Faith is a funny thing...it can work wonders, or tear them down...to me, it is best left up to the individual to decide how spiritual one wants to be, and left completely out of the public sector.
It is kind of amusing to me, though, to hear scientists talk like they have the grasp on reality so firm, that they have no doubts...I usually chuckle.
"more things in heaven and on earth..." ad infinitum !

Science is the only honest way to produce explanations of the material world. Scientists know they are always somewhat ignorant, or they wouldn't be doing science in the first place. What about any nonmaterial component of reality? How can you be sure that you're not deluded in your beliefs? I think it's fine to have them, but I hate when people won't admit that their faith could ultimately be wrong. Faith isn't any sort of knowledge, because people of mutually exclusive beliefs would end up with contradicting truths. That's ridiculous.

LOL...science can barely describe small bits of the natural world, and is constantly at odds within itself, changing more than the latest fad...it is the new religion of the masses for this century, but it has more holes in it than a really good block of swiss cheese.

Science isn't a collection of data, it's a method of investigation. It's the bus, not the bus stops. The fact that it's at odds with itself is its strength. Especially since that internal conflict is never settled by genocide. Small bits of the natural world? Like atoms? Cells? What do you mean by "barely"?

Science isn't a collection of data, it's a method of investigation. It's the bus, not the bus stops. The fact that it's at odds with itself is its strength. Especially since that internal conflict is never settled by genocide. Small bits of the natural world? Like atoms? Cells? What do you mean by "barely"?

Precisely! Being at odds with itself isn't a weakness, it's a strength; as it is at odds with itself because it always looks for truth, NOT to prove that IT is correct, and everything else is wrong. It is NOT so arrogant so as to believe it may be wrong, and so seeks the truth, NOT to eliminate any other way of viewing the world.

Just my 2 cents.

Cephkid, you must be joking, right?? Scientists, not arrogant???? Wow. Just attend some meetings and watch the fur fly as one after another tries to debunk or outprove another. They act the same as evangelists !!!

Which is my point...science does a good job of explaining things we can view and understand simply, but not things that we can not...ie: how friendly are the debates about string theory vs. 'brane ??? Not very.

It does what it can do...but to say that "science" is the "end-all" is foolish and short-sighted.

greg

Cephkid, you must be joking, right?? Scientists, not arrogant???? Wow. Just attend some meetings and watch the fur fly as one after another tries to debunk or outprove another. They act the same as evangelists !!!

Which is my point...science does a good job of explaining things we can view and understand simply, but not things that we can not...ie: how friendly are the debates about string theory vs. 'brane ??? Not very.

It does what it can do...but to say that "science" is the "end-all" is foolish and short-sighted.

greg

Greg, PLEASE. "Scientists, not arrogant????" DO YOU THINK ME MAD?!?! OF COURSE SCIENTISTS are arrogant!!! How mad would I be?! Look up. (No not research, :lol: look UP. ^That way^. :grin: ). I said SCIENCE. Not scientists, science itself. Look at its history. First newton said gravity was instant. Then, Einstein proved that it wasn't. SCIENCE ITSELF is by no means arrogant, heck, science is what typically proves itself wrong! Science is not the "end all". It just is the METHOD of proving things to be true, and learning what IS true. I am a firm believer in science, but I long ago planned to be baptized the day I die just in case. :wink: Believing in science to solve everything is the mark of a fool. IMHO, the true spirit of what science should be is to look at the world with an open mind, see all possibilities, and try to learn. I sadly cannot express my feelings through writing, as I am a rather pathetic composer of speeches. :oops: Though I will say this: to get an idea of how I feel about how science should be viewed and practiced, don't look at the conflict, look at how a child thinks when they ask their parents how something works. I leave you to think about this.

Gabe

Well, I agree with you to a point...science is a wonderful tool, but it can not explain some things, and is often bolstered up only by it's own theories...a nice term for this is "bootstrap levitation", since scientists will build one theory on another, and another, and another...all supposing that they are true, then look behind them to see no ladder, but their heads are in the clouds.
then the fall comes.

Many scientists, such as Dr. SOS, Kat, Myop, and others here work with the "real" world, and can physically prove their work...but to label all sciences as the "right way" to look at the world is tunnel vision.

g

Well, I agree with you to a point...science is a wonderful tool, but it can not explain some things, and is often bolstered up only by it's own theories...a nice term for this is "bootstrap levitation", since scientists will build one theory on another, and another, and another...all supposing that they are true, then look behind them to see no ladder, but their heads are in the clouds.
then the fall comes.

Many scientists, such as Dr. SOS, Kat, Myop, and others here work with the "real" world, and can physically prove their work...but to label all sciences as the "right way" to look at the world is tunnel vision.

g
Well, yeah. :razz:

Well, yeah. :razz:

Just because there exist flaws in the way people do science sometimes doesn't mean that science itself is flawed. The scientific method has been used effectively to produce theories and models that explain the behavior of the real world and can be used to make predictions about it. These theories and models can be assessed for validity in a rigorous way. In my mind, the "real science" is that which has been validated through this process, and the discussions of "pet theories" and the like are much more about things that scientists would like to validate or invalidate, so they are the proto-science that will or won't prove to be correct by the established method.

Something that irks me to no end is when scientists (or poseurs) use "I am a scientist" as justification for saying "and therefore, my opinion is better than yours." Maybe so, maybe not, but that's often spun as "and this opinion has been validated by the scientific method" whether it has or not.

However, there are a lot of well-trained critical thinkers in the sciences, and it is pretty unusual to come up with a viewpoint or a criticism or a worldview or a theory that hasn't been thought of, discussed, and analyzed before. In the case of ID, a lot of the arguments appear to be based on "it is common sense that..." ideas which have been examined by evolutionary biologists for many years and found to be inconsistent with what they observe... ID does not explain observations or make useful predictions about the real world. Therefore, it is not science.

:twocents:

(by the way, it is not inherent in the nature of randomness that it can't be guided by some outside power-- all we can say is that on observing random events, we don't see statistical biases, but maybe God just likes the aesthetics of normal distributions or something. However, wondering about this is not science, and can't really be addressed with the scientific method.)

Monty, perfectly said !!!!

:notworth:

Just because there exist flaws in the way people do science sometimes doesn't mean that science itself is flawed. The scientific method has been used effectively to produce theories and models that explain the behavior of the real world and can be used to make predictions about it. These theories and models can be assessed for validity in a rigorous way. In my mind, the "real science" is that which has been validated through this process, and the discussions of "pet theories" and the like are much more about things that scientists would like to validate or invalidate, so they are the proto-science that will or won't prove to be correct by the established method.

Something that irks me to no end is when scientists (or poseurs) use "I am a scientist" as justification for saying "and therefore, my opinion is better than yours." Maybe so, maybe not, but that's often spun as "and this opinion has been validated by the scientific method" whether it has or not.

However, there are a lot of well-trained critical thinkers in the sciences, and it is pretty unusual to come up with a viewpoint or a criticism or a worldview or a theory that hasn't been thought of, discussed, and analyzed before. In the case of ID, a lot of the arguments appear to be based on "it is common sense that..." ideas which have been examined by evolutionary biologists for many years and found to be inconsistent with what they observe... ID does not explain observations or make useful predictions about the real world. Therefore, it is not science.

:twocents:

(by the way, it is not inherent in the nature of randomness that it can't be guided by some outside power-- all we can say is that on observing random events, we don't see statistical biases, but maybe God just likes the aesthetics of normal distributions or something. However, wondering about this is not science, and can't really be addressed with the scientific method.)


Excellent! 8-) (Say, could you teach me how to express myself through type that well? :razz:)

Cephkid,
I think you express yourself very well. You obviously think before you speak (or write, in this case) and are very good at getting your point across.

Excellent! 8-) (Say, could you teach me how to express myself through type that well? :razz:)

Thanks-- I didn't realize I'd summed up in a way that would resonnate so well with people; I just thought I was waxing opinionated!

Like Sorseress, I'd say you do pretty well expressing yourself... being confident is the best advice I can offer. You're clearly good at thinking through the ideas, and it comes across in your posts. You do seem to write as if you're speaking, and not take as much advantage as you can of the fact that you can go back and re-read what you've typed... I find that sometimes once I've gotten the ideas typed out free-form, I can go back and re-organize them into something a bit more coherent and expressive. If you get in the habit of that, you can also learn to do it as you go along, too, and develop a "writing voice" that is better suited to being read, rather than heard.

Oh, and of course, practice, practice, practice. Keeping a journal works for some people; I have a lot of friends who use livejournal.com as a "writing for writing's sake" place, and I sporadically do that myself.

another :twocents: and worth every penny, I'm sure.

Thanks-- I didn't realize I'd summed up in a way that would resonnate so well with people; I just thought I was waxing opinionated!

Like Sorseress, I'd say you do pretty well expressing yourself... being confident is the best advice I can offer. You're clearly good at thinking through the ideas, and it comes across in your posts. You do seem to write as if you're speaking, and not take as much advantage as you can of the fact that you can go back and re-read what you've typed... I find that sometimes once I've gotten the ideas typed out free-form, I can go back and re-organize them into something a bit more coherent and expressive. If you get in the habit of that, you can also learn to do it as you go along, too, and develop a "writing voice" that is better suited to being read, rather than heard.

Oh, and of course, practice, practice, practice. Keeping a journal works for some people; I have a lot of friends who use livejournal.com as a "writing for writing's sake" place, and I sporadically do that myself.

another :twocents: and worth every penny, I'm sure.

Thank you! :mrgreen: Will do! (As for resonating well, it's because you pretty much put down what I was tryin to say!:oops:)

Cephkid,
I think you express yourself very well. You obviously think before you speak (or write, in this case) and are very good at getting your point across.

Thanks. I do try! (It's kinda necessary with my level of A.D.D.---I don't speak nearly this clearly!) lol.

Thanks for the :twocents: guys and gals, worth every penny!

^______^

Gabe

Did you ever notice how many people with A.D.D. are very very bright?

Not particularly, but you may have a point there! :lol:

Did you ever notice how many people with A.D.D. are very very bright?

I certainly know a lot of very bright people with A.D.D. -- it seems like it's in the nature of A.D.D. that it makes people think a lot, just in a way that's hard to focus... but maybe the thinking a lot actually helps to practice cleverness and creativity.

I shouldn't be posting this here:

Flying Spaghetti Monster: The Game (http://www.gophergas.com/funstuff/flyingspaghettimonster.htm)

I only managed to convert 10 Pastafarians on my first attempt. :sad:

:arr:

I shouldn't be posting this here:

Flying Spaghetti Monster: The Game

I only managed to convert 10 Pastafarians on my first attempt. :sad:

:arr:

1) Yes, you should :wink:

2) Hey mon! Uncle Um... , leave us Pastafarians alone to roll our canelloni in peace, mon!

*inhales deeply* :rainbow:

John

10 for me too.

Have to say, slightly disappointed by 'Heaven.' :hmm:

You'd prefer a geyser of whisky or something? Yeah, me too. Perhaps it's time for a little Reformation.

16 for me! :grin: fun game!

22. Fear my noodly appendage. Then read this (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15744) so I can claim :nofeet:. Then repeat after me: "Thou shalt not legislate scientific merit."

:need a FSM smiley:

23! :grin:

Just finished watching Jon Stewart, and starting on Monday he will have one week devoted to Evolution vs Intelligent Design....entitled


*************Evolution, Schmevolution ****************

Should be fun! :lol:

Intelligent Falling? I'll keep my General Relativity thank you very much! I do have my pride! But in all honesty, I'm not sure what the truth is. I'm gonna have to think about this one... Tell you what, I'll slit my wrists and tell you what I find out.

See you on the other side......






I was just kidding, geez!

The Daily Show's having an expose`? I'll be sure to tune in!

"I don't mean to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God has a sick sense of humour and when I die, I expect to find him laughing at me."
If I don't find out what song that is and who sings it, I shall surely go insane.

"I don't mean to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God has a sick sense of humour and when I die, I expect to find him laughing at me."
If I don't find out what song that is and who sings it, I shall surely go insane.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/depeche-mode/39337.html

Thank you, monty! Depeche Mode? Is anyone familiar with them? The song seems sort of 80's-esque. Anyway, Evolution Schevolution kicked off today with a bang! And for anyone who saw it...

"Of course the correct answer is C, but D would've been awesome."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/science/20doce.html

Monty,

Excellent article. Very encouraging.

John

Just found this on Alternet:

Evolved Again

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted September 21, 2005.

Intelligent design has become so popular in part because it tells us we are the peak of evolution.

Apparently it's big news that the human brain is still evolving. A couple of U.S. researchers announced recently that they'd isolated two genes connected with brain size that appeared to have evolved only over the past two dozen millennia. In other words, our brains changed in the past hundred generations. Why this would be surprising to anyone even glancingly familiar with evolutionary theory is beyond me. As long as we keep engaging in sexual reproduction, we're going to be evolving. The process ain't teleological, people.

Greg Wray, a Duke University evolutionary genomics professor involved with the study, told the Associated Press, "There's a sense that we as humans have kind of peaked." But, he added, "it's almost impossible for evolution not to happen."

Nevertheless, people both in and out of the scientific community were bemused by the study. I'm tempted to say that's because the intelligent design dorks are making so many headlines that any new information about evolution -- particularly that it's still happening in an observable fashion -- pricks up our ears. But I think what this study calls attention to is the kind of weird folk belief, alluded to by Wray, that somehow we've stopped evolving. Partly this is because the Darwinian tradition is focused on the past. This is what sets evolutionary theory apart from social and political theories of human change, which often examine how the species can change itself today in order to influence the future.

I bring up politics because I think they're ultimately to blame for our short-sighted view of evolution as a process that started 200 million years ago and ended roughly in the mid-19th century, when Darwin started freaking everybody out with his ideas about humans and apes. Few people are comfortable with the idea that they're just one step in a journey toward some other thing that will probably be much cooler and better than they are. That's why intelligent design has become so popular. It's an idea that makes evolution all about who we are right now, because somebody has been guiding everything to this exact point. In other words, we are totally perfect, and nothing will ever be better. Nice try.

Thankfully, the current version of homo sapiens is just that: a current version. We can take some pride in that. We're the very latest thing. We have features prevous versions didn't have, like extra height and complicated symbolic systems for communicating. Even better, we now have a basic understanding of how we evolved. Plus, this version of homo sapiens can change itself with science faster than the previous versions could with sexual reproduction.

For example: We are about to have children born of three parents. Some medical researchers in the U.K. have announced they'll be experimenting with creating human embryos that have genetic material from two mothers and a father. The idea is to cure certain diseases inherited through maternal genetic material called mitochondrial DNA that exists outside the cell nucleus (where most DNA is housed). These babies will have one woman's nuclear DNA, another woman's mitochondrial DNA, and more nuclear DNA from the man.

How's that for changing the course of evolution? A human with three genetic parents is definitely a novel version of homo sapiens.

Of course, the people who believe that only some godlike creature or "nature" should be in charge of upgrading the species also think this is a naughty idea. Josephine Quintavalle, a rep for public interest group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, told the BBC, "It is undesirable to create children in this way. It will shock the world." Her response reminds me of the sort of thing an intelligent design adherent would say. Essentially she's arguing that we shouldn't continue to evolve, even though that's impossible.

Personally I prefer to believe that we're living in the prehistory of humankind. Nine thousand years from now, I want archeologists to dig up San Francisco from centuries of earthquake-dislodged muck and exclaim, "Wow, there was a city here!" I want my beautiful town to be like Uruk, one of the oldest cities ever discovered, whose culture and politics are as foreign to us now as San Francisco's will be to the latest version of homo sapiens. If we and our backward ways are not going to become history, then I have no hope for the future.

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who has been touched by the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster.

That's really interesting stuff there. Just to add more, there is a very interesting (although to my mind, overly snooty and cleverclogs in tone) article by someone who attended a creationist conference, only to find ID being poo-pooed in the lectures. This appears in the new issue of Fortean Times, a fine periodical that should be regularly read by all Cephfans.

Greg Wray, a Duke University evolutionary genomics professor involved with the study, told the Associated Press, "There's a sense that we as humans have kind of peaked." But, he added, "it's almost impossible for evolution not to happen.

I really hope I'm not reading this correctly, or I am going to get really pissed off.

How can ANY PhD professor push ID or Creation "Science" ... aw hell, let's just call them "conjectures".. for crying out loud? I mean, this is the 21st century, and Aristotles scala naturae and even Linnaeus' brand of directed evolution has been shown to be WRONG WRONG WRONG! Once again, our mighty vertebrate phallus waving takes us where other lifeforms are too smart to tread. What is it that that pushes evolution as a ladder? Honestly, we need to think abotu the future of science education, here and now.

:yuck: *sigh*

Well, anyway, GREAT ARTICLE Sorceress! Once again, you have your finger on the pulse! :grad:

John

I really hope I'm not reading this correctly, or I am going to get really pissed off.

John

I think you're reading it correctly. It's part of that whole 'evolution is moving towards perfection and we're at the top' nonsense. Again Fortean Times had a great series of articles about evolution and progress a couple of years back, it's errrm kind of really about ufos, but don't let that worry you. Here's what I could find online

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/134_brooketh1.shtml
http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/135_brooketh2.shtml
http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/136_brooketh3.shtml

If I remember correctly there was a response as well. Part two is the interesting stuff from our point of view.

I'm very interested in the idea that we may be too specialised now. When dinosaurs fell into place with evolution, initially because evolution was seen to be moving towards perfection (i.e. humanity) dinosaurs had to be slow and plodding, daft creatures who died out because they were too stupid not too. Now all the evidence suggests they were highly specialised and just couldn't adapt to what happened to their (and now our) world. Sobering stuff when you look at what seems to be happening (climatewise) to our world now. Will the 'simple' and 'uncomplex' inherit the earth?

:tomato: ok I'll stop!

I found this in a magazine this morning. I would have sent the url but this issue isn't on their website yet.

WARNING! Contains insulting political comments.

Off the Map
Will Durst

Unintelligent Design


Stealing valuable time from his busy schedule of clearing brush on what apparently is the most brush infested ranch in the country, President Brush encouraged our country's school districts to incorporate into their teaching plans both sides of the debate regarding the development of humanity: evolution, the theory that man descended from an infinite number of apes typing on an infinite number of typewriters, and Intelligent Design, the. idea that an unseen force (not necessarily god-but not ungodlike either) nudged our genes with big giant invisible fingers to the point where no child is left behind.
This is shocking to the same degree that goats eat shoes. Especially to anyone who's been semi-cognizant the last five years and watched Mr. Bush work his backward magic personally disproving Darwin with a series of policies stripping workers and minorities and women and anyone who
isn't an energy producer of their rights. Not only does the President not believe in evolution, but ironically he has become his own best argument. Not to mention that ID is just Creationism with a container load of aluminum siding tacked on. They try to dress it up as science, but then the lab coat slips and the collar emerges whenever you ask just who this Intelligent Designer behind the Intelligent Design is and the answer comes: "I don't know, who do YOU think it is?" OK. Hasn't anybody figured out that all these Creationism adherents have never copped to the fact that over the years religion itself has adapted?
One of the logic wedges Intelligent Designers like to jump onto with both semantic feet is the fact that Charles Darwin called his discovery "The Theory of Evolution." "See. It's just a theory!" Oh come on,
grow up. What's next? Are you going to require the Principle of Atomic Force to attend PTA meetings? What about the Law of Gravity? Does an initiative for repeal lie in its immediate future?
The theory of Intelligent Design maintains life on Earth is too complex to have developed through evolution. Too complex? Oh, no! You mean there are things we don't know? Heaven forbid.
Of course there are things we don't know. We have brains the size of peas. And I tell you, we keep dumbing down our schools, it won't
be long before the concept of mint fudge seems complicated. Not to mention the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Wasn't too long ago people thought a solar eclipse was a dragon eating the sun as it rode across the sky on the back of a giant turtle. But that was just my Uncle Bud draining a six-pack on his riding mower.
Now don't get me wrong, the Bible is a great book, but it has as much to do with science as gummy bears have to do with aerospace navigation. As far as science goes: It makes a great paperweight. How soon before 2 + 2 equals whatever God wants it to be? Back in the seventeenth century, Galileo proposed the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around, and was promptly convicted of heresy and imprisoned for the rest of his life at a time when home detention did not include even halfway decent satellite reception. In response to his pardon from the Catholic Church 400 years later, Galileo
conveniently was unavailable for comment.
If these people are really seeking alternative theories as to how life originated, I got a doozy. Santa killed the evil Martian overlords and flew us here from Pluto on his sled. How about that? Hey, it's a theory! And I want to see it included on the blackboard of every science classroom as part of the new curriculum: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Santa's Sled. At least my Santa Sled Theory is flexible enough to explain the reason for the human appendix-Martian
mark of the insurgent.
:madsci:

I found this in a magazine this morning. I would have sent the url but this issue isn't on their website yet.

WARNING! Contains insulting political comments.

Off the Map
Will Durst

Unintelligent Design

....


not really my favorite style of writing, but it's interesting to see this kind of thing aimed at the "I like ranting and raving" audience that seems to make up a disturbingly large fraction of our electorate... what magazine was it in, just out of curiosity?

One of the problems with debating evolution is that it's more intuitive to use "disproof by ridicule" against evolution than against ID, because we have such a lack of referent for the timescales and numbers of generations involved in evolution that it seems absurd in our life experience, or even our knowledge of the history of human civilization. Although this article tries to sarcastically ridicule ID, I'm not sure it pulls it off except in a "preaching to the choir" sort of way. And I'm partial to the "flying spaghetti monster" more than the "santa-martian hypothesis."

Not only does the President not believe in evolution, but ironically he has become his own best argument.

this bit reminds me of http://www.bushorchimp.com/

This came from the Oct. Issue of "The Progressive". Here's his website:
http://www.willdurst.com/

I don't know how long this link will work, but it should for the moment. A week ago, on her NPR show 'Fresh Air,' Terry Gross interviewed Chris Mooney (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4848808) about his new book The Republican War on Science, followed by Robert Walker (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4848811), former chairman of the Science Committee. Very interesting listening...

It still works. I just finished listening to Chris Mooney. I'd like to read his book.

It still works. I just finished listening to Chris Mooney. I'd like to read his book.

Yup. The Mooney interview was quite insightful. Robert Walker was an interesting case study of spin-doctoring, although even he was willing to say that anyone who pushed the idea that teaching evolution is at odds with religion was doing a disservice.

Read the numbers of believers in this B***. It's truly frightening!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html

:shock: :alarm: :goofysca:

My goodness... By what unholy measure of stupidity are these people thinking? I've read Genesis! (I even have a few of their albums - some with Peter Gabriel, a few with Phil Collins) and NOWHERE does it mention a T. rex hanging out munching lettuce with Adam and Eve. I'm pretty FREAKIN' sure that these people are being culturally-relativistic fools who believe in a ... Never mind, don't get me started before I say something I will regret...

AGAIN, great article, Sorceress.

Isn't it absolutely mind boggling that anyone can actually believe that lunacy????

T. rex used to be vegetarian? Beware, Jurassic shrubbery!!

:roflmao:

Isn't it absolutely mind boggling that anyone can actually believe that lunacy????

:yuck: that actually made me sick to my stomach. 45% of Americans believe in the literal 6000 year interpretation?!? Of course, it's equally unfathomable that there are still any, let alone lots, of people who believe things like "the sun goes around the earth." An astronomy prof friend of mine had a college undergraduate in his class who said "that's impossible" about some explanation (I think how an eclipse works) and after some discussion he found that the student thought that the moon is the sun at night (in addition to having made it into college with this belief, apparently s/he never noticed that sometimes they're both in the sky at the same time...)

I'm normally a believer that education and reason can help lead the masses beyond ignorance, but right now I'm thinking we need to reinforce the gates of our ivory towers against the barbarian hordes. (I found it very ironic that the creationist in the article described scientists as "modern philistines" -- sounds like Orwell's "knowledge is ignorance" or something... or that science fiction show V where the scientists were put in ghettos.) :mad: :yuck: :cry:

I went to a seminar here in NZ last week (for a laugh) and the guy who took it has 3 years in uni genetics and in geology, but I was never sure how if he got any qualifications. He stated that they do not use the null hypothesis for their experiments (I had no idea that this was their stance) -"it is all very well for "scientists" to sit down and look at the data to make a conclusion, but you must have a starting point, a direction and this is the bible, proper research will reinforce this direction." he said.

He talked about how the scientific account for the age of the earth based on uranium half life was incorrect because scientists assumed it decayed at the same rate throughout history, "an incorrect assumption".

Another creepy brainwashed young dude summed it up at the end "its like a basin full of water with the tap dripping, if you count the speed of the drips, you can theorhetically work out how long the taps been dripping based on the water in the basin, BUT you dont know if anyone has come along and turned the tap on or off in the past becuase you havent been there".

So in short they believe that god sped up time during the last 6000 years to make up for this uranium and carbon dating discrepency.

There is no point arguing, they throw the dart first (the bible) then draw the bullseye round it, so anyone who plays by the rules of the game can never win.


I was also surprised that this guy believed in a literal translation of the text(no exceptions), so when Jesus stood in front of his followers and split one fish in two and ended up with two fish, he was indirectly advocating the the teaching of "magic in physics classes" (-who ever said that it was a good point:))

It was very unfortunate that pres Bush stated that intelligent design should be taught in science classes. Thankfully that will never be taught here, our nation is becoming a lot less religious,- there are hardly any fundamentalists, and its great.
The world is a better place in their absence, but in America its gonna be interesting to see how divided the country will be further down the line, it doesnt look good. :yinyang:

OK, as one of two acknowleged Christians on this site, let me state this: not all Christians agree with the crap presented on sites like those.

Also, I was thinking about this "debate" and I had a revelation (no pun intended).

First: evolution and creationism aren't even on the same plane, in terms of theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism is the ideology of how things came into being.
Evolution, on the other hand, is the proven process of bettering the species by natural selection.

So, my idea was this: These two ideas don't just differ in terms of science vs religion (which shouldn't happen anyway), they differ in total concept. Essentially, they are in separate categories and shouldn't be near each other.

Now I understand the animosity that permeates this issue: "Evolutionists" are exasperated with the fact that so many Creationists are too arrogant to accept science, and creationists are too caught up with fighting a battle so far off what they should be doing that I am ashamed of what the secular world thinks of Christians as a people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 cents from the other side
:lol:

-Squidman-

Thanks sorseress. ....though, I shouldn't have read it. All I need now, is a broken ankle, and all three height layers of my body will have somethin broken. (To non-supporters, in order to explain the earlier statement, I broke my arm recently.)

Squidman, I am very well aware that not all Christians are represented by these idiots. Two of the best friends I have ever or will ever have are devout Christians and they are so horrified by people like these that they feel like they have to apologize for being Christian. No one should have to apologize because of other peoples' beliefs. (It isn't only the creationist beliefs that horrify them.) I honestly don't care what they, (the creationists), think, it's when they try to impose those beliefs on every one else and are attempting to destroy science education in this country that my blood starts to boil. :mad: Both of my grandfathers were ministers, my dad was a collge physics professor, and all of them were evolutionists. Faith doesn't have to supplant reason and rationality.

Squidman, I think your views are sensible, reasonable, and insightful, and you should certainly not feel attacked or degraded for being a Christian. I, and I assume most of us who have contributed to this thread, don't see that this is a problem with Christianity in general. The thing which disturbs and frightens me is that what I had considered a "fringe, kooky" form of Christianity (and there are certainly fringes and kooks in all religions) seems to have become a powerful, mainstream movement that wants to force their views on everyone through public institutions like schools and courts.

Actually, I'm glad you're willing to be an example of the fact that devout Christians don't have to see a conflict between science and faith.

Here's the latest from the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html

This one was in the Washingtopn Post this morning. Very interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-10-18T235206Z_01_FOR885886_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-EVOLUTION.xml

I haven't heard much about the ID court case for several weeks, I wonder what's going on there...

just HAD to bring this up...

I really don't what all the fuss is about with Christians and evolution...

I mean, what exactly does Genesis say?

It it says, (King James version of the Bible) "And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life"--which could be everything from protozoa to fish to amphibians to aquatic reptiles...

and then followed "the fowl that may fly above the earth"--which is definitely birds

to "the beasts of the earth, the cattle and everything that creepeth upon the earth"--which could be advanced reptiles, (dare I say it!!!!) dinosaurs, and cattle ARE mammals...

So why all the fuss????

Sounds like the same order as evolution...

Now if we could just resurrect the first oral story-teller/tribal holy man of the book of Genesis who defined the meaning of "day" or "year," perhaps all this idiocy would rest in the dust.

As Joseph Campbell said, the problem with contemporary man believing myths of the Bible results from the huge gap in scientific thought of today with the world of more than 2,000 years ago. According to him, ancient Hebrews viewed their scriptures as myth, an allegory to live by. Too bad our contemporary ID people can't believe the same.

That being said, science is just another method of defining our reality. Ancient Hebrews used myth, we use science...

I hope I live long enough to see magic as cultural method of defining reality---always did want to see a leprechaun or fairy in person!

Just my two cents (or dime, providing for inflation)!

Once again, I must state, that as a Cthulhist, science and religion don't seem to collide quite so violently. Other extraterrestrial races set their sights upon Earth first, so as they seeded this planet, other, competing races decided to get in on the action. Even as the Old Ones were populating the Earth, the "cosmic octopi" sent advance material to Earth before the inevitable invasion to pave the way. This is where all mollusks come from. Later, Cthulhu led the "cosmic octopi" to attain their rightful place as rulers of Earth over the undeserving crinoid-creatures, and roughly 250 million years ago, Great Cthulhu set up shop as ruler of Earth. He arrived here with His Spawn to find seas teeming with ammonites, nautiloids, et all.; needless to say, after His (temporary) downfall, when He rises again, the world will be ready for a cephalopod-ruled Earth.

Okay, back to the actual serious discourse. All apologies to Tony.

Glub.:cthulhu:

... He arrived here with His Spawn to find seas teeming with ammonites, nautiloids, et all.; needless to say, after His (temporary) downfall, when He rises again, the world will be ready for a cephalopod-ruled Earth.

Okay, back to the actual serious discourse. All apologies to Tony.

I don't know, that sounds pretty serious to me!

So why all the fuss????

Sounds like the same order as evolution...

No, since flying things evolved after creeping things.

Genesis also says that day and night were created (Gen. 1:4-5) before the sun and the moon (Gen. 1:16-18), which is clearly stupid.

always did want to see a leprechaun or fairy in person!

Just my two cents (or dime, providing for inflation)!

Down on Jointer Avenue in San Francisco...no problem.

greg

Well, "they" are at it again. Here's yet another distressing article about an attack on rationalism.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/18/evolution

Yeesh, looks like you guys have got it pretty rough Stateside. It seems incredible that this can be happening in the 21st Cent.

ID is based on the fact that some people say that life is so complex, they can't believe that it could have happened without some sort of act of creation. I mean crikey!

A silly discussion of a silly topic

http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html

Melissa

A silly discussion of a silly topic

http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html

Melissa

I didn't realize "wankery" was a word...

Many years ago I was required to take a speech class at the local community college ( it was a prereq for a class I WANTED to take). The teacher (an actor who used his stage name instead of his real name) did an informal survey of the religious beliefs of the students by mentioning a religion and asking us to hold up our hand when the belief was called. He started with atheism (first ridiculing it in such a way that it seemed certain that a yes would be fatal to one's grade.), then continued to call a bunch of christian sects and, this being Mississippi, most of the class raised their hands for one faith or another. Finally there was just myself and one other person (a buddist) left and he proceded to ask us what we believed. When I answered that I was agnostic the woman sitting in front of me turned around and asked "What version of the bible do yall use?"
true story

I just looked up the dictionary definitions of atheism and agnostic on google, and the fisrt definition for athiest included

"the belief that no God actually exists, this is a blatant and positive denial of God's existence."

Not what I would consider a very objective defintion, however I was wondering - whats the name of people who will believe in god if his existance is prooven? I would go as far to say that most athiests would fit this category,

I also came up with a good question to put to creationists, "without using the bible or information derived from the bible, why should the bible be accepted as a form of historic evidence, not just a book "

Does anyone know where the bible came from? As far as I know it first turned up in the 9th century, but I'm not sure, it was written on hemp I think.
Also, is there any indication who wrote it? And does it say anywhere within it that it was written by god?

That is a bad definition. I would think that "firm skepticism regarding the existence of deities" would be a better one, since many atheists are primarily against "belief", and since they are at odds with a wider array of faiths than just Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

As for the authorship of the bible, I'm fascinated by the fact that it doesn't seem to matter at all to creationists. It must have been transcribed by men at some point, regardless of whether it was in fact dictated by god. Men lie, exaggerate, invent, and hallucinate. Faith that the bible (or any of its peers) is absolutely true requires a lot of faith in (anonymous!) men, which I think is maybe not so wise. When evidence from nature contradicts the bible, I think you've gotta go with nature every time. No fallible human beings created that.

The Bible as we know it, (and what we know depends upon whether we are Jewish or Christian or Muslim, and then again, if we are Catholic we have a different versian than protestant, many fundamentalist protestants will only use the King James version) has several different authors. and the books of the bible were written at different times. The old testament has multiple authors, and if you know what to look for you can tell which passages were written by which groups of people. The book of Genesis has more than one version of the creation story, one significantly older than the other. A lot of the oldest story threads in th OT were the result of someone writing down stories that had been told around campfires, a part of a very old oral tradition. That same kind of oral tradition was found, and still is found, in primative cultures all over the world. After people began learning to write, the stories began to be written down. Other writings in the OT are the result of the priestly tradition, many, if not all of which were written by priests after the destruction of the temple. They deal with the cycle of man's sin followed by God's punishment, which takes the form of a natural disaster, (ie Noah's flood) defeat in wars, etc. They were always of a scolding, moralizng nature. There's a lot more, but I don't have time to go into it now. Suffice it to say, because man was involved everything is colored to support a desired outcome, keeping the people on the straight and narrow, giving the people answers to the universal questions, that at the same time created a sense of community or nationhood, creating a stable society through a set of laws. Translations were another problem. Hebrew is a difficult language because it uses no vowels, and so mistakes were easily made. During the time many of the early translations were being made Jews were anathema, and as a result the translators wouldn't talk to the rabbis who could have helped them with the correct meanings of words. Thus, eras, or ages, became days.....See how easy it is to screw up?
Anyway, that's pretty much what I remember, so bear in mind that I learned this stuff about 45 years ago, and we all know what happens to brains when they become old!

That is a bad definition. I would think that "firm skepticism regarding the existence of deities" would be a better one, since many atheists are primarily against "belief", and since they are at odds with a wider array of faiths than just Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

As for the authorship of the bible, I'm fascinated by the fact that it doesn't seem to matter at all to creationists. It must have been transcribed by men at some point, regardless of whether it was in fact dictated by god. Men lie, exaggerate, invent, and hallucinate. Faith that the bible (or any of its peers) is absolutely true requires a lot of faith in (anonymous!) men, which I think is maybe not so wise. When evidence from nature contradicts the bible, I think you've gotta go with nature every time. No fallible human beings created that.

Although you say "men" there is a school of thought that one of the main authors of the Old Testament was a woman. I housemate of mine had a book on the subject, which I didn't read, but he told me a little about some of the evidence that it cited. Shrug. As Sorseress pointed out, transcription is a big issue as well; I've always found it a bit odd that a lot of fundamentalists insist on extremely literal interpretations of the Bible, yet don't want to learn ancient Hebrew and Aramaic to go and read the earliest recorded copies of the source, if only to compare how the English versions may or may not match up. I saw a statue of Moses somewhere in Europe that had horns, because at the time the statue was made, a popular version of the Bible had mis-translated a passage "Moses had curly forelocks of hair" to "Moses had horns."

If I remember rightly the Roman Bible was composed in the early fourth century by a council of Bishops from numerous ancient sources, and at that point it was decided what was 'in' and what was 'out'. For the last hundred years or so Protestant Bibles have omitted a great many texts which collectively are known as the Apocrypha, though I think the Catholic versions retain many of them. Aren't there half a dozen or so Apocryphal gospels and other religious writings that are not included even in the Catholic Bible?

It's quite disturbing to think that the entire subsequent spiritual development of Western Civilisation rested on a few Bishops whims and preferences 1700 years ago!

Still, what has happened has happened, que sera sera, as they say.

Right, the Council of Nicea. At the same time the bishops determined which sources were to be included they took it upon themselves to destroy a lot of the other writings. In 1948 a shepard in Egypt found a cache of very old scrolls which he took home. Unfortunately his wife used some of them for kindling. The remaining ones are in the Coptic museum in Cairo and scholars have spent years deciphering and translating them. They are known as the gnostic gospels, and in most of them the one Jesus chose to carry on his teaching and lead the disciples was not Peter but Mary Magdalene. They have been dated back to about AD 35 (I'm not positive about that date, but they were definitely older than the oldest known other NT books). Since the Jewish traditions made women basically 2nd class citizens you can bet that such a decision would not have been popular among some of the more traditional followers of Jesus.

The statue of Moses was by Michelangelo and is in a church in Rome. I've seen it, but don't remember which church it was in.

There are in fact quite a few books that are accepted by one religion or another but which are not accepted by all. I have a bible that has all of the disputed books included. By the way, any one who wants a terrific bible for scholarly purposes, The Oxford annotated is great. It has tons of footnotes which explain a lot of stuff which might otherwise be a bit murky.

I've been watching this thread for a while now and after all of this, now that it has gone into theological history from it's initial I.D. vs. Evolution roots, it occurs to me: what does any of this have to do with ammonites? Of course, I tend to get off-subject quite a bit myself, but where are the shelled-cephs? :ammonite: :belemnit: :nautiloi: ?

They aren't in Genesis, which is kinda the point. I think.

They aren't in Genesis, which is kinda the point. I think.


Beautiful.

Absolutely beautiful.

Dan :lol:

Hmmm. I always thought they were created around day 5 or 6 !!! bugger all...

I've been watching this thread for a while now and after all of this, now that it has gone into theological history from it's initial I.D. vs. Evolution roots, it occurs to me: what does any of this have to do with ammonites? Of course, I tend to get off-subject quite a bit myself, but where are the shelled-cephs?

Well OK then Erich. The closest I can think to bring this interesting discourse to the topic of cephalopods is the case of Eoteuthis.

Eoteuthis elfriedae is a small cephalopod fossil that dates from the Lower Devonian and was found in the German Hunsruck shale. Wilhelm Sturmer, who described it in 1985 from an X-Ray, wrote that it was morphologically similar to the extant Alloteuthis. If this interpretation had been correct it would have pushed back the development of modern-type coleoids to an unprecedated early date, i.e 390 million years ago, when the waters were purportedly populated by nautiloids as the sole cephalopods and before even the earliest ammonoids had appeared.

Why is this of relevance here? Well, Eoteuthis was seized upon by creationists as being an example of how species can suddenly pop-up in the fossil record without the development of transitional forms. The appearance of a fully developed squid before the known intermediate forms was clearly, in their argument, a nail in the coffin of evolutionary theory.

However, since Sturmer published his report Eoteuthis has been reappraised by Desmond Donovan amongst others. It is now no longer believed to be a fully developed squid in the modern sense and that much of the soft-bodied preservation from which the Alloteuthis analogy was derived was an artifact of the fossilisation process as opposed to anatomy. As such it was probably an externally shelled cephalopod of some form (though still problematic), which fits into the accepted evolutionary development pattern of cephalopods perfectly well.

Of course creationists would never announce defeat in cases such as this! :wink:


(Thanks very much for your fascinating input on the compilation of the Bible, Sorceress. Very interesting reading indeed.)

Well, I've enjoyed this thread a great deal, but had gotten to the point where I'd forgotten it was even a part of the Fossils and History forum. Until, that is, I looked up and saw it staring back at me.

But really, Phil, I feel you and Kevin have been sadly wasting vast chunks of your lives on these mythical beasts. Everybody knows that those coiled fossils are "serpent stones" left over from serpents, wyrms, and other creatures that drowned in the Great Flood, and those "belemnites" you seem so fond of are really thunderbolts blasted into the Earth by Thor!:wink:

Yes, I wasn't mocking Sorceress' contributions to the thread. I've been learning a great deal from her my entire life.

He wouldn't dare mock me on this thread. I know Waaaay too much about him. Heheheheh!:twisted:

Heinlein once said that once you take something on faith then you are unable to evaluate the evidence either pro or con. I think this is the heart of the problem--to the fundamentalists, if any of the bible is false, then it all must be, there's no room for gray areas. Take the case of when Joshua stopped the sun during the siege of Jerico. Ask a fundamentalist why there are no records of this from say china, which had good written records of astronomical events at the time, and watch them sputter. What it all comes down to is science and faith should be separate because their evaluation methodology is so different.
faith = it's true because that's what (insert source here) said.
science= it's true because of supporting evidence.

I didnt get the chance to ask the creepy creationist guy who's seminar I went to what the official position is on-

An eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek?
I would actually be interested to see how someone who takes the bible literally could decide what the deal is.


Has anyone seen Penn and Teller - Bullsh*t, the tv programme?
We have to download it here, as it obviously an american thing, but they did an episode on the bible, and told everyone to grab one if they had a copy and go through them with the show some of the rather dark and ridiculous parts that you dont hear very often.

Deuteronomy 21:20-21, disobediant children should be stoned to death.

Now I think that I might have been better behaved if this were the case..........


A very interesting site I found http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl1.htm

Tells you all the crimes in the bible that mean you get put to death, there's heaps, it must have been a scary time to live if those rules were ever enforced in days of old.

From "What the Hebrew scriptures say about the death penalty"
Exodus 22:18 states: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. This is a mistranslation. The passage has nothing to do with Wicca or other forms of Neo-paganism, which are the only types of Witchcraft that are practiced today in North America in significant numbers . The original Hebrew word is translated "sorceress" in most other versions of the Bible. A more accurate phrase would be "women who engage in black magic, harming others by the use of spoken curses." Men are left off the hook.

Gee I"m glad they didn't spell "sorceress" sorseress :lol:

Check this one out.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/missing_links/

My dad pointed me at this one; I think there is a lot of good insight in this:

http://www.cornell.edu/president/announcement_2005_1021.cfm

I am haunted by being disheartened that this thread drove Squidman away from TONMO, because I very much want this discussion to be open to all varieties of opinions, and because I see this issue as not really being about questioning anyone's faith, but rather being about asserting that if ID is to be taught as science, that it must be subjected to the rigor of science before being accepted.

I am saddened by the increasingly prevalent attitude that science and religion are in conflict, as both can be extremely powerful forces for the betterment of humanity, and if each is accepted as applicable within its scope, they can act for the good of all without any conflict whatsoever-- it is only when they are made divisive in the quest for political, religious, or philisophical influence and the associated power that they are at conflict-- and this is all ultimately about earthly, non-divine power games, and not at all relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of any religion or secular philosophy.

:sad:

Wow! That's a great article. Thanks or posting it. I particularly like being reminded of this "As Pascal, the great French philosopher, said, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” ....It's been a long time since I read it.

Ok, I posted my last reply after reading the link, and I had not yet read your subsequent thoughts. I too am disheartened, although I don't think the disconnect and conflict between science and religion is anything new. I have to admit to a certain degree of beligerence toward fundamentalists who try to thrust their ideas on other people. As a child I was a victim of their over-zealousness. When I was nine, because of my mother's asthma, we had to move to an area of the country where the things she was most allergic to didn't grow. My dad, who was a physicist, found a job teaching at a small state college in northern Minnesota. There weren't any homes available in the town where he taught, and after a lot of looking they found an old farmhouse, out in the country. about 30 miles away. Instead of being in a college town, we were in an extremely backward community where the standard religious mode was to take seriously the biblical commandment to not spare the rod. Some of my classmates told tales of being chained to beds and beaten regularly to "drive the devil out of them". There were so many other horror stories about the religious habits of those people it was like being trapped in a Stephan King movie. Not long after school started my first year there, I made the mistake of contradicting another kid on the playground when she said something about Genesis and the biblical version of creation. Not realizing that people actually took creationism seriously, I started talking about Darwin and evolution. That was all it took to convince them that I had "the devil" in me and he had to be driven out. I was held down and "stoned". Actually, they used softballs, but the point, and the intent was there. Disagree with our religious dogma and you will pay. They certainly didn't convert me, but they did create an implacable enemy to that kind of religious extremism. Perhaps I'm too far in the other direction, but I know how dangerous these people can be.

(...) I too am disheartened, although I don't think the disconnect and conflict between science and religion is anything new. I have to admit to a certain degree of beligerence toward fundamentalists who try to thrust their ideas on other people. As a child I was a victim of their over-zealousness. (....) Perhaps I'm too far in the other direction, but I know how dangerous these people can be.

I'm sorry you had such a terrible experience-- that does fit in with the Pascal quote... I wish I could say it was 9-year-olds not understanding the religion properly, but it seems like there are a lot of adults who are just as misguided. I am generally dismayed that leaders in all the major religions seem shy about denouncing inapproriate acts done in their names-- it seems like religious leaders are often so concerned with saving face that they won't take a stand for the morality they ostensibly represent, whether it's Catholics defending pedophile priests, Muslims not coming out and condemning terror attacks on civilians, or Jews never condemning the Jewish assassin of Rabin. I don't think this means all religions are inherently flawed, but it does make me skeptical of the attitude that "because something is done in the name of my religion, I can accept it without assessing it in its own right." Insofar as this thread goes, I really, really wish that more intelligent, reasonable Christians would actively denounce this ID stuff, and assert that evolution and Christianity do not have to conflict. I like to think that Chritians with that view are a quiet majority (they certainly are amoung my friends) but I don't know if that's really representative of the world/nation as a whole...

Insofar as this thread goes, I really, really wish that more intelligent, reasonable Christians would actively denounce this ID stuff, and assert that evolution and Christianity do not have to conflict. I like to think that Chritians with that view are a quiet majority (they certainly are amoung my friends) but I don't know if that's really representative of the world/nation as a whole...

Monty, at least in this part of the US the extremists seem to be in the majority. It seems every year there is another attempt to slip in intellegent design or "religious history" classes that don't mention other faiths or at least gloss over them in favor of more "mainstream" views. A friend had the word atheist spray painted on his car after he put one of those darwin fish magnets on it. Non-christians here spend all their time :goofysca: and keep their mouths shut.

This is kind of fun.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051020/news_1c20fish.html

Insofar as this thread goes, I really, really wish that more intelligent, reasonable Christians would actively denounce this ID stuff, and assert that evolution and Christianity do not have to conflict. I like to think that Chritians with that view are a quiet majority (they certainly are amoung my friends) but I don't know if that's really representative of the world/nation as a whole...

One prominent name in the current ID/science debate is Kenneth Miller, a professor of Biology at Brown University. He's a very articulate speaker who doesn't hesitate to invoke his own devoutness when he attacks ID.

Personally I think this a great way to do it for PR, but in the end I wonder how compatible the two ways of looking at the world really are.

Dan

Well, first of all, you would have to get both the scientists and the religious caste to agree that they may not be perfectly correct !
good luck!

greg (minbarii windsword)

always wondered where the fish came from. Reasonable people debating the issue...... nah never happen.

Mundus vult decipi. Ergo decipiatu

I don't get it how profoundly intelligent people could muse themselves into intelligent design? Argument from design, weak anthropic principle? Ever heard of? Apologise my bluntness, the name even IMPLIES the well described logical error in question....

In another way of looking at it, if you find reality so bafflingly complex as to defy foreshortened human conceptual ability, what else is new? Even if you follow the old church cherished adagium of causality, even then, there is no need to suppose a creator. Objective reality (OK, assumption number one on my acount :oops: ) in all its complexity as such can be the "ultimate" level of existence, invoking an "intelligent designer" only moves the problem one level further away,..., next question: who designed the designer?

I have some respect for those who wish to practice religion (no one looks forward to death, I can understand where the need for "making sense of it all" comes from), but not for their mockery of science.

Besides reading up on the Bhagavad Gita and the Gilgamesh epos for Genesis'tic inspiration, I would strongly advice literalist creationists and ID followers to read up on Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper).

I know, I'm preaching to the converted. Dang! Here I go myself, almost. The one thing that science does not do, is believe in anything, it holds no truths, only probabilities. :grad: That's the beauty of it, really!

For those who haven't read it themselves, to me one of the most thoughtful parts of Darwin's original "on the origin of species" therefore, must surely be its closing section.

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

PS: Oh great Tonmo, beware the google ads freely supplied with this thread :goofysca:

I think that one problem the honest ID proponents ( ones with no religious agenda) have with evolution is the fact that biological systems tend to be anti-entropic as opposed to non-biological systems where entropy always encreases. Living things go from simple to complex and nonliving things go from complex to simple. Even with plenty of examples such as ant colonies, coral reefs,etc some people just can't get their heads around it.

Here's another sobering poll to muse on:

Poll: 15% of Americans Subscribe to Evolution Theory (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019)

As the item explains, many Americans are able to peaceably comingle evolutionary theory with theology. More, however, believe that man was created by God, in his present form, within the last 10,000 years.

As upsettting as polls like this may be to science-minded folks, I think they're actually very useful as arguments against state-mandated teaching of Creationism/ID in our public schools. If the CBS poll was administered to a representative sampling of Americans, and is accurate, it shows that Creationist thought has successfully propagated among a whopping 85% of the respondents. If that's really the case, what need is there for public school science curriculums that teach Creationism? It's plain to see that Creationism is being promulgated quite well in extra-academic settings, namely churches, homes and local communities. If Creationism/ID is getting "short shrift" in America's public schools, it hasn't had the practical effect of denying anyone access to such teachings: they're getting it elsewhere.

One of the mordantly funny contradictions lurking behind the ID debate is that the people pushing hardest for the official inclusion of it in state curriculums typically believe that private and religious organizations can better handle certain government functions. That's the idea behind the Bush administration's Faith-Based initiatives. And yet, it's clear that, as regards Creationism and ID, faith-based initiatives have already been vastly successful at promoting their agenda without the official sanction of the State.

So, that being the case, why are Creationism/ID proponents so aggressively pursuing their Trojan Horse strategy?

They want that last 15%.

I'd really like to know how CBS's numbers match up against comparable polls administered to citizens of other industrialized nations.

CLem

So, that being the case, why are Creationism/ID proponents so aggressively pursuing their Trojan Horse strategy?
They want that last 15%.
CLem
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Any contradiction of their beliefs invalidates all of it. Just show me some evidence for ID, and i'll eat a big plate of crow pie. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there is no evidence for ID.

Mad, I tell you, mahahahahad! Sorry if my earlier post verged on the polemic, but it's very upsetting to see clear and unbiased logic thrown out of the window by fundamentalists of any creed. In my secular little country by the sea, we get our limited share of ID proponents, mainly amongst evangelicals and reactionary Christians, both minorities in the Netherlands, but there's not a lot of people in the public eye that lend any credence to the fact. Look up: cognitive dissonance :wink:

illegitimi non carborundum



Look up: cognitive dissonance :wink:

I did and there was a picture of George Bush

I think that one problem the honest ID proponents ( ones with no religious agenda) have with evolution is the fact that biological systems tend to be anti-entropic as opposed to non-biological systems where entropy always encreases. Living things go from simple to complex and nonliving things go from complex to simple. Even with plenty of examples such as ant colonies, coral reefs,etc some people just can't get their heads around it.


I know, and will also agree to not letting the bastards grind me down :smile:

At the same time, these people tend to cling to the second law of thermodynamics, whilst blissfully ignoring the first. They'd also be surprised at an entropy defying process such as crystallization, I would guess? Easily overlooked: entropy has nothing on natural selection. I guess a lot of people still equate Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace's theory with evolution per se, whereas evolution was already a well established assumption by the time of Lamarque. The real issue was, they elucidated a probable mechanism: natural selection.

If anyone's interested, a fine read is this book, by Daniel C. Dennett (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/068482471X/104-6750219-5577541?v=glance)

nothing too deep, but they make some interesting points on how divisive this has become.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-10-28T160403Z_01_SCH843728_RTRUKOC_0_US-SCIENCE-USA.xml

I really don't know what to say... "Wow! I can't believe you guys are still talking about this."
There, that was it!
Page 20 of this thread and I have to ask whether anything new can possibly be brought to the table. I haven't followed this thread the whole way, but I'm sure good points have been brought up on both sides. Maybe because I'm Canadian and we just don't give a ___ by nature, but aren't there better things to do? As one pointed out, you ARE preaching to the converted! Your excellent points don't do a whole lot in a scientific forum. Maybe write a letter. Write a speech. Organize a rally. If you feel so passionate about this then DO SOMETHING (as one Britney Spears put so beautifully). Having said that, you totally have the right to express yourself and I appreciate that you are fighting for logic and science. You clearly feel obligated to support your side and make a contribution, but you should ask yourselves whether you are doing this in the most constructive way. Could your same words be said somewhere else, in a different context, and reap more good? This is clearly not going to be one of my most popular posts, and I'm seriously debating clicking the "Post" button, but just as you have the right to so do I.

Just trying to help.

:razz: