# Creationists launch new attacks on evolution



## Anthony G Williams

I've posted a long article on my blog about the creationists' latest lines of attack in trying to get their fantasy taught as a legitimate theory in US schools: "academic freedom" and the "mind/brain" distinction. See: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/


----------



## iansales

Your first mistake is taking them seriously...


----------



## Drachir

iansales said:


> Your first mistake is taking them seriously...


 
Never underestimate these poorly educated people.  They may be unscientific and delusional in their beliefs, but they have succeeded in forcing partial acceptance of their religious doctines into a number of schools in the US and have actually stopped scientific research in several areas such as stem cell research.


----------



## iansales

That's because the Republic Party deliberately courted them because they wanted them to vote and knew they'd never vote Democrat. But if you take their views seriously, you're already starting to legitimise them. And that's how they begin to wield power...


----------



## mosaix

I do see your point Ian, but ignoring them allows them to get the upper hand. Whatever they say and wherever they say it must be met head on.


----------



## iansales

I didn't say we should ignore them, I said we should mock them and treat them as the lunatics they are. If you take their views seriously, you're giving them a platform. Me, whenever I see the Jesus Army, I ask them why they paint their buses with the Gay Pride flag


----------



## Parson

Ian, 

Ironically both the Creationists and Darwin have something very much in common. Neither can believe that there will ever be anything contrary to their belief. Basically the Creationists believe that if any piece of the Bible can be PROVEN false, the whole religious system falls. Just like Darwin's said of his theory, "If any living creature can be shown to develop outside of evolution the whole theory is false." 

Both of these statements are very much too strong. All a few failures prove is that our understanding has not reached that far. An excellent book showing a Christian response to Creationism is "Origins, A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution" by Loren D. Haarsma and Deborah B. Haarsma. Deborah is a Ph. D from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Loren is a Ph. D. from Harvard University. Both are professors of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College.


----------



## PTeppic

I'd disagree with mockery. To mock a view is the weakest form of denial and implies there is nothing more worth arguing. If their argument is so feeble it should be trivial to demonstrate as implausable or unsustainable. I'd also say that mockery cheapens the mocker at having to stoop so low: everyone is entitled to their honestly-held belief and view, even if "clearly" absurd. It's a poor show if a modern, democratic, free society can't respect each other's views, even if disagreeing fundamentally and in great detail. YMMV.


----------



## Nik

If many people still believe that Neil Armstrong & Co did NOT walk upon our Moon, that Astrology and homeopathic remedies *work* etc etc, then there is no hope of convincing the Creationists...

So how will the 'SoundStagers' react when eg first Chinese Moon-mission eye-balls the Apollo Descent Stages, their trash and tread-marks ?? Probably like the unhappy 'FlatEarth Society' whose benighted members complained to UK's BBC about the spinning planet logo. They did not change their minds, they just died out...

FWIW, providing you have an escape route available, try this procedure for deconstructing homeopathy: Suggest that if the stuff gets better when outrageously diluted, then it must be best when not actually taken and, in fact, should work if you peek at the expensive concoction in shop window without buying it. Then, logically, it should even work if you merely *consider* going to the Mall to eye-ball the window...

Handy in times of difficult finances, no ??

Apparently there's a genetic basis to placebo effect, something to do with serontonin enzymes, such that, if you get it from both parents, you're a sucker for ungrounded authority statements like, "This Stuff *Really* Works". I must wonder if this also applies to the Creationists' cultural base and arguments...


----------



## Ursa major

Nik said:


> FWIW, providing you have an escape route available, try this procedure for deconstructing homeopathy: Suggest that if the stuff gets better when outrageously diluted, then it must be best when not actually taken and, in fact, should work if you peek at the expensive concoction in shop window without buying it. Then, logically, it should even work if you merely *consider* going to the Mall to eye-ball the window


 
Even vaguely musing that there may be a remedy is taking away some (most?) of the cure's power.... (Not that this will shut any of these deluded** people up, sadly.)



** - I'm being _incredibly_ generous here, as you might imagine.


----------



## The Ace

Errrrr Nik, a traditional remedy for headaches and fevers was tea made from willow-bark.  These days, we just bottle the active ingredient and call it aspirin. It's amazing how many of these things actually work.  Admittedly, homeopathy has about as much going for it as the doctrine of signatures, but there you go.

The problem with creationism is the way they squirm out of it every time someone proves they're talking cr*p, and I won't even dignify the conspiracy theorists with a reply (9/11 _was _a conspiracy, a bunch of people had had more than they could take of US foreign policy and decided to do something about it.  None of them had anything to do with the US government.  A disgruntled ex US Marine sniper shot president Kennedy and Neil Armstrong defied the laws set by space as his ancestors had denied those set by men and walked on the moon).

I hope that one day, we'll erradicate poverty from this unhappy world, but stupidity is a problem we'll probably never fix.


----------



## purple_kathryn

As soon as they actually have a theory and with it at least as much evidence as evolution has they can have it taught in schools


----------



## chrispenycate

purple_kathryn said:


> As soon as they actually have a theory and with it at least as much evidence as evolution has they can have it taught in schools


 
No, you've got it wrong. Fundamentalists don't deal in theories, they deliver Absolute Truth. The evidence is that it's written in the King James Bible like that, and god was watching over the translators to make sure they got it right, even if the original Greek (translated from the Hebrew, translated from the Aramaic) said it differently.

They hold that their inflexibility, their refusal to admit any evidence but that demonstrates how right they must be; after all, it's held four hundred years, there can't be anything wrong with it (like a Roman aqueduct)

But it wasn't so long ago that the most advanced natural thinking in the world came from the Greek philosophers, and they weren't all that enthusiastic about scientific evidence, either. Statements were made because, logically things had to be like that, and if they failed to live up to this logic obviously the universe was at fault. 

The idea of the theory, hypothosis, antithesis, _experiment, _theory, and the assumption that the theory will need tweaking as new evidence comes in (more recent evolutionary theory contains considerably more factors than the simplistic 'survival of the fittest') is fairly young, even if its successes are spectacular. And the sort of people who need stability and certainty to survive are never going to be comfortable with a world-picture which is 'the best we can do for now, pending new evidence'.

Which is what 'science' is all about; when a scientist starts ignoring facts that disagree with his pet theory (and it does happen) he's drifted out of scientific method and into magic, or theology.


----------



## Pyan

Nik said:


> Probably like the unhappy 'FlatEarth Society' whose benighted members complained to UK's BBC about the spinning planet logo. They did not change their minds, they just died out...




Sorry to disillusion you, Nik, but:

The Flat Earth Society -- Home


----------



## PTeppic

The difficulty with the creationist's point is one of granularity: so far as I understand it they have a very simple, single argument: the Bible as written is (as it were) Gospel truth, all of it, including the old bits. BUT, this in itself is a description of their faith, not the arguments behind it. So they can't just have a single factual theory to uphold or argue, they need to have dozens: anti-evolution, anti-geophysics, anti-archaeology/carbon-dating etc.

And for reference, I have been to a Creationist speaker (possibly twice, my memory is awful). Some of it was good spin and logic, though some had some gaping logical flaws, basing many subsequent arguments on a single, unproved counter-premise to modern science.


----------



## Nik

"These days, we just bottle the active ingredient and call it aspirin."

D'uh, yes, I used to test that stuff. Also the 'active' in liquorice root, which went into a remarkably foul, but effective proprietary cough-mixture. We'd do steam-distillation or solvent extraction of volatile 'essential' oils and other actives from a bizarre variety of plants and other natural products. I still remember the hysterics when an opened sample of cochineal *crawled away*...

(Rejected due to contamination: Our gleeful microscopist identified the 'creeping crud' as an exceptionally severe mite infestation. Before you cry 'YUK', remember those premier Kopi Luwak coffee-beans gastro-intestinally processed by civet-cat... ;-)

Of course, 'trad' ingredients tend to have a broad swathe of effects. Worse, they tend to be a cocktail of related chemicals, vary from batch to batch, field to field, year to year. Synthetics are more consistent, can be targetted at specific biochemical deficiencies and, um, patented.

Back on topic: For lotsa stuff, we'd cheerfully weigh out a milligram of standard, or diluted something stronger to a part per million. We were *very* fussy about not re-using pipettes etc at different dilution stages, and always used at least one fill/discard per stage for fear of cross contamination. Hence an in-house insult of 'homeopath' meaning 'dangerously sloppy'...

There's one 'gotcha', though. Growing crystals of complex molecules to permit diffraction analysis was not our field, but we heard tales. Typically, only one (1) researcher would be able to grow a specific crystal, and that only after much trouble. Other labs would struggle to reproduce the work. But, if that lucky researcher was to visit, then, as if by 'magic', the unprintable stuff would promptly crystallise...

Yup, he/she had probably wafted some micro-crystals along...

But, that's what 'air showers' etc are designed to prevent, as sub-microgram quantities of eg antibiotics may be sufficient to sensitise some-one for an anaphalactic attack...


----------



## Anthony G Williams

Parson said:


> Ironically both the Creationists and Darwin have something very much in common. Neither can believe that there will ever be anything contrary to their belief.


There is a *very* fundamental difference between them.  Darwin (by which I assume you mean those who accept the case for evolution, rather than the man himself) involves an acceptance of evidence-based rational thinking. That acceptance also involves an acknowledgement that new, contrary evidence (or a better explanation) could lead to a change in the theory. If Darwinists are very positive about their convictions, it is because the evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming and credible evidence for any alternative is non-existent, so this is one theory which is most unlikely to be overturned.

Conversely, as chrispenycate pointed out, _"Fundamentalists don't deal in theories, they deliver Absolute Truth."_ And by definition, Absolute Truth is not subject to revision, regardless of the strength of contrary evidence.


----------



## dustinzgirl

You know. I find it completely plausible that both Creationism and Evolution are completely correct. I just don't think we are smart enough to put the puzzle together. And won't be, ever. We're to busy arguing the wide, broad, and unproven theories to try to discover the smaller and more intricate possibilities.

(Oh, and Evolution is a theory. Thats why its called the theory of evolution).


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> You know. I find it completely plausible that both Creationism and Evolution are completely correct. I just don't think we are smart enough to put the puzzle together. And won't be, ever. We're to busy arguing the wide, broad, and unproven theories to try to discover the smaller and more intricate possibilities.


I entirely agree that non-one knows the answer to the most fundamental question of all: why life, the Universe and all that exists. I also agree that it is entirely possible that humanity will become extinct without ever finding the answer to that puzzle. So it is possible that some all-powerful being kicked off the Big Bang, setting the initial conditions to ensure that life would develop and evolve. However, that doesn't really provide an answer, it just poses more questions about how such a being came to exist.

However, my blog wasn't about that: it was about the Creationists who believe that everything we see now was created by God in its present form, and that humanity did not evolve from earlier animals, because that's what it says in the Bible. Such beliefs are, and always will be, totally incompatible with the evidence-based rational thinking which led to the development of the theory of evolution.



> (Oh, and Evolution is a theory. Thats why its called the theory of evolution).


In science, a "theory" is a lot more than just a neat idea which might possibly be true: that's called an "hypothesis". A theory is an hypothesis which has been pored over by many scientists, tested, checked and validated as the best explanation currently available for a particular phenomenon. There are no "facts" in science; our body of knowledge is entirely made up of theories. The concept of gravity is a theory too, but it would be unwise to think that it might therefore be safe to step off a cliff.


----------



## iansales

dustinzgirl said:


> (Oh, and Evolution is a theory. Thats why its called the theory of evolution).



Incorrect. That's creationist propaganda. Evolution is a fact, verified by evidence of changes in organisms over time. The mechanism behind evolution is currently considered theoretical as it is not fully understood.


----------



## Wybren

Over here, in public schools, the kids get one lesson of religious education a week, your parents put on a slip who you belong to and then you go to that class each week for your dosing of RE, as a kid I was a bit of a RE hopper, that is to say I would go to which ever one was giving out the most confectionary   but in all the time I spent going to RE not once did any of them talk about creation, nothing from the old testament was discussed, only the stuff relating to Jesus. Anyway a few years ago I had to do a job at a religiously run private school and we were in the library and in the part where there should have been books on evolution and such there were only books on creationism, and I thought, why, if public schools have to give RE lessons, why doesn't anyone get all hotand bothered about if private schools dont teach anything about evolution?


----------



## Vladd67

I used to work with a Jehovah's Witness who claimed evolution was a theory that no one really believed in anymore, and that cattle and sheep etc were put on earth for the sole benefit of feeding man, that they have always been domesticated, and that animals such as lions etc were put here to clearup the parts of the animals man left behind. I listened to this slightly open mouthed and just couldn't begin to point out where he was wrong. Was going to ask him his views on prehistoric cave paintings showing man hunting some nasty looking cattle but the phone rang and the moment past.


----------



## Nik

IIRC, we've three concurrent life-time bans from the JWs...

Our then boss-cat, a large Siamese, took against JWs and would attack on sight. The third and final incident related to my curt deconstruction of their door-stepper's beliefs. As I added, I grew out of religion at age of six (6) having seen through the glaring flaws, internal errors and self-contradictions. What was keeping him, a grown man, from grasping the utterly obvious ??


----------



## kyektulu

pyan said:


> Sorry to disillusion you, Nik, but:
> 
> The Flat Earth Society -- Home



I have never seen these people before... they cant be serious, just how stupid can someone be.... we despreately need to reintroduce natural selection...


----------



## j d worthington

kyektulu said:


> I have never seen these people before... they cant be serious, just how stupid can someone be.... we despreately need to reintroduce natural selection...


 
Reintroduce? It's never been away. The problem with natural selection is that it is generally a very slow process, and seldom (if ever) individual-oriented but rather species-oriented....

And DG: as pointed out, "theory" does not mean the same thing in science as it does in common parlance; quite the opposite, in fact, much as "space" means one thing to an architect, another to a psychologist, and another to a physicist. All originally _related_, but by no means the same.

And no, using common parlance, evolution isn't a _theory_, it's a _fact --_ as much so as gravity_ --_ which has been observed over and over again (including speciation, an aspect creationists so often argue has never been observed). It is backed by every kind of evidence there is, while creationism has only one thing to support it: the claims of its supporters... which vary from faith to faith (and often within the same faith).


----------



## Pyan

Darwin propounded a theory of evolution, in 1859 - it's since become an accepted fact. Just because it was _published_ as a theory doesn't make it less true - you might as well call the fact that the earth goes around the sun a theory, because Copernicus proposed it as such in 1514...


----------



## Harpo

pyan said:


> Sorry to disillusion you, Nik, but:
> 
> The Flat Earth Society -- Home



Their forum is largely populated with silly funsters


----------



## LJonesy

I find that all this Creationist bashing is incredibly cheap, and as someone said here earlier _"To mock a view is the weakest form of denial and implies there is nothing more worth arguing... I'd also say that mockery cheapens the mocker at having to stoop so low: everyone is entitled to their honestly-held belief and view, even if "clearly" absurd."_ Is there no respect? I've clearly seen very little here, what justification could there be for this kind of behaviour? As far as i can see, all this Creationist bashing seems not to be on a scientific level, but on an emotional level (consider the constant "this creationist cr*p" that's been said)

And let me put out this now: Perspectives on creationism are as varied as the people in the world. If you ever think that _all_ Christians believe the _same_ creationist theories, or the same thing for that matter, then you really need to stop and think a moment.


----------



## Pyan

Give me a respectable theory, and I'll show respect in criticism of it. 
However, cherrypicking from the Bible and presenting those ideas as a truth which should be taught in schools as a credible alternative to science - I'm afraid that's not worthy of respect, IMHO.


----------



## Urlik

I was lucky at school in that my RE teacher was rather intelligent and had read the OT in Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew
he explained that in one of those languages, can't remember which, the word for day was similar to the word for age and that the "days" of creation were in fact ages of unspecified length. 
a theory of Creation that is a lot closer to the observed facts than the Creationist version that ignores facts to stay faithfull to a reinterpretation of a translation of a translation of a reinterpretation of a translation of a translation (add more reinterpretations and translations as you feel appropriate)


----------



## Wybren

My mother has a degree in  comparative religions and she says there are many words that have been corrupted from the original and what we understand them to mean, was more than likely not what was written in the first place, echoing Urlik a bit but what is currently in the Christian Bible what you'd get if you'd photo copied something from a photocopy of a photocopy repeated, and that the original was a translation of an already translated and incomplete text.

LJonesy I don't think anyone here was talking about christians or people who believe in creationism on the whole, they are talking about the fundamentalists who take the christian bible literally and are inflexible and unbending and unwilling to consider alternate views.


----------



## Drachir

Vladd67 said:


> I used to work with a Jehovah's Witness who claimed evolution was a theory that no one really believed in anymore, and that cattle and sheep etc were put on earth for the sole benefit of feeding man, that they have always been domesticated, and that animals such as lions etc were put here to clearup the parts of the animals man left behind. I listened to this slightly open mouthed and just couldn't begin to point out where he was wrong. Was going to ask him his views on prehistoric cave paintings showing man hunting some nasty looking cattle but the phone rang and the moment past.


 

The last time I was visited by a JW I invited her and her "apprentice" into my home.  We had a fun time discussing religion from a scientific point of view.  I haven't seen them since and that was five years ago.  I guess I am on the "He's going straight to Hell list."


----------



## Drachir

LJonesy said:


> I find that all this Creationist bashing is incredibly cheap, and as someone said here earlier _"To mock a view is the weakest form of denial and implies there is nothing more worth arguing... I'd also say that mockery cheapens the mocker at having to stoop so low: everyone is entitled to their honestly-held belief and view, even if "clearly" absurd."_ Is there no respect? I've clearly seen very little here, what justification could there be for this kind of behaviour? As far as i can see, all this Creationist bashing seems not to be on a scientific level, but on an emotional level (consider the constant "this creationist cr*p" that's been said)
> 
> And let me put out this now: Perspectives on creationism are as varied as the people in the world. If you ever think that _all_ Christians believe the _same_ creationist theories, or the same thing for that matter, then you really need to stop and think a moment.


 
Quite frankly, some viewpoints are not worthy of intelligent consideration.  If someone tells me that pixies live at the bottom of my garden or the Moon is made of green cheese I don't think I need to give it much credibilty.  As far as I am concerned Creationism falls into that category.  No matter how believers try to dress up Creationist beliefs it comes down to one thing; stubborn and inflexible belief in what is written in the Bible.  I can accept that Creationists are entitled to hold these religious beliefs, but I certainly don't want them trotted out as an alternative to rational scientific thought.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Anthony G Williams said:


> I entirely agree that non-one knows the answer to the most fundamental question of all: why life, the Universe and all that exists. I also agree that it is entirely possible that humanity will become extinct without ever finding the answer to that puzzle. So it is possible that some all-powerful being kicked off the Big Bang, setting the initial conditions to ensure that life would develop and evolve. However, that doesn't really provide an answer, it just poses more questions about how such a being came to exist.
> 
> However, my blog wasn't about that: it was about the Creationists who believe that everything we see now was created by God in its present form, and that humanity did not evolve from earlier animals, because that's what it says in the Bible. Such beliefs are, and always will be, totally incompatible with the evidence-based rational thinking which led to the development of the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> In science, a "theory" is a lot more than just a neat idea which might possibly be true: that's called an "hypothesis". A theory is an hypothesis which has been pored over by many scientists, tested, checked and validated as the best explanation currently available for a particular phenomenon. There are no "facts" in science; our body of knowledge is entirely made up of theories. The concept of gravity is a theory too, but it would be unwise to think that it might therefore be safe to step off a cliff.



Big Bang, also a theory. 

And sorry, a theory is just a statistically proven hypothesis. I worked with marketing statistics for a while, and a lot can be done with numbers....statistical evidence that supports a theory is just...statistical evidence that supports a theory. It is NOT fact.

If you apply our very small numerical understanding of the universe to the wider variances that a hypothesis about the universe would have to consider to be considered pure and validated---oh wait, nobody can, has, or will do that. 

Therefore, I rely highly on spiritual intuition, which has served me well. And my spiritual intuition says that they are all---creationists and evolutionists---full of poop. Swimming in it.

Actually gravity is NOT a theory. It is a law. That is why we call it the Law of Gravity.

And, the bible does actually say that God made the earth, then animals, then man, then woman. Probably because He needed someone to babysit the man. Therefore, there are very strong indications of the relationship between evolution and the bible. Since evolution says that the earth was made, then animals came out of primordial goo, and then man evolved from animals, and then women came along to babysit all the men.


----------



## The Procrastinator

Interesting post, Dusty. Firstly let me say that the Theory of Evolution has little to do with statistics. It exists as a best explanation of facts, the fossil record and biological diversity, and whoever can come up with a better one is welcome to do so. Creationism is not an attempt to do so, it is an attempt to give meaning to human existence, an entirely different agenda. Biblical Creation is a story that means different things to different people. As meaningful as it may be to individuals, whether interpreted literally or figuratively, it should not be seen as factual in a scientific sense. But I digress - your post just sent me running to the bookshelf to look up the creation in the Bible, because I hadn't looked at the order of Creation in years, and you reminded me that women came last, thereby implying that women are the pinnacle of creation. No arguments there. But isn't this interesting:

Day one: The heavens and the earth - light. Day and night.
Day two: The sky
Day three: Oceans, seas and dry land. Vegetation of all kinds.
Day four: The sun and the moon.
Day five: Sea creatures and birds.
Day six: Land animals. Human beings.
Day seven: In the hammock, taking a well earned break.

Note that the sun/moon was created _after_ light, day/night, and vegetation. Intriguing! Btw I am not trying to start a religious argument here. It says what it says, and presumably that meant something to the people that first came up with the idea. A repudiation of solar/lunar deities? They would've been pretty common at the time.


----------



## dustinzgirl

If you dig even further into Genesis, you will note that not once does it refer to the snake as Satan. I think the snake is either a phallic representation or an older god. God, in the biblical sense, never denies the existence of other gods, He simply states that we do not worship other gods. So, the idea of other gods as celestial beings is consistent, in my humble POV. 

Light exists without stars, stars are just concentrated gases that emit light in a manner we can categorize, the Sun is a star, thus light could have existed without the concentration of gases that make the Sun, thus light could have existed before it formed into the Sun. The moon has a few theories behind it, one being that it is actually part of the earth. The sky itself as the atmosphere could not, by definition, exist without both the Sun and the moon since our orbit basically creates the atmosphere and we need the Sun for the orbit and the moon for its gravitational pull to have an atmosphere as far as I am aware. Thus, both biblical and astronomy can be consistent with each other.

If people would get over the argument and look at the variables, evidence from our human history (which is not all describable by scientific discovery), and try to listen to each other and accept the possibility that science does not negate religion and religion does not negate science, and add in the fact that we know very little about our own history and even less about the larger universe (multi-verses, dimensions, ect), then perhaps we could get down to finding the truth, instead of arguing about speculation and theoretic evidence. 

If I combined all the histories of all the cultures across the world and even the small snippets we have of older cultures (Australian and African aboriginals) then I could make a strong theory that gods do exist (possibly in alien form) and are able to travel interdimensionally and across multiple universes. 

But, everything I say is speculative fiction anyways.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> Big Bang, also a theory.


Yes, that's right. But one supported by some very strong and consistent physical evidence. While Creationism is supported only by a myth invented by Bronze Age people who had no knowledge of the structure of the universe.



> And sorry, a theory is just a statistically proven hypothesis. I worked with marketing statistics for a while, and a lot can be done with numbers....statistical evidence that supports a theory is just...statistical evidence that supports a theory. It is NOT fact.


I specifically made the point that science deals with theories, not facts, so we agree again there. In principle, any theory is open to revision or disproof if contradictory evidence is discovered. However, in practice some theories are so soundly backed by observational evidence that they are highly unlikely ever to be replaced. Evolution is one of those. 



> Therefore, I rely highly on spiritual intuition, which has served me well. And my spiritual intuition says that they are all---creationists and evolutionists---full of poop. Swimming in it.


The trouble is, it's different kinds of poop. In evolution, the poop is evidence gathered by observation. In creationism it's fantasy.



> Actually gravity is NOT a theory. It is a law. That is why we call it the Law of Gravity.


Before Newton came up with his theory, no-one had any idea why things fell down when you dropped them. Why not up, or sideways? The theory that bodies with very large mass attract each other not only explained this, it also mostly explained the movements of planets, moons and other objects. One of the great breakthrough moments in human knowledge. This is indeed one of the theories which became so soundly established that it was given the title "Law"; but it was eventually realised that it does in fact not produce a complete explanation for planetary movements; it took Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to do that. So Einstein's work has actually superseded Newton's. See: Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Anthony G Williams

The Procrastinator said:


> Day one: The heavens and the earth - light. Day and night.
> Day two: The sky
> Day three: Oceans, seas and dry land. Vegetation of all kinds.
> Day four: The sun and the moon.
> Day five: Sea creatures and birds.
> Day six: Land animals. Human beings.
> Day seven: In the hammock, taking a well earned break.


That's Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 Man was created "from the dust of the ground", with vegetation being planted later, in Eden. The birds and the beasts came later still.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> Light exists without stars, stars are just concentrated gases that emit light in a manner we can categorize, the Sun is a star, thus light could have existed without the concentration of gases that make the Sun, thus light could have existed before it formed into the Sun.


You've lost me there...



> If people would get over the argument and look at the variables, evidence from our human history (which is not all describable by scientific discovery), and try to listen to each other and accept the possibility that science does not negate religion and religion does not negate science, and add in the fact that we know very little about our own history and even less about the larger universe (multi-verses, dimensions, ect), then perhaps we could get down to finding the truth, instead of arguing about speculation and theoretic evidence.


I never said that science negates religion - in fact I specifically pointed out that most Christians are not Creationists, and are very happy to accept the theory of evolution. 



> If I combined all the histories of all the cultures across the world and even the small snippets we have of older cultures (Australian and African aboriginals) then I could make a strong theory that gods do exist (possibly in alien form) and are able to travel interdimensionally and across multiple universes.


No, that would be an hypothesis


----------



## Drachir

dustinzgirl said:


> If I combined all the histories of all the cultures across the world and even the small snippets we have of older cultures (Australian and African aboriginals) then I could make a strong theory that gods do exist (possibly in alien form) and are able to travel interdimensionally and across multiple universes.


 
That kind of hypothesis could just as easily be applied to the existence of Santa Claus.  Rather than a proper hypothesis supporting the existence of gods what you would really have is evidence that people may be biologically predisposed to believe in gods, which is a theory that is currently held by many scientists. God Part of the Brain: Biological Origin of Spiritual Beliefs
In addition, using cultural data to prove the existence of gods would be problematical as much of the information gathered would be completely contadictory and there would be no way of measuring or verifying most of the data.


----------



## iansales

This discussion seems to be ignoring a few pertinent facts.

Creationists claim there is no such thing as evolution, or that it's a "theory" and so not fact. They claim humanity was created in its current form and has not changed.

Wrong. Evolution is a fact - organisms change over time, and that's an observable phenomenon. We have the fossils to prove it, we have conducted experiments to demonstrate it.

The mechanism behind evolution is theoretical, although the current evolutionary paradigm appears to be supported by empirical evidence.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

iansales said:


> Evolution is a fact - organisms change over time, and that's an observable phenomenon. We have the fossils to prove it, we have conducted experiments to demonstrate it.


What really upsets the Creationists is not so much evolution per se, but the idea that humans could have evolved from "monkeys" (i.e. earlier types of animal).

The facts are that fossil remains of several other types of humanoid beings have been found. It has been observed that the structure of the fossil skeletons generally becomes closer to that of modern humans the further up the stratigraphic record they are found, which indicates that the more recent they are, the more like us they become. It is therefore a reasonable deduction that our predecessors have evolved into our present form. However, the fossil evidence is too episodic and fragmentary to provide total certainty. Supporting evidence comes from far more complete fossil sequences for some other animals, and also from analysis of mitochondrial DNA - although that itself involves theory. Probably the best evidence for evolution is that we can see it happening now, in the way in which some short-lived creatures change form over a few generations to respond to different predation pressures.

All in all, the accumulated evidence in favour of the theory of evolution is very powerful, and certainly enough to get a conviction in any court of law, using the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion.


----------



## Vladd67

An interesting article
The creation of Creationism John Habgood TLS
but this I feel is an act of desperation
Creationist museum brings dinosaurs on board Noah&rsquo;s Ark - Times Online
Stephen Bates is given a sneak preview of the world's first Creationist museum | World news | The Guardian
Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview - Creation Museum
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics


----------



## iansales

Anthony G Williams said:


> Probably the best evidence for evolution is that we can see it happening now, in the way in which some short-lived creatures change form over a few generations to respond to different predation pressures.



I think you're confusing things here. Evolution is a change in an organism over time. This is fact. It's been observed in experiments and in the wild.

What we don't fully understand - or rather, can't fully explain - is the mechanism behind evolution. What drives it? We know "natural selection" is not the chief driving force, but we're not completely sure how environmental stimuli lead to evolutionary changes.

IOW, to use your courtroom analogy, that the murder occurred is entirely provable, and not just beyond a reasonable doubt. But the motive is not proven, although reasonable doubt would suggest guilt.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

iansales said:


> I think you're confusing things here. Evolution is a change in an organism over time. This is fact. It's been observed in experiments and in the wild.


Yes, that's what I said. But the evidence for *human* evolution is more circumstantial (although still very strong).


----------



## iansales

Why would humans not evolve if everything else does? I don't understand how you could even consider evolution and ignore homo sapiens.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

I'm not ignoring human evolution. I'm merely pointing out that the only creatures for which we have direct, incontrovertible evidence of evolution - because we've watched it happening in real time - are insects and small animals. The evidence for evolution in larger animals (other than artificially, by selective breeding) including humans consists mainly of fossils from which we make logical deductions.

To return to the crime analogy, the evidence for human evolution is equivalent to a murder case in which our prime suspect hated the victim, who was shot with the suspect's gun, powder residue was found on the suspect's hand and he was found standing over the victim with the gun in his hand immediately after the murder. But no-one actually saw him fire the fatal shot.


----------



## j d worthington

dustinzgirl said:


> Big Bang, also a theory.
> 
> And sorry, a theory is just a statistically proven hypothesis. I worked with marketing statistics for a while, and a lot can be done with numbers....statistical evidence that supports a theory is just...statistical evidence that supports a theory. It is NOT fact.
> 
> If you apply our very small numerical understanding of the universe to the wider variances that a hypothesis about the universe would have to consider to be considered pure and validated---oh wait, nobody can, has, or will do that.
> 
> Therefore, I rely highly on spiritual intuition, which has served me well. And my spiritual intuition says that they are all---creationists and evolutionists---full of poop. Swimming in it.
> 
> Actually gravity is NOT a theory. It is a law. That is why we call it the Law of Gravity.
> 
> And, the bible does actually say that God made the earth, then animals, then man, then woman. Probably because He needed someone to babysit the man. Therefore, there are very strong indications of the relationship between evolution and the bible. Since evolution says that the earth was made, then animals came out of primordial goo, and then man evolved from animals, and then women came along to babysit all the men.


 
Actually, Dusty, no, gravity is NOT a law -- that terminology is outdated because science deals with evidence, not with absolute (and therefore unchangeable) truth. Should evidence come to light which refutes or modifies gravitational theory, then what many think of as "the law of gravity" would change accordingly. Though the term is still used in common parlance, such is not the case in science, save when speaking in an historical sense, and even then -- as with Newton -- quite often it is called Newton's _theory_ of gravitation.

And evolution runs gravity a close second as far as the amount of evidence supporting it. As I noted earlier, using the common parlance, evolution would have to be called a fact; in scientific parlance, it will always remain a theory because it -- as with everything else -- is open to falsification. That is one of the requirements of science; and it is something which is completely denied by creationism, hence the constant juggling of _terms_ (for there is no repeatable, testable, verifiable evidence) when Creationists run up against the factual evidence supporting evolution and refuting creation.

And as others have noted, while in one sense it is statistics (because it is based upon the amount of reliable evidence and the number of repeated testings of that evidence), more correctly it is a case of that which is supported by evidence and that which is not. Creationism is not.

As for spiritual intuition -- that is another matter entirely; a combination of emotion and unconscious piecing together of prior experience, understanding of trends, and speculation. There is nothing indicating any sort of supernatural cause behind anything of the sort. No one denies its value -- which is often quite considerable -- but the terminology is more a holdover from a more poetic language rather than one based in any reliable evidence. The same goes for "soul", which most of us use fairly frequently. Pin someone down to what they mean by "soul" and you'll most often find it refers to the complex of mental activities we refer to as personality, emotions, instincts, etc.... all of which have a sound physical rather than supernatural basis.

I'm curious, though: what do you mean by our "very small _numerical_ understanding of the universe" ? (I emphasize the word because that is the aspect which is puzzling me.)

Oh, and just for the record: I have to disagree that mocking something is _necessarily_ an admission of weakness in one's arguments. It is a rhetorical tool, yes; but an effective one when dealing with that which is itself undeserving of respect, as is most often the case with arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, Creation Science, or whatever the current banner phrase may be for the fundamentalist refusal to take evidence rather than wishful thinking and superstition into account. It might help if they actually understood evolution before they attempted to disprove it; but the vast majority of them most certainly do nothing of the kind, as is shown by the feeble and entirely mistaken attempts they make to "turn evolution as evidence against itself"....


----------



## Parson

Anthony G Williams said:


> There is a *very* fundamental difference between them.  Darwin (by which I assume you mean those who accept the case for evolution, rather than the man himself) involves an acceptance of evidence-based rational thinking. That acceptance also involves an acknowledgement that new, contrary evidence (or a better explanation) could lead to a change in the theory. If Darwinists are very positive about their convictions, it is because the evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming and credible evidence for any alternative is non-existent, so this is one theory which is most unlikely to be overturned.
> 
> Conversely, as chrispenycate pointed out, _"Fundamentalists don't deal in theories, they deliver Absolute Truth."_ And by definition, Absolute Truth is not subject to revision, regardless of the strength of contrary evidence.



Truthfully it was Charles Darwin I was quoting. I would not disagree that there are huge differences between Darwinists and Creationists, but that wasn't the comparison I was making. 

But I would also posit that both have at least a little too much fundamentalist= (unable to believe they could be in error about anything) in them. I watched an "documentary" that was about 10 years old the other day, and they came to the solid conclusion that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and that we are probably all carrying some Neanderthal genes in us. The latest DNA research makes that highly improbable at best, impossible at worst.


----------



## Nik

Um, I remember when protons & neutrons were THE smallest components of atoms. You could smash them to fragments, but they had no specific components...

However, that was falsified by *gradual* discovery of quarks. Took a lot of swallowing, especially their binding energy thing-- Increasing exponentially with distance ?? D'uh...

But that's typical of good Science. It is falsifiable. A theory may be supported by a zillion observations, but something new comes along and shifts the paradigm.

A recent example is the Antarctic ozone hole. NASA could have found it first, but their superb satellites' dozy data-handling assumed the level barely changed. They discarded deviant data, left it to a British Antarctic Survey operator to scratch his head over anomalous readings from his antique instrument. A good scientist, the BAS guy checked everything every-which-way, even got a new, freshly calibrated instrument to be sure, to be sure...

In another field, remember how those magnetic stripes on sea-bed demonstrated sea-floor spreading and prompted the acceptance of Plate Tectonics ?? It was, like, 'WOW ! YES !!' There's still bitter arguments over 'Push', 'Pull' and/or 'Push/Pull' mechanisms, HotSpot and BackArc triggers etc etc, but even young kids learn about mega-thrust quakes on subduction zones-- And Tsunamis...

As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on Dark Energy & Dark Matter. My preference would be 'Modified Newtonian Dynamics' because it minimizes the number of weird critters in particle zoo, but finding proof of parallel dimensions would be *REALLY NEAT*.

Um, 'Evolution' is often hard to grasp because competing mechanisms apply, oft paradoxically, at so many levels, there are a zoo of bio-molecular sub-systems, hundreds of ways that small, non-lethal variations can creep in, and you have the added issues of eg genetic drift. 

There's been some really weird findings. One that almost applied to me except for fortunate choice of grandparents is Thalassaemia: Seems that having *mild* T, via gene from one parent, provides modest protection against severe Malaria...

Like that old puzzle about how many cousins should you sacrifice yourself for: Potentially, T discards 25 % of gene-pool in child-hood (= pre-puberty) while protecting 50% through life and reducing pool of potential Malarial carriers...

That is cold, cold math, and flouts every ethic save Triage...


----------



## Wybren

j. d. worthington said:


> And evolution runs gravity a close second as far as the amount of evidence supporting it. As I noted earlier, using the common parlance, evolution would have to be called a fact; in scientific parlance, it will always remain a theory because it -- as with everything else -- is open to falsification.



Yes, and our understanding of evolution is changing all the time - my uni studies for the past 5 or so years have been in the area of Palaeoanthropology (mainly evolution) - and in that time things have come up that have changed the interpretation of thing- It is not an exact science, it is an area that is evoloving all the time. There was one video my lecturer showed us of people talking about their work, and one woman what discussing her recently published work on the _Australopithicus robustus_, something she had spent the best part of a decade researching, at the end of the video my lecture informed us that the day after that video went to air there was a find that disproved that womans entire work, and she had little choice but to accept it. We go into this field knowing that things are subject to change without notice and that is the big difference between us and the fundementallist creation fanatics - that we are willing to accept that our understanding of things can be changed where as they refuse to consider the possibilities.


----------



## dustinzgirl

j. d. worthington said:


> Actually, Dusty, no, gravity is NOT a law -- that terminology is outdated because science deals with evidence, not with absolute (and therefore unchangeable) truth. Should evidence come to light which refutes or modifies gravitational theory, then what many think of as "the law of gravity" would change accordingly. Though the term is still used in common parlance, such is not the case in science, save when speaking in an historical sense, and even then -- as with Newton -- quite often it is called Newton's _theory_ of gravitation.
> 
> And evolution runs gravity a close second as far as the amount of evidence supporting it. As I noted earlier, using the common parlance, evolution would have to be called a fact; in scientific parlance, it will always remain a theory because it -- as with everything else -- is open to falsification. That is one of the requirements of science; and it is something which is completely denied by creationism, hence the constant juggling of _terms_ (for there is no repeatable, testable, verifiable evidence) when Creationists run up against the factual evidence supporting evolution and refuting creation.
> 
> And as others have noted, while in one sense it is statistics (because it is based upon the amount of reliable evidence and the number of repeated testings of that evidence), more correctly it is a case of that which is supported by evidence and that which is not. Creationism is not.
> 
> As for spiritual intuition -- that is another matter entirely; a combination of emotion and unconscious piecing together of prior experience, understanding of trends, and speculation. There is nothing indicating any sort of supernatural cause behind anything of the sort. No one denies its value -- which is often quite considerable -- but the terminology is more a holdover from a more poetic language rather than one based in any reliable evidence. The same goes for "soul", which most of us use fairly frequently. Pin someone down to what they mean by "soul" and you'll most often find it refers to the complex of mental activities we refer to as personality, emotions, instincts, etc.... all of which have a sound physical rather than supernatural basis.
> 
> I'm curious, though: what do you mean by our "very small _numerical_ understanding of the universe" ? (I emphasize the word because that is the aspect which is puzzling me.)
> 
> Oh, and just for the record: I have to disagree that mocking something is _necessarily_ an admission of weakness in one's arguments. It is a rhetorical tool, yes; but an effective one when dealing with that which is itself undeserving of respect, as is most often the case with arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, Creation Science, or whatever the current banner phrase may be for the fundamentalist refusal to take evidence rather than wishful thinking and superstition into account. It might help if they actually understood evolution before they attempted to disprove it; but the vast majority of them most certainly do nothing of the kind, as is shown by the feeble and entirely mistaken attempts they make to "turn evolution as evidence against itself"....



Sorry, I don't remember reading anywhere where anyone said that Newton's Law of Gravity was only a theory, since gravity is the same no matter how science interprets it as far as I understand but if you have evidence that what goes up does not come down or that the law of motion is also a theory please, present it. I've never read any but then again I spend much more time reading about consumerism than anything else. I just dabble in this crap. 

To explain numerical--my personal preference for understanding the universe is that it is entirely based on mathematics. Whomever or whatever created our universe---even if it is the big bang, or a pantheon, or chaos---was based entirely in math. Numbers we likely don't even know about yet. Dimensions we can't quantify yet. Equations we haven't even thought of. Humans are very, very, very arrogant, and we are very, very, very ignorant as a species. We think we know all the answers, and yet we don't know even a small portion of the questions. Our human interpretation of the earth is that anything we can not quantify does not exist. I don't agree with that, nor will I follow it, because I'm pretty sure that is where humans tend to screw things up. 

I get mocked all the time, almost continuously, because I subscribe to my inner truth that there is a higher power, and that higher power is far more intelligent than any of us, and that the universe is a vast and great thing (creature?) that humans can not explain even a portion of. Nor should we try to, at least not until we can figure out how to stop killing each other. 

I'd also like to ask, what about the four or five thousands of years of evidence, anthropoligical and socioculutal and documented histories, that prove that there are, is, or at least were, a God, gods, demons, angels, spirits, ect, ect, ect....is that not evidence? Have we grown so attached and so needy of categorized and quantifiable evidence that a personal history of a culture or sets of cultures, including belief systems and writings/arts of alternative beings is discounted as bullcrap?

If that is true, then we must also discontinue subscribing to theories such as evolution, since evolution is just a bunch of writings about someones personal viewpoints on limited amounts of categorized evidence, evidence which you and I will never, and have never, seen.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> Sorry, I don't remember reading anywhere where anyone said that Newton's Law of Gravity was only a theory, since gravity is the same no matter how science interprets it as far as I understand but if you have evidence that what goes up does not come down or that the law of motion is also a theory please, present it. I've never read any but then again I spend much more time reading about consumerism than anything else.


Did you not read the link I provided? Here it is again:  Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

You seem to be confusing observation with theory. Anyone could *observe* that an object dropped falls down. But until Newton, no-one could explain *why*. His theory of gravitation provided such an explanation, and it was very good - but not quite perfect. You will note that the above article comments that Newton's theory has effectively been replaced by Einstein's



> To explain numerical--my personal preference for understanding the universe is that it is entirely based on mathematics..... Our human interpretation of the earth is that anything we can not quantify does not exist. I don't agree with that, nor will I follow it, because I'm pretty sure that is where humans tend to screw things up.


Errm - mathematics is all about quantification, so I don't quite see how those views hang together.



> I get mocked all the time, almost continuously, because I subscribe to my inner truth that there is a higher power, and that higher power is far more intelligent than any of us, and that the universe is a vast and great thing (creature?) that humans can not explain even a portion of.


You don't get mocked by me for that. I only question people's beliefs if they are opposed to what the evidence of our own research and studies is clearly showing us.



> I'd also like to ask, what about the four or five thousands of years of evidence, anthropoligical and socioculutal and documented histories, that prove that there are, is, or at least were, a God, gods, demons, angels, spirits, ect, ect, ect....is that not evidence? Have we grown so attached and so needy of categorized and quantifiable evidence that a personal history of a culture or sets of cultures, including belief systems and writings/arts of alternative beings is discounted as bullcrap?


Such a history of belief in the supernatural doesn't *prove* anything. As has been pointed out, it is only evidence that humanity is very prone to believing things for which there is no objective evidence: gods, demons, fairies, elves, ley lines, crystal healing, astrology, etc etc. 



> If that is true, then we must also discontinue subscribing to theories such as evolution, since evolution is just a bunch of writings about someones personal viewpoints on limited amounts of categorized evidence, evidence which you and I will never, and have never, seen.


The evidence for evolution can easily be studied if you want to. For example, LIZARDS GET A LEG UP IN EVOLUTION EXPERIMENT.(NEWS) | Article from Daily News (Los Angeles, CA) | HighBeam Research describes a case of evolution in action in the wild today. 

You should bear in mind that some people's "personal viewpoints" are based on solid, objective evidence, while other's aren't. But since you seem to regard objective evidence as being no better than intuition, I suspect that this debate is not going anywhere.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Anthony G Williams said:


> You should bear in mind that some people's "personal viewpoints" are based on solid, objective evidence, while other's aren't. But since you seem to regard objective evidence as being no better than intuition, I suspect that this debate is not going anywhere.



You are correct, I do not always base my opinions on solid objective evidence, but on anthropological and sociological historical documentation, which may or may not be solid objective evidence, since anthropology, sociology, and so forth are qualitative constructs. 

Newton wasn't so much replaced by Einstien as Einstien offered the theory of relativity, it is still a universal earthly law that on our planet, if you throw something up, gravity will force it back down. This does not change anywhere on the entire planet, although the calculations are not perfect, it is a continuously observable law that gravity exists---pretty much anywhere but in outerspace. As far as I know, all celestial bodies have gravity in one form or another. 

And I think this discussion is going many places. I'm just expressing a difference of opinion. Until we invent a time machine to actually record evolution, I'm going with my supraparadimensional creature theory. And, since theoretically multiple universes and dimensions can exist within or outside of our understanding of the time-space continuum, I think that to decide that no creature can exist beyond our human physical interpretation of the universe which is still basically in its infancy is equivocal to doing the exact same thing that people tend to admonish and ostracize me for---ignoring the facts. It is a fact that our human and physical understanding and calculations of the universe as a whole are largely speculative and very theoretical as well as still being discovered and, in the wider scheme of the whole universe, rather infantile. To state that human science has ultimately decided that either evolution or creationism is an absolute is to ignore the more wider truth that we are just an incalculably tiny portion of a vast and largely unkown universe that may likely contain creatures and beings we can barely imagine and certainly can't quantify. 

Then again, I could be full of crap just like those uppity evolution people and those wierdo creationist people. 

Don't get upset with me, I like to discuss and debate and look at things far outside of the box that science and religions likes to put things in. Whether I prescribe to yours or anyone else's particular interpretation of the universe doesn't make me infallibly right or wrong, nor does it make you infallibly right or wrong, but it does offer an opportunity for converse, and without unconventional conversation how can we possibly state that any theoretical construct is absolute and irrefutable?

_It is also true that to assume that because one can observe amphibians in the act of evolution is proof that evolution is true for all creatures and the entire earth is making a pretty big logical fallacy. Just because we can observe A does not mean that B and C are true if B and C can not also be observed in the exact same manner.

And for creationists to assume that because a man wrote a history of the earth's creation as an interpretation of God's word is the utter truth is also an arrogant logical fallacy that is based on the idea that a human has the faculties to interpret a god. 

So, back to my original statement--y'all is full of it. (not you as in you, you as in general you).
_


----------



## Drachir

*This is a long post due to the section cut and pasted from Wikipedia, but I think it important that people realize that the goal of the religious right in the USA is not just to get creationism taught in schools.  The ultimate goal of the religious right is to turn the United States into a theocracy, with only right-minded Christians allowed to hold public office and with all laws based on the Bible.  Creationism is a thin-edge-of-the -wedge issue; simply one step of many in the attempt of the religious right attempt to subvert the diverse cultural and political nature of the USA.  You can read the entire article at the link below.  *

*Christian right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

*Here is another interesting link*

*I Was A Spy at the Christian Coalition, Behind The Lines, By Amy Cox*

*And finally you can go right to the source*

*Christian Coalition of America | Defending America's Godly Heritage!*

*As you can see this is not an organization to be taken lightly.  It is the American equivalent of the Islamic fundamentalist movements in many Muslim nations.  *

*Role in society*


Support the idea that government's proper role is to cultivate virtue, not to interfere with the natural operations of the marketplace or the workplace.[38]
Opposition to federal funding of the controversial sciences
Financially supporting controversial sciences fails to promote Christian morals

Opposition to "judicial activism" by federal judges giving decisions perceived as liberal in cases important to the Christian Right.
*Separation of Church and State*


The Christian Right believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, but is a creation of activist judges in the judicial system.[39] Christian Right leaders have argued that while the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it does not prohibit the display of religion in the public sphere such as civil servants displaying the Ten Commandments. This interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by the courts, which have found that such displays violate the Establishment Clause.
Support for religious institutions within government
Support for the presence of religion in the public sphere and the official activities thereof
In the United States, often supported by the claim that the country was "founded by Christians as a Christian Nation"[40]
In the UK, some similar policies are followed, based on the view that Britain’s status as a constitutionally Christian nation should be protected and restored, for instance by enforcing the Blasphemy Law, increasing school prayer and regarding those in public life as accountable to God, although the predominant political atmosphere tends towards a recognition that the United Kingdom is a secular state and its government should legislate and behave as such.

Promotion of conservative or literal interpretations of the Bible as the basis for moral values, and enforcing such values by legislation
Supports reducing restrictions on government funding for religious charities and schools. However, some politically conservative churches refuse government funding because of their restrictions regarding acceptance of homosexuality and other issues; others endorse President Bush's "faith-based initiatives" and accept funds.
Active private and religious involvement in charitable works (parachurch organization) such as disaster relief, medical care, adoption, help for women with problem pregnancies, development in Third World countries, and partnering with government programs to accomplish the same objectives.
Strong support for national leaders and conservative candidates
Suggestions that leaders are "chosen by God"[41]
Leaders attempting to shape country in Christian ways, including changing the constitution to better reflect 'God's standards'[42]

Opposition to Wicca and other Neopagan faiths receiving equal recognition and freedom of religious expression[43] (see religious discrimination against Neopagans)  Human life
Stronger regulation or prohibition of abortion, especially third trimester abortions and intact dilation and extraction (also referred to as "partial birth abortion".[44]) The Christian Right believes life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore abortion is murder. The Christian Right is adamantly Pro Life; this is one of the concepts that unifies the expansive Christian Right.
Generally opposed to euthanasia, although many members of the Christian Right draw a distinction between aiding one's death and allowing one to die.
Regulation and restriction of certain applications of biotechnology; in particular, both therapeutic and reproductive human cloning and stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos. Because the Christian right believes life begins at the moment of conception, the Christian right is opposed to research involving a human embryo. See also bioethics.
Strongly supports death penalty
*Sexuality and reproduction*

The Christian right builds the foundation for its beliefs on sexuality and reproduction around its article of faith: the nuclear family.
_See also: Focus on the Family_ 
*Opposition to*


Divorce
Homosexuality in general
Many members of the Christian right believe that homosexuals can be rehabilitated back to heterosexualism by means of prayer, faith, or interaction with God and the Christian community

Role in society
Support the idea that government's proper role is to cultivate virtue, not to interfere with the natural operations of the marketplace or the workplace.[38]
Opposition to federal funding of the controversial sciences
Financially supporting controversial sciences fails to promote Christian morals

Opposition to "judicial activism" by federal judges giving decisions perceived as liberal in cases important to the Christian Right.
*Separation of Church and State*

The Christian Right believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, but is a creation of activist judges in the judicial system.[39] Christian Right leaders have argued that while the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it does not prohibit the display of religion in the public sphere such as civil servants displaying the Ten Commandments. This interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by the courts, which have found that such displays violate the Establishment Clause.

Support for religious institutions within government
Support for the presence of religion in the public sphere and the official activities thereof
In the United States, often supported by the claim that the country was "founded by Christians as a Christian Nation"[40]
In the UK, some similar policies are followed, based on the view that Britain’s status as a constitutionally Christian nation should be protected and restored, for instance by enforcing the Blasphemy Law, increasing school prayer and regarding those in public life as accountable to God, although the predominant political atmosphere tends towards a recognition that the United Kingdom is a secular state and its government should legislate and behave as such.

Promotion of conservative or literal interpretations of the Bible as the basis for moral values, and enforcing such values by legislation
Supports reducing restrictions on government funding for religious charities and schools. However, some politically conservative churches refuse government funding because of their restrictions regarding acceptance of homosexuality and other issues; others endorse President Bush's "faith-based initiatives" and accept funds.
Active private and religious involvement in charitable works (parachurch organization) such as disaster relief, medical care, adoption, help for women with problem pregnancies, development in Third World countries, and partnering with government programs to accomplish the same objectives.
Strong support for national leaders and conservative candidates
Suggestions that leaders are "chosen by God"[41]
Leaders attempting to shape country in Christian ways, including changing the constitution to better reflect 'God's standards'[42]


Opposition to Wicca and other Neopagan faiths receiving equal recognition and freedom of religious expression[43] (see religious discrimination against Neopagans)
* Human life*

Stronger regulation or prohibition of abortion, especially third trimester abortions and intact dilation and extraction (also referred to as "partial birth abortion".[44]) The Christian Right believes life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore abortion is murder. The Christian Right is adamantly Pro Life; this is one of the concepts that unifies the expansive Christian Right.

Generally opposed to euthanasia, although many members of the Christian Right draw a distinction between aiding one's death and allowing one to die.

Regulation and restriction of certain applications of biotechnology; in particular, both therapeutic and reproductive human cloning and stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos. Because the Christian right believes life begins at the moment of conception, the Christian right is opposed to research involving a human embryo. See also bioethics.
Strongly supports death penalty
*Sexuality and reproduction*

The Christian right builds the foundation for its beliefs on sexuality and reproduction around its article of faith: the nuclear family.
_See also: Focus on the Family_ 
* Opposition to*

Divorce
Homosexuality in general
Many members of the Christian right believe that homosexuals can be rehabilitated back to heterosexualism by means of prayer, faith, or interaction with God and the Christian community
Same sex marriage

Pornography
Premarital sex
Promiscuity
Prostitution
Sex Trafficking
Use of Contraceptives
Birth Control
Emergency contraceptive methods
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
There are subgroups within the Christian Right that support some forms of contraception.[_citation needed_]


Same sex marriage

Pornography
Premarital sex
Promiscuity
Prostitution
Sex Trafficking
Use of Contraceptives
Birth Control
Emergency contraceptive methods
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
There are subgroups within the Christian Right that support some forms of contraception.[_citation needed_]


----------



## dustinzgirl

Um...not all creationists are religious rightist types, and not all religious rights types believe in creationism, and not all evolutionists are liberal, and there are many scientists and governments that have nothing to do with religion that seek to control and abuse a society. Like China. And Vietnam. And others. 

I don't like generalizations. Generalizations lead to hate. Assuming that creationists are the religious right or christian coalition and that evolutionists are the religious wrong or political right is making a wide, sweeping generalization. It is passing judgments based on correlation, correlation is not causation, therefore the assumption that the variables are related is pretty illogical. 

Separation of church and state is NOT explicit in the constitution. Actually it doesn't even say that in the constitution of the usa.

Personally, I'd be more worried about what the industrial and corporate might as well as the big brother aspects of the government are doing to human rights moreso than a group of people who produce political arguments based on religious convictions. But, thats just me. I could be wrong.

And I'm a member of Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition are two different groups of people with very different belief structures. To lump them together doesn't make sense. Its like saying all evolutionists are atheists. Which isn't true at all. I'm not trying to be mean, I just don't agree with your approach or statements.

_*PS: Since the bible says thou shalt not kill, how is strongly supporting the death penalty building laws based on the bible????????*_


----------



## Drachir

dustinzgirl said:


> I don't like generalizations. Generalizations lead to hate. Assuming that creationists are the religious right or christian coalition and that evolutionists are the religious wrong or political right is making a wide, sweeping generalization.
> 
> _*PS: Since the bible says thou shalt not kill, how is strongly supporting the death penalty building laws based on the bible????????*_


 
Sorry Dusty, I disagree.  I have seen several interviews with religious leaders of the Gerry Falwell and Oral Roberts ilk and they made it very clear that their ultimate goal was to establish a theocracy in the US.  

Christian Reconstruction: A Call for Reformation and Revival — The Forerunner
Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
Rousas John Rushdoony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I draw your attention to this part of the last article:

Rushdoony's work has been used by Dominion Theology advocates who attempt to implement a Christian theocracy, a government subject to Biblical law, especially the Torah, in the United States. Authority, behavioural boundaries, economics, penology and the like would all be governed by biblical principles in Rushdoony's vision, but he also proposed a wide system of freedom, especially in the economic sphere, and claimed Ludwig von Mises as an intellectual mentor; he called himself a Christian libertarian.[17]

Perhaps I should have used the words "extreme religious right" when I made my post, but I really should not have to spell everything out.  The articles I posted made it clear what I was writing about.  

BTW - I have no idea what your PS is referring to.  I certainly did not say anything about the death penalty in my post unless you are referring to another tenet of religious right philosophy.  

As for assuming creationists are part of the religious right I certainly cannot picture them being part of the religious left.


----------



## Urlik

dustinzgirl said:


> _*PS: Since the bible says thou shalt not kill, how is strongly supporting the death penalty building laws based on the bible????????*_


 
anything can be argued by quoting the Bible



> Genesis 9:6:
> "_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man._" (KJV) ​


 
but then the Bible has many authors all with slightly different views and agendas


----------



## Parson

Technically a Theocracy is a government led by a God [understand ancient Egypt]. If the "radical Christian Right" is aiming for a government a conclusion I find dubious, they are looking for a secular government which is run by the moral and ethical principles of the Bible, as they pick and choose. They wouldn't go for the dietary regulations of the OT, or Levitical marriage. They would say the only real Theocracy is in heaven. 

But Dusty is right in that the Creationists are not completely the same thing as the Radical Christian Right. There is a lot of overlap, but neither circle would contain the the whole of the other.


----------



## Dave

iansales said:


> Wrong. Evolution is a fact - organisms change over time, and that's an observable phenomenon. We have the fossils to prove it, we have conducted experiments to demonstrate it.


Ah! But they claim that the fossils are only a few thousand years old. Dinosaurs died out because Noah was not called to take them on the Ark. This makes alot of sense because I've never seen a picture book with Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. Have you?

What beats me is why Noah took millions of species of beetles that all look the same onboard. And Flies, why did he take Flies?? And Wasps. What is the point of a Wasp?


----------



## Urlik

Dave said:


> What is the point of a Wasp?


 
that was the question that Darwin asked himself which started all this evolution talk


----------



## Ursa major

Dave said:


> What is the point of a Wasp?


 
That's the bit with which they sting you, obviously.


(And there you are: a joke that's probably older than Bishop Ussher - or whoever it was - thought the Earth was.)


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

OK.

I'm not convinced about evolution in the traditional sense. As one poster queried what's the mechanism. Here's my theory in my opinion helps to explain the reason why a perfectly stable none changing environment still produces variants which sometimes fail and sometimes struggle to survive.

Genetic modification can occur (probably was the only method before we started adding radioactivity into the environment soup) due to 'natural' radiation from all the traditional sources -Sun Granite etc. These disruptions to organisms DNA produce slight variations which sometimes give massive changes or minor ones.

Now the selection takes place. This variation may or may not produce a successful survivor species. This could be the perfect ape or the ideal wasp. However without the element of chance it still may never become a dominant member of the biosphere/ If it developed in an area which is just about to have all life wiped out by a volcano for instance - tough.

Now these changes are happening at an enormous rate - Take the flu virus as the extreme. As a string of DNA/RNA or whatever it may well be the most widespread 'life' form on the planet and as such is the most likely to produce variations that are successful, which could explain the rapid development of different strains every year.

Now if the perfect killer virus develops in a tribe of twenty people in the Amazon book depository then it unfortunately is too successful for it's own good and ends right there. If it's the middle of China - well maybe thats a bit more serious - for us anyway.

As for the expanding universe dark energy/matter I've just heard an item on R4 about scientists having proof of an enormous black hole at the centre of our galaxy with the implication that there's one at the centre of every galaxy - an old theory however I assume that this 'mass' has been excluded from previous calculations of the mass of the universe and so it may well be that all bets are off till we think again.

No doubt threads will be started on this in the near future.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I'm not convinced about evolution in the traditional sense.


That surprises me, as the rest of your post consists of a perfectly reasonable description of how it is believed to work.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Weeell.... Yes I suppose so. Sometimes I fool myself


----------



## LJonesy

j. d. worthington said:


> Oh, and just for the record: I have to disagree that mocking something is _necessarily_ an admission of weakness in one's arguments. It is a rhetorical tool, yes; but an effective one when dealing with that which is itself undeserving of respect, as is most often the case with arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, Creation Science, or whatever the current banner phrase may be for the fundamentalist refusal to take evidence rather than wishful thinking and superstition into account. It might help if they actually understood evolution before they attempted to disprove it; but the vast majority of them most certainly do nothing of the kind, as is shown by the feeble and entirely mistaken attempts they make to "turn evolution as evidence against itself"....



Saying things like _an effective one when dealing with that which is itself undeserving of respect_ and _It might help if they actually understood evolution before they attempted to disprove it _do not compliment your argument, this paragraph in whole takes an arrogant tone, who are you to dote what and/or who is worthy of respect?


----------



## Drachir

LJonesy said:


> Saying things like _an effective one when dealing with that which is itself undeserving of respect_ and _It might help if they actually understood evolution before they attempted to disprove it _do not compliment your argument, this paragraph in whole takes an arrogant tone, who are you to dote what and/or who is worthy of respect?


 
This sort of thing could go on forever.  Who are you to comment on J.D.s comments?  

The fact is as pointed out in other posts some beliefs are so lacking in scientific thought as to be completely laughable.  In terms of its scientific content creationism comes pretty close to that category.


----------



## LJonesy

Drachir said:


> This sort of thing could go on forever.  Who are you to comment on J.D.s comments?
> 
> The fact is as pointed out in other posts some beliefs are so lacking in scientific thought as to be completely laughable.  In terms of its scientific content creationism comes pretty close to that category.



The point i'm trying to make is that when mutual respect is removed from having the right to an opinion and/or belief, very quickly do you find people becoming arrogant and demeaning over other people, and that in itself lacks decency and equality.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

LJonesy said:


> The point i'm trying to make is that when mutual respect is removed from having the right to an opinion and/or belief, very quickly do you find people becoming arrogant and demeaning over other people, and that in itself lacks decency and equality.


I am perfectly willing to respect people's beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves. However, if some people try to impose beliefs which I regard (with very good reason) as ridiculous on the population in general, then ridicule is what they'll get.


----------



## Dave

Anthony G Williams said:


> I am perfectly willing to respect people's beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves. However, if some people try to impose beliefs which I regard (with very good reason) as ridiculous on the population in general, then ridicule is what they'll get.


Not only that, but to try to peddle these beliefs to children and to call it education, even to dress it up as science; well then it becomes actually harmful, and I cannot step aside and not say so.


----------



## Pyan

Agreed, Dave - people can think what they like, as long as they don't try to sell it to me: but to indoctrinate children into your beliefs, disguised as the truth, is criminal.


----------



## Parson

But there are different kinds of truth. There is the kind of truth that helps us to survey and understand the physical universe and then there is the kind that opens the door of understanding about who and what we are in a spiritual sense. 

Obviously, I teach about creation. A good Parson could do no other. I teach my students that the basic point of the Genesis 1 account is that God was working so that what came to be in this universe was good. "It was good" is the most common phrase of Genesis 1. The creation story in Genesis 2 which differs dramatically from Genesis 1, sets us up for Genesis 3 which helps us to understand that we messed things up, and we need God's help if we are to be who we were designed to be. 

I am always careful to say, and believe with all my heart, that there is no REAL conflict between evolutionary processes and a loving all powerful God. 

In fact the only view that accounts for the fossil record and the appearance of an ancient earth, while holding the strict Creationist view is that God created "Red Herrings" to lead us away from the truth. Theologically this is a non-starter as it makes God at best a trickster and at worst a liar trying to lead people away from relationship with the Holy.


----------



## Clansman

As a person of the Christian faith, I am not what one would call a creationist.  I cannot call the literal words of Genesis truth.  As an allegory, however, it follows the same general steps as evolutionary theory.  The idea, as I understand it, behind intelligent design does not exclude evolution being part of the picture, depending, of course, on who you talk to (not Pat Robertson).

In addition to being a person of faith, I am a person of science, and unlike shepherds in the wilds of Canaan 5000 years ago, I can grasp concepts like "4 billion years", environment affecting development, and survival of the fittest.  They could not.  I do not have a problem with the idea of intelligent design as a philosophy, so long as the details not boiled down to "God did it in 6 days", which is absolute poppycock, and the mind is left open to discover exactly how God created this world.  The Bible must be read in its whole context, not have little bits taken out of context.  Paul said, that to God, "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day".  Time is meaningless if You are the Creator.

Neither can I believe that the Universe is an accident, which is why I believe that evolutionary theory and intelligent design are both parts of a Ravensburger 25,000 piece puzzle, and we have only a couple of them.  I suspect it will be a long time before the puzzle is complete.

Teaching an idea of intelligent design as a possibility of being the match that lit the Big Bang powder keg, however, is merely opening one's mind to the possibility that someone, or something, beyond our comprehension, is out there.  It is at least as equally likely as the "it just happened" theory.   

Isn't an open mind the prerequisite of successful scientific inquiry, or an inquiry of any kind?


----------



## Urlik

Parson said:


> In fact the only view that accounts for the fossil record and the appearance of an ancient earth, while holding the strict Creationist view is that God created "Red Herrings" to lead us away from the truth. Theologically this is a non-starter as it makes God at best a trickster and at worst a liar trying to lead people away from relationship with the Holy.


 
well said


----------



## dustinzgirl

Researching biblical contexts is a science.


----------



## Pyan

Parson said:
			
		

> But there are different kinds of truth. There is the kind of truth that helps us to survey and understand the physical universe and then there is the kind that opens the door of understanding about who and what we are in a spiritual sense.



But if this second kind is a truth, Parson, why do you need faith to believe it? I don't believe in gravity, gravity _is_ - but to believe in creationism, I would need faith...and if it needs faith, IMHO, it's not science.


----------



## Dave

Clansman, your idea of 'Intelligent Design' is not one I really have the problem with.


Clansman said:


> Neither can I believe that the Universe is an accident.


It is not an 'accident'. It is a necessary follow-through of a number of constants and variables that were set at particular values following the 'Big Bang'. You, speaking as a Christian may say that, 'Ah! God deliberately set these values at these levels'. Richard Dawkins, and others, firmly believe that no God is necessary in this equation, and even that these values would always be set the same even if we repeated the formation of the Universe, time and time again. I'm still personally deliberating on this issue, because I do have an open mind, but I'm falling more on the Dawkins side of the fence, because the evidence is stronger.

However, while you may personally think of this as 'Intelligent Design', this is not what the Creationists mean by 'Intelligent Design', which is that of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species. That does not stand up to any scientific test as already explained earlier in this thread.


----------



## Parson

pyan said:


> But if this second kind is a truth, Parson, why do you need faith to believe it? I don't believe in gravity, gravity _is_ - but to believe in creationism, I would need faith...and if it needs faith, IMHO, it's not science.



There are different kinds of truth. Some truth is verifiable by the scientific method and some is not. We might be able to speculate about hormones, and social pressures and the like, but speculation is where the science ends.

To paraphrase (or quote badly) "The heart hath reasons, the mind is unaware of."


----------



## dustinzgirl

If religious research is not a science, since it is largely based on cultural influence and paranormal beliefs, then studies in any religion or cultural beliefs would also not be a science. I think that would make a lot of anthropology doctorates really annoyed.

Also, I think that we have to accept that there are more truths to the universe than we could possibly determine from planet Earth.

And, the Big Bang assumes a lot.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Now if I were a god (sadly only a demi -bugger) I would have thought that a good place to start would be Pi = 3. And the square root of 2 would be 1.5 (substitute any value you like the point is that I wouldn't have made them absurd numbers as this could lead people to think that the whole of creation is absurd since so much seems to hang on these kind of constants.

Now it seems that these are not simple numbers we could all be happy with so we have to ask

Did god have a choice on these constants and if so why pick such stupid numbers (is s/he thick) or if he didn't have a choice then it would appear 'all powerful' doesn't cut it the way it used to and maybe the true masters of creation are numbers.

AS in:-

Pi looked across at Square Root Two and somewhat tersely shouted. "Will you watch where you're trailing that infinite sequence SRT?"

"Go poke yourself in a ring Pi" SRT flung back, "If I want to put my 142365 in the custard then I will. Now shut it or I'll set Log10 on you."

Pi didn't like Log10, it was nasty with big exponentials and Pi couldn't handle exponentials so she pouted and gave SRT a look that would differentiate a cosine.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

Parson said:


> There are different kinds of truth. Some truth is verifiable by the scientific method and some is not.


That depends on your definition of truth, of course. You seem to be using it in the sense of "this is what I believe in". I have no doubt that the fundamentalist Creationists hold their beliefs to be "truth", too. So that doesn't really get us very far.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Anthony G Williams said:


> That depends on your definition of truth, of course. You seem to be using it in the sense of "this is what I believe in". I have no doubt that the fundamentalist Creationists hold their beliefs to be "truth", too. So that doesn't really get us very far.



Are you saying that things which can not be physically and quantifiable and categorized by science are not true?

PS: EIN, I like to think that God made the constants. Therefore, he didn't have to choose. And I'd bet the family farm that there is a lot more math in the universe than we can even being to imagine.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> Are you saying that things which can not be physically and quantifiable and categorized by science are not true?


 No. Science only explains the material world and is not concerned with the immaterial (except for psychology and neuroscience investigating how the mind works).

The point I am making is that if personal beliefs are regarded as "truth", then all beliefs have a claim to such "truth": including the belief that God doesn't exist.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Anthony G Williams said:


> No. Science only explains the material world and is not concerned with the immaterial (except for psychology and neuroscience investigating how the mind works).
> 
> The point I am making is that if personal beliefs are regarded as "truth", then all beliefs have a claim to such "truth": including the belief that God doesn't exist.



But beliefs are regarded as truths. Like, in the Constitution of the US, or Egyptian studies, sociocultural studies. Heck, there is a whole new scientific foundation for study called sociotechnology. Socioeconomics. And on and on and on and on. Beliefs can't be discounted as being non-scientific because beliefs are what make science to begin with. The proof may be in the pudding, but nobody tries to eat the pudding unless they believe they have a reason for eating the pudding.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> But beliefs are regarded as truths. Like, in the Constitution of the US, or Egyptian studies, sociocultural studies. Heck, there is a whole new scientific foundation for study called sociotechnology. Socioeconomics. And on and on and on and on.


You've lost me again. The US Constitution is a legal document laying out the political organisation and basic rights for the country and its citizens. In what sense is "belief" necessary to accept it? There is no reason to doubt that it exists! 

Egyptian studies, and any other field of academic enquiry, are about collecting evidence and evaluating it. The outcome of this work may well result in researchers believing certain things to be true, but their beliefs will be based on the evidence, not plucked out of the air.



> Beliefs can't be discounted as being non-scientific because beliefs are what make science to begin with.


There is only one belief behind science: that the universe functions in accordance with certain "natural laws" (to use a shorthand term), so that it is possible to predict, for instance, when the next solar and lunar eclipses are due, at what time spring tides will occur, and so on. That belief is soundly based on hard evidence, collected by observation and evaluated by logical deduction.

Your basic mistake is to assume that all beliefs are equal. A belief in something which has no supporting evidence because it cannot be observed, measured, deduced or proved to anyone else (which includes religious belief) is in a different category to a belief that an eclipse will happen on a certain day. 

And you haven't responded to the point I made earlier: if something is the "truth" because you believe it to be so, then how do you choose between conflicting beliefs and "truths"? Between the many different forms of religious "truth"? Or between any religious "truth" and the atheist "truth"?


----------



## dustinzgirl

Anthony G Williams said:


> You've lost me again. The US Constitution is a legal document laying out the political organisation and basic rights for the country and its citizens. In what sense is "belief" necessary to accept it? There is no reason to doubt that it exists!




"We hold these truths to be self evident"

Belief was necessary to create it. It is not a scientifically proven or designed or created and technically holds no value unless society places belief in it. It doesn't hold any value to any society that does not put belief in it, whether it exists or not.


----------



## Drachir

Parson said:


> Obviously, I teach about creation. A good Parson could do no other. I teach my students that the basic point of the Genesis 1 account is that God was working so that what came to be in this universe was good. "It was good" is the most common phrase of Genesis 1. The creation story in Genesis 2 which differs dramatically from Genesis 1, sets us up for Genesis 3 which helps us to understand that we messed things up, and we need God's help if we are to be who we were designed to be.


 
I don't have a problem with the rest of your post, but I always have a problem with the guilt trip almost all religions try to lay on the human race.  Who is to say what is good and bad?  And what right does a Christian have to tell me that my ancestors messed up?  I don't need any help from a mythical god.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

dustinzgirl said:


> Are you saying that things which can not be physically and quantifiable and categorized by science are not true?
> 
> PS: EIN, I like to think that God made the constants. Therefore, he didn't have to choose. And I'd bet the family farm that there is a lot more math in the universe than we can even being to imagine.


 
DG: So god chose to use a constants that don't exist. (in the sense they can never (in the whole of time) be quantified.

Seems a bit irrational to me. That or god had no choice in the matter in which case he fails the omnipotent test.

God can do anything but he can't change the relationship between a circle's circumference and it's diameter. 

Go sit in the corner god till you think it out.

If if he can't it seems he's subject to higher laws than he can handle. 

This is where people say god made it that way because he 'wanted' to be irrational - oh wait can we say that about god - I think not


----------



## The Procrastinator

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Now if I were a god (sadly only a demi -bugger)


 
A demi-bugger! My goodness gracious me. Still, I suppose its better than the whole hog.


----------



## dustinzgirl

TheEndIsNigh said:


> DG: So god chose to use a constants that don't exist. (in the sense they can never (in the whole of time) be quantified.
> 
> Seems a bit irrational to me. That or god had no choice in the matter in which case he fails the omnipotent test.
> 
> God can do anything but he can't change the relationship between a circle's circumference and it's diameter.
> 
> Go sit in the corner god till you think it out.
> 
> If if he can't it seems he's subject to higher laws than he can handle.
> 
> This is where people say god made it that way because he 'wanted' to be irrational - oh wait can we say that about god - I think not



No, God chose to use constants that He created and We can't understand.

That's because God created the circle. 

That's because God created those higher laws. 

*From my POV*, you are going backwards. You are defining God based on human knowledge, instead of allowing God to define human knowledge.  I also see absolutely nothing irrational about the universe other than the humans in it who refuse to accept an alternate theory that is based in thousands of years of historical documentation.

This is my theory of creation which may or may not be based on scientific logic, but takes into consideration scientific evidence.

1. There are multiple universes. 
2. OUR universe did not exist until God created it, likely travelling through black holes from a primary universe.
3. God created the heavens and earth.
4. Then God made people, likely by combining heat, water, air, and carbon material.


----------



## The Procrastinator

Btw TEIN, you are forgetting the possibility that God may not be as neurotic about finishing things off as humans. In fact, God might be a procrastinator. Thus, Pi. 

But I have to say, in general, humans have used themselves and their own behaviour to think about God, which has had some few successes and quite a few poor showings. As an agnostic, more or less, I'm not quite sure if God is out there, but if he is, I think we have Buckley's chance of understanding him and I think the Bible casts more light on ourselves than on him. I shouldn't really be saying "him" either, as the little happy face in the heavens the other night (at least thats how it looked down this end of the globe) proves conclusively that if God exists she is a girl.


----------



## dustinzgirl

The Procrastinator said:


> Btw TEIN, you are forgetting the possibility that God may not be as neurotic about finishing things off as humans. In fact, God might be a procrastinator. Thus, Pi.
> 
> But I have to say, in general, humans have used themselves and their own behaviour to think about God, which has had some few successes and quite a few poor showings. As an agnostic, more or less, I'm not quite sure if God is out there, but if he is, I think we have Buckley's chance of understanding him and I think the Bible casts more light on ourselves than on him. I shouldn't really be saying "him" either, as the little happy face in the heavens the other night (at least thats how it looked down this end of the globe) proves conclusively that if God exists she is a girl.



Actually God is neither male nor female. Although we all use 'He' there is no indication that God is of any sex.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> "We hold these truths to be self evident"
> 
> Belief was necessary to create it. It is not a scientifically proven or designed or created and technically holds no value unless society places belief in it. It doesn't hold any value to any society that does not put belief in it, whether it exists or not.


 
Sure, they believed in what they were doing when they wrote the constitution. So presumably did the writers of all other constitutions. So did I when I wrote the blog which kicked off this whole thread. So what? I've never tried to deny that belief exists, just that there is a difference between beliefs which are soundly based in evidence, and those which are not.

Those who wrote the US constitution had some entirely practical issues in mind. Having just broken free from Britain they wanted to devise a society in which people could live their lives free from tyranny (in which they included religious tyranny) and they borrowed lots of ideas from the French thinkers who also inspired the French Revolution. A load of left-wing revolutionaries, the Founding Fathers were 

And you still haven't addressed the question I have asked twice before: if something is the "truth" because you believe it to be so, then how do you choose between conflicting beliefs and "truths"? Between the many different forms of religious "truth"? Or between any religious "truth" and the atheist "truth"?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

dustinzgirl said:


> No, God chose to use constants that He created and We can't understand.
> 
> That's because God created the circle.
> 
> That's because God created those higher laws.
> 
> *From my POV*, you are going back wards. You are defining God based on human knowledge, instead of allowing God to define human knowledge. I also see absolutely nothing irrational about the universe other than the humans in it who refuse to accept an alternate theory that is based in thousands of years of historical documentation.
> 
> This is my theory of creation which may or may not be based on scientific logic, but takes into consideration scientific evidence.
> 
> 1. There are multiple universes.
> 2. OUR universe did not exist until God created it, likely travelling through black holes from a primary universe.
> 3. God created the heavens and earth.
> 4. Then God made people, likely by combining heat, water, air, and carbon material.


 
1. Why would god create multiple universes that we his prize creation will never get to see unless those universes have the real chosen ones and we are just the dross he practised on.

2. Seems a bit pedestrian for a god to me. If he's omnipresence he doesn't need to travel to different universes as far as he's concerned he's already there.

3. heavens and earth - again why would he need multiple heavens as for him hes in them all see 1.

4. as 1 again are we the only ones he created on this earth or are we just the practise runs. If we are the only ones then what are all these multiple universes for - not for us we can't see them cos we ain't going through no black holes and that's for sure.

So we agree god is irrational. This makes sense. Let's face it by his own admission (bible) he acts like a petulant kid at times. If flooding the world and killing all life just because he doesn't like the way *he* allowed it to turn out isn't baby and bath water mentality what is it.



The Procrastinator said:


> A demi-bugger! My goodness gracious me. Still, I suppose its better than the whole hog.


 
Yes I did notice that but then I thought - sod it



The Procrastinator said:


> Btw TEIN, you are forgetting the possibility that God may not be as neurotic about finishing things off as humans. In fact, God might be a procrastinator. Thus, Pi.
> 
> But I have to say, in general, humans have used themselves and their own behaviour to think about God, which has had some few successes and quite a few poor showings. As an agnostic, more or less, I'm not quite sure if God is out there, but if he is, I think we have Buckley's chance of understanding him and I think the Bible casts more light on ourselves than on him. I shouldn't really be saying "him" either, as the little happy face in the heavens the other night (at least thats how it looked down this end of the globe) proves conclusively that if God exists she is a girl.


 
No to think up Pi the way it is shows neurotic behaviour alright but not by us. We just have to live with the stupid results.


----------



## Urlik

The Procrastinator said:


> Btw TEIN, you are forgetting the possibility that God may not be as neurotic about finishing things off as humans. In fact, God might be a procrastinator. Thus, Pi.


 


or, as Frankie Boyle said


> On the eighth day God created a magical talking leopard and forgot all about us


----------



## Parson

Drachir said:


> I don't have a problem with the rest of your post, but I always have a problem with the guilt trip almost all religions try to lay on the human race.  Who is to say what is good and bad?  And what right does a Christian have to tell me that my ancestors messed up?  I don't need any help from a mythical god.



"Who is to say what is good and bad?" Good and bad are dependent upon the moral and ethical system by which a person or group of people choose to order their lives. As a Christian teaching those who are learning the Christian faith I teach what the Bible teaches in regard to what is right and what is wrong (as best as I understand it). I may believe (and I do) that these apply to others who are not Christian but I have no right to do more than voice my opinion and invite someone to join the faith. 

But there are those things that the society has determined to be right and wrong (a stronger form of good and bad) for a stable society, often in correlation with religious beliefs. No murder, no robbery, no false testimony, etc. These are enforced by the secular state, and are subject to change for the citizens as a government changes.


----------



## dustinzgirl

I never said God created multiple universes. I said God created OUR universe. 

Belief is a science, AW. We study it. Frequently. Entire colleges are based on it. Psychology, anthropology, sociology. All based on belief systems of people. And apparently not scientific at all, so we should stop studying them all together? We should certainly not allow them to be taught in schools.

Parson---those are not inherently Christian laws. They existed well before Christianity in Judaism and also in older cultures, like Sumaria and Persia. But that doesn't really matter anyways.


----------



## Urlik

if God didn't create the multiple universes then there is something above God
if there is something above God then God is not the all powerful being that is "very big in all the 'omnies' "

and belief isn't a science.

English language is studied but it most definitely isn't a science and the study of language isn't a science.

the rule of thumb for sciences is "can it be measured and can the results be recorded in numerical form?"

belief, like language, doesn't meet the criteria for science


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Whoa there DG you're right you didn't say he created multiple universes however if



> OUR universe did not exist until God created it, likely travelling through black holes from a primary universe


 
who's the creator or the primary universe then. If not 'our local god' then who's the real big boss. Did our god sneak out for a bit of mischief making during class, when he should have been hard at work working out the real Pi.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Urlik said:


> if God didn't create the multiple universes then there is something above God



Not in OUR universe there isn't. Based on my perception and theory. Which may or may not be wrong, but is irrefutable if all the variables are correct. Which is the same for evolution.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

No this doesn't compute DG. If our 'god' can nip in and out of black holes to other universes then at some time he's going to run into the bloke that created them. Now at that point our 'god' just becomes Joe Also-ran and has to bend the knee to the real head honcho.


----------



## Urlik

dustinzgirl said:


> Not in OUR universe there isn't. Based on my perception and theory. Which may or may not be wrong, but is irrefutable if all the variables are correct. Which is the same for evolution.


 
if it is above God in the multiverse and GOd can come here then whatever is above God can come here and be above God here.

God is not the head honcho by your argument.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Urlik said:


> if it is above God in the multiverse and GOd can come here then whatever is above God can come here and be above God here.
> 
> God is not the head honcho by your argument.



Um, OK...let me explain this. 

The bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Which are all generally visible from earth. Because, this is earth. This is not another universe which is probably not even based on the same concepts of matter and dark matter and antimatter and light and speed and chemical compounds that make up this universe. How, again, would God not be the Alpha Omega by my argument from this universe and according to the bible? Perhaps He created those universes as well. I never said the opposite. I simply said He came through a universe of material into a universe of emptiness and utilized math well above Pi to create THIS universe. Perhaps I am speaking incorrectly here. IDK.

And it doesn't really matter since, LIKE EVOLUTION, its just a theory. Although if you want, I can pull up multiple scientific evidence that supports both alien life forms as being far superior to our own AND multiple universes AND travel in between multiple universes.

But I do find it funny that nobody who believes in evolution,  which is based strongly on UNOBSERVABLE EVIDENCE can accept the possibility that supranormalparadimensional beings exist and are better at math than they are. 

So much for acceptance of ideas!



Drachir said:


> *T*
> 
> *Christian right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> 
> 
> Strongly supports death penalty





dustinzgirl said:


> _*PS: Since the bible says thou shalt not kill, how is strongly supporting the death penalty building laws based on the bible????????*_





Drachir said:


> Sorry Dusty, I disagree.
> BTW - I have no idea what your PS is referring to. I certainly did not say anything about the death penalty in my post unless you are referring to another tenet of religious right philosophy.



Did you just quote and copy paste from Wiki without actually reading what you were posting?


----------



## Drachir

Guess I got it right, Dusty.  You were referring to another tenet of the religious right.  Since it had nothing to do with creationism or the goal of the religious right to establish a theocracy, I had no idea why you chose to focus on that aspect of my post; you might just as easily have focused on the religious right being against abortion.   

What I have noticed is that this thread has deteriorated into a religious discussion featuring a number of posts that state the poster's belief in the irrational.  We seem to be getting a long way from the orginal topic which was simply the fact that the religious right is once again attempting to push its religious agenda into the public school system.  

For those who are interested, using the Christian Bible as a source of scientific thought is like using the House on Pooh Corner as proof of talking bears.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Drachir said:


> Guess I got it right, Dusty.  You were referring to another tenet of the religious right.  Since it had nothing to do with creationism or the goal of the religious right to establish a theocracy, I had no idea why you chose to focus on that aspect of my post; you might just as easily have focused on the religious right being against abortion.
> 
> What I have noticed is that this thread has deteriorated into a religious discussion featuring a number of posts that state the poster's belief in the irrational.  We seem to be getting a long way from the orginal topic which was simply the fact that the religious right is once again attempting to push its religious agenda into the public school system.
> 
> For those who are interested, using the Christian Bible as a source of scientific thought is like using the House on Pooh Corner as proof of talking bears.



Honestly very little of your post had anything to do with creationism, from my interpretation it was just generalizing that all Christians are bad people. 

And thank you for the last comment. It was extremely enlightening towards the open mindedness of non-biblical studies.

(this part I was being rude. Sorry).


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> And it doesn't really matter since, LIKE EVOLUTION, its just a theory.


Oh dear. Just constantly repeating this does nothing to make it any less inaccurate. I don't know why I bother, since you are clearly impervious to logical argument (not really a surprise, for a religious believer), but just in case there may be other readers who are still confused, I will say this one last time:

*Evolution is a theory backed by a massive amount of observational evidence. Religious belief is not a theory, it is an hypothesis backed by no objective evidence whatsoever.*



> Although if you want, I can pull up multiple scientific evidence that supports both alien life forms as being far superior to our own AND multiple universes AND travel in between multiple universes.


ROFL! I know that this is a science-fiction forum but I have to disillusion you, DG: there is no evidence that *any* alien life forms exist, despite SETI's prolonged efforts to find some.



> But I do find it funny that nobody who believes in evolution, which is based strongly on UNOBSERVABLE EVIDENCE can accept the possibility that supranormalparadimensional beings exist and are better at math than they are.


As has already been pointed out to you (several times) evolution can be observed now, in action, in insects and small animals. There is also massive evidence in the fossil record of progressive changes in many species (including humanoids) over time. There is also growing evidence from DNA records of how different species have developed over time; we can trace the origins of humanity back to a common ancestor for both humans and great apes. The evidence is there, DG - you just don't want to acknowledge it. Talk about wilful blindness 

Since you have ducked three opportunities to answer the question I posed about the relationship between "belief" and "truth", I can only assume that you are unable to answer, because I am right: there is no way to choose between religious "truth" and the atheist "truth".


----------



## The Procrastinator

> For those who are interested, using the Christian Bible as a source of scientific thought is like using the House on Pooh Corner as proof of talking bears.


Hey!

To business. From dictionary.com:

*Theory*

*–noun, plural -ries.* 
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: _Einstein's theory of relativity. _
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3._Mathematics_. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: _number theory. _
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: _music theory. _
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.

The theory of evolution does not belong to (2), (6) or (7). It belongs to (1). I am not against you on all points, Dusty, especially the fact that we don't know as much as we think we do, but the theory of evolution is not "only a theory".

The concept of God is not a scientific theory nor provable by scientific means. AGW noted above that science does not deal with the immaterial. Others have noted that science deals with the measurable. The sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology and so on do not deal with human belief systems so much as human behaviour, which is quantifiable, and biochemistry and the like, also quantifiable and verifiable (to a point). Human belief systems can be a part of this study but are not the core of it. The scientific study of human behaviour has limitations imposed by both the subject matter and our current level of scientific ability and understanding. In short we still don't understand ourselves, but we understand more than we did.

Bearing this in mind I always find it amusing when an atheist says "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God." Atheism is a matter of belief, just as religion is. To exclude a possibility simply on the basis of no evidence, especially having freely admitted that science only deals with the measurable and not the immaterial, is to forget our limitations. Science cannot yet and perhaps never will be able to explain everything about life, as not everything about life is measurable - not to forget that the act of observation or measurement can change that which is being observed or measured, thereby making a mess of objective reality, whatever that is. Science is a tool for and of knowledge, a very powerful tool, but it is not the be all and end all of how to be a human being and it cannot tell us everything about life, let alone how to live it.

Having said that, to imagine that any religious belief has the same grounding in reality as the Theory of Evolution is simply, to quote Remus Lupin, "Riddikulus." Religious beliefs are immaterial (I do not mean unimportant), unverifiable, matters of faith, unquantifiable. The meaning of them can change profoundly from person to person, and they should not be imposed, but rather chosen. As a species we seem to have a need for the spiritual in some form (I am not saying every individual does) but once again there are as many paths in this area as there are people. 

Until, if ever, we can verify and measure the spiritual world in the same way as we can measure the age of a fossil or the rate at which an object falls under the influence of the earth's gravitational field, we should not claim the same authority for the spiritual world as we claim for scientific fact. There are areas of "spiritual truth" which have been disproven by the scientific knowledge we now possess, such as a literal interpretation of the Creation myth of the Bible.  There are areas which have not been disproven or explained, and perhaps cannot be, like love.

These areas - the provable, the unprovable - should inform eachother. But ultimately in the public arena, the unprovable should not be given authority over the provable.


----------



## Dave

Drachir said:


> What I have noticed is that this thread has deteriorated into a religious discussion featuring a number of posts that state the poster's belief in the irrational.  We seem to be getting a long way from the original topic which was simply the fact that the religious right is once again attempting to push its religious agenda into the public school system.


Agreed. Unfortunately, that is the way all these religious discussion threads here tend to go, with people increasingly making personal remarks and ad hominin attacks. Then they all eventually get closed down.

It is a pity because it was an interesting discussion up until yesterday. I suggest that if we don't want it closed down yet we take the excellent advice of Drachir and return to the original subject. Can anyone tell me why Evolution (which certainly IS proven) needs to be taught along side Creationism (which IS a fairy tale) in lessons which are Science lessons and deal with evidence based investigations? 

By all means teach these beliefs in Philosophy, Ethics and Comparative Religion lessons. In fact, since vast numbers of people already believe in Creationism, then it is vital that other people understand why they do if we are all to get along (as this thread demonstrably shows.) But we need better Science education if we are to solve the worlds problems (over-population and dwindling food & resources, health, climate change) not a further dumbing down of Science education.


----------



## Drachir

dustinzgirl said:


> Honestly very little of your post had anything to do with creationism, from my interpretation it was just generalizing that all Christians are bad people.
> 
> And thank you for the last comment. It was extremely enlightening towards the open mindedness of non-biblical studies.
> 
> (this part I was being rude. Sorry).


 
Don't worry about it.  No offense taken.  Sometimes I have a tendency to jerk the Christian chain a little too hard.  As for Christians being bad people; I suppose some of them may be.  But I have a very good Christian friend who I consider a model of what a Christian should be.  He just shakes his head when it comes to my lack of faith, however, he is a rational Christian in that he does not take the Bible literally and fully supports the science of evolution.  

If you read further back in this thread to my original post you might note that I did not attempt to support evolution one way or the other.  My point was that some members of the religious right wish to establish a theocracy in the USA and that creationism was one of their tools for futhering their agenda.  I believe that such a theocracy would be highly detrimental to the United States and to the rest of the world as it would result in the US becoming the Christian equivalent of an Islamic fundamentalist state and we all know how progressive they are.


----------



## Clansman

What The Procrastinator said.  Well said indeed.  And like Drachir's Christian friend, I, who am a Christian, shake my head a little at lack of faith, but I shake my head strongly to the pushiness and un-Christ-like behaviour of the theocrats of whom Drachir complains.

If the theocrats practiced WWJD (What Would Jesus Do), man they'd make a huge difference for the benefit of the world, instead of being objectionable airbags.  And they'd stop being theocrats.


----------



## Parson

dustinzgirl said:


> Parson---those are not inherently Christian laws. They existed well before Christianity in Judaism and also in older cultures, like Sumaria and Persia. But that doesn't really matter anyways.



I know that. Notice I did not say Christian laws, I said "religious." Leaving the whole religious ball field in play.


----------



## Parson

Clansman said:


> What The Procrastinator said.  Well said indeed.  And like Drachir's Christian friend, I, who am a Christian, shake my head a little at lack of faith, but I shake my head strongly to the pushiness and un-Christ-like behaviour of the theocrats of whom Drachir complains.
> 
> If the theocrats practiced WWJD (What Would Jesus Do), man they'd make a huge difference for the benefit of the world, instead of being objectionable airbags.  And they'd stop being theocrats.



Amen!  Here in farm country we have a saying that may apply here: "An empty wagon makes the most noise." A person of faith has no need to shout down the opposition, s/he believes that in the end God's plan is not thwarted and can live with the present ambiguity.


----------



## Pyan

Parson said:


> A person of faith has no need to shout down the opposition, s/he believes that in the end God's plan is not thwarted and can live with the present ambiguity.



Which would postulate that there are an awful lot of people whose faith isn't as strong as they purport it to be...


----------



## Anthony G Williams

Dave said:


> I suggest that if we don't want it closed down yet we take the excellent advice of Drachir and return to the original subject. Can anyone tell me why Evolution (which certainly IS proven) needs to be taught along side Creationism (which IS a fairy tale) in lessons which are Science lessons and deal with evidence based investigations?
> 
> By all means teach these beliefs in Philosophy, Ethics and Comparative Religion lessons. In fact, since vast numbers of people already believe in Creationism, then it is vital that other people understand why they do if we are all to get along (as this thread demonstrably shows.) But we need better Science education if we are to solve the worlds problems (over-population and dwindling food & resources, health, climate change) not a further dumbing down of Science education.


I agree entirely with the points you have made.


----------



## Parson

pyan said:


> Which would postulate that there are an awful lot of people whose faith isn't as strong as they purport it to be...



Which is why there is a crying need for more true parsons. 

But I do not mean offspring!



> One of my untested hypothesis is that those who claim no religion tend to be more religious than they think, while those who scream their allegiance are probably less religious than they think.


----------



## LJonesy

Anthony G Williams said:


> *Evolution is a theory backed by a massive amount of observational evidence. Religious belief is not a theory, it is an hypothesis backed by no objective evidence whatsoever.*



I dunno about that, i've watched and read a fair few Creationist things, and also gone and read about the Evoutionary theory. If you look in the right places they're both backed up with evidence. Speaking of which, i remember watching a documentary on tv which showed a number of species which _could not_ have gone through the evolutionary process, i think they call it "Irreducable complexity" Might be worth looking into, for those that already have a solid point of view


----------



## Urlik

LJonesy said:


> I dunno about that, i've watched and read a fair few Creationist things, and also gone and read about the Evoutionary theory. If you look in the right places they're both backed up with evidence. Speaking of which, i remember watching a documentary on tv which showed a number of species which _could not_ have gone through the evolutionary process, i think they call it "Irreducable complexity" Might be worth looking into, for those that already have a solid point of view


 

Irreducible complexity is a very good smoke screen
but it only works by misleading the audience

here are a few links that make even more interesting reading

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Drachir

Urlik said:


> Irreducible complexity is a very good smoke screen
> but it only works by misleading the audience
> 
> here are a few links that make even more interesting reading
> 
> Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
> 
> Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 

Agreed.  Creationists realized years ago that simply thumping the Bible was not an answer to the vast scientific arsenal of the Darwinists.  As a result they resorted to an attempt at "scientifically" validating the Bible and have created a number of very clever red herrings to gull their followers into actually believing that a claim based on faith has scientific support.  However, when their so-called evidence is subjected to proper scientific scrutiny it quickly becomes apparent that it is all about faith and not science.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Whoops. I guess I was wrong. This is not the place to state alternative theories. 

I guess everyone who says that evolution is a theory is wrong. It must be a cosmic LAW of evolution. 

Anthony, earlier you said that you don't mock people for their beliefs. I personally find your comments very mocking. I apologize for stating my personal theories. It won't happen again.


----------



## Pyan

Can I suggest that everyone posting in in this thread reads Dave's post (#108, first paragraph) again, carefully...?


----------



## Anthony G Williams

dustinzgirl said:


> Anthony, earlier you said that you don't mock people for their beliefs. I personally find your comments very mocking. I apologize for stating my personal theories. It won't happen again.


What I actually said was: _"I am perfectly willing to respect people's beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves. However, if some people try to impose beliefs which I regard (with very good reason) as ridiculous on the population in general, then ridicule is what they'll get."_

Nonetheless, I apologise for the exasperated tone of my last post to you. Due to shortage of time I broke my usual rule, that I should never respond immediately to a post which I find irritating, no matter what provocation I feel is offered.


----------



## Urlik

dustinzgirl said:


> I guess everyone who says that evolution is a theory is wrong. It must be a cosmic LAW of evolution.


 
but that's where the semantics gets confusing and those who first used the phrase "but evolution is just a theory" muddy the waters

in the branch of science that evolution belongs, theory does mean law.
you could say The Law of Evolution and be completely correct.
other branches of scientific study and mathematic as well as everyday usage have different meanings for theoryand it is by using these other meanings, which are more familiar, that those who would have creationism taught as factual science have managed to create this situation


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

> The Procrastinator


 
An excellent post there. Even though I had some issues with it I had to admire your well argued point. I'm looking forward to when we have a large difference of opinion and not just minor ones. It'll be fun. Though perhaps it may be sooner than I thought after this



> Dave:
> It is a pity because it was an interesting discussion up until yesterday. I suggest that if we don't want it closed down yet we take the excellent advice of Drachir and return to the original subject. Can anyone tell me why Evolution (which certainly IS proven) needs to be taught along side Creationism (which IS a fairy tale) in lessons which are Science lessons and deal with evidence based investigations?


 
I've touched on this in other threads however I like the argument so here goes.

The issue I have with The Procrastinator's post is 



> Bearing this in mind I always find it amusing when an atheist says "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God." Atheism is a matter of belief, just as religion is.


 

Religion is not a matter of faith as such. It's a matter of indoctrination backed up by fear. Has anyone (of those taking part in this discussion) ever heard of an individual raised in isolation from 'traditional' religions who has subsequently been found to believe in the say, the Adam and Eve god or the Mohammedan god.

I think not. The reason people believe in god is that they are taught to believe in god by people they trust (usually parents) though nowadays parents unusually allow 'professional' indoctrinators to perform the task teachers, priests etc.

I don't think those that suddenly 'see' god as valid. They have been indoctrinated by 'a' system and are therefore pre conditioned and contaminated. Even if they suddenly turn to Islam having been taught Christianity that doesn't really count. The conditioning is there, it just fastened on something it found more acceptable in view of the relationship the individual had with the original conditioners.

Dustinzgirl, this is where a scientific examination of belief would be useful. Take a thousand babies - raise 500 in a belief system and 500 in a system where any mention of the mythological is never mentioned. At the age of 25 test the two groups for the existence in a belief in a deity. I suspect the 500 raised in a belief system would have some kind of belief system and the 500 that were not would on the whole be non religious. This would be difficult. When the child asks questions like 'who made the sky' the adult raising the child would need to answer 'you must think about this I am not qualified to answer' - or something of the kind - or even just ignore the question.

Tribes in the Amazon that are found to believe in 'a god' don't count either since they had parents. Remember it only takes one person to 'start' a religion the rest is dependant on pyramid selling techniques and for some reason the human Psyche has a particular weakness for them.

So it comes down to this.

At this time of the year a certain 'belief system' is noticeable in the children of the western world. It's indoctrinated into children from an early age backed up by the most lavish reward and retribution system known to man. Parents are unrelenting in ensuring this belief system lasts as long as possible.

Now having discovered, usually at the age of nine or ten that the parents for the whole of their lives have lied deceived and misled them why, please tell me -

WHY, DO THEY NEVER, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, EVER QUESTION ALL THE OTHER TEACHING/LIES THEIR PARENTS HAVE TOLD THEM.

Basically your parents lie, They do it habitually, about all sorts of things, religion is just one of them and the one they can least be forgiven for doing. 

If every believer (in anything they hold as faith) reading this post imagines just for an instance that they could be wrong and allow themselves the luxury of five minutes thinking that everything about that belief is complete crap (including atheism) they will all do themselves a favour.

If your belief system is purely based on what you were taught by your parents/teachers/priest then it is built on water and you have no justification to continue with it other than your frightened to accept the alternative.

I personally believe that humans have been genetically selected to have a 'belief in something'. I suspect that we have a gene that requires a belief. It could be a 'god' 'the moon is made of cheese' or that the Rolling Stones are the best band ever'. I suspect that this gene is present in every discovered human group and if not present it will have been added to their genetic pool within a few generations. 

How could this happen - Well, the 'belief' is a grouping mechanism and in general groups survive better than isolationists species. They can develop specialisms and advance their 'culture' while those without the gene would miss out in the evolutionary tree.

In closing, I would urge you all to try the experiment of not believing in what you believe for five minutes.





God will forgive you all​ 
Just repent.​ 

Oh... and prepare thyself.​


----------



## The Procrastinator

TEIN, unfortunately I don't have time to answer you now as dark is coming and I must go and feed a sick goat and put a colony of guinea pigs to bed, but I couldn't leave without letting you know that I put that line there just for you.


----------



## Drachir

TheEndIsNigh said:


> At this time of the year a certain 'belief system' is noticeable in the children of the western world. It's indoctrinated into children from an early age backed up by the most lavish reward and retribution system known to man. Parents are unrelenting in ensuring this belief system lasts as long as possible.
> 
> Now having discovered, usually at the age of nine or ten that the parents for the whole of their lives have lied deceived and misled them why, please tell me -
> 
> WHY, DO THEY NEVER, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, EVER QUESTION ALL THE OTHER TEACHING/LIES THEIR PARENTS HAVE TOLD THEM.
> 
> Basically your parents lie, They do it habitually, about all sorts of things, religion is just one of them and the one they can least be forgiven for doing.




Actually my spin into atheism began with the revelation that there was no Santa Claus.  Once this myth was revealed it was a natural step for me to question the teachings that were being thrust toward me in church.  In my family going to church was a requirement.  Every Sunday I headed off to Sunday School for Biblical stories (which I found quite entertaining).  Along with fairy tales they were my first introduction to fantasy fiction.  After Sunday School I joined my parents in church.  Interestingly, whenever my newfound lack of belief wavered all it took was a church sermon to push me back on the path of disbelief.  Even at the age of nine or ten I had little difficulty in separatng science from nonsense.  

Now, as for atheism being a belief I have a problem with that.  Atheism is an absence of belief.  In my case I simply refuse to accept as fact what those with religious convictions hold to be truths.  You might want to label that a belief system, but to me it is the complete opposite.  

As for what the truth is about the universe; I am quite happy to state that I simply don't know.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

Drachir said:


> Now, as for atheism being a belief I have a problem with that. Atheism is an absence of belief. In my case I simply refuse to accept as fact what those with religious convictions hold to be truths. You might want to label that a belief system, but to me it is the complete opposite.
> 
> As for what the truth is about the universe; I am quite happy to state that I simply don't know.


Likewise.

In view of the disputes over the exact meaning of the term "atheist", and how it relates to "agnostic", I prefer to say simply that "I have no religious beliefs" and leave it at that.


----------



## Parson

TEIN,

There are examples of people who have come to believe in a religion after being raised without it, William J. Murray, son of Madlyn Murray O'Hair comes to mind. But your test could not be be run in the real world because of the extensive interaction between people the "mythological" will always be present. I suspect that people will make up their own stories of monsters and wonderful things even without examples of others showing them how.

Your point does hold. There are many times the number of people who have a "religion" after growing up in it and being trained in it, than those who weren't. But whether a belief system points to truth or not is not determined by how the people who hold that belief came to believe it. 

This discussion is very far afield of the point. 

--------------

*As to the point of this thread:* I think that the creationists continue to launch attacks on evolution is: out of fear -- they don't want to really consider the science; -- out of love -- they want everyone to know what they consider to be the real truth; and -- out of hope -- they hope that they can turn around the increasing secularization of the US and the world by insuring a place for God in the schools.


----------



## The Procrastinator

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I'm looking forward to when we have a large difference of opinion and not just minor ones. It'll be fun. Though perhaps it may be sooner than I thought after this


 
Sooner, yes, well, after all...isn't the end nigh or something? 

Now, about atheism and belief. I admit that was a sweeping generalisation, its a hobby of mine. I know there are all kinds of atheists out there. What I'm talking about is the irony of that statement: "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence." So what if there is no evidence? Any God out there is clearly in the realm of the "unprovable", and therefore outside the purview of science. To believe in God is an act of choice. Not to believe in God (any kind of God) is also an act of choice. It is a preference. There is not really any evidence either for or against the existence of God, so to choose one or the other is not really to do with evidence.

I heard about a very interesting study on the radio a while back, about decision making. It involved MRI scans I think. The essence of it was that the subjects made their decisions before receiving all the facts - that they had already made up their minds before "rational thought" got involved. I just did a quick Google and couldn't find the one I heard about, but I did find this that was interesting, as I dare say it applies to the religious/atheist question as well:
Political Bias Affects Brain Activity, Study Finds



> Religion is not a matter of faith as such. It's a matter of indoctrination backed up by fear.


 
I wouldn't think religion can be as simply explained away as this, although the above can certainly be factors. The "belief gene" you mention may also be a factor, as may our pattern-seeking intelligence. These days, however, people have a genuine choice, and many choose not to believe, even if they have been raised in a religious atmosphere. 



> Now having discovered, usually at the age of nine or ten that the parents for the whole of their lives have lied deceived and misled them why, please tell me -
> 
> WHY, DO THEY NEVER, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, EVER QUESTION ALL THE OTHER TEACHING/LIES THEIR PARENTS HAVE TOLD THEM.


 
Perhaps they don't want to. Perhaps they are uncomfortable questioning what seems to them the basis of their lives. I think the majority of people prefer to believe in something because it makes them feel better. All this "cold hard scientific reality" stuff might just be too much for them. Not all of them, obviously. But I really don't think the human species is ready for such a jump. So many people go on about rational thinking etc and I really don't know why - it happens rather rarely, really. _Homo sapiens_ is not as yet a rational species. We still make most of our decisions based on what we like to think, not on how things really are.




> Oh... and prepare thyself.


As in dib dib dib, dob dob dob?

Parson:


> As to the point of this thread: I think that the creationists continue to launch attacks on evolution is: out of fear -- they don't want to really consider the science; -- out of love -- they want everyone to know what they consider to be the real truth; and -- out of hope -- they hope that they can turn around the increasing secularization of the US and the world by insuring a place for God in the schools.




I think you are right about the fear. The love I'm not so sure about. Those who lobby for this kind of thing are more interested in control and power, I fear. I think they manipulate those who love and hope into supporting them. People who love and hope but don't have much in the way of knowledge are distressingly easy to manipulate. I hope I am wrong...but I doubt it.


----------



## Wybren

Parson said:


> TEIN,
> 
> 
> 
> *As to the point of this thread:* I think that the creationists continue to launch attacks on evolution is: out of fear -- they don't want to really consider the science; -- out of love -- they want everyone to know what they consider to be the real truth; and -- out of hope -- they hope that they can turn around the increasing secularization of the US and the world by insuring a place for God in the schools.



I see no problem with schools being allowed to give RE, provided that the RE is not forced on all students and they don't prevent evolution from being taught, but rather as we have it here - Once each week students may attend a scripture class in the style their parents consent to, if your parents dont put on your registration that you are a religious family (or put on your registration you are budhist) you get an hour or so of free time. The teachers usually use this time to nick off down the pub for a pint..


----------



## Parson

Procrastinator:



> I think you are right about the fear. The love I'm not so sure about. Those who lobby for this kind of thing are more interested in control and power, I fear. I think they manipulate those who love and hope into supporting them. People who love and hope but don't have much in the way of knowledge are distressingly easy to manipulate. I hope I am wrong...but I doubt it.



I tend to always believe the best about people until proven wrong. 

Besides, I know a lot of people who are support the Creationist position and they are not easily manipulated, but they are afraid of the direction the USA and the world is heading. They also want to let as many people as possible know about the truth (as they believe it). Actually, I do not personally know any who hold the creationist position who evolution out of fear. I believe people like that exist, but it couldn't be proven by those in my acquaintance. I also wouldn't be surprised if they exist more in the mind of the evolutionists than in reality.


----------



## Anthony G Williams

Wybren said:


> I see no problem with schools being allowed to give RE, provided that the RE is not forced on all students and they don't prevent evolution from being taught, but rather as we have it here - Once each week students may attend a scripture class in the style their parents consent to, if your parents dont put on your registration that you are a religious family (or put on your registration you are budhist) you get an hour or so of free time.


Personally I would prefer to see religious activities (except objective studies of religious belief and comparative religions) excluded from all schools - and most definitely no religious schools, which I think can be very divisive (especially the Muslim schools which have sprung up in the UK). I have no objection to churches and parents organising "Sunday schools" or other spare-time religious activities for their children, if that is what they want to do.

When I was a student I had to choose a subsidiary subject each year and, being at something of a loose end one year, I chose Biblical Studies (well, there was a very pretty girl who was on that course ). The lecturer was excellent: he analysed the Bible in terms of its historical and literary value, and never mentioned religious belief at all. I found it fascinating and informative - but it didn't convert me!


----------



## Wybren

See we never had much problem over here, we either went to scripture or not, depending on what our parents elected for us - this is in primary school mind you- in highschool there was a free period on tuesday afternoons for RE if anyone chose to go, though no one did. But I think over here we have a very different approach to religion than most other places so that kind of arrangement works here, where it may not in other places, but from memory none of the scriputure classes that I attended ( I would tag along to which ever gave out the best confectionary at the time till I got bored of it and decided I liked reading books in the library better) none of them taught creation, they all mainly focused on Jesus's life.


----------



## mosaix

Anthony G Williams said:


> Personally I would prefer to see religious activities (except objective studies of religious belief and comparative religions) excluded from all schools - and most definitely no religious schools, which I think can be very divisive (especially the Muslim schools which have sprung up in the UK). I have no objection to churches and parents organising "Sunday schools" or other spare-time religious activities for their children, if that is what they want to do.



That about covers anything I want to say on the subject.


----------



## j d worthington

LJonesy said:


> Saying things like _an effective one when dealing with that which is itself undeserving of respect_ and _It might help if they actually understood evolution before they attempted to disprove it _do not compliment your argument, this paragraph in whole takes an arrogant tone, who are you to dote what and/or who is worthy of respect?


 
Sorry, but on the subject of ridicule and satire I stand squarely with H. L. Mencken (and Dr. Johnson, who was a believer, and Juvenal, and....)



> The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
> True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.


 
There are ideas out there that do not deserve respect, as they are false, pernicious, and aimed at undermining any genuine attempt toward logical or critical thinking (and therefore the ability to discern the genuine from the false). Such ideas lead to acceptance of increasingly muddled thinking even as humanity moves into situations requiring more and more clear and analytical thinking. Those who hold them are welcome to do so; but when they attempt to foist them onto others as on a par with that which has stood up against continual, probing, often harsh, acidulous, and hostile attack because they are based on genuine evidence rather than either ignorance, lies, muddled thinking, mysticism, or whatnot, then yes, all the arsenal at one's disposal should be turned against them, and satire and riducule are most certainly effective tools at bringing to light the very ridiculousness of such ideas.

Tolerance is a wonderful ideal, but tolerance of the intolerant is a self-defeating stance, and ultimately results in the removal of the ability either scholastically or, in ectreme cases, legally, to question any position, whether based on dogma or not. We have seen the results of this several times throughout history, and it is not a pretty picture.

I've no problems with the more beneficent aspects of religion; but when it comes to claiming it as inerrable truth, or on a par with that which we have learned over the millennia via prolonged struggle, much grief, and no few lives lost due to the opposition of religious or political orthodoxy, then I become an inveterate enemy. I do not wish to harm those who harbor such beliefs, but those beliefs themselves do need to be challenged and, where shown to be based in falsehood (and, especially, as in the case of those such as belief in witchcraft or the inviolable sanctity of this or that religious figure, etc., which continue to result in murder under the aegis of religious belief) need to be eradicated -- not by violence, but by improved education in the realities.

If this is arrogance, then so be it. But history has taught us far too often that any other approach to such things leads to a recrudescence of the worst aspects of irrational thought, with their attendant obliteration of even the most basic of human "rights" for which we have fought so hard across the centuries.

As for the actual topic of the thread: No, not all creationists are of the fundamental, right-wing, bigoted stripe -- if we are meaning all who believe in some form of creation by any or all of the various deities (including the vague "deity" of the universe itself through some mystical means); but those who are launching this attack _*are*_. They are once against attempting to get their religious agendas into education as science, and that is something that merits every form of resistance (short of physical violence) that can be mustered against it. (And yes, that _does_ include satire and sarcasm as well as logical reasoned argument.)


----------



## Wybren

Well said JD


----------



## j d worthington

Thank you....


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

> The Procrastinator
> 
> Now, about atheism and belief. I admit that was a sweeping generalisation, its a hobby of mine. I know there are all kinds of atheists out there. What I'm talking about is the irony of that statement: "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence." So what if there is no evidence? Any God out there is clearly in the realm of the "unprovable", and therefore outside the purview of science. To believe in God is an act of choice. Not to believe in God (any kind of God) is also an act of choice. It is a preference. There is not really any evidence either for or against the existence of God, so to choose one or the other is not really to do with evidence.


 
The problem with a belief in god is really that the question should never arise.

I can think of millions of things that are so beyond the realms of fantasy that the only thing more incredible than the actual idea, would be to ask if it existed.

As in:-

"Do you believe that at the centre of the sun there is a woman drinking from a tin bucket and holding a pink rose?"

By asking the question you've raised the possibility and since it could just happen then all of a sudden not to accept the concept makes you a heretic.

Similarly with the existence of god.


----------



## The Procrastinator

TheEndIsNigh said:


> The problem with a belief in god is really that the question should never arise.


 
Hahahahaha! You make me laugh. What planet are you living on, again?

Parson, I wasn't talking about the "average Joe" type creationists, I was talking about lobbyists. I wouldn't imagine Joe/Josephine Creationist are in it for the power and control thing - but the lobbyists, on the other hand...Churches have a position in society, and some have a very powerful one (like the Catlicks for instance). The idea of evolution, if it catches on too much, could put them out of a job. Thus they fight it tooth and nail all the way and I dare say they will continue to do so. The more genuine motives of your friends is another story. I hope you reassure them that belief in God is compatible with evolution and with scientific thinking in general.

People are funny creatures. Still a lot more primitive, on the whole, than we like to think ourselves. I mean, who really questions what they grow up with? I for one firmly believe that Australia is the best country in the world, you should respect your elders, and that stealing is wrong. Myths, the lot. Handy ones though.


----------



## Drachir

There are a number of posts in this thread talking about proof or lack thereoff of various religious or non-religious viewpoints.  It is important to remember the words of Marcello Truzzi who stated that: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Marcello Truzzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This statement applies to anyone pushing the agenda of belief.  If he wants his claim accepted on a scientific rather than a superstitious basis then it is up to him to provide proof of his claim that goes beyond the idea of simply stating his beliefs.  It is not, however, necessary for those refuting the claim to provide evidence to the contrary.  If I, for example, claim that fairies live at the bottom of my garden then anyone I push that idea on is entitled to simply state "show me."  I have no right to demand that those who disbelieve prove the fairies do not exist.  

This is the crux of the Creationism.  Creationists are making an extraordinary claim.  If the mountain of scientific evidence supporting Darwinism is not enough for them then they had better come up with better evidence than what they have presented so far.  The argument that Creationism should be taught as an equal and viable alternative to Darwinism is a false argument.  Given that sort of thinking then every creation myth that has ever existed should also be taught.  If such is the case then perhaps schools should offer courses in comparitive religions, but none of these beliefs should be part of the science curriculum.


----------



## Ursa major

TheEndIsNigh said:


> "Do you believe that at the centre of the sun there is a woman drinking from a tin bucket and holding a pink rose?"


 
If a trend towards this belief arose, I think I would buck it.




Now I've got that out of my system, I'd like to mention a parallel problem to attempts to dilute the teaching of science within school science lessons. For school is not that only place in which science is being undermined. Another is the inept (not to say biased) reporting of medical issues in the media. For various reasons, I didn't read this December the 6th article until yesterday, but I found it more than a little depressing:
Bad science: It's not what the papers say, it's what they don't | Comment is free | The Guardian​In an environment where the reporting of evidence is haphazrd at best, we should not be wasting precious teaching time for science on things that are better left to other lessons (or to the home or to the place or worship).


Oh and I think I agree with JD (and Mr Mencken). No belief or concept (even - especially - those of science) should be above criticism. It is a shame that some people in our current UK government do not wish to stand by this.


----------



## Dave

Well, I stopped believing everything I read in Newspapers quite a long time ago. 

I'm afraid that Good News just doesn't sell Newspapers, and in the absence of real facts, a little fiction will often make do. Have you ever wondered why there is exactly the same amount of news every day to exactly fill the same Newspapers and TV schedules? And why the headline is always a "Heatwave" or a "Cold Snap", but never a "Mild Spell"?

More seriously, the reporting of Science has another more fundamental problem. Exciting science is often on the forefront of our knowledge. Theories may be put forward which may or may not be later proven or refuted. Unlike the verdict in a case of Law, or unlike a Newspaper headline, Science is often not black and white, but very frequently grey.

Both Journalists, and also Lawyers questioning Expert Witnesses, cannot grasp this, or else the system does not allow them to because verdicts must be guilty or innocent, and because headlines need to be shocking and extreme.

Creationists exploit that very same greyness in the scientific argument in an attempt to undermine it. The beauty of the scientific method is somehow seen by them as a failing, rather than the best way we have of eliminating the influence of bias or prejudice when testing an hypothesis or a theory.


----------



## Urlik

another thing creationists fail to grasp is that Darwin himself was the first person to try and disprove his theory of evolution.

he wouldn't publish until he was 100% certain that he hadn't left something unchecked that could bring the whole thing down like a house of cards


----------



## Ursa major

Just to show that one can believe more than one thing at once, I should mention that Alfred Russel Wallace**, whose intention to publish his formulation of the theory of natural selection spurred Darwin to publish his, believed in spiritualism.




** - As it happens, Wallace (Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is buried only a couple of miles or so from where I'm typing this. (I can't say, though, that _his_ spirit has influenced _me_ in any noticable way, even when I lived much closer to the cemetery - and _very_ close to where he died. In fact, he hasn't so much as dropped me a line. )


----------



## Anthony G Williams

Ursa major said:


> I'd like to mention a parallel problem to attempts to dilute the teaching of science within school science lessons. For school is not that only place in which science is being undermined. Another is the inept (not to say biased) reporting of medical issues in the media. For various reasons, I didn't read this December the 6th article until yesterday, but I found it more than a little depressing:
> Bad science: It's not what the papers say, it's what they don't | Comment is free | The Guardian​


Ben Goldacre has also written a book called "Bad Science", which is well worth reading. I wrote a long review of it here: Science Fiction & Fantasy: Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

I also reviewed another important book on a related theme, here: Science Fiction & Fantasy: How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

> Ursa major;1203652]If a trend towards this belief arose, I think I would buck it.


 
Well there is a hole in the bucket, although the godess Liza thinks it can be fixed


----------



## The Procrastinator

I know JD has waxed long on the need to get rid of religion, but I think we need to get rid of something else first: the desire to believe what you want to hear, regardless of facts (perhaps in spite of facts). People actively do this all the time, people from all walks of life, educated or uneducated, religious or non-religious. Education probably slows it down, but it doesn't eliminate it. I suppose in terms of evolution it must have some value, though I'm not sure what. It's a very human kind of stupidity. Any bright ideas?


----------



## j d worthington

The Procrastinator said:


> I know JD has waxed long on the need to get rid of religion, but I think we need to get rid of something else first: the desire to believe what you want to hear, regardless of facts (perhaps in spite of facts). People actively do this all the time, people from all walks of life, educated or uneducated, religious or non-religious. Education probably slows it down, but it doesn't eliminate it. I suppose in terms of evolution it must have some value, though I'm not sure what. It's a very human kind of stupidity. Any bright ideas?


 
I wouldn't object to that. I think the crux of the matter is just that: it's what we want to hear (or see, or believe, etc.); it's comforting in some way, and therefore we are more inclined to give it credence, regardless of the evidence (or lack of it). It takes a great deal of effort and self-awareness to avoid this even part of the time and I'm not sure it's possible to do so all the time, as often we think we're being objective in personally  -- personal as opposed to it having been evaluated by a sizeable and variable enough group to act as a rigorous challenge for each other -- evaluating something, when we're not.

As you say, the thing is to look at the evidence and be guided by it, whether it supports your position (or gives you comfort) or not, as it is most likely to lead to an accurate assessment of something than that which is not based on the evidence. (And, of course, the less verifiable evidence there is, the less likely the given stance is to have any validity at all....)


----------



## Hilarious Joke

As a Christian I have one thing to add:

Hooray for Jesus!

That is all.


----------



## dustinzgirl

*The difference between a theory and a law. 
*


_I feel I have to post this since several people seem confused about the difference between a theory and a law. Evolution is not, and can not be considered a law. Doing so would utter disrupt the scientific method. Creationism is also a theory, and not a law, scientifically speaking. 
_


Evolution is NOT a law because 1--it can not be repeated successfully and 2--we do not know if it ALWAYS occurs when specific conditions are present or even what those specific conditions are and 3---we have never, never, never, observed the regularities of evolution in a concise statement. 

And _4--because JD says I'm ALWAYS right_. 



http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
*LAW *
       1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle     that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has     become consolidated by *repeated successful testing; rule *(Lincoln et     al., 1990)
        2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts,     applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible     by a statement that *a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain     conditions be present *(Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in     Futuyma, 1979).
        3) A set of *observed regularities* expressed in a concise verbal     or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

*THEORY*
        1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of     information about some *related group of natural phenomena* (Moore, 1984)
        2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to     increase our understanding *("explain") a major phenomenon     of nature* (Moore, 1984).
        3) A scientifically accepted *general principle supported by a     substantial body of evidence* offered to provide an explanation of     observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation     (Lincoln et al., 1990).

Evolution will become a LAW when it can be observed and maintains the same results every time it occurs under the same conditions. Gravity is a LAW because it can be observed and maintains the same results every time you throw something up in the air.


----------



## Drachir

dustinzgirl said:


> *The difference between a theory and a law. *
> 
> 
> 
> _I feel I have to post this since several people seem confused about the difference between a theory and a law. Evolution is not, and can not be considered a law. Doing so would utter disrupt the scientific method. Creationism is also a theory, and not a law, scientifically speaking. _
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is NOT a law because 1--it can not be repeated successfully and 2--we do not know if it ALWAYS occurs when specific conditions are present or even what those specific conditions are and 3---we have never, never, never, observed the regularities of evolution in a concise statement.
> 
> And _4--because JD says I'm ALWAYS right_.
> 
> 
> 
> http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
> *LAW *
> 1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by *repeated successful testing; rule *(Lincoln et al., 1990)
> 2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that *a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present *(Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
> 3) A set of *observed regularities* expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
> 
> *THEORY*
> 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some *related group of natural phenomena* (Moore, 1984)
> 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding *("explain") a major phenomenon of nature* (Moore, 1984).
> 3) A scientifically accepted *general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence* offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
> 
> Evolution will become a LAW when it can be observed and maintains the same results every time it occurs under the same conditions. Gravity is a LAW because it can be observed and maintains the same results every time you throw something up in the air.


 

Actually *scientifically speaking,* and by your your own definition above, Creationism cannot even be considered a theory.  It fails on all three characteristics.


----------



## Pyan

Just put together a 200-word post saying exactly that, Drach, and then you've gone and summed it up in less than 25, damn you!


----------



## The Procrastinator

Drachir, gold star for you.  

There it is, that's why creationism (or intelligent design for that matter) should not be taught in schools as a science. Its a myth, a story designed to impart some kind of meaning to the lives of people a long time ago (and nowadays, for those who find it comforting.) It's not an attempt to explain the facts, and does not belong in a science class, or any class except a comparative religions class. 

About the Law/Theory thing, Dusty, my only objection was to the Theory of Evolution being called "just a theory" as if it was some kind of speculation, or "connect the dots" idea pulled out of thin air. A scientific "Theory" is much more than that.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Drachir said:


> Actually *scientifically speaking,* and by your your own definition above, Creationism cannot even be considered a theory.  It fails on all three characteristics.



I beg to differ, darling Drachir. 

*THEORY*
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some *related group of natural phenomena* (Moore, 1984)

_Related group of natural phenomena and large important bodies of information exist even before Christianity was created, across multiple religions and thousands upon thousands of years of historical documents. _


2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding *("explain") a major phenomenon of nature* (Moore, 1984).

Well, Creationism and other godlike creation interpretations across history, including nearly all religious texts even those not Christian do exist to explain natural phenomena and are bodies of knowledge. 


3) A scientifically accepted *general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence* offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

*Up until about 100 years ago this was generally true. Furthermore, religious research in all religions, even those NOT Christian, occurs frequently and with the goal to support a substantial body of evidence towards the existence of a God or collection of gods who are responsible for creating the earth, all of which are generally held acceptable research methodologies as historical document reviews, case studies, ethnographies, and other qualitative research methods, even if an individual has a personal disagreement with them.

And none of this changes the fact that evolution is just a theory. GRIN. 


*


----------



## The Procrastinator

Heh, clutching at straws my girl  If evolution is just a theory, the Bible is just a story...


----------



## dustinzgirl

The Procrastinator said:


> Heh, clutching at straws my girl  If evolution is just a theory, the Bible is just a story...



Actually the bible is an ethnographic history, but why split hairs?


----------



## Drachir

dustinzgirl said:


> I beg to differ, darling Drachir.
> 
> *THEORY*
> 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some *related group of natural phenomena* (Moore, 1984)
> 
> _Related group of natural phenomena and large important bodies of information exist even before Christianity was created, across multiple religions and thousands upon thousands of years of historical documents. _
> 
> Let's take a look at each of your points.
> Using other religious beliefs to support the Bible is not science.  It is just piling more superstition on top of superstition.  And accurate historical investigation tends to refute religion not support it.
> 
> 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding *("explain") a major phenomenon of nature* (Moore, 1984).
> 
> Well, Creationism and other godlike creation interpretations across history, including nearly all religious texts even those not Christian do exist to explain natural phenomena and are bodies of knowledge.
> 
> Creationism and other religious dogma do not exist to increase human understanding of nature.  They exist to suppress any explanations that do fit into the original religious belief.  You do realize that it took the Catholic Church 300 years to admit that it had persecuted Galileo unfairly?
> 
> 3) A scientifically accepted *general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence* offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
> 
> *Up until about 100 years ago this was generally true. Furthermore, religious research in all religions, even those NOT Christian, occurs frequently and with the goal to support a substantial body of evidence towards the existence of a God or collection of gods who are responsible for creating the earth, all of which are generally held acceptable research methodologies as historical document reviews, case studies, ethnographies, and other qualitative research methods, even if an individual has a personal disagreement with them.*
> 
> *And none of this changes the fact that evolution is just a theory. GRIN*


 
I am unaware of any *scientific *research that supports the existence of a god or gods.  On the contrary recent research into Judaism and Christianity indicates that much that is in the Old Testament has very little historical basis, and much of what is now accepted as "Christian" was borrowed or copied from existing religions.  As a matter of fact the more that is revealed by science and archeology regarding the Bible, the more the Bible is shown to be little more than a collection of stories that have been carefully selected to convince those of faith to adopt a certain point of view.  There is in fact very stong evidence that many of the facts dealing with the development of early Christianity were deliberately suppressed and their supporters silenced by the most violent of methods.  No matter what you call it, suppression of contrary evidence or theories is not science; it is religious dogma; and dogma by its very definition is most unscientific.  

You may call evolution a theory, but at least it is science.  The Bible cannot make that claim.


----------



## Dave

Drachir said:


> There is in fact very stong evidence that many of the facts dealing with the development of early Christianity were deliberately suppressed.


You could begin by investigating the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana in 364AD.

This is what I was attempting to say before, whereas Dogmata is authoritative and not to be disputed, merely clarified and elaborated, Science asks to openly bring on those who doubt a theory in order to test it further and make it better. This is a asset of the scientific method, and not a liability.

Evolutionary theory has certainly been changed over time - Darwin had no concept of genetics - so there was no genetic mechanism for Natural Selection - the importance of geographical/ecological, reproductive and genetic isolation was not realised - the chemical structure of DNA was unknown -  so no mechanism for gene transmission, diversity and inheritance. There is still much unclear today, but I am not a geneticist. Just because this was not known didn't mean the result couldn't be observed, and just because we don't know every single detail does not mean we should discard what we do know, and nor does it imply God's handiwork.

As for there being no way to repeat Evolution, there is, but unfortunately no one can wait around that long. There is ample evidence of natural selection - Peppered Moths, antibiotic resistance in microorganisms, the Galápagos finches. Asking that you must first see the Evolution of the Eye in it's entirety is like asking a Butterfly to watch the formation of a glaciated valley.


----------



## Urlik

left blank


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

DG:



> ethnography_(n.)_the branch of anthropology that provides scientific description of individual human societies?


 
I don't get it. I thought anthropology was where someone studies a society by living amongst a group of people to describe their lives and methods.


----------



## Pyan

Anthropology is just the general overall term for the study of humankind, TEiN - I think what you are thinking of is just a relatively small area of that study.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Anthropology is the study of human characteristics.
Ethnography is the study of human culture.
Both are sciences.
The Bible is, at its core, a history of human and spiritual characteristics and cultures.

Therefore, the study of the bible is a scientific undertaking.

Just because some do not have faith in a God does not mean that the Bible is totally incorrect or that it is not a science. Stating that the study of the Bible is not a science is just being arrogant and ignorant---the same qualities found in creationists who believe that they know the history and heart of God and the world in general. Funny, ain't it? 

If you take anything away from me, it is that humans can not know the heart, will, or actions of God. Nor can we observe and document evolution consistently. Therefore, both evolution and creationists are generally theorizing. A theory is not disprovable or provable, which is why it is called a theory. 

I get so annoyed at people who are not willing to listen and discuss without the mocking and disparaging tones found on both sides, it does nothing but discredit the character of the individual. Throughout this thread some have tried to just discuss while others have flat out stated that their belief in a theory is ABSOLUTE LAW. I disagree that either side has the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. I disagree that humans are even capable of knowing the absolute truth, and by the interactions and reactions found in this thread I can support the theory that humans are too arrogant in their own assumption that they are inherently and absolutely right. 

Back to my original statement---I think ya'll are crazy. Creationists and evolutionists alike.

I like my supranaturalparadimensional being theory the best. But thats just me. I also like to dip my toast in chocolate milk.


----------



## The Procrastinator

I think TEIN's point was that a religious document, while able to be studied (and in some ways able to be studied scientifically), does not equal a scientific study in itself. The Bible was not written by scientists for scientific purposes. Far from it. It would be more accurate to think of it as an ethnic history, keeping in mind the many "idiosyncracies" and inconsistencies that keep it from being considered strictly "historical". In short, while you can study the Bible scientifically, the Bible is not itself scientific. I could study my dog scientifically (_Canis rattus idiota_) but I'm not inclined to consider him a scientific creature.

To evolution and creation both being theories - of course theories are provable or disprovable. The Theory of Evolution has come into being in response to physical evidence and so far has not been disproven. Our understanding of evolution has come a long way since its inception, and the theory has grown and developed with the discovery of new evidence over time. It will no doubt continue to do so. On the other hand, I very much doubt creationists refer to the Theory of Creation. They refer to Truth, whatever that is. They refer to the book of Genesis, which is not a theory in any sense and is no more valid than anyone else's traditional story of how the world was made. 

I agree with you that humans cannot know the heart, will or actions of God. I have to say, if I believe in a God, it has nought to do with the Bible or any other religious text. As I said before, I think the Bible says more about humanity than about God. We're not much good at knowing the heart, will or actions of others, or even ourselves, let alone God, if we are honest.

Plenty of evidence for Crazy in human history.


----------



## Urlik

dustinzgirl said:


> Anthropology is the study of human characteristics.
> Ethnography is the study of human culture.
> Both are sciences.
> The Bible is, at its core, a history of human and spiritual characteristics and cultures.
> 
> Therefore, the study of the bible is a scientific undertaking.


 
true (for a given value of truth)

the study of the bible is scientific (on many levels) but what that study doesn't do is give any evidence for the existence of a God of any kind

in the simplest religions, the gods represented natural phenomena.
thunder and lightening were signs that Thor was angry and hitting clouds with his hammer
or Odin was throwing thunderbolts at an unbeliever in the next town (look that guy whose house just burnt down. he didn't believe, now look at him)

but now we know that it's all just hot and cold air interacting with moisture in the air and there are no big beardy men making noises in clouds

what the scientific study of the Bible, along with everything else, tells us is that mankind has always been pretty good at telling stories.
we all learn from stories
it is probably what makes us human in the first place.

if you look at the basic tennets of early religions, most seem to be about getting on with your neighbours and how to prepare food properly so you didn't die of food poisoning (and this factors into evolution. those who could tell the story were able to pass that knowledge onto their children.
those that listened didn't die of food poisoning and were able to pass that knowledge on ad infinitum)

these stories jelp us remember things as we learn them.
they become rhymes and repetetive rituals.
in some cases the rituals become bigger than the stories behind them, in others, the stories are taken too literally.
when Jesus spoke of the Good Samaritan, there was no Samaritan. no show of compassion. it was just a story used to illustrate a point.

there is also the other God theory espoused by Von Daniken which claims that the inspiration for our gods is actually aliens who visited back in pre-history.

that may be true. but that doesn't mean they created the Earth, they are just visitors who passed by a long time ago and said thay might pop back in on their way home.

still no supranatural omnipresence

Evolution explains what we were and how we got to be what we are
religions/stories tell us who we are


----------



## dustinzgirl

Well, the way I look at it is that faith is sometimes internal, sometimes external, but can't be proven. This is true for both faith in one's self, which every person contemplates at one time or another, as well as faith in a supranatural omnipresent God, and faith in another human. Everyone has at least one of these three things at one time or another in life, but you can't prove that, either.


----------



## Urlik

dustinzgirl said:


> Well, the way I look at it is that faith is sometimes internal, sometimes external, but can't be proven. This is true for both faith in one's self, which every person contemplates at one time or another, as well as faith in a supranatural omnipresent God, and faith in another human. Everyone has at least one of these three things at one time or another in life, but you can't prove that, either.


 
faith in human nature is a different thing and it can also mean different things
I suspect that to you, a faith in human nature means "they'll do the right thing" (I also believe this to be true, in genreal,for a given value of truth)

but I also believe it can mean that a person will do what is most beneficial for them based on their character and disposition.

this means that while I totally belive in human nature, I know that if I leave a junky in a room with lots of loose money and small valuable objects laying around, most of them will be gone with the junky.
human nature is totally predictable and is largely about how the person perceives themself and wants others to perceive them.

most people want to be trusted n-one likes being accused of doing something they haven't. so in general, most people can be trusted, but some can't. but both types are acting according to human nature.

faith in yourself is diferent yet again.
that is a belief that,given a chance, you can do something. it doesn't have to be anything spectacular, just having the beliefthat ifyou try,you can do it.
it also very easy to proveif you have faith in yourself.
try something.
you may fail. but that only shows your faith was misplaced, but the act of trying showed you had that belief.

you can prove you have faith in a god easily enough, but unless a big hand catches you as you step off the cliff and gently lowers you to the ground, no amount of faith can prove the existence of a god


----------



## Drachir

Studying the Bible might be science.  But the Bible is not science.  If it was, then studying any ancient myths or legends would make all of them science.  I can hardly wait until someone tries to prove the existence of Odin.


----------



## Dave

dustinzgirl said:


> Back to my original statement---I think ya'll are crazy. Creationists and evolutionists alike.


I have never heard of anyone who claims to be an evolutionist.

Are there evolutionists in the USA? Anti-Creationists maybe.

I'm not evolutionist or anti-creationist, I'm happy to tolerate them believing whatever they want to believe. I am simple against them having the Biblical view of Creation taught in a science class in a school, and for children to be told that it is science. Just because you keep saying the Bible is Science doesn't make it true either. The statement is so untrue I just have problems knowing how to answer it.


----------



## dustinzgirl

An evolutionist is a person who believes in organic evolution. 

So, I'm pretty sure there are some of those in the USA.


----------



## Pyan

Dave just about summed up my view, too. 

You can believe what you wish, but if can't be measured, it's not science, it's opinion*.
As such, Creationism should be taught in Comparative Religions, or similar - not as a viable alternative to the proven facts of evolution.

_
(* RAH, I believe..)_


----------



## hikari-sa

okay preachers daughter that is still inside me is going to come out for just a bit. Sorry guys.
First off why is the bible even being brought up in science class.Weird, I remeber then that we have seperation in the school in the Us. Yes I am an American and i am totally for evolution. I agree evolution will never be a law it will remain a theory. Theory always have some fact behind them- proven in the same species being brought to two geographically different island. They will evolve differently as to suit each environment.
My father the priest(episcopalian) and I have been in many debates about this as i went a different way from him. The one thing that we agree on considering the topic is that it is valid in both aspects it just depends on how you choose to interpret it.
daddies say "what is a day to god is many years to us"


----------

