):
The babel fish is such a startling useful creature that there was no way it could evolve by chance and was used by philosophers to finally prove the non-existance of god. The argument goes something like this. God says, "I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing". "Ah" says man, "but the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, therefore you don't, QED". "Damn," says God, "I hadn't thought of that". And promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

honestly it doesn't have to be discussed in public schools. they can simply discuss genes and adaption, but they do not need to go into evolution unless it is a more advanced science class in which case the student should be smart enough.

i get the feeling that alot of people that promote evolution being taught in school only support it for the fun of pissing off Christians. and Christians that are against it are mainly against it to feed the conflict.

Or possibly because we *gasp* think children should get a decent science education?

Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Or possibly because we *gasp* think children should get a decent science education?

Oh shush.

We should just teach geography without mentioning the earth is a sphere. After all, we only teach that to annoy the flat earth society.

We should just teach geography without mentioning tektonics. And physics without mentioning half life.
After all, we only teach those to annoy the young earthers.

We should just teach US history without mentioning the French or British. After all, we only teach about that to annoy them.

Hey - let us not teach about the Holocaust in world history either. We only do that to annoy neonazi's and leaders of Iran after all.

You know what.. let us just scratch school alltogether. We after all only teach kids things to annoy others.

I believe you meant Bible Thumping hicks... The bible bashers would be those in the opposing camp. ;)

If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.:p

AHHH!!!

(Hides)

Seriously, though, I am what most of you would call a religious conservative. But, frankly, I don't see evolution as a issue. I believe evolution is correct, I just think God started it. Anyone who thinks that evolution is false is, in my opinion, a moron. As long as people aren't trying to use evolution to say to me "God doesn't exist", I don't care. If they are, then I usually just ignore them.

There is...an extraordinary irony to this post which I lack the strength to explain right now.



I believe we are thinking the same thing sir.

... I just think God started it. ...but why do you think thus? :confused: just out of a gut feeling?

but why do you think thus? :confused: just out of a gut feeling?

Probably along the same 'reasoning' as to your certainty that there is no god... i.e. a simple matter of faith.

I'm not seeing a battle: just a group of people who understand science savagely beating a dead horse, while a few ignorant observers heckle and claim that, any minute now, the horse is going to get up and kick their arses.

except for being a good indicator of a willingness to believe utter nonsense when told by illegitimate 'authority figures', a basic lack of critical thinking, a devaluation of truth and reality, and (coincidentally, i'm sure) harmful reactionary social views.

Wow. Are you really that ignorant to believe that?

Wow. Are you really that ignorant to believe that?

No counter-argument I see. Let's break Free Soviets' post down piece by piece and examine it:

except for being a good indicator of a willingness to believe utter nonsense when told by illegitimate 'authority figures',

The Discovery Institute sure do love their petitions of 'Scientists' who 'Dissent from Darwin' (although apparently they don't love them enough to get rid of all the philosophers, doctors, dentists and engineers who are listed; nor do they have the decency to remove people who've since claimed that they were duped into signing it and do not support Intelligent Design).

a basic lack of critical thinking,

Read a few of their books...

a devaluation of truth and reality,

A standard ID tactic is to appeal to Epistemological Relativism (i.e. "what makes science with its 'observable reality' and 'empirical testing' better than religious explanations?"). See Steve Fuller, an expert-witness for the IDiots at the Dover Trial and sometimes credited with having been the second most influential witness (after Behe) in winning the case for Science...

and (coincidentally, i'm sure) harmful reactionary social views.

The Discovery Institute are quite open about wanting to push their religious views as reactionary legislation. Have you read the Wedge Document?

All in all I think Free Soviets was bang on.

Wow. Are you really that ignorant to believe that?

How do you see it then ?

Even if you truly believe that God created the Earth exactly like the Bible says, you should dislike Creationism and ID as they are currently presented to be "fit for the science classroom" by the special interest groups. Their entire teachings are based on lies, deceit and misquotations. They present data they know is false just to promote their ideas.

While you might be certain the scientists that support the theory of evolution are completely and utterly wrong, they are at least vastly more honest about their conclusions.

Or do you believe that promoting faith through deceit is perfectly fine ?

A standard ID tactic is to appeal to Epistemological Relativism (i.e. "what makes science with its 'observable reality' and 'empirical testing' better than religious explanations?"). See Steve Fuller, an expert-witness for the IDiots at the Dover Trial and sometimes credited with having been the second most influential witness (after Behe) in winning the case for Science...

this is one of my favorite moves of theirs. i mean, its just so ham-fisted and ridiculous. even better is when they drop the epistemological bit and go for full on ontological relativism. awesome.

Wow. Are you really that ignorant to believe that?

got an argument about why i'm wrong?

:) I'll try to answer honestly.
From what I've seen in my life and in asking other people. The religious people I know, use creationism to disprove evolution. And people use evolution to disprove the existence of God. The common question between the 2 concepts, is how we got here. How humanity came to be.
I think at some point, an element of faith does come into it. Because evolution explains part of the how...but I think demeans us a little bit.
As far as i'm concerned, and I'll probably get stoned by my church for this. But when the Bible describes creation, it says that Adam, was formed from dust/earth/dirt...who is to say, that without our scientific termology, the writer wasn't saying a form so small, to the naked eye, it would look like dust. And then it says Eve was formed from Adam's rib...a different type of sexual reproduction is produced....for me anyway, the 2 concepts can fit together. What I dislike about evolution, is that it is treated as fact. I dislike that a lot have people have lost faith because of it. And I find evolution, without adding in a purpose to humanity, other than to breed...is a little pointless.
I still have a lot of questions for both sides.
I'm not sure if I answered your questions :confused:
"Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control." Martin Luther King Jr.
Thank you for indulging me. *bows*

Probably along the same 'reasoning' as to your certainty that there is no god... i.e. a simple matter of faith.in my case it's no matter of faith. it's a conclusion drawn from the knowledge about the process how the biblical god was, um, put together.

*cough*cough*. "I think therefor I am" is a quote by a french philosopher Descartes and frankly has little to do with religion

Thinking about perception if it was being tampered with by a deceptive god or demon. Our perception can be deceived, our own existence all that we can be sure of, that has something to do with everything.

I'm a compromisist. I believe in the 'benevolent caretaker' theory - some form of supreme being created the catalyst for the start of the universe, but has been hands off since then. That allows for Evolution and ID, in a sense.

honestly it doesn't have to be discussed in public schools. they can simply discuss genes and adaption, but they do not need to go into evolution unless it is a more advanced science class in which case the student should be smart enough.

i get the feeling that alot of people that promote evolution being taught in school only support it for the fun of pissing off Christians. and Christians that are against it are mainly against it to feed the conflict.


And I thought evolution was more complicated than one set of offspring? Isn't evolution the idea that a simple cell evolved over millions of years into complex beings and that through natural selection has evolved to fit different environments?
Isn't me being 2 sets of different genes just a form of sexual reproduction...instead of an organism that reproduces asexually? And if so, does that mean the asexual organisms haven't evolved?
But aren't there significant holes in the fossil records? Disputes over whether different homoids (sorry about spelling) are actually ancestors of humans..disputes over the 'eve' theory by DNA testing etc....
I think if evolution is going to be taught in classrooms, then ALL the info about evolution should be taught...including reasons why it might not be correct. Its a good answer, its a great beginning...but to be scientific and objective, then a wholistic approach to teaching our kids?


No human can live long enough to observe evolution taking place, and the there is dispute over how reliable the measurable evidence is. Any rational scientist would simply say, this is the best we;ve got....here are the newest developments....which means that this theory is evolving too.
I'm not talking about evidence like 'God did it' or 'aliens did it', I mean scientific evidence...like holes in fossil records and new DNA testing which has disproved different links between the homoids they originally thought we evolved from.
I agree that its the best explanation to date. But like with all science, its limited by our knowledge. And like i've said before, I don't think faith and science need to be in competition. But I don't think they need to be taught in science class together either..
It never ceases to amaze me, how the people who argue most loudly against good science education are invariably the people in most desperate need of it.

It never ceases to amaze me, how the people who argue most loudly against good science education are invariably the people in most desperate need of it.

Never ceases to amaze me how people can come up with those kinds of accusations, without reading what's been said.
I never said not to teach evolution. And if you'll check, never said to teach ID in a science class. I said it wasn't appropriate.
In fact, I haven't been arguing anything really. Because I'm still trying to get my head around the topic....and yes, maybe ask some stupid questions according to you. But I guess, we can't all blessed with your superior intellect, even though you refuse to use it and read my posts before judging.

Never ceases to amaze me how people can come up with those kinds of accusations, without reading what's been said.
I never said not to teach evolution. And if you'll check, never said to teach ID in a science class. I said it wasn't appropriate.

Did I claim you did?


In fact, I haven't been arguing anything really. Because I'm still trying to get my head around the topic....and yes, maybe ask some stupid questions according to you. But I guess, we can't all blessed with your superior intellect, even though you refuse to use it and read my posts before judging.
Take your own advice.

Your posts are thick with a failure to understand the most basic elements of evolutionary biology.

You make statements like, "I think if evolution is going to be taught in classrooms, then ALL the info about evolution should be taught...including reasons why it might not be correct." As if that isn't already done. As if every single major challenge to evolutionary theory hasn't come from scientists.

You know who puts evolutionary biology to the test? Evolutionary biologists. You know who teaches students about the legitimate challenges and missing elements in evolutionary biology? Evolutionary biologists. Scientists. I've taken years of courses that address this subject, and EVERY SINGLE ONE (starting with my high school bio class) covered the various challenges, changes, and progress in evolutionary theory since Darwin's day.

Whenever people whine about how evolution shouldn't be "taught as fact," I know they are full of it. It IS a fact that evolution occurs. It's observable, measurable, and testable. It does occur. I've personally watched it occur on a number of occasions.

Whether or not our current model for evolution via natural selection is, in fact, perfectly accurate, is still being tested. We don't fully understand all the mechanisms involved. We're working on that. No, it does not help for uninformed non-scientists to insist that kids be taught "Ooooh, we just don't know everything yet!" Do you suggest that kids not be taught Newton's Laws because we haven't yet developed the Theory Of Everything which unites Newtonian and particle physics?

You're also spouting the classic Creationist lies, like how there are "holes" in the fossil record which supposedly are not in keeping with evolutionary theory (bunk), or how we cannot observe evolution in action (bunk).

You might simply be uninformed. You wouldn't be the first. But you're yet another uninformed person presuming to pass judgment on science education. I have zero patience for this.

If you want to ask questions, that's great. If you want to pass judgment BEFORE you clear up all your questions on this topic, that's fucking stupid.

Actually, you know what? Asking questions isn't that great. Read a freaking book. Educate yourself. I'm tired of having to come into these threads and explain the same basic concepts for the millionth time. Go to TalkOrigins and read every last word twice. Read The Panda's Thumb a couple times through. Take the time to actually READ a biology text that addresses this subject. If you care about this topic, then act like it. Do the absolute minimum and learn what you're talking about.

It never ceases to amaze me, how the people who argue most loudly against good science education are invariably the people in most desperate need of it.

You might simply be uninformed. You wouldn't be the first. But you're yet another uninformed person presuming to pass judgment on science education. I have zero patience for this.
Did I claim you did? Yes, actually, ya did.


Your posts are thick with a failure to understand the most basic elements of evolutionary biology.

You make statements like, "I think if evolution is going to be taught in classrooms, then ALL the info about evolution should be taught...including reasons why it might not be correct." As if that isn't already done. As if every single major challenge to evolutionary theory hasn't come from scientists.

You know who puts evolutionary biology to the test? Evolutionary biologists. You know who teaches students about the legitimate challenges and missing elements in evolutionary biology? Evolutionary biologists. Scientists. I've taken years of courses that address this subject, and EVERY SINGLE ONE (starting with my high school bio class) covered the various challenges, changes, and progress in evolutionary theory since Darwin's day.

Whenever people whine about how evolution shouldn't be "taught as fact," I know they are full of it. It IS a fact that evolution occurs. It's observable, measurable, and testable. It does occur. I've personally watched it occur on a number of occasions.

Whether or not our current model for evolution via natural selection is, in fact, perfectly accurate, is still being tested. We don't fully understand all the mechanisms involved. We're working on that. No, it does not help for uninformed non-scientists to insist that kids be taught "Ooooh, we just don't know everything yet!" Do you suggest that kids not be taught Newton's Laws because we haven't yet developed the Theory Of Everything which unites Newtonian and particle physics?

You're also spouting the classic Creationist lies, like how there are "holes" in the fossil record which supposedly are not in keeping with evolutionary theory (bunk), or how we cannot observe evolution in action (bunk).

You might simply be uninformed. You wouldn't be the first. But you're yet another uninformed person presuming to pass judgment on science education. I have zero patience for this.

If you want to ask questions, that's great. If you want to pass judgment BEFORE you clear up all your questions on this topic, that's fucking stupid.

Actually, you know what? Asking questions isn't that great. Read a freaking book. Educate yourself. I'm tired of having to come into these threads and explain the same basic concepts for the millionth time. Go to TalkOrigins and read every last word twice. Read The Panda's Thumb a couple times through. Take the time to actually READ a biology text that addresses this subject. If you care about this topic, then act like it. Do the absolute minimum and learn what you're talking about.

Actually, asking questions is part of what this forum is about. And the only person thats had a problem with me asking them so far, is you. Everyone else has been perfectly nice explaining these things to me, without making me feel retarded.
I haven't argued against good science education. I said that evolution should be taught, including its shortcomings...and if thats how it was taught for you, thats cool. If thats how its taught for other people. I'm happy about that. But it wasn't for me. Please remember, that the whole world isn't America, and your education experience is not universal. And an easier way to shut me up about its shortcomings, if thats part of whats bothering you, would be to say....they do include that in evolution's teachings. Simple.
And in regards to whether I really care about this topic...I'd have to say no. Not enough to go and read the books you've recommended, and I'm sure they're very good. This is a forum where people spend free time, and this particular topic looked interesting. But I don't think I need to be an expert on a subject before I can voice a question....or take an interest in what other people have said. If we all knew everything on the topic, then this forum would be redundant.
And I wasn't sprouting creationist lies. That is nonsense. Read my posts before posting to suit your own agenda.

And funnily enough, without all the study you've got on the subject, we've come to the same conclusion. Evolution in, ID out. So, other than having a personal problem with me, I really don't know what your problem is.

Bottle is being abrasive as usual I see :D

If I hadn't noticed the Still Alive lyrics in her sig I would think of some choice words in defence of the poor newbie, but I did.

Bottle is being abrasive as usual I see :D

If I hadn't noticed the Still Alive lyrics in her sig I would think of some choice words in defence of the poor newbie, but I did.
Heh.

Look, I know I was rather harsh, but seriously. How many freaking times do the informed, rational, science-minded folks have to bend over backwards to coddle the lazy and uninformed among us?

I'm not a genius. I don't have millions of dollars. I don't have infinite spare time. I don't have super powers. The ONLY reason I know more about this subject than the average forum-goer is because I have bothered to take the time to learn about it.

ANYBODY CAN DO THIS.

If I thought I was actually smarter or better than other people around here, I wouldn't be annoyed by this crap. It would be right and proper that I know more and understand more. But I'm not smarter or better (trolls excluded). There's absolutely no reason why other people can't learn this shit the same way I did. It's just that they choose not to. They choose to keep coming back with the same falsehoods and misconceptions, instead of bothering to fact-check themselves. That's what annoys me.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm talking about the fundamentals of evolutionary theory in this case. I do not expect everybody to want to be a biologist. I don't expect everybody to want to be a scientist. But you don't have to be a biologist or a scientist to get the basics of this topic down solid.

If I thought I was actually smarter or better than other people around here, I wouldn't be annoyed by this crap. It would be right and proper that I know more and understand more. But I'm not smarter or better (trolls excluded). There's absolutely no reason why other people can't learn this shit the same way I did. It's just that they choose not to. They choose to keep coming back with the same falsehoods and misconceptions, instead of bothering to fact-check themselves. That's what annoys me.

It's part of being knowledgeable I guess, personally dealing with the various unfortunately ignorant randomly changes my mood, but with a higher probability of putting me in a bad one :)

[QUOTE]
Again, statements like this show a complete lack of knowledge of what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is more or less fact, it just can be revised and tested.[QUOTE]
Fine, it's flexible, but it's still UNPROVEN!

lol. Someone has no idea about the workings of science.

So are atoms unproven? They are the centre of Atomic Theory. What about the Theory of Reletivity?

Theory is a law without measurements. If Gravity worked, but things fell at a random (or seemingly random) rate, it too would be a theory. We cannot predict the rate of mutations, therefore it has no option of becoming a law.

Yes, there are other criteria seperating theory and law, but that is a major one.

Look, if you can flaw the following summary of evolution by natural selection (properly flaw, not misinterpret, disbelieve, point at holes that make no real diference etc.) then please demonstrate, and I'll try to get back to you. I'm sure someone will get back to you anyway.

1.) genetic mutations occur.
2.) mutations can be good or bad (stronger muscles/weaker muscles, Better camoflage/worse, stronger immune system/weaker)
3.) good mutations are beneficial. Bad are not.
4.) anything beneficial will help you survive better. anything not, not.
5.) better survival translates into longer average lifespan.
6.) longer lifespan means more opportunity to reproduce.
7.) Thus animals with beneficial mutations will have (on average) more offspring, and the mutation flourishes.
8.) Equally bad mutations die out.
9.) enought mutations will produce a new species.

For example, "Creation" magazine disagrees with point 9. It claims god created set types, (eg. horse type) and after the flood these diversified according to the above mentioned method (eg. Zebra, pony, donkey) and that these can interbreed but cannot with, say, a crocodile or a human.

My reply would be that there is not such border of "types". Horses have a high fertility rate with other horses, less with donkeys and even less with zebras. As the species gets more distant the fertility rate eventually drops to or below 0, ie. crocodile.

I believe ID/creationism should be taught in religious studies, along with several other religious concepts of creation. (yes, that includes the FSM)
Evolution should be taught in biology as a proven process that organisms go through, it should be mentioned in both that amongst the scientific community it is also the favoured theory for human origins.

That way no-one's agenda is being pushed, and kids can use their brains to choose for themselves.

I believe ID/creationism should be taught in religious studies, along with several other religious concepts of creation. (yes, that includes the FSM)
Evolution should be taught in biology as a proven process that organisms go through, it should be mentioned in both that amongst the scientific community it is also the favoured theory for human origins.

That way no-one's agenda is being pushed, and kids can use their brains to choose for themselves.

You can't have a situation where a child goes into a biology class and learns about evolution, then goes into a religious studies class and learns that evolution is not true. The point of school is to teach, not throw all ideologies at a student and just let them sort it out on their own.

Not all ideas are created equal, and we can't keep pretending that they are.

You can't have a situation where a child goes into a biology class and learns about evolution, then goes into a religious studies class and learns that evolution is not true. The point of school is to teach, not throw all ideologies at a student and just let them sort it out on their own.

Not all ideas are created equal, and we can't keep pretending that they are.

Who said that religious education should be teaching that religion is right. I was always under the impression that the intention was to expose students to a variety of different religions rather than promote a religious life.

I believe ID/creationism should be taught in religious studies, along with several other religious concepts of creation. (yes, that includes the FSM)

While I have no problem with schools teaching the Biblical, Hinduist, Ancient Egyptian, Greco-Romanic and so on and so on creation stories I see no reason to teach the politically motivated constructs of ID and creationism (and the same goes for the FSM I fear...).

Or to rephrase:
Teaching a religious story of creation as a religious story of creation: perfectly fine.
Teaching a religious story of creation that pretends its science through deception: not perfectly fine.

Creationism is not true.
Let's try to move on.

Creationism is not true.
Let's try to move on.

You know how hard it is for a certain type of Christians to admit they might have interpreted part of the Bible incorrectly for years ?

Not even asking them to admit the Bible *is* wrong - just that they might have *interpreted* it wrong.

And that in the USA that type can vote ?

You know how hard it is for a certain type of Christians to admit they might have interpreted part of the Bible incorrectly for years ?

Not even asking them to admit the Bible *is* wrong - just that they might have *interpreted* it wrong.

And that in the USA that type can vote ?

why "certain type of Christians" ? not all? do not all christians believe in Jesus/God and thus in what comes with that?

why "certain type of Christians" ? not all? do not all christians believe in Jesus/God and thus in what comes with that?

Sure. But there are plenty of Christians that can admit they are human and might have misread or misunderstood the Bible, or that it is possible that certain sections of it not literally true but just a way to convey an idea or lesson. Those Christians in general have very little problem accepting things like the theory of evolution. They in fact can even be active contributors to it, adding to and improving on the theory.

http://a683.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/64/l_99e9b56709a01c818e4693fa4e39a092.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Motivational-gravity.jpg

;)

I know these forums were leftist controlled,
It's funny because it has no basis in reality :)
but i didn't realize how willing you people are to abuse other beleif systems. I can why theres so few conservatives here, I've just about it with these forums. I'd rather spend time on a more balanced forum.
Silly rabbit, I have no problem with people holding ridiculous beliefs. They have every right to do so. However, I have every right to tell them or anyone else how ridiculous I think those beliefs are. Just as they are entitled to tell me that I'm going to some manner of hell, or to just fuck off and leave them alone.
Fuck it, Im going to church with my cousin next sunday and Im going to ask the preacher to talk about evolution and demand equal time.
Best of luck to you, sir.
Sure. At least then I don't have to pretend that a guy somewhere with large student loans and an ambition to get published couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced by money or fame. :D
He could, of course. But one person alone can't make a scientific theory. It takes years and years, and easily hundreds of scientists. To suggest that all of those people are conspiring to forward some falsehood for material gain is right up there with suggesting that Jewish lizard-men from the moon secretely control the world economy.
i refuse to answer on the grounds that if i see this thread one more time i'm going to shoot somebody ;)
I find this acceptable.
Every time I've either seen a documentary or an academic debate on the issue, creationists and ID'ers simply get laughed off as a ridiculous. Why is this even an issue for those who are not gun toting bible bashing hicks?
For most of us it isn't, but the problem is that the gun toting bibe bashing hicks are very loud and very insistent that their beliefs be enshrined in law, and have a cadre of politicians that are willing to use this desire to get elected.
I'm a compromisist. I believe in the 'benevolent caretaker' theory - some form of supreme being created the catalyst for the start of the universe, but has been hands off since then. That allows for Evolution and ID, in a sense.
As I understand it, that's the official line from the Vatican, and what most reasonable religious people believe.
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Motivational-gravity.jpg

;)
:fluffle:

Vatican official line? Aaaargh! :(

You can't have a situation where a child goes into a biology class and learns about evolution, then goes into a religious studies class and learns that evolution is not true. The point of school is to teach, not throw all ideologies at a student and just let them sort it out on their own.

Not all ideas are created equal, and we can't keep pretending that they are.

Well, we'll just have to tell the kids "Listen, these are the facts. This is what we KNOW. This is the conclusion we draw form the facts and this is why, this is what we THINK.
And this is what some people BELIEVE. Take your pick."

<snip>
Incidentally, I approve greatly of you sigging me.
Well, we'll just have to tell the kids "Listen, these are the facts. This is what we KNOW. This is the conclusion we draw form the facts and this is why, this is what we THINK.
And this is what some people BELIEVE. Take your pick."

If you do it right, it could well work.

Well, we'll just have to tell the kids "Listen, these are the facts. This is what we KNOW. This is the conclusion we draw form the facts and this is why, this is what we THINK.
And this is what some people BELIEVE. Take your pick."

That's basically my proposal.

Vatican official line? Aaaargh! :(what about it? the vatican has no problem with evolution.

But that is also what we already do in schools. Teach the thinking in science class and the believing in religious class.

Creationism and ID want to remove that seperation.I find it strange that belief should be taught.

Well, we'll just have to tell the kids "Listen, these are the facts. This is what we KNOW. This is the conclusion we draw form the facts and this is why, this is what we THINK.
And this is what some people BELIEVE. Take your pick."

That's basically my proposal.

But that is also what we already do in schools. Teach the thinking in science class and the believing in religious class.

Creationism and ID want to remove that seperation.

But that is also what we already do in schools. Teach the thinking in science class and the believing in religious class.

Creationism and ID want to remove that seperation.

I'm aware of that, and I'm seriously opposing it.
Creationism is utter bullshit in scientific terms, so it should not be taught in any subject that requires thinking ; but it may or may not have some merits in the spiritual realm, so presenting it there is ok IMO.