[General Freak]

Are the links down for me or for everyone? Reuters claims it has technical difficulties.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Sandwich
So wait, evolutionists are feeling threatened by something else being taught alongside the only scientific theory in schools?

I fixed your post for you.

Creationism and ID are not science and thus don't belong "alongside" the ToE. They belong in R.E.-class.

Besides, if you take a closer look at the people who are pushing for ID to be teached "alongside" the ToE you'll notice that they're the same people who want creationism to be teached. To them it's just a step by step approach to get their BS into the class-room and respected science out of it.
but hey, what can you expect from people who use "liberal" and "secular" as terms of abuse.

Originally posted by Deepblue
Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.

Actually they do since natural selection is inherent in the theory of evolution. "Natural selection" as a concept excludes the possibility of guiding by some being.


But hey, in a way I don't have any problems with people in the Us trying to screw up their educational systems. It'll bite them in the ass eventually when other, better educated peoples rise above them.
(Cause you have to remember that the ToE is a multidisciplinary effort. So attacking the ToE is attacking science as a whole)

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Kazan
TrashMan the universe makes perfect sense without a god or anything else supernatural - it makes a LOT more sense logically.

Some people just cannot fathom that "irrelevant" and "just don't know" are valid answers

WEll, explain the Big Bang in that case...
Science can't find a valid explanation for it. All the theories that they came up with ended up as duds.

[Ace]

Superstring theory

Membrane interactions causing massive inputs of energy (big bang).

...and to answer the "what started the strings" question, remember that time itself is a human concept. A moebius strip would be a nice analogy to the structure of the universe.

Which leads to an interesting paradox of the universe constantly creating itself. (which fits nice if you want to anthropomorphize the universe as a deity)

In the end though, very simple geometry that endlessly pisses off human attempts to make linear narratives to explain things.

[Ford Prefect]

WEll, explain the Big Bang in that case...
Science can't find a valid explanation for it. All the theories that they came up with ended up as duds.

Yes, and I just read in the newspaper that science will never again make any discoveries. We've reached the end of the road-- guess we've found god.

[aldo_14]

Don't we need to forget everything we've discovered and replace it with easy homogenized and pre-packaged replacements first?  Like pi = 3?

I find it bizarre that having a little bit of difficulty finding an exact explanation of the creation of every atom of physical matter, time, gravity, etc (and in only a few centuries of serious analytical investigation) is considered good cause for attacking science.  I mean, it's not exactly supposed to be an easy question, is it?

What do you expect?  Immediate human omnipotence?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I find it bizarre that having a little bit of difficulty finding an exact explanation of the creation of every atom of physical matter, time, gravity, etc (and in only a few centuries of serious analytical investigation) is considered good cause for attacking science.  I mean, it's not exactly supposed to be an easy question, is it?

 Six centuries ago no one knew the answer to what stopped people from simply flapping their arms and flying through the sky. They knew it had something to do with us not having wings but the scientific theories covering aerodynamics were not advanced enough to say why wings were needed.

Does that mean that the scientists who explained the reason as being due to men not having wings were wrong? Does it mean that back then men couldn't fly because God prevented them?

Of course not. Just because a theory is incomplete doesn't mean that it is wrong. Simply that more study is needed before you can say it's right.

Creationists want to say that because science can't explain everything it must be wrong. That is a completely spurious argument as the example above demonstrates.

[DeepSpace9er]

IMO, Science should work with theology and not be the inverse. I think that most if not all scientists have forgotten the end of science, or they prefer it to be the antithesis of religion.

[vyper]

Eh?

[Bobboau]

oh, and just what is this "the end of science" ?

if I'm not mistaken the point is to figure out as much as we posably can. religon tells you what the truth is, and your a sinner if you don't beleive them. how can these two not be direct opposites.

science:"I think it's like this because I found all this stuff that sudgets it, and if that's the way it is, then this other thing should happen, lets go see if it does!"

religon:"this is the way it is because God said so, you question it, you burn."

[karajorma]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
IMO, Science should work with theology and not be the inverse.

No. Science it the application of the scientific method. If it deviates from that even in the slightest then it ceases to be science. Theology should work with science, not the other way round.

Science has no agenda. It's simply the best explaination we can prove for any observation. Theology is the one with the agenda and it needs to adapt.

The argument between science and theology is 100% theology's fault for being unwilling to accept the conclusions of science and assuming that it has to discredit them.

[mikhael]

I've always seen it the other way around. When I read cosmology books, the authors don't take a dismissing view of religion. Fundamentalist groups, however dismiss science prima fascie pretty regularly.

Science is not about disproving religion or killing God or denying faith. Science is about explaining the observed facts and trying to deduce new facts from that basis. Let me say that again:

Science is about explaining the observed facts and trying to deduce new facts from that basis.

The core concept of science is not "You're Wrong," but "I may be wrong." To translate the concept into action, the scientist makes a statement (a hypothesis), then goes about trying to disprove it. As soon as it is shown to be invalid somehow, it is reexamined, the flaws are sought and a new statement is made and subject to the same critical process again. There's this general misconception that it works in reverse (making a statement and proving it true, damn the evidence to the contrary).

If the concept of evolution goes against the Creation hypothesis (not a theory, mind. a hypothesis), does that deny God or religion in general? No. It may cast doubt in someone's mind on the details of religion, or someone's idea of God, but it does not actually attack either. It just means that there's another hypothesis to form and then test.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Kosh


No, it has nothing to do with that. The problem is that the "creationsists" want a RELIGIOUS theory to be taught in a SCIENCE class. The "evolutionists" have no problems with it being taught were it belongs, in a RELIGIONS class.

Creationism isn't a science.

And if you're going to say that a religious theory should be taught in a science class, then they might as well teach witchcraft in a medical class.

Have you ever gotten a joke in an email from your (theoretical, if need be) girlfriend and wondered whether it should be filed away under "Humor" or under "GF Correspondence"?

Just because creationism involves a religious element does not mean that it doesn't also belong in a discussion about the possible origins of life.

EDIT: I'd toss in here an observation that the Bible has never been proven wrong (and, indeed, cannot be proven wrong), but I really don't have the time, energy, or resources to follow through with debating the point.

One thing I do know, as an example, is that until a few scant years ago (like, less than a dozen IIRC), there was NO historic/archeological proof of the existance of a Pontous Pilate (sp?) outside of the accounts in the 4 gospels. Then, X amount of years ago, the ubiqutious "they" discovered an ancient coin with his name engraved there.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Just because creationism involves a religious element does not mean that it doesn't also belong in a discussion about the possible origins of life.

Ah. But it doesn't belong in a discussion of scientific possible origins of life and therein lies the reason why it can't be taught in science class.

Let me put it this way. If you want to teach sex ed then anything about fallopian tubes and what ovulation is can be taught in science because it is biology.

Stuff about using condoms, abstinence and how you'll feel if your boyfriend dumps you straight afterwards and moves onto the next girl (The bastard!) doesn't belong in science class. It's not science. It has no place there.

Originally posted by Sandwich
EDIT: I'd toss in here an observation that the Bible has never been proven wrong (and, indeed, cannot be proven wrong), but I really don't have the time, energy, or resources to follow through with debating the point.

Only cause you change the definitions of what it means when you are proved wrong.

"Circle of the Earth" = Earth is flat and circular (until someone proves that the Earth isn't flat)
"God created the Earth in 6 days" = 144hours (until geological evidence shows that can't be true so 6 days must not be literally 6 days)

[Kazan]

sandwich just because a mundane claim of the bible "person X existed" can be independantly supported doesn't affect the credibility of any other claim in the book (Such as "person Y came back from the dead") even if you can also prove person Y existed [but are obviously unable to prove they came back from the dead]


More Generally

Given a document that makes to unconnected [logically] claims A dn B.  If A is proven true that doesn't mean B is any more or less likely to be true.

Nobody disputes the mundane claims of the bible "person A existed, city b was sacked by god's army, the people were once in slavery", etc - they say: "you have no evidence for the extraordinary claims [supernaturalism] so you cannot claim it to be true"

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by karajorma


Ah. But it doesn't belong in a discussion of scientific possible origins of life and therein lies the reason why it can't be taught in science class.

Let me put it this way. If you want to teach sex ed then anything about fallopian tubes and what ovulation is can be taught in science because it is biology.

Stuff about using condoms, abstinence and how you'll feel if your boyfriend dumps you straight afterwards and moves onto the next girl (The bastard!) doesn't belong in science class. It's not science. It has no place there.



Only cause you change the definitions of what it means when you are proved wrong.

"Circle of the Earth" = Earth is flat and circular (until someone proves that the Earth isn't flat)
"God created the Earth in 6 days" = 144hours (until geological evidence shows that can't be true so 6 days must not be literally 6 days)

That's assuming that were talking earth days here, which we obviously aren't.

[Flipside]

The Bible contains Historical accuracies, certainly, Jericho, quite possibly the great flood and several other major events or places have been either confirmed or revealed by it, however, a scientist cannot turn around and say, 'I'll ignore what 98% of evidence suggests and concentrate on the few anomolies because they produced results that are different the rest'.

This is my particular problem with 'Intelligent Design', they can assume the role of 'If the design is intelligent, then the designer would have tried to cover their tracks, so it's the anomolies we are looking for, not the 'normal'. You cannot add personality to science, the moment you start thinking of nature as 'sentient' you start looking for personailty, and that destroys the entire purpose of science, which is to remain dispassionate and believe only that which you have evidence for, and then, only until disproved.

It's that Ethos which pushes our knowledge, you cannot sit back and say 'oh, God did that bit', you have to explain the process, that's how mankind takes apart the world around him, by making stories about how it works. You could describe a circuit board and how it works as a story, the power goes in, the power heats the wire in the bulb, which glows as it emits the energy, the power returns to the source. However, we all know that what is really going on in there is far far more complex. That is where science lives, finding out those 'stories' in every last detail.
If you simply skip entire chapters, assigning them to some unknown Author (A Nom de Plume of God), then you are damaging the very tool that explains the universe around us.

Ok, finished

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Kazan
More Generally

Given a document that makes to unconnected [logically] claims A dn B.  If A is proven true that doesn't mean B is any more or less likely to be true.

On the contrary: If you have a book of statements, some of which can be factually decided (i.e. proven or disproven), and every single factual statement that has been factually decided has been proven, then that increases the overall credibility of the book.

So if the book asserts a factually decideable statement that hasn't ever been disproven, then the odds of that statement being true are improved, simply based on the historical credibility of the rest of the book.

[mikhael]

Its not the factually decideable parts that are at issue, is it? Kaz is pointing out that its the parts that are decidable only on faith that are at issue.

[Kazan]

Goober5000 it only increases the credibility of _related_ claims logically speaking.

"a man existed" is not logically connected to "he arose from the dead" -- they are completely independant claims.

as for Flipside's reference to 'the great flood': he is correct it's entirely possible that story is based upon fact.  
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/blacksea/history/noah.html

this PDF gives a date of 7150 years-ago or 5145 BCE http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/david.franzi/Seminar/Noah's%20Flood/Uchupi%20&%20Ross%202000.pdf