Is my belief ID or evolution? split from the Physics of the impossible thread

[birdless]

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! That's what I'm saying, and what I meant when I said that I didn't think we were discussing the same topic. 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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

... 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.

[birdless]

…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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

…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! 

[stePH]

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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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. )

[birdless]

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!

[wintermute]

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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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"?   

[wintermute]

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.

[tpi]

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. :-)

[DKT]

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 

[wintermute]

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.

[DKT]

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. 

[stePH]

Iced tea.

Hey, what's wrong with that?  It's got sugar in it.  Sometimes. 

Mine never does.  And I'm one of the rare 'merkins who prefers tea over coffee, though I like both.

[tpi]

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.

[DKT]

Hrm.  Maybe it's time for me to look into immigrating to Finland...