Slashdot Mirror
Kansas Challenges Definition of Science
nysus writes "Anti-evolutionists have made classrooms in Kansas a key battleground in America's culture war. Again. The New York Times reports they are proposing to change the definition of science in Kansas: 'instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."'" From the article: "In the first of three daylong hearings being referred to here as a direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator."
New Kansas Method:
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As long as its nowhere near a science class.
That entire school board should be fired. They're putting superstition before education. Mind you, when you have a well documented quote from George Bush saying "I think that, for example, on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth." I guess it sets the playing field for the kooks in Kansas to create a generation of drooling WalMart greeters...
Trolling is a art,
This makes me so angry, and more than a little sad.
"We're all afraid to change, and willing to fight against it. We don't want to have to admit that there are things we don't or can't understand. We need to be able to say 'This is absolutely true' if we're going to sleep at night."
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I wonder how many of them were atheists... or biologists for that matter.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I'm a little confused. I don't see anything wrong with the definition above ! I beleive its more complete and doesn't seem to be pushing any creationism around !
This must be taught in our schools: "Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command. Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.' A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies. The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation."
Laugh all you like - these people are in control of a major nuclear arsenal.
The thing that I have never really understood about the anti-evolution Christian types is why it matters to them if their kids understand what the rest of the world is thinking? Its like the goal is absolute ignorance of everything not in the Bible. Nothing that I read in the Bible supports that viewpoint. Can anyone explain this?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Maybe I need to check my eyes, but what about that definition even suggests a "supreme being"?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
But if a great portion of hte population finds that the theory of evolution has too many holes in it for them to believe 100%, they have every right to pursue another explaination for life on earth that they find more plausible. They really do. And in the end, it really IS NOT hurting you if they do.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
If everything of any significant complexity was deliberately created, who created the creator?
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
The problem is that the concept of a supernatural being begets far more questions than it answers.
And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science.
It is perfectly acceptable for people to believe God uses evolution as a tool. But it is not science.
Hey, I have no problem with people having faith in their religion, or believing things according to faith. But that's all it is - faith.
If you want to teach creationism, do it in religious studies class, not science. Creationism or whatever euphemism you want to use (Intelligent Design) has no scientific basis at all. So by all means, if you want to teach it go ahead, but please don't do it in a science class. If you are willing to consider it as science, then I propose we should teach creation myths of every single culture in science class. I mean seriously... in this day and age it surprises me that people try to push creationism as a science.
Anyway, here is a good site that includes rebuttals to a lot of creationist arguments:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cefac.htm
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
My biggest complaint with Intelligent Design and other creationist arguments is that it doesn't really answer the question of origin. It just moves it.
If we decide a supernatural power created us and everything we see, where did the supernatural power come from? We haven't answered the question of how the universe came to exist.
...another argument against government school in the US.
Who cares what the intent is of the group proposing the change. If the reality is a wording that is clearer and more complete, is that not better?
I have yet to see arguments against the new wording as compared to the old. It seems that if you mention religion some people just fly off the handle and rational thought goes out the window, from otherwise logical folk.
Judge the wording on the merits and don't dismiss it out of hand.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wouldnt it be a lot better, for "intelligent design' to be part of a Philosophy class? I.D. doesn't hold up to modern day biological science. The crux of it from what I gather (boiled down and very generic) is that the odds of the all in compassing awesomeness that is mankind just seems very unlikely to occur naturally.
;)
To which biologists and evolutionists basically reply "Yeah, holy shit it is very unlikely, and it is still very amazing, but here are the truckloads of scientific evidence that does infact support evolution, which makes the awesomeness that is mankind all the more amazing."
I.D. is a pseudo-science and should be adapted to be taught in a Philisophy (itself a pseduo science) class. It seems to me that everyone can be categorized into three types:
Those who believe that, regardless of what means lead to humans, there had to be some basic starting point and creation of basic matter that makes us up and the universe.
Those who believe that basic matter always existed, that we as humans have a hard time of believing in a concept of "no begining", that matter "always existed".
And of course, there is the last group of people that don't give a shit really
But seriously, shouldnt the debate be philosophical, as the debate I have laid out, truly (I hope can be agreed upon by all parties) can never be really 'solved'?
I promise to give Intelligent Design my full attention when one of its supporters can explain to me where the purported designer came from. If it was created by a meta-designer, where did *that* come from?
Show me how you can call ID an "explanation" rather than an exercise in infinite logical regression, and I'll consider it.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
I am very anti-creationist, but I actually like their definition more. It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information. In fact, looking for natural answers can be very unscientific.
For example, the astronomers of yore tried to explain the planet movements with natural answers that were not based on good scientific methods. Same with the people who wrote the Bible. The new definition actually outlines the methods that are essential to science, such as experimentation and theories.
The big issue in U.S. science education is not evolution anyway, it's the lack of competent science teachers. K-12 teaching is simply not an attractive career to most people who have good math and science training, partly because of the low pay.
Find free books.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Essentially, if they can slip that in to the definition, they will be able to use inductive reasoning and call it science. Which will move the conversation from what can be observed and and tested to what we can posit through logic proofs. Which will then absolutely requre Intelligent Design to be considered pure science.
Call me crazy, but I prefer to keep science and philosophy in separate textbooks.
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
Even as they described their own questioning of evolution as triggered by religious conversion, the experts testifying Thursday avoided mention of a divine creator, instead painting their position as simply one of open-mindedness, arguing that Darwinism had become a dangerous dogma.
"There is no science without criticism," said Charles Thaxton, a chemist and co-author of the 1984 book "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories."
"Any science that weathers the criticism and survives is a better theory for it," Mr. Thaxton said.
There may be no science without criticism, but by "criticism" we must mean "constructive analysis of the theory in question, based on falsifiable alternate interpretation of the available evidence". The criticism being levelled in places like Kansas is not this kind - it is an assault on scientific rationalism by the forces of dogmatic religion and ignorance, using deceit, subterfuge and manipulation of the political process.
The ultimate goal of the people fighting for "intelligent design" to be taught in schools is nothing less than the extermination of genuine evolutionary science, to be replaced by comforting lies based solely on Christian scripture.
Freedom: "I won't!"
... the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator
Yet for some reason we fall back to this "theory" because we don't understand what's going on? Ridiculous...
Just because we don't fully understand an aspect of nature yet doesn't mean that a natural process is so complex and impossible that a higher power had to make it... it only means that we are flawed and must wait until we fully grasp what is going on.
I'm sick of people filling in the blanks with "god did it!" without thinking "well... maybe we just need to study it more." Before you call me atheist, realize that I am a roman catholic, yet I can easily conceive how our life came to be after the big bang (let's not debate that right now) without any nudge from a higher power.
You are quick to argue that life could not have been created in nature, but forget the fact that God created nature itself.
Undoubtedly someone will notice that this comment might equally well apply to those who "worship" Darwinism. That would be true. The key difference is, of course, that Darwinism can be understood and is continually being updated to reflect what we observe. Therein lies the key difference: we can update Darwinism to make it more correct. It's awful hard to update received wisdom.
Thankfully, Kansas and Ohio are leading the charge against the atheistic forces of E-Ville that seek to make critical thinkers out of our population. I'm sure that they will also "balance" their curricula to include classes that critically analyze received wisdom.
But as Sagan said himself, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence".
And there is no proof that a higher power
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Too bad I can't use my mod points on the posted stories. The entire posting reeks of -1, Flamebait.
Beyond that, several elements of the human design simply don't support the hypothesis that a conscious entity engineered us. Evolutionary theory explains several useless features left over from our human ancestors (like the appendix and tailbone) and several glaring weaknesses in our anatomy. Tell me, what intelligent designer would design us so that we used the same tube for both respiration and eating, thus creating a potential choking hazard? That's pure idiocy, not intelligence. Humans like to think we're the cock of the walk and that our bodies are oh-so-perfect, but from an engineering perspective, that viewpoint doesn't hold water. Yes, Kristen Kreuk is a marvelous specimen of beauty, but she can still choke to death because of traits inherited from her evolutionary ancestors.
That's the flaw of intelligent design. It seeks to combine poetic (and frankly egotistical) views of the human body with a scientific view of the universe. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Science is based on observed facts and natural mechanisms to explain those facts. To introduce supernatural or undefined mechanisms into an explanation is blatantly unscientific.
It's a little frustrating to realize, but I guess the cost of maintaining an intelligent, civilized society is a constant battle against ignorance. It is important that ordinary people speak out against attempts to change the science curriculum through political processes that are not subject to oversight (ie. inserting their own agendas into science curriculums without checks or balances).
I heard an excellent talk about the strategies of anti-evolutionists from the director of the center for science education recently. Two of her major points were that: (1)creationists seek to circumvent the usual curriculum review process and insert themselves directly into school board decisions politically, because they have come to realize that on careful examination, their ideas are untenable; and (2) the fundamental misunderstanding about the words behind the debate.
More specifically, in order for an idea to become incorporated in to a scientific education curriculum, it first must be proposed, examined by scientists, published, reviewed, tested for flaws and counterexamples, and then it becomes accepted as a theory (which by the way, means an idea that ties together consistently all aspects of the evidence, NOT just a "theory", or guess). Creationists, or intelligent design advocates, simply come up with an idea, and go right to the school board. Where are the checks and balances? The testing? The oversight?
And secondly, about the language. Normal people commonly feel that at the top of the hierarchy of importance are Facts. To them, facts are facts, immutable. You can't debate fact, as in "evolution is not a fact, so it doesn't occur." Observations are next, things that you see with your own eyes. And Theories? Theories are at the bottom of the scale, almost comparable to hopeful guesses. This is in part the fault of the language, that "theory" has come to mean "I, crackpot, have a theory about that."
But in fact, in science, Theory is at the top of the scale -- an idea that has consistently shown to uphold all the observations, and has been tested. At the bottom is just the opposite from what is commonly believed -- facts. Facts are things that you see every day, and carry no unifying meaning in themselves.
If we are to succeed in educating the population about the process of science, and *especially* why it is valuable to us a country, we need to get involved in the debate about the language and politics. Other countries, who don't have the luxury to squander valuable resources, are beginning to capture and exploit the wonders of science much more than we are -- and it is showing.
In it's ill-considered fight against science.
Which is a shame.
There are things that science will never be able to teach us, that desperately need to be taught. Things religion could, if it chose to stop wasting time arguing over whether speciation will occur given no outside (read: supernatural) influences.
Science will never present us with a peer-reviewed study proving once and for all that you should be good to your fellow man, and treat him like a brother. Particle accelerator runs will never hint that we all have it within us to put an end to petty bickering, violence, and even earth-shattering wars.
Will the next economic theory show once and for all, that there is so much more to be gained if every child went to bed without hunger? That great things could happen if we ignored greed and lived lives unblinded by mindless pursuit of wealth?
Every time a biblethumper gets pissy about "larnin' evomoluzhun in ar skools" they've missed their mark so completely, I don't know whether to chuckle or cry.
That would be The Handmaid's tale and it's by Margaret Atwood (a fellow Canadian, by the way), not Alice Walker.
>And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science.
In the most absolute sense, nothing is proveable and everything relies on faith. How do I know that birds can fly? Because I see them flying? How can I believe what I am seeing is real? (Brains-in-the-jar, optical illusions, effects of various recreational drugs)
I talked to an ex-science teacher and his whole argument came down to "Occam's Razor". But how is this different from having your whole argument coming down to believing that "A God exists"? They both something that you are guiding your life on, either of which you really can't prove is correct/true/THE TRUTH.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
So what's the alternative? Either you argue for an eternal Creator that set everything in motion - or you argue for an eternal Universe that just happened. Either way, you're arguing for an eternal _something_ that set the universe in motion, both of which take no small amount of faith. Personally, I'd rather put my faith in the evidence we do have in a Creator, than putting my faith in a still mysterious _something_ that caused the universe to do the whole big *foom* thing.
If there is a "supernatural" explanation, then there is, by definition no possible way to explain it beyond, "hey, it's supernatural".
And my argument stems from the basic definition of the word.
Current
"seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us,"
Proposed
continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena
Yup overly complicated. Science is simply coming up with an explanation for what we see around us. It has nothing to do with testing our stories. If enough people believe the story being told, it is science.
Therefore, Genesis is science.
Good enough for me.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
They are winning in AMERICA.
The rest of the world will just laugh at the morons, and go on learning about science and technology.
This is just the beginning of the end for the American Empire. Considering the two emerging superpowers of China and India are in a race to advance technologically and scientifically, there is absolutely no way America will manage to pollute the rest of the world with their Dark Ages shift.
Don't worry - America is becoming irrelevant to the world, and in another 100 years it will enjoy a lovely equal status as Africa and other 3rd-world countries.
Therefore: god exists
QED!
XML causes global warming.
The way we're going, we may soon see a knowledge divide that makes the digital divide irrelevant. Evolution and other "controversial" science is just the beginning.
Adults from different regions will be separated by a giant chasm between their intellect as most are taught by a progressive, science-friendly system (or as much as the education system can be) while the remainder are led to believe in nonscience "theories" that do much more to please religious leaders and believers than to satisfy an iota of truth.
The knowledge divide will be noticable in geographic quantities as large swarms of the populace have been completely left behind. People from Kansas will have no hope of competing in any meaningful way with people from California, for instance. There will be a third vs. first world mentality and it will be what tears us apart.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Yeah, I want the same group that says "god hates fags", "kill abortion doctors" and moves child raping priests around like a shell-game to be the ones to define "science".
As I look at the parent post I cringe that as of now it's ranked as funny.
It's dead on insightful, and here I thought Slashdot, with the avergae intelligence raised a bit, that that bar would be raised accordingly.
Now I'm scared.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
But as Sagan said himself, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence".
/doesn't/ exist, now is there? :)
And there is no proof that a higher power
Absolutely correct.
Likewise, there is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or that there aren't teapots orbiting Mars ("but we'd see them!".. "Not if they're invisible teapots", etc)
What we can do, however, is assess the liklihood of these things being true based on the best evidence we have avaliable - and on that basis, it seems extremely unlikely there is a Santa or a God or Mars-orbiting teapots.
Note that this does not involve or require faith - a common point of confusion with believers. I do not have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, for example. I simply know that there's a high enough probability that it will, based on past experience that I'd be extremely surprised if it didn't.
Faith, on the other hand, makes assertions such as "there are teapots floating around Mars" without any prior evidence to suggest that is the case.
Wow, that was unnecessarily long winded...
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
1) Like-minded fundies will be inclined to move there, making the rest of the country more rational. Keeps 'em from causing much trouble in the rest of the states.
2) It's not like Kansas has any other attractions.
3) It gives comedy writers a focus for jokes about religious nuts. Properly handled, Kansas will be the laughingstock and not the USA.
4) Destroying their state's reputation and their educational/research institutes will hurt their cause more than anything their opponents could do.
It's too bad we can't teach people like this a lesson by preventing them from benefitting from the technology that springs from science, including the theory of evolution which plays a large role in modern medicine and - ironically for Kansas - agriculture. But I'll settle for watching them flounder. Sometimes the best tack is give fools enough rope to hang themselves with.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
That if humans are the product of intelligent design, that we were designed by something with a crappy intellegence.
1) Humans are far too shortsighted (philosophically that is). Man can't keep from screwing up his own planet. Look a tthe self destriuctive behaviors that humans undertake in groups and singly every day. Anyone who has been stuck trying to make a left turn in Queens can see that humans rarely take the long view. (everyone pulls all the way into the intersection, blocking people trying to turn left in front of them. When both sides of the road do this, no one can turn left.) Most people are trying to maximize their short term progress at the expense of long term goals.
2) The human body is far too fragile for what we use it for. Humans are essentially big bags of soft tissue suppoorted by fragile endoskeletons. If we were designed from an intellegent standpoint, why are some major organs not protected by the rib cage? We can live without intestines and kidneys, but not without a appendix? Why are our joints and bones so prone to stress and breakage? Why do we need sleep? Seems like an easy way to get eaten by a predator, and impinges on the time we could be using to amass food, procreate, and play HL2.
3) Humans don't get along with each other very well. The species seems dedicated to proving the superiority one small group or another. Sounds like survival of the fittest to me. A more intellegent design would be to have less murderous instinct, more sense of community.
I grew up in the south, and some of the things I heard coming from the religious nuts mouths was unbelievable. I once heard a church youth group minister give a talk about how Satan had planted all the fossils all over the world. His goal was to cause man to question the existence of God.
As sad as this is, these are the people who get elected to office because they pander to people who, as an earlier comment pointed out, are afraid to say "we don't know how man was created, it's easier to believe that someone is out there taking care of us".
As Bill Maher put it, God is an imaginary friend for grownups.
A man didn't understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box. manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren't there?"
-- Douglas Adams, a parable spoofing creationism that Adams often told, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?.
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See ("a great book on natural history, extinction, and how we're managing to stuff this planet up fairly badly," says Iain)
This makes me angry.
It's not only the absurdity of rehashing a debate that took place 80 years ago. It's also that the proponents of "Intelligent Design" are identified as conservative. Why Republicans hitched their wagon to the religious right is beyond me. Being conservative means favoring a limited scope for government and greater responsibility and privacy for citizens. Where did this religious component come from? Religion is great and for the most part makes the world a better place. But I feel like the conservative banner has been hijacked by a vocal minority who feel emboldened by the attention they have received over the past 10 years from the Republican party.
Don't they realize that they're hurting the very children that they claim to want to help? How is the next generation of American engineers going to compete in the world if they think that world is flat?
It may seem odd, but to my mind the new definition is actually a step forward for evolution:
Old
"seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us,"
"Seeking explanations" says nothing about how probably or sensible they have to be, or how you go about the seeking. "I threw yarrow stalks ito the air, and they indicated the universe was sneezed into being by the Great Green Arkleseizure" is covered under this definition. Hey, I'm seeking, and "natural" is a terribly wishy-washy cop-out word.
New
"continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena"
This more or less explicitely lays out the Scientific Method (thus neatly ruling out faith-based beliefs). Note also that it specifies "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building..." - to my mind, this means that any approach which excludes one of more of these isn't Science. Were this not the case, it would be "... logical argument or theory building".
In addition, the new definition of science contains the word "hypothesis". To be a hypothesis an idea must be falsifiable - otherwise it's "just" a theory.
Creationism and Intelligent design moves ultimate responsibility for the creation of the universe completely outside of human ken, and as such is impossible to falsify (just like you can't prove the door behind you exists without directly or indirectly observing it. Given this, ID or creationism can't ever advance hypotheses, and so are unavoidably excluded from "Science", by this definition.
Of course, this definition will doubtless be abused by creationist fuckwits who don't understand the precise meaning of "hypothesis", but for anyone who properly understands the language they're speaking, it's pretty cut-and-dried, no?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Next time you microwave something, or wear clothing with synthetic fibers, or use TV or radio, ask yourself: "Would a slavish devotion to the literal interpretation of the bible have eventually resulted in the creation of the products I'm using? If anyone with new/different/progressive ideas and ideals were burned at the stake, would society grow and improve?" Then consider the answer you give yourself in light of the fact that fundamentalists posit that the ONLY valid point of view is the one that elevates the allegorical parable of the bible to absolutely infallible fact, and any/all other views as worthy of persecution and destruction.
If religion were allowed to run wild we'd be a world of zealots disconnected from our physical reality. At least when science has no agenda other than discovery of truth. Whereas religion *should* be about the discovery of truth but instead has devolved into an organization bent on the dissemination of faith, over and above the meaning or truth of the object of that faith. It's ceased to be about the truth and has come to be about group think and suppression of dissent. The church(es) have placed the wielding of political influence over and above the spiritual well being of their believers, and over and above the total well being of humanity as a whole.
Science works by positing an explanation (an hypothesis), then doing all sorts of tests to try to prove that explanation wrong.
... and the it's-ghosts crowd slinks off.
For instance, I could say "All objects fall." I drop rocks, a computer, my girlfriend, and a 1982 Dodge Dart off of a cliff: they all fall.
Then I drop a duck, and it flies off. So I revise my guess: "All inert objects fall."
I drop pencils, a bow-tie, and a plate of lasagna off the cliff; they all fall. Then I try a bag full of helium; it doesn't fall. Oops, need a new theory...
This is how science progresses: make assumptions, assume that they're right until something shows otherwise, and then methodically try to prove them wrong. Some of our assumptions last a very long time, and we call those "laws": conservation of energy is a good example.
However, there's another unspoken law of science that's emerged: "All things have natural explanations." Whenever scientists encounter a new phenomenon, they assume that it has a natural explanation (i.e. one susceptible to analysis) and then go about finding it.
It turns out that every phenomenon we've looked at has a natural explanation. There are of course some things that don't have explanations yet, but those things that we do have explanations for are *all* natural.
People have said "It's ghosts!" about many things in nature, and the scientists have said "Huh. We don't know what causes this."
Then fifty years later we say "Oh, look, someone showed that it's an electrical discharge in the ionosphere!"
This has been repeated time and time again, and it's never been ghosts.
I will go further and say that God's existence is unprovable and therefore any explanation that involves divine intervention is at its roots unscientific. Science deals with hypotheses that can be falsified. And I will give you a piece of evidence that can falsify evolution: rabbit fossils in the Precambrian. According to evolution they can't be there, and after a century of looking they still aren't.
I think what needs to happen at this point is for the accrediting bodies that certify Kansas' high school diplomas to put a rider on their certification that would allow any college or university that is serious about science to deny admission to a product of the Kansas public schools. If they wish to teach a Medieval version of science, then let them only profit from Medieval levels of technology.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
While we are all busy debating about this one issue, I think we should step back and look at the long term effects that this 'radical' movement is taking.
It may be just the idea of Evolution now but say tommorow schools eventually banish this idea in favor of Intelligent Design aka Creationism today. What's next? School's then force all their students to read from the bible everyday? The elimination of all other religions from school? Which brach of christianity are we going to follow? Orthodox? To what level is the bible going to define our day to day lives and whose interpretation are we going to implement in our lives?
Does this situation remind you of anything else. It seems that in fighting Osama and the Taliban, we are becoming like them. Radical Christianism anyone?
I think the majority of people are sane and it is clear that the long term effects of such a trend if it were to continue would be devestating and i think most people would understand that. I think we just need to open their eyes!!!
You ask this question innocently but only because you are not a religious fundamentalists. To the taliban (afghan or american) it's heresy to even ask the question. You must accept the words in the bible/koran literally.
;)
You know, I'm as atheistic and completely non-religious as the next slashdotter, but it's attitudes like this that help destroy any hope of rational discourse between the two sides of this argument.
Comparing religious Americans to the Afghan Taliban just doesn't fly. Get back to me when mainstream American christians applaud murder in their god's name.
Yeah, I know there have been American christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, but they're hardly accepted by mainstream christians. When Ashcroft was AG he wanted Rudolph put to death for killing gays and abortionists, hardly the attitude he'd have if he believed Rudolph was doing god's work.
Seriously, if you're going to compare religious people to the Taliban, you might as well go all the way and compare them to Nazis so we can invoke Godwin's law on your ass..
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
There's more than one loophole. The one that jumps out at me is the removal of the phrase "natural explanation", which precludes supernatural explanations like intelligent design or creationism.
It is perfectly acceptable for people to believe God uses evolution as a tool. But it is not science.
I agree. I hate it when people read texts as being what it probably what it wasn't indended to be. Religious texts were probably never intended to be the final word on science, and science texts should not be used as a final word on religion.
It bothers me when people try to reconcile them, or assume that both are contradictory. I see them as very likely being orthogonal. I don't believe that the creation accounts should be taken as literal fact.
In fact, the Hebrew/Christian story of Genesis has TWO (or more?) accounts of creation, if you took both literally, then they contradict, so I figure at least one must be non-literal. I don't see how either of them necessarily has to be literal accounts of physical reality. There are many other places where statements can't be taken literally, only meant to show parallels in aiding understanding the spiritual world.
The USA may only be 5% of the planet, but it has lots of nukes.
If it looks like the right wing is going to completely triumph both culturally and militarily in he USA, I urge the people of the EU, Japan, South Korea, and China to tell your leaders to pull the plug. Sell their American Bonds, sell their dollars. Let the USA sink into the oblivion of its multi-trillion dollar debt. If they complain, tell them to ask Jesus for the money. It'll be tough, but you all can get along without us.
You know, with China its the other way round. The US plug is in China, and they can't pull it. China is rapidly becoming a new superpower, maybe outstripping the US in its rise. EU, Russia, India, Pakistan and most of Asia have good/excellent relations with China. US will be losing, thats for sure. Unfortunately, the EU is still very bonded to the USA. Lets see what happens when they crash.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
You wrote: "I'd rather put my faith in the evidence we do have in a Creator, than putting my faith in a still mysterious _something_ that caused the universe to do the whole big *foom* thing."
So what you're saying is given that you don't know how the universe was created, you'd rather pretend to know, than acknowledge you don't know?
Personally I find that ridiculous. If you don't know the answer to a question (e.g. "how did the universe come to be") then you just say that: "I don't know". You don't make up some random nonsense and claim it to be the truth.
Either you argue for an eternal Creator that set everything in motion - or you argue for an eternal Universe that just happened. Either way, you're arguing for an eternal _something_ that set the universe in motion, both of which take no small amount of faith.
But the big bang model is far simpler. It requires only a uniform gas and a set of relatively simple physical laws. We don't know the exact laws yet but the ones we have can be expressed in a few lines of math.
Compare that to the complexity of God! Many people would say that He is infinitely complex. Why is it easier to believe in this incredibly complex entity than to believe in a simple ball of hot gas? It takes far more information to describe the Entity than the gas.
Ok, I can agree with that first part. We don't know. We can look at the evidence we have and see where it points us. Which immediately discounts 95% of the responses to this article thus far, because they all start out with the presupposition that they know exactly what happened, and proceed to ridicule those who espouse an alternative explanation.
The second... well, the two sentences have a disconnect. Religion isn't bad. In fact, a true religion has a lot in common with science - it's a continual proofing to make sure the belief holds. A follower of a religion should also be able to explain to others not only what they believe, but why they believe it - a study called "apologetics."
A few problems:
1) Kansas isn't in the south, or even in the South.
2) The South isn't landlocked.
3) Bush is from Texas. That's more West than South.
4) There are idiots and conservatives everywhere.
5) As others have pointed out, you got both the title and the author of The Handmaid's Tale wrong.
Painting all Southerners with the "ignorant, theocratic redneck" brush is as accurate and useful as painting all Northerners with the "rude asshole" brush or painting all West Coasties with the "flaky New Age neo-mystic" brush. It's just not that simple.
If you continue to perpetuate the myth that living in the South automatically and without significant exception indicates that that person is uneducated, superstitious/religious, or inherently unintelligent, then you are showing even less capability for logical, rational thought than those dipshits in Kansas about whom this story was written.
Your comment isn't being modded insightful (as of this writing) for the simple reason that it ISN'T insightful. It's wrong-headed, factually incorrect, and blames the wrong people for the wrong things.
The people you're mad at are the religiously conservative, and they're everywhere. We in the South simply have a larger infestation of them than you appear to, wherever it is you live.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
I don't understand what you mean by "in fairness" to these folks.
The theory of evolution is not "contradicted" by the fossil record, the theory does not predict a rate of evolution, it simply defines a general mechanism by which the characteristics of a species of organism can change in each generation through natural selection. The actual mechanisms by which this occurs are not all understood in detail.
It is certainly likely that the rate of evolution is determined by the environment and the interaction of the local flora and fauna. In steady-state evolution does not really occur as there is no drive to change. When the environment is dynamic or changed through events such as ice-ages, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, new species evolving or moving in to area etc. stronger selection occurs (evolve or die) and therefore more rapid evolution occurs. One would guess that the bigger the change, the more rapidly evolution may occur as the selection environment is more harsh than usual.
The theories can only tell you so much, what you really need is experimental evidence. Given that we cant do long experiments we can only rely on the fossil record. And the transient events you refer to provide some evidence for punctuated evolution. Rather than contradicting the theory, the data helps to flesh it out.
If creationism can be accurately described as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena" then it is science.
If creationism doesn't meet that definition (hint: it doesn't) then that definition can't be used to claim that creationism is science.
Personally, I think that's a pretty good definition to use, although I'd replace "adequate" with "accurate".
Look, the ID advocates have already pretty much stopped trying to hawk their pseudo-scientific argument from incredulity directly. Unfortunately, they've forgotten to tell some of the morons on these school boards, who still seem convinced that the ID movement has something positive to offer.
I certainly don't want my kids taught veiled theology, or taught that any old assertion is somehow the equivalent of emperical theories. I want them taught science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's funny how the self-reinforcing isolation of the religious types in the American south is similar to the same sort of thing going on in Iran. What other developed country in the world has so many citizens with such a keen attachment to propagating ignorance in their children? If knowledge is power, then what is creationism?
If you think letting religion run society is a good thing, consider comparing the Middle East to Europe.
. pdf
Round about 1200, Arab civilization was leading Europe in practically *every* category of art and science.
Then, for various reasons, Europe went through the Renaissance, where pre-Christian achievements were admired again, the Reformation, where the grip of the Catholic church over secular power was broken, and the Enlightenment, where rational inquiry was finally lifted above theology and scripture. The culmination for all of this was the devleopment of modern science, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.
The result of which is that you, sitting in Kansas, as the heir to all of this SECULAR ACHIEVEMENT, can type on a cheap computer and communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, in one of the richest countries on Earth, in the most prosperous society the world has ever known. In the achievement of which, religion sought to obstruct EVERY step along the way.
While, back in the Middle East, they've still got their dominant religion, and even got the chance in Iran and Afghanistan to have true rule by religious principles. The result of which is that the *entire* region http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/tab1_1
of the Middle East and North Africa, with 290 million people, has an economy about the size of SPAIN, with 39 million people.
Yeah, I'd say that secularism is a good thing.
The attitude from the pro-evolution side so far has been "we don't want to discuss it, and we can't believe you want to hold a debate about it"
There is a reason that scientists take that stance, it's because there is overwhelming evidence all around us that evolution happens and that it is one of the dominant forces in nature. Go read Darwin, Dawkins, or any of the other brilliant men who have described evolution and debunked the various attempts to claim that it is somehow inadequate to explain our universe.
It is a shame that so many people want to belittle the wonder of the universe. Though I am an athiest, I don't see how an understanding and acknowledgement of evolution in any way conflicts with the idea that there is some supreme being. All it does is call into question the Bible as a historically accurate document that carries the authority of God.
This kind of foolishness is not harmless. It teaches our children to accept things, not on the basis of their own critical thinking, but simply on the word of someone in authority. Theocracies and Kingdoms work well when people never question, just obey. Democracies don't. If we want a good government that works for all of us, instead of just those who have power and money, we have to constantly question the motives of those we have put in positions of authority.
The first place to start, as George Orwell would tell you, is by questioning people who want to change the definition of words in the language for political purposes. (I recommend the novel 1984 by George Orwell, to anyone who doesn't understand that comment.)
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Evolution is so elegant and beautiful though that to my mind it shows Gods power, not a weakness.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Well, before people completely bash the South, there are those who live down here who a) believe in God and b) think that science and the theory of evolution are quite true (in general). While I agree with a lot that the parent comment has said (and it scares me it was modded funny) I also know we are not all incoherent Bible-thumping, scripture quoting, non-thinking individuals. I firmly believe that God gave me a mind to USE and THINK for myself. To decide things for myslef based on the facts at hand and weigh what I read (Bible, science texts, Internet, wherever, whatever) and hear and learn and extrapolate the meaning behind it. There is nothing in the Bible that says a person is not supposed to think for themselves, to decide what is true or not. Sure, there are guidelines to help a Christian along his path but they are not absolute in my opinion. In short, don't take the vocal majority to be representative of what you'll find in the South (or anywhere else in the world for that matter).
;-)
Not to mention that, in general, Southerners are damn hospitable folks who'll gladly welcome you to town, serve you some fine home-made food, sweet iced tea, and a dose of Southern charm to top it off. Probably a mint julep or two as well
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Why not? Why are things some random,famous,real politician from a hundred years ago said more important/right/relevant than something an unknown screenwriter wrote? People having a problem with that should probably learn to distinguish between source and content when deciding what to believe.
Linux is not Windows
I think the proof that a benign power doesn't exist, or at least is not interested, is the current state of things. If such a being existed and cared about its creations, I doubt Africa, the Middle East, All of post Tsunami SE Asia would be in the state its in. (These being locations with a great concentration of very religious people).
So, you can't prove it doesn't exist, but you can prove that it is either powerless, helpless, disinterested or an asshole/malovent diety. In any of those cases I have no interest in it, and don't know why anyone else would either.
Astute observation.
/KROCKER
If one has taken a class in logic or classical argument, you may recall that if you start with false premises you can indeed logically reach false 'true' conclusions. Logical deduction itself itself is *NOT* sufficient to prove a phenomenon real. You actually have to prove your premises are real. By definition you cannot prove something supernatural. Supernatural things (being outside the realm of the natural) cannot be observed, tested, measured, or proved to exist.
Their supernatural creator might as well be *FAIRY GOD PARENTS*
The problem with the majority of Christians in this country is that they worship the Bible instead of God. Instead of asking themselves "What would a kind and compassionate God think of homosexuality (for example)" they point to the Bible and say "look- it says here that that is wrong!"
:)
The Bible is just a book and it was written by human beings. It was written by people capable of making mistakes. It was written by people who may have witnessed events that they were incapable of comprehending. It was changed over time and translated. In other words- the Bible should be treated as a guide and not as the word of God because it isn't (maybe it was a long time ago but it isn't today).
Another thing that really ticks me off is that these people claim that the universe was created by an all powerful omniscient being- and then they claim to know what he/she/it is thinking. The arrogance is mind boggling. Folks- stop it. God wouldn't like- trust me I know what he is thinking
-sirket (an agnostic atheist)
is computer science a science
Of course, computer science is about studying algorithms that just so happen to be tested well on computers. That is like asking if math is a science.
I believe Dijkstra said something to the effect of:
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
How could anyone think this new definition is clearer? It has three times as many syllables.
It's not "more complete" either. Adding a roll-call of methodologies (measurement, hypothesis testing, etc) only begs the question of what has been left out. Like peer review, parsimony (aka Occam's razor), mathematical modeling...
The phrase "more adequate explanations" is the real zinger. Who decides what's adequate? How is "more adequate" clearer than "natural"?
These ID guys are America's shame. I once tried engaging some of them (William Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson) in email discussions. None of them would go beyond one or two emails once they figured out I wasn't on their team. They have an extreme agenda and everything they say/do/propose should, IMO, be regarded with extreme suspicion.
Using the scare-word "supernatural" displays the same kind of ignorance that the ID people themselves are directing towards evolutionary science.
Many of the ID group do not believe in any sort of "supernatural" beings.
Proponents of evolution science are hurting their own cause by boycotting these hearings and by falsely insisting that ID is synonymous with biblical fundamentalism.
It appears that the evolutionists in Kansas are either incapable of defending their beliefs, or unwilling to try.
The fact that all inert objects fall doesn't mean that some non-inert objects don't fall either. :)
Nice, though.
"You know, I'm as atheistic and completely non-religious as the next slashdotter, but it's attitudes like this that help destroy any hope of rational discourse between the two sides of this argument."
I submit that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with religious fundemantalists.
"Comparing religious Americans to the Afghan Taliban just doesn't fly. Get back to me when mainstream American christians applaud murder in their god's name."
They do this all the time. For example whenever an abortion doctor gets killed.
"Seriously, if you're going to compare religious people to the Taliban"
The taliban wanted a nation run under the rules of the koran. The christian right wants the exact same thing. The taliban turned schools into madrasas that based their teachings on a radical political agenda based purely on the koran the christian right wants the same thing.
If the foo shits you gotta wear it.
evil is as evil does
Actually, I think this is a very interesting definition as it essentially puts the entire Scientific Method into the definition. Basically, something has to be based on concepts that can either be proven or disproven (aka falsifiable).
The key will be "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building" since Evolution is based entirely on observation and theory building and has no hypothesis testing beyond showing simple species-specific traits can be passed along.
Evolution is non-falsifiable and therefore will not fit this definition of Science.
"This kind of foolishness is not harmless. It teaches our children to accept things, not on the basis of their own critical thinking, but simply on the word of someone in authority."
You mean the kind of thinking where no one questions evolution and we just accept it? which side are you arguing here, yours or mine?
The goal of the school board is to DE-EPHASIZE evolution. Not to teach ID.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
Science seeks to explain observed phenomena in nature. It is axiomatic to science that nature runs in accordance to laws, not due to the mind of an unseen intelligence.
People have incorrectly used "God" to explain the gap in there understanding (ie, those lights in the sky are angels changing the scenery for the end-times, rather than being a meteor shower).
But if there is a God, science will never find it because it is axiomatic that you don't use God to explain observed phenomena. So in order to explain things of complexity in nature, science has to find an explanation that does not include God. Sometimes this produces theories that are accepted for a time, but only later to be discounted.
Science naturally produces theories like the Big Bang and evolution, because those are theories that explain how complex things come into being without the need for a God. But even those theories cannot escape the "gaps" in understanding, which are sometimes passed off as "something that obviously happened, we just don't know how."
Evolution theories get more an more complex (right or wrong). Since science must explain the existence of humans without God directly and constantly intervening, evolution makes the most sense. But when the data is put to the theory, gaps occur. Like when one species of humans scientifically cannot have evolved from species A to species B, then is it proposed that both species A and B must have had a common ancestor C, even if there is no evidence of a species C. Then some may go looking for species C to fuel the evidence for this model, and then they may or may not find something they claim to be species C. If they don't find something they can claim to be species C, then the theories are reworked. If they do find something attributed to species C, then the cycle usually repeats itself (then what is the ancestor of species C?).
The evolution ancestor tree or more like a sprawling bush now, but since the exclusion of God is axiomatic, and evolution is the best theory of scientific explanation, it must be true that the ancestor bush is correct. "Data" never says anything. You can't "look at what the data says." You can only come up with a theory and see if the data fits.
But the point can be made that evolution cannot be tested because we can't actually observe the ancestor bush. We can observe things that seem consistent with evolution (fruit flies and DNA patterns) but we can't watch the single cell ancestor slowly become a modern human. So evolution becomes inherently un-falsifiable until someone acutally starts an experiment that does exactly what evolution theory says happened in the past. But even then, it would only show that it could have happened a certain way, not that it only could have occurred that way.
Creantionists (or whatever ID-ists) have the same problem. They take what they read in the Bible (or other evidence of a supreme intelligence) and show that observed natural phenomena could have been caused by "God" (a great flood is consistent with observed phenomena, so does that mean the observed phenomena could only have been caused by a great flood?).
The debate about evolution has always been about the existence of God. But I submit that science will never give proof of God because it is axiomatic that there is no "supernatural" interference in observed phenomena.
Creationists will continue to try to show that their theories are consistent with observed phenomena. Evolutionists will continue to show that humans can exist now without the need for a God to explain their existence.
What if there is a third option? The Big Bang was the only widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe and now that is losing traction. Will the theory of evolution ever fall out of favor with scientists?
What if science uncovers dimensions previously unknown to us? Or forces, or theories of matter, or genetics that cause us to rethink a lot of our theories?
What if science figures out a better theory than e
Personally, I don't really see the creationists as being too much worse than that particular demographic of atheists who worship Darwin as God. *Excessive*, irrational veneration ...
Thanks for providing us with a poignant example of excessive, irrational, statements. Speculating that there is any significant faction of people on this planet who, in any way, "worship Darwin as God" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
If there's one thing that really annoys me, it's an intellectually deficient side's desperate attempt to compare the end of a cigarette to the surface of the sun and claim they both put out the same amount of heat and therefore negate each others' significance or severity. Intelligence insulting hogwash!
However, another group who I think desperately need to get lives are those who are frantically seeking life on Mars, purely/primarily because they hope they can use such proof to discredit creationism altogether.
Huh? Are you kidding me? Are you wearing tin-foil underwear?
I believe the best way that evolutionary advocates can win this particular battle is simply by not fighting it.
Unbelievable. You advocate not standing up for what you believe in, and this will somehow make everything rosy? Have you not studied even a sliver of history of any civilization in the world?
Evolution is falsifiable. e.g. A chicken fossil in the pre-Cambrian era.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
I am troubled by the decision by scientific groups to boycott these hearings. Wouldn't it be better to take these arguments on squarely and address them on the merits? Science is supposed to be open to challenge, its entire structre is designed to allow for changing theories in response to evidence. By boycotting the hearings it makes it look like science has no answer to the points which the Intelligent Design proponents are raising.
It's no secret what their arguments are. They are posted widely on the net and promulgated by ID websites. Scientists should prepare responses to these points that are simple, concise and can be explained and understood. People like Richard Dawkins have written whole books on the topics. There are plenty of engaging, articulate and intelligent scientists who could do a good job of making the case.
I know the arguments against it: that the hearings are rigged, or that this dignifies the opponents by making it appear that their weak arguments are even worth responding to. But first, even if the hearings are rigged, it is important to put the facts into the public record. This is a subcommittee, and the full school board has to make the final determination. The scientifically oriented board members need ammunition to strike down claims by religious members.
And as far as dignifying the creationists, they are already gaining political power! Refusing to argue with them won't change that. The right and honorable thing for science to do is to deal with them on the level of scientific argumentation. Explain why their arguments don't work, show the problems in their theories. This has been done successfully in other forums.
Look at the Scopes trial: Scopes lost! A fact often forgotten today. (Actually Darrow requested a guilty verdict so he could appeal the case and make it set a precedent.) The point is that winning or losing in the local setting doesn't matter that much. What matters is making the case forthrightly, honestly and fearlessly.
Scientists shouldn't worry that they are dignifying the opposition. People do deserve to be treated with dignity, after all. Science should merely respond calmly and factually to the charges, and should inquire carefully after any flaws in the logic of the ID proponents. This is the method of science, it is what has made it so successful, and it is how science should proceed today in these hearings.
That is not what irks most Atheists. Rather beliefs such as "the Earth is only 6,000 years old" and "all of the species alive today co-existed on that day (6,000 years ago) when they were all created (dinosaurs never existed, God buried some bone-like rocks to test our faith)" and "the Sun revolves around the Earth" and "condoms do not reduce the rate of STD transmission". Even with these beliefs, most Atheists will take a live-and-let-live policy as long as you do not try to enshrine such beliefs in law, or teach them as science.
Also, many rational people abhor hypocrisy, regardless of where it is found. If you want to be a Hindu, be a Hindu who follows all of the teachings of your religion (or at least admit that *you* decided what is right and wrong, not some gGod(s)). If you want to be a Christian who claims that homosexuality is a sin because Leviticus says so, then follow all of the prohibitions in Leviticus (no two types of thread, only approach an altar with less than 20/20 vision, pork is unclean, ...)
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
I have to agree with you LoadStar, but I think you're on the verge of trolling.
If you agree that science means "you must first accept that you don't know X, then seek ways to learn X, and perhaps even come up with a testable theory explaining X" (which is great and I totally agree), then that "eternal God vs eternal universe" crap was a straw man to begin with.
Yeah, a lot of armchair scientists will jump on a hokey hypothesis rather than admit that something just doesn't have any scientific explanation. But while a common sentiment on Slashdot, actual scientists have no problem at all saying "I don't know". That, after all, is the real first step in learning.
And yes, a lot of people have hostility toward religion in general and say things like "that's why religion is bad". But that's not everyone either. You're making the same mistake they are by assuming the loudest, most obnoxious part of a group represents the group as a whole.
Religion's great. I love it. It makes the world a great and interesting place. The fact that it's a crock of horseshit isn't really even relevant. It makes people happy and makes for cool works of art and literature. Fiction is GOOD. However, teaching fiction to children as if it were fact is BAD. That's what this discussion is all about.
In the most absolute sense, nothing is proveable and everything relies on faith.
That's metaphysics, and is thus unprovable. You can't prove your axioms (by definition), but you can test them to see if they are reliably useful.
How do I know that birds can fly? Because I see them flying?
Yes, and the fact that every well-reasoned test you can come up with shows that birds do, in fact, fly. That's science.
I talked to an ex-science teacher and his whole argument came down to "Occam's Razor". But how is this different from having your whole argument coming down to believing that "A God exists"? They both something that you are guiding your life on, either of which you really can't prove is correct/true/THE TRUTH.
One of them (science) reliably describes and predicts the real world. The other (faith) does not. *That's* the difference, and it's a very crucial one. If you're sick, do you want a hospital, or a priest? If you are hungry, do you pray for manna, or do you seek food? If you want to fly to the Moon, do you start the Apollo program, or do you give up because scriptures say you can't get there?
It all comes down to your axioms. Which axiom is more reliable for describing the universe: a holy book, voices in your head, mere speculation, or science?
There has been lots of hypothesis testing. One thing evolution predicted was animals with similar traits would have common dna fingerprints - a hypothesis that was given way before we could analyse DNA.
There's been lots of hypotheses like that which should it is indeed falsiable.
I am flaming you. You are a moron.
BTW, Law and Science are completely dissimilar, try to find examples that follow a similar process.
Over a long time, in an environment with light, development of the eye becomes almost assured.
So much, in fact, that the idea was hit upon several times during evolution - we don't have one type of eyes on this planet, but well over a dozen. That's a crazy designer if you ask me ("now the insects, I think I'll give them completely different eyes, just for fun").
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Actually, I like the new definition.
If you're not a scientist, you probably define the two words like this:
Theory: "Someone's wild-assed guess. Same thing that some eggheads call a hypothesis." The opposite of Theory is "A Law", something that you believe has been proven to be true.
Natural: "Something anybody can understand!" The opposite of Natural is "Synthetic", something eggheads in white coats invent.
The scientific meaning of "theory" isn't the same as Joe Sixpack's meaning of "theory". This discrepancy allows Joe Sixpack to say "but evolution's just a theory".
The scientific meaning of "natural" is also different from that of Joe Sixpack. How many times have you heard fundie freaks say things like "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Because Adam and Steve isn't natural!" I'm sure if you asked a fundie, he'd say that because it's divinely inspired (and because he can understand it, and because that thar science stuff is too confusing to his itty bitty mind :), the Biblical account is the more natural explanation for how humans came to be.
Evolution is easily falsifiable. Just find a dead human inside a tyrannosaurus and the Theory of Evolution will have been falsified since the theory says this can't happen. As to hypothesis testing, Evolution provides many specific hypotheses that can be tested. Most of the biology journals are full of such tests. Indeed, much of modern biology simply would not exist without the Theory of Evolution.
The "Theory" of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is not falsifiable, is not a Theory as most philosophers of science define a Theory, and is not science.
Evolution is based entirely on observation and theory building and has no hypothesis testing beyond showing simple species-specific traits can be passed along.
Sounds like your high school was one of those where teaching Evolution was avoided, something all too common these days since many teachers are terrified of controversy. But instead of remaining ignorant, try reading a book by Richard Dawkins or Steven Jay Gould.
FreeSpeech.org
Applauding the murder of abortion doctors is hardly mainstream american christian conventional wisdom. Have you ever talked to a christian?
Many of the attitudes I read on this subject from the supposedly tolerant non-religious people tend to be just as filled with ignorant hypocrisy as those of many religious people are.
I believe the Bible says something about casting the first stone? Not that I'm religious, but there's some wisdom to be found in that.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
As a scientist, I'd like to think that if a supernatural explanation fits the evidence better than the alternatives, and enables us to make accurate predictions about future events (and is thus able to be invalidated by those predictions being incorrect), then it would eventually pass into the scientific mainstream.
The Peace of God passeth all understanding, but then again, so does Quantum Field Theory.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I mostly agree with your sentiments, but:
There is no problem with the majority of Christians in this country. The majority of them are nice folks, and while they beleive some things I think are kooky, they're not too pushy about it.
The problem is with the vocal minority of Christians who think they speak for a lot more people than they do, just because they call themselves Christian.
Quick test for whether they are the problematic kind: Do they insist on refering to themselves only as "Christian" even in contexts where refering to a particular denomination would make more sense? To pick a random example, Lutherans generally have no problem with the fact that what they beleive is slightly different that what Presbyterians (sp?) beleive, even though they are both Christian. Watch out for the ones who know that there own beleifs are the true Christianity.
Anyway, the problem with the problematic kind is the same as the problem with all religious extremists. It's the arrogance. They beleive whatever they want to, but they refuse to admit that. Rather they posit that what they beleive is not what they wish, but what GOD wishes. If they just thought I disagreed with them, that would be one thing. But if I disagree with GOD, that's a different matter! No point in considering what I have to say in that case, heck it would probably be wrong to even listen. And the actions that might be justifiable in forcing ones own opinion on others are rather limited; at least compared to what's reasonable when enacting the will of GOD.
The reason science doesn't concern itself with anything supernatural is because it is impossible, by definition, to observe scientifically what the supernatural is or is not doing. Science's insistance on natural explanations is hard-headed pragmatism, not an a priori declaration of philosophical naturalism.
OK, but your anti-religion preaching has no place in schools either.
How is teaching science "anti-religion preaching"? Not unless your religion is one based on illogic. Say by claiming that evolution is too complex to happen on it's own, and then accepting without question an even more complex and powerful force. Where did God come from anyway? "Intelligent Design" is not about finding answers. It's about denying questions.
The universe and its origins, on the other hand, have NO provable theory behind them. To say that all around us was designed by an intelligent 'creator' is just as valid a theory as saying it 'just happened'. Neither one can ultimately be proven to the satisfaction of scientific standards at this point in time. There is evidence that a God exists, but there isn't proof. Likewise there is evidence that evolution is real and that we may have been derived from some single-celled organism which came from a big bang and chaos and so forth, but there isn't absolute proof of that either. Neither theory satisfactorily answers the questions it poses, like 'Who created God?' or 'What was before this big bang?'
A proper analogy would enter the realm of the unknown. Scientist 1 says 'I think this is the complex way all matter works based on my tests and nothing disproves this so far.' Scientist 2 can say 'Well I have a different theory, based on my observations' but it is stupid and meaningless for him to say 'Yeah well there's no proof that invisible flying elephants don't exist but we don't believe that now do we!?!'
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Applauding the murder of abortion doctors is hardly mainstream american christian conventional wisdom. Have you ever talked to a christian?
And much of what the Taliban did was hardly mainstream Afghani muslim conventional wisdom. Have you even talked to a muslim?
The Taliban practiced a particularly severe and fundamentalist version of Islam that is in no way representative of Islam in general, nor even of Afghani muslim's in general. The Taliban are gone, many Afghani's celebrate that fact, but they are all still muslims, and they all still practice their beliefs - they just aren't the extremnist interpretations of the Taliban anymore.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Very well said. And as someone who just happens to believe in God and has been a hard-core science enthusiest my entire life, I've long ago come to the conclusion that there is no conflict between science and religion. As someone else pointed out here, this is largely an imaginary debate that the over-zealous fundimentalists wish to invent so as to impose their beliefs upon others. The bible isn't a history book, nor is it a science textbook, it's a book about a philosophy of life.
Personally I hate what the fundies are doing. This kind of behavior only serves to bring an unnecessary backlash against the many religious people who strive for peaceful coexistance with all, who don't wear their religion on their sleeve, and who have no desire to impose beliefs upon others.
As for this idiotic notion by the fundies that fossils were put in the ground by God to test our faith... Hello? What kind of misleading, deceptive god do you worship?
Great quote from a fellow /.-er: "Keep your stickers out of my science book; I don't paste crap in your bible." Nuf said.
Exactly. We're so stuck in our perspective of the universe. We see the world from this tiny little speck of dust in the universe, and we think the rest of the world must behave exactly the same as what we see.
Something is moving, thus someone must have pushed it. That's the general consensus among Intelligent Design advocates. So, basically, they're thinking backwards from what we can do. We design complex things, thus all complex things must have a designer.
The Universe is far more complex than any of us will ever even realize simply because there are things we can never see or measure. We'll never figure it out if we continue to measure everything against what we already know and accept as the 'norm'.
Well, accepting the norm is what lead us to believe the world was flat. Challenging the norm is what proved it isn't.
Abstract thinking is what leads to breakthroughs... thinking inside the box only limits you to what's already in the box.
Basically, the problem I see with creationists, beside the horrific implications of an impending theocracy, is the fact that they're not open to new ideas or reasoning. They start out with a preconceived notion, and then work their way backwards - kinda like Ken Starr.
Scratch an Intelligent Design advocate, and you'll find a devoutly religious creationist whose idea of "supernatural creator" is almost always the judeo-christian God of The Bible.
Thus, they start out from that idea, and since science has proven them wrong on pretty much everything else, they hold on for dear life to the only thing that can't been explained or observed: "the beginning" - that immeasurable moment in which the atoms of the universe started moving.
Of course, it is beyond our comprehension to even imagine something without a beginning or an end. The problem with that is, we tend to ask questions like "what happened before the big bang?".
Well, if time is an abstract idea thought up by mankind, in order to explain the relationship between the movements of atomic particles, then we can safely say that there was no "before" before the big bang. Without atomic movement, there is no time. Thus, the question itself is irrelevant and only serves to distract us from explaining what happened afterwards, i.e. evolution (of the world, not just species).
When we accept that notion, realizing that something can start by itself without outside influence, is not such a big leap.
I strongly suggest anyone here who has even the slightest interest in the evolution vs. creation argument buy a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine. There have been many great articles about the misconceived notions of evolution, the myths and half-truths about it, and of course, the utter fallacy of creationism.
As you, and others pointed out, anything capable of creating something as complex as the universe, must itself be complex enough to need a designer, setting in motion an endless loop of creations, leaving us no closer to an answer - and probably further from it as our attention has been diverted.
ID and creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a disguised attempt to get the book of Genesis back into the public school system.
Anything which relies on a catch-all explanation such as a supernatural creator, by definition is not a scientific theory, as the catch-all is an easy out from a situation you cannot explain through other means.
-- This sig for rent.
2. You are already free to practice your religon, you're just not free to shove you belief system down other peoples throats.
You want your children to learn about creation, fine teach it in Sunday school or at home. Until you allow secular evolution to be taught as a valid theory in Sunday School, don't complain about creationism not being taught in public schools.
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
imho, it appears they are explicitly trying to give equal value to exercises in "logic" as is given to the other criteria.
this is properly called philosophy.
sum.zero
Exactly, then you realize God is just a dumbed down explenation for the complex physical and chemical reactions in the Universe.
Given we share about 90% of our genetic code with monkeys, and we even share some genetic sequences with plants, I find it hard to believe all of life is NOT related. Evolution is the most rational way to explain it thus far.
DNA and RNA protein sequences are the basis of life, not wind, fire, water and earth. I'd like to point out to these creationists those four elements, as well as a flat earth, were the prevailing theories at the time of the bible's inception. Do they want to teach those theories as well? If so, why not? I bet they'd rather pick and choose.
Science is where we chip away at reality until we discover truth, not dogma.
You don't know much about evolution, do you? Before you dismiss the entire field you should study it little more.
For example, evolution nicely explains the following:
If you want to see evolution in action, read up on the evolution of the AIDS virus. Just be cause you can't understand it, it does not mean it is wrong.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
If you view it on a larger scale instead of the earth-sun scale, it makes more sense. Large clouds of scattering matter coalescing into semi-solid bodies or dense clouds here and there. After a while, hydrogen clouds collapse in on themselves and ignite into stars. No reason why "earth" and "sun" have to be taken at their strict literal meanings.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Not everyone in Kansas is a back-woods Bible-thumping hillbilly that can't tolerate evolution and supports these intolerant actions. There are many people in Kansas who may or may not believe in evolution due to their personal spiritual beliefs but are reasonable/tolerant enough to not object to it being taught in schools. So the favor I'm asking is this: Don't lump all Kansans into the same boat when you're referring to the actions of the intolerant. I'm sure you don't like it when a European refers to a war-loving American anymore than all Kansans like being called a Bible-thumping hillbilly.
1. The universe must have been created by an intelligent designer because it's too complex to explain any other way.
2. The designer's existance can't even be proven let alone explained. Period.
So how is it that the only way to explain the universe is by the existance of a "Designer" who's existance can't be explained?
Intelligent Design is nothing more than identity theft. Creationists were kicked out of the schools and they think that replacing the word "God" with "Intelligent Designer" somehow makes thier belief secular and scientific.
I've got a novel idea...
Teach science in school.
Teach religion in church.
I think the reason creationists are unable to play by these rules is quite obvious: they aren't concerned about teaching their own children, they are concerned about teaching YOUR children.
Feynman says something along these lines, if I recall (and I might not recall properly)...
He says that you could make a theory that planets move because angels push them. But this doesn't explain anything, because we don't have a good theory of angel dynamics. If you can develop one, then you have an explaination.
Similar to the "the universe exists because God created it argument"... how did God show up?
The term is either "Reverse Evolution" or "Devolution", of which I prefer the latter. Considering the "devolving" state of American democracy these days, we will have apples that fall up. Reversed word meanings have already gotten out of hand. We currently have "compassionate conservative" (also an oxymoron), "neo-conservative" (not new or conservative), "imminent danger" from Iraqi WMD, "fiscal responsibility" ('nuff said), and a SS "crisis" (only in the sense that neo-cons abhor it). Next, no doubt, the Department of Defense will be renamed to the Department of Peace.
Welcome to "1984", which is only 20 years late because RM Nixon lost the 1960 Presidential election, and Goldwater didn't "make the cut" in 1964.
oh well
Since when did the bible become the [direct] word of God?
The Old Testament, in a few parts, maybe. Moses got the ten commandments directly from God. The [hi]story of that event, along with the words from those commandments, then got passed down by the Jews as the book of Exodus. God didn't write the book, it's not his direct words. His words may be quoted in parts but most of it is just the Jews retelling the [hi]stories of the events.
The book of Psalms isn't even that. It's basically songs made up by various religious folk in honor of their God.
So, for the Old Testament, the Jews themselves see it as true stories about people's interactions with God. As far as I'm aware, no one seriously claims God sat there and directed it to be written, word for word, according to his wishes - they're the words of individuals used to describe the [hi]stories of those who did interact with God.
It seems kind of ironic that [some - you don't get to speak for all] Christians would take a book that even those who wrote it don't claim is the direct word of God (simply a recounting of the interactions with God) and then somehow, magically, make it become God's word after the event. That, to me, sounds a lot like narrow minded people trying to make something up to self-justify. And that's not what true Christianity's supposed to be about.
OK, on to the New Testament. A series of gospels written by the people who experienced God's son. Again, they're [hi]stories written by people who were there (if you disregard the evidence that suggests they were retold orally for about three hundred years before actually getting written down) and not the direct word of God.
So, as we have people writing accounts, not God directly writing through them, quite where do they become the direct word of God anymore than a blogger recounting an audience with the Pope is writting the direct word of the Pope? We'd laugh at the blogger making such claims, yet somehow it's OK to make them about the bible?
Then there's the fairly strong evidence that suggests the gospels were fairly selectively edited around 300 A.D. to suit political will at the time. So even if they were God's word, they likely stopped being a direct version at that point anyway.
And all of this is before the translations and retranslations that have happened for the last fifteen hundred years or so. Each and every one of those translations shows the bias of the author. I've got an old bible that belonged to my great grandmother that says, "And I shall call you wo-man because you come from man and you are here to serve man" Strangely that passage isn't in most versions - it's something that got interpretted in as it was translated.
So... Even if you believe the stories the bible is about were real events and not allegories that, over time, people came to believe to be real events... You're taking a book which the original authors never claimed to be the direct word of God and then choosing to believe it is in order to justify, in many cases, petty prejudices that some tiny justification can be found for by interpretting and interpretation of an interpretation in one way.
If you can understand where someone is coming from, maybe we can get past the hate and learn to agree to disagree.
I completely agree. Unfortunately, those who do rabidly believe the bible is the direct word of God use their own belief (which most others don't share) to attempt to justify why their beliefs should become laws, be taught to children etc. Unfortunately, those people have a tendency to then believe, "Well, as [my chosen interpretation] is the direct word of God, it can't be argued. Thus I'm right, you're wrong, there can be no debate." That creates just as big a problem.
When the bible is used to justify people being healthy members of society, doing good etc., I'm all for stepping back and letting them believe it just as thoroughly as they want.
When the bib
There are two groups in this battle. There is but one real difference between them.
The difference is that one group can be comfortable not knowing everything and the other can't.
Evolution is a theory not because it hasn't been proven but because theories are very complex interactions between a whole crapload of different things. You'll never completely understand any theory 100%. Plate tectonics is a theory. So is gravity and electromagnetism. Should we stop teaching those since they are merely "theories"? The argument to not teach evolution has no logic behind it, but since religion must always be devoid of logic to exist it makes sense.
The difference between the two sides is that one group of people can say "I don't know everything and I'm going to keep looking for as long as it takes." The other group can't accept the fact that they don't know everything and fill in the missing pieces with mythology.
So basically this whole fight is between people who are comfortable enough with themselves to accept that they don't know everything and people who's insecurity forces them to fill in the blanks with God.
It's just a damn repeat of grammar school!
here is an entire organization of them: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalsc ientists.html
What is notable about creation "scientists" is that they never seem to accomplish anything of note in biology. Hardly any of them have publications in major scientific peer-reviewed journals. None have won any of the major scientific awards. While scientists who use evolution as a research tool are making discoveries not merely in evolution, but in fields as far afield as biochemistry, genetics, pharmacology, and molecular biology, creation "scientists" don't seem to do anything but creation science. The ultimate test of a theory is how useful it is in providing a basis for discovery. Many scientists don't even care about evolutionary issues per se, any more than they care about number theory. They use evolutionary theory for the same reason that they use mathematics--because their experience has shown them that it is an indispensable tool in their own area of study.
You may not believe this, but don't critisize others when they follow their own beliefs.
When Christians follow their beliefs they tend to write and support amendments to state constitutions that prevent gay people from having "any benefits of marriage." As a gay, adoptive parent in a 9-year committed relationship, what does that mean for my family?
Does it invalidate my partner and mine's co-parent adoption of our adopted son? Will it render illegal the partner benefits that my partner and I receive from my company? It's sad to say, but many Christians would happily have both of those things taken from us because they view our relationship as counterfeit and abhorrent to their god, and many other Christians won't lift a finger to stop them since they have more important priorities than getting the gay-bashers out of their religion. The gay-bashing Christians are only following their beliefs, so why should I complain?
So, Christian, I respond to you: Agreeing to disagree is unacceptable because your people attack my family through the force of the state. I openly and unashamedly reject your evil religion and your evil god. Since you worship a baby-killing, abortionist god, you have no room whatsoever to criticize my morality. I will continue to criticize, mock, and reject your religion as long as Christians choose to use their religion as the excuse to criticize, mock, and reject me. Fair enough?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
At what point did we quit trying to find an answer to problems and start picking a good answer and just assuming it right? I though progress in science and progress in general was about finding answers. reading the arguments in the TFA and even reading the replies here it looks like we gave up on finding answers and just picked some and decided to work just enough to find some proof for those. I think we forgot something along the way...
Yeah, science has theories but the point of a theory is to make a mark in the sand until we can get far enough to make another mark.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Science can't win as a supernatural investigations agent, because whatever they investigate is defined by non-scientists as "natural"; "supernature" is defined as anything not conducive to investigation. If a scientist actually detected a free-standing, self-perpetuating EM field that consists of the surviving personality of a dead man, it wouldn't be "supernatural" to the religionists. The Supernature crowd would redefine the term to not-include ghosts; it would merely be the physical remnant of the person, in a state prepatory to going to God at a later time. Infinite regression, as they have done so many times before. And the carnival would go on.
This isn't about truth, or logic. The Biblists believe their reading of the book, American Southern Fundie standard, IS THE TRUTH, and that is THAT. Everything they do is sophistry aimed at their ultimate goal of remaking science and society and politics into a Dominionist utopia. And ending the world, of course.
Sorry, I find it very difficult to get worked up by any of this anymore.
Any truely objective observer will note that the most vocal supporters of teaching evolution in schools also have an atheistic agenda. Is it any wonder that writers like Dawkins draw all of the Creationists with their theistic agendas out of the woodwork like cockroaches? There are crackpots on both sides, each with their own non-scientific agendas, and they tend to be the most vocal.
Truth be told, if textbooks were written with objective science in mind, neither side would be happy with the results.
If you're really worried about the science that your kids are exposed to in school, I recommend that you pick up an average middle school or high school textbook on natural sciences. Ignore everything to do with evolution. Instead, check out the sections on cosmology, genetics, biology, physics, environment,... Trust me, the theory of evolution is the least of your worries!
You're no scholar; you're an idiot. Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's diameter with only 4% error 2200 years ago, and before him, both Aristotle and Pythagoras believed the earth to be round. What "great scientists" are you referring to?
Of course scientists are usually wrong. That's why they create hypotheses and test them. When they prove them wrong, they create new hypotheses based on the new evidence. That's what science is about: a search for truth. What you're proposing is abandoning this and saying "we don't need to search for the truth, because it's written right here in this book that the world was created in 7 days."
My opinion of Kansas just fell another notch after reading this drivel. Apparently, it's not just the morons in the school system of Kansas that are stupid, it's the rest of the population as well.
Since it wasn't 100%, I'd say that your ability to interpret statistics is a little lacking if you're in fact claiming that all Southerners are "uneducated, superstitious/religious, or inherently unintelligent." The two strongest states for support of Bush were western states -- Utah and Wyoming. In the good 'ol antebellum South, no state gave Kerry less than 36% of the vote, with most Southern states hovering at about 40%. By your own limited litmus test for "intelligence," around 40% of Southerners meet the criteria.
Your own state only gave Kerry 53%. (I assume you're from Washington by your nick.) In essence, only 12% more of your population is "intelligent" than people from Georgia, and roughly half of your population is just as "dumb."
Of course, all this stereotyping and bigotry only reveals your own narrow, uneducated worldview. There are plenty of dumb, uneducated Democrats (think inner-city demographics) just as there are plenty of educated Republicans (think most business leaders). There are plenty of religious people who are Democrats because of their desire to help the downtrodden, and there are plenty of atheist Republicans who care most about taxes and deregulation. There are many Democrats held their nose and voted for Bush, and there are many Republicans who held their nose and voted for Kerry.
Actually, people like you share a lot in common with people like Bush. You seem to think that a majority (even a slim one) complete defines the characteristics of a region. The minority matters too, so take your condescending attitude and shove it. Democrats live in the South too, and we're tired of being lumped into the same group as our most obnoxious citizens, and we're also tired of having many of our friends we don't agree with on politics lumped in with them too.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I would argue that its more like saying _+_=2 isn't math.
And you would, once again, be wrong. All interesting math involves unknowns and solving for them. X+Y=2 is most certainly math. Algebra to be specific.
You admit yourself that evolution could be dead wrong, yet we still want to base all our scientific research on it?
No, I don't admit it could be dead wrong. Evolution does happen. That's a fact. It's directly observable in a number of instances, such as when bacteria evolve resistence to novel anti-biotics. There is a lot to learn, and some particular details of our theories are almost certainly wrong, but there isn't any doubt about the basic nature of genetics.
Then ask what would be different in our research if base it on a creator?
It would be intentionally ignoring part of the problem. ID is logically equivalent to simply saying that we were put here by aliens and then refusing to study the origin of the aliens. Or are you proposing that we will engage in a scientific search for God? Attempt to observe and quantify his fundamental nature? Pray tell, how are the ID supporters doing in their scientific study of the nature of God?
The nature of the fundamentalist movement and the neo-cons is exploitation by the powerful of those who accept things on faith without evidence. You are being used for your votes because you can be easily suckered into believeing lies. Because you can be suckered into believing warmongers and capital punishment supporters believe in a "culture of life". Because you can be suckered into believing that claiming part of a scientific theory should be considered beyond investigation somehow makes that theory more scientific.
The fact that people like you have somehow convinced yourselves that you are doing the work of Jesus when you believe the lies of thieves and death-dealers disgusts me. How you believe that God is smiling upon a gluttunous rape of natural resources is beyond me. To believe that corporations (a creation of the State) somehow deserve rights and moral standing equivalent to human beings (a creation of your God, right?) is beyond me.
The parable YOU quoted is quite appropriate. For it is YOU who sees without seeing. You see the sprawl in Olathe. The paving over of nature. The destruction of God's work by man's work. And yet you smile on it. You don't truely see it. A pathetic sheep who believes what he is told no matter how unbelievable it is.
What happened here? Can God explain that one? Nope, but evolution sure can. By liberally applying pesticides, the farmer killed off the proportion of the insect population that was not resistant to the pesticide. However, some members of that population had a gene which granted them a resistance to the pesticide. By killing off the members of the population without the resistant gene, the members with that gene grew to encompass a larger proportion of the population than their vulnerable brothers. So the members of the population with that gene reproduced and began dominating the population of insects. So now, almost every insect in the farmer's field is resistant to his pesticide, and they can eat his crops unimpeded unless he uses another pesticide.
This happens all the time in the real world. This is a big problem for farmers and pesticides. And it exists because of evolution. If you take a bunch of scenarios similar to this one and line them up over billions of years, you get massive changes among different populations.
How about this one? Why do human beings exist with different features all around the globe? Bible bashers can't explain that one. (Well they can, with the reasoning that God marked darker-skinned people as being subservient to whites.) Evolution, however, can. Black people generally have wider noses and darker skin for a reason: it allows them to breathe more easily because their environment was Africa, a really fucking hot place where the air pressure was significantly lower. So those members of their population which could take in larger quantities of air through their noses fared better and eventually became a dominant proportion of the population. Contrary to what racists might tell you, it is not because "black people are closer to apes." Your sarcasm and parroting of creation "science" pamphlets says differently. Evidence for evolution exists everywhere around you. It is an observed process. The concept of evolution is central to any field that deals with biology, from agriculture to medical science. Ever wonder why doctors recommend against using anti-bacterial soap unless absolutely necessary? Because it kills off the weaker bacteria while allowing stronger ones to survive and multiply.
The first thing you'll notice is that the dates show clearly that none of those accounts were made by those who would have been the contemporaries of jesus.
The second thing you should notice is that the accounts that are worth anything at all (meaning, those in the first century, at the very minimum) depend at the first level on reports made by Christians, and which are in many of the examples at the second level causing considerable irritation to the Romans and to the Greeks.
The conclusion one can draw is that Christians say that Christ existed (what, are they going to say he didn't exist?) and that the authorities of the day werre well and truly vexed by the activities of the Christians.
There are no accounts that say "Christus paid for 20 chickens today", or "We crucified Christus today" or "Christus the Carpenter delivered unto me a fabulous wood chair and door today."
Christ may indeed have existed. But nothing on that page in any way provides solid support for the idea.
History will record (and accurately so) that the Heaven's Gate cult were so convinced that aliens were talking to them (as in right now, as in personally, as in real) that they committed mass suicide. People 2000 years from now who take this to mean that aliens did talk to them would be mistaken. However, they'll have a 2000-year thick veil to peer through, and they may not get it right. Or, for reasons of their own, much like those Christans hold dear, they may not be interested in getting it right.
Another important perspective on this is to consider a Tom Clancy novel. In a Tom Clancy novel, you'll find the CIA (real), Russia, England, USA, China and the old Soviet Union, (all real) President Reagan (real), various ships of war (almost all real) and various interesting personalities that interact with all this bona-fide historical stuff.
2000 years from now, will they believe that John Patrick Ryan was a CIA agent? Will they believe that John Clark was a CIA asassin? Will they believe that the Red October was a Soviet ship of war?
Here we have a book with myriad verifiable historical facts scattered about; in no way, we know today, do they make the other characters and the situations in the book actually real, but they do make them feel more real. That's why authors use real situations and characters; it sets the stage and makes suspension of disbelief easier.
Look at the bible. Look at it hard. It was put (vaguely and inconsistantly) together hundreds of years after the alleged fact, and after a considerable amount of tussling amongst the Christians. The KJV only emerged after the Great Bible, the Geneva bible and the Bishop's bible. One thousand and six hundred years after the events reported in the collection. Even then, after the KJV was moving into prominence, Hugh Broughon (1549-1612, English theologian and Hebrew scholar, born in Owlbury) wrote: "Tell his majesty ( meaning King James I ) that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent be urged on poor churches."
The NT certainly contains historical references. It contains references to people we're pretty sure were real because we have contemporary accounts of their existance (Roman emperors, for instance.) It also contains accounts of people we can't find anywhere else, other than as after-the-fact mentions that we can't be certain didn't arise from the description in the various codexes that were called upon to create the various bibles. Codexes, by the way, that do not always agree with each other, and which were definitely "cherry picked" to create the work we see today, the KJV. There are over five thousand historical manuscript copies of the NT. But only three are generally used as a source:
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The thing that bothers me the most about what is happening is that the entire scheme for the propogation of knowledge is being subverted. I would tend to say that until some serious articles on a given new grand theory have pass peer review and been printed in the likes of Science or Nature then the theory has no business showing up in the highschool classroom.
Was quantum mechanics taught in highschool just as it was being initially developed? How about evolution? Was plate techtonics? NO! These topics survived brutal peer review and were accepted as valid explanitory theories by the scientific establishment first. THEN they made their way to the middle and high schools for the teachers to teach.
The argument quickly arrives that the scientific establishment is biased against new theories (Such as ID) and it would never accept them. MALARKY! Each of the above listed theories and others like them were also underdogs with establishment against them. But, they won out over the (at the time) current theories because they were good theories with overwhelming and crushing evidence to support them.
If something like ID really raised any serious questions for scientists involved in research on the origins of life you can bet that they will try to answer them since the scientist that did could be rewarded with immortality like the kind given to Einstein, Darwin, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and others (not to mention a Nobel Prize).
The injection of unaccepted scientific theories into the school system for spongy minds to consume is just right out. Totally unacceptable.
All your attention are belong to my old internet meme.
If a flock of birds is flying around and one group of birds becomes geographically separated from the other, then it's possible for one group to evolve in such a way that they can't reproduce with the other. A new species of that bird emerges as a result. They're the same thing. See above. How about you present evidence that the world was intelligently designed instead? You're making the positive claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Bullshit. I'm a fucking computer science major who's taken one biology class in his entire college career, and I have to explain these simple concepts to someone who allegedly has a degree in the subject? Yeah, sure. What creationist diploma mill did you get it from? Vanguard University?
This is a victory for the fundamentalists because they aren't only making a change in the definition of science. They are also mandating the teaching of Intelligent Design "theory." The following quote from an LA Times article today explains a lot: Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them.... We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity -- not science." Our nation is based on Christianity, not science... I could have sworn that our country was founded on the idea of religious freedom. Weren't many of our founding fathers Deists or Unitarians? My fear is that is just part of an attack by the religious right on the foundations of science itself. If this attack is successful, we may have a generation of children who are scientific illiterates. If this happens, you can kiss American prosperity, and probably American democracy, goodbye.
I've seen loud proclamations of support for retaining the 'true definition of science', much head-scratching about why these fundies don't get it, and even more hand-wringing about where the world (and in particular, Kansas) is going, I've not seen any sign that anyone has understood either the motivation that drives these people or the means that they are using.
I'm not sure if this is because Slashdot readership is mostly American, or because the readership is completely geek. (sorry, couldn't resist that, no flames please).
Full disclosure: I'm an Indian in India, was born a Hindu, and have been mostly atheist/agnostic in my beliefs. However, while I don't believe in God in a flowing white beard (or the hundreds of other varieties in the Hindu pantheon), I also don't believe the universe can be explained by space, time, and a set of classical or probabilistic laws.
First, their motivation:
Imagine (I know it's hard, but try) that you believe passionately in the sacrifice of Christ and that the salvation of everyone lies in accepting him and in being forgiven for their sins. How painful must it be for you to see children in their formative years acquire a world view and emotional make-up which makes it impossible for you to get them to see your way of thinking? And there's no point in saying 'why can't they see evolution as God's way of making creation happen?' The reality is that it doesn't work that way. If the mechanism of creation is itself a few simple principles (variation/natural selection), then is there really a need for a Creator to have set them in motion at the beginning? You could take Him out of the picture, and the simple principles can still be there, and will still work. What makes people believe in a all-powerful, personalized God they can accept as saviour is a clear touchy-feely demonstration of sheer, raw power, and in this department, nothing beats creating the universe in 6 days. Get children to believe that, and you'll never have a shortage of souls getting in line to be saved.
Next, the means :
I hear a lot of people saying : 'what's wrong with their new definition, it seems to make things clearer'. This is nonsense. The old definition is :
seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us.
This is actually a very precise expression of attitude and intent, and this becomes clearer if it's changed slightly to read:
seeking natural explanations for everything we observe around us.
This is a frame of mind, and this is the true spirit of science. Through the ages, there has never been a shortage of explanations:
- Eclipses happen because we anger the Sun God.
- The invisible witch cut off his breathing (a popular explanation in India, not a long time ago, for deaths by tubercolosis)
The key attitude which separates science is that it says : 'I will look for non-supernatural principles and predictable rules for everything. It may be hard, but I'll keep trying. I think I'll find such an explanation if I keep trying'.
Read the new definition again. There a lot of fancy wording about experiments and hypotheses which seems to clarify, but is actually being used to hide the key change to the attitude. It doesn't say that science should try to explain everything anymore. In fact, with the bit about explanations being 'adequate', there's an logical next step: Why doesn't science restrict itself to things it is 'adequate' at, such as planetary motion and momentum conservation, and leave other things, like the creation of life, to other, more 'adequate ' explanations?.
On second thoughts, and at the risk of being flamed, I think the reason Slashdot isn't getting this is not because
What if God was the result of evolution?
This it the problem I have with the whole "intelligent design theory"... it doesn't answer the problem, it just moves it.
OK, you figured out where we came from... great... now, how 'bout that designer?
Not only that... but more questions arise:
- where is the designer now?
- how many others are there?
- do they have enemies?
- if we hook up with the enemies can we kick the designer's ass?
Pandora's Box if you ask me...
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Evolution, or natural selection, is not a 'theory' but an obvious phenomena that we observe around us every day of our lives, on everything from dog appearance to human hereditary conditions to software products. It is equally obvious (to me anyway, your opinion may differ) that the universe, our world, and all life was created by God. If people want to believe, however, that life arose from electric arcs in a primordial soup, that's their choice (given to them by God) and there's no reason to condemn them, punish them, threaten them, or torture them until they 'change' their minds. Faith cannot be instilled with fear, pain, legislation, or peer pressure, although that will never stop unbelievers from forcing other unbelievers to see things 'their' way.
Anyone who is afraid of *anything* that science may discover has no faith, to start with. Science and technology are, themselves, gifts from God that should be used to their fullest.
The simpler definition was ok, it was obvious they were being more general. Now they try to include more of it, and they necessarily include things under the definition of science that are not science.
Pseudoscientists like psychics... they can all test hypothesese, make measurements, observations, build theories, and use logical arguments in support of their ideas. What separates them from scientists, is the nature of their theories, and the core methods they use. Physicists, Biologists, etc, use stronger criterion for building theories.
It is true that scientific study uses hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and can incorporate logical argument, but having any one or even ALL of these are not sufficient for having science.
It is more important how they are used than that they are used.
The scientific method is most important.
more adequate explanations sounds like a subjective notion. It is not enough to build theories, they must always be theories that you can test: if you accept theories that you have no specific method to falsify if they are not true, then it is not science.
Science is ridiculous, but it's the best our minds can come up with on their own.
Oh but it is relevant when discussing this from a monothiestic viewpoint. Take the bible for example, it equates liars, gossips, murderers and homosexuals. So, from a christian-monothiestic viewpoint you would have to agree what I said is relevant. If you look at it from a secular-societal viewpoint then yes you are correct, but I dont think thats what I was referring to.