DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: modestyblase on April 20, 2007, 09:16:35 PM
-
:-[ look what America started. Happy Joy. http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706
In the beginning
Apr 19th 2007 | ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME
From The Economist print edition
The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global
THE “Atlas of Creation†runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between “Darwinism†and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the “Atlas de la Création†has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world.
The mass distribution of a French version of the “Atlas†(already published in English and Turkish) typifies the style of an Istanbul publishing house whose sole business is the dissemination, in many languages, of scores of works by a single author, a charismatic but controversial Turkish preacher who writes as Harun Yahya but is really called Adnan Oktar. According to a Turkish scientist who now lives in America, the movement founded by Mr Oktar is “powerful, global and very well financedâ€. Translations of Mr Oktar's work into tongues like Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa Indonesia have ensured a large following in Muslim countries.
In his native Turkey there are many people, including devout Muslims, who feel uncomfortable about the 51-year-old Mr Oktar's strong appeal to young women and his political sympathies for the nationalist right. But across the Muslim world he seems to be riding high. Many of the most popular Islamic websites refer readers to his vast canon.
In the more prosperous parts of the historically Christian world, Mr Oktar's flamboyant style would be unappealing, even to religious believers. Among mainstream Catholics and liberal Protestants, clerical pronouncements on creation and evolution are often couched in careful—and for many people, almost impenetrable—theological language. For example, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world's 80m Anglicans, has dismissed literal readings of the Creation story in Genesis as a “category mistakeâ€. But no such highbrow reticence holds back the more zealous Christian movements in the developing world, where the strongest religious medicine seems to go down best.
In Kenya, for example, there is a bitter controversy over plans to put on display the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human being ever found, a figure known as Turkana Boy—along with a collection of fossils, some of which may be as much as 200m years old. Bishop Boniface Adoyo, an evangelical leader who claims to speak for 35 denominations and 10m believers, has denounced the proposed exhibit, asserting that: “I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it.â€
Richard Leakey, the palaeontologist who unearthed both the skeleton and the fossils in northern Kenya, is adamant that the show must go on. “Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his,†Mr Leakey has insisted. Local Catholics have backed him.
Rows over religion and reason are also raging in Russia. In recent weeks the Russian Orthodox Church has backed a family in St Petersburg who (unsuccessfully) sued the education authorities for teaching only about evolution to explain the origins of life. Plunging into deep scientific waters, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Father Vsevolod Chaplin, said Darwin's theory of evolution was “based on pretty strained argumentationâ€â€”and that physical evidence cited in its support “can never prove that one biological species can evolve into another.â€
A much more nuanced critique, not of Darwin himself but of secular world-views based on Darwin's ideas, has been advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, the conservative Bavarian who assumed the most powerful office in the Christian world two years ago. The pope marked his 80th birthday this week by publishing a book on Jesus Christ. But for Vatican-watchers, an equally important event was the issue in German, a few days earlier, of a book in which the pontiff and several key advisers expound their views on the emergence of the universe and life. While avoiding the cruder arguments that have been used to challenge Darwin's theories, the pope asserts that evolution cannot be conclusively proved; and that the manner in which life developed was indicative of a “divine reason†which could not be discerned by scientific methods alone.
Both in his previous role as the chief enforcer of Catholic doctrine and since his enthronement, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has made clear his profound belief that man has a unique, God-given role in the animal kingdom; and that a divine creator has an ongoing role in sustaining the universe, something far more than just “lighting the blue touch paper†for the Big Bang, the event that scientists think set the universe in motion.
Yesterday America, today the world
As these examples from around the world show, the debate over creation, evolution and religion is rapidly going global. Until recently, all the hottest public arguments had taken place in the United States, where school boards in many districts and states tried to restrict the teaching of Darwin's idea that life in its myriad forms evolved through a natural process of adaptation to changing conditions.
Darwin-bashers in America suffered a body-blow in December 2005, when a judge—striking down the policies of a district school board in Pennsylvania—delivered a 139-page verdict that delved deeply into questions about the origin of life and tore apart the case made by the “intelligent design†camp: the idea that some features of the natural world can be explained only by the direct intervention of a ingenious creator.
Intelligent design, the judge found, was a religious theory, not a scientific one—and its teaching in schools violated the constitution, which bars the establishment of any religion. One point advanced in favour of intelligent design—the “irreducible complexity†of some living things—was purportedly scientific, but it was not well-founded, the judge ruled. Proponents of intelligent design were also dishonest in saying that where there were gaps in evolutionary theory, their own view was the only alternative, according to the judge.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has spearheaded the American campaign to counter-balance the teaching of evolution, artfully distanced itself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the local school board had gone too far in mixing intelligent design with a more overtly religious doctrine of “creationismâ€. But the verdict made it much harder for school boards in other parts of America to mandate curbs on the teaching of evolution, as many have tried to do—to the horror of most professional scientists.
Whatever the defeats they have suffered on home ground, American foes of Darwin seem to be gaining influence elsewhere. In February several luminaries of the anti-evolution movement in the United States went to Istanbul for a grand conference where Darwin's ideas were roundly denounced. The organiser of the gathering was a Turkish Muslim author and columnist, Mustafa Akyol, who forged strong American connections during a fellowship at the Discovery Institute.
To the dismay of some Americans and the delight of others, Mr Akyol was invited to give evidence (against Darwin's ideas) at hearings held by the Kansas school board in 2005 on how science should be taught. Mr Akyol, an advocate of reconciliation between Muslims and the West who is much in demand at conferences on the future of Islam, is careful to distinguish his position from that of the extravagant publishing venture in his home city. “They make some valid criticisms of Darwinism, but I disagree with most of their other views,†insists the young author, whose other favourite cause is the compatibility between Islam and Western liberal ideals, including human rights and capitalism. But a multi-layered anti-Darwin movement has certainly brought about a climate in Turkey and other Muslim countries that makes sure challenges to evolution theory, be they sophisticated or crude, are often well received.
America's arguments over evolution are also being followed closely in Brazil, where—as the pope will find when he visits the country next month—various forms of evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are advancing rapidly at the expense of the majority Catholic faith. Samuel Rodovalho, an activist in Brazil's Pentecostal church, puts it simply: “We are convinced that the story of Genesis is right, and we take heart from the fact that in North America the teaching of evolution in schools has been challenged.â€
Even in the United States, defenders of evolution teaching do not see their battle as won. There was widespread dismay in their ranks in February when John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate, accepted an invitation (albeit to talk about geopolitics, not science) from the Discovery Institute. And some opponents of intelligent design are still recovering from their shock at reading in the New York Times a commentary written, partly at the prompting of the Discovery Institute, by the pope's close friend, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna.
In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most scientists would see as axiomatic—the idea that natural selection is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life in all its forms. Within days, the pope and his advisers found they had new interlocutors. Lawrence Krauss, an American physicist in the front-line of courtroom battles over education, fired off a letter to the Vatican urging a clarification. An agnostic Jew who insists that evolution neither disproves nor affirms any particular faith, Mr Krauss recruited as co-signatories two American biologists who were also devout Catholics. Around the same time, another Catholic voice was raised in support of evolution, that of Father George Coyne, a Jesuit astronomer who until last year was head of the Vatican observatory in Rome. Mr Krauss reckons his missive helped to nudge the Catholic authorities into clarifying their view and insisting that they did still accept natural selection as a scientific theory.
But that was not the end of the story. Catholic physicists, biologists and astronomers (like Father Coyne) insisted that there was no reason to revise their view that intelligent design is bad science. And they expressed concern (as the Christian philosopher Augustine did in the 4th century) that if the Christian church teaches things about the physical world which are manifestly false, then everything else the church teaches might be discredited too. But there is also a feeling among Pope Benedict's senior advisers that in rejecting intelligent design as it is understood in America they must not go too far in endorsing the idea that Darwinian evolution says all that needs to be, or can be, said about how the world came to be.
The net result has been the emergence of two distinct camps among the Catholic pundits who aspire to influence the pope. In one there are people such as Father Coyne, who believe (like the agnostic Mr Krauss) that physics and metaphysics can and should be separated. From his new base at a parish in North Carolina, Father Coyne insists strongly on the integrity of science—“natural phenomena have natural causesâ€â€”and he is as firm as any secular biologist in asserting that every year the theory of evolution is consolidated with fresh evidence.
In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result of a process of random selection. While rejecting American-style intelligent design, some authoritative Catholic thinkers claim to see God's hand in “convergenceâ€: the apparent fact that, as they put it, similar processes and structures are present in organisms that have evolved separately.
As an example of Catholic thinking that is relatively critical of science-based views of the world, take Father Joseph Fessio, the provost of Ave Maria University in Florida and a participant in a seminar on creation and evolution which led to the new book with papal input. As Father Fessio observes, Catholics accept three different ways of learning about reality: empirical observation, direct revelations from God and, between those two categories, “natural philosophyâ€â€”the ability of human reason to discern divine reason in the created universe. That is not quite intelligent design, but it does sound similar. The mainly Protestant heritage of the United States may be one reason why the idea of “natural philosophy†is poorly understood by American thinkers, Father Fessio playfully suggests. (Another problem the Vatican may face is that Orthodox Christian theologians, as well as Catholic mystics, are wary of “natural philosophyâ€: they insist that mystical communion with God is radically different from observation or speculation by the human brain.)
The evolution of the anti-evolutionists
Whatever they think about science, there is one crucial problem that all Christian thinkers about creation must wrestle with: the status of the human being in relation to other creatures, and the whole universe. There is no reading of Christianity which does not assert the belief that mankind, while part of the animal kingdom, has a unique vocation and potential to enhance the rest of creation, or else to destroy it. This point has been especially emphasised by Pope Benedict's interlocutors in the Orthodox church, such as its senior prelate Patriarch Bartholomew I, who has been nudging the Vatican to take a stronger line on man's effect on the environment and climate change.
For Father Coyne, belief in man's unique status is entirely consistent with an evolutionary view of life. “The fact we are at the end of this marvellous process is something that glorifies us,†he says.
But Benedict XVI apparently wants to lay down an even stronger line on the status of man as a species produced by divine ordinance, not just random selection. “Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake,†says a document issued under Pope John Paul II and approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
What is not quite clear is whether the current pope accepts the “Chinese wall†that his old scientific adviser, Father Coyne, has struggled to preserve between physics and metaphysics. It is in the name of this Chinese wall that Father Coyne and other Catholic scientists have been able to make common cause with agnostics, like Mr Krauss, in defence of the scientific method. What the Jesuit astronomer and his secular friends all share is the belief that people who agree about physics can differ about metaphysics or religion.
Critics like Father Fessio would retort that their problem was not with the Chinese wall—but with an attempt to tear it down by scientists whose position is both Darwinist and anti-religious: in other words, with those who believe that scientific observation of the universe leaves no room at all for religious belief. (Some scientists and philosophers go further, dismissing religion itself as a phenomenon brought about by man's evolutionary needs.)
The new book quoting Pope Benedict's contributions to last year's seminar shows him doing his best to pick his way through these arguments: accepting that scientific descriptions of the universe are valid as far as they go, while insisting that they are ultimately incomplete as a way of explaining how things came to be. On those points, he seems to share the “anti-Darwinist†position of Father Fessio; but he also agrees with Father Coyne that a “God of the gaps†theory—which uses a deity to fill in the real or imagined holes in evolutionary science—is too small-minded. Only a handful of the world's 2 billion Christians will be able to make sense of his intricate intellectual arguments, and there is a risk that simplistic reporting and faulty interpretation of his ideas could create the impression that the pope has deserted to the ranks of the outright anti-evolutionists; he has done no such thing, his advisers insist.
Not that the advocates of intelligent design or outright creationists are in need of anyone's endorsement. Their ideas are flourishing and their numbers growing. As Mr Krauss has caustically argued, the anti-evolution movement is itself a prime example of evolution and adaptability—defeated in one arena, it will resurface elsewhere. His ally Father Coyne, the devoted star-gazer, is one of the relatively few boffins who have managed to expound with equal passion both their scientific views and their religious beliefs. He writes with breathless excitement about “the dance of the fertile universe, a ballet with three ballerinas: chance, necessity and fertility.†Whether they are atheists or theists, other supporters of Darwin's ideas on natural selection will have to inspire as well as inform if they are to compete with their growing army of foes.
-
Evolutionists are so extremely arrogant that it makes one wish for them to be wrong.
-
Evolutionists are so extremely arrogant that it makes one wish for them to be wrong.
ROFLMAO
-
::)
If only we were all so ready to dismiss science in favor of faith!
-
If only we were all so ready to dismiss science in favor of faith!
Anyone familiar with Fenton Communications and the Alar scare is quite apt to lose faith in science .
-
What sort of arrogance is it to assume that this is a "problem" originateing with Americans and spreading to others who are unfortunate to learn our mistakes?
Does the rest of the world look to America as the origin of all ideas?
Each and every society has a creation myth and the newest of these is Darwins.
-
(http://smbc-comics.com/images/evolution.gif)http://www.smbc-comics.com/
-
If only we were all so ready to dismiss science in favor of faith!
Oh, but many times we are. Not always on the same topic, but dismissing science in favor of faith is done frequently, though perhaps not faith as you meant it. Often science is dismissed regarding genetically modified foods in favor of faith that GM foods are inherently dangerous. Science has been dismissed by many for a long time regarding D.D.T. Sometimes science is dismissed in the name of faith in science. For example, the doom-is-upon-us proclamations regarding global warming. It is one thing to accept that the planet is warming up. It is quite another to say that hurricanes are caused by global warming. So while the accusation of dismissing science in favor of faith can be accurately leveled at many creationists, they are not alone in that.
-
Each and every society has a creation myth and the newest of these is Darwins.
In what way do you equate a myth with a scientific theory?
-
Does the rest of the world look to America as the origin of all ideas?
A friend of mine from Britain (and an Atlanticist even) said that he cringes when Americans start debating evolution, especially in Congress. He said that for Brits it is like debating gravity in Parliament.
-
He said that for Brits it is like debating gravity in Parliament.
Didn't we do that at one time as well? I know that the value of pi was debated in at least one state legislature at one point.
-
Each and every society has a creation myth and the newest of these is Darwins.
In what way do you equate a myth with a scientific theory?
Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.
-
I'm not sure, probably!
In fairness, the Brits have had some really stupid debates as well.
-
Does the rest of the world look to America as the origin of all ideas?
A friend of mine from Britain (and an Atlanticist even) said that he cringes when Americans start debating evolution, especially in Congress. He said that for Brits it is like debating gravity in Parliament.
I doubt that enough MPs would have the understanding to make this debate interesting.
But if they were to make it law that Newtons formulas were dogma , how would they cope with the introduction of Einstein's?
Evolution may be essentially correct , but in being correct it needs no legislative enforcement.
The place for evolution is Academe , but as long as it is controversial to parents , not in pedagogy.
-
Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.
To an extent, I agree. But that does not make scientific theory the same as religious myth. A non-scientist may accept a scientific theory with a certain level of faith, but that does not negate the scientific basis for the theory. A creation myth, on the other hand, has no scientific basis at all and cannot be verified by science. This is not an insignificant difference. So your attempt to equate the two seems highly questionable.
-
Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.
To an extent, I agree. But that does not make scientific theory the same as religious myth. A non-scientist may accept a scientific theory with a certain level of faith, but that does not negate the scientific basis for the theory. A creation myth, on the other hand, has no scientific basis at all and cannot be verified by science. This is not an insignificant difference. So your attempt to equate the two seems highly questionable.
Moses had the best education availible in his time , you seem to be well educated .
Lets imagine that you are catapulted about fourthousand years into the future , will your understanding of the sciences be interesting to the denisens of a time presumably so much more advanced?
The Egyptians had science , it was just less .
-
I have a question about creationism.
what are all the variations in this concept?
in evolution there are no limits of concepts
some actually think we`re decended from chimps.
-
U.P.-My faith comment was snarky. Though you are correct, most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all).
A creation myth, on the other hand, has no scientific basis at all and cannot be verified by science. This is not an insignificant difference. So your attempt to equate the two seems highly questionable.
You are correct on that as well. For the forum participants: A scientific theory has the ability to be proven or disproven, to keep it short and simple. Creation-sort theories fail on those two most critical and initial foundations. Demonstrated and repeatable results are key. To even entertain it as science is absurd.
The scientific method requires:
(1) Results of experiments to test the theory are replicable,
(2) In that sense, the theory may be used to predict results,
(3) The theory itself must be disconfirmable, i.e., there must be a method by which the theory could be disproved.
I.D. and creationism(oh, haha, i.d.-Id!, thoughts of freudian psychology in regards to the arrogance and idiocy of creation theories are now making me laugh out loud!), hardly fit this bill. To even consider it, one would have to expostulate Plato's dialogues about the nature of objective reality. Who was it who ordered the tides to stop to prove they would not listen?
Plane: Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.
Pish. I tell them to look it up in their Funk n Wagnalls. If you mean "seperated by scientific sources" as "unable or in the context of argument disallowed to source science", then you have done yourself a disfavour. Evolution is one of the most solid sicences, with more evidence than not, and refraining from sourcing evidentiary support of this established theory is disingenius.
NOW, one could entertain the notion that "intelligent design" points to current gaps in understanding, and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention.
Ami - Didn't we do that at one time as well? I know that the value of pi was debated in at least one state legislature at one point.
Oh, hahaha! Thats entertaining! What a bunch of fools; which state was that?
-
Oh, hahaha! Thats entertaining! What a bunch of fools; which state was that?
Most people would assume Kansas, Louisiana, or Mississippi.
However, it was Indiana.
Indiana Pi Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)
-
Moses had the best education availible in his time , you seem to be well educated .
Lets imagine that you are catapulted about fourthousand years into the future , will your understanding of the sciences be interesting to the denisens of a time presumably so much more advanced?
The Egyptians had science , it was just less .
This doesn't justify equating scientific theory with creation myths. Moses did not, to the best of my knowledge, put forth the opening chapters of the book we call Genesis as a scientific explanation.
-
Moses had the best education availible in his time , you seem to be well educated .
Lets imagine that you are catapulted about fourthousand years into the future , will your understanding of the sciences be interesting to the denisens of a time presumably so much more advanced?
The Egyptians had science , it was just less .
This doesn't justify equating scientific theory with creation myths. Moses did not, to the best of my knowledge, put forth the opening chapters of the book we call Genesis as a scientific explanation.
Oh?
-
Who was it who ordered the tides to stop to prove they would not listen?
(http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session4/18/kingcanute.gif)(http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/upload/img_200/PU2268.jpg)
King Canute (994 – 1035) was at one point King of England, Denmark, Norway and part of Sweden. He is famous for saying,
‘let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings,
for there is none worthy of the name but God,
whom heaven, earth and sea obey.’
http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session4/18/kingcan.htm
(3) The theory itself must be disconfirmable, i.e., there must be a method by which the theory could be disproved.
Hey great! I didn't know that the Theroy of Evolution had this as a feature.
If a creature were discovered , which had a phisical feature or a behavior that could not have evolved ,would the theroy be disproven?
".... most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all). "
"..........and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention."
How do you limit yourself so narrow mindedly when you seem to know better?
Why do you hold the non- existance of superntural power to be infallible and above all need for free debate?
-
Oh?
Yes, really. Have you some evidence to the contrary? I'd like to see it if you do.
-
Oh?
Yes, really. Have you some evidence to the contrary? I'd like to see it if you do.
In that era was there anydistinction made between knoledge of tradition and knoledge of science?
-
In that era was there anydistinction made between knoledge of tradition and knoledge of science?
Not being a historian of the era, I would not make a definitive statement, but I think there probably was. But whether or not there was, that doesn't do anything for your assertion that the theory of evolution is a creation myth. You're still in the position of saying a myth and scientific theory are equivalent, and so far you haven't said anything that gives credence to that assertion.
-
In that era was there anydistinction made between knoledge of tradition and knoledge of science?
Not being a historian of the era, I would not make a definitive statement, but I think there probably was. But whether or not there was, that doesn't do anything for your assertion that the theory of evolution is a creation myth. You're still in the position of saying a myth and scientific theory are equivalent, and so far you haven't said anything that gives credence to that assertion.
There was a time when theroy was less formally developed , in th time of Aristotle there was no especial need felt to prove by experiment what pure logic produed.
What Moses knew from his Egyptian education incuded the best theroys of sciene availible , what he knew from revilation of God one would have to suppose to be infallible.
Yet even though God would certainly have understood the details of his creation , was Moses ready to understand an explanation that we would unerstand to be scientific?
Probly not to my thinking , Moses got the best explanation he could possibly have understood.
If Moses were presently graduating from Princeton with doctorates in several feilds , God could use more tecnical terms and up to date demonstrations of principals , getting much further down the roads of knoledge before haveing to stop at the point that Moses was not prepared to adzob any more.
For all that the story of genisis includes some interesting parallel parts with recent science.
In the beginning God ...
Earlyer than the first few moments of the big bang , we still have little idea of the history of the universe It can be supposed that before the big bang there was no matter and no energy therefore no space and no time .
Butthere was darkness and void and Go moveing aross the void.
Perhaps this just a good guess.
In an other Chapter Jacob gets a job as a top hand on a ranch owned by his father in law , hi pay was to be all the calves that were born that year of a particular color.
But when Jacobs share was the white calves , all of the calves were white , next year when his share was the spotted calves , all of the calves were spotted , and so on every year untill his father in law owned only the oldest cows and Jacobs share was a motly herd of young cows equal in number to the original herd.
This could be taken as a miricle , or it could be that Jacob was a canny cattleman with an early understanding of the power of selection on genes , it would not be hard for a cowboy who understood selective breeding to hobble all the bulls that were not the desired color , and this would be in caricter for Jacob .
There are other stronger evidences that the power of selective breeding is anchient knoledge , several breeds of Dog and cattle an plant are very changed from the wild form from earlyer dates than Moses. I would Guess that Moses knew that selection can exegerate the expession of a caricteristic in an animal , but Moses seems to reject the also common theroy of the time that diffrent animals were interspecies cross breeds.
-
I'm still waiting for you to get to the point of scientific theory as creation myth. I get that you're arguing unfamiliar science translated into religious text, but that is not verifiable in any way. And it does not support your assertion that current scientific theory is the equivalent of a myth.
Oh, and the part of Genesis you're talking about is, as best I can tell, the second half of Genesis 30. The story is not quite as you told it. I suggest you read it again.
-
I'm still waiting for you to get to the point of scientific theory as creation myth. I get that you're arguing unfamiliar science translated into religious text, but that is not verifiable in any way. And it does not support your assertion that current scientific theory is the equivalent of a myth.
Oh, and the part of Genesis you're talking about is, as best I can tell, the second half of Genesis 30. The story is not quite as you told it. I suggest you read it again.
What documents of the same era do you know of that are more scientific , from a modern standard?
In Ecclesiastes Soloman asserts by force of logic that Human beings are made of the same sort of matter as animals.
-
Plane: Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.
=================================
This is a totally bogus argument. Most people cannot explain how to build an arch or a dome, but they still will stand under one on faith in the architects.
This in no way disproves the match used by the architects who build these structures.
One may have faith in what seems to make the most sense.
Creationism, especially of the "world was created in six days 4004 years ago" crap does not make any sense to any except the most ignorant.
There is not time in any life to not take must on faith.
The important thing is that faith must be guided by logic and reason.
-
Hey great! I didn't know that the Theroy of Evolution had this as a feature.
Then you haven;t read enough about it.
If a creature were discovered , which had a phisical feature or a behavior that could not have evolved ,would the theroy be disproven?
That is highly probable to stemf orm and devolve into circular thinking, so I'll bow out.
".... most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all). "
"..........and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention."
How do you limit yourself so narrow mindedly when you seem to know better?
Why do you hold the non- existance of superntural power to be infallible and above all need for free debate?
[/quote]
I don't hold an existence or a non-existence of any power to be anything, unless scientifically proven. Err on the side of rationality, I suppose. Maybe you should read some Spinoza.
-
Hey great! I didn't know that the Theroy of Evolution had this as a feature.
Then you haven;t read enough about it.
If a creature were discovered , which had a phisical feature or a behavior that could not have evolved ,would the theroy be disproven?
That is highly probable to stemf orm and devolve into circular thinking, so I'll bow out.
In what way would Evolution include a means of disproof?
".... most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all). "
"..........and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention."
How do you limit yourself so narrow mindedly when you seem to know better?
Why do you hold the non- existance of superntural power to be infallible and above all need for free debate?
I don't hold an existence or a non-existence of any power to be anything, unless scientifically proven. Err on the side of rationality, I suppose. Maybe you should read some Spinoza.
[/quote]
If you have read Spinoza then why would you reject out of hand any argument that included a supernatural element?
-
I don't see a reason why creationism and evolution can't co-exist.
-
Plane-Many of evolutions theories have been incorrect. The fact remains that it is one of the most solid observational sciences.
BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.
-
I don't see a reason why creationism and evolution can't co-exist.
Bt, there is no reason to believe that God did not create the world and mankind, yet did so by also creating the biological system of evolution. The only real requirement then is that one believes that at some point God infused man with a soul.
For some reason there are those who have to believe that the book of Genesis must be accepted in literal interpretation only. Yet, there is clearly no reason why that is the only way to interpret Adam and Eve and The Fall.
No one interprets the entire Bible literally, yet some insist that certain segments must be read as such, and this is one.
-
BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.
I'll call it what i want.
But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.
And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.
-
BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.
I'll call it what i want.
But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.
And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.
When it(creationism, id) is introduced in the public education curriculum, it should(and subsequently is)an issue. It is unfounded, and can't even be held to any standing scientific rigours. As I have said, it points to current gaps in understanding, but that does not a scientific theory create. To introduce it as something as valid as evolution or in lieu of, is frightening.
Now "both sides" wouldn't have been involved if one side hadn't initially proposed its inclusion into public curriculum at the expense of logic and science.
-
BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.
I'll call it what i want.
But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.
And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.
When it(creationism, id) is introduced in the public education curriculum, it should(and subsequently is)an issue. It is unfounded, and can't even be held to any standing scientific rigours. As I have said, it points to current gaps in understanding, but that does not a scientific theory create. To introduce it as something as valid as evolution or in lieu of, is frightening.
Now "both sides" wouldn't have been involved if one side hadn't initially proposed its inclusion into public curriculum at the expense of logic and science.
So if you were king you would introduce logic and science to the unwilling.
You would be a harsh king.
The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.
-
BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.
I'll call it what i want.
But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.
And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.
When it(creationism, id) is introduced in the public education curriculum, it should(and subsequently is)an issue. It is unfounded, and can't even be held to any standing scientific rigours. As I have said, it points to current gaps in understanding, but that does not a scientific theory create. To introduce it as something as valid as evolution or in lieu of, is frightening.
Now "both sides" wouldn't have been involved if one side hadn't initially proposed its inclusion into public curriculum at the expense of logic and science.
So if you were king you would introduce logic and science to the unwilling.
You would be a harsh king.
The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.
Plane. Are you serious. Logic and science to the unwilling? In the interests of a wellrounded public education, yes I would. If the parents don't like it, they can circumvent that at home. And yes, I imagine I would be a very harsh and cruel Queen ;)
That the state has no right to enforce truth, ie education, is something I can't even counter, it falls so far out!
-
The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.
But the state does have the responsibility to teach accurate science in science class. Intelligent design (or creationism) is not accurate science.
-
It wouldn't be the first time my thoughts traveled the road to the absurd, but can't evolution and intelligent design be conclusively reconciled by saying, from the scientific data supporting the theory of evolution: this is the truth as we know it, and then adding: there could be a Divine Agent guiding this process, or not?
-
It wouldn't be the first time my thoughts traveled the road to the absurd, but can't evolution and intelligent design be conclusively reconciled by saying, from the scientific data supporting the theory of evolution: this is the truth as we know it, and then adding: there could be a Divine Agent guiding this process, or not?
Sure, as long as the last part is taught in a theology or comparative religions class. It does not belong in a science class.
-
But the state does have the responsibility to teach accurate science in science class. Intelligent design (or creationism) is not accurate science.
They can teach evolution all they want in science class.
But do these same teachers have the right to say creation beliefs are bunk in those same science classes?
-
But do these same teachers have the right to say creation beliefs are bunk in those same science classes?
They have the right to say that creation myths are not science.
-
The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.
Plane. Are you serious. Logic and science to the unwilling? In the interests of a wellrounded public education, yes I would. If the parents don't like it, they can circumvent that at home. And yes, I imagine I would be a very harsh and cruel Queen ;)
That the state has no right to enforce truth, ie education, is something I can't even counter, it falls so far out!
[/quote]
When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.
-
They have the right to say that creation myths are not science.
That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?
-
actually evolution at this very momeny does not say that
only certain people who believe in evolution say creation is bunk
in fact more likely creationist tend to say evolution is counter to creationism
I`ve been debating evolution just about the exact same time I joined you guys at yahoo.
and the established folks who research evoltution approuch it not as a origin issue but as research primarily of how we change through the years.
there really isn`t much talk about how it all started.
-
That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?
No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.
-
No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.
Should state agents be penalized for calling religious beliefs concerning creation bunk or otherwise assigning personal values to those beliefs?
-
Should state agents be penalized for calling religious beliefs concerning creation bunk or otherwise assigning personal values to those beliefs?
Yes.
-
That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?
No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.
Should a teacher have a right to say that Science is fallible?
-
Should a teacher have a right to say that Science is fallible?
It's not fallible, it's self-correcting.
-
When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.
So your faction wishes to run on teaching children how to be the world's worst scientists?
-
When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.
So your faction wishes to run on teaching children how to be the world's worst scientists?
Of course not, we will teach the truth in perfection as we see it , and if the rigor of the teaching seems a bit harsh , then you might regret being insistant on this rigor from the time that your faction held controll.
There is no constitutional mandate to consider science more highly than religon , rather, there is a prohibition on Congress to interfere in matters of religion.So if a matter of science contradicts a matter of religion the state must not involve itself in the settlement of the issue .
It is not inconceveable that sience could insist on something much worse than evolution , was it not the habit of the NATZI's to justify many of their aims (even the poorly researched ones ) by calling on science?
The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed .
Religion is not infallible either , only God himself could be that , history seems to show that arrogance in religion is usefull to tyrants , arrogance in science is not diffrent in this respect.
To enforce the teaching of truth on the unwilling could be a very good definition of despotism , at least it is a very common element of tyrany.
-
Plane-When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.
Humility is the worst form of arrogance.
-
Plane-When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.
Humility is the worst form of arrogance.
Meaningless , but on a very profound level.
-
It is not inconceveable that sience could insist on something much worse than evolution , was it not the habit of the NATZI's to justify many of their aims (even the poorly researched ones ) by calling on science?
Hitler was quite adept at discussing religion and used it often in his speeches. Religion and mysticism were very important components of Nazism.
The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed.
Many people did argue with it. It was not science that captured the spirit of racial pride, it was nationalism. Nationalism and patriotism were the true softspots that Fascism exploited with amazing success and are still extremely easily exploited by charismatic politicians. Scientists and academics will never be able to compete with charismatic individuals when it comes to capturing the adoration of the public. Nationalism, patriotism, racial pride, were all beautifully (from a Machiavellian point of view) woven into a tapestry of adulation by Fascists like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar.
Also, please be careful in your language. "Arianism" was a heresy in the days of the German gothic barbarians. "Aryanism" was an invented race of perfection that never really existed.
then you might regret being insistant on this rigor from the time that your faction held controll
I have a faction?
-
The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed .
There was no need to argue about the scientific merits; after all this continues to be practiced today, just under different names. Eugenics has gone on since humans became self-aware. After all, don't you look for the features you are attracted to in your mate? This is a form of eugenics - producing offspring that will attract mates in the future. Screening for birth defects is another form. Retrovirus repair of damaged DNA is an even newer form.
State sponsored eugenics, however, is generally considered immoral, especially if it comes alongside the "ideals" of genocide.
-
The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed .
There was no need to argue about the scientific merits; after all this continues to be practiced today, just under different names. Eugenics has gone on since humans became self-aware. After all, don't you look for the features you are attracted to in your mate? This is a form of eugenics - producing offspring that will attract mates in the future. Screening for birth defects is another form. Retrovirus repair of damaged DNA is an even newer form.
State sponsored eugenics, however, is generally considered immoral, especially if it comes alongside the "ideals" of genocide.
Science is rapidly approaching the ability to custom build your baby , suppressing the expression of undesireable genes can reduce certain diseases or the insertion of desireable genes could build immunitys and strengths so that you baby could be made to order.
Any scientific reason not to?
-
Science is rapidly approaching the ability to custom build your baby , suppressing the expression of undesireable genes can reduce certain diseases or the insertion of desireable genes could build immunitys and strengths so that you baby could be made to order.
Any scientific reason not to?
Nope; and current queasiness regarding the issue aside, "genefixing" (fixing genetic abnormalities) and "genemodding" (adding new or improved features genetically) will become common place in a century or so. I expect that parents who do not, at a minimum, perform genefixing on their offspring will be ostracized.
-
That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?
No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.
Should a teacher have a right to say that Science is fallible?
Should a preacher, et al, have a right to say that the Bible is fallible?
In my entire life, I have never heard one.
Which of the two is more fallible--Bible or Science?
-
Equal, but in different ways. One errs in the artistic/theological realm, and the other errs in the "mathematical"/"logical" way, but both types of failings stem from human yearnings and human fallibility.
-
science is a work in continual progress.
the bible is called perfect and nobody will ever have the right to question it.
so i
-
THE “Atlas of Creation†runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between “Darwinism†and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the “Atlas de la Création†has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world.
At least we won't be the only nation going down the idiot tube. Freedom Fries anyone?
Science is science...myth and faith is not science. You can not prove religion.
The govenment is begging for kids to go into science and math...how can they if they are being told that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time and baby dinos were on the ark...hell that there was an ark that held all the animals..two by two. ID will ruin this nation...well what will be left after Bush is done.
terra
-
The govenment is begging for kids to go into science and math...how can they if they are being told that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time and baby dinos were on the ark...hell that there was an ark that held all the animals..two by two. ID will ruin this nation...well what will be left after Bush is done.
So you would ban religion if you could Terra? All or just certain sects?
-
science is a work in continual progress.
the bible is called perfect and nobody will ever have the right to question it.
so i
Lightning bolt?
-
Should a preacher, et al, have a right to say that the Bible is fallible?
In my entire life, I have never heard one.
Which of the two is more fallible--Bible or Science?
Of course theologians have the "right" to question the fallibility of the Bible. Many do. That is a ridiculous notion.
the bible is called perfect and nobody will ever have the right to question it.
Now you are getting into the territory of Bibliolatry and turning the books of the Bible into objects of worship.
Protestants certainly questioned the Bible when they removed seven books from it! Martin Luther famously commented that he "found no trace of the Holy Spirit" in the Apocalypse of John (Revelations). He also questioned whether either the Epistle of James or the Epistle of Jude were worthy of the Biblical canon.
The early Church Fathers included some books such as the Martyrdom of Polycarp and 1 Clement in the New Testament Canon and did not include The Apocalypse of John for some time. It was not until the 4th Century that the modern canon was adopted, but even then some of the Eastern churches still clung to the older styles.
Then we have issues of translation. For example, when the King James Bible was commissioned there was no real scholarship in modern Aramaic and Syriac (two of the languages in which texts have been preserved). So there were numerous errors.
In other words, the Bible is viewed by some as completely free of error, but certainly not all Christians see it as such.