Slashdot Mirror

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Good web site, showing the christian objection to evolution in a way that all anti-creationists can understand.

And attached, an article wholy reproduced, stating a common christian objection to the 'but its not scientific', 'Creationism isn't science.' 'They don't understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.' objections:

jech

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/ru les.asp

The rules of the game
As the 'rules' of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion--even if true.
by Carl Wieland

'Creationism isn't science.'

'They don't understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.'

Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are 'breaking' is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) is one who has reacted with what she calls 'stunned indignation' to the suggestion that science students should have evidence for creation presented to them along with evidence for evolution (Quadrant, August, 1988).

She gives two criteria which she feels are universal to all definitions of science. She insists that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither. Let's examine these.

Correctibility
(1) 'Correctibility -- some acknowledgment that what we currently think can be changed by future discoveries.'
It is a common caricature of creationism to paint it as a fixed, immovable set of ideas that leaves no room for change or discussion, as opposed to 'real' science (read 'evolutionary theorizing') which is vibrantly alive with constantly changing ideas and concepts refined by new evidence. This is, of course, simply not true. There are, always have been, and presumably always will be many healthy scientific controversies among creation-oriented scientists. The speed of light decay theory is just one example that springs to mind (this is the belief that the speed of light is not constant, but has been decreasing).

It is true that there is a 'bottom line' in the creationist framework belief in the literal truth of Genesis. However, there is a 'bottom line' for evolutionary theorists too just as fixed and immovable, in my experience. It too is a belief that the world has made itself. Put another way, it is a belief that natural processes and causes must have been sufficient to build planets and people from particles.

There are indeed many controversies about the mechanism of this self-transformation. Opinions shift and scientists are often willing to correct and abandon their ideas about how evolution happened. But they are not prepared to abandon the bottom line, the belief that some sort of evolution did occur. To put it another way, the how of evolution is negotiable, but not the whether.

At the 1967 Wistar Institute Symposium, top-level evolutionary biologists and mathematicians met to mathematically test the idea of evolution by mutation/selection. When the super-computers finished crunching their numbers, it was obvious that the answer was 'impossible'. It was reported that when someone very cautiously (maybe even rhetorically) asked whether this meant that perhaps one should look at special creation as an option, there were loud cries of 'No!' 'No!' from the floor.

Study Nature
(2) 'A commitment to finding out how the world works by studying the natural world itself.'
Creationist scientists are of course equally committed to this statement, since you will notice it refers to 'how the world works'

You should watch good quality animes instead of Pokemons and Digimons.

Quite a lot of them, even though they won't be released any soon in the western world, actually have a damn good animation and art, check Elfen Lied, Blood+ or Air for good examples. Others, such as Stellvia of the Universe, have extremely impressive CGs and soundtracks. Some more are genres on their own, or truly stand apart from the crowd because they're Just Too Good To Be True (Wolf's Rain, Juuni Kokki, Witch Hunter Robin) or because they're just Too Stupid To Be True (Oruchuban Ebichu, FLCL, Excel Saga, Sexy Commando, Jungle Wa Itsumo Hale Nochi Guu).

At the bottom are the fanservice(read: boobs)-laden, plot-empty animes such as Green Green and the regular-good Shojos and their caricatural heros (Bleach, One Piece).

And then, you have the Pits, the mass-produced 500 episode with no art, no voice actors, no animation, no spirit. Pokemon, Naruto and Digimon are fine examples of these.

Japanese animation and comics are extremely varied, they're much closer to occidental novels (as a medium) than to occidental comics (including the european ones).

When the basis of the character (who was created by a Canadian) is a caricature, then it most definately matters. Fruit of the poisoned vine.

The rest of your post is a weak attempt to justify a weak position.

Superman is a Candian CARICATURE of "truth, justice and the American way". Representing him as anything else is intellectually dishonest.

No. This is completely wrong, and displays a serious misunderstanding of Superman as a character.

He does not do "what's determined to be good by the establishment" and in fact, his personal convictions clashing with the establishment is often used as a major plot device.

You're clearly not a fan, or else you'd realize how far from the truth your observations are.

"I'm not sure the fact his creator was Canadian is much of an issue when Superman stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"."

Of course it does.

Superman is a Candian CARICATURE of "truth, justice and the American way". Representing him as anything else is intellectually dishonest.

"I don't think there's a consistancy beyond a few basic axioms such as generally doing what's determined to be good by the establishment of the day."

No. This is completely wrong, and displays a serious misunderstanding of Superman as a character.

He does not do "what's determined to be good by the establishment" and in fact, his personal convictions clashing with the establishment is often used as a major plot device.

You're clearly not a fan, or else you'd realize how far from the truth your observations are.

This story is a caricature of a purposefully leaked, politically motivated hatchet job that -- to the glee of the "unnamed sources" who served it up -- got past the Thanksgiving rag tag staff and onto Page One.

It's unclear what this very public investigation about is even about. Misuse of taxpayer dollars? Quinn paid *his own way* to attend two of these technical conferences and was an invited expenses-paid speaker for others. Cozy relationships with corporate sponsors? The article notes that his expenses-paid conferences were sponsored by a "galaxy of computer companies" -- e.g. the free market. Not filling out the proper paperwork? Since when is improper paperwork Page One material? (Maybe Quinn never got the memo about those TPS reports).

So what is Peter J. Quinn guilty of? Being a political liability for Governor and Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney. Having one of your employees piss off the bosses of the world's richest software company is no way to kick off your 2008 campaign fundraising drive.

You better work on your bullshitting abilities or only recruit from the incredibly stupid because you are hurting your cause not helping. If I were an environmentalist or a conspiracy buff I would think you are a paid anti-shill because your beliefs and methods seem to mesh pretty well with the caricature of an environmentalist portrayed by certain political parties.

I keep saying this, and people keep denying it:

Video games have an image problem!

*We* know what the truth is, but we're involved in games, either as players or makers. The perception outside the gamer niche is that games are involved with crime, murder sprees and all sorts of bad things. Enough mud has been slung at video games that the general perception seems to be negative.

Sooner or later, politicians will do their usual 'tough on crime' thing, and crack down on the gaming industry.

What can we do? Plenty! Game makers need to start focusing more on realism and less on caricatures shooting the crap out of each other. Stuff like Hot Coffee should *never* have been included in the game, even if the code wasn't enabled. Extreme content like that is nearly always weak compared to even a cheap movie, and only serves to reinforce the negative image about games and game players.

Video games have an image problem.

I was at the gym tonight and this was on one of the TVs. I caught bits and pieces, and it was mostly overwrought, stupid crap, but there was one chunk in particular that I believe will infuriate the world of gamers more than anything--when David Caruso interrogates one of the GAME DESIGNERS.

designer (snarky voice) - "Our official line is that any similarity between this crime spree and our product is purely coincidental."
caruso (stupid, semi-Duke Nukem voice) - "Yeah, well, try telling that to the parents of Cynthia So-and-so."
designer - [pauses, stares into camera uncomfortably] "Well, there's a board I answer to--stockholders. I can't be held responsible for any of this. If you want to know more about the game... you'll just have to play the game."
caruso - "Fine, we'll play your game. In the meantime, book this guy for failing to assist a police officer."

WHAT? Why are they turning game designers into Satan here? With this douchey caricature, no less? I think this is the scene that'll touch a nerve with sheltered, middle America. Which, quite frankly, sucks. You find me a police squad that sincerely seeks out movie/TV show/game makers for criminal intent and I'll find you a copy of "Police Academy 9: Larvell Gone Wild!"

Any arrangement where 'the labels' (to use your caricature for 'the bad guys' which is just that- a caricature)

By "the labels" I mean "the distributors", who sell the music. They are not intrinsically bad, it's just that the major ones tend to have bad qualities.

Any arrangement where 'the labels' (to use your caricature for 'the bad guys' which is just that- a caricature) don't have the right to exclusive ownership is one in which the artist isn't free to sell that exclusive ownership.

Nothing is preventing the artist from selling an exclusive licence for distribution and sublicensing, my point is that at the end of the contract, the artist should own their work.

To use another analogy: I can make a contract that says that I will work. I cannot legally sell myself into slavery (ie. I can sell the use of myself, but I am not able to sell myself). Do you consider that to be an infringement of my rights?

'Back in the USSR' indeed.

For it to be Socialistic/Communistic, the work would have to be owned by the government.

I find South Park quite watchable, although (or because) it's often a thinly disguised swipe at liberals.

What a weird thing to say. I find that South Park is often a thinly veiled swipe at conservatives. I think this is why they still enjoy such a large audience. Matt and Trey are equal opportunity 'haters'. I guess the genius is that we all see it through our own colored glasses.

E.g., when a stupid liberal watches this all they see is a hilarious parody of ham-fisted American colonialism; but when a stupid conservative watches it all they see is hilarious caricatures of elitest left-wing Hollywood.

I find both sides hilarious, which is probably why I hate politics so much.

1. Add a sultry female co-star, #7. Initially, she and #6 suspect each other of being spies for #2. Develop inevitable romantic plot. She tends to bail out #6 when he screws up his plans. Optionally, wrap in black leather.
   
2. Use monumental, fascist-inspired sets with towering spires, grim tunnels and riveted doors. Light dramatically. Every footstep must echo loudly and every slamming door must sound like a dumpster being dropped by the garbage truck.
   
3. Make each #2 a caricature of utter, unsympathetic evil, ala Voldemort in Harry Potter. Optionally, monsterize #2's face with latex appliances.
   
4. Replace Rover with a hi-tech CGI robot that floats around firing laser beams.
   
5. Highlight #6's human side via friendships with other inmates. Feature sticky scenes of sentiment in which #6 exchanges a manly hug with his buddy before one of them heads off to near-certain death.
   
6. Use the show as a megaphone for the political issue du jour. Frex, have #2 refuse to sign the Kyoto treaty, whereupon the island becomes choked with pollution until #6 persuads him to sign. Of course, there must be a "vote fraud" episode.
   
7. Add montages with hip-hop and rock.
   
8. Replace the ironic distance of McGoohan with someone more meaty, sweaty, earthy and hunky. Let him bellow from the diaphragm, "Like, it's so lame being a number! I'm an individual!".
   

Then, to answer the grandparent's question, you don't think that artists should have the right to sell ownership rights to their work.

Any arrangement where 'the labels' (to use your caricature for 'the bad guys' which is just that- a caricature) don't have the right to exclusive ownership is one in which the artist isn't free to sell that exclusive ownership.

'Back in the USSR' indeed.

Blacks have gone mainstream in that time (they are no longer outcasts). Gays have gone mainstream (you may say they're not there yet, but they are more than geeks).

then it will all sound the same.

Stories like this remind me of the Queen musical We Will Rock You, which is set in a soul-less, commericalised future that caricatures today, where all music is computer generated and the mere posession of a musical instrument is illegal.

Infact, if I remember correctly, there have been previous Slashdot stories covering software that creates 'good' tunes by utilising the same sort of parameters listed in the summary. You could combine the two to make a nice feedback loop - a program that creates a tune, analyses it for potential success, then amends certain variables and repeating the process until you have a song that is so perfect that it causes spontaneous ejaculation.

While it's funny to read these stories and exaggerate or joke about the effects on consumer culture, I do think that some room for complaint is warranted. I believe that the most telling indication of the way things are heading was the news that the DVDs for the Live8 concert(s) were being 'retuned' by clever software in order to eradicate anomalies in vocal performances. UM, HELLO! IT'S A FUCKING LIVE SHOW, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. IT'S NOT MEANT TO SOUND LIKE IT'S BEEN FED THROUGH NASA'S SOUND-O-MATIC 500. This one act epitomises everything wrong with today's consumer. Some yuppie in the Live8 marketing team has discovered that Joe fucking Sixpack and Mary Jane Rottencrotch can't deal with the odd off-key lyric or missed note because it might offend their ears. These are the same people who won't buy odd shaped vegetables and who make make purchasing decisions based solely on a combination of obnoxious packaging, patronising and manipulative advertising and celebrity endorsements.

Ironically, I agree with you in principle, but I think you're a little too harsh. Yes, NASA is practically a caricature of the classic "bloatware" of entrenched government monopoly. HOWEVER, let's make it absolutely clear:
- ISS is the result of POLITICS, not NASA plans. NASA has gone along with the ISS (and shown proper enthusiasm for) the ISS for budgetary and political reasons, not because they are crusading for a vision of space exploration based on the ISS.
- The constant carping about shutting down the Hubble is vexing. The simple economics of it is cost > benefit, especially with having to rely on the crappy shuttle as the tender for the ISS. Finite resources. Personally, I'd LOVE it if NASA got a bigger budget but that's outside the scope of this discussion.
- NASA has recently done some STUNNING pure science. Mars rovers, anyone? Cassini? Mars Recon Orbiter? Deep Impact? Stardust? (ok, that kind of also became it's own "Deep Impact", but the pure science validation was there). And in the future? Dawn? New Horizons? Phoenix?

C'mon - NASA is as worthy of criticism as any government agency but you're making it sound like the ESA is the only one trying to do science, which is just silly.

BTW: big "grats" to the guys at ESA for the clean, solid launch. Best wishes on a safe and boring flight to Venus and a successful mission with oodles of data. GREAT JOB!

No, you didn't I came with a hypothesis to explain the mechanism behind your observed effect. My mechanism includes problems in what techniques your preachers use.

Over to next topic: "Single strain" means that the DNA of the mice is equal in all the mice, so the size difference is an example of introducing variation that has survival value through point mutation. The immedate difference provide a data increase, the data increase is culled to an information increase by the process of natural selection.

As for DNA/RNA genesis: The information is available by point mutation (as described above). Ending up with coding for proteins is reasonable, given the flexibility of proteins as catalysts. This would give a large advantage for anything that code for proteins. Anyway: This is a discussion of abiogenesis, not evolution per se. Abiogenesis is hypothetical, with several different hypotheses competing. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT for evolution per se, and it is much more of a faith based area than the theory of evolution. I happen to believe we will find a method of abiogenesis and will find proof for that - however, that's a belief based on prior experience, not something that's found yet.

So, let's stick to the discussion of the theory of evolution, rather than mixing it with abiogenesis, shall we?

Well, Darwin didn't know anything about it. In fact, he was sure that missing links in the fossil record would eventually be found ("The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous" -- The Origin of Species).

The chapter that that comes from says nothing about these forms being found later. Instead, it goes on to discuss the way variation wouldn't ever have existed between presently living creatures, and how the intermediate forms would disappear. He specifically states "I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement." (My emphasis.)

Please, stop repeating misrepresentations from the anti-evolution websites. They are inaccurate, and have given up on the "Thou shalt not bear false witness" in favour of "Thou shalt break any commandment in the hope of convincing the people that don't bother to really learn this."

And certainly, we have not seen the types of speciation that is required by long-term macro-evolution.

Can you please state your claim more exactly? I feel we have seen more than enough to be convinced of this. Please state what kind of speciation you would need to see to be convinced.

As far as I know, almost all religious people that learn evolution also end up believing in it.

Well, most people believe what they are taught in school. Even when its wrong.

I am not talking of people that "learn it in school". I'm talking about people that learn the science. There is a very significant difference.

Take Haeckel's embryos, for example. These were disproven long ago but are still present in modern text books. Just because you learned it in school doesn't mean its true. It just means that it is acceptable to the guardians of the paradigm.

This is from an anti-evolution website again, right? Haeckel's drawings of embryos have exaggerations of certain commonalities (in effect being caricatures), and are useful for showing these similarities. Haeckel's conclusion (that the embryonic development accurately recapture the evolutionary history) is, to the best of my knowledge, not taught - the drawings are used for illustrative purposes.

I don't think science has yet gone far enough to explore possible "natural" explanations for evolution.

Please elaborate - what "natural" explanations are you thin

Give me a break. Which part is the "moral law" and how do you tell it apart?

There are plenty of books on the subject if you're interested. Basically though, you look at what the law is setting out to achieve and ask in what way this is fulfilled in Christ and therefore whether it is a law that still needs followed. The food laws for instance were about cleanliness and uncleanliness, an issue dealt with by Christ on the cross, when he laid open the possibility of anyone being clean in God's sight.

Are you talking about the supposed prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus?

The plain reading of the text is clear the homosexual actions are prohibited and this is backed up by New Testament comments on the need for sex to be kept within marriage.

I'm sure you pick-and-choose your verses carefully there

Picking and choosing verses would be inconsistent. It's a question of correctly interpreting each verse in the light of the events of the cross.

unless you stone wizards

Defining what is right and wrong is different from determining the punishment that must be carried out. The church is not theocratic Israel. It is a family that leaves punishment to the state authorities.

and shun those who touch women during their menstrual period?

That's a question of cleanliness and uncleanliness, which I've already dealt with.

Or have you put anyone to death for cursing their parents lately? I'll take it that putting someone to death for cursing their parents is to set the Jews apart. Maybe it's Deuteronomy you're talking about?

Already dealt with. These things are still wrong, but the punishment is different.

Convince me you haven't made any graven images or "the likeness of any thing" before I'll believe you don't pick and choose there. I suppose that graven image thing is just to set the Jews apart.

I haven't made an image of anything that I'm then going to go and worship as god, no.

Maybe it's your mistranslated Judges or Kings? Maybe your god should have been a little clearer. Apparently only the self-righteous can "properly" interpret these things.

The translations we have are very good and the interpretations quite clear. I've never listened to an interpretation by any self-righteous person. The gospel is quite clear that no-one is righteous, not even one and that we are in no position to make ourselves righteous. Paul himself declared that he was the worst of sinners. The problems come when people set themselves up in judgement over the Bible, picking and choosing which bits they want and interpreting according to the morality they have chosen for themselves, rather than taking it from God.

Oh, now I see... if you want to follow it and impose it on others, then it's a "moral law". If you don't want to follow it, it's just something to set the Jews apart.

Are you interesting in a reasonable discussion, or are you intent on casting judgement before you've received an answer?

Providentially, I don't claim moral authority from a book made up of rules that even I don't want to follow!

I would love to follow the Bible and the law of grace established in it better than I currently do.

There are a lot of people in this world who like to say "you attack Christianity without having made any attempt to understand it." I understand it perfectly -- you delude yourself.

Yet you are the one who passes judgement and reaches conclusions before you've even received an answer to your questions. Are you interested in the answers, or simply in sustaining a caricature in your own mind?

Hallow's End is one of those things that's simmilar enough to real life that you say, "Hey, it's Halloween!" but different enough that it can be fit into the game's world. For specifics: Hallow's End was originally celebrated in the Eastern Kingdoms to commemorate the people killed in the Second War. It's taken up popularity in Orgrimar and Darnassas more recently. I didn't see mention of it in the article, but that's not all going on in WoW. The Undercity is currently celebrating something called the Wickerman Festival, celebrating their escape from the Lich King's control. The highlight of the event is the burning of a giant wicker caricature of Arthas.

I think that labelling people who believe in Intelligent design as "anti-science" is unfair and makes far too many assumptions. Believing in God doesn't automatically mean that you don't believe in science, and vice-versa. Personally, I believe in God, but I think that if god made the world, then naturally he made science as well. Which means I believe in ID, simply because I believe there is a god. Neither the big bang or evolution disprove god in any way, and they couldn't. Philosophy isn't reliant on numerical data- asking for something testable is not only ridiculus but completely misses the point. It's comparable to me asking you to write shakespeare with calculus. Philosophy/Theology and science operate on totally different levels.

    Generally, the most common reason I've seen for a religious person to be anti-science is when a militant atheist uses evolution as part of an attack on their religion. These people become the smug, self-satisfied figure heads of evolution that theists love to hate, and most theists are fighting these caricatures more then evolution itself. Look, you're not going to disprove someone's most closely-held beliefs by posting anonymously on a message board. Neither side is. If you aren't ready to have your opinion changed, you are not debating. You are arguing. Which is useless for anything other then stroking your ego.