Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: birdless on May 08, 2008, 09:18:42 PM
-
After all, science is all about observing the world and drawing conclusions from those observations. Any scientist who thought that bees couldn't fly would be laughed out of the lab.
The "science can't explain how bees fly" angle has been used by an "intelligent design" family member to point out that there are things in nature that can only be explained by unnatural or supernatural methods. So I'm happy to hear when explanations are found for all these "unexplainable" events.
While I do believe in 'Intelligent Design,' I've never heard the bees myth used as proof of it... I actually find that pretty humorous! And somehow a little sad at the same time, that someone would actually try to use that. No offense to your family members.
I mean, my first reaction wasn't that it was a miracle, but that it was obviously some physical property that just wasn't understood, yet... that anyone would assume otherwise... that just makes me sigh a little.
-
I
While I do believe in 'Intelligent Design,' I've never heard the bees myth used as proof of it... I actually find that pretty humorous! And somehow a little sad at the same time, that someone would actually try to use that. No offense to your family members.
I mean, my first reaction wasn't that it was a miracle, but that it was obviously some physical property that just wasn't understood, yet... that anyone would assume otherwise... that just makes me sigh a little.
I'm having trouble trying to avoid saying something that might start a flame war. So ... I'm just gonna ask ... why be willing to accept that science will find an explanation for one physical phenomena but be unwilling to accept that explanation for another? Is it just the "we can't observe evolution" argument?
-
I'm having trouble trying to avoid saying something that might start a flame war. So ... I'm just gonna ask ... why be willing to accept that science will find an explanation for one physical phenomena but be unwilling to accept that explanation for another? Is it just the "we can't observe evolution" argument?
If you *really* want to talk about this, I give you our ID Hall of Infamy:
Predestination and Free Will (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=838.0)
Poll: Evolution or ID (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1068.0)
Pet Peeves (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=523.0)
what is life? (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=910.0)
What have you changed your mind about? (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1285.0)
Christianity in Fiction (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=815.0)
Knock yerself out, mate! ;D
-
To be fair, neither birdless or I have been involved in any of those threads. In fact I was only on the boards when one of them happened and I don't see much evolution debate there. I think it's a fair question, I'm just trying to clarify his position not start an argument.
-
To be fair, neither birdless or I have been involved in any of those threads. In fact I was only on the boards when one of them happened and I don't see much evolution debate there. I think it's a fair question, I'm just trying to clarify his position not start an argument.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were out of line; just wanted to show you some of The Forum's Greatest Hits. (And it was a subtle way of warning you about how nasty Russell can get. ;) As opposed to his usually cuddly crustaceousness!)
-
To be fair, neither birdless or I have been involved in any of those threads. In fact I was only on the boards when one of them happened and I don't see much evolution debate there. I think it's a fair question, I'm just trying to clarify his position not start an argument.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were out of line; just wanted to show you some of The Forum's Greatest Hits. (And it was a subtle way of warning you about how nasty Russell can get. ;) As opposed to his usually cuddly crustaceousness!)
I was all ready to pull it to one of those threads. Thanks for posting the links and saving me the trouble.
To be honest I wanted to ask some questions too, because I find that the most intelligent people, who say they believe ID, don't really know all of what ID says.
If anyone wants, feel free to do a little threadromancy to any of the threads TAD listed.
-
I'm having trouble trying to avoid saying something that might start a flame war. So ... I'm just gonna ask ... why be willing to accept that science will find an explanation for one physical phenomena but be unwilling to accept that explanation for another? Is it just the "we can't observe evolution" argument?
If you *really* want to talk about this, I give you our ID Hall of Infamy:
Predestination and Free Will (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=838.0)
Poll: Evolution or ID (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1068.0)
Pet Peeves (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=523.0)
what is life? (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=910.0)
What have you changed your mind about? (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1285.0)
Christianity in Fiction (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=815.0)
Knock yerself out, mate! ;D
There was an intense, knock down-drag out debate about evolution & ID in November but it got wiped out in the Great Server Crash.
-
Yeah, I don't want to start a big thing, either. You're as likely to change my mind as I am yours.
And, per Russel's statement, maybe I shouldn't have used the term ID at all. The reason I put 'Intelligent Design' (in quotes) was because it's so vague as to specifically saying what I believe. All I know about the term "ID" is that it attributes existence to an undefined higher power, and that may not even be a correct summation.
As I've stated in one of these threads, I am a Christian, and, while I may be uncertain about the literalness of the creation story in Genesis, that doesn't mean I don't believe that God had a direct hand in creating existence, setting up the rules for that existence, etc. Being a man of faith shouldn't mutually exclude me from being a man of science, as well.
For what it's worth, Qwints, I thought you phrased your question civilly enough, and I appreciate it.
<edited for clarity>
-
There was an intense, knock down-drag out debate about evolution & ID in November but it got wiped out in the Great Server Crash.
Ah, so that's what happened to it. Here I was thinking I'd dreamed the whole thing, which was pretty cool because I believe my arguments made slightly more sense than my normal dream argumentation which generally goes along the lines of "Because of the thermal continuity of Nike shoes combined with a perfectly coiffed Eddie Izzard, there is an inordinate amo.... LOOK! A GIANT MAN-EATING CATERPILLAR!"
-
There was an intense, knock down-drag out debate about evolution & ID in November but it got wiped out in the Great Server Crash.
Ah, so that's what happened to it. Here I was thinking I'd dreamed the whole thing, which was pretty cool because I believe my arguments made slightly more sense than my normal dream argumentation which generally goes along the lines of "Because of the thermal continuity of Nike shoes combined with a perfectly coiffed Eddie Izzard, there is an inordinate amo.... LOOK! A GIANT MAN-EATING CATERPILLAR!"
LOL! I remember it well because at about the same time my small town's newspaper published an anti-evolution editorial written by one of the staff full of ridiculous statements and incorrect information. I collected a bunch of information for my letter to the editor which I also regugitated in the fourm.
-
Yeah, I don't want to start a big thing, either. You're as likely to change my mind as I am yours.
And, per Russel's statement, maybe I shouldn't have used the term ID at all. The reason I put 'Intelligent Design' (in quotes) was because it's so vague as to specifically saying what I believe. All I know about the term "ID" is that it attributes existence to an undefined higher power, and that may not even be a correct summation.
As I've stated in one of these threads, I am a Christian, and, while I may be uncertain about the literalness of the creation story in Genesis, that doesn't mean I don't believe that God had a direct hand in creating existence, setting up the rules for that existence, etc. Being a man of faith shouldn't mutually exclude me from being a man of science, as well.
For what it's worth, Qwints, I thought you phrased your question civilly enough, and I appreciate it.
<edited for clarity>
Birdless, if I can put words in your mouth, it sounds like you believe god set up a bunch of rules and that's how we have life. That is perfectly in line with evolution. There is no way to tell if nature is running God 2.1 software or if it did it alone.
ID says, for example, the structure of the eye is too complex to have been made anyother way than the direct hand of a higher being. It totally ignores the fact that you can easily connect the dots from light sensitive single celled organisms to the human eye. ID is just a rehashing of Creationism. It's just saying we're too good to have come from the same ancestor as chimps and bonoboes.
If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person. If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.
I have just taken the can and spilled the worms all over the floor. If this discussion sprouts it's own legs, one of us moderators will split it off. I like the original topic and don't want it squashed.
-
If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person. If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.
I agree with everything else, but the characterization of God 'converting' us from apes is badly worded — it implies agency where there shouldn't be any. Evolution doesn't allow for any agency in speciation excepting selective breeding.
-
Evolution doesn't deny the possibility of agency, exactly. It just says that the evidence is consistent with there not being any such agency. The evidence is also consistent with there being an omnipotent entity who caused certain key mutations to happen (in some undetectable way) so that humans evolved.
Ockham's Razor says that the latter option is less likely, but it's certainly not ruled out.
-
If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person. If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.
I don't think that's true. Some ID people believe that god converted us from apes, and think that a supernatural power is guiding this change (evolution). Whereas a Darwin-believing naturalist would believe that purely natural forces drive these changes? I agree that ID is just a rehash of creationism and any doctrine based on a supernatural force shouldn't be included as a science, which is based on natural theories.
And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor. If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.
-
Evolution doesn't deny the possibility of agency, exactly. It just says that the evidence is consistent with there not being any such agency. The evidence is also consistent with there being an omnipotent entity who caused certain key mutations to happen (in some undetectable way) so that humans evolved.
Ockham's Razor says that the latter option is less likely, but it's certainly not ruled out.
Yes. The agent in question could also be an invisible pink unicorn. Or an alien, which is probably a few more orders of magnitude more likely than a god, and no agents what so ever is a lot more orders of magnitude more likely.
Inserting agency into a process which requires none is just silly and unnecessary. Granted, it may be possible, but Occam's razor makes us discard the possibility of agency unless presented with evidence of agency, of which there is none.
-
And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor. If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.
Well, true. But that common ancestor was an ape. Just not any currently extant ape.
-
Evolution doesn't deny the possibility of agency, exactly. It just says that the evidence is consistent with there not being any such agency. The evidence is also consistent with there being an omnipotent entity who caused certain key mutations to happen (in some undetectable way) so that humans evolved.
Ockham's Razor says that the latter option is less likely, but it's certainly not ruled out.
Yes. The agent in question could also be an invisible pink unicorn. Or an alien, which is probably a few more orders of magnitude more likely than a god, and no agents what so ever is a lot more orders of magnitude more likely.
Inserting agency into a process which requires none is just silly and unnecessary. Granted, it may be possible, but Occam's razor makes us discard the possibility of agency unless presented with evidence of agency, of which there is none.
Agreed.
-
And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor. If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.
"Chimps" are a subset of "apes". Just sayin'.
-
And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor. If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.
"Chimps" are a subset of "apes". Just sayin'.
So are baboons and humans.
-
Thought baboons were in the "monkey" set. My understanding was that "apes" meant gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and (arguably) humans.
-
Birdless, if I can put words in your mouth, it sounds like you believe god set up a bunch of rules and that's how we have life. That is perfectly in line with evolution. There is no way to tell if nature is running God 2.1 software or if it did it alone.
ID says, for example, the structure of the eye is too complex to have been made anyother way than the direct hand of a higher being. It totally ignores the fact that you can easily connect the dots from light sensitive single celled organisms to the human eye. ID is just a rehashing of Creationism. It's just saying we're too good to have come from the same ancestor as chimps and bonoboes.
If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person. If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.
I have just taken the can and spilled the worms all over the floor. If this discussion sprouts it's own legs, one of us moderators will split it off. I like the original topic and don't want it squashed.
Okay, well, so as to try to not completely derail this thread and start some huge debate that has apparently already been hashed through here before, let's just try to take this as a personal question directed at me (which is cool), and this is my answer:
Apparently this is somewhat murky territory for me. Growing up, I was taught straight Creationism, a literal interpretation of the accounts in Genesis. As my horizons broadened, I found out that some contend that Genesis contains two stories of creation, and it was in the second that gives us the story of the creation of Adam, et al (it's in this theory that allows for an older earth, the fossil record, etc.). Obviously, there is enough geological evidence out there that, assuming Genesis is literal, makes it obvious that a complete account of all that happened to give rise to "life, the universe and everything" is not contained there.
The best I can put it is: I would prefer to believe that man was created, and that common structure in virtually all life is due to the "style of the artist," as it were, but I really don't know, and I don't base my relationship with God on the knowledge of how the universe popped into existence. Even if life did evolve, I believe God had direct involvement (the whole "style of the artist" thing, again), and, well, like you said (re: "God 2.1 software" sentence), I really don't think there's more either of us can really say on it from that point. ;)
-
Thought baboons were in the "monkey" set. My understanding was that "apes" meant gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and (arguably) humans.
Gorillas, orangs and chimps (humans should be considered one of the three species of chimp, but they tend to have this odd superiority complex that makes that unpopular) are the Great Apes. There's another family of apes known (imaginatively) as the Lesser Apes, consisting of gibbons and siamangs.
Baboons, it seems are Old World monkeys, making them more closely related to apes than to New World monkeys, but you are correct; they are not apes, as I should have remembered. Apologies.
-
If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person. If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.
I don't think that's true. Some ID people believe that god converted us from apes, and think that a supernatural power is guiding this change (evolution). Whereas a Darwin-believing naturalist would believe that purely natural forces drive these changes? I agree that ID is just a rehash of creationism and any doctrine based on a supernatural force shouldn't be included as a science, which is based on natural theories.
And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor. If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.
1) When discussing ID, saying "some ID people" is irrelevant. ID is put forward as a finished concept by the Dicovery Institute and is very well-defined. You can say, "some people who believe some of ID think", but that has nothing to do with our topic here.
2) I stated the common ancestor part earlier. I used ape simply because it was easier than saying ancestrial apelike creature.
3) Evolution doesn't say why genetic mutations happen or why certain enviromental pressures happen. There is no way you can say god definately isn't tweaking the code every so often. You can only say that he didn't design the elephant without going through the protosoa. ID wants to say god made monkeys, apes, and humans all seperately and from all new parts.
-
3) Evolution doesn't say why genetic mutations happen or why certain enviromental pressures happen. There is no way you can say god definately isn't tweaking the code every so often. You can only say that he didn't design the elephant without going through the protosoa. ID wants to say god made monkeys, apes, and humans all seperately and from all new parts.
There is a good article in this month's Scientific American which addresses "switches" in DNA which trigger evolution.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution)
The key concepts of the article are:
Because genes encode instructions for building animal bodies, biologists once expected to find significant genetic differences among animals, reflecing their great diversity of forms. Instead very dissimilar animals have turned out to have very similar genes.
Mutations in DNA “switches” that control body-shaping genes, rather than in the genes themselves, have been a significant source of evolving differences among animals.
If humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes.
I think/hope someday we'll discover that there are natural reasons for these switches being turned on and we'll be able to stop using the supernatural to explain what we don't understand like the ancients did with the sun, moon, rain, drought, etc, etc, etc.
-
I have just taken the can and spilled the worms all over the floor.
Just had to see that line again. ;D
-
I have just taken the can and spilled the worms all over the floor.
Just had to see that line again. ;D
Glad you like it. And there it is again.
-
3) Evolution doesn't say why genetic mutations happen or why certain enviromental pressures happen. There is no way you can say god definately isn't tweaking the code every so often. You can only say that he didn't design the elephant without going through the protosoa. ID wants to say god made monkeys, apes, and humans all seperately and from all new parts.
There is a good article in this month's Scientific American which addresses "switches" in DNA which trigger evolution.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution)
The key concepts of the article are:
Because genes encode instructions for building animal bodies, biologists once expected to find significant genetic differences among animals, reflecing their great diversity of forms. Instead very dissimilar animals have turned out to have very similar genes.
Mutations in DNA “switches” that control body-shaping genes, rather than in the genes themselves, have been a significant source of evolving differences among animals.
If humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes.
I think/hope someday we'll discover that there are natural reasons for these switches being turned on and we'll be able to stop using the supernatural to explain what we don't understand like the ancients did with the sun, moon, rain, drought, etc, etc, etc.
I feel the need to state my real position. I don't believe in any force greater than the force I wield as the head of TCoRN.
My statements here have been simply to show that the arguement, "Evolution is anti-God, therefore I believe in ID" is a load of crap. Evolution doesn't say there is no god. It's totally mute on the topic. Which is good, because science and religion need to be kept very seperate.
Even if you believe in god, you can look at ID and see it's garbage. Believing in god does not equal believing any crap someone tells you, just because, "it's god's way". Believing in god doesn't mean you need to stop thinking.
-
What he said.
-
There is a good article in this month's Scientific American which addresses "switches" in DNA which trigger evolution.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution)
The key concepts of the article are:
Because genes encode instructions for building animal bodies, biologists once expected to find significant genetic differences among animals, reflecing their great diversity of forms. Instead very dissimilar animals have turned out to have very similar genes.
Mutations in DNA “switches” that control body-shaping genes, rather than in the genes themselves, have been a significant source of evolving differences among animals.
If humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes.
I think/hope someday we'll discover that there are natural reasons for these switches being turned on and we'll be able to stop using the supernatural to explain what we don't understand like the ancients did with the sun, moon, rain, drought, etc, etc, etc.
It's been a long time since I was involved in transcription regulation to any great extent, but I thought there was a lot of knowledge on these mechanisms around the place. Now I'm going to have to go and read about it all again. Jeez. You keep on top of a couple of fields and suddenly find you're years behind on others.
-
What he said.
Dang... that's pretty much what I said, too, but I couldn't get it to post this a.m. :(
-
Evolution doesn't say there is no god. It's totally mute on the topic.
I think you probably do a service by stating that "for the record."
Even if you believe in god, you can look at ID and see it's garbage. Believing in god does not equal believing any crap someone tells you, just because, "it's god's way".
Now this I wrestled with replying to, because my reply is going to sound moderator-ish, and you're a moderator and I'm not, so I may be overstepping my bounds, and if I am, I apologize, but:
Don't you think this statement is a bit inflammatory? I mean, there are some intelligent people who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account written in Genesis. Stating "aloud" that their belief is 'garbage' and 'crap' is pretty disrespectful, even though that is the way you feel. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't feel this way, I'm just saying that maybe those terms aren't in the best interest of civil discussion.
Let me also say that I am maybe being too sensitive, because I'll be the first to admit that I can be overly sensitive, but, well, just thought I'd make the suggestion, anyway.
Believing in god doesn't mean you need to stop thinking.
Again, a statement that probably bears repeating! :)
-
I mean, there are some intelligent people who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account written in Genesis. Stating "aloud" that their belief is 'garbage' and 'crap' is pretty disrespectful, even though that is the way you feel. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't feel this way, I'm just saying that maybe those terms aren't in the best interest of civil discussion.
We'd have to define "intelligent". Any one who knows a lick of science can figure out that the creation account in Genesis isn't the way things went down. I guess a person could be scientifically illiterate but be knowledgeable in other subjects and still be considered "intelligent".
-
Don't you think this statement is a bit inflammatory? I mean, there are some intelligent people who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account written in Genesis. Stating "aloud" that their belief is 'garbage' and 'crap' is pretty disrespectful, even though that is the way you feel. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't feel this way, I'm just saying that maybe those terms aren't in the best interest of civil discussion.
If intelligent people honestly believe that the Earth stays in its orbit because invisible pixies push it around, do we do them any favours by trying to be respectful of that belief, rather than just saying "No, that's wrong. It's so wrong that it's complete crap.", and then explaining about gravity?
I honestly believe that the belief that every biologist of the last 150 years is either incompetent or dishonest is offensive, and does not deserve any respect (though the people that hold that belief may well be very worthy of respect). This is not to say that I go out of my way to insult said belief, but I see no reason to pussyfoot around it to make sure I don't cause offence.
-
Even if you believe in god, you can look at ID and see it's garbage. Believing in god does not equal believing any crap someone tells you, just because, "it's god's way".
Don't you think this statement is a bit inflammatory? I mean, there are some intelligent people who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account written in Genesis. Stating "aloud" that their belief is 'garbage' and 'crap' is pretty disrespectful, even though that is the way you feel. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't feel this way, I'm just saying that maybe those terms aren't in the best interest of civil discussion.
No, Russell's statement was not "believing in God is garbage"... nor did he necessarily state (this time) that believing that God created the world is garbage. He specified: ID is garbage. And since he had just finished pointing out that evolution is mute on the subject of god, I think that makes an important distinction. That being that evolution is *one* part of an explanation of how life came to be on this planet; while ID is a political movement based on false logic, intended to foist purely religious teachings off as "science".
When ID was first explained to me, I thought, "Oh, good... Christians are finally realizing that the Theory of Evolution is no threat to their belief system." I was wrong. ID is to science what Elections are to Russia; a mockery based on a commonly believed fiction.
I'll expand on that briefly: In Russia, they hold an election, but everyone knows who they're supposed to vote for in advance. Then, when they are criticized for being an authoritarian dictatorship, they say, "Hey, we have democracy... it's just our own kind of democracy." ID does the same thing; by changing the definition of "science", ID hopes to re-brand the Creation Myth as "science" - their own kind of science.
I'm sure you understand the concept of mathematical subsets, so I won't try to draw a picture; but the idea here is that "birdless", "some intelligent people who still believe in ID", "the Pope", "ID", and "Jesus" are all subsets of "Christianity". If Russell had said " Christianity is garbage", that would encompass the other sets, and you'd have every right to be offended. So would Jesus and the Pope. But since he said "ID is garbage", that criticism lacks the transmutative property necessary to tarnish the other subsets. (Okay, so those "intelligent people" might be mad... without specifics, they are just Invisible Pink Unicorns, AFAIC.)
QED, just as you (as a believer) would not follow anyone who claims to be a believer simply because they *claim* to share your faith, you don't need to take offense when someone derides a crackpot idea that some have mistaken for theology. It's not the same subset.
-
Even if you believe in god, you can look at ID and see it's garbage. Believing in god does not equal believing any crap someone tells you, just because, "it's god's way".
Don't you think this statement is a bit inflammatory?
This was me being very diplomatic on the subject. ID and abstinence based sex ed. are two of the greatest threats to our children. They are also part of the reason I don't want to move back to the states and put my kids in the public education system.
When challenged I can get very nasty on both subjects, but I'm hoping we can be civil.
The bottom line on ID is that the creators don't even believe their own theory. Proper sciencentific process is to take your findings and publish them in a peer review journal. Other scientists then get to take out the sticks and beat your results until they say it stands up or they prove it's junk. The Discovery Institute refuses to release any of their evidence. They publish books about ID and say they have fool proof evidence. But they refuse to show it. They want to teach it in the schools, but we can't inspect it. Name me one thing you would allow to be taught in schools if all of the supporting evidence was kept secret.
-
Even if you believe in god, you can look at ID and see it's garbage. Believing in god does not equal believing any crap someone tells you, just because, "it's god's way".
Don't you think this statement is a bit inflammatory?
This was me being very diplomatic on the subject. ID and abstinence based sex ed. are two of the greatest threats to our children. They are also part of the reason I don't want to move back to the states and put my kids in the public education system.
This bothers the hell out of me. The religious in this country are trying like hell to get ID in to public schools in some states. Meanwhile, the US is falling behind other coutries in science literacy and has one of the lowest acceptance rates of evolution of all the industrialized countries. I know I've written this before - my wife is a middle school science teacher and every year when they go over evolution she gets phone calls and e-mails from upset parents because "that's not what their family believes". Unbelievable! Hey folks, it's SCIENCE class. Adam & Eve and Noah's ark can be studied and enjoyed at your place of worship on Sundays.
-
The main problem with ID lies not in what Behe and Dembski are saying, but what they're (willingly) being used as a cover for - putting the argument for God from design into school. Behe and Dembski's analysis is wrong, but it's not as unscientific as is often portrayed. (see : http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_behe_the_edge_of_evolution (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_behe_the_edge_of_evolution)) The problem is that some people are so determined to get religion into public schools by any means available.
The Discovery Institute refuses to release any of their evidence. They publish books about ID and say they have fool proof evidence. But they refuse to show it. They want to teach it in the schools, but we can't inspect it.
I haven't heard this claim. I know there has been at least one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal though not by regular channels. From what I can tell irreducible complexity and specified information aren't hidden arguments, they're just incorrect ones.
-
Wow. Okay, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all, but since I exercised poor judgment, let me try to respond to the responses...
We'd have to define "intelligent". Any one who knows a lick of science can figure out that the creation account in Genesis isn't the way things went down. I guess a person could be scientifically illiterate but be knowledgeable in other subjects and still be considered "intelligent".
Yeah, that's basically what I meant. As much as it baffles us here, there are some people who just take no real interest in science. They are definitely knowledgeable about other areas of interest, just maybe not so much science. This can get frustrating when these people happen to be religious and just simply like to argue.
If intelligent people honestly believe that the Earth stays in its orbit because invisible pixies push it around, do we do them any favours by trying to be respectful of that belief, rather than just saying "No, that's wrong. It's so wrong that it's complete crap.", and then explaining about gravity?
I honestly believe that the belief that every biologist of the last 150 years is either incompetent or dishonest is offensive, and does not deserve any respect (though the people that hold that belief may well be very worthy of respect). This is not to say that I go out of my way to insult said belief, but I see no reason to pussyfoot around it to make sure I don't cause offence.
With all due respect Winter, I think you overstate or complicate or misrepresent the opposing view. Well, okay, let me qualify that: I don't know of any Creationist (let's call it what it is) that subscribes to any variation of that. Just because Peter Griffin (http://www.familyguyfun.com/north.html) says 'Christians don't believe in gravity' doesn't make it true. ;)
You are correct in saying that the belief that every biologist of the past 150 years is dishonest is offensive. There have been people on both sides of the issue who touted dishonest findings to try to prove their side, which hasn't helped the whole situation at all. And they are by far the exception rather than the rule. But your last statement is where we differ: I often go out of my way to try to avoid causing offense. I think that's totally a personality thing, though, not anything related to our belief systems.
No, Russell's statement was not "believing in God is garbage"... nor did he necessarily state (this time) that believing that God created the world is garbage. He specified: ID is garbage. And since he had just finished pointing out that evolution is mute on the subject of god, I think that makes an important distinction. That being that evolution is *one* part of an explanation of how life came to be on this planet; while ID is a political movement based on false logic, intended to foist purely religious teachings off as "science".
When ID was first explained to me, I thought, "Oh, good... Christians are finally realizing that the Theory of Evolution is no threat to their belief system." I was wrong. ID is to science what Elections are to Russia; a mockery based on a commonly believed fiction.
I'll expand on that briefly: In Russia, they hold an election, but everyone knows who they're supposed to vote for in advance. Then, when they are criticized for being an authoritarian dictatorship, they say, "Hey, we have democracy... it's just our own kind of democracy." ID does the same thing; by changing the definition of "science", ID hopes to re-brand the Creation Myth as "science" - their own kind of science.
I'm sure you understand the concept of mathematical subsets, so I won't try to draw a picture; but the idea here is that "birdless", "some intelligent people who still believe in ID", "the Pope", "ID", and "Jesus" are all subsets of "Christianity". If Russell had said " Christianity is garbage", that would encompass the other sets, and you'd have every right to be offended. So would Jesus and the Pope. But since he said "ID is garbage", that criticism lacks the transmutative property necessary to tarnish the other subsets. (Okay, so those "intelligent people" might be mad... without specifics, they are just Invisible Pink Unicorns, AFAIC.)
QED, just as you (as a believer) would not follow anyone who claims to be a believer simply because they *claim* to share your faith, you don't need to take offense when someone derides a crackpot idea that some have mistaken for theology. It's not the same subset.
Tad, you always give a lot to respond to! :D Okay, first, I never said that Russell said that "Believing in God is garbage." But you make appropriate delineation to specify he said "ID is garbage." And your statement that ID is a political movement is scarily true. I wish that weren't the case. I hadn't thought of it in those terms until you framed it that way. I think, though, that I'm beginning to see an underlying issue here that I haven't heard stated (correct me if I'm wrong on any point here): the "ID side" (I don't like that blanket term, but let's just use it for simplification) want to see more of a partnership between religion and science, whereas the other side want it to remain mutually exclusive. I'm very conflicted on this, because I can definitely see the dangers of the former, but it's also frustrating that theoretical science seems to start from the assumption that God doesn't exist. I can't say that that should be "fixed," but it is frustrating to this believer. I'm trying to think of an analogy to help you see my frame of mind, but the best I can come up with is this: it's like spaghetti without noodles. It may taste pretty good, but something is missing. (And honestly, the Invisible Spaghetti Monster didn't pop into my head until now ::) ) I also didn't mean to imply that I was offended. I can see where you may have gotten that idea, but it wasn't so much that I was offended as just try to diffuse a situation that hadn't occurred yet. But, you're probably right, and I admitted as much in my initial post, that I'm probably just being oversensitive. It can be a blessing and a curse.
The bottom line on ID is that the creators don't even believe their own theory. Proper sciencentific process is to take your findings and publish them in a peer review journal. Other scientists then get to take out the sticks and beat your results until they say it stands up or they prove it's junk. The Discovery Institute refuses to release any of their evidence. They publish books about ID and say they have fool proof evidence. But they refuse to show it. They want to teach it in the schools, but we can't inspect it. Name me one thing you would allow to be taught in schools if all of the supporting evidence was kept secret.
See, you know more about the ID political movement than I do. Way more. It's not something I personally find especially important relative to other things that need to be fixed. All that you stated about the Discovery Institute is news to me. I'm honestly not even that familiar with that institution. But any "scientific" institution that keeps their findings secret is begging for ridicule. I can better understand why you chose the terms you chose now.
So. All that said, I really didn't mean to try to stir anything up. In fact, I was trying to steer things away from potential escalation. I apologize if it came across as offensive.
<edit: added the escalation bit and reworded the last sentence in case it may have come across as sarcastic>
-
If intelligent people honestly believe that the Earth stays in its orbit because invisible pixies push it around, do we do them any favours by trying to be respectful of that belief, rather than just saying "No, that's wrong. It's so wrong that it's complete crap.", and then explaining about gravity?
I honestly believe that the belief that every biologist of the last 150 years is either incompetent or dishonest is offensive, and does not deserve any respect (though the people that hold that belief may well be very worthy of respect). This is not to say that I go out of my way to insult said belief, but I see no reason to pussyfoot around it to make sure I don't cause offence.
With all due respect Winter, I think you overstate or complicate or misrepresent the opposing view. Well, okay, let me qualify that: I don't know of any Creationist (let's call it what it is) that subscribes to any variation of that. Just because Peter Griffin (http://www.familyguyfun.com/north.html) says 'Christians don't believe in gravity' doesn't make it true. ;)
Oh, I'm aware that Christians fully believe in Gravity. The Pope even conceded the point in 1992. It was what I like to call an "analogy"; disbelief that gravity is responsible for the movement of the planets is exactly as rational as disbelief that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.
You are correct in saying that the belief that every biologist of the past 150 years is dishonest is offensive. There have been people on both sides of the issue who touted dishonest findings to try to prove their side, which hasn't helped the whole situation at all. And they are by far the exception rather than the rule. But your last statement is where we differ: I often go out of my way to try to avoid causing offense. I think that's totally a personality thing, though, not anything related to our belief systems.
Fine. So when the local schoolboard decides not to teach people that the world is older than 10,000 years, because that might offend some people, you'll be sitting there, wring your hands together bemoaning (but not too loudly) the state of modern education; and I'll be out there campaigning to have actual science taught in science classes, and not giving a shit who I offend with that crazy idea.
Sometimes, people need to be offended. Like I say, I'm not going to deliberately offend someone, but if they put themselves in a position where they're going to be offended by me doing what I strongly believe to be the right thing, then their feelings are a regrettable casualty.
-
Oh, I'm aware that Christians fully believe in Gravity. The Pope even conceded the point in 1992. It was what I like to call an "analogy"; disbelief that gravity is responsible for the movement of the planets is exactly as rational as disbelief that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.
Well, I'm not part of the Catholic church. As I know you are well aware, he doesn't speak for every person that believes in God. I guess I'm just saying I feel it's a poorly constructed analogy to the argument I'm trying to present, which further supports what I'm trying to say about just being careful with how we all choose to phrase things, especially when dealing with such a volatile topic. I'm aiming at the lowest common denominator, but they probably don't frequent this site. I'm probably just being too careful.
Fine. So when the local schoolboard decides not to teach people that the world is older than 10,000 years, because that might offend some people, you'll be sitting there, wring your hands together bemoaning (but not too loudly) the state of modern education; and I'll be out there campaigning to have actual science taught in science classes, and not giving a shit who I offend with that crazy idea.
Sometimes, people need to be offended. Like I say, I'm not going to deliberately offend someone, but if they put themselves in a position where they're going to be offended by me doing what I strongly believe to be the right thing, then their feelings are a regrettable casualty.
Using diplomacy to stand up for what you believe and using invective to stand up for what you believe in usually results in two completely different atmospheres (I'm not saying Russell used invective, but, for me, it seemed like language that could easily escalate; again I am overly sensitive on these types of things). I'm not suggesting closed mouths. I'm just suggesting a more careful phrasing in which to couch your beliefs. That's all. We can't control someone being offended by an idea, but we can control how we present that idea in an effort to create as civil a discussion about it as possible.
-
I guess I'm just saying I feel it's a poorly constructed analogy to the argument I'm trying to present
Are you suggesting that you'd be comfortable telling people that the idea of leprechauns pushing planets around is, frankly, stupid without worrying too much about whether or not they were offended by the idea that their understanding of the universe was less than perfect? Because I'm afraid I'm really going to have to ask you to explain the difference.
What about the fact that Tom Cruise honestly believes that he's possessed by the ghost of a trillion-year-dead alien criminal? How much tact and concern does a belief like that that honestly deserve? How much apparent validation does it get when you try and address the belief on its own terms, rather than simply saying "No, you're wrong."? I personally believe that the latter outweighs the former.
I'm certainly not talking about being deliberately insulting, and I'm more than happy to explain to people that just because you believe idiotic things doesn't make you an idiot. I'll patiently explain as much as I can, for as long as they'll let me. But there comes a point where you just have to say "Stop infecting your children, and worse, mine with this ridiculous idea."
Using diplomacy to stand up for what you believe and using invective to stand up for what you believe in usually results in two completely different atmospheres (I'm not saying Russell used invective, but, for me, it seemed like language that could easily escalate; again I am overly sensitive on these types of things). I'm not suggesting closed mouths. I'm just suggesting a more careful phrasing in which to couch your beliefs. That's all. We can't control someone being offended by an idea, but we can control how we present that idea in an effort to create as civil a discussion about it as possible.
A civil discussion is fine, as far as it goes. But if the suffragettes had limited their public discourse to the civil, women wouldn't yet have the right to vote. But they stood up and said "We don't care if you're offended by this, but you're wrong." Civil discussion is all very well when the point is to debate a point, or come to a practical compromise, but they aren't valid objectives here. Neither the scientist nor the creationist is going to be convinced by anything the other says, and compromise between truth and falsehood is, at best, meaningless.
People can hold whatever religious beliefs they like. They have that freedom, and I wouldn't dream of taking it away from them. Equally, I have the freedom to laugh uproariously at them, if I feel it's merited (and in the case of Scientology, I most certainly do). But they do not have the right to pretend that those beliefs have any scientific merit, and insist that the rest of society accept them without complaint. There is the line in the sand, that we cannot allow people to cross, no matter how much they're offended by it.
-
Fine. So when the local schoolboard decides not to teach people that the world is older than 10,000 years, because that might offend some people, you'll be sitting there, wring your hands together bemoaning (but not too loudly) the state of modern education; and I'll be out there campaigning to have actual science taught in science classes, and not giving a shit who I offend with that crazy idea.
Sometimes, people need to be offended. Like I say, I'm not going to deliberately offend someone, but if they put themselves in a position where they're going to be offended by me doing what I strongly believe to be the right thing, then their feelings are a regrettable casualty.
You know, I kind of agree with you, but I kind of don't. As a Christian, I believe in the 11th commandment God gave John Scalzi on Mt. Whatever: Don't be a Christdick (http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/2007/07/13/jesus_dickheads.html). I would imagine, regardless of whatever your beliefs are, you like that statement. You don't want Christians to be offensive. I don't want Christians to be offensive, either. But I find it interesting that it's okay to be offensive to Christians. (Part of why I find it so interesting is I occasionally really like to be offensive around some Christians but I hate it when they are offensive -- and I mean, they do all kinds of things I find offensive simply because they think it's, as you put it, *the right thing*. So I'm asking myself here as well: why the double-standard?)
Personally, I think ID is a stupid thing to teach in schools. I'm not comfortable teaching anything about religion in schools, other than in history and perhaps philosophy.
Also, as another non-moderator, I'd like to remind everyone that if you want to kick Russell's ass, there is an appropriate place on the forums to do so (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1069.0).
-
But I find it interesting that it's okay to be offensive to Christians.
It's not OK to be offensive to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians. But it's OK to do things that they choose to be offended by.
-
But I find it interesting that it's okay to be offensive to Christians.
It's not OK to be offensive to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians. But it's OK to do things that they choose to be offended by.
That bit I can completely get behind.
-
I think we're arguing about two different things, Winter. I'm just talking about choosing your words carefully. Not "what you say," but "how you say it." Just avoiding words that are just going to obscure the actual topic with feelings of hatred and anger because PersonA just called PersonB a stupid idiot. Or by calling someone's belief a load of crap. So maybe their belief is a load of crap, but I don't think you tear down walls by associative insults. Of what benefit is it to say "Your belief is a load of crap" over "Your belief is flawed"? It just comes down to a matter of a respectful tone. I'm just saying there's room for diplomacy when disagreeing with someone. You're example about suffrage is flawed. It would have to read, "We don't care if you're offended by this, you moron. Your stupid belief is a load of shit." Now, I'm sure there were suffragettes who stooped to this, but I don't think they were the key to the change in law. I think it's more due to the ones who said simply, "It's unfortunate you are offended by this, but you're wrong."
It's not OK to be offensive to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians. But it's OK to do things that they choose to be offended by.
I agree, too. Just remember the reciprocal: It would have to be okay for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians to believe/do something you are offended by, right?
-
It's not OK to be offensive to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians. But it's OK to do things that they choose to be offended by.
I agree, too. Just remember the reciprocal: It would have to be okay for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians to believe/do something you are offended by, right?
Of course it would. I deliberately tried to phrase it to be as inclusive as possible, implying that I am in the group of people labelled as "Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians", and that the same rules apply to everyone.
-
It's not OK to be offensive to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians. But it's OK to do things that they choose to be offended by.
I agree, too. Just remember the reciprocal: It would have to be okay for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians to believe/do something you are offended by, right?
Of course it would. I deliberately tried to phrase it to be as inclusive as possible, implying that I am in the group of people labelled as "Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Pastafarians", and that the same rules apply to everyone.
I thought so. At least, I thought so of you, anyway. As for as I can remember, you've always had a respectful tone to your posts. By and large, everyone here tries to keep that standard. It's one of the reasons I love this place. But I guess I got a little jumpy when I saw words used that might diverge from that norm. Generally speaking, though, it seems everyone here is mature enough so that it wouldn't be a problem, so, like I said way back, I just shouldn't have posted that to begin with. Sorry. :-\
-
I think that it's important to make clear that a belief is stupid without being offensive.
As Richard Dawkins has repeatedly said about creationism:
Now this is a belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and it is such a staggering mistake that it is very concerning to hear this. It is no small error – it is equivalent to someone believing, despite the evidence, that the width of North America from one coast to the other is only 7.8 yards.
Some beliefs are just plain dumb. I don't think Behe's irreducible complexity is quite as stupid as some might say it is.
-
Hi folks, let me offer something of a tangent. The problem I have with the ID movement (okay, one of the problems) is that they tend to polarise the positions on creation and evolution. If you're not an ID supporter, you're an 'evolutionist' (according to their definition). On the other hand, if you think God dunnit, you're into ID. Obviously, there are other positions, from a belief in pink unicorns, pastafarianism and a range of other, erm, more mainstream beliefs.
Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of work done by Christians outside of the ID framework to reinterpret theology in the light of the last 150 years of biology. A few prominent names come to mind. First there's Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teilhard_de_chardin). Teilhard was a French Jesuit who was also a palaeontologist and geologist. He believed that the universe is evolving toward the 'Omega Point' --- a sort of singularity of consciousness which is the final state planned by God. Karl Rahner is another Catholic theologian who took a similar view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rahner) position. The universe, according to Rahner, is slowly becoming conscious, and made the first step into this state with the evolution of humanity. The goal of all of this is communication with the creator of the world, God.
I find these two authors somewhat tripped out, and I do wonder what the catholics used to have in the communion wine in Europe. Having said that, I see some tantalising parallels between Rahner and Teilhard's concepts of the evolution of the universe towards consciousness and Raymond Kurzweil's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil) idea of a technological singularity.
One other theologian worth reading is Jürgen Moltmann. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurgen_Moltmann) Moltmann is far less optimistic about evolution, which leaves many victims on the way to whatever goal it might have. However, Moltmann's concern is for the relationship between God, Christ and the cosmos. God is not only interested in humans; his design includes all of creation and this has deep ethical consequences for humans now.
In the non specific sense all of these views could be considered to include an element of intelligent design --- God started with nothing, has an end point in mind, and we are now at some point between the two. However, they do allow for a lot more than the narrow 'ID' movement does, and they don't seem to be fronts for deeper social engineering. The authors also take the scientific story as read, although I do suspect they may not always understand it as well as they could have.
There are also plenty of other writers about this subject, but these three are the ones that come up in the literature a lot. In the light of this thread I find it interesting that two of them are Roman Catholic, although they are all quite influential in other less conservative Christian circles as well.
-
I thought so. At least, I thought so of you, anyway. As for as I can remember, you've always had a respectful tone to your posts. By and large, everyone here tries to keep that standard. It's one of the reasons I love this place. But I guess I got a little jumpy when I saw words used that might diverge from that norm. Generally speaking, though, it seems everyone here is mature enough so that it wouldn't be a problem, so, like I said way back, I just shouldn't have posted that to begin with. Sorry. :-\
I'm actually beginning to suspect we agree more than we think we do. I'm not in favour of gratuitously insulting people, but I don't see the point in pussyfooting around the fact that some beliefs are factually wrong. That doesn't mean telling people that they're stupid, though I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone that they're either a) so underinformed on the topic that they can't form a meaningful opinion; or b) actively lying. And, and more importantly, I wouldn't hesitate to tell that to their audience, and to demonstrate that what they say contradicts reality. Pointing out that people are egregiously wrong needs to be done, and will probably offend people; but we don't need to go out of our way to offend people more than they will be anyway.
As a side point, I've noticed a couple of people conflate Christianity and Creationism. You made some comment about my gravity analogy being invalid because no Christians disbelieved in gravity. I'd point out that no Christians believed that all the animals burst out of Brahma's forehead several trillion years ago, but that doesn't make Hindu creationism any more or less silly than the Christian variety. Christian creationism is the most visible form in America (for obvious reasons), and is the version people are attempting to teach in science class, but creationism is equally common amongst Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and pretty much any other religion you care to name. My comments are directed towards creationists and not Christians.
-
I'm actually beginning to suspect we agree more than we think we do. I'm not in favour of gratuitously insulting people, but I don't see the point in pussyfooting around the fact that some beliefs are factually wrong. That doesn't mean telling people that they're stupid, though I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone that they're either a) so underinformed on the topic that they can't form a meaningful opinion; or b) actively lying. And, and more importantly, I wouldn't hesitate to tell that to their audience, and to demonstrate that what they say contradicts reality. Pointing out that people are egregiously wrong needs to be done, and will probably offend people; but we don't need to go out of our way to offend people more than they will be anyway.
LoL! :D That's what I'm saying, and what I meant when I said that I didn't think we were discussing the same topic (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1605.msg26814#msg26814). I never suggested to not tell people that they were wrong, just to couch it in carefully chosen words so as not to exacerbate an already sensitive area.
As a side point, I've noticed a couple of people conflate Christianity and Creationism. You made some comment about my gravity analogy being invalid because no Christians disbelieved in gravity. I'd point out that no Christians believed that all the animals burst out of Brahma's forehead several trillion years ago, but that doesn't make Hindu creationism any more or less silly than the Christian variety. Christian creationism is the most visible form in America (for obvious reasons), and is the version people are attempting to teach in science class, but creationism is equally common amongst Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and pretty much any other religion you care to name. My comments are directed towards creationists and not Christians.
You're right. I made an invalid statement because you didn't specify Christians, so sorry about that.
-
... I think, though, that I'm beginning to see an underlying issue here that I haven't heard stated (correct me if I'm wrong on any point here): the "ID side" (I don't like that blanket term, but let's just use it for simplification) want to see more of a partnership between religion and science, whereas the other side want it to remain mutually exclusive.
I think you, birdless, and wintermute worked out your differences nicely; and CammoBlammo gave a lovely dissertation that offers some good examples, but the key phrase I want to point out in the quote above is "the other side". If your mission is to avoid inflammatory language, I'll ask you to mark that phrase with yellow police tape, call out the verbal bomb squad, and have it obliterated from your lexicon. Because there are far more than two sides involved in this issue, and the battle isn't about "forming a partnership" between religion and science - it's about making sure that everyone recognizes the differences between them.
There are a lot of really crackpot ideas that can sound perfectly logical, but are obviously non-scientific; sure, that electric current *could* be a demon running through the wire... and you are free to teach that to your child at home if you want. But even if a majority of people believed that, it would be wrong to teach it in science unless it was something that was proven (or, as with evolution, put forward and adopted by the relevant scientific community).
If I was King, and it was up to me to say how this should be taught in schools, I would have evolution taught as what it is: a theory that seeks to explain how things work. Religion has no place in a science lesson. If you want Creation taught in Religion class, go for it. If you want scientific "evidence" for your beliefs included in the chapter on your particular faith, that would be appropriate (as appropriate as the scriptures themselves, and linguist analysis of the translations). Religion is about faith and believing in the unseen and unprovable; Religion has no place in science BECAUSE science is about the provable, observable, and repeatable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm opposed to the main objective of ID (to teach religion as scientific fact) but open to the idea that there could actually be a God using evolution as his noodly app... I mean as his tool. Being open minded isn't the same as believing it, though, and I think far too many people of faith (yeah, I'm looking at you, Muslims... you too, Christians) take offense at the idea that other people don't believe the same thing they do. Are some atheists guilty of this, too? Hells yeah; I also don't think it's appropriate for a teacher to tell students that their faith is wrong or impossible - or idiotic - in the classroom. (Tell them in the hallway... I kid. I'd send them to their parents or pastor for the religious questions.) But the fact that teachers have been cruel to their students is no reason to turn your curriculum into a farce.
There are just too many "sides" for us to try to boil this down to 2, though; if you hear someone telling you the other side is out to get you, they are probably trying to sell you something.
-
…the key phrase I want to point out in the quote above is "the other side". If your mission is to avoid inflammatory language, I'll ask you to mark that phrase with yellow police tape, call out the verbal bomb squad, and have it obliterated from your lexicon. Because there are far more than two sides involved in this issue, and the battle isn't about "forming a partnership" between religion and science - it's about making sure that everyone recognizes the differences between them.
Point well taken. In my mind I was thinking more of the political arena, and how it's either pro or con in much the same way it's either liberal or conservative. In other words: oversimplified. My apologies for not being more clear.
Religion is about faith and believing in the unseen and unprovable; Religion has no place in science BECAUSE science is about the provable, observable, and repeatable.
Good point. That is science. I often err in thinking science is "how things work" and forgetting the "observable" part. That one word goes a long way.
If you were king, I would vote for you. The lack of watery tarts lobbing scimitars notwithstanding.
-
…the key phrase I want to point out in the quote above is "the other side". If your mission is to avoid inflammatory language, I'll ask you to mark that phrase with yellow police tape, call out the verbal bomb squad, and have it obliterated from your lexicon. Because there are far more than two sides involved in this issue, and the battle isn't about "forming a partnership" between religion and science - it's about making sure that everyone recognizes the differences between them.
Point well taken. In my mind I was thinking more of the political arena, and how it's either pro or con in much the same way it's either liberal or conservative. In other words: oversimplified. My apologies for not being more clear.
Religion is about faith and believing in the unseen and unprovable; Religion has no place in science BECAUSE science is about the provable, observable, and repeatable.
Good point. That is science. I often err in thinking science is "how things work" and forgetting the "observable" part. That one word goes a long way.
If you were king, I would vote for you. The lack of watery tarts lobbing scimitars notwithstanding.
Ah, yes... it's good to be the king! :D
-
If you [T.A.D.] were king, I would vote for you. The lack of watery tarts lobbing scimitars notwithstanding.
One does not vote for a king.
...except maybe in the retconned universe of Lucas' Star Wars episode 1, where "Queen" Amidala was elected to her position.
-
If you [T.A.D.] were king, I would vote for you. The lack of watery tarts lobbing scimitars notwithstanding.
One does not vote for a king.
...except maybe in the retconned universe of Lucas' Star Wars episode 1, where "Queen" Amidala was elected to her position.
So, you're saying I should run for Queen, as a stepping stone to the prestigious Senatorial seat, and then have my creepily young Sith boyfriend choke me out like a punk? (This is why I hate politics....it's too dangerous. ;) )
-
If you [T.A.D.] were king, I would vote for you. The lack of watery tarts lobbing scimitars notwithstanding.
One does not vote for a king.
...except maybe in the retconned universe of Lucas' Star Wars episode 1, where "Queen" Amidala was elected to her position.
So, you're saying I should run for Queen, as a stepping stone to the prestigious Senatorial seat, and then have my creepily young Sith boyfriend choke me out like a punk? (This is why I hate politics....it's too dangerous. ;) )
Come see the violence inherit in the system! Help! Help! TAD's being repressed!
-
But even if a majority of people believed that, it would be wrong to teach it in science unless it was something that was proven (or, as with evolution, put forward and adopted by the relevant scientific community).
Science does not deal in "proof". The best you can say about a theory (in fact, what it takes for a hypothesis to reach the heady heights of being a theory is that people have tried really hard to disprove it, and failed. When something explains a mountain of data and is resistant to being proved false, the scientific community accepts it.
If I was King, and it was up to me to say how this should be taught in schools, I would have evolution taught as what it is: a theory that seeks to explain how things work.
Well, this is strictly accurate, so long as you discriminate between the scientific definition of a theory (a consillient body of knowledge that accurately models the way the world works, that has been repeatedly tested against physical evidence, and that has made several accurate predictions of later discoveries) and the colloquial definition of a theory (a guess). Evolution is a stronger and better supported theory than our current theory of gravity, which contains several entities (like gravity waves) that make the maths work but have never been observed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm opposed to the main objective of ID (to teach religion as scientific fact) but open to the idea that there could actually be a God using evolution as his noodly app... I mean as his tool. Being open minded isn't the same as believing it, though, and I think far too many people of faith (yeah, I'm looking at you, Muslims... you too, Christians) take offense at the idea that other people don't believe the same thing they do. Are some atheists guilty of this, too? Hells yeah; I also don't think it's appropriate for a teacher to tell students that their faith is wrong or impossible - or idiotic - in the classroom. (Tell them in the hallway... I kid. I'd send them to their parents or pastor for the religious questions.) But the fact that teachers have been cruel to their students is no reason to turn your curriculum into a farce.
A science teacher who tells his students that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old is doing his job. A science teacher who refuses to accept that "the Bible says X" is a valid reason not to learn something is doing his job. A teacher who tells his students that science says that God doesn't exist is not only out of order but lying, and should be removed from his position as fast as possible.
There are no doubt a small number of teachers who have crossed this line, but I have a hard time believing that it's widespread enough to be a serious issue. Even the most outspoken atheists (PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins come to mind) agree that it isn't their place to deconvert their students.
-
Thanks for clarifying those points, wintermute. Did you appreciate the irony in my discussing ID (which is fundamentally about mis-defining terms such as "proof" and "science") while mis-using terms such as "proof" and "science"? :)
-
I actually didn't know exactly what you meant by "theory", but the number of times I've heard "it's just a theory" as if that's a bad thing, I thought it was worth clarifying the point.
Oddly, you very rarely hear that the germ theory of disease is "just a theory" and that exorcism should therefore get "equal time" in our teaching hospitals. Even though the Bible is far clearer on that point than on evolution.
Funny, that.
-
From my viewpoint the whole concept of "believing evolution" is strange.
It is about same as the concept of believing in the gravity.
The whole "ID" concept is one of the reasons some people in Europe think that most people in US are slightly nuts. :-)
-
The whole "ID" concept is one of the reasons some people in Europe think that most people in US are slightly nuts. :-)
Seriously? I thought it was just because we preferred coffee to tea ;)
-
The whole "ID" concept is one of the reasons some people in Europe think that most people in US are slightly nuts. :-)
Seriously? I thought it was just because we preferred coffee to tea ;)
Iced tea.
-
The whole "ID" concept is one of the reasons some people in Europe think that most people in US are slightly nuts. :-)
Seriously? I thought it was just because we preferred coffee to tea ;)
Iced tea.
Hey, what's wrong with that? It's got sugar in it. Sometimes. ;D
-
Iced tea.
Hey, what's wrong with that? It's got sugar in it. Sometimes. ;D
Mine never does. And I'm one of the rare 'merkins who prefers tea over coffee, though I like both.
-
The whole "ID" concept is one of the reasons some people in Europe think that most people in US are slightly nuts. :-)
Seriously? I thought it was just because we preferred coffee to tea ;)
Finnish people drink almost three times _more_ coffee than americans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coffee_consumption_per_capita)
So that can't be the reason.
-
Hrm. Maybe it's time for me to look into immigrating to Finland...