NationStates Jolt Archive

The New Scientist has published a list of 24 myths and misconceptions about evolution
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html

amongst all the usual ID nonsense my eye was caught by the one about whether it matters if people understand evolution - this part in particular

Any leader who thinks evolution is a matter of belief is arguably unfit for office. How can someone who dismisses the staggering amount of evidence for evolution assembled by researchers in myriad fields possibly evaluate more subtle scientific evidence for, say, climate change?

I personally agree with this position, but only to the extent of not voting for a person like that. Yet in the US elections it seems to me that being scientifically literate is almost electoral suicide.

Should we vote for people who ignore scientific evidence in favour of dogmatic belief?

What about evolution with a ID assist?

What about evolution with a ID assist?

ID is covered in the myths, the appropriate place for it.

ID is covered in the myths, the appropriate place for it.

Don't think we have advanced enough to rule out interference of an outside intelligence. With the gaps in our evolutionary tree and the high probability that there is intelligent life beyond Earth it is a remote possibility that humanity may be a product of intelligent assistance. Not that I am sold on that but I do keep an open mind on the subject.

Don't think we have advanced enough to rule out interference of an outside intelligence. With the gaps in our evolutionary tree and the high probability that there is intelligent life beyond Earth it is a remote possibility that humanity may be a product of intelligent assistance. Not that I am sold on that but I do keep an open mind on the subject.

There is a difference between ruling something out and disregarding something because there is no evidence for it. There is no evidence for what you suggest.

Leaders don't have to be scientists, but leaders who can't understand the difference between faith and science can't be trusted to appoint and give weight to scientific counsel.

Don't think we have advanced enough to rule out interference of an outside intelligence. With the gaps in our evolutionary tree and the high probability that there is intelligent life beyond Earth it is a remote possibility that humanity may be a product of intelligent assistance. Not that I am sold on that but I do keep an open mind on the subject.

But that's not what evolution is. Evolution, and all scientific theory, does not take a position on God's existence. The problem is, you can't test for the presence of God, and so it can't be a part of any theory.

Look at it this way. Gravity seems to work by objects with mass creating a curvature in the space through which they move, thereby causing such objects to move together. Does that mean that God isn't using infinite unseen fingers to poke those dents in the fabric of the universe? No. But you can't test for it, and so it is scientifically meaningless to develop a theory of intelligent falling.

But that's not what evolution is. Evolution, and all scientific theory, does not take a position on God's existence. The problem is, you can't test for the presence of God, and so it can't be a part of any theory.

Look at it this way. Gravity seems to work by objects with mass creating a curvature in the space through which they move, thereby causing such objects to move together. Does that mean that God isn't using infinite unseen fingers to poke those dents in the fabric of the universe? No. But you can't test for it, and so it is scientifically meaningless to develop a theory of intelligent falling.

Second, because I can...and my philosophy professor would kick me in the jewels if I didn't....I bet socrates wouldn't render his students incapable of furthering evolution.....

The New Scientist has published a list of 24 myths and misconceptions about evolution
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html

amongst all the usual ID nonsense my eye was caught by the one about whether it matters if people understand evolution - this part in particular



I personally agree with this position, but only to the extent of not voting for a person like that. Yet in the US elections it seems to me that being scientifically literate is almost electoral suicide.

Should we vote for people who ignore scientific evidence in favour of dogmatic belief?

No we shouldn't. We should get rid of all religoin from politics, the two should never mix.

I personally agree with this position, but only to the extent of not voting for a person like that. Yet in the US elections it seems to me that being scientifically literate is almost electoral suicide.

Should we vote for people who ignore scientific evidence in favour of dogmatic belief?

Personally, I could not care less what people's personal opinions are on highly contentous issues as to whether or not they are fit for office. Anyway, much scientific discussion is of a highly contentous nature anyway, one year, they say that chocolate is bad for you, the next they say that chocolate is good for you. One decade, we are all going to freeze to death, the next, we are all going to fry to death.

I much rather vote on the more important issues; the economy, healthcare, education instead of some personal belief.

Failure to understand and recognize the reality of evolution shows that a person is either too stupid or too far gone in their own fantasy world to be trusted to drive a car, let alone be allowed real power.

Science is about coming to a conclusion based on the evidence, which is how evolution was theorized. ID on the other hands starts out with a ludicrous conclusion and then bends and distorts whatever quasi-science it can to 'prove' a conclusion that those pushing for it already believe anyways because of their spiritual beliefs.

well its not as important as for people to understand how we togather create the conditions we experience individually.

which seems to receive far less attention, for what i can only assume to be vested reasons of blindly self serving intrests.

i think it would be of the greatest bennifit to the goals certain dominant belief organizations wish to portry themselves as serving, for them to consciously reduce the degree to which they encourage people to decieve themselves.

=^^=
.../\...

PAnyway, much scientific discussion is of a highly contentous nature anyway, one year, they say that chocolate is bad for you, the next they say that chocolate is good for you. One decade, we are all going to freeze to death, the next, we are all going to fry to death.


I think you are mixing up what newspapers say and what scientists say.

Failure to understand and recognize the reality of evolution shows that a person is either too stupid or too far gone in their own fantasy world to be trusted to drive a car, let alone be allowed real power.

I wouldn't go that far. But I would say that someone who does not believe in evolution, or at least accept that that is a probable possibility, should not be making decisions for me. And if someone doesn't believe in the proven scientific fact of natural selection, then the definitely shouldn't hold office. If you can't accept a scientifically proven fact because it sort of contradicts a story that was written before we knew the world was round, then you aren't fit to make major decisions.

This reminds me of a quote from the later years of The West Wing. A presidential candidate is asked about Intelligent Design, and he says "I believe there is a creator, and I like to think he's intelligent." He then goes on to explain that his beliefs aren't what matter. Evolution is what the scientists have concluded is the reality, based on the evidence, and therefore is what should be taught in schools.

Evolution and theism can coexist. I think it's a plausible theory that God, or another intelligent being or beings, created and, possibly, had a hand in the evolution of species. After all, we haven't even come close to proving anything before the Big Bang (which itself isn't quite proven). And an intelligent being provides a convenient end against which we can rest our minds, rather than contemplating the infinity of time previous to any sort of creation. Because if you try to think too hard about what came before the beginning of the start of the universe, your head starts to hurt.

I think you are mixing up what newspapers say and what scientists say.

bitchy, True :D but bitchy

No, I want leaders with a basic level of education.

Because if you try to think too hard about what came before the beginning of the start of the universe, your head starts to hurt.

Yeah, I totally want leaders who don't think because that makes their head hurt :rolleyes:

Anyone with no understanding of the philosophy and science and of religion should, by that assertion, be unfit for office. That leaves us with all world leaders and the majority of above posters unfit for office.

When people will understand that science indicates probable not absolute truths by definition, and that it is only better than religion in that it is based on values and conceptions more modern than religion (emipricism is no more true than faith) then they will be far less disciminating and far better for office.

Given reality though, I'm pretty sure a good leader would be far better served by a sound knowledge of the economy than a dogmatic belief in science.

NB: I am an atheist.

Anyway, much scientific discussion is of a highly contentous nature anyway, one year, they say that chocolate is bad for you, the next they say that chocolate is good for you.Chocolate is bad for your teeth and good for your endorphins. Not that hard to grasp that good for you and bad for you are not mutually exclusive.

Should we vote for people who ignore scientific evidence in favour of dogmatic belief?

I think that's a great way to phrase the question, because it's not the specific case of acceptance/non-acceptance of evolution by a leader that worries me as much as what non-acceptance suggests about their ability to evaluate evidence. I want my leaders to be able to rationally evaluate evidence of all kinds, whether it's a scientific briefing or an intelligence report. I want them to be able to sort out "what we know" from "what we might conclude" and from "what we really, really want to be true." If they just shrug off bucketloads of scientific evidence for evolution because they don't like the conclusion, couldn't they easily do the same thing with evidence that (for example) suggests our biggest trading partner is about to launch a surprise attack on us?

I wouldn't go that far. But I would say that someone who does not believe in evolution, or at least accept that that is a probable possibility, should not be making decisions for me. And if someone doesn't believe in the proven scientific fact of natural selection, then the definitely shouldn't hold office. If you can't accept a scientifically proven fact because it sort of contradicts a story that was written before we knew the world was round, then you aren't fit to make major decisions.

This reminds me of a quote from the later years of The West Wing. A presidential candidate is asked about Intelligent Design, and he says "I believe there is a creator, and I like to think he's intelligent." He then goes on to explain that his beliefs aren't what matter. Evolution is what the scientists have concluded is the reality, based on the evidence, and therefore is what should be taught in schools.

Evolution and theism can coexist. I think it's a plausible theory that God, or another intelligent being or beings, created and, possibly, had a hand in the evolution of species. After all, we haven't even come close to proving anything before the Big Bang (which itself isn't quite proven). And an intelligent being provides a convenient end against which we can rest our minds, rather than contemplating the infinity of time previous to any sort of creation. Because if you try to think too hard about what came before the beginning of the start of the universe, your head starts to hurt.

^ This

No, I want leaders with a basic level of education.

Yeah, I totally want leaders who don't think because that makes their head hurt :rolleyes:
That's all we have in the States.;)

But I meant that as in thinking in infinities. I don't want a leader who's head hurts thinking about the difference between Iraq and Iran, but I don't mind one who's head hurts thinking about the infinite beginning of time, or what's outside of the entire universe.

I want them to be able to sort out "what we know" from "what we might conclude" and from "what we really, really want to be true."
nicely phrased.

If someone's so delusional that they don't believe evolution, they belong in an insane asylum.