WP: Fresh Challenges in the Old Debate Over Evolution

[DeepModem Mom]

Fresh Challenges in the Old Debate Over Evolution

By Valerie Strauss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2004; Page A14


.... Eighty years after John T. Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was charged with illegally teaching the theory of evolution in Tennessee, the social and intellectual values that imbued that trial with such meaning continue to stir emotions, prompting challenges in school boards and state legislatures, courthouses and schoolrooms....

***

"The science classroom has become the battleground," said legal scholar Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center in Arlington. "Because we are paralyzed by this debate, the decisions are not often made on the basis of what is good for science education. They are made on the basis of what might win in court, or political considerations, or sometimes religious considerations."

The vast majority of scientists agree that evolution is a proven major unifying concept in science and should be not only included in science education in kindergarten through 12th grade but also better imbedded in school standards. Many scientists grow infuriated at evolution challenges by people they believe are trying to infuse religion into a strictly scientific process....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40839-2004Dec6.html

[Brundle_Fly]

1. I dun didn't get me

no jeans from no stanky dang'd ape a dang doo.
I was made from jebub pee.

[booksenkatz]

3. LMAO!!!

Thanks for that laugh... of course, I cease all laughter when I realize that so many of them would couch it in exactly those terms, given a chance.
:scared:

[lapfog_1]

2. This reminds me

there was once a SERIOUS proposal by some legislator somewhere to
"set" the value of PI to 3.141, because it would be so much more
convenient, ya know.

Introduced by a Republican in the Missouri (I think) state assembly.

[AZCat]

13. Not Missouri, and it was a long time ago

Although there was a parody circulating on the internet about Alabama doing it.

For reference, see the Snopes page on Alabama and Pi.

The original attempt was in Indiana in 1897, and here is the story of that bill. It has been infinitely postponed by the Indiana State Senate. The really crazy bit (IMHO) is here:
<quote>
However, by sheer chance, it happened that a real mathematician, Prof.
C. A. Waldo of the Indiana Academy of Science, had been present in the
House that day. To quote Edington quoting Waldo:

...imagine surprise when he discovered that he was
in the midst of a debate upon a piece of mathematical legislation.
An ex-teacher from the eastern part of the state was saying: "The
case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes
a new and correct value for pi, the author offers ... its free
publication in our school text books, while everyone else must pay
him a royalty."

Waldo was then shown a copy of the bill and asked if he wanted to meet
its author. He replied that he was already "acquainted with as many
crazy people as he cared to know."
</quote>

[yardwork]

98. LOL! Sad thing is, crazy people like that are now running the country!

[koopie57]

4. I wonder how America

could compete globally if our kids are not taught evolution? Whoever thought we would be dealing with this in the 21st century.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. The only reason that they even started teaching evolution

in the schools was because of of Sputnik. That event shocked them into realizing the importance of maintaining a high standard of science education.

We're so far on top of the world now, that our leadership doesn't even think it matters, and anyway, our power is derived from Gawd, not from supremacy in science and technology. By the time the next Sputnik comes along, it will be too late, and probably for the best anyway.

[Arianrhod]

21. Um, hello, but the Scopes Trial was in 1925.

And we are not "so far on top of the world" when it comes to science. The current generation's science skills rank among the lowest anywhere. That's the direct result of the Creationist movement, btw.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. The Scopes Trial did not initiate

the systematic teaching of Evolution in public schools. In fact, the trial's verdict went against the teaching of evolution. The entire trial was against one single man who was going against the status quo by teaching evolution.

It wasn't until Sputnik that our nation was shocked into placing a much greater emphasis on science education, and evolution became a systematic part of the science curriculum.

It is my contention that our hyperpower status is largely based in our massive, and technologically advanced military machine. That's what I meant when I said "top of the world".

The only point that I was trying to make was that our status is ultimately dependent on our maintainting an advanced scientific and technological base, and that if we destroy that base, as our current regime seems bent on doing, we will ultimately end our hyperpower status.

I think that many of the people (most?) running this country take our supremacy in the world as a given, perhaps conferred by God, and therefore give little or no thought to maintaining the scientific/technological basis for that supremacy. That's probably a good thing, as I think it's become clear that this country can't handle this level of power.

I am completely aware of the sorry state of this generation's science skills. I was only pointing out that this will eventually effect the status of our power in the world, and that most Americans seem to take our supremacy for granted, and fail to make any sort of connection.

[aneerkoinos]

5. Stupid question

Why can't kids be taught both, current best understanding of evolution in science/biology classes and various religious myths, including (and especially?) Christian Creationism at religion/culture classes - plus teaching them to question what 'truth' means in philosophy classes?

What's the problem? Control freakism of adults?

[PATRICK]

6. They never will be allowed

to teach the heart of the controversy between science and religion. THAT is the one thing they don't want kids to do- think. They believe only in indoctrination and that certain adults should control this programming.

There is no way you can teach about the internal roots of the controversy
per se instead of the science. They intend to fight over what "science" means in the process before it ever gets mashed into young brains. Not listening to scientists will get your children killed, impoverished and militantly ignorant as the world surges on by at light speed. But maybe these egoistic, punishment minded "adults" want to see their children and their future destroyed in a pique of selfish vengeance rather than reality be allowed to bring them down and make fools of them.

Evolution? Better dead than read. Monsters making monsters is what people like that are all about. If no Rapture then a Hitler style scorched Gotterdammerung. It's all the same in their crude emotional needs.

[aneerkoinos]

7. They?

Who are the 'they' you keep talking about? What controversy between science and religion? Those are different domains and do not need to be valued by same criteria.

Indoctrination, as you say, seems to be the basic problem. But school should not be about indoctrination into anything, religion or current scientific understanding, but teaching ABOUT both and other things. Indoctrination by any side!

I was taught Christian mythology at early age, the Lutheran version of it (Finland has no clear separation of Church and state), and science at later grades, year by year in increasing depth. Did me no great harm. :)

[Bridget Burke]

8. This is not Finland.

The plan here is to introduce Creationism (or Intelligent Design) in science lessons--not as Myth & Legend.

And we have had separation of Church & State in this country. Or we used to.

[aneerkoinos]

11. Intelligent design

AFAIK is term for great variety of theories, (some or most) of which fullfill scientific criteria, theories which do not necessarily presume "God", but do usually presume something else besides materialist positivism/reductionism.

I don't see what is the problem teaching also those theories besides the standard theory, nor do I consider it necessary because they are still minority opinions, but absolutely banning them because they are contradictory to BELIEF in materialist positivism is in principle no better than banning everything else but Creationism.

Personally I'm for strict separation of Church & State also in Finland (which has monocultural history compared to US), but acknowledge it isn't prerequisite for freedom of (and from) religion.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Intelligent design does not in any way

meet the criteria for a theory as that term is used in science. At best, it's an area of speculation. It absolutely doesn't belong in the science classroom, because there is no evidence, let alone a preponderance of evidence to support it. It's essential premise is "we don't understand how a particular thing came about, therefore, God, (or some supernatural intelligent agent) must have done it." Whatever else that may be, it is not science.

Science does not presume "materialist positivism/reductionism", only the the use of the tools of empiricism to understand the natural world.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for Intelligent Design in some areas of instruction, such as philosophy, or comparative religion, but there is no more basis for including it in science education that there is for any number of other areas of pseudoscience or metaphysics.

I don't know, maybe we should be introducing some metaphysical components into the teaching of plumbing as well.

[aneerkoinos]

17. Not quite so

To be considered scientific, theory has to be testable IN PRINCIPLE, not immideatly in practical terms. Theory of atoms was over 2000 years old before it became empirically testable, had it's day in the light and is now subsumed by subatomic theories.

The view that theory has to be rigorously tested, not only testable and consistent with previous data (e.g. empirically equivalent, but causally or ontologically different), is closely related to the social phenomenon of paradigm becoming belief. When you got hammer, everything becomes nail, as the saying goes. And in this case as materialist positivism is the hammer, everything looks like matter.

Further cause of problems is the double meaning of science, which sometimes refers to only "hard" sciences, physics etc., sometimes all fields of scientific questioning. I don't find it usefull to translate science into physicalism and exclude philosophy (including metaphysics), comparative religion, psychology etc. from "science".

[Crunchy Frog]

18. The modern day, scientific definition of "theory"

did not exist 2000 years ago, neither did the scientific method.

The word theory has a very specific meaning in modern day scientific terminology. I see no reason to go around changing the accepted terminology in order to allow speculation and metaphysics to be taught in science classrooms, on a par with modern day, accepted, scientific theories.

At any rate, I'm not interested in getting into my first DU evolution/creationism flamewar right now, so I will leave this issue for other people to take up, if anyone is interested.

[aneerkoinos]

20. Science is self-correcting

Thats what is so wonderfull about it. That means that also the exact definition of scientific theory is open scientific scrutiny - and disagreement.

I would like to think this discussion is example of such scrutiny, and thus also proves my essential argument, that we can discuss finer points of what constitutes scientific theory by using rational arguments and even stay in disagreement without lovering to level of flamewar. Dialogue breaks up (and flaming starts) only if either side claims that the other side's arguments are not based on rationality and some implicated methodology for potential self-correction, ie. acknowledgement of fallibility. I haven't yet seen you attempting to deny the fallibility of my arguments, so for my part, we are still in talking terms... :)

[VegasWolf]

24. So, is it your thesis that god or gods created the universe? n/t

[aneerkoinos]

26. No. n/t

[VegasWolf]

27. Then you consider this so-called intelligent design a viable alternative

to evolution?

[aneerkoinos]

35. Dunno

Not my field of expertise. Things like phylogeny/sudden adaptation seem to be still problematic even in the standard theory, at least in some contexts. Science is usually cumulative, so my guess is that modifications are more likely than "alternatives", as the progress goes on.

My starting point was philosophy of science applied to education, not my opinion about evolution or any other theory.

[VegasWolf]

38. Good, then why teach the philosophy of religion as science?

Surely you can agree that the scientific method is incompatible
with religion? The phylogeny arguments are not as serious as
sudden adaptation. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection
may be incorrect, but one cannot argue that changes to
flora and fauna occur over time unless you totally discount
carbon dating and believe that god put dinosaur bones in the
ground to test the faithful.

[aneerkoinos]

50. No

I don't agree that the scientific method is ALWAYS incompatible with religion, if we consider e.g. Buddhism a religion, as is usual. Buddhist methodology is rational in the domains where rationality applies, and mystical where it doesn't. Where the boundary goes is of course one of the basic questions that can be investigated from both sides, but talked about only from the one side. I don't think the boundary is absolute, as there are ways to circumvent and supplement the limits of some of common rational methodologies.

And as far as I understand, philosophy of anything is science, philosophy being the mother of all sciences, as the saying goes.

I would too found extremely unplausible any such theory you describe.

[VegasWolf]

62. When is the scientific method is EVER compatible with religion?

Religion at its fundamental core requires belief ( per
the great Kierkegaard-Nietze debates ) while science at its
core requires logic and deduction. Belief in all powerful
invisible beings is by definition irrational and thus requires
belief. I tend to prefer Sartre's definition of philosophy
that it is absurd ( in the philosophical sense ).

I'm all for teaching a multiplicity of ideas and concepts
in school. But I think apples should be compared to apples.
Religion can never be on equal footing with science in the rational
world.


edit typo

[aneerkoinos]

74. Religion

Yes, omnipotent all-knowing beings, invisible or not, defy logic. I must admit I'm not familiar with the debate you refer to, but defining religion by belief appears circular to me and not very revealing about religion as social phenomenon or about the psychological basic 'religious experience'. It is also not the definition comparative study of religion uses, today that scientific community tends to utilize family resemblance instead of analytical definition to define the object of their study.

If you want to stick to your definition, by all means, but then you must admit that according to it e.g. Buddhism is not religion, but science/philosophy.

[VegasWolf]

81. The "debate" I refer to is one of the great defining moments

in the history of philosophy. It's Philosophy 101!
The reasoning is not circular, unless you believe that
you know more than Kierkegaard, he was forced by Nietze
to admit the core was belief, hence, his famous "leap
of faith". Maybe you've heard of that one.

Buddhism is a religion, as soon as you go enlightenment under
the Buddha tree and reincarnation, you've drifted off into
the murky realms of religion. Buddhism is one of the more
pragmatic religions in that it concentrates on living a pure
life, but that fundamentally is equivalent to following
the 10 commandments to get to heaven.

Buddhism is no science. Neither is Taoism or any other of
the eastern variants.

So you must be forced to admit that teaching creationism as
a viable alternative to evolution is an absurdity.

[aneerkoinos]

82. I believe

I know more than Kierkegaard about some things, no doubt he knew even more things than I know about other things, and for argumentation from authority, that is a very poor attempt. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche came from Christian culture and their presumptions about religion, belief and were naturally affected by that cultural background, and especially the widespread notion of soteriology by belief/faith in (Pistic) Christianity.

My definition (or rather non-definition) of religion is the same as that of the particular scientific community's that is dedicated to the study of religion (no, not Theology). As for argumentation from authority, mine wipes the floor with yours. :)

Kierkegaard's notion of leap of faith is interesting and profound, but faith in that sense does not equal or necessitate belief in some absurdity or any other belief in something. Merely 'beyond rationality'. They are not even the same words in English language.

Re Buddhism you are clearly relatively ignorant; I don't claim years of study either, but better understanding than you. If one accepts the metaphysical premises of Buddhism, which happen to be quite different from Western mainstream materialistic metaphysical presumptions, neither enlightment nor reincarnation are irrational. They are not only rational but also testable by relatively simple means (e.g. obigatory rite of a recently found Tulku child proving himself by recognizing some things from his previous incarnation; enlightment is admittedly more complicated matter from scientific/rational viewpoint.) Why such empirical evidence is usually ignored/denied/refuted by Western science is a different story - which we perhaps can leave at better time. :)

To my understanding what 'leap of faith' there is in Buddhism, under Buddhist definitions that occurs mainly when pupil commits to a guru and gives that guru very significant amount of responsibility for his/her spiritual advancement. Kierkegaard's stage three ("religion") and Buddhist enlightment may refer to same or similar experience, but under Buddhist definitions and line of reasoning that does not happen by leap of faith, but by cleaning one's mind from any and all delusions (which naturally includes all beliefs and faiths, as in Buddhism everything is ultimately considered delusion).

Buddhism is certainly not "fundamentally equivalent to following
the 10 commandments to get to heaven", as in Buddhism there is no assumption of Cosmic Judge that could give valid commands, and heaven(s) is just slightly more comfortable place/state to stay bound by Karma than hell(s). What ethical guidelines there are in Buddhism, their purpose is merely to give advice how to best alleviate suffering and advance towards total freedom from suffering.

>>>So you must be forced to admit that teaching creationism as
a viable alternative to evolution is an absurdity.<<<

No problemo, since I never claimed anything else.

[VegasWolf]

83. Your skirt is showing! Bye! I thought you might have something

interesting to say. Guess not.

[aneerkoinos]

85. Your fear is showing

Refusing to discuss is normal reaction when one's belief-system is challenged. Happy running! :)

BTW I'm not Buddhist if you think that is my "skirt".

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. "Nietze"?

If you mean Nietzsche, then he didn't force Kierkegaard to admit anything. Kierkegaard died in 1855, and Nietzsche was born in 1844 (and wasn't a child prodigy).

Anything else we've all missed from Philosophy 101?

[VegasWolf]

92. Metaphorically speaking, of course. and I tend to agree with

Neitze. Don't know, what else did you miss?

edit clarification

[aneerkoinos]

94. Kicking while lying ground? ;)

I'm in shame to have missed that... :D

[VegasWolf]

96. Oh, and Muriel, i would love to have a stimulating philosophy

discussion. PM me. Obviously the other guy did not provide
any challenge!

[Reverend Smoothfield]

29. as a man of the cloth

i applaud you for the civilized tone of this discussion. personally, my own theological investigations have moved away from the question of whether god created the universe to the more pressing one of why religious people are so much worse at spelling than the secular community. my working theory is that it has something to do with retardation but i still have a lot of work to do.

[VegasWolf]

31. Welcome Reverend, I applaud your industry in investigating

phenomena that others shy away from!

[Reverend Smoothfield]

33. bless you, my child

i commed you on your chopper.

[VegasWolf]

40. Thanks, I too am a man of the cloth. I'm Reverend Vegas

and I received my Credentials of Ministry on
the internet. Now I can legally marry people
in all 50 states and 6 territories.

[Arianrhod]

22. The modern scientific method began with Descartes

in the 17th Century. He outlined a pragmatic, strict set of criteria by which something could be considered "true". Science has since modified these criteria slightly (mainly due to Einstein and Heisenberg), but the basic premises Descartes set forth remain in force.

Intelligent Design meets NONE of these premises.

[aneerkoinos]

30. In the school of though I come from

Cartesian is (mostly) a dirty word. ;)

And it's up to you to prove the negative, my point is that I'm not taking sides but keeping open mind. As far as I know (which is not much), people with academic initiation are discussing theories coined under the term ID inside the scientific community, and I don't have the expertise or the motivation to declare them righ or wrong and certainly not all insane.

[Arianrhod]

47. It's not possible to prove a negative.

And no one in the science community believes in Intelligent Design. Not a single person. The only ones pushing this religious concept are preachers and charlatans (if there's a difference).

[aneerkoinos]

55. Why believe in ID

or any other theory? Perhaps your choise of word betrayes something of your religious attitude?

I don't know if anyone in the science community believes in ID. What I know nobody should, as long as they act in the role of scientist, BELIEVE in ID, standard evolution theories or any other theory.

AFAIK some people in the community take ID seriously enough to lend it some degree of support at least on hypothetical level, ie. take interest, and claiming that every such person is charlatan is extremely strong claim, so far totally unscientific claim, and I can't help noticing, not very open minded one. Also you have not shown that the "concept" is only and nothing but religious in nature.

[Arianrhod]

57. Wow, you play with words as well as any Creationist I've ever met.

Of course people "believe" in various things. The difference is, scientists believe in theories because there is evidence for them. IDers and Creationists believe in their religious nonsense because their pastors told them to.

You give yourself away with your arguments.

[aneerkoinos]

63. Granted

Word 'belief' has various meanings, including 'quite plausible'. In your case its use, among other things, I believe reveals your dogmatism, that you are more interested in attacking other people's belief-systems and defending your own by means that are not scientifically kosher, than having rational dialogue in search of truth and meaning.

[Arianrhod]

97. Um, hello.

There is no scientific basis to ID. It was invented by religious men to offset their failure in getting Creationism taught in US science classes. They thought that, if they added a little science cache to their nonsense, it would be more acceptable.

The primary proponent was eventually kicked out of the college, because he knew no science at all.

Instead of telling me to prove negatives, why don't you provide the names and credentials of scientists who believe in ID?

[aneerkoinos]

102. For all I know

You maybe right about ID... or wrong. Impossible to say, because you have offered no evidence, and I'm basically ignorant about ID, not even really interested, being supporter of evolution theory.

What I have been going on is, what is my stupid question is this: Why don't the (so called) supporters of science show the minimum requirement of benefit of doubt when the supposed "other side" agrees to play the scientific game, why don't the side that is supposed to be better, show example on how the game is supposed to be played and this way encouradge dialogue instead of culture war, and most of all, WHY ON EARTH do they insist on disrespecting or misunderstanding the scientific method itself by their own dogmatism, by the way they act?

...unless they are what they oppose, dogmatic believers in one truth, in this case mechanistic materialism?

Naturally the believers will deny they are such thing, but what is one supposed to think, when their behaviour, when asked to show benefit of doubt and basic respect to other "metaphysical" assumptions besides mechanistic materialism, is often identical to fundamentalist evangelians when their beliefs are challenged? Denial, ad hominem arguments, refusal to discuss, just few of the defensive mechanisms I've counted on this thread from various co-locutors. My position, if I have one, is that there is lot of room for scientific exploration between belief in mechanistic materialism and belief that some absurd creator god-guy created it all - nothing more, nothing less.

[Arianrhod]

106. And the simple answer is,

because Creationists are not interested in "playing the science game". They have one goal only: To remove the teaching of evolution from all public discourse. Pure and simple.

They are the ones who need to bring evidence. Science has so much, we don't know what to do with it all. They have none whatsoever.

If you know of some, I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, I really don't know what your purpose is on this thread. It's obviously not about what you think it is.

[Ediacara]

84. Show me

A creationist or an IDer that doesn't follow the opisthoscientific order outlined in Post 42. I'm begging you to.

Until you can show me a creationist or IDer that uses the REAL scientific method, then I am being open-minded as I ever need to be concerning their claims.

If they're lying, then I have a right to call them liars. If they're being unscientific, then I have a right to call them unscientific.

As an aside, which "community" are you refering to when you say:

AFAIK some people in the community take ID seriously enough to lend it some degree of support at least on hypothetical level, ie. take interest,

[aneerkoinos]

87. I can't

I'm not really interested in creationists and IDers, and fairly ignorant of the debate and participants.

Your "opisthoscientific" argument opens up new can of worms, I suspect it is somehow also linked to the whole induction/deduction debate in philosophy of science, which also is not one of my strong sides. But in response to your

"theory -> observation, in an attempt to prove that their preconceived notion is true, while ignoring all data that contradicts their preconceived notion. See what I mean about the order?"

I say this: Ignoring relevant data is naturally not allowed, but "theory -> observation" is standard scientific practise. First of all, no observation is pure from preconceived notions. Second, in science and especially in scientific practice of modern physics where observation is not direct but usually requires very complicated technology, theory and especially mathematical imagining, theorizing and innovation is primary to observation. One usually needs to put together a lot of theories and lot of genious to come up theoretical ways to test some other theories, or rather the totality of theories involved, and finding way to put all this in practice is even further away.

In essence, the relationship of theory and observation is not hierarchical but of mutual dependence, or egg and chicken question, if you like.

[Ediacara]

89. You're missing the point

What the physicists you talk about are doing is "hypothesis testing." In National Geographic specials they may talk about looking for support or proof, but what it all comes down to is an attempt to falsify an hypothesis.

Additionally, physicists and all scientists (except of course the thick-headed egotistical ones) will change their theory or hypothesis to best fit ALL the data. Practitioners of opisthoscience will not change their theory to fit new data. New data (and in the case of creationism, some VERY OLD data from the beginning of science) is never accepted if it challenges their preconceived theory. Some creationist centers even require loyalty oaths from employees!

Bottom line is this:
The scientific method requires hypotheses to either be modified or rejected when they become partially or fully falsified. Data is king in science.

Opisthoscience seeks to suppress data that falsifies their theory. Theory is king in opisthoscience.

[aneerkoinos]

90. Sorry, forgot

You asked earlier:

"As an aside, which "community" are you refering to when you say:

AFAIK some people in the community take ID seriously enough to lend it some degree of support at least on hypothetical level, ie. take interest,"

There was just conference at my Alma Mater titeled "Intelligent Design", with participants of all levels of academic initiation. I didn't participate, but by the looks of it, it's hard to refute it didn't happen inside the scientific community.


Now to your latest. I don't think I missed your point, perhaps you missed mine. "Best fit ALL the data" is half the story, but you are forgetting such thing as what constitutes best fit, when theories are empirically equivalent, but not equivalent in other ways. The famous razor is one criteria, esthetic one (simple is beautifull), logics is another, and there's whole field of science dedicated theorizing about what criteria make better fit than others, when they are empirically equivalent. Also making up new theories that fit the previous data, is way to FIND new data from places no-one could imagine before. Thirdly, waiting for practical test of hypothesis when such test is not readily available, before continuing theorizing would greatly slow down scientific advancement and creativity, take Quantum Computers as example - we already have pretty good theoretical understanding on how to make them work, even though working practical applications are years or decades away.

My bottom line is this:
Science is complicated dynamic process where theory and observation walk hand in hand, your paradigm is valid but too narrow to make justice to all scientific practices.

[Ediacara]

104. But back to what I was saying

:-)

Creationists and IDers do not, as far as I can tell, use the scientific method. Because of that, they should be kept out of science classrooms, and I can justifiably call them unscientific without it being ad hominem.

As for the conference you're talking about, is there an abstracts volume, proceedings volume, news article etc on it? I'd be very interested in reading about. Also, any idea who the attendees were? Not everyone's name obviously, but were they people in the field? Biologists? Paleontologists? Geologists? Or were they theologians, psychologists and physicists, which amount for the majority of creationist "scientists."

[aneerkoinos]

112. Hey, I found some names!

The event took place at Helsinki, Otaniemi, with name "Biology – Tackling Ultimate Complexity",

by invitation of Matti Leisola (professor of bioprocess technology)

Some participants:
Richard Sternberg (system biologist, not supporter of ID)
Paul Nelson (philolophy of science, active supporter of ID)


Now that I looked, the event seems to have raised more waves than I knew, very hot potate also here in Finland.

[Arianrhod]

120. Not a good sign. :(

Sternberg: Home Page at http://www.rsternberg.net/

In his link titled "Process Structuralism", Sternberg claims that his area of expertise is ahistorical in its outlook, and does not deal with origins. Thus, he says he is noncommittal towards both evolution theory and Creationism. However, he then states emphatically that he is "more open" than neo-Darwinists to alternative intelligence theories. (Reading between the lines, I would say that he leans towards Creationism, especially in light of the following.) Meanwhile, he is currently embroiled in a controversy regarding his publishing (as editor) in the journal Processes of a paper by Stephen Meyer that is purely Creationist in its scope, as it claims that only the positing of an Intelligence can account for the evolution of organisms. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

Meanwhile, Matti Leisola, the professor who called together your symposium, is an avowed Creationist who gave a talk entitled "30 years as a non-evolutionist" at the 8th Creationist Congress last year. http://www.genesis.nu/8thecc/

I would say that your symposium was not as unbiased and science-oriented as you would like to present it as being. However, I have to admit that at the very least, Sternberg is a bona fide scientist. He claims that he is not a Creationist, but his activities indicate to me that he is certainly moving in that direction. So it looks as though your contention may have some merit, in that modern scientists are apparently abandoning the scientific method in order to pursue more philosophical and religious themes. Your conclusion, however, doesn't necessarily follow: Just because scientists are converting to religious ideas does not mean that those ideas have scientific merit. When Pascal converted to Christianity, he abandoned science altogether, and the world lost a brilliant mathematician. Watching people like Sternberg doing the same thing is, for me, a sad indication of just how degraded science is becoming, and how pervasive the religious fanatics really are.

[aneerkoinos]

123. You really are fanatic

I start with a "you..." sentence, paying in kind your attempts "your symposium...", "your conclusion...", neither of which have nothing to do with me or what I have posted.

Once again, you try to frame it as if there would be only two possible positions.

The basic flaw in the assumption you make about science is when you equal 'materialistic methodology', which is the current paradigm in natural science, with whole 'scientific methodology'. Sad part is that you have become so emotionally attached to that basic flaw, that you call science "degraded" when not everyone in the field agrees to share your position and/or are not punished for doing so. How is that different from fundamentalism?

[Arianrhod]

48. By rejecting Descartes

you reject the Enlightenment, just as diehard Creationists do.

[aneerkoinos]

52. False binary logic

"If not A then B" is not a logical sentence, just very bad analogy. And I don't subscribe to your claim of identifying Enlightment with Descartes. What about Voltaire and so many others?

What I reject is Cartesian dualism where it stands in way of enlightment in religious sense, non-dualism. ;)

[Arianrhod]

58. Somehow, I doubt that you are a practitioner of non-dualism.

I have to admit though, you've done your homework. You're familiar with a lot of the rational arguments against your position. Unfortunately, you haven't quite learned how to wield the sword of knowledge that you've picked up, much like a child playing with Excalibur. Don't worry; that'll come with time and practice.

The 17th Century is known as The Enlightenment, The Age of Reason, and Descartes was a pioneer in bringing secular, rational thinking to bear on the questions of existence. All Creationists reject Enlightenment thinking, because it marked the end of the Church's dominance over Western society.

[aneerkoinos]

61. My position?

The problem is, you don't seem to even begin to understand what is my position, but battle against some windmills of your own imagination that have nothing to do with me.

My position is to sometimes amuse myself by battling strong emotional attachment to any belief-systems and theories held as such, especially when that attachment is defended by intellectual dishonesty and other forms of wrong-playing.

You are right, I'm not practitioner of non-dualism, since I don't know how it could be practiced. You, I take notice, are a practitioner of brush-offs by condescending ad-hominems instead of (or perhaps in lack of?) valid arguments and other forms of wrong-playing. :)

[Arianrhod]

99. I've just had my fill of Creationists, that's all.

It's impossible to reason with them, so I don't bother. They reject scientific evidence, just as DinoBoy has been telling you. So I just cut to the chase.

Your arguments are straight out of the Creationist playbook--right down to your allegations of ad hominem attack. I haven't attacked you; I've merely pointed out that you aren't making much of an argument. You make a lot of assertions, but you haven't provided evidence for a single one of them. In fact, you yourself have admitted that you really don't understand the things you're talking about.

I'm just agreeing with you there. :D

[bowens43]

32. It also has to be falsifiable.

How exactly can 'Intelligent Design' be falsified?

[aneerkoinos]

37. Dunno

Like I said, haven't been watching that discussion that closely.

Presuming you have more expertise in that field, can you show that any theory (which AFAIK come in great variety) discussed under the name ID can NOT be falsified?

[Arianrhod]

49. Yes.

What evidence do you use to determine which rocks were created by a god, and which came about strictly due to natural events?

That evidence will decide whether ID is falsifiable.

[aneerkoinos]

56. Huh?

The ID hypothesis does not necessarily presume a god.

IMO those who suppose something "supernatural" instead of limited understanding have allready failed in science. As have those who by reverse logic try to deny conflictory evidence to some theories about nature by considering it evidence of "supernatural" of "paranormal", which, by definition, are to be rejected as unscientific.

[Arianrhod]

59. So what is the "Intelligence" in "Intelligent Design"?

I'm familiar with this Creationist ploy. I hope you have a better answer than the other 30 Creationists I've asked.

[aneerkoinos]

65. I'm not Creationist

So I don't know what the aswer should be from that camp, that you are so interested in.

My personal interest is especially in the Quantum-Mind hypothesis, and I'm open to a wide range of implications it may hold.

[Arianrhod]

100. You skipped my question.

You are arguing in favor of Intelligent Design. I simply asked what the "Intelligence" in that term refers to.

[aneerkoinos]

103. That is your delusion

I'm not arguing in favour of ID, I'm arguing in favour honest, open- minded scientific attitude. If after all of this you still can't make distinction between those positions, I begin to suspect that you are simply blinded by your paranoid hatred towards Creationists, paranoid because you are beginning to see those creatures even where they don't exist.

[Arianrhod]

108. Well, from my perspective,

what you are doing is arguing a position that 1) You don't really understand; 2) You don't really hold; and 3) This thread really isn't about. So I think I'll drop the subject for the moment.

BTW, these Intelligent Designers we're talking about have already taken over the US government, and have recently placed official pamphlets at the Grand Canyon which claim that the gorge is only 6000 years old, and that it was formed by Noah's Flood.

But you can still rest assured, in your ardent defense of them, that these men actually wish to meet science on its own terms,and don't have any ulterior motives at all.

[Arianrhod]

109. Hey, I'm in the 700 Club. :) n/t

[aneerkoinos]

113. "If you're not with us you must be one of THEM!"

is the attitude - from either side - much too common in this debate, and I don't like it at all.

Yet, from purely scientific perspective, there is multitude of other possibilities between and beyond God's Creation and Materialist Reductionism. Anyone arguing that those two are the only possibilities and that is the only possible frame of the debate, is fundamentalist in my books. Yes, it is so easy to become what you hate.

[Arianrhod]

121. You overstep your bounds.

The post you replied to merely stated that you don't know what you're talking about. This is a true statement, as you yourself have admitted. I did not call you a Creationist or an IDer. I do not hold an "Us vs Them" mentality.

You complain about ad hominem attacks, but you seem incapable of engaging in anything else yourself.

Good day, sir.

[aneerkoinos]

124. Ad hominem

"I do not hold an "Us vs Them" mentality."

If so, why do you constantly act that way? "ardent supporter", "your symposium", etc, etc. I'm not blind to such rhetorical devises, whether they are consciouss or unconsciouss.

Sure I respond with ad hominem arguments (not attacks, which is a different thing), if you dish them you are expected to take them. Pointing out that you yourself act the way (anti-scientific "puritanism") you accuse your chosen enemy camp acting is valid ad hominem argument in this context, discussion about the debate between creationists and metaphysical materialists.

[bowens43]

66. Of course I can.

No matter the observation, one merely has to say 'That's how it was designed'

[aneerkoinos]

76. And then...

...you get scalped by Ockham's razor! ;)

[DrWeird]

60. Easily.

Intelligent design states that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution could not have occurred, since complexity cannot increase overtime.

Since typical freshmen level college physics lab experiments debunk that, Intelligent Design has been falsified.

[aneerkoinos]

67. If so

agreed. But is that the only ID theory there is, or just one bad argument? I ask because I don't know.

[bowens43]

68. That doesn't falsify ID.

[DrWeird]

78. Sure it does.

ID makes that claim. That claim is false. Therefore ID is false.

Now, if you want to play around with definitions of ID, that's fine. There was one guy here a few days back who defined the word "socialism" as people who are members of a society. But if you want to use some other than the common definition of the term ID, that is, an American fundamentalist movement determined to remove the teaching of Evolution from the public school curriculum, than you should clarify what you're talking about.

[mcg]

101. How can Darwin's explanation of evolution be falsified?

At issue is not simply whether evolution happens, but how it happens. The 'theory of evolution' can simply mean that evolution happens (that I agree with), or it can also mean that 'natural selection acting on "random" mutations' explains away apparent design in nature, that there is no real design. For many atheists, 'the theory of evolution' does have this extra meaning, and they want to push it on others, thus words like 'unguided', 'spontaneous', and 'random' appearing in science textbooks. How do you scienfically show something is 'unguided'? For 'unguided' to have a scientific meaning, 'guided' also has to have one. You can't have it both ways.

For Darwin's explanation to hold up, it has to be possible for new biological structures, e.g. a visual system, to develop via a series of 'small', 'gradual' mutations. When has that been demonstrated to be true? There is a bit of a problem here, and that is interdependant parts. Darwin himself acknowledged this issue, and it should be discussed, not swept under the rug. The key words here are 'small' and 'gradual'. Where is the scientific definition of them in relation to evolution? I'd venture there is none.

If you claim that Darwin's explanation is scientific, then it's negation also has to be considered scientific until his explanation is shown to be true. And no, a false generalization from a few beneficial mutations being observed does not show it to be true, nor is it simply true until disproven.

Granted, natural selection and small mutations are factors in evolution, but that doesn't mean that the overwhelming appearance of design in nature is explained away.

[aneerkoinos]

114. Not exactly

"If you claim that Darwin's explanation is scientific, then it's negation also has to be considered scientific until his explanation is shown to be true."

What negation? Simply saying "it ain't so" about a theory is not a theory. Intelligent Design is not a theory, unless you can explain what both those terms mean in some scientific framework. Explanations are scientific only when building on the body of science and challenging that body where needed, not by staying disconnected from the body.

[iam]

64. Very nice post, but you're making an assumption...

The first conclusion reached in science class using "Intelligent Design" must be based on this evidence:

a) intelligent life does exist in the Universe (us).
b) planets abound in the universe on which such life can exist.

Therefore Intelligent Designers were extra-terrestrials. This MUST be the first conclusion based on empirical data. NOT that god did it, that would be pure speculation/hysteria and not worthy of science class. Do the fundies want this taught in the classroom? That ET created life on Earth?

[aneerkoinos]

71. What assumption did I make and was it unfounded?

I would say your first argument contains at least one unfounded assumption, that intelligence is necessarily dependent of 'life' (as in something like us).

What fundies want taught in the classroom, I couldn't care less.

[TahitiNut]

34. The essential difference: Challenging dogma is called heresy.

Challenging a theory is called scientific experimentation. Thus, the distinction lies not only in the meaning of the terms used, but in the "free thinking" surrounding it. "Intelligent design" is not subject to challenge or experimentation, in that it's a construct specifically intended to circumvent such inquiry. Moreover, in my opinion, it portrays a weak "God" that's not the Creator of the Universe, but is subservient to human primacy and subordinate to Time, a component of that Universe which is claimed to be evidence of Creation itself.

Saying this a different way, 'science' is all about Man's infinite ignorance and an unending inquiry into the mysteries of the Universe that necessitates mistakes we call 'experiments.' "Faith" is about a certitude - an infallibility that precludes mistakes. Without mistakes, there is no learning. Without learning, there is no progress. Without progress, there is no progressivism. This is the heart of conservatism: no progress. This was at the core of the Dark Ages.

Me? I'll choose a Faith that embraces the Infinite Mystery and views it as an Abundance: a gift to inquiry, curiosity, and learning.

[aneerkoinos]

43. OK, you made me look :)

I googled the words: intelligent design popper
and this was the first link that came up:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

By quick look it seems that "they" or at least some of "them" are willing to try to play by the rules of science, what ever you or me presume the motivation to be. Don't the rules of the game say that benefit of doubt comes is the basic assumption, refutation by questioning of motives needs to be evidence based, and that everybody has to play by the rules?

Myself, I'm also very much into Infinite Mystery and views of in in Abundance... :)

[Ediacara]

42. They are not scientific

Science as a process proceeds from observation -> hypotheses -> hypotheses testing -> theory -> theory testing. This order is important, it fulfills the philosophical basis for science, if it's out of order, it isn't science. Science cannot ever prove something is true, but it can demonstrate that all hypothesized alternatives are false, while allowing for the fact that there may be some as-of-yet un-hypothesized alternative that may actually be the "truth."

IDers, and all creationists go about it the other way, an order which I have termed opisthoscience: theory -> observation, in an attempt to prove that their preconceived notion is true, while ignoring all data that contradicts their preconceived notion. See what I mean about the order?

[uhhuh]

105. This sounds too dogmatic to me

"if it's out of order, it isn't science."


Is this order up for debate. If it can be shown that this method is not the best way to approach scientific study, is it acceptable to present this method as if it is some sort of truth?

It works for now, but it may not always be so. Make sure to keep an open mind.

[Ediacara]

111. Actually it isn't up for debate

It was shown that the pre-scientific method of inquiry, which is basically opisthoscience doesn't do anything, but reenforce preconceived notions. Falsification is at the core of a data based scientific method, where "proof" is at the core of a theory based opisthoscientific method.

You can never prove that an hypothesis is true because there are unthought-of possibilities that could be the "truth," but you can demonstrate with data that a particular hypothesis is NOT true. That is falsification, and it's the core of the scientific method.

[aneerkoinos]

115. If it's not up for debate, it's not science!

First principle of science is that it is self-corrective. This means that science is applied to itself, including truth-theories, and if one method does poor job, go find another. That's what falsification really means.

[uhhuh]

119. I'm glad someone got the point

[Ediacara]

126. Uh...

What does this have to do with what I wrote?

[aneerkoinos]

128. What did you not understand?

Well, let's try again. :)

Natural science is based on paradigm of methodological materialism. As we can see, this leads to some natural scientists (quite many) taking position of metaphysical materialism, and others (hopefully lot less, but there are examples in this thread) to defend that metaphysical position as if it was a religious dogma.

Other fields of science (philosophy, cognitive sciences, mathematics)are necessarily based on paradigm of methodological materialism, even though they are open to using that methodology. Mathematics, especially, has interesting position in the field of science, because it is usually taught (natural) science departments, today it's role is central in theoretical physics, but in itself mathematics is certainly not based on methodological materialism, but rather located in the "Platonic" realm. Also needles to say, in post-Kuhnian philosophy of science paradigms are no more supposed to be permanent beings, but quite evolutionary(!) ;)

No we get to the hard part: what is Nature? Is it something that only "naturalists", who define themselves by methodolical materialism, can discuss scientifically? It is quite easy to see that the argument "if it's not subject to methodological materialism, it is not nature" is circular. It is also easy to understand how "naturalists" do not like others stepping inside their turf, let alone question the validity of their precious paradigm, and how the issue gets politicized.

Well, is it possible to find solutions to this problem, what is Nature and who has and who does not have right to make scientific claims about it, solutions that would make everybody happy? Sure it is, in principle, at least there is no reason to presume that it is impossible. There are widely accepted criteria that can be applied to competing theories and metatheories when everything else is equal, such as Occam's razor, more general theory beats narrower theory, etc. When theories evolve and mature, they can even come up with new predictions and new ways to test them. It is not easy, finding solutions to such metaphysical problems as mind/matter/both/neither, which is Nature, solutions that are convincing enough to every field of science... :)

[Ediacara]

129. Well again

What does this have to do with what I wrote? Actually what does it have to do with what you wrote too?

Natural selection is not based on methodological materialism, it's based on observations. Period.

Philosophy is NOT science. Mathematics is NOT science either (although a tool of science).

Ok, and what does the rest of what you wrote have to do with anything that's been discussed so far? You are trying to cloud the issue by bringing up unrelated issues such as metaphysics (also NOT science), and I find it a little obnoxious.

So back to the point: what does this have to do with the scientific method?

[aneerkoinos]

130. Meaning of Science

>>>Natural selection is not based on methodological materialism, it's based on observations. Period.<<<

Of course it is based on methodological materialism, it does not presuppose anything else but material processes. Whics

>>>Philosophy is NOT science. Mathematics is NOT science either (although a tool of science).<<<

Yes, that is common problem causing lot of confusion in English language, where 'natural science' (definition 3) is the most usual meaning implied:

"2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been
systematized and formulated with reference to the
discovery of general truths or the operation of general
laws; knowledge classified and made available in work,
life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or
philosophical knowledge.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical
world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and
forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living
tissues, etc.; -- called also {natural science}, and
{physical science}."
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/science

I am using the word in the general sense, to denote all Academic branches. Arguing that only natural sciences are "science" and other branches of science are not, is just semantic confusion, play with words, which leads to confused state of mind.

>>>Ok, and what does the rest of what you wrote have to do with anything that's been discussed so far? You are trying to cloud the issue by bringing up unrelated issues such as metaphysics (also NOT science), and I find it a little obnoxious.<<<

The whole point is that the issues are not unrelated. What you find obnoxious is your problem and your responsibility.

>>>So back to the point: what does this have to do with the scientific method?<<<

If I have succeeded in clearing up the semantic confusion, you will see the connection, if not, well at least I tried...

[Ediacara]

131. Oddly enough... you quote a 1913 dictionary for your definition

ignoring all other definitions that actually approximate what the word science means. Here's a hint, science is really a verb.

In any case, you have an odd definition of materialism, ie: anything in the universe. What Aristotle did is not science, thinking about stuff without experimentation is not science.

Mathematics is also, not amaterialistic according to your definition, even imaginary numbers have a reality (ie, the other limb of a parabola for the square root function).

I'm still having trouble with what this has to do with the scientific method however, as what you're posting further reenforces to me that you're simply looking for a fight.

What does pining about the nature of 'nature' have to do with the application IN ORDER of the scientific method, and why it's methodologically superior to opisthoscience?

[aneerkoinos]

132. Definitions

The 1913 just happened to be the first I googled, and it was sufficient for the purpose; definitions of science as only natural sciece and more general definition - which is open to (scientific) debate.

>>>Here's a hint, science is really a verb.<<<

Yeah, so? So is philosophy, what word isn't?

>>>In any case, you have an odd definition of materialism, ie: anything in the universe.<<<

No, I was talking about definitions of nature, not of materialism. Perhaps we can avoid extending the discussion to definitions of materialism and accept this:

"materialism expresses the view that the only thing that exists is matter; if anything else, such as mental events, exists, then it is reducible to matter."

"The definition of "matter" in modern philosophical materialism extends to all scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. In this view, one might speak of the "material world"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism


>>>What Aristotle did is not science, thinking about stuff without experimentation is not science.<<<

Science is not a-historical, philosophy is the mother of sciences. Experimentation (not only by materialistic means) is allways present in all logical thinking, how else could e.g. mathematics evolve?

Other than that you just repeat the semantic confusion about the double meaning of word science. Please, let's not fight about words, if using the broader definition is too much to ask from you, surely when I say "science" you can try to interprete "Academic discipline in search of truth and knowledge, including biology, mathematics, comparative religion studies etc" or something to the same effect?

>>>Mathematics is also, not amaterialistic according to your definition, even imaginary numbers have a reality.<<<

You must have misunderstood whatever you mean by "my definition", I don't know what you are referring to. But yes, if we accept materialistic reductionism, mental phenomena like numbers are also reducible to physical brain processes. If we don't accept, question arises what else is present at mental phenomena than material processes, and if that something else is part of nature of "supernatural", that is beyond the scope of science.

>>>I'm still having trouble with what this has to do with the scientific method however, as what you're posting further reenforces to me that you're simply looking for a fight.

Then you must be thinking that disagreeing and attempting to correct false arguments in order to find better understanding of the subject means "looking for a fight". I hope that is not the case.

>>>What does pining about the nature of 'nature' have to do with the application IN ORDER of the scientific method, and why it's methodologically superior to opisthoscience?
<<<

Admitted, it's a long chain of argument, but these are not simple matters. You made very strong argument about what is the ONLY correct scientific method (ie. methodological materialism), I'm arguing that it is not necessarily the only possible methodology, and also that you come to your position by defining the word 'science' too narrowly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Just wait - even some people here on DU will criticise you

for calling it "Christian mythology". These people hate being classified with other religions - as far as they are concerned, non-Christians have "myths", while Christianity has The Truth.

45% of Americans said, in a recent poll, that man was created by God within the past 10,000 years.

[lawladyprof]

10. But school has always been about inculcation of values as well as

a liberal education (the marketplace of ideas, critical thinking). Regarding the inculcation of values (good citizenship, loyalty to country, respect for authority, etc.), you can look at it like this. Parents pass their beliefs and ideals (values, if you will) to their children. The school is the community's (society's) mechanism for doing the same thing.

As the "culture war" ebbs and surges, the balance between those two goals of education: inculcation of values and a liberal arts education/marketplace of ideas shifts.

[aneerkoinos]

12. Yuck!

I really detest the metaphor of "marketplace" of ideas. Totalitarian indoctrination into Fundamentalist Economism instead of leaving at least some room for Humanism, Enlightment etc. that's how it sounds to me.

I agree that teaching values is also schools responsibility besides parent's responsibility. Problem is, not all share the same values or priorities of values. For example,

"good citizenship, loyalty to country, respect for authority"

is not something I wan't to teach my own kids, because Nationalism and Obedience for me spell Militarism and Fascism, my own priorities are e.g. Taking others in consideration, Humanism, Plurality, Personal Responsibility and Dialogue instead of Authoritarianism. I don't mind if my kids are exposed to other kinds of value systems in school, that's what Pluralism means, but I expect at least some respect for different value systems.

However, teaching and passing values (which is best done by example) has very little to do with passing knowledge based on critical thinking.

[Arianrhod]

25. Ooh, I like you. :)

[GeorgeGist]

110. Apparently it did

some harm.
"Did me no great harm ". Great philosophy for teaching.

[Endangered Specie]

125. Oh Joy, another evolution thread...

probably will spark another rash of them in GD soon.

[Ediacara]

41. Because religious myth is, well..... religious myth

If it was a religious studies class, fine, but teaching religious myth as a legitimate scientific alternative to science is BS.

[NashVegas]

72. When I Try to Recall My Grade School, Parochial Science Class

We were taught about several theories: creationism, evolution, and spontaneous generation, and maybe a couple more I forget.

As for your other question, it wouldn't do to teach 4th graders to question the truth, kinda makes school room discipline difficult. Best way to teach kids to question the truth is to abuse authority.

[aneerkoinos]

80. Good one! :)

"Best way to teach kids to question the truth is to abuse authority."

And how true! :D

But how do you conquer, if teaching questioning the truth is left your responsibility, your ego that needs admiration and love? ;)

[NashVegas]

86. Have You Heard the One About

the school teacher / camp counselor / priest who said "let's be special friends"?

when you think of it that way, perhaps they are performing a public service.

[Bono71]

16. Wow...it's freaking 2004 people!

[Crunchy Frog]

19. 2004...

going on 1304. At least in this country.

[VegasWolf]

23. The fundies are going with awol's man date. n/t

[Candide]

28. I remember when I was a kid in catechism class

i think it was 2nd or 3rd grade. I asked the CCD teacher which came first, Adam and Eve or the Neandrathal. I can still remember how flustered she got!!! The class came to stop, and they called in the head of the program. After some discussion, he basically told us "it depends what you believe in" I guess that's where I started my habit of independant thought.....maybe that's the most important part of the curriculum

[VegasWolf]

36. Funny Candide, and welcome to DU, I had a similar experience

asking why non Catholics could not go to heaven.
I remember getting my knuckles rapped by the nun's ruler
too many time to count!

[lakelly]

39. Its deja vu all over again.

When I was a freshman in high school we performed the play "Inherent the Wind". ( for those of you familiar with the play, I was Rachael ) At the time it hard for me to imagine that there was ever a time when creationism trumped science. (it was 1974) Now its 2004 and we are once again challenged by theologians who want to replace evolution with religion. This is just the beginning my friends. Things are probably going to get a lot worst before they get any better. I hate sounding so pessimistic. Oh well guess a grab a good seat and some popcorn and what the circus.
;)

[renaissanceguy]

44. Yeah

They might be able to pollute a few minds right now, but the rest of us know scientific fact, and our minds can't be changed. They can try pounding God's name on our heads all they want, but it won't make a dent.

Once their fun is over (and it will be soon), we'll be able to make great progress in our society. Remember, progress always prevails. These religious movements are often short-lived.

--------------------------------------
Buy liberal and progessive buttons, bumper stickers, and shirts at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[aneerkoinos]

77. Heh

If you know a fact that is scientific, that by definition means that your mind CAN be changed. ;)

[DeepModem Mom]

69. Indeed, lakelly -- welcome to DU!

[arwalden]

45. This Type Of Religion Is Making Us A BACKWARD Country!! Very Regressive!!

Complete idiots! And they won't be happy until everyone else is just as "bliffuly" ignorant as they are.

[Blue_Tires]

46. oh yeah

nevermind about the environment, war, corporate theft of the economy, the poor, etc....we can't worry about any of that because of the age-old darwin-bible debate!!!!

[Arianrhod]

51. What do you think is causing those other things?

Remember that this administration is the darling of the Bible-thumpers.

[DrWeird]

53. Well, there you go.

Creationism is about undermining science classes.

Without the critical thinking skills developed in science class, just the kind of thinking skills creationism wants to do away with, a student would have no way of debunking the global warming-denial the right wing is so fond of nowadays. Or the WMD debacle that lead to the war, or the general goofiness of voodoo economics, etc.

[Logician]

54. Pathetic, Just Pathetic

As a scientist, even as a child, the theory of evolution was just so elegant, so logical, and verifiable to me. Just look at speciation-- the relatedness of species as life diversified.

Fundies as just a pathetic, backward bunch!-- but remember (I read somewhere recently) that the majority of adult Americans believe in Creationism. We should be educating everyone as to the history and theory of natural selection.

I am just so depressed to be ruled by an ignorant bunch of bible-thumpers and political opportunists who play to this group!

[DeepModem Mom]

70. Thanks for your thoughts, Logician, and welcome to DU!

[arwalden]

75. Welcome To DU... I Love Your User Name!! Very Elegant...

and clever!

[kineneb]

116. my answer to their myth

I have come up with an answer to the Christian creation myth...I wish to counter with the Hindu version I heard. The earth rests on the back of a turtle which stands on the back of an elephant. Somewhere I recall someone asking what the elephant is standing on; the answer was "Its elephants all the way down."

So now my answer to Creationists is "Its elephants all the way down!" Makes about as much sense. Oh, and per the preceding exchange, I consider myself a Buddhist. And I don't believe in a creator-god.

As Douglas Adams said in the Hitchhiker's Guide "space is big, really big." Do the rules of any human-devised god apply to non-carbon-based life forms in a different galaxy?

[aneerkoinos]

118. Even better

If you really want to rock their world, use the Gnostic creation myth. Creator God is separate from undefinable True God, he is called by names "stupid god", "ignorant god" etc., and his alignment varies from evil chaotic to neutral.

[semillama]

73. We want our thumbs!

Give us our Thumbs!

[LongTomH]

79. Give us our thumbs?

Is someone opposing thumbs?:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[VegasWolf]

93. I oppose thumbs on general principle! n/t

[fshrink]

95. Fresh? It stinks! And it shouldn't even be here. nt

[Massachusetts]

107. WTF

I'm on the wrong planet again.:wtf:

[dazeconf]

117. there are actually interpretations of the old testament

that allow for both evolution and creationism. I don't remember the exact details, but I've definitely heard someone speak on this. However, the Jewish religion as a whole seems not to have a problem with the teaching of evolution. Maybe interpretations that allow for both theorys just wouldn't fly with a fundie. Same old testament though.

[VegasWolf]

122. If we have to have some mystical explanation for the origin

of the world then my vote goes with the Navaho
creation story!

<snip>
These stories were told to Sandoval, Hastin Tlo'tsi hee, by his grandmother, Esdzan Hosh kige. Her ancestor was Esdzan at a', the medicine woman who had the Calendar Stone in her keeping. Here are the stories of the Four Worlds that had no sun, and of the Fifth, the world we live in, which some call the Changeable World.

The First World, Ni'hodilqil,<1> was black as black wool. It had four corners, and over these appeared four clouds. These four clouds contained within themselves the elements of the First World. They were in color, black, white, blue, and yellow.

The Black Cloud represented the Female Being or Substance. For as a child sleeps when being nursed, so life slept in the darkness of the Female Being. The White Cloud represented the Male Being or Substance. He was the Dawn, the Light-
</snip>

http://www.livinginthelightms.com/navahocreation.html

[beam me up scotty]

127. Isn't it funny

how the creationists/IDers never suggest alternatives for any other scientific theories? I mean you never see them saying something like, "E=MC3" (sorry can't do superscript).

There was a good parody I saw linked in Fark showing how the fundies wanted an alternative to Pi to be taught as three, because in the book of Song of Solomon a round alter is described as being 30 cubits in circumfrence and 10 in diameter. It's in the bible, so it must be true.

/" MAN #1:
I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'
JESUS:
...right prevail.
MRS. GREGORY:
Ahh, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
GREGORY:
Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products."

[Arianrhod]

133. That Pi thing wasn't a parody.

It actually was entered as legislation in Indiana, in the 19th Century.