Darwin Evolving Into A Tricky Exhibit 1364
rbochan writes "The new Darwin Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History
has 'failed to find a corporate sponsor in the United States because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution' according to articles at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph, and The Register. The $US3 million needed for the exhibit was met by private charitable donations."
Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguably, much of our current understanding of biology and bioscience (development of drugs and antibiotics, medicine etc...etc...etc...) and many things that may surprise you are due to a fundamental understanding of biology. Try future developments in body armor, engineering, acoustics, propulsion and search algorithms on for size. All of those disparate fields have been influenced and guided by cross-polination from bioscience and ignoring or even worse, rejecting a scientific understanding of the world will only hold us back.
It is particularly ironic because one of the missions of the American Museum of Natural History is education of those very same individuals and corporations who are benefitting from decades of science education in the United States.
Religious extremism come in many flavors folks, and if we are not careful, we are going to lose our edge. Remember, this country is only a couple hundred years old. Those societies that have embraced education and science historically are those societies that survive.
You say it like it's a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
As in those presenting the current crop of alternate theories have a leg to stand on? This is really news to me.
Why not big pharma? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Agenda..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Care to back that up with some evidence (from sources other than the creationist research orgs)?
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a similar situation at my church, and I pretty much just stated what I believe in a non-offensive manner, and no one freaked out or anything. One or two people argued with me a bit, but nothing big. Unless you go to a VERY conservative church, you shouldn't have any problems...The fundamental part of Christianity is belief in God and Jesus and love for your fellow man, not how many days it took to create the world and mankind.
Re:Here's a silly thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that many of the same CxOs who refused to risk their company's image put their own money in the pot. Now if only they'd do the same for everything else.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:0, Insightful)
But can bioscience take away my sin?
-Or- Is science the only discipline that matters any more? Is there no room for theology, philosophy, ethics? Science, oh great Science, is so wonderful that it can make humans life everlasting lives with empty souls.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which would those be? I ask because I know of not one nation on Earth to be in continuous unbroken governance and structure since let's say the time of Troy. Nothing lasts forever, or even very long, where the species concerned has a deep-seated short attention span problem compared to their own history and more desire for individual thought than lockstep conformity at any cost which is more the sort of thing that would be required for them to have any given nation stay intact for three thousand years. That would be boring. Upheaval and change is in the nature of the people we're concerned with. So I wouldn't look towards survival of any given nation past a few hundred years as all that important.
The Real Problem Here (Score:5, Insightful)
You can ignore what's wrong without worry. It's a lot harder to ignore what you know is right. It's a lot more likely that the dinosaurs are millions of years old, rather than that the entire Earth was created only 8K years ago and God put the fossils there to confound the unbelievers.
Trying to remove the only theory that actually has some evidence to support it from discussion overall, or elevate truly unproven speculations to having equal weight, only confuses children -- and harms the nation's future.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Withholding funding because it might offend someone is the pansy-ass way to handle the situation.
Re:As a devout christian... (Score:1, Insightful)
Except for the whole Genesis part. I don't understand people who call themselves Christians but don't believe the Bible. If you don't believe it then quit calling yourself a Christian. Of course, I understand how convenient it is to pick out the parts of the Bible that you like and ignore the rest - but that is making up your own religion. If you're going to do that, please make up a new name for it too.
Re:Agenda..... (Score:1, Insightful)
If you've ever actually done any looking into the area you would see that Darwin himself didn't not strongly champion his theory of evolution.
For those without a clue train ticket, the Darwin's theory of evolution does not have to be at odds with modern religion. It was placed there by the puritanical christianity strains in this country of ours, they always have to have something to yell about. Don't see it happing much in other, overwhelmingly christian countries now do you.
That is hardly helpful... (Score:3, Insightful)
When debating with many sects of American Protestantism, whose views of Roman Catholicism range from suspicion to abject hatred.
The whole thing (Score:2, Insightful)
They're right that they haven't been able to find funding but making the blanket claim that it's due to apprehension of Darwin vs. Creationism vs. Intelligent Design is pure bull. The three explanations aren't even at odds unless someone's being so enormously thick as to ignore any explanation that isn't their own. At that point we're arguing with someone who just wants to hear their own voice and has selectively tuned out all other voices just for the sake of argument.
I suggest a boycott of all articles which are spun to involve global warming or the creation of the universe. Let's stick to the real issue. In this case the real issue is who funded the project before and why they really dropped funding. None of this hand-waving "blame the religious fanatics" bunk.
Re:Evolution is Theory After All (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the mechanism of evolution, yes there is debate in the scientific commmunity. As to whether evolution has occurred, there is no debate in the scientific community.
To me I see those zealots who accept evolution as fact in the same light as how *they* perceive Christians and Christianity: mindless minions of bad logic and reasoning.
So you reject the notion that there is any evidence for the *fact* that evolution has occurred?
Explain why there are so many shared genes between species. In fact, the human genome is one big code sharing exercise.
It just seems like evolutionists want to skip a whole bunch of steps and not do the actual science required to figure out if the evidence supports their theory or not.
What steps have they skipped?
That's the scientific method, folks. You never PROVE anything: you have evidence that either supports or doesn't support your theory.
And you haven't done anything to support your position other than flap your arms around wildly.
Show us the holes in evolution. Show us where steps have been missed. Show us how YOU would apply the scientific method any differently to, say, the theory of gravity.
Re:Agenda..... (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, Darwin's experience of religion was fairly limited. Most religions by now have come to terms with the discoveries of science and natural philosophy, including most forms of Christianity. It is not "Christians" who object to the Theory of Gravity^WRelativity^WEvolution, it is a tiny, but vocal (and annoying, and scary), minority of Christians. Christians who no more represent the mainstream of Christianity than the Muslim suicide bombers (who they strongly resemble) represent the mainstream of Mohammedism.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended
us to forgo their use."
-- Galileo Galilei
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution is Theory After All (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite honestly, you are correct that 9/11 and crusade was/is about extremisms. But of course, the attack on science and logic over the centuries has also been due to extremism. The catholic church, which even now consider its past actions extreme, now supports darwinism, science, and logic.
Anybody who supports the idea of creationism or ID is by definition extremists. There is absolutely no proof of ID and loads of evidence against it.
While it is possible that the OP was incorrect (perhaps the manager did a bad job and just did not push it hard enough), but I suspect that he is correct.
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:5, Insightful)
So when Christ said "I am the door" (John 10:9), do you suppose he had hinges and a doorknob?
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Provided it's a stand you agree with. And you're not exactly in a huge majority. So don't hold your breath.
I am willing to give my business to those companies that provide me with items I want. Specifically, I buy stuff that's worth more to me than the money I offer in exchange. I'm rational.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:2, Insightful)
To challenge the conclusion, and offer an alternative based on available evidence, would be a good manner in challenging the way we think the universe got from zero to this point.
To reject the conclusion, evidence, and process, and instead substitute in metaphors and logical fallacies and then attempt to argue (with a straight face) that this, too, constitutes an alternative worth consideration is a challenge to scientific understanding, and the scientific method.
Don't get me wrong - they can believe what they like; but it's nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig, and I say call it what it is.
Re:Evolution is Theory After All (Score:3, Insightful)
The evolution theory is a theory of processes, not a description of each step.
Of course there are some issues which might need a closer look, such as the Cambrian Explosion. And of course some more subtheories such as punctated equilibrium and convergent evolution might be proposed and be incorporated. You can discuss if evolution is a more a result of selection on the level of genes or on the level of populations. But those things are not "holes". Whatever the outcome of the scientific debate on these issues, it will not mean a fundamental change to the evolution theory as it is understood now.
So what are the holes you are talking about?
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
For Pete's sake... does anybody question anything anymore?
Re:As a devout christian... (Score:2, Insightful)
Answer to ID - the Avian Flu (Score:3, Insightful)
If they answer "Yes" you can slam them. Basically, the Avian Flu is only a threat if you think evolution is valid. The only way it can be a problem to humans is if it mutates, evolves, into a strain that can spread from human to human.
So, if they're afraid of the Avian Flu, they MUST believe in evolution. If they're not afraid of it, all the better. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
As one of those fundamentalists... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since origins cannot be tested, observed or falsified, it is not a scientific field of study. As a proponent of ID, I only care that my philosophy is taught in the science classroom as long as the naturalist's philosophy of origins is taught there. Sagan's line "The universe is all that there is, all that there ever was, and all that will be" haunts me. Why must materialist philosophy be taught in science class? As long as we're doing the wrong thing in that way, you should teach my philosophy there too.
Please note that I think that scientific study is a good thing. I also think that scientists should consider all possibilities. Gould contended that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' which in my view prevents scientists from considering whether something supernatural might be the primary cause.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
One must bear in mind that the Vatican doesn't even think that "Intellegent Design" has any place in a science classroom.
No, shenanigans of this sort are being driven by the protestant equivalent of the Taliban.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume what you mean by 'society' is not an ethnic group but a kind of recognisable contiguous social formation. Even this is hard to define--for example, did British society as we know it today begin in the dark ages, did it begin 1000 years ago or is it really so fundamentally different now to what it was then that we can't call it the same society?
But even if we forget this difficulty and just go by conventional definitions, for things like the Roman Empire or ancient Egypt, I think you would be hard pressed to find any society that has ever lasted more than 4000 years. For example, ancient Egypt as we think of it, i.e. as a unified state/civilisation, lasted from approximately 3200 BC to 332 BC [wikipedia.org], i.e. less than 3000 years. And despite the old European myth of an 'ancient Africa', most of the sub-Saharan African societies that existed at the time of colonisation were largely the result of migration of Bantu peoples [wikipedia.org] starting in approximately the 2nd millennium BC making these societies at the very most 4000 years old, but in reality because of the lack of written history we have know way of knowing if there was much historical continuity in them at all, as opposed to changing through many phases.
The idea of civilisations that exist in recognisable form for very long periods of time is a myth. Human society is inherently unstable. Tribal groups as much as other kinds of society often destroy each other, or destroy the environment on which they depend through overexploitation. As far as anyone knows, there has just never really been a time when there have been societies that have lasted much more than 4000 years, and even the 3000 years of the Egyptian state is based on a very loose definition of a society when you consider the changes that occurred in Egyptian history.
Don't mean to nitpick, but if you are trying to claim that religion holds societies together for many thousands of years, I don't think the case can be argued on that basis.
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to hardball politics, where your opponents latch on to extremist nutjobs in order to tar you as a nutjob yourself. And it will continue to be so as long as conservatives fail to make the case that anti-science kookery is not a necessary part of conservatism. And I say that as a conservative, my friend.
Re:Nothing ever really changes (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind, these fundamentalists are more guilty of idolatry. The idolaters of old made themselves graven images of their gods, and worshipped them. In time they came to completely forget their gods and worship the images; this was abhorrent to the Hebrews, whose prohibition on such things had led them to relate to their god more directly.
What is the modern equivalent of these idolaters? Why, the biblical inerrantists. They have made themselves a graven image of God, not made of wood or of gold or marble but of words. They have defined their god so narrowly and restricted him within the ancient text, and cannot conceive of anything beyond the holy scripture. Thus these idolaters try to shout down anyone who dares examine the world itself for clues to the nature of the creation, and confine themselves to Genesis.
It's a tragedy, because assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, then they're missing some of his best tricks. Evolution is a brilliant hack - a system that you can set up and just let run, and all the work is done for you. It must give God some of the same kind of kick we hackers get when we replace a thousand lines of brutal code with a single concise iterative function... And as for nucleosynthesis, the means by which the heavy elements that constitute much of the Earth were made, if God came up with that then he has a sense of style that I really like. Seeding the universe with metals from supernovae - amazing.
But no. The idolaters remain with their hollow Bronze Age god of words, words that they worship night and day, memorise and repeat to themselves, shout out at street corners... Idolatry, indeed.
uhm, hardly. (Score:5, Insightful)
the sad fact is.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The real problem is that most churches have abandoned the Bible and have no clear authority so that anything goes. Without an established standard of doctrine, the church is left to the whims of sinful human beings with their own prejudices and imaginings. This is exactly why I left the Episcopal Church. It's become a theology zoo with every crazy idea expressed and scripture becomes only an afterthought, which even when it is consulted, is reconstructed and made to mean exactly something other than what the inspired writers meant when they put quill to paper. Most churches today are so infested with liberal theology, or its evil cousin, neo-Orthodoxy, that debates like this even take place. God's word used to mean something once. In most churches, it doesn't anymore.
When did we redefine what science is? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:1, Insightful)
Have you no understanding of history at all? The Pilgrims were fleeing religious, fiscal and political intolerance.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not against science. (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, you're confused. Many Europeans do not resent genetic research. They do not, however, believe it to be correct to use such knowledge in ways that would violate basic human rights. We're talking about using such knowledge to create slaves, for instance. Or to dangerously modify crops.
The people you deem as "anti-science leftists" (many of whom are extremely conservative or libertarian) are often very pro-science. They take a stand against what may very well be considered unjustifiable use of scientific knowledge. We're talking about taking a stand against genetically modified crops, animal testing, and so forth. They're not against the entirety of science, unlike many religious fundamentalists.
Re:Evolution is Theory After All (Score:5, Insightful)
But it doesn't PROVE evolution.
Then I guess nothing other than the evidence you have cited yourself will ever convince you that evolution is real.
They're not doing the hard science and answering the tough questions, like why, for instance, if intelligence in humans is SO important and crucial to our survival (we have no sharp teeth, claws, we can't run or climb or swim well compared to the rest of the animal kingdom), then why did it take so long for intelligence to develop in humans (say within the past 100,000 years)? How was it possible that WE survived all those years effectively at a huge disadvantage physically?
That intelligence did not develop in the last 100K years. It developed over the course of 3.5 million years.
That's a tough question that NO ONE has been able to answer definitively with facts.
Pick up a good anthropology text written in the last twenty years. You will see the evidence presented for gradual intellectual development in higher primates including humans.
Instead, what we get is "there was once this primordial soup in the oceans (what it was we couldn't tell ya but it was there! and we can't replicate it!) and then some shit went down and here we are."
That is abiogenesis, not evolution.
You have skipped about 4.5 billion years of development from the primordial soup and humans too.
Wow. I'm stunned by the brilliance of that.
Then you don't read much.
And you're right: gravity is based on theory, just like relativity, and most of the "hard" sciences.
What constitutes a "hard" science?
But there are smart people doing responsible tough science on those theories. And they don't just throw shit on the wall to see what sticks.
Neither do geologists, biologists, paleontologists, or anthropologists.
Have you ever taken one of these courses to see how the ideas that support them were develeoped?
Re:Agenda..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As one of those fundamentalists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gould contended that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' which in my view prevents scientists from considering whether something supernatural might be the primary cause.
Actually, the difference between the "natural" and "supernatural" doesn't exist a prioi -- we just consider anything which has a scientific explanation to be "natural". So before Newton came up with overwhelming evidence for gravity, the idea of action at a distance (i.e. forces, etc.) was considered to be supernatural (Newton himself was troubled by the need to make use of "occult forces" in his explanations).
The trouble with creationism, then, isn't that it relies on supernatural explanations (whatever they are exactly), but that it doesn't make any predictions. Let's assume that God created life on Earth. What does that tell you about life on Earth? Nothing, since God is inscrutable and he could have made life in whatever form he wanted to. Evolution, on the other hand, does make predictions. For example you predict that organisms will be highly modular and structured, that organisms will show clear similarities owing to their having a common ancestor, etc.
I just want to say this (Score:4, Insightful)
These figures/beliefs were created by the same creatures who believe and idolise them, i.e. humans.
In our existance (this world, universe) there are things that occur in this world that we cannot yet explain, this can make us feel somewhat insignificant and futile in our existance. It raises such questions as
- Why am I here?
- What is my purpose?
- What will happen to me when I no longer exist?
- What will be the consequences of my actions in this life?
This can somewhat be related to the need to believe in something!! (put simply in one aspect). Humans also feel compelled to hold morals and respect for others. Some(most) of us naturally become upset when people are treated unfairly(+many synonyms). Religion has been designed and evolved to accomodate and somewhat enforce this. E.g. don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat people, don't kill animals, don't eat meat, don't be greedy etc. Someone could probably better explain this need better than I can but be seen to be present in every culture with certain themes current through out.Here are some other characters that I have believed in over my life (especially as a child) that were created by man
- Santa Claus
- The Tooth fairy
- The Easter bunny
- Superman
- The Teeenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
- Monkey Magic
- Jesus
I was told by an enlightened Christian friend in the past that I would be going to hell after I died due to me not accepting God and Jesus... at the time I didn't ask her what the consequences were for no longer believing in the other characters, I wonder what the consequences would be?--
This is for you Claire
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
You get what you pay for, fellas.
Re:The "problem" with Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, Darwin himself made predictions based on his theories that were proven true. Here is a quick overview [pbs.org] of one example - he saw a particular flower and predicted that a particular shape of insect must exist to pollinate it, even though he knew of no such insect at the time. Such an insect was found many years later.
Evolution is called a theory because it does meet the scientific criteria for a theory - it has been thoroughly tested (come on, it's been around for over a century, do you HONESTLY believe no one has thought to test it??) and, yes, mathematically modelled even. Many times.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it does NOT meet the criteria (that you yourself give) for a theory, but its supporters try to present it as one on equal footing with evolution. ID is a hypothesis or a conjecture, evolution is a theory. You seem to understand the difference - most people's problem is that they don't, and they think that since evolution is a theory that means we have no clue if it's really right.
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:3, Insightful)
These are questions you must answer for yourself about your own church. Your priorities must be your own, but I know that were I in your place, I would not let a question that I consider tangential to the teachings of Jesus Christ introduce strife between believers.
huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, #######.
Show me a single-celled organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.
zygote ==> blastocyte.
It is exactly parallel to some essential evolutionary steps, and it happens to everyone!
There are these leaps in evolution that requires some magical altering of how life works at all that evolution just can't explain.
This claim is completely baseless. The leaps of evolution are exactly what does explain how life works. It is, so far, the only theory that adequately explains empirical data on speciation and the differentiation of lifeforms. Just the patterns that ID loves to refer to as *designed*, just the challenges that ID refers to as *irreducible* are the strongest corroboration of the theory of evolution.
You can't expect anyone to believe that you have flowers that rely on bees to fertilize them and bees that rely on flowers to feed on that have managed to "evolve" from some roots.
There are several problems here, beginning with the expectation of belief. No one expects you to *believe* anything. You believe in a God, you accept a theory. An essential insight that you miss is the fact that evolution is opportunistic, not deterministic. Bees eat flower sap because it is there and few other organisms compete for it. Thousands of species of flowers have nothing to do with bees, relying on beetles, ants or birds.
How droll that we are still having this pseudo-debate. I thought this subject tired and thoroughly vanquished thirty years ago in high-school. Now we are further behind than ever. America has been ever superstitious and resistant to authority (scientific or political, even religious). It is the infantile wing of American anti-authoritarianism, and the charlatans that do not scruple to pander to it, which feeds this disease of faith-based doubting.
Re:As one of those fundamentalists... (Score:4, Insightful)
People frequently confuse "thinking really hard about data" with "doing science." You can certainly think rationally and logically about the world around you and come to the conclusion that belief in the supernatural is warranted. That doesn't mean you're a nutcase. It does, however, mean that you've ventured into an area in which science is of no help and results of scientific study will be meaningless. If we allow reasoning about the supernatural into science classes instead of philosophy classes where it belongs, we will fail to teach our students the distinction between the two.
Again, this doesn't mean that the philosophers who think about these things are stupid or wrong or that science is the sole arbiter of the truth. It just means that science covers only a limited subset of what philosophy and logic cover (albeit it does so with phenomenal success) and that we do our children a disservice by not pointing that out.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
May I point that the Chinese society began in B.C. times. While Babylon evaporated, Greece subsided, Egypt mummified, and Roman collapsed, the Chinese culture survived, and still running strong today.
Sure, the political ideology has changed along the way, from citystate-hood (pre BC times) to imperialism to democracy (very short period of time pre-WW2) to communism, yet the Chinese culture continues to evolve and flourish.
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:5, Insightful)
for I have seen the shadow on the moon,
and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.
-- Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521)
Re:Agenda..... (Score:2, Insightful)
yes, i know im gonna get modded down to flame or troll or whatever, i don't care, im sick of this shit
The easy fix (Score:2, Insightful)
Then it becomes a bit harder for these politicians to hide behind the Bible.
As someone raised Catholic, I find it a bit offensive that people manipulate the Bible for their political gains. None of these "Evangelicals" are really religious. Well, maybe 3% of them. The rest really have no grasp of Christianity. They just follow the political movement.
Here's a way to have fun with them:
Ask them to quote an explain the beatitudes (after they explain what it is first). Anyone who remotely follows Jesus would know what they are. They are considered to be the #1 teaching of his by Christians. It's funny to do. Just be aware most don't even know what they are, and it will get them extremely upset, and perhaps even violent since they get put on the spot. Especially if you do it in front of their church friends.
"Evangelicals" can quote only parts of the bible that relate to politics, but when you ask them something else.. they get very defensive.
I hate politics with a passion. To be totally honest, I don't even know who ran for govenor in my home state. I found out there was an election when they announced the winner. Why? Because I couldn't give a cr@p. Two corrupt people running for the same job. Who cares? Both steal money and take bribes from the same people. Makes no difference to me.
I just get pissed when people start pushing politics in the name of God.
You know who else uses this strategy to push religion? Bin Laden. Osama is nothing more than a Televangelist with iron balls. Both go after desperate people and push their sick political beliefs on them, and claim it's "in the name of [god]" ([god] being whatever term they use to refer to their superior power) . Both have a hatred of those who don't abide by their political beliefs. Difference is Osama is actually convinces people to give their lives for this BS. Televangelists just wants to walk away with their victims hard earned money, and rarely get people to give their lives for it (exceptions for the Eric Rudolphs of the world).
I hate these people. It really is criminal. Just a 200 or so years ago, most evangelicals would have been burnt alive for manipulating the Bible to meet their needs.
Mainstream and radical Christians (Score:3, Insightful)
You know how a lot of right-wingers like to attack Islam because (no matter what it does) it doesn't condemn "extremists" enough?
Yeah?
I want to know the same thing about mainstream Christianity. If these people really are completely out of whack with mainstream Christians, then *why* do said mainstream Christians not condemn them and distance themselves from them? If the pope [yahoo.com] isn't mainstream Christian, I'm not sure who is.
The pretty obvious take on Christianity is that it's a lot of bogus reasoning and emotional argument. *However* that doesn't mean that it's a social parasite -- it can have positive social benefits that outweigh the drawbacks of telling people silly things about the universe. Maybe if you don't tell people that there's a big scaly guy with a pitchfork ready to screw them over if they sin, they'll get along with people better.
Maybe Christianity is another way to fix public good problems in society. Public good problems are instances where rational individuals acting in their own individual best interests wind up having everyone worse off. Government solves the problem some of the time by simply altering the point values so that games are no longer public good problems. Nobody is going to build an interstate highway system, because it does them no good. I'm not even going to build thirty feet, because it does me no good. But *everyone* wins if we have a big road system that spans the whole US.
It looks like Christianity attacks the problem by simply making the agents act in a non-rational manner. Sure, maybe it's better in the short term to steal something, and if everyone stole, society wouldn't work very well and we'd lose out. But if you think that you're going to go to hell if you steal something, then a lot of social problems just go away.
The problem is that for Christianity to be nothing more than a social symbiote, it needs to *not cause problems for society*. One of those is standing in the way of science. Science produces phenomenal benefits for society -- in the past two hundred years alone, the industrialized world has seen huge standard of living improvements and lifespan increases. It's almost without exception a bad way to try to prevent science from moving ahead. The problem is that Christianity often seems hellbent on combatting science, and that's where I start having a real problem with Christianity.
Too much fear. (Score:3, Insightful)
Myths (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As one of those fundamentalists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's why we teach "materialist philosophy": It works. Regardless of faith in supernatural beings, gas still makes your car go. Even if you disbelieve in petroleum, the engine will run. As they say, 'reality' is what is left even when you stop believing.
It is not practical to explore all possibilities. It's POSSIBLE that an alien in another galaxy makes my engine run, or Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... or chemical reactions. Since the latter seems to work remarkably well, the burden is on proponents of other claims to provide evidence.
Scientists content that there is nothing outside nature. This is because we have not experienced anything that is not explainable within our 'natural' outlook. There are things we don't understand very well, sure, but nothing entirely outside the rules.
Of course, it IS possible the God (or aliens, or the FSM) has rigged the universe to appear 'natural'. I can't see worshipping such a vindictive creator
Re:Nothing ever really changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, mostly because it doesn't really answer any questions either. Now I just have to figure out where that supernatural being came from, and I have no hope of ever figuring that out because by definition a supernatural being is outside of nature.
Is there something hard to understand about conservation of mass-energy? If there's matter and energy in the Universe today, then well proven physical laws tell us that it was *always* there. It didn't "come from" anywhere. Such a statement is a meaningless noise.
Re:As one of those fundamentalists... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how anything non-material COULD be taught in a science class. Science is the study of nature and the material world, it says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of supernatural forces or entities. Supernatural explanations might well be correct, but they aren't measurable or testable, so in the context of science there simply isn't much to discuss. The alternative is that every measurement you take and experiment you perform has to be disclaimed as possibly supernatural in result, which again may be correct but doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Arguments over the validity of our senses, the possibility of being deceived by the material world and other existentialist dilemmas are certainly good for students to have, but they belong in the category of formal logic and philosophy, not science.
It strikes me as someone complaining that their physical education class doesn't also cover mental health topics -- that isn't the subject of the class! There is no judgement being placed on the value of mental health simply because your gym teacher doesn't discuss it -- indeed, most gym teachers and mental health professionals would agree that a healthy body and mind complement each other. Trying to shoehorn a discussion about depression into the rules of baseball would be as pointless as discussing supernatural forces in a science class.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, lets look at the Muslim extremist. They justify terrorism by stating that they are following their religious teaching. According to your arguement, they are benefiting for moral codes?
Lets look at Pat Robbertson. He prayed for people do die? Is that moral?
Lets look at Rush Limbaugh. He's a druggie, even worse, a hypocritical druggie.
Lets look at Tom DeLay. He's been admonished by the ethics committee how many times?
Lets look at Cheney. He's for torture!!! Is that moral?
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:1, Insightful)
The most important thing of all is to be kind and forgiving to your fellow man, even to those who do not return the favor. I believe in this philosophy regardless of what happened 2000 years ago and regardless of what awaits me in the afterlife.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank goodness Intel took a stand on the theory of ultraviolet lithography. Thank goodness Boeing took a stand on the theory of aerodynamic lift. Thank goodness Dole took a stand on the theory that biological contamination can cause disease (did you know you can't even see bacteria?). Thank goodness all the corporations that develop AIDS medicine have taken a stand on biological evolution because otherwise they wouldn't have a chance at understanding the disease they're trying to fight.
Yes, I'm glad that corporations DO take stands. This is not an iffy subject. Not taking as stand on evolution is like not taking a stand on the existence of electricity.
TW
Re:The "problem" with Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Then your understanding is very flawed. Evolution in fact has quite strong predictive power. For example, evolutionary theory is very useful in predicting the number of harmful genes in a particular animal's genome.
In fact one of the greatest trimuphs of science was the use by Darwin himself of evolution to predict existance of certain species of insects by examining the morphology of plants that they would pollinate.
Re:You're in the minority. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what makes evolution a theory rather than a myth - nobody "believes" that evolution is "true". We just agree that it's the best explanation that we have for a multitude of observations.
Right?
As another religious person... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see evolution as a big threat. Does it really make Man any lower than the doctrine of The Fall or Original Sin does? Does it necessarily deny the existence of a creator? Does that really take away any capacity to move from a fallen state and be Spiritually born of God, which is the important part of Christianity anyway? The only thing it really seems to threaten is some specific, literal readings of the Creation account in Genesis.
It just seems like a weird bone to pick.
Literal Interpretation is Heresy (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundimentalists that insist on a literal interpretation should be called to task as Heretics. I will argue that a Fundimentalist that reject his intellect is rejecting one of God's greatest gifts.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
> Hm, so are you of the opinion that religion can have no benefit at all,
No, of course not; one thing I like about religion (even though I'm not religious) is that it can force you to think about the big questions.
> ... and that there is a natural moral code completely independant of any religious beliefs?
yes of course; you seem to have missed about two centuries of philosophical debate: start with Kant [wikipedia.org] and keep on reading. You've missed quite a bit, apparently.
Science does not generate facts. (Score:3, Insightful)
About the only fault that can be found there is Hume's observation that empiricism (it worked the same before, it should work the same again) is a circular argument in that we keep using empiricism because if empiricism worked before, empiricism should work again... But since every intellectual endeavor has similar logical weaknesses if you look closely enough (let me get this straight - the bush was on fire, and talking to you?), it's a choice as to which job you take - poet, philosopher, scientist, shaman, etc...
Science is the endeavor which seems to be best at making sure you know why the sky looks like that today and what will happen if you stand in front of a moving bus. It's useful. It can lead to awe. Not a bad day's work.
So there's a first problem with the creationsism and ID crowd - contending that evolution is not a fact. Science concedes that. Science is not about generating facts anymore than religion is. The too-literal scientist will be unpleasantly surprised when the outlier scenario occurs and the damn thing blows up. The too-literal cleric will have a heck of a time explaining how one set of parents had a set of kids who then populated the earth (the admitted incest of their kids has been labeled an OK thing just for them, just in that time - situation ethics at its best, sonething most fundamentalists abhor).
My problem is that if ID is what's at work, then you have big problems negating random genetic variation, radiocarbon dating, and natural selection. If the basis of radiocarbon dating (radioactivity and decay) is false then the sun doesn't fire and it's OK to picnic in the reactor core. If random genetic variation is false, then these two lone deciduous teeth in my jaw and the two-piece navicular bones in my feet are just cruel jokes played on me by an intelligent but way too detail-distracted designer. As far as natural selection, lots of those IDers have goofy looking dogs - their owners can trace their dog's heritage back to a few thousand years ago (way more recent than even the earliest of the young-earth ages). They got those goofy (and by goofy I mean not a wolf) dogs by unnaturally selecting mates and isolating these breeders from the rest of the population, thus accelerating the rate of change in successive generations. But somehow this process can't occur naturally?
I'm a scientists and a Catholic. I've never seen any true conflict between the two. When I want inspiration in the good that we can do and archetypical stories of the human condition, I read scriptures (as well as Shakespeare, Heinlein, Steinbeck, Helprin and even Charlotte's Web). When I want to make sure I don't get hit by a bus or drown, I read a textbook and check out experiments. It's a case of "Pray to God but row towards shore".
Re:Feminized? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before I jump to conclusions, could you please further
elaborate on your meaning with this statement?
Women and men are different. I know that is not a popular opinion, but the boobies and the having kids thing kinda comes to mind.
Maybe I'm just traditional or old fashioned, but I see women/females as being more nurturing, emotional, and less competitive and authoritarian than men.
Western society is getting more like the emotional and nurturing side. Like the "high self esteem" plan vs doing something to feel good about yourself. Look at divorce laws and statistics and tell me they are not female slanted (in the US at least).
I'm glad you didn't jump to conclusions. In fact, many of us "nerds" are more on the female side of things in that we want everybody to win, and root for the runt of the litter. In many ways I am that way too.
Sometimes I wish I were more "manly" and had more aggressive tendencies that I despise, but I don't.
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:4, Insightful)
What amazes me is how people die and kill over something that has as much validity as the AD&D Gods, Dieties & Demigods handbook.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Evolution is Theory After All (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said our predators were getting faster and stronger?
You have evidence to support that assertion?
Sure, if you live in the modern world with the internet and taxi cabs and books and shit, that'd be a big deal. But if you're some ancestor of ours out in the wild, you'd be pretty low on the totem pole, so to speak, in terms of survivability. So how is it we did it? Before intelligence we had every disadvantage.
So do rabbits. We could climb trees and survived for several million years in trees before the jungle changed to savannah.
Which would you take in a fight: an unarmed man or a bear? a gorilla? a crocodile? a shark? a dog? I wouldn't want to face any of these alone in the wild.
You discount the advantange that prey have: rapid gestation and ovulation cycles.
Did you factor this in when you created your argument?
We were fundamentally physically unequipped to survive in the wild 3.5M years ago.
We didn't look anything like we do now 3.5 million years ago.
Domestication is not evolution.
Domestication is an evolutionary mechanism.
We have domesticated cattle, not caused a genetic mutation that makes them different from previous generations.
You have evidence to support your conclusions?
Close and distant relatives of the domesticated cow continue to survive in the wild, human intervention or not.
Really? Where?
Here in the US there is only the Longhorn and it shares few traits with the domesticated varieties we raise for beef.
Buffalo roamed the plains of North America for millenia before humans with no problems.
By sheer number.
How are they doing now?
It's about tolerance and religious freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a movement of people hostile to the Christian worldview and this step is the next one in the removal of my freedom of speech and in the battle for the minds of American children. Perhaps you will perceive me as being alarmist or extremist, but I feel strongly that my civil rights are at risk.
The Evolution/ID debate is simply the latest front in the culture war between people who believe in absolute truth and those who do not. Evolutionary theory is a reflection of a worldview that is in stark contrast to the Christian worldview. Why is it that so-called scientists are troubled that there might be an alternate explantion which is different from the explanation acecpted by the crowd? The religion of scientists seems to be as scared of revolutionary ideas as the church at one time was of Galieo's theories.
I think that speciation through evolution is a terrible idea, and is simply untrue. It's not provable or falsifiable for that matter. Why should this be taught? Because the current conventional wisdom is that this is true? I submit to you that the concept of speciation through evoolution will be considered archaic bad science in 100 years.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Re:Feminized? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ho, ho, ho.
You, my friend, have apparently never encountered more than one woman at a time.
Women are _way_ more competitive than men are in regards to their social pecking order.
Religion had benefits... (Score:2, Insightful)
For technological, democratic, inidividualistic societies religion is probing to be a divisive obstacle to progress.
If religious types would keep their nonsense to themselves I would have no problem with religion. But the ones that are not trying to kill you, are trying to convert you, to control how you live or to judge your actions. They simply have no space in a modern, advanced society based in mutual respect.
The sooner we manage to convince people of the lack of any redeeming value of religion for modern, intelligent, rational people, the better.
Essentialism is a lie. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a nice, provable biological difference.
"Maybe I'm just traditional or old fashioned, but I see women/females as being more nurturing, emotional, and less competitive and authoritarian than men."
Now, is that a product of biology, or a product of the surroundings in which a woman is raised? You don't know. No one does.
Women and men are equivalent in every sense that matters. To say that someone is aggresive because they have a penis is the same thing as saying someone is pleasant because they have a vagina. To say that someone is good with money because they are a jew, or that someone is less intelligent because they are black -- these are all features of a theory called essentialism. Essentialism says that someone is a certain way because of their biology, not their own free will, their experiences, or how they were raised.
I think we should take a serious look at how women are raised and how we expect them to behave (Google search for pleasant [google.ca]; note how the 2nd hit is for a doll maker called "American Girl"!), rather than use biological means to justify differences. Essentialism is a lie that people like Adolf Hitler used to justify terrible attrocities. For you to pipe up in support of essentialism is a mark of how little you have researched your own opinions.
Re:I just want to say this (Score:3, Insightful)
"You cannot prove or disprove God's existence. Of course, if one pays attention in Philosophy 101 nothing can be proved or disproved."
Perhaps, but logically it only makes sense to begin with the assumption that God doesn't exist. Going from there, the challenge is to find evidence which supports God's existence.
see also. [npr.org]
Re:when will you eventually understand? (Score:2, Insightful)
The theory of evolution is exactly what it says on the tin, i.e. a theory. Nobody said it's the absolute truth, but it's the best we have.
You and ID supporters hang tightly on this word, mistakenly believing that if it's only a "theory" it has as much truth as any other solution we could throw at the problem - for example divine intervention, intelligent design, magic.
However, while it's true that this is a "theory", it's pretty well - and scientifically - documented. The fact that it's imprecise and cannot explain everything doesn't make it any less scientific or true. Physics, for example, is somewhat in the same boat - it cannot explain everything. Classical mechanics (Newtonian physics) is still taught in schools - it's imprecise and has holes, but it doesn't make it less of a science.
If I let go a small object out of my hand it will fall to the floor. I can believe it's God Himself who moved that object, or I could believe in something called "gravity".
You can choose magic, or whatever else you want - don't get so upset when others believe in rational explanations.
Challenging the status quo has a lot of merit and can indeed produce original results, no doubt. However as soon as we replace reasoning with faith science no longer applies to the topic at hand.
Which companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Know one think, they just follow the crowd (Score:3, Insightful)
The evidence in support of evolution can be tested and verified using tools
made available thru many other fields of science. We consider most of those
other fields to be "factual" because they have been proven innumerable times
to hold true thru many challenges and experiments.
Since we trust the tools used to build the body of evidence in evolution
are themselves factual in nature, we can honestly say that we have a
number of evolutionary "facts" available that can themselves be used as
tools to further the study of evolutionary theory.
Based on that understanding, unless the kids in question are in a special
honors course, we can honestly say that what is taught in schools as
evolutionary theory is as factually valid as biology, geology, botany,
and chemisty to name just a few.
End Simple disclaimer...
SO to answer your question from above: "Are you prepared to state that
Evolution is fact?", the answer is YES. I am also prepared to state that
there are areas within the field of evolution that have not been fully
explored due to understandable limits on the current state of the other
"tools" we are using to analyze it. That does not mean the other facts
of Evolution are untrue, it means that there are other facts within that
field of science that have yet to be discovered.
If you wish to challenge Evolution as a science, they you must do so by
addressing the existing facts about evolution that are supported by testing
and verification within other fields of science. Or you have to start
challenging those other fields of science as being invalid as tools to
use to support evolutionary ideas as fact.
"but the overall presentation of the "theory" clearly implies that Evolution
is so widely regarded as being consistent with the evidence, that to not
believe that Evolution is actually fact would be, well, unintelligent."
No, the evidence is so consistent that to not believe that Evolution is
actually a fact is to refuse to believe the science behind it. We have
no problem with people wanting to challenge evolution, but the "Intelligent"
way to do so is to:
(A) Provide new evidence that causes a re-evaluation of existing facts.
(B) Show where the underlying tools are innaccurate, thus causing a
re-evaluation of the conclusions upon which the facts are based.
(C) Show how the conclusions can be changed using other equally valid, or
more valid tools; thus causing a re-evaluation...
You will note that none of those sentences addresses evolution specifically.
Because the basic structure of science requires that you be able to apply the
same thought process to any other field of science as a test.
To do any less would be defined as an unintelligent approach.
Re:Any difference between scientists & fundame (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Essentialism is a lie. (Score:1, Insightful)
You can assign this concept an "-ism" name and link it to Hitler all you want, but it won't change the facts. Obfuscating things with political dogma is a bad way to do science -- take for example the BiDil controversy, which almost resulted in depriving blacks of provably effective medication for heart disease because it went against accepted views of race and genetics.
Re:How Inconsiderate (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine the backlash that would ensue from the religious crowd if Philosophy was actually added to a state's mandatory curriculum? Actually having a true philosophical debate in public schools would probably be tantamount to Satan worshiping for the ID crown.
Philosopy is far too intertwined with reason, objectivity, and open mindedness to mesh with fundamentalist religion.
For example:
Parent: What did you learn in school today?
Child: We read about Friedrich Nietzsche.
Parent: Who's that?
Child: Some German philosopher who said God died.
Parent: *head a splode*
Good stuff! (Score:2, Insightful)
|0053r n00b y0u kn0w n07h1n6 4b0u7 r3|1610n 0r 5c13nc3. 1 ru|3!!!!!
In relation to the topic at hand it seems to me that a large proportion of people study lots of theories/evidence for ID OR evolution and tend to concentrate on one side of the debate. I think most people would be hard pressed to remain impartial and not develop there own views and then, probably without realising it, begin to find more information which backs up the views which they are developing. It seems that what happens then is as people reinforce their own views they tend not to study the other side of the argument as much and try just ask the other party to prove what their saying all the time while putting across the evidence for their side of the argument.
Look through the replies to the post - a lot of them are based on "Prove evolution" and then "Evolution has been proved you prove ID" and then "ID is proved you prove evolution" and so on..
I think there is common ground between ID and evolution and they do not always contradict each other. I'm a Christian but I believe that natural selection has happened and is happening. As many people point out it's often the extremists, who are a minority, who give a bad name to both camps and make it seem like everyone in that camp holds their point of view...
--
Re:Essentialism is a lie. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's way too generalized to reflect reality.
Biological differences can (and do) lead to differences in emotional depth and "emotional intelligence", cognitive abilities, athletic potentials both realized and nascent, immune system / disease resistance, height, intelligence, secondary sexual characteristics, bone structure, child bearing / rearing capabilities, eye color, bone density, resistance to pain... the list is endless because it includes everything.
It is politically correct nonsense to say that biological differences, miscast in PC terms as "essentialism", are non-existant or irrelevant. In real human terms, differences matter when they are significant; and they they are certainly significant when they are pivotal, or fundamental, in degree with regard to a particular situation. If you ignore differences, you may be shooting yourself right in the foot; taking them too seriously when it is not warranted can just as easily lead to problems. The bottom line is you have to think about every situation and decide if the differences at hand are relevant to the problems and issues at hand. The answer, however, is not to declare that observing differences is "essentialism."
Albert Einstein was not the "equal" of any random Down's syndrome child you care to pick. And why? Bloody biology, that's why. Likewise, women are not and never will be, barring genetic manipulation, "the same" as men. The expectation that they should be is absolutely ludicrous. This does not rule out any particular role or capability; what it says is that the fit to a particular cognitive, physical, emotional, or artistic target is going to be different between men and women because of biological differences. This, in turn, should encourage us to consider every situation as a unique challenge to meet it with the best fit we can. Not to cleave to some politically correct but scientifically bewildered mode of thinking.
To which, of course, we can add environmental influences from nutrition to parenting and schooling. The very concept that people are, or even could be, "the same" is just plain medieval.
There's nothing like politically correct psychobabble to blind us to reality.
Re:Anti-intelligent-design scientists are confused (Score:2, Insightful)
It's very simple really. We could be living in a simulated Matrix-like world. But we have no proof to support that possibility, just like we have no proof to support intelligent design. Therefore I believe this world is real, because it's the easiest explanation, and in evolution, because there's a lot of scientific proof behind it. Doesn't prove everything, but it's better than nothing.
Re:As one of those fundamentalists... (Score:5, Insightful)
The usefulness of an underlying philosophy to science is undoubtable though. The philosophy that the universe is ordered has helped aid scientific discovery (until quantum physics). The philosophy that the universe has a beginning and is constantly changing was fought against hard by the majority of the scientific community who believed in the philosophy of a relatively static universe until the data was too much for it to stand. The philosophy that evolution governs all biology has worked for quite some time, but it is a philosophy, and it is possible, like Newtonian physics, that it governs only a part of the full field. ID proposes more uniqueness and order to living organisms than evolution currently allows. As a guiding philosophy, it lives or dies on the biological discoveries in the future.
A governing philosophy to part of science should be taught, but not as a scientific fact, and a historical view of the different philosophies that have been successful and discarded would be as useful as teaching the current scientific understanding of reality.
Re:How Inconsiderate (Score:2, Insightful)
That's right. You have the same narrow and bigoted view of 'fundamentalist religion' as the worst of the 'fundies.'
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Feminized? (Score:3, Insightful)
That was/is my point.
so how does society being mostly male dominated (save for a few female dominated societies) demonstrate that women are less competitive? Once the balance swings very far one way or another, it is very difficult to bring it back, so that would seem to have little bearing on competitiveness.
people revert back to the myth that everybody is created equal.
It's not a fact, it's legal doctrine. The actual doctrine is that all are equal before the law. I'm not going to argue that people are different, just that they deserve equal treatment.
I have noticed in my behavior and that of many other males, that we are being less like men, and that is simply unnatural.
Based on your limited experience and preconceptions of gender roles, I suppose so, but the fact remains that most of these gender roles are socially imposed. Unnatural doesn't really apply to something like that.
Some tidbits from outside the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion has a place in society for the people that want to spend their lives serving their god or gods and thats fine, all kinds of faiths have had a chance for over 100 years to come up with a usable scientific explanation and they never have, because they don't deal in science, they deal with religion.
Please, don't mix them up or try to bring your favorite religion into the picture to explain things that are perfectly handled by science. Not only are you hurting science for dragging it into a mud slinging contest that really no scientist is interested in. But you are hurting your fellow citizens, not everyone believes in your god, not in Europe, not in the US. To postulate that your god has had a definite hand in creation of this planet and the life on and using very poor science to back it up is insulting to your own religion but also to the people of other faiths. Leave science alone, and keep your religion in your churches and the walls of your own home and possibly your *private* schools.
Remember that people who aren't religious or have a different religion are supposed to have equal rights as the people practicing the most popular religion. That means for one thing, that trying to sneak creationism into science classes makes you very very unpopular and is rightfully so considered extremely insulting to people of different faiths, no faiths and scientists together.
It would look so much better on a lot of christians in the US if they would just sit back and try to see who's agenda they are pushing here and what they think they'll get out of it. I can assure you, if things like schoolboards sneaking in creationism during science class continues, the laughter from the rest of the world will get so loud you will be able to hear it in your prescious heartland pretty soon.
As a last tip for the people trying to "debunk" the scientific method, please read this alinea here: http://www.benben.com.com/ [com.com]. And just let it sink in, please.
Re:It's about tolerance and religious freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
1) We can observe changes over generations to the point of speciation.
2) Therefore all life came about through natural observable chemical processes.
3) Therefore life needs no creator.
4) Therfore God doesn't exist.
While the first point is observable and valid, the second three veer off into philosophy-land. Point 1 isn't what is being debated in courts and schoolboards, points 2-4 are. However, not separating points 1-4 and calling it all "evolution" has served both to promote Atheism, and muddy the debate by switching meanings whenever it is expedient to do so. You get all the usual false arguments that Creationists shouldn't use medicine because it came about using Part 1. Creationists don't care about Part 1. They are fine with part 1 (except maybe the semi-arbitrary classification of a species), but proponents of the whole evolution metaphilosophy seem to always want to make the argument that Creationists deny Part 1, making them scientifically backward, dangerous, stupid, etc.
Socially Imposed Gender Roles (Score:2, Insightful)
And this was going to be my point earlier; however, I wanted to get an explanation
of Hackstraw's statement before debating. It's a solid fact that gender roles are often
imposed by society. After all, it's easier and more "kind" for a family to have their
baby boy wearing blue than pink. It's easier and more "kind" to encourage their daughter
to engage in tasks that are passively home-based rather than actively political-based.
If parents encourage activities that are streamline, at least their son or daughter won't
have to suffer through humiliation growing up! I can't speak for every person that's
felt like an outcast because they broke away from socially "accepted" standards. I would
venture to say, though, that I'd rather have my parent's support of my "non-standard" gender
practices while growing up rather than being forced to fit social standard.
If one is a conservative and wishes to stick to old standard, I won't stop you. Until
people all over realize that the social definition of gender is truly blurred, they
will continue to enforce social standards, whether it's through the raising of their
children or by laughing at and/or beating up a male because he's wearing a skirt.
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people don't really understand science because they have never studied it, but they do understand the faith they were raised with to some degree, and if they have to make a choice between two things, neither of which makes a huge amount of sense to them anyway, they are going to choose whichever falls more closely in line with what they already understand. Do you have a lot of Christian friends? You should ask them. I guarantee you mine are generally more readily accepting of ID.
Your "vocal minority" also comprises almost any position in every Protestant church in the US, who actually speak every Sunday to a majority of Americans.
Re:I just want to say this (Score:3, Insightful)
The ultimate problem is not with evolution per se, but with modernism. Higher Criticism (Wellhausen, Noth, et al), Darwinism (biological, sociological), various political paradims, pretty much any naturalistic explaination to the human condition, in their eyes, leads to Atheism. Once a single pillar of Christianity has been destroyed (see: the five fundamentals of faith for a more specific list), in their eyes, ALL of Christianity has been destoryed. Without the Christ, all are damned and there is no hope. That is ultimately the important thing to note.
In their eyes, the Christian Bible is inerrant. As such, all "science" will verify the text of the Christian Bible. If it does not, it because mankind has been lead astray by modernism (read: Satan) and fallen into a realm of logical fallacies.
There is an irony here, Intelligent Design (as they seem to describe it) has been primarily a modernist philosphical invention, until recently. It's roots are pretty much in the deistic prime mover, as such is a naturalistic attempt to talk about God. IMHO, Christian Fundamentalist who has accepted Intelligent Design, as it's described in the public debate, have walked up the first step towards modernism themselves. Early fundamentalist would be disgusted with them and attack them for heresy.
The reason they have accept Intelligent Design is ultimately because of the Founding Father Problem: the foundation of modern america starts with a Prime Move arguement which lead to "natural rights". In the late 19th to early 20th century, a lot of time was spent discussing this problem. This lead to a semi-successful attempt to repaint the founders as Christians and a partial acceptance of their arguements.
Re:Feminized? (Score:3, Insightful)
Women and men are different. I know that is not a popular opinion, but the boobies and the having kids thing kinda comes to mind.
Yeah, physically men and women are different. Noone's disputing that. Noone sane anyways.
But if you think that nurturing kids is equivalent to being female, why are more people opting to go without kids? Why do more men feel they don't have to get married to a girl if she gets pregnant? It seems like society has been becoming more selfish, not more nurturing. The whole feminist movement aimed to allow women to take on traditionally male roles.
Aren't the traits that you describe; authoritairanism, desire to dominate, all linked in with racism? Maybe going too far in that direction is a bad thing. If we've moved away from it, then yay for us.
Western society is getting more like the emotional and nurturing side. Like the "high self esteem" plan vs doing something to feel good about yourself.
Is this really a male-female dichotomy?
I'm glad you didn't jump to conclusions. In fact, many of us "nerds" are more on the female side of things in that we want everybody to win
Too much testosterone is not good for business. Executives tend to have lower testosterone than people in their age group, IIRC. The people with the highest levels of testosterone tend to be in prison. Of course, older people are more likely to be executives and younger people are more likely to be in prison, but still...
Re:Why is Creationism bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Plate techtonics as a theory not only explains some if the more interesting features of the planet, but it also provides a framework for further questions. Scientists in general love unanswered questions because unanswered questions can be parlayed into grant funding.
Which BTW. The creation of the Earth has squat to do with Evolution.
Re:As one of those fundamentalists... (Score:3, Insightful)
The usefulness of an underlying philosophy to science is undoubtable though. The philosophy that the universe is ordered has helped aid scientific discovery (until quantum physics). The philosophy that the universe has a beginning and is constantly changing was fought against hard by the majority of the scientific community who believed in the philosophy of a relatively static universe until the data was too much for it to stand. The philosophy that evolution governs all biology has worked for quite some time, but it is a philosophy, and it is possible, like Newtonian physics, that it governs only a part of the full field. ID proposes more uniqueness and order to living organisms than evolution currently allows. As a guiding philosophy, it lives or dies on the biological discoveries in the future.
A governing philosophy to part of science should be taught, but not as a scientific fact, and a historical view of the different philosophies that have been successful and discarded would be as useful as teaching the current scientific understanding of reality.
What class do you want to cover this in again?
Re:Evolution is Theory After All (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to call Newton's theory of gravity a theory, and Einstein's theory of relativity a theory, and Darwin's theory a evolution a theory, fine.
And you can use absolutely any language you like when teaching them in highschool science class. Just don't try to single one of them out for special discrimination. If you want stupid-ass stickers in biology text books statign that evolution is Just A Theory, fine. But if you do then you damn well bette be placing the exact same stickers WARNING students that gravity is Just A Theory too. And you also better include a sticker warning students that chemistry's theory of atoms and theory of elements are Just Theories as well. And electricity and electrons are Just a Theories as well.
The Roman and Egyptian civilizations are theories too.
And the American Civil War is Just a Theory. Nobody alive actually saw it happen. It is just the best theory he have to explain the reality we currently observe.
The supporters of the theory of evolution just want to skip all that nasty business of work and evidence and got straight from theory to established fact practically overnight.
Why?
Evolution has been supported by staggering quantities of conclusive evidence for damn near ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FSCKING YEARS.
A one hundred and fifty year night. Yes, it was very very dark for a very very long time.
In fact in the last few decades with genetic analysis the evidence conculsively supporting evolution has turned into an unending flood.
It's those atheist relativity fanatics that are trying straight from theory to established fact practically overnight. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has been around less than 90 years.
-
Re:They're not against science. (Score:2, Insightful)
Really?
Science attempts to build a model of the universe based on observation.
Why observation? Why not imagination? Or random chance?
The fact is that the very PROCESS of observation is rooted in assumptions that observation can tell us things about the universe around us. Without this base assumption, there would be not motivation to observe.
I'm not saying that scientists go "gee, I think I'll believe in the principle of observation today", but the fact is that logically you have to believe that your physical sense can tell you something about the world around you or you have not coherent, rational reason to observe. Furthermore, you have to believe that, in general, the future will be like the past - that there's some kind of continuity beyond our experience. Without that assumption, then drawing conclusions from our observations would be meaningless.
It's not like I'm a lone psycho out here. This is all stuff that Hegel and Kant have been through thoroughly.
You guys want to equate "science" with rational thought. But the fact of the matter is that our current conception of science is just the recent of many paradigms to come and go. It is better than previous paradigms in the sense that now we have running water and can send men to the moon - but the essential fact is that it answers questions to our satisfaction - just as previous versions of science/philosophy/relgion did so for people at that time. This idea that our science is somehow inherently superior or that our system is 100% self-correcting is foolishness. Read some Kuhn, for crying out lout. There's a whole set of studies on the philosophy of science - and I'm not even close to an expert. But to pretend that science is some kind of holy, infinitely self-perfecting system is just ludicrous.
-stormin
Re:Most disturbing..... (Score:5, Insightful)
TW
Not Correct for Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally whether the reason was correct or only ideological or even dumb fear on our side, THE CHOICE should still be left with us whether we want to buy a product or not. But effectively firm did not want to leave us that choice by avoiding putting in the product composition the truth of the origin of their crops/soja... You know the adage. A free market exist only if the consumer is informed.
Re:No science in support of ID...I beg to differ.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're in the minority. (Score:2, Insightful)
But I would contend that there are two broad types of religion: the sincere and the purely domatic. The purely dogmatic is pretty much arbitrary in its beliefs and requires adherents to surrender their own thoughts and opinions and simply believe (where belief is defined as merely using sheer will power on a belief - kind of like the sumo wrestling of wishful thinking). But there is another type of religious thought: the type that in its sincerity requires adherents (of either a conventional organized religion or free-thinkers) to evaluate, question, and doubt. Obediance in this context, while superficially identical, is fundamentally different because it is obediance informed by prior, reasoned belief. Kind of like trusting someone you know vs. doing whatever anyone tells you. Belief in those religions is of the conventional, rational sense - drawing conclusions from frequently insufficient data with full awareness that the data is insufficient.
I would also go further and say that those exact principles can be applied to science as well. There are plenty of dogmatic scientists. Even mathematicians have occaisionally been dogmatic throughout history. This isn't to say that science is inherently dogmatic - to the extent that they were dogmatic they were rejecting the real principles of science as we accept them today. True science is not dogmatic.
The only reason that religion is not equated with reason and rational thought is that there's a very, very long history of substituting one definition of belief for the other. This is a subtle change that requires adherents to obey without thinking and allows religious leaders to convert piety into political capital. They no longer get to evaluate their leaders, or even their religion itself, before swearing allegiance to it - allowing anyone to take over the church if they can sieze control of the hierarchy. This confusion of faith by dogma vs. faith as sincere belief continues in mainstream churches today and is institutionally embraced by some religions - thus leading to the (partially deserved) bad reputation of religion in general.
Meanwhile science continues to institutionally reject dogma for the most part. I'd say some arguably scientific institions like the AMA and the pyschiatric equivalent are just as dogmatic on some issues for political reasons. It may even be worth pointing out that science, as we understand it today, is much newer than religion. It already starts to make appeals to authority in some cases. This mirrors religious abuse. "Listen to me, because God gave me authority and thus you MUST believe or be a heretic!" is not that different from "Listen to me, because I have a PhD and therefore you MUST believe or be a fundamentalist/idiot/etc!"
Give science a few hundred years, and I wouldn't be that surprised to see more people attempting to hijack the institutions for their own political gain just as has been done to religions for thousands of years.
-stormin
Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII (Score:2, Insightful)
Listen, I can tell what you really are, so I'm prepared for it, but why would you refer to the flag that way?
Is it really so hard to refrain from insulting something which can't fight back, and is genrerally regarded as representing the sacrifices of people who died protecting the ideals of freedom?
So you hate the US, fine, you're allowed to misrepresent reality.
But what does insulting the symbol of the US do to help you? Do you think you're getting anywhere doing something which has no purpose other than to incite?