Slashdot Mirror
Britons Unconvinced on Evolution
pryonic writes "The BBC is reporting that more than half of Britons do not believe in evolution, with a further 40% advocating that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science classes. I'm a Brit myself, and I thought most people over here thought these views were outdated and lacked substance. None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected. Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country?"
On one hand, I'm happy to see that rampant idiocy isn't a uniquely American trait.
On the other hand, however, I'm seriously troubled by this. I guess I was kinda counting on the rest of the world to bitchslap America back to sanity sooner or later, but now it appears that we can't count on the global community saving the day for rationality.
Of particular concern is the statistics quoted:
In other words, 39% chose creationism, as there is no discernable difference between creationism and ID. Score another victory for ID, for once again successfully obfuscating the issue.
Even worse were the statistics regarding what to teach in schools:
Again, nice and confusing, especially when you consider that these statistics don't add up to 100%. I understand that some people would like to see more than one 'theory' taught (the old 'teach the controversy' BS), but displaying the results in this manner is misleading in the extreme. Equally confusing is the fact that the percentage of people who 'did not know' in the previous set of statistics isn't enumerated. One would assume it to be 13%, but in the light of the second set of statistics, who knows?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I'm against all public education systems. I don't believe they've worked.
That being said, if we must have them, let's focus on pure education -- facts, repetition, useful classes: how to read, write and perform basic math. At most, some basic scientific theory might be OK.
Everything else -- health, PE, higher sciences, diet -- leave it to the family or to competitive higher education.
If we cut back public education to ages 6-11 and strictly teach the basics, we can return thousands back to each family in tax savings. It'll be more than enough to let a parent stay home, teach with other parents helping and they can save money to send their kids to private upper education.
I think The Economist said it best:
"Intelligent Design is something Britons read about with a smirk before they turn to the Horoscope section"
(from memory, but very close)
Proof that Americans don't have a monopoly on ignorance!
steampunk web design
*Humanity* is a pack of low grade morons, folks. No one country or society has any lock on the Stupid Prize.
I don't understand why people get so hot and humid over this. Either way.. who cares.
did you forget to take your meds?
This seems to happen everywhere. Mostly people think that a certain idea, that perhaps has little scientific basis, should be taught in school, when they support the idea.
I believe in a creator. Sure. But should creation be taught in a science class? No. Why?
Because I know that somehow my religious beliefs that I want to teach to my children will not be taught according to how I believe. Worse off would be if they were completely opposed, like someone teaching creation by that damn spaghetti monster.
Keep science to science. Start teaching classes that encourage people to look at other viewpoints and learn to see the downsides of their own arguments. Only then will a generation gain the wisdom to not think this is such a great idea.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Shouldn't an educated atheist know how to spell atheist?
I don't understand why everyone feels it's necessary to misspell "atheist" by reversing the I and E.
Well-educated? Sure.
You mean that country in Europe where the head of state is also the head of the state's established church? And where you can't be head of state unless you're a member of the established church.
Believing in evolution is something of a vague concept. If I believe in the concept of natural selection (which is readily observable), do I have to believe that life came from a chance encounter of amino acids in some primordial soup a gazillion years ago? How much am I agreeing to?
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Is there any corner of the English-speaking world left for a liberal atheist/agnostic to turn to?
America is, well, America. Canada just took a turn rightwards. The UK is evidently just as much into Creationism as the US. Australia seems to have the same sort of draconian DRM as the US. South Africa... well, South Africa is mired in crime, so I wouldn't want to move there. Not sure about New Zealand...
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
You and your friends are well-educated Atheists, but I'm sure that most people aren't as educated, and even more aren't Atheists. You're less typical than you think.
I see the state of evolution education in the UK seems to parallel their state of dental hygiene. :)
What's even stranger they're one of the only first world countries that still believe that someone's bloodline can grant them some sort of economic, political and social status.
British Parliament repeals Law of Gravitation; Britons now forced to float around on the breeze. Tony Blair is said to be "put off."
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Personally, I see both the evolutionists and the IDers as overstating their respective positions. As far as I can tell, I haven't seen enough conclusive evidence on either side. For now, my official position is that I don't know what the origin of the species was.
Brit TEETH art sort of Neanderthal, so no evolution in that regard. Stems from all the royal in-breeding, I'm told, with a trickle-down effect.
Or maybe that's just my own misconception about you all. {wry grin}
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Is it proudly athiest or proudly agnostic?
I thought only Americans were decisive enough to be social athiests.
Wow. Fantastic deduction.
I do not understand how anyone can deny the truth of this. We see it in action time and time again. There are species that were introduced to Hawaii in modern times that have since evolved into new species. I saw one of the best arguments for evolution here on /. as a sig. It said "If you do not believe in evolution, why are you worried about the bird flu?"
Insert Generic Sig Here:
I wonder which demographics voted which? For instance, did the elderly vote heavily for the religious standpoints? What did the vast numbers of muslim immigrants vote? The poor vs. the rich(hence educated)? Was this a telephone poll, as certain demographics are pretty much switched over to cell lines this could make a difference. It's important to know which demographics need further educating.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
No-one who understands evolution is going to 'believe' in it.
If they accept it as a theory, then they could only be said to 'agree' with it.
This story probably means that 40% of britons don't have the foggiest idea what science is and think evolution is a faith-system. Of course, it's really based on proven facts, not the interpretation of evidence, isn't it ?
I mean seriously... do we all need to stroke our egos and remind everyone else how smart we are?
NEWS:
Regardless of how much evidence there is for something, someone else will be stubborn and ignore it.
This should spark some great debate on technology.
I am British and I am totally shocked by this. I always associated this sort of thing with the US and other deeply religious countries. Overt religious observance is rather unusual among Christians in the UK. I am just astounded and appalled by this report.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Nothing like denying education to the poor and middle to exacerbate the existing social divisions.
Heck, with all that money we save we could bring back debtor's prisons as well. Everybody wins!
There are massive problems with the creationist/intelligent design ideas within the UK. And depending on how the statistics are gathered will very easily be skewed. For example There are large jewish and muslim communities within the UK that have separate schools. Those schools more than often teach these alternative/mainstream ideas. There has been several fairly high profile documentaries that cover these exact topics on several different channels. Personally I know only muslim people that believe in creationism everyone else I know believe in evolution.
I'm horribly confused now. Brits are more into ignorance than us Americans...? When did this happen? Oh, wait, they must assume it's *fashionable* to be idiotic, what with Paris Hilton and the other celebrity abominations against evolution.
And Canada just elected a conservative prime minister? Australia's turning against consumer rights? Where the fuck am I supposed to live?
That's it! I can't take anymore. I'm going to buy an island somewhere in a delightful climate not too far from Japan and name it "Slashdotte-upon-GoodReasonne". You are all invited.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
What more is there to say. The US may have a groundswell of fundamentalist nitwits, but ignorance and stupidity are human traits no matter where you live on Earth. People believe weird shit wherever they live and their own lack of critical facilities means they'll cling tenaciously to bizarre notions no matter how much evidence you fling at them that says otherwise.
I'd like to see the questions they asked for the survey. It's all too easy to get the results you want with carefully worded questions. I can't think of anyone I know who believes in such nonsense, so I'm taking this with significantly large grain of salt.
That's your credential. To others it's a bone of contention. You might like to keep your bias in check. Just because you are atheistic doesn't mean you are well educated or vice-versa, if you get my drift. Consider people have the right to their belief, challenging them based upon education isn't very fair, because education has standards (of all sorts.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
C'mon... no matter what the arguement, when are people going to realize that there are a few million other people out there that may have a differing opinion than their own little group of friends?
I myself am a Pagan, and I believe in Intelligent Design and evolution. My beliefs are different that 95% (est.) of the rest of the U.S., but I at least give a little credence to the opinions of others...
... elipses...
There goes the theory that the U.S. has a monopoly of idiots.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"but we're all well educated athiests".
As opposed to the dumb creationists?
I'm tired of atheists thinking they have the upper hand on us faithful believers.
Maybe it's God's intention to test our faith after we've been 'educated' by the world.
Really, your education could be just as wrong as our education could be.
James Taylor
(No, I'm not related. However, I am on the no-fly list)
but we're all well educated athiests
Well educated indeed.
I like how you crafted a well reasoned arguement, and supported your position with compelling, relevant facts.
The only thing your argument proves is that the education system failed YOU.
You sir, should demand your money back!
we're all well educated athiests
So the obvious implication is that if you're "well educated" then you cannot believe in God and must be an atheist. I think many "well educated" people would disagree.
BTW, does being "well educated" include misspelling atheist?
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
"None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected."
Wow, never thought I'd see a comment like that get posted in an article summarry on the front page. Thank you, Slashdot, for giving me a dose of religious bashing with my morning cup of coffee.
To the article submitter:
Funny how your "education" doesn't allow you to see the irony in your own viewpoint, let alone your mis-conceptions.
1. Education has nothing to do with faith. There are plenty of educated people (more so than you) who believe in God, and plenty who don't.
2. No amount of education will allow you to disprove (or prove) the existence of God or creationism. Saying your education allows this is blatantly wrong.
3. Creationism and ID are not the same thing.
Creationists believe in evolution, but they just believe in micro evolution. This part of Science has been observed. They don't believe in macro, cosmic, and other base parts of evolution. Most science professors and teachers teach micro and then lump all the other kinds of evolution into it.
The problem with your idea is the same as the problem with just about any major change in public tax policy. Market forces cut both ways.
Many people suggest that if we cut taxes in way x, y, or z that suddenly the increase in take home income will change our society in way X, Y, or Z. What isn't being acknowledged is that companies are paying people just as much as they have to for the people to do their jobs.
If you cut out the public education system then yes, some people will use that extra money to stay home and teach their children. Many who are barely making it by right now will instead say "Hey, educating the kids is no longer mandatory and I finally have the money to really get by. The kids can get a job like delivering papers, I can keep working my job, and we'll finally be secure."
People don't do this because they're cruel Dickensian taskmasters bent on exploiting their children. They do this because economic hardship tends to focus attention on short-term goals.
Companies will notice that they're able to pay their employees slightly less because the employees are making more take-home income. In many jobs companies aren't competing to keep employees from moving to another company. They're competing to keep the employees from moving to a different field. Health care is a good example of this. Nurses are paid just enough to not quit and go into a job where they don't have to stick their fingers in peoples' bums.
No company will immediately *cut* wages on this basis but inflation is always there, ready to eat up the margin when wages are not raised as fast.
All these factors would mean that the switchover to home education would happen at rather less than full efficiency. We can't afford that, because even with public education most people end up pretty ignorant. If a significant portion of the population starts opting out, we're headed right back for the Victorian class system, where the poor genuinely have no chance to learn.
Keep in mind also that the parents can only teach at home what they already know. Does your local 7-11 clerk know enough to teach his son physics? Does he understand the value of physics well enough to pay for his son to learn it? Doubtful on both counts. No way for his son to get a better life in any field his father doesn't understand.
As an Englishman in my late 30s I call utter bullshit on this article. These are the fanciful lies of someone with an agenda. I don't know where they pretend to have got their research from, but it's patently untrue. I never met a single person over here who even heard of "intelligent design" (a USA manufactured nonsense) and seriously nobody believes in creationism, even really old people. A more interesting question for me is, why would someone make up such an obvious pack of lies and for what reason?
No it doesn't beg the question, but it certainly raises it.
That was a sample from 0.0033% of the population of the UK.
I was wondering if the numbers would differ if the survey could evolve into one that samples a larger number of people?
Of course, I do understand that getting people to respond to surveys is so hard that you almost need Divine Intervention.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
If evolution should be taught with a disclaimer .. that cavet should be stated at every science class .. from chemistry to physics.
:) ).
Everything in science is a theory: The sun rose today, yesterday, and the day before, so it's likely it will rise again tomorrow.
While I agree in principle, I think that a general understanding of the process of science and an explanation of the basis of how the theory came about is enough to reinforce that evolution is not "fact". Only a fool would think it's factual then (in which case we might win some of the ID "theorists"
I really have difficulty in beleiving this. Even here in god-fearing catholic Ireland, everyone I know thinks that creationism is bunk. The only thing I can think of is that they stood in the middle of the street and shouted, "Anyone like to give their views on Creationism and Intelligent Design?" That way they would only have got the religious nuts who espouse this pre-enlightenment throwback. Even the Vatican says that Intelligent Design is not science.
Since when is England any different than most other countries? The Prime Minister's wife is one of the biggest pseudoscience, psychic friends nutsos out there. The country is obsessed with talking psychically with Princess Diana. Homeopathy is just as popular in Englang as everywhere else even after being disproved so many times. I think maybe you just need to come off you high horse and stop believing that England is any safer from ignorance than anywhere else.
That's just bull. Creationism isn't a theory. It's a religious belief. Faith isn't theory.
And evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. We may not have it completely nailed down, but there is no doubt about it.
At the risk of offending the "highly intelligent and well educated athiests" out there...
:-)
I would say that it is unfair to lump faith into the "ignorant" category. Sure, intelligent design is a lame concept, but if any of you have taken Philosophy 101, you can't argue with the leap of faith. Sooner or later you have to believe in something--whether it's your own conclusions or a supreme being.
Unfortunately, the loudest of the Christians are the most ignorant so please don't assume that they are all Pat Robertsons. I'm not trying to convert anyone into believing in Creation or arguing that it should be taught as "science"--I'm just asking for some respect for the millions of Christians who don't force their belief system on you.
Save the bashing for the Scientologists
If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it?
Yes. Any molecular biology textbook is full of factual proofs of evolution.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
ID isn't science. Personally, I have no problem with it being taught in a philosophy class, though apparently others do when it's a philosophy class in a government-funded high school.
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
I agree with the theory of evolution myself , but does it really
matter if most of the , shall we say, none too bright members of
society don't? Some of them can't even read or write any better
than a pre-teen (no I'm not exaggerating). Do we really expect or
care whether these morons understand evolution, quantum physics
or even how to boil an egg? I know I sound like a terrible
intellectual snob but the vast majority of a population of any
country simply makes up the numbers , they contribute nothing to
the scientific or cultural advancement of the country or humanity
in general and simply follow what everyone else does. Frankly they're
opinions on anything are pretty much irrelevant as they can easily
be swayed one way or another anyway. Witness the lowest common
denominator approach of most political campaigns.
Last time I checked, Jolly Old had its own boonies and country-folk. The farther you get away from civilization the more you find loonies running around making up Gods from the Machine. I am not shocked that someone can take the MAJORITY of Americans (living outside of the major cities) and show them to stupid - nor do I believe that the Brits are impervious to idiots in the hills.
ID/Creationism are not scientific theories, and so have no place in a science class. In a philosophy or religion class for example, I think these subjects can be openly discussed.
The main issue with this type of question is that people simply don't know what science is. That is not so scary when we are talking about J. Average in the poll, but quite scary when you realize that the people who decide what is to be taught in science class don't have a basic understanding of what science is.
If someone explained to these people what science is, and what qualifies as science, then perhaps a compromise could be reached if ID/Creationism would still taught in another class? The public however I can't really see comprehending the difference between science and non-science anytime soon. The reason of course being that science class obviously doesn't teach that.
One is a statement of faith, the other is a statement of fact. Facts should be taught in the public schools. Faith should be taught in the home. The very idea that students should be confounded by faith-based ideas while trying to understand the complexities of the universe is a stunning concept. Parents desiring that their children be taught faith-based ideas along-side facts should put their children in private faith-based schools. I see this as just another cop-out by those folks who want the government to raise their children for them.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
There is no theory of evolution -- only a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
I have no problem with people believing in ID but I do have a problem with representing this as science in school. What is wrong with teaching pure Darwninian evolution? The people who are religious will have no problem combining pure evolution with the existence of god. Why do people insist on trying to teach religion and science mixed? Both can live together IMHO and religious people should understand that the teaching of pure science in no way threatens their religious beliefs. The fact that some *are* threatened is a whole different topic... those people want to force religion on other people.
The difference is in common ancestry and the ages of the earth & universe.
"Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism. And, sometimes, Old Earth Creationism, which has an old Earth but says that God made life directly.
ID is about saying that there are features of the life we see that point to design, generally by saying that the features are too complex. This can include Theistic Evolutionists, if they believe that God stepped in to tweak the evolutionary process in key places. ID says nothing about common ancestry or the ages of the earth & universe.
Half of the population are stark raving idiots.
Another plug for the standard normal distribution!
If so, then please explain to me how either one of these scenarios can be true:
A species (chimpanzees, our "closest" relatives, for example) with 21 pairs of chromosomes can EVOLVE into one with 22 pairs. Do the fossil records indicate critters with 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4.... pairs of choromosomes?
If not, then explain how a (presumably) mutant new example of an "evolved" chimpanzee with 22 pairs of chromosomes can find another exactly evolved 22-paired mutant -- at the same time -- in the same place -- recognize him or her -- and develop a brand new and unique mating ritual that works. All of these steps are recognized as being necessary to begin to form a new species.
That said, to deny Darwinism is to ignore the stages and features our own embryos develop and discard: gills, tail, front legs.
So, it appears to me that both Darwinism and ID leave a lot out of their little worlds.
Perhaps that's why they argue so much and so loudly: they're both overselling their cases.
...you're arrogantly dogmatic.
None of which is science, except conceivably the aliens - who would presumably have to have evolved themselves.
Shall we also teach the 'Aliens have placed giant rocket engines on the backs of all the planets to make them move round the Sun' theory in addition to the theories of Kepler and Newton?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
There is something to be said about separation of Church and State.
And something Noodley is going to say it...
kulakovich
The problem with evolution is that it is an apparently simple idea, that is actually quite complex. This means that many people think they understand it, think it couldn't work in practice, and are sceptical about it.
It's very common when discussing evolution with people that they bring up the idea that it is a "random" process. I think this comes down to the way that it is taught - I think sometimes at school level the teachers themselves don't really get it. I've found allowing people to actually "see" evolution happening using good computer models is the most effective way to get people to understand it.
It amazes me that people like you laugh at ID or Creationism and call it rampant idiocy. If you actually took a look at the FACTS that ID/Creationism focuses on with an open mind, you might start to see that believing in evolution is unscientific.
I didn't want to consider the alternative, but if you look at BOTH with an open mind and acutally evaluate each side's arguments you will see what I am talking about.
Welcome to the Second Dark Ages. The first time it happened about 1500 years ago it was probably accidental. This time ignorance appears to be fashionable :(
My website
wrong.
there is no evidence for creationism.
the phenomenon of evolution is an observed fact.
the "theory of evolution" is an explanation for the observed facts.
there is no scientific debate over whether the phenomenon of evolution is real. the only debate is in the details of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
the theory of evolution is the basis for modern biology. it works, people use it. the only thing creationism has ever helped is the bank balances of fundamentalist churches.
"Over 2000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the ORIGIN and development of life:"
Evolution doesn't explain the ORIGIN of life, so it was a faulty question. Nobody suggested the big bank is evolution...
Does it not annoy any other British people here that the breif description fails to mention that this survey was carried out by 2000 people, there is 60 million currently living in the UK so I fail to see how these 2000 people represent all 60 million of us. Also I mainly sya this because I don't want to be assosiated with such an idiotic country that the article describes.
So please tell me where this proud secular country is. It disappoints me when editors add these comments which don't add to the core values of a story.
"Just a theory" is what someone with a grade-school understanding of science might claim.
There is no "further thought" required when one is correct. The truth has no obligation to be "fair" to morons.
In the UK, total church attendance averages around 3m a week out of a population of over 60m. The churches are always trying to attract new member, they always fail, although the happy-clappy types had a brief period of success before collapsing.
So we're looking at less than 5% of the country attending to the worship practices of their religion. Now consider that there are over 3m registered people with the FA, the FA being England's Football Association (soccer). I.e. more people play club football in England that the entire UK has church goers.
Maybe I am wrong and have been living in denial all this time, because my Boss sure does resemble a JackAss.
I was once told a story by a friend who is Jewish, I am an atheist, he said that "The Rabis think it's quite amusing that Christians take the Genesis story to be the literal truth." You see, the old testament is derived from the Torah. Rabis have been studying it for a long time (i.e. millenia).
Additionally, it should provide a clue when the Vatican itself proclaims that "The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with the Bible, it is fundamentalists who are trying to read literally a portion of the bible which was never meant to be interpreted scientifically."
People seem, for whatever reason, bound and determined to believe in this myth. Why? Who knows. If they want to be ignorant, let them be. There's too much scientific evidence in favor of evolution to deny that it's true.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Britons are also the most "American" Europeans. Beside the obviously shared language, they are the fattest, are America's allies in the civil war in Iraq and are more economically tied to the American economy than the rest of Europe.
Somehow I doubt the distinctions in ID were of importance.
The real success of the ID campaign is its rousin gup of the audience, inciting people into a fury of various emotions, and making the subject altogether taboo.
I tire of all these emotional responses, for that's what ID wants. When we seriously react to it as if it were serious, we give it power. A better reponse is to shirk it off, giggle a bit, and equate it to an urban legend... why not add it to Snopes?
The Custom Mary
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
I skimmed the list of resources provided and found one that cuts to the core of the matter. Written by Harry T. Cook, it is titled, Don't Fall For It (.pdf file). The next to last paragraph lays it all on the table:
This is a plea for people of reason (religious or not) to refrain from being drawn into the argument that proponents of intelligent design are wont to make, viz, that their "theory" deserves equal time with Darwin & Co.'s. It does not. Intelligent design is the product of a slick theology masquerading as science. Evolution is the product of painstaking, step-by-step, trial-and-error science. Therefore, evolution and intelligent design do not belong at opposing poles of the same argument.
There were other writings that I read which state similar ideas but his was the most memorable and the most correct.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
What do you expect? The UK is the same country where a mob attacked a pediatrician's office because they thought they were a pedophile with a fancy sign in the front yard to advertise their perversion.
Ditto.
There are some things which seem will always be true. The rest of the world may hate ( justifiably ) my country, but Britian will be a true friend through thick and thin.
As an American I felt alone in a country where the christian taliban reelected George Bush and brought back creationism from its death at the Scopes Monkey trial from the 20s.
Never fear, the UK reelected Tony Blair and now this survey.
George Orwell got it right. The U.K., US, & Canada are the defacto unit of the future ( he called it "Oceania"). Heck Britian has that new system that will track the movements of ordin ary citizens. We have the NSA and wiretapping shamelessly authorized by the president.
Throw in the outsourcing and it looks like the people who control Oceania are converting it to a 3rd world country. Religion, Walmart jobs, and a fascist government. Just like 1984.
Dumb, poor, and scared.
Talk about smug, blinkered parochialism. Evolution, forsooth.
ID doesn't belong in the classroom as part of a science class. There is absolutely no evidence to support it at all. Science is far from iron-clad, but there are at least observations and experiments to back up theory. ID on the other hand seems to stem from a lack of observation and depends more on faith and ignorance. I don't want my kids taught something that has absolutely no foundation from which to build on. Science has that. Until ID proponents can find the blueprints for us, they have nothing. Think about it, there is more evidence that Bigfoot exists than there is of an intelligent designer.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Nothing to see her people, move along...
The only reason I can figure this is on slashdot is to give the anti-religion fiends more blood to drink. There is no eason this should be on slashdot, at all. We already know most people here don't like religion and don't support religious teachings in public schools, so do we need to have ANOTHER post about it?
Sure, Britons believe in ID and creationism. Guess what? MOST OF THE WORLD DOES! Yes, most of the world is, indeed, religious in one way or another, and of everyone that is religious, the top 5 religions, all believe in God or many Gods.
So, like I said, move along...
The course description reads:
And, while ID is alleged not to be a Christian theory (making no claims about who the Intelligent Designer is), the teacher of this class was the wife of a fundamentalist minister, and wrote "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach."The difference, in my view, is like that of a "Religions of the World" theology class vs. Sunday School.
you're not an atheist. if you were you would have killed yourself along time ago. dumby. you just have daddy isssues that you like to take out on a father figure by yelling "i dont believe in you!" at the sky or some shit like that.
Some people want to be indoctrinated. Who will fill the void?
.. do politicians need certification of any kind? Maybe a certificate in economics at least?
.. he was bitching that people are stupid and that they choose to do things based on crap/chance.
Science is too complicated. Minimum energy path wins. Why do you think people win elections with sound bites? The guy who gives the easiest to understand speech that tugs the most emotions wins. A doctor has to go through 8 years of med school and pass a bunch of exams
You know when they killed Socrates for basically opposing democracy
Would be interesting to see various break-downs:
By education levels
Recent immigrants/vs at least 3rd generation British
Religious vs/non religious
By age groups
By gender
By race
By income levels
By occupation (yeah, this is interesting to me)
By political association
etc.
Interesting stuff.
You can't handle the truth.
In a word: Wrong. There is NO scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. None at all. I challenge you to name one. Remember, it has to be scientific, i.e. published in a peer-reviewed journal with a good reputation. Comments by Texans on blogs do not count.
There are holes in the Theory of Evolution and it is difficult to prove it. Yet, there is plenty of published evidence to support it. The only "scientifc" argument ID proponents seem to make is "Look, Evolution is flawed, so we must be right."
The entire point is moot though, as ID simply is not a scientific theory at all. To be a valid scientific theory, you have to be testable and verifiable (you don't have to prove that you're right though - but you have to make a good scientific argument that you might be). ID is not. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.
And asking that ID be taught in science classes is just ridiculous. Teach it in Religion classes, because that's where it belongs. If you wanna teach it as a science, you might as well teach Alchemy as an alternative to Chemistry.
Sorry I can't get the full Gallup Article link, their damn registration kills me. BugMeNot for those who want to read it.
When I originally read that Gallup Poll Headline I thought to myself "What the hell, 30% of this country is borderline retarded." I then read the article and realized that it is not 30% but 60%. Actually 66.6(repeating of course) percent.
Frankly, I refuse to believe my fellow countrymen are this ignorant - I certainly have never encountered anyone this stupid in 30 years of living in the UK.
And yet another whine about a common typo (two letter swap) is effective... how, exactly?
What use are these polls, a useful poll would be one given to people who actually know what they're talking about. Know both sides of the argument and can make a judgement based on facts instead of faith or what they 'feel' is right. I had a gf that was a catholic but never seemed to know anything about the other side of the coin though she claimed to. She refused to learn or read. Ignorance is bliss I suppose, but it's no way to live.
This isn't really that surprising. Disgusting, yes, surprising, no. It's mostly poor education: people don't actually understand evolution. Hell, I know many sensible Britons whose understanding of basic physics is pre-Newtonian. Look at the number of homeopathy or Reki massage centres and other crap in this country.
That said, I am always a little suspicious of these polls, because there is a selection bias inherent in the type of people who actually bother to stop and answer the question.
Most people make the same mistake. Believing that those around themselves are a representative sample of the city/state/province/country/world at large. But, it isn't, and well executed surveys of larger populations usually show depressing levels of idiocy/people not like you. ---- spelling errors painstakingly added for your reading pleasure.
I agree with your statements. Just thought I'd point out something interesting about "atheists vs. faithful believers." It seems to me that atheists have abundantly more faith than any believer. I believe it takes more faith to believe that there is no God.
An analogy to illustrate: Suppose that you took all of the individual components of a fine Swiss watch, threw them into a bag, and shook them up for 20 billion years. What are the chances that, when you open the bag, you will have a fully-assembled fine Swiss watch? Now, follow the analogy of our infinitely complex universe compared to the relatively simple fine Swiss watch. That really takes much more faith than I will ever possess for an atheist to believe that there is no God.
A while ago, I read an interview with the Flying Spaghetti Monster creator (no pun intended). He said the biggest mistake that American academia has made was to ignore the ID movement. It was so absurd, academics thought that if they ignored them, they would go away, or they did not want to give attention to those nutjobs. That method, he said, obviously has not worked.
Everyone *must* attack anyone that even thinks ID has any sort of legitimacy. Mock them, ridicule them, call them lunatics and extremeists, accuse them of not caring for the education of children, call them bad parents, expose them, and God-forbid (oh, the irony) if they are elected, vote them out like they did in Dover, PA! Make it clear to your school boards that if ID is even mentioned as a "maybe," the board members will be ousted!
...Tell me what is the point in debating ID over evolution or the opposite? Science vs Relegion? Why in the world should those two be enemies? One (Science) is explaining how things came to be and the other is trying to explain why. I really don't get the whole debate. Or is anyone taking Genesis word by word as true history. It would be kind of funny if God was to explain to prehistoric nomads that they evolved from apes. I'm sure they would have the mental capacity to understand that they are not being made fun of...;)
As subject.
not to religious fanatics determined to refuse to believe in it because they think doing so would send them to hell. those are, by and large, the only people who haven't been convinced by the evidence for evolution by this time; those, and perhaps a silent majority of people who haven't bothered to even try to study basic biology at all.
If we cut back public education to ages 6-11 and strictly teach the basics, we can return thousands back to each family in tax savings.
Your taxes really that bad? I pay $800 a year on my 4 bedroom house on several acres of land. I'm not sure how that will educate my child. That will barely purchase textbooks and materials. I know. My parents homeschooled my siblings for a period of time. Not everyone is qualified to be a teacher. I know this too. My parents homeschooled my siblings for a period of time.
if you want to homeschool, pick your reasons, and make damn sure you are cut out to be a teacher.
The more I think about, the more I feel that it secularism really crushes people's spirit. It doesn't really matter what people believe, if it makes them happier to believe it. The myths, legends, fairy tales and religions of the world's societies are what gives them their character. Its definitely much more enjoyable than today's bland, secular consumer society.
Moral relativism means just that, relative. It does not mean than you oppress or stamp out everyone's unique belief systems.
I'm skeptical -- I really. We spent a whole philosophy class learning that Intelligent Design wasn't very strongly adopted in europe. That coupled with the fact that the vatican and many other major religious institutions reject intelligent and creationism ..
I'd guess it'll be covered in the programme tonight.
There's more detail on the content here; it looks like it's largely about the recent shenanigans in the US. The UK poll they ran was probably incidental, to provide a baseline for comparison. According to that page, in the US over 50% believe we arrived in the world just as described in the Bible... ugh!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
(Taken from my weblog Jan 22, 2006, at least 30% on topic)
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Every now and then I take stock of my beliefs. I think everybody should do the same. After all, I'm a work in progress, and so are my opinions. That which I believed yesterday might have failed to hold up in the light of today. I often wonder what will happen to my beliefs in the four or five decades remaining in my life. Will I lose my pragmatic viewpoint, and embrace faith? Or will I increase my demand that proof accompany any extraordinary claim? I don't know what the future holds.
Do I believe in the existence of God? No.
Do I believe in the nonexistence of God? No.
I do not have belief in either of these scenarios, for both questions ask me to make a definitive call as to the state of being of something inherently unprovable. All I can say with any degree of confidence is that if God does exist, I'm pretty sure that no religion on the planet has anything resembling a true understanding of the entity. I'd be willing to bet they've got everything wrong.
I do know that I fully agree with the 1995 U.S. federal court ruling on Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District. The district had a requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The court ruled that intelligent design was inherently religious in nature, and so rejected the requirement. For something to be a science, it must be consistent, empirically tested and falsifiable, correctable, dynamic, progressive, provisional, and based on multiple observations. Intelligent design fails most of these basic requirements. I don't believe you can replace a scientific theory with a philosophical one. By all means, teach religion in schools with religious affiliations. But don't teach it in science class.
I actually believe there is a great deal of instructional value in examining the debate itself in the classroom. Recently I've been absorbing the arguments on creationism versus evolution. There is powerful logic on both sides of this debate - showstoppers all around. Education should not simply be an exercise in knowledge transfer. Facts are lonely items. Don't teach your class that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution. Discuss with them the debate itself, where the philosophical issues lie, and why each view is difficult to refute.
Teach them to think in different ways, and to see things from the perspective of others. But when it comes right down to it, on one side is a slow progression of knowledge, and on the other side is the completely unprovable. Faith is the cornerstone of religion. You have to have faith, because there is no proof. If you had proof, you wouldn't need faith. Keep it out of the science class, that's all. It's the ultimate apples-and-oranges discussion.
Do I believe that organized religion has merit? Yes I do.
Do I believe that the benefits of organized religion outweigh the costs? That's a much more difficult question. I'm leaning towards saying that organized religion is not worth the price we have paid for it. I'm sure that no system populated by man, no matter how divinely inspired, is free of corruption. As Lord John Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrups absolutely."
I believe that the upper echelons of every powerful religion resemble those of every major government. These organizations are concerned with retaining power, protecting themselves, and maintaining the status quo.
I believe spirituality can exist without dogma.
I believe that a sense of the divine can be better felt on a mountaintop at sunrise than within the walls of St. Peter's Basilica.
I believe that the collection and hoarding of great art and riches renders a religious institution completely null and void. It is a self-defeating process. A religion
I never met a single person over here who even heard of "intelligent design" (a USA manufactured nonsense) and seriously nobody believes in creationism, even really old people.
I met a woman recently that preaches at a church in the UK, and my guess is that there are quite a few other churches in that country as well. I won't be visiting and able to verify this with my own eyes until this summer, but I would wager that there are quite a few people who do, in fact, believe in creationism. Just because you aren't friends with them doesn't mean they don't exist. Just the same, simply because you disagree with something doesn't make it false, and just because you haven't found an answer doesn't mean there isn't one.
Whatever happened to freedom to believe whatever you want? The biggest crime is NOT that some folks hold outdated views - it's the bashing upon them by the folks who consider themselves to be the sole container and promulgator of the TRVTH.
Say I believed the earth is flat. Does that add to or detract from YOUR well being? Thank $DIETY I am free to believe it, and curses to those who want to humiliate me because of it. You are perfectly free to prostelyze and spread your view of the 'round earth theory' (which I consider a theory only), but once you start treating and persecuting me like some dangerous criminal you've crossed the line and I only become MORE defensive. Remember, this Jesus person said his believers would be, and have been, persecuted for their beliefs. The militant wing of the Evolutionary Biologists are starting to look like Nazi's who want to round up and execute those filthy UNBELIEVERS.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html
creationism, ID, and evolution are not even necessarily contradictory.
let's say "God created intelligently, and his creations evolved."
thus picking one of creationism, ID, and evolution would be nonsensical, because if you believed this statement (I do not but that is a digression) then you then "believe" in all 3.
evolution is not a theory that deals with the origins of the universe.
creationism and ID are not beliefs (I did not say theories) that deal with the progression, proliferation, and diversification of life.
how did the universe begin? how did life begin? what was before that?
asimov had a fun story about it called The Last Question that is a nice little read. Arthur C Clarke has a short called The Nine Billion Names of God that isn't terrible reading either.
if this kind of thing interests you, The Abolition of Man might interest you as well, or even Chesterton's Orthodoxy.
MORTAR COMBAT!
It surprises me to think that ID would be taken so harshly. No one seems to think ill of the possibility that aliens could have populated the planet, so why couldn't they have engineered us?
Of course, speaking of some kind of creating being, anything with the intelligence to create a universe that is self creating (evolution) would have to be termed intelligent. After all, isn't easier to have a building that builds itself rather than have to be attendant to every part of the process?
"On one hand, I'm happy to see that rampant idiocy isn't a uniquely American trait."
This statement make me feel sad.... Its like saying we have slavery here and its bad...but it mnakes feel happier you have it over there too !!
The less people are bigot anywhere will help reduce bigotism here....just because the flow of information tend to make people aware of other options or way of thinking (at least that what i think but then i am wrong many times !)
.
All gods are fake Biology is real. f---ing morons fit right in with world is flat and earth is cener of world crap.
There IS a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design does NOT necessary imply that God did it, but that some intelligence did it. A good article rebuking the points that so many people like you make is at: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1 .html
I won't tell you who the author is because if you knew beforehand, you'd never read it. People like you argue that there is no difference because of your prejudiced attitude against religion, especially Christianity. You're just a typical, know-it-all British twit to me. By the way, we don't need or want your bitchslapping as the US courts seem to handling the controversy quite well and frankly, I think your precious country is going to Hell in a handbasket a lot quicker than mine is.
The degree at which the Slashdot community is against ID flows from how much they believe science dominates all other ways of thinking. Its a superiority complex really. My way of thinking is better than your way of thinking, so I must be right on all accounts. Of course, a sane person may stop to ponder that.
God spoke to me.
or
"macro"
or
"cosmic"
There is only "evolution". All those other terms have been created by various religious people in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Which is the reason that they aren't used in actual biology textbooks.
I'm not sure I get the problem behind all this ..
..
Evolution = animals evolved through time and gave, eventually, birth to an extraordinary animal amidst them, the human being.
creationism & ID = the fact that human beings exist is extraordinary up to such a level one should take into account the possibility that there was something behind all this - a creator of sorts.
It seems as if people see an incompatibility between those. But evolution shows us how human beings came into existence, and creationism states opinions about the existence of those human beings, no ? There's no reason why one couldn't believe in evolutionism AND believe in a Creator ?
As such, I believe that evolutionism should certainly be thought at school. However, intellectual honesty should be a sufficient motive to argue - at that very same place - that science answers a different question than ID/creationism. Children should know that evolutionnism doesn't impose atheism/agnosticism/christianism/any other form of religious belief
When an organism reproduces, random genetic mutations are introduced - the offspring is takes a mutated version of the parent(s)' DNA. Over hundreds and thousands of generations, these mutations are responsible for the gradual evolution of the species by Natural Selection - the beneficial mutations tend to predominate and the 'fittest survive'.
For a bug to evolve into an animal would require millions of generations, and that requires tens of millions of years. Bacteria reproduce much more rapidly and the tens of millions of generations required to evolve considerably may only take a few months.
This is why we see evolution taking place more rapidly and more noticably in bacteria and viruses: they reproduce so much faster than, for example, apes.
i've often wondered why this concept hasn't been entertained by more people, to be honest. incidentally; if this gets marked as trolling or flamebait, then i'll be pretty disappointed. i am a christian. as such, i believe in the idea that God created us. however; i look at the way that the ecosystem fits together, the niches that the various species occupy, and i can't help but wonder if any mind could have started a project (i.e. creation), and intended it to come out as it has today. which leads me to the next part; what if (and this is just an if - you'd need to be a better theologian/philosopher/scientist than me to prove/disprove this) the current biological state of every species on the planet has evolved from an original design? i think that there's a fair chance that both evoluion and creationism are true; no-one ever said that God's idea of seven days was going to be the same as ours... for all we know, His 7 days could be our 4.6 billion years. in which case, i ask you; have you never gone back to redress something that you designed some time ago? maybe that's how evolution wokrs out. before i get some over-zealous types having a go at me, dubbing me a heretic, i'd like to add this: we were, according to every faith, given free will. this amounts to being able to define ourselves, and develop ourselves. hence; we can enforce our own evolution. the word 'evolution' does not directly preclude the existence of God; it means that a biological agent can adapt itself over time, is all. if we're designed to survive in a given environment, and we change that environment, does it not necessarily follow that we would adapt to maintain ourselves? isn't the point of good design to be able to adapt and survive to the surrounding environment? in which case, this whole debate is pointless, and the proto-fundamentalists in middle america (who i have precisely zero respect for, by the way) can all shut up, and stop bible thumping. they're giving all of us religious types a really, really bad name. anyhoo, that's just my personal view upon it. if i'm wrong, then i'm wrong. either way, don't flame me purely because it's not the most scientific of views, please...
http://xkcd.com/313/
Just to give you guys the heads up, the BBC are actually plugging 'Horizon: A War on Science'
which airs on BBC2 tonight @ 2100GMT.
Hopefully someone will record it and make it available on bittorent / usenet so the rest of the world can watch it.
I'm not sure where they pulled these figures from but certainly most people I know bar one who is a devout Christian don't believe in creationism or intelligent design. Given that most people here in the UK are more likely to go shopping on a Sunday morning rather than go to church, I'm trying to decide if the average Joe six-pack / football mom in the UK really is just stupid or just doesn't care.
"I'm a Brit myself, and I thought most people over here thought these views were outdated and lacked substance. None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID.
Quite frankly this BBC study is bollocks!
No-one believes in that religious crap over here. It's only the Americans that still do that.
such fusions happen relatively often, and usually result in individuals that can live perfectly normal lives, although they're somewhat less fertile than their conspecifics. the very rare thing is for such a mutation to become fixed in a genome and spread widely; in vertebrate animals, that sort of thing is genetically tricky. (though obviously not impossible, considering humans exist.)
see also: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Thanks OP. Glad to see some acknowledgment that evolution is something that has to be believed just like creationism/ID.
- 22% chose creationism
- 17% opted for intelligent design
In other words, 39% chose creationism...
I'm not sure I agree. Creationism seems to be the "traditional" God creation myth from the Bible. I think "intelligent design" advocates could arguably be a bit more enlightened. Consider the following argument.
Alan Turing showed that any computing machine was equivalent in computing capability to a Turing machine, albeit with performance differences. Advocates of "strong AI" claim that human brains are also equivalent to Turing machines. Extending this, "strong AI" advocates would generally also claim that the entire universe is a Turing-equivalent computing machine. And going a step beyond this, one could imagine that this universe is a computing machine within a larger framework of computing machines. Or, put another way, there could be some intelligent programmer "outside" of our universe who created the computing machine that is our universe. Personally, I'm not compelled by such an argument, but it does involve "intelligent design" without being entirely outside the bounds of logical reasoning.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
I might have jumped the gun. I think it should read "52%, Damn those smart Brits". But even increasing the number to 52% fools, we still trail them with 60% of our population following unscientific data.
Part of the reason for this high figure is that the population in the UK is rapidly aging; the birth rate is falling and the elderly are living longer. I heard recently that at the moment there are five working people for every retired person, but in 10 years time it will be two working people for every retired person. It's unlikely elderley people were taught evolution in school during their childhood or have been interested in scientific developments since then (and evolution is hardly the most covered science topic!). Hopefully the percentage in creationist believers won't increase, indicating that science education is working properly here.
all the people that were calling American's idiots about this topic can now officially shove it...
cause guess what, in the US, a SMALL minority (thats very vocal with alot of money) want ID to be taught, in Britian, 40% want it.
A scientific theory is not something you believe in. A lot of people on the 'evolution' side of the current debate are just as fervently religious in their views as the ID/Creationism crowd, and that's bad.
Don't believe in evolution. Accept it as the theory that best fits the facts as they are currently known. New discoveries have resulted in changes to the theory of evolution since Darwin's time, just as Relativity forced a modification of Newton's 'laws' (which, in fact, are theories). We may discover something new about mutation in the future that will require another modification. Or, we might discover the corpse of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and find to our surprise that all evolution has suddenly stopped.
Don't believe in a theory. If too many scientists believe in a theory, it will stop evolving, and be intelligently designed instead.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Actually you are wrong, there is still no scientific fact for Macro-evolution. There is scientific fact for micro-evolution, which Christians support. It makes sense for things to evolve due to elements in their surroundings, such as the common black moth, white moth theory, but to say things would just grow wings is out of the question. I personally don't believe Creationism or Intelligent Design either, but hey its about time they started telling us more religions other then the one the scientists are so fond of. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalin k/peppered_moth_evolution_kit/
Have any of you actually gone out into the street and talked to random people about a subject like science?
-- SIGFPE
I don't see why education=macroevolution. Many ID proponents are highly educated. For example Dr. Michael Behe has a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, Phillip Johnson went to Harvard and studied at Law at the University of Chicago and went head to head in numerous debates with the highly respected Stephen J. Gould, Dr. William Dempski has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago among other degrees in psychology and statistics and has held numerous post-doc fellowships including one from the National Science foundation. These people are highly educated, I would assume much more than many "evolutionist" and have earned the right to be taken seriously when they form their opinions.
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals Chuck Norris has allowed to live....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I think you forgot the first adjective: "smug".
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
No wonder they fell for the WMD story and joined us in Iraq.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
here IS a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design does NOT necessary imply that God did it,
... then ... who designed our designer? And designer's designer? And ... well .. you get the idea.
If you eliminate God from the equation
To put it bluntly, stupid people believe stupid things, and are easy prey for those who for one reason or another would exploit them or just have them be their followers.
Now I'm hoping that you will all remain objective and focused on the FACTS and not what has been drilled into you from school, college, media, the pulpits etc.
I used to believe in evolution but having researched it (yes I actually have researched into it from the biological end to the information science end) for many years I now think that Darwin was wrong but in the light of what knowledge that scientists had available to them at the time his theory could be assumed to be correct. However, we have come a great deal further in our knowledge of biochemistry and other related fields and as he has admitted in his "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection", "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.", we now know to a better extent that this cannot be the case.
Macro evolution on the other hand seems to have its merits and would appear to be a theory that in the future will become a law.
Before you start flaming me please remember to do some research on the topic instead of leaving out the science and being emotional http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 25/1311231.
Oh and one more thing, please notice how my only reference to religion was in relation to being indoctrinated in a particular viewpoint as you may well be in the family and schools you grow up in.
My IQ has been measured at 144. I transferred schools twice, and eventually dropped out of college because I refused to conform myself to the anti-Western, anti-Christian, postmodern worldview. I was failing English classes because we were forced to read feminist literature, and I would write papers and argue in class against feminism. This is so-called "tolerance," I guess. There is no such thing as "dialog" in our universities anymore. It is indoctrination by professors who typically bring a view of the world that is elitist, anti-Western, anti-male, anti-Christian, and politically leftist to their classroom. They tend to exalt other cultures as some sort of "noble savages" that we could perhaps learn something from since they are not Western or Christian, and therefore, must be intrinsically superior to ours.
Honestly, I am hoping my son decides to do something useful with his life, like the military, the priesthood, police, tech school, rather than be subjected to the self-hating ideologies taught on college campuses these days. This evolution vs. creation debate is just another symptom of a culture war of urban elites vs. ordinary people.
What's all this about "a throwback to a pre-enlightened time"? Who said we're enlightened? Oh, that's right, we declared ourselves enlightened. What self-aggrandizing bullshit. Seems like we've lowered the standard for enlightenment.
And since when did it become passe to have or profess faith in this country?
The fact that people are still debating over who is right is just mind boggling. People still believe in this crap? I thought we learned the truth a long time ago.
EVOLUTION IS DEBUNKED.
Thank you very much, you imbeciles!
First, the majority of people do not understand evolution by natural selection. As a result, most people are hesitant to put all of their chips in evolution's corner when the apparent consequences (burning in eternal hellfire) are so severe. Most people opt out of evolution because they subconsciously view that course as the safe bet. If they turn out to be wrong, so what? No consquences. But if it turns out the Bible bashers have it right, well, the idea of burning in hell forever kind of sucks.
Second, the swell in support for orthodox and conservative theism has very little to do with the facts on either side of the debate. It merely has to do with sides. People are tribal. People are not analyzing all of the available data and drawing the most logical conclusions, they are simply picking sides and defending their camp come hell or high water (pun fully intended). A recent study in the news (source, anyone?) said that the parts of the brain responsible for rational thought shut off when people are defending their 'side' - in this case it was political, but the point is made just the same.
Third, recognize religion for what it is: the opiate of the masses. That really does say it all. Religion provides a security blanket for people who are more concerned with comfort than with truth. The truth is that we evolve from amino acids, none of the details in any orthodox religion's doctrine could be considered accurate or correct by any stretch of the imagination, and there is certainly no bearded-guy-in-the-clouds-who-smites-sinners-God (or angels, demons, fairies, elves, or anything else supernatural) actively participating in our physical reality. It is also true that it is impossible to prove the negative corollory that some sort of entity did not create the cosmos, or that the cosmos does not have some purpose, because the assumptions involved (like the flow of time, cause and effect, etc) render definitions useless, making strict atheism a similarly baseless belief. The truth is that agnosticism (we don't know one way or the other) is the only view about God which makes any logical sense.
The truth is harsh; it hurts, its awesome and terrifying, and it doesn't give a shit whether you like it or believe it or not. The truth really will set you free (John:23). But people don't want to be free. They want to be safe. That's why we have the PATRIOT act. In short, the truth makes people uncomfortable, and there is definitely a profound movement in modern western society towards the supreme prioritization of comfort above all other considerations.
Lastly, the people that we should really be concerned about are not the people who are uninformed and apathetic - the majority of laymen - but rather the people who ARE inteligent and educated and who nevertheless staunchly defend the right-wing religious agenda. These are people who are so terrified of the truth, that they will do anything to make it go away. These are the Bin Ladens of the world, folks. These are the people who would blindly destroy our plante before accepting the painful truth; who would push the Button and blame/credit God before long before accepting responsibility for their own lives. These people are the problem, and that is where we should be focusing our efforts.
A-Bomb
Sounds like a handjob for most of the slashdot crowd...
Someone please stop the planet, I'm getting sick and I want to get off.
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
or otherwise too lazy to create an account.
What exactly does "well educated athiests" imply?
Perhaps nothing, but from a "Well educated Christian" with a masters in business and an undergrad degree in computer science it sounds almost like well educated = athiest = to not be this is dumb.
-Zach
I can't quite see why it has to be one view or the other, is there any real reason why a creator couldn't create self modifying life forms? Seems like the move of a smart and possibly lazy deity to me.
I personally don't buy the intelligent design argument. Always feels like a bit of a cop out to me, like people these people are willing to accept science only while it tells them something they like. Evolution lowers our importance in their eyes, so they ignore it. It's ego I think. Evolution is the best we have IMHO, but I definitely think there's something about the process we are missing.
As for public schools in the UK teaching it, I think it's wrong to have religious material forcably taught. Not that kids in our public schools would actually learn it, they piss around in class too much for that.
Most of the primary media in the US is owned by conservative interests although individual reporters may be considered "liberal".
Who owns/controls the BBC and who owns/controls the organization that performed the poll.
When I see a poll in American media I sustitute the phrase "American's polled" with "Republican's polled" and then the results are consistant with what I observe in society in general.
You have to go to secondary and terciary news sources in the US media in order to get anything that approaches impartial/level reporting. Maybe the same is now true in the UK/BBC although if the BBC is now "owned" that's a sad commentary on the media today.
People in the UK just don't care. There are no christian fundamentalists, no religious right, no moral majority. Even the church (http://www.teal.org.uk/stats/key.htm) says that less than 5% of the population attend church and I would think that it's actually far lower than that. They don't not believe in God, or vehemently advocate Darwinism, they just don't think about it.
It's an irrelevant anachronism, ignore it, it will go away.
Hence why we're one of the most secular states in Europe.
The most secular state in Europe is the only place in the world where people kill each other over which brand of Christianity they believe in?
Actually, that would sort of make sense, if religion over there is some sort of secularized religion, a religion without morallity, or religion purely as ritual. Like someone else said, atheism isn't a deterent to advancement in the Church of England!???? I hope that's not the case. That would really suck.
"well educated athiests"
Now *there's* an oxymoron...
Having seen the movie, "Underworld: Evolution", I'm starting to believe that the concept of evolution needs to be banished, if for no other reason than to prevent entertainment companies from coming up with these ideas.
Underworld: Evolution (movie)
Evolution (movie)
King of Fighters Evolution (video game)
Turok: Evolution (video game)
Gah!
Evolutionists have been living in a dream world. It's time to free your mind. Knock. Knock.
The BBC is reporting that more than half of Britons do not believe in evolution, with a further 40% advocating that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science classes
This isn't the first time I've heard this particular turn of phrase where evolution is presented as an article of faith.
Of course, this kind of rhetoric supports the evolutionists in what they've been saying all along as to why ID and evolution don't belong in the same classroom. This is, of course, the simple fact that ID requires belief, as it is religion in secular clothing. That half or most or all of any group of people don't believe in evolution is immaterial, because neither do the scientists and individuals who support it as good, reasonable science! Science doesn't require belief nor does the underlying truth change simply because it isn't of majority acceptance!
To qualify as science, a conjecture must only subject its assertions to inquiry and attempts at proof or disproof. Evolution does this, and as such qualifies as science, and deserves to be taught as science in a science classroom.
Now here's the quandary:
If ID isn't science, and its own adherents don't call it religion (and as such probably couldn't be taught as philosophy, either), exactly what classroom could house this? Inane Conjectures 101?
I can find 2000 people to represent a population of over 60 million and then just ensure the views represent the result I want.
Ask 200 people on the street who had just bought a Nintendo DS (i.e. its in a store bag with them) which is better the Sony PSP or Nintendo DS and you can guess the answer.
Where did they find these 2000 people ?
outside an anti Evolution rally ?
ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
To paraphrase Inspector Renault from Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that ignorance is going on in here!". It doesn't matter that it's evolution they don't accept. It could be relativity or gravity or inertia. It's a symptom of the state of British science education. The problem with any belief system is that the believers are afraid that if some scientific theory is true their religion must be false. When in reality they just need to change their perception of their religious beliefs.
" Love thy neighbor" is a good maxim, but it's not dependent on a 6,000 year old Earth. They forgot God is a metaphor and do not understand the difference between denotation and connotation. Anyway, I think Douglas Adams put it best when he wrote: "Humans are not proud of their ape ancestry and never invite their cousins around for dinner."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Apparently the education system is faltering across the pond too. "...but we're all well educated athiests..."
Not true. They do not present proofs. They present theories that they think may be true. Unfortunately, most people who believe in evolution, have not really spent much time looking at the actual evidence. People believe in evolution because it appears that most scientists believe in it and since they must be smarter than the average person, it must be true. However, if a person takes the time to research the facts, they will find that this is much more evidence to prove we have an intelligent designer. In fact many notable scientists of the present and the past believe that the universe was created by a supreme being.
On one hand, I'm happy to see that rampant idiocy isn't a uniquely American trait.
On the other hand, however, I'm seriously troubled by this. I guess I was kinda counting on the rest of the world to bitchslap America back to sanity sooner or later, but now it appears that we can't count on the global community saving the day for rationality.
We do not have natural selection like we had in the past. The dumb reproduce more than anyone else. Has the population devolved to the point where that majority is not capable of rational thought?
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Sorry, I chose you as the victim for this, it's nothing personal I promise!
So, you feel that your greater "wisdom" gives you the right to label a majority of the rest of the world as idiots because they believe in ID or creationism. Note, how I use the word believe here because that's exactly all it is. I find the problem with scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. these days is that we seem to believe that everyone in this world "needs" to use the rather incomplete tools of absolute rationality and logic when facing life's deeper questions. I'm sorry but these tools are greatly at a loss for explaining much of what is required to explaining how people behave, how they think and how they should live. Science does not have the answers for any of these and unfortunately is not even close.
Also, the problem with people like you is that you think that everyone in the world needs to know that evolution makes more sense from a scientific perspective than ID/creationism. That's where you are wrong. How many people do you think really understand the idea of special relativity. Don't you think it'd be equally important for people to realize that the clocks they use to make daily life possible aren't really perfect for synchronization and time isn't really what we intuitively believe it is? Hell NO, why? because it won't make a damned difference to them and to life on this planet? are these people idiots?? No! They are you're average person... who can reasonably be go through life without knowledge of these things and should not be labelled idiots. The real fools are the ones who can't see this.
The Bible is not even close to being a pristine source of Gods words, but as of, say, 1990, the genetic code of everything on earth was--until we humans tampered with some microorganisms.
All this debate we are having is because we have left these questions to be pondered by lawyers (and theologians), but they should be done by geeks (and their religious counterpart, mystics). The method is simple: look to the source. Our software/and hardware source-code is our DNA, and it is responsible for creating everything from our nano-scale protein structure to the shape of our butts (the ultimate unfathomable macro-scale manifestation of a micro-feature viz.
Looking at the source code could tell us what life is, what coding tricks the original designer used, and if he left any comments or "easter eggs" or something which give us a clue as to his original intent behind any features.
The Sufis quote Muhammad in saying "he who knows himself knows his Lord." Well, literally then whoever comprehends the genetic code knows the genetic designer, if any. If there never was a designer, then that will become apparent when we look at the code.
Hasan
It is interesting to see these responses that show Evolutionists being just as dogmatic about their theory as Creationists are about their religion.
If there was a bias here, it's likely to have been in the opposite direction. Reading more details about the programme this poll was taken for, it seems to be a documentary about the recent business with ID in the USA, done as part of a series of fairly serious science documentaries. Hence if the poll was to be biased, it would be biased towards a 'We're not like those stupid Americans, are we chaps?' conclusion.
That it came out like this is, therefore, pretty damned alarming. Can't write this one off as Religious Right interests in the media, I'm afraid...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Although there are many people in this world who are confused because of these terms, let's define exactly what we are talking about. Evolution is a process where in being change over a period of time. There is a lot more to that definition, but that is the basis. The confusion comes from what is being taught in schools. Scientific theory is being taught as a truth. Science in school teaches that evolution exists - rightly so as it does - however, as a result the teachers and professors are making the jump to being descendants of simians and the like. This is an error on their behalf. There is STILL a "missing link" and as a result we should not be teaching that it is by evolution that Man has come to be. Granted, it IS by evolution that Man continues to CHANGE, but it isn't exactly HOW man has come to BE. Creationism teaches that there is an intelligent being that created the heavens, the stars, the universe and Man. It teaches that Man and animals come from a more divine path. That is it. Now can creationism and the "theory" of evolution prove either of the afore mentioned paths? The answer is simply, no. Thus I feel that it is necessary that they both be taught so that children and parents can believe in one or the other themselves. Remember, neither science nor religion can be proved by the other! Science cannot prove that there is NO God and that events did not occur divinely. Also, religion cannot prove that there was no Law that a Divine Being used to spawn the process. I submit that Both are Correct if you bring them together and that BOTH are wrong if you don't.
I could have modded you down, but didn't. I don't believe it's right to mod down people for presenting views that are on-topic that I disagree with. However, you're full of shit.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
hey, guess what, nobody's convinced on evolution because it doesn't have any real solid evidence.
neither does ID either, according to science.
but really, science is all theory. science is not solid enough to believe. science was wrong about the world being flat, wrong about the world being the center of the universe, and cannot be trusted anymore than the Bible can.
I truly dislike the summary of this article because it's basically saying "I'm an atheist, and I'm surprised that British people largely believe in ID. I thought they were smarter than that." It's just kind of annoying to me how atheists try to point out that they are more sophisticated and how everyone who believes in ID is simply ignorant. Who knows who's right, but everyone believes something different, and there's no reason to be surprised that a lot of people believe in ID.
Besides, if evolution really is true, why is there no other species that even comes close to human intelligence. You'd think that if evolution was close to the correct theory, that different species of monkeys/chimps/apes in different geological areas would evolve into different types of humanoid creatures. I would think if evolution was correct, there would be some sort of sub or super-human (as far as intelligence) that we could at least communicate with in some form, which would be distinctly human but have more or less intelligence, or other traits.
I think the greatest argument for intelligent design is that there is only one species of homosapien that is even close to the intelligence of humans. Even chimps are limited to monkey-see-monkey-do types of intelligence. Humans, on the other hand, are capable of gaining their own information and passing it down through generations, writing it down, expanding it, and improving technology, things like that. Humans are capable of learning without learning from other people. That's what makes them intelligent. Suddenly, because people started realizing that monkeys had similar hands, brains, and DNA strands to humans, they assume that we come from them. Maybe creatures on this earth are similar simply because the same God was making them all, not because of evolution.
If I remember right, the scientists invesigating evolution still haven't found any concrete evidence of an interim species that was between a monkey and a human.
The two passages you quoted from my OP were intended as tongue-in-cheek. It's truly troubling how many Slashdotters are congenitally unable to detect sarcasm. Some really should set up a foundation to help these poor souls.
:) (from which I'm glad that I don't suffer) are just a small set of points that convince me that there is nothing intelligent about our design...but it doesn't say much for how we've evolved either. :)
I think that you need to go back and look at some your posts. You have in the past been poignant in attributing negative adjectives or criticism to those who hold a different view from yours, particularly in the realms of politics and evolution/ID. Considering how vocal you have been against detractors in the past, especially in the realm of Intelligent Design, it should not be any wonder that your statements were not taken in the context that you expected.
Now, in your defense no one should never expect any messge to be appropriately interpreted when displayed in a two-dimensional medium like Slashdot, Usenet, blogs, etc. Anyone who takes a message post at face value is foolish.
As for Intelligent Design, take a look at humanity and the human body and you'll quickly find that "intelligent design" is an oxymoron. An excrucitaingly fragile integument, a birth process that is about as close to death as women can get (not including Caesarean, of course), susceptiblity to all kinds of diseases and viruses, continuing love for Disney On Ice and NASCAR, and baldness
In the meantime, I guess I'll go back to making things painfully obvious by appending those little anime smilies that seem to enrage so many of my detractors. To the legions of faceless AC trolls out there who cannot seem to stomach a few carets and an underscore, remember: it's now officially your own fault.
That is unbelievably childish. Whereas everyone likes to tick off detractors on occasion, please stop contributing to the trolling with this ridiculous smile that you use. Knowing that people hate it then spitefully annoucing that you're just going to use it more is nothing more than the immature escalation of an already unnecessary squabble. People already complain about Slashdot going downhill;and between the GNAA and FP idiots we have enough trolls as it is. Kindly swallow your pride and don't feed any more trolls. No one will think less of you for it. In fact, considering that you have as you say "legions of faceless AC trolls" people will probably think better of you for it.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
One must remember that the 13% that did not know would have simply been responding the clipboard wielder on the high street who would've said something like "Could I just ask you a few questions about the origins of life?" to which they would've recieved a reply along the lines of "No, yes, no, I don't know, go away!". Thus these 13% obviously have better things to do with their time than answer religious questionnaires and so would also be the type to accept the facts and not concern themselves with what other fairy-tale possibilities there could be for humans existing as they do, so that's an additional 13% to the evolution theory!
It's interesting to see how many post are talking about religion being one of the reasons people don't believe in evolution. Someone else did the work for me, but the research from UK based Christian-Research.org says that very few Britons actually go to church. The research goes on to say a few things about the religious nature of the UK. I'm not saying that I agree with them, but maybe that many people just aren't convinced that evolution is the most accurate theory to explain how we got here. This study just may show the skeptical nature of people across the Atlantic.
Dilbert creator Scott Adamshas a good take on this.
Two comments brought to mind by this article...
One is an article (can't remember who by, sorry) that I read shortly after the 2004 election, taking Democrats to task for the re-election of George Bush. Essentially, the author was relating her conversation with a Democrat friend, who exclaimed something to the effect of, "I don't know HOW that man could have gotten re-elected, I don't know ANYBODY who voted for him!" The point of the article was that we all tend to assume that everybody thinks the same way we (and our small circle of friends) do, and it's often disconcerting to find that we're outside the mainstream, or that a very sizable portion of the general population disagrees with us.
I'm also tickled to see that, despite all of the characterizations of Americans as backwoods hillbillies due to the seeming popularity of ID & Creationism here, apparently idiocy knows no national boundaries. I'll be waiting to see the coverage of this in the newspapers & magazines like Time & Newsweek... I probably shouldn't hold my breath for it, because this thinking doesn't dovetail with the image of americans that the world has grown comfortable with, namely that we're overwhelmingly mouth-breathing troglodytes, while the rest of the world consists of polished, cosmopolitan, urbane, well-manicured people.
This is one of the reasons Evolution has been rejected by a lot of people. Just as ultra-right wing Christians really turn people off, this kind of statement also turns people off.
So, rather than actually weighing the evidence and coming to a reasoned conclusion, just obstinately insist it is wrong owing to narcissistic injury? That sort of attitude is precisely what generates those statements, not the other way around.
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
"Sure, why not, now out of my way i'm missing the football.." (muttering) "wanker.."
See we do have a religion that we honour on Sundays (and Saturdays at 3pm), but Christianity isn't it..
Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people thinks it's a joke; also cool.
"ID is about saying that there are features of the life we see that point to design, generally by saying that the features are too complex. This can include Theistic Evolutionists, if they believe that God stepped in to tweak the evolutionary process in key places. ID says nothing about common ancestry or the ages of the earth & universe."
Technically, you are correct. Theistic Evolution can be considered Intelligent Design in that it requires an intelligent designer.
In practice, ID as a movement and AS IT IS CURRENTLY USED is a tool for Creationists, nothing more. It does not allow for understanding or acceptance of evolution.
As someone who comes from Great Britain i would just like to say I've always thought i was surrounded but fools and now it's been proved. I want to move somewhere clever
Can anyone suggest a clever place I could go please?
Many thanks
I agree. It sounds like he's saying that if you're not an atheist? Then you must be uneducated. I'm certain there's a list longer than the posters pedigree of people who are educated and belive in evolution.
"If taught correctly, creationism does not necessarily imply one religion. It implies intelligent design meaning God, gods or advanced aliens. And why shouldn't it be taught? If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it? Or are you worried that *gasp* some people might prefer to continue to adhere to their faith?"
Exactamundo. Except science and faith are two completely different things. Science is descriptive and predictive based on a sort of majority rules perception, faith is belief in something that exists beyond our perception. Once something exists in our perception, that aspect passes into the realm of the scientific. What makes evolution science is that tangible things that exist in perceptive reality have been discovered that support the theory. ID is presented as a faith issue, because (and feel free to correct me if you think I've overlooked something) the arguments for it are either purely abstract exercises with dubious logic or attacks against evolution. I mean dubious in a purely logical sense, and I freely admit that logic does not necessarily apply to faith. But it's the cornerstone of science.
"Growing up in America, I could never decide who had a greater missionary zeal: the Southern Baptists or the evolutionists, most of whom were not even fit to be called amateur biologists."
Here's where I may agree with you. How many that scoff at non-evolutionary beliefs actually know a real justification for evolution? However, most people can understand the two theories well enough to understand that one is faith and the other science.
A couple of weeks ago Channel 4 had two one hour programs featuring Richard Dawkins on religion The Root of All Evil
At least here in the UK it seems that the debate is alive and well, and broadcasters are not afraid of addressing the issue of religious dogma.
It's only a shame that those people most likely to watch BBC2 and Channel 4 are also those most likely to value rational scientific truth over religious faith.
The ID movement is out of a fear of their own ignorance. You see the same thing in children who will make up erroneous and very complex stories to explain something. We do it to them, it's really our fault this whole ID thing is so rampant, like herpes in a whorehouse.
To paraphrase Cypher, "Why oh why didn't I refuse to teach them about Santa?" For some of us the Santa-clause is the catalyst for an awakening into a lifetime of agnosticism or aethism, for others it is a latching point that prevents our future growth beyond the fear/need of an invisible and mysterious benefactor beyond comprehension controlling everything behind the scenes. The sheer terror of a world out of control is too much for their simple minds, and they are frozen in a child-like state.
I, personally, don't hold any illusions of God or a God-like being, while I will remain agnostic because while there is no proof of God, there is also no proof of No-God, so I will sit on the fence and watch the rabble rousers on both sides. I'll side with atheists any day over blind believers, however.
You cannot rationally argue with the utterly irrational, the belief is based on some arrogant, ignorant, fearful personal NEED to have that. I, too, am disappointed our friends over the pond must now face this dilemma. How, oh how, do we get them to take the red pill???
For those of us who have self-exited the world is that much more fantastic, chaotic, beautiful, and complex BECAUSE none of it could have happened were it but for a different flap of a butterfly's wings, a shift in wind, or what have you. Chaos is SO much more than order, why is it that if there is no 'creator' the world is suddenly not beautiful?
Someone once told me mountains are proof of God. That's like saying wheels are proof of feet. It makes no logical sense, so it is therefore impossible to logically argue the inanity of the illogical with them. Buck up, my UK chaps, keep a stiff upper lip and all that. Sooner or later natural selection will prevail.
Aside from that, Canada recently put a Bush-like emperor into power. It seems all of North America is destined to be seen as a land of the fools. How long now until we are suppressed for our views like Galileo? We are going in reverse. It is a travesty what science is become, the juggernaut is slowly brought to its knees...
The recent cloning scandal in Korea is only fuel to the right's fire, we are soon in serious trouble. It's beginning in the way U.S. patriots are now labelled terrorists or dissidents for merely expressing their views. "Ours is not a country founded on protest." Can our yellow molecule pieces of flair be far behind, pinned to our coats like a badge of protest, labelled by monsters of evangelism?
Tremble, lock the doors, and keep a tight reign on those science books. One day soon they may be valuable oddities.
All the world's a stage, all the people but players.
Diverging a little...
Why is it that proof of God was always looked for outside of nature?
That any divine action must be "supernatural"? It seems like an unnecessary distinction.
Similarly, why must it be creationism _against_ evolution? Why could God not have created the evolutionary system?
(Of course "proof of God" in a "God works through nature" schema wouldn't play nice with Occam's razor, but I'm not looking to prove God either.)
The God of Science if the least tolerant God of all and His followers are the most militant religious fanatics from all western religions ! :-)
The problem with scientific approach is that it sooner or later leads to just another religion. Physical sciences are simply statistical observations of relationships in which we find rules between cause and effect. If we observe something to happen all the time (as far as we can tell) than we create a scientific "truth". In order to belive in science you must belive, that what you observed "happen all the time" must in fact happen all the time. Take conservation of energy for example. The fact that the "energy is conserved" is just our observation of the fact that we have never seen the violation of this rule (short of Big Bang of course, which violates all the physical rules, but the scientific world doesn't seem to be bothered by this failure of their religion). Now let's assume for a moment, that the conservation of energy is an absolute truth. Can you please explain me where this rule comes from ? Why this rule exists at all ? If you realize that, than you will understand, that science is incapable and will never be to explain the most fundamental question of all, where the universe comes from and where the most basic rules comes from. If we really belive in scince we must adress this problem that every effect must have underlying cause. So if the scientific rules exist what or "WHO" is the cause of this ? Actually why any rules exist at all ?
If you don't think I'm right, please try your best to explain me scientifically where the most basic physical rules come from and in fact how it is scientifically possible to create whole universe out of aboslute nothingness ? When I mean Universe, I mean the whole Universe, that we can imagine. If you use some "precursor" Universe to explain existence of ours, you just shifting if to the next level with still no explanation. BTW, science also has a serious problem with "forever". Since it is easy to observe, that nothing exists "forever", than claiming otherwise to explain our world has much less to do with science and much more with religion. For example if some super "universe" must exist forever and "baby Universes" are just born and die out from this "super one" that exists "forever". How this belive is less ridiculous that most of the "truths" in other religions ?
If you plan to use math to prove that I'm wrong, please, mention which and how many axioms you are actually using and how axioms (in their basic sense) are different from religion ?
JAM
Now, look at your list. How many of those are college educated?
If you're like most people here, probably at least half of those people are college educated.
Whatever you think of the Book "The Bell Curve" on race and IQ, the authors make this interesting point: had you chosen 12 people at random in the USA (and the ratios in europe and elsewhere are doubtlessly in the same general ballpark), the change that 6 of them would be college educated is something like 1 in 5,000. The change that all 12 of them would be would be like 1 in a million.
So, while you may wonder why it is that there are so many people who don't subscribe to evolution, just remember that most people are not like you. Keep that in mind while being "shocked" at the UK's creationists, or what have you.
A government is secular or neutral. (At least it should be). (A government should act the same toward all people regardless religion).
Science idem dito.
Atheism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion has nothing to do with Science.
"Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country."
It often seems those of the "educated atheist" bent are frequently entirely ignorant of the actual views held by the citizenry of which they are a part. In my opinion it's a matter of isolation. People in general, and young educated atheists are no exception, tend to congregate with others similar to them. It's natural, then, to make the mistake of mapping one's peers' views onto the populace as a whole.
As for Britain being a "proudly secular country", I don't think so. Norway maybe. Germany. France. Not the UK. Not yet, at least.
They do not present proofs. They present theories that they think may be true.
Wrong. Look at genome comparison data. There is extensive proof of evolution in them.
For example, most Metazoa share Hox genes that shape their bodies. Evolution within Arthropoda is well shown by analyzing their genomes, that show the corresponding shuffling and mutation of Hox genes.
Even stronger evidence comes from large-scale synteny of chromosomes. If you look at our chromosomes and that of great apes, you can easily *see* in the band pattern (and in the genome sequence) that our chromosomes are just like that of great apes, a bit reshuffled. Such a shuffling can be tracked down in more distant vertebrates.
Moreover all genomes sequenced so far show pseudogenes: i.e. sequences recognizable as genes by their sequence, but that are mutated such a way they're no more expressed. They're "fossils": pieces of information that were actually useful in the past, but that have been discarded. On the other hand, gene duplication can be easily showed to have given form to many useful genes, and it is known many genomes have been shaped by genome duplication.
People believe in evolution because it appears that most scientists believe in it and since they must be smarter than the average person, it must be true.
I'm a molecular biology Ph.D., I don't "believe" in evolution. I see it in action.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
No, not a further 40%, as that would make over 90%, and that's an incorrect figure. The submitter has evidently misread:
"Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons."
which is pretty much par for the course on Slashdot...
Shouldn't it be
"Britons becoming convinced of evolution"
"More than half of britons don't believe ID anymore"
I mean... 50 years ago wasn't ID a big majority? Evolution seems to be getting more and more accepted. The article seems to be just more like a flamebait, and could be writen to show evolution is getting widelly accepted. But I think maybe it wouldn't attract so many interest....
Religious education in the UK has always been a joke. Perhaps if it was taken a little more seriously and taught as comparative theology rather than a fact memorising session then issues such as this could be be taught in school, rather than R.E. being dismissed as a second class subject.
I.D. and creationism are not science. But they are important and children should be educated about these beliefs.
Loop, twist and loop again.
Brittain is, I believe, one of the most atheistic countries in the world. That is, a huge part of the population considers themselves atheists.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
Intelligent design and creationism have their place in schools, but it sure as hell isn't the science class where these concepts should be discussed. Those discussion belong in theology classes and I don't like how this is being forced on the public. I think the underlying agenda behind pushing ID is to make religion more relevant. It's like they're trying to somehow prove that God exists, and that it's a christian God at that.
On the other hand, some people seem to be making blanket statements like all Christians are pushing ID. The Vatican has stated that the church supports evolution. It's primarily fundamentalist christians in the US, the sort of people who take the bible literally and who seem to congregate at those super churches, who are pushing this. That's an important distinction.
I also have to note that I find it a bit obnoxious with some atheists holier-than-thou attitude towards those who believe in God. Given that it's impossible for anyone to prove the existence of a higher being the religious are just as justified in their beliefs as are the atheists.
And yet you couln't put just one simple example in your message. This is the kind of bluff and bluster that IS the theory of evolution.
P.S. Insightful my ass
>Yes. Any molecular biology textbook is full of factual proofs of evolution.
BS. Yes, organisms will development develop minor
DNA changes as a result of the environment.
But evolution THEORY is that somewhere along the
line there were MAJOR DNA changes, there is no
proof of this happening, did a dog just give birth
to a cat one day? cold blooded gave birth to warm
blooded? You think creationism is unbelievable?
I remember a farside where a scientist is trying to
explain a formula, right in the middle there is the
words "some miracle occurs". Reminds me of the
big bang theory, evolution theory, etc etc.
we're all well educated athiests Did that education include spelling, now? ;-)
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
(Aside: how old is I.D? New crap shouldn't be included in a curriculum, certainly you don't see Gaia being taught in R.S., and that's pretty old.)
Theory: Intelligent Design.
Proof: None
Evidence: None, apart from hypothesis that things are so complex that it can't have happened naturally.
Validity Example: Humans will one day do things to animals that will alter them - intelligence, pets, slaves, whatever. That could be determined to be I.D., although we'd all know it was Steered (Accelerated) Evolution*. David Brin's Startide Rising touches on this idea, and of I.D. at a certain level. It's hard to disprove a theory that an alien 'advanced' us in the past, unless we find the aliens and they tell us. In this case the theory is more of a belief, and thus I.D. is simply another faith, a religion.
Theory: Creationism
Proof: None
Evidence: Old stories. Even the Christian church says they're stories and evolution fits in with the religion. Creationism in forward thinking parts of the church often points to the creation of the universe as the moment of creation.
Failing: Requires faith. It's hard to disprove God.
Theory: Evolution. "Survival of the fittest"
Proof: Plenty.
Evidence: Everywhere.
Faith: Not required, but it seems more sensible to believe in this than I.D!
Clearly Evolution is a scientific theory, and a long-standing one with plenty of evidence, and thousands of man-years of thought put into it. It hasn't been disproved yet, which is promising for such an old theory.
Teach Creationism in Religious Studies, as it is derived from religion. Touch on it in science as an alternative view, i.e., for 5 minutes. Use I.D. as a study on false science.
I have friends who love to dissect this stuff and they can do it very well. They spend the time to read up on all the theories/faiths so that they end up understanding them more than the person they're destroying at the time. I'm usually drunk and can never remember their points that well.
* this probably isn't a very intelligent thing to do however. Very clever, yes. Intelligence usually requires some consideration about whether it should be done, the ramifications, the ethical issues, and so on.
What is there to teach? It doesn't explain a damn thing and it can be summarized in 5 seconds. I'm taking an intro level Biology course in college and we had to write a paper about Evolution and Intelligent Design. That alone is proof that ID is being taught in schools.
An example I used in the paper is that it would be like teaching programming by looking at source code and saying that a computer programmer made it. What's the point of that loop, what does this function do? "I don't know, a computer programmer designed it", would be the only answer. That's not a good way to teach programming for the same reason that Intelligent Design/Creationism is not a good way to teach Biology. It doesn't explain anything.
This thread got huge. I don't see why everyone is so stuck to one side of the argument. I'll preface this reply (even though no one will likely read it) by saying that I am in fact a Christian. Yes, this means I believe in the creation. Now, that out of the way... It seems that all of you who claim to be 'educated' are also athiests. Why is this? Is it because your 'scientific' mind tells you that nothing can exist before the beginning of time? This is something that can be viewed as a flaw with both theories. With the creation, God was around, and with the big bang, there were some dust particles. If that's not entirely accurate, bear with me, as the exact details of evolution theory do not matter here. Point is, something existed before the beginning of time in both thoeries, so they both must be false. That is the scientific method, right? It's quite obvious that no person will EVER be able to explain the beginning of time. They might be able to use science to explain how things progressed, but not why. The science can't provide a reason for what was there to begin with and how it got there. My viewpoint is this: evolution theory is valid. But not quite to the extent that most people caught up in it think. I've seen enough science in my few biology courses to know this is the case. Natural selection is real. I would say, though, that evolution theory is how God did his work. Evolution is an endless process that is still going on today. There's no reason for these two viewpoints to not co-exist. One could even say that the big bang is the method God used to create the universe. Now here's where my evolution knowledge gets a little flaky. Most evolutionists from what I've seen will dispute my argument here pulling out dates and timelines. But if I'm not mistaken, these timelines were created with carbon dating, which has been shown to yield inaccurate results. I'd research to find some instances, but I'm late for class. Yes, I'm a senior in a university studying engineering. I guess that makes me somewhat educated, doesn't it?
Evolution and intelligent design are simply philosophies, not science. Neither should be taught in science, nor is the teaching of interspecial evolution absolutely essential to learning anything in biology.
Evolution is an inevitable consequence when you have the following ingredients:
- A genome that replicates with less-than-100% fidelity.
- A phenotype that is dependent from the genotype
- A fitness that is dependent from the phenotype
Create such a system, and you'll see it evolve. It's facts: it has been simulated thousands of times in computers, for example. Life is such a system: therefore it will evolve.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Read the article he linked. Those that preach that random natural selection is responsible for life as we know are just as big of zealots as those who preach that God is the designer. It think it is a valid point. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to fill all of the major gaps in our evolutionary history. So the point is that neither ID nor full Darwinism is real science and therefor neither should be taught as science in schools.
Let's kick them out of the EU!
Being brittish qualifies me to talk about this, I asked a few friends and some collegues at work and all of them believed in evolution ... even the christian who goes to church every weekend thinks that there was a form of evolution.
I'm not sure where/how they got a cross section of the population of this 'survey' but as far as I can see it's not very true.
What I am interested in, is what do people who think that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old, think when they pick up a National Geographic magazine, or turn on The Discovery Channel? Is all this information a big lie to them? How about the Genographic Project? Even the "family-friendly" movie March of The Penguins begins with Morgan Freeman stating that penguins have made this journey for millions of years.
It appears that everywhere around us we are exposed to information about the Earth being millions/billions of years old, and yet half of America does not believe this to be true? I'm not taking a stand on the issue, I'm just really confused about why/how people belive these things.
yet you couln't put just one simple example in your message.
I didn't need examples: you can RTFM.
However you can read many brief examples in an answer I gave to one of your fellows a couple of minutes ago. If you take the time to dig in the scientific literature (not that I expect you to do so) you'll find many interesting things.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
A good resource on evolution is the University of California Museum of Paleontology's Understanding Evolution page at http://evolution.berkeley.edu
One of the nifty tricks ID proponets have done is to vaguely define many aspects of their arguments, allowing them to wiggle away with a "that's not what we ment" argument whenever someone makes a particularly biting point. Ask 10 ID proponents to define exactly what is ment by ID and you'll get 10 different answers. Evolution is in a much tougher spot because being actual science it gets hung up on facts and data that it can't move away from.
I read the internet for the articles.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
something else to add to the list of "Bad things we have imported from the USA", along with McDonalds and (c)rap-music.
This report doesn't surprise me. After all, they have the some of the strictest gun-control and the highest crime-rates on the planet.
The head of state, the Queen, is also the head of the Church of England. Nothin' secular about that, mate, unless you Brits have redefined "secular" and didn't clue the rest of us in on it.
I'd like to respond to all who replied by saying: - It turns out I misused the word 'theory'. ID and creationism should each be labeled as a 'hypothesis' while evolution, to most scientists, has enough surronding observations (not direct) to be declared a theory. Faith is believing a hypothesis as fact without accepted proof. - In all the classes I've taken (including through orbital mechanics in grad school), theories are presented as theories, laws are presented as laws, though I don't think we hit on many hypotheses.
But evolution THEORY is that somewhere along the line there were MAJOR DNA changes, there is no proof of this happening
No to both claims. Evolution could be in principle fully explained by a sequence of minor DNA changes. In practices there is evidence of major DNA changes in the past. See http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/21bio/zfish/post er/gd.html , for example,
or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9729879&dopt=Abstract , or http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/6/577 (Just a couple of examples googled in 30'').
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Not to most biologists anyway.
I know it's centrally important to those of a religious bent, because at their core most religions are origin stories--how we came to be here and why we're here.
But to scientists, the beginning of life is a small niche question--a sidebar to the evolution theory, not its basis. That is because science is the study of processes not the creation of stories or the finding of facts.
Most biologists base their studies on recent or current evidence, because there is more of it. It makes it easier to find and describe processes. Only a very small percentage of biologists devote their time to investigating the origin of life on earth. To most scientists it's an interesting question but not that important, because it's unlikely to shed insight on current processes.
The recent story of macro-evolution is available in current or recent evidence--the genomes of living creatures. Even if you completely ignore fossil evidence it is possible to find genetic commonalities between species that indicate common ancestors. With the fossil evidence it makes a very strong case.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The Theory of Evolution says nothing at all about the origins of life. The theory that life evolved from chemical reactions in non living matter is called Abiogenesis.
"we all are, and i am your king!"
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
The God of evolution is Time. With man it is impossible, but given enough time all things are possible. Attractive but unsatisfying...
"we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected"
Really? Exactly how many uneducated atheists do you know who believe in creationism?
"None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected."
I guess you don't give credit to spelling either.
Let me play Devil's Advocate [Advocatus Diaboli v. Promotor Fidei], if you will.
A multi-cellular organism (e.g. a human) can be thought of as both an individual, and a colony organism. You are godlike, from a cell's perspective.
...
Next step: Gaia hypothesis. The geo-biosphere is godlike, from an individual organism's point of view (e.g. Thunder Gods, Rain Gods, &c.)
Postulate a pantheistic universe, where the total sum of that universe (like the total sum of your cells, intestinal fauna/flora, &c.) comprises a greater "individual" -- God.
Does this God [ultimate-collective-as-a-single-being] necessarily have to take an on-going, continious, active, and consious role in controling/"manipulating" the events effecting every tiny part of itself?
When was the last time that you checked in on state of each of the epithelial cells which comprise the cuticle on e.g. your left, middle, toe? How much concern do you have that each of your skin cells are fated to [soon] become part of your household dust?
How arrogant is it to assume that any ultimate God must be concerned with the every-day affairs of individuals?
Newsnight
Radio 4
Foreign websites I don't believe it's a well-known term.
2. Atheism versus Bible thumping. This fight is a pointless distraction. The Bible-Thumpers are wrong but are also too lost in the cultic experience to grasp this. (And too easily propelled by the few dollops of mysterious energy crud which pop up now and again, and which for some bizarre reason the thumpers instantly take as validation of the divine rather than as outright manipulation. . . But I digress). Basically, the vast majority of people are fools, but to spend one's day making a big stink over it and coming up with clever arguments to prove the fact isn't going to make it go away. Lots of people also have communicable diseases. Same deal. It's a fact of life. Steer clear of their company if you don't want to deal with the infection. But don't get all huffy over it; nobody is going to praise you for smashing a faith-based argument with another faith based argument. It's just pointless and boring, especially when. . .
3. Nearly everybody likes to leave out a huge swath of significant data when dealing with the question of where we came from. Crop Circles and UFO's aren't swamp gas and jokers with planks, as anybody knows who has properly examined the subjects. There's a much larger and much more interesting equation here which nearly everybody runs like mad from rather than examine. . .
Leaving out puzzle pieces because they happen to make one feel uncomfortable will only lead to an image riddled with holes.
Now turn off the BBC.
-FL
Do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing about God.
Read the last line of my post and you will see I disagree with BOTH sides' having the only complete answer. I am a complete atheist in that I do not believe in any God who intentionally made man -- or the Universe, for that matter. Like all obedient scientifists (I am one) I believe we do not now know how living forms became as rich and diverse as they are in any complete, insightful way.
To me, Darwinism is not yet enough to explain all the questions. I hope to live long enough to find a satisfying explanation, but so far one eludes me.
A lot of misunderstanding can be avoided with the proper use of the terms. A hypothesis is "a tentative or working assumption which scientific study has yet to validate." A theory is "a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty." Journal of Theoretics
The first thing you learn in Science is the story about water in a tub.
If you fill a tub full of water and then reduce the water coming out of the faucet to a drip, you can easily get a scientist to give you the wrong answer by bringing him in at this point and asking how long it took for the tub to fill up.
It would be ridiculous to argue against the current rates of mutation and natural selection. However, it's also ridiculous to just assume it's happened that same way for all of history.
It's perfectly fine to say "IF it has always happened this way" then this is how things played out. The problem arises when you flatly refuse to listen to, and try to belittle anyone who says that the tub was filled beforehand.
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
In Soviet U.K. God Creates You!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
It could be argued that a god who, metaphorically speaking, has to hit BREAK and hack the source code from time to time on a live system is an incompetent god. If you'll pardon the phrase, an intelligent designer would come up with a universe he wouldn't have to violate in that way. He'd set it up to be self-maintaining to the greatest extent possible, and include fudge factors he could use to operate within the usual laws of physics.
A god who could break the laws of physics, but who set up the system so that he would never need to, is far more impressive than a god who comes in with superpowers every few years to patch up the consequences of his last cack-handed intervention.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
If you have to start name calling and relying on sarcasm to strengthen a scientif-(pol)-ical viewpoint then you have a weaker intellectual basis than you thought.: You must have a framework work to... Your complete framework is based on making fun of people. It is so focused on trying to say something funny enough to score a 2 on Slashdot. Most of your sarcastic remarks are a 2 rated by other people who believe what you believe anyways. Wow you are so consumed by your pseudo intellectualism you are reduced to ignore the complete contradiction between thermodynamics and evolution (just a side note). You're only a like few billion years wrong. Look I am about to get through my entire comment with out calling you "Stupid". I believe most of you mother would consider me more intelligent than you based on I don't have to attack people I disagree with name calling. Wow you prove your point by making fun of people. Thats higher thinking.
~7,000 year old earth very unlikely
If I could draw here would be my description of a cartoon. Picture any great thinker eating a large bowl of FSM and the caption would read, "MMMM... this is good satire, but I am afraid it will not satisfy my hunger."
In fact many notable scientists of the present and the past believe that the universe was created by a supreme being.
That's called a false analogy and an argument from authority. It's pretty clear you don't understand science or the scientific process. If a scientist has a theory there are invisible smurfs dancing on everyone's head but he also can build an atomic bomb, it does not give any credence to his invisible smurf theory. A person can believe in something that is factually not true, but they can also understand a theory and its predictions. It's a pecularity of the human brain to hold contradictory beliefs and knowledge. I know mathematically the odds of winning the lottery are miniscule and that I'd be better off saving that dollar, but the superstitious part of my brain thinks that I have a much better chance of winning it than I actually do. So I will buy the occasional ticket.
I will challenge you to look at the history of the Bible. Who wrote it? Why does the Catholic Bible have more books in it than the Protestant ones. What about the books that aren't in the common Western bibles? That are in the Ethiopian Orthodox Eastern Orthodox (Greek & Russian), or the Koran. Books like the The Gospel of Thomas, The Protovangelion, Maccabbes, or the Book of Enoch. What languages were these books written in (including the accepted gospels)? How can you trust the translations? What historical evidence was there that Jesus existed outside the Bible? Why is it that Josephus is the only historian to mention him? Some scholars think someone else added those passages mentioning Jesus after the fact.
You can still be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist and still understand evolution. A religion is for living your life. Science is for understanding the physical world. Religions don't have to be true. Just comfortable.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
"well educated athiests" and you can't even spell your own religion.
"What I am interested in, is what do people who think that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old, think when they pick up a National Geographic magazine, or turn on The Discovery Channel? Is all this information a big lie to them?"
It's a little tricky. My roommate, for example, is... somewhat of a creationist in the strict biblical sense, but he's also a very intelligent, logical person. He admits that it doesn't really add up with his scientific reasoning. Either way, he's not suggesting that it be added to a biology course.
Furthermore, a lot of the real zealots don't really watch Discovery Channel or pay attention to National Geographic. When you get your science from your minister and some ancient Romans, there's not much call for it. It's also not hard to make the leap to a giant scientific conspiracy, where everyone's just trying to keep their godless jobs -- people do the same kind of things with political factions and other beliefs that don't involve going to hell forever.
"It appears that everywhere around us we are exposed to information about the Earth being millions/billions of years old, and yet half of America does not believe this to be true? I'm not taking a stand on the issue, I'm just really confused about why/how people belive these things."
Another thing to be wary of, as pointed out, is that no one can agree about the nature of intelligent design. A lot of people simply observe the religious parts of intelligent design -- evolution might be the what and the how, but intelligent design is the why. And I'm fine with that. I think it's a perfectly valid religious belief. I'm fine with it being taught in schools alongside other religious beliefs -- in fact, it was part of my high school curriculum, in history class. This survey doesn't really tell us how the respondents defined intelligent design.
I've never understood religious people. You believe in God, yet there's no proof. "Okay", the religious guy says, "but you have no proof that he doesn't exist either". "Yes," I say, "but that means you believe in something that has no proof of its existence nor has any proof of its non-existence, ergo you believe in absolutely nothing."
"But there's the bib.." STOP
How about a Slashdot poll?
I believe God:
1. is the creator of the universe.
2. does not exist.
3. may or may not exist. We don't know.
3. is Bill Gates.
4. is Cowboy Neal.
Wow, never thought I'd see a comment like that get posted in an article summarry on the front page. Thank you, Slashdot, for giving me a dose of religious bashing with my morning cup of coffee.
Look, it's quite simple.
If one is neither well educated, nor an atheist, one could quite easily believe anything.
If one is well educated, but not an atheist, one might believe in creationism, if it were of the 'God planted fake evidence' variety.
If one is not well educated, but an atheist, one might believe in intelligent design, if it were of the 'monolith on the Moon' variety.
However, since the submitter and his friends are both well educated and atheists, none of them believe in either intelligent design or creationism.
Clear enough for you?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Atheists show that they don't know what a statistically significant sample is (see original article summary) OR that ID covers everything as a description from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution, and thus is pretty much a stupid description of anything in particular.
I'm willing to bet more than half the people who claim to believe in ID, really believe in Theistic Evolution, not Young Earth Creationism.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Hey, what has secularism to do with what people believe? I am a secularist and a christian. so what? Can't that be? There is nothing wrong with running a state in a secular manner but believing in God on a personal basis. As long as evolution is taught as part of proper education, I don't have aproblem with that. I do have a problem with people telling me there is nothing else possible. That is indoctrination in a atheistic manner and has nothing to do with secularism. A secular society should not only be open to atheistic views of the world but also to theistic ones. Guy, /. is really biased on this topic.
...then he would realize that atheism is an untenable position since it requires a finite being to posit infinite knowledge of the universe.
As are most of the major creation myths... In R.E. (Religious Education). At least it was when I went to school.
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
I used to be proud to be a Briton, not anymore. I know no one who believes in ID or creationism or who believes the world to be 6000 years old, I guess that's because every single one of my friends went to a good uni and is educated.
If you fill a tub full of water and then reduce the water coming out of the faucet to a drip, you can easily get a scientist to give you the wrong answer by bringing him in at this point and asking how long it took for the tub to fill up.
Erm, in a word: no.
If all you told him was that the tub was full and the tap is dripping, then yes, you might get a scientist to give a wrong conclusion.
But if you let the scientist examine the tub and the faucet, more likely than not, you'd get the right answer.
That's the problem with ID. It is an attack on science, not a theory unto itself. Science may have it wrong, so god must have done it.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
The article keeps refering to a survey on the "origin and development of life". They need to separate out "origin" and "development" - they do not likely have the same explanation.
In terms of origin, they should ask specific questions. For example:
1. The origin of life is:
a.)Life started here on Earth;
b.)Life was brought to the planet Earth by a comet;
c.)God created life on Earth.
At least then it would be specific what people are agreeing to.
FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
As a Catholic, I find that most Catholic's don't hold the Bible to be the literal word of God. The Vatican has said that science and religion need to coexist, and even released a statement about the ruling in Dover stating that ID should not be taught in the classroom (although that statement did not come from the Pope). It is almost like the Christian church that has been around for 2000 years (Catholicism) has learned its lesson, and the modern Christian churches have not. I think it is a little bit scary that there is such a divide within Chrisianity, let alone America or England. I totally agree with your comment about many of these people not reading National Geographic or watching the Discovery Channel. People will believe what they want...
The great thing about evolution is that it doesn't stop existing when you stop believing in it.
Morality is usually taught by the immoral.
Just because I see so many anti-evolution folks do it... it makes we wince... so:
No, we did not evolve "from apes" or "from worms", but a common ancestor who is now quite dead and does not directly correlate with any existing species. We are cousins, not descendants.
Better to say that we share ancestors with worms and apes, ancestors which if seen today we would not consider human.
Evolution is believable G.W. Bush is the closest apparition of the missing link every one has been looking for. But then that cast doubts upon the theory of natural selection. This then puts us into the camp of Intelligent Design. Again our apparition is casting doubts and upsetting theory here also. AlienSlave
I thought most people over here thought these views were outdated and lacked substance. None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected.
Just to add my random data point... I'm a well educated person who believes in creationism and ID.
To name a few:
Phlogiston
The Plum Pudding Model
The Four Humours (as a physiological model>
The Earth is Flat
The Geocentric model
I could list hundreds of other beliefs that seemed perfectly rational based upon the science of the time.
Of course, I can also predict the arguement that you will make was that these weren't based upon good science, but the fact of the matter is that they were based upon the science of the time the prospered in. We look back on them now with modern scientific methods and see them as being pretty bad explinations for things, but there is little to say that in another 200 years or another couple millenia that our descendents won't say the very same thing about a lot of out scientific beliefs.
Don't take this as me making an attack on evolution, frankly I believe it myself it does seem to make a certain amount of sense. I also happen to believe in God myself, and I don't find that to be on any level a contradiction.
What I do find ridiculous is making blanket attacks on someone who does take the time to understand any scientific theory and decides that because of the known problems with it that they don't believe it to be the right explanation. This isn't some fundamental failing of the person as it is having a basic skepticism that should be lauded as it is the very basis of science itself. We shouldn't absolutely believe anything we cannot prove.
On the contrary, it's people who try and make objective truth subjective and believe that feel-good solutions are more important than being right that're to blame for society's ills.
"Life's deeper questions" tell us what to do with our lives, and should not be used to describe the exact processes of life's creation. To do so *is* idiocy.
No. The problem arises when people with unsupported theories expect to be listened to. Of course scientists should keep open minds, but that doesn't mean they have to listen to every yo-yo with some crazy new idea. There should some be some minimal support for the hypothesis in the form of physical evidence, observations, or mathematical models in order to convince other scientists that the idea is worth pursuing further.
ID doesn't offer any of this, and until it does then it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
If something helped make man, wouldn't they by definition be God? It seems you are just playing semantics. The definition of God is incrediably loose as it is, but I'm sure 99% of people would say that a thing that guided the making of human would be as close to a God as possible.
:)
Btw, I'm a brit
I read that website, and found it stupid. They picked random quotes (without any attribution) and then disproved them. If they want to make a serious point they should take the points directly from an anti-ID webpage and link to it, then disprove. Or at the very least allow questions to be asked.
That's the trouble with ID proponents. They don't do things in a scientific way. If they want to say "this is what the ID people said" then cite your source! Give the actual thing that some leading anti-ID guy said.
Maybe I was living under a rock, but I never heard the term "intelligent design" until about 4 or 5 months ago. Now it's everywhere. Kind of like the word "terrorism". Rarely heard that word until 2001.
The mob mentality gets it's claws onto a buzzword and just can't let it go. Don't most people realize they're being played? Whether it's by media or politicians, we're all being taken for a ride.
Thomas Jefferson was a major proponent of dire necessity of public education for the continuance of democracy. He asserted four basic principals -
Are we educating citizens in America today? Nope, public education is grinding out worker drones that are specifically taught not to think. Jefferson would never have believed that the political sanction of free speech and inquiry that is occurring on campuses today would even be possible in the society he was envisioning. Let alone the outright programming of the populace to conform to the authority of the government, their employers, and God, in that order.
Instead of citizens capable of rational participation in their own government, we're producing franchisees of that Government, who've been formally taught, for seventeen years in most cases, that:
- every idea is just as important as every other idea (there's no way to prove anything definitively, so why not ID, etc. Gravity is just a theory, after all),
- that there are lots of ways to be intelligent (music intelligence, gee-its-too-bad-your-poor intelligence, etc.),
- that it's more important to feel good about your self than to actually achieve anything, and
- that worst possible thing they could do is form a judgment.
Being politically correct is the very most important ideal, with being economically performant running a close second.This process produces plenty of highly suggestible votes for the "democratic" process, since the sole and only criteria for participating in the democracy is the ability to fog a mirror. By not teaching anything about true politics it also produces a great deal of nihilistic apathy about the processes of government (which is much, much better from the incumbent office holder's point of view). Want proof? Ask the next person you see who their state representative is, who their city councilman is, and how the Electoral College works. Of course, if you need to look the answers up yourself... well, you get it.
So, what to do? Throw out public education? Beef-up public education? It really doesn't matter. Jefferson's ideal is unattainable because Americans are inherently uninterested in self-governance. The fact that nobody ever mentions the true purpose of public education in these discussions is prima facie evidence of our inability to successfully govern ourselves or even understand that we should. We'll continue on, living under the tyranny of the uneducated (though often credentialed with MBAs), uninterested, NASCAR-loving, not-particularly-moral majority, blissfully ceding our liberties to his majesty, Tyrannous Ignoramus, until our Chinese overlords put a stop to this "one-man-one-vote" nonsense. Probably sooner than later.
I'm glad to hear that more than half of the Britons don't BELIEVE in evolution.
Evolution is a scientific theory (or group of theories really), and therefore not something to be believed or disbelieved. Theories are to be tested, scrutinized, revised, etc. Belief is best reserved for philosophical matters.
My degree is in geology so I have a pretty good understanding of paleontology and evolution. I hope I never fall into the trap of believing the theories I learned to work with.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Intelligent Design: "God" didn't make the universe, but he enjoys meddling with it.
I think you meant to say:
Intelligent Design: "God" didn't necessarily make the universe, but somebody did. Probably the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
steampunk web design
None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected.
None of my close friends like eating pork, but we're all well educated jewish rabbis so I guess that's to be expected.
I love the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality in this thread. Just because somebody prefers Intelligent Design theory does not mean they are an ignorant hillbilly. It just strongly implies it. This is just personal opinion, but believing the whole Theory of Evolution from the Big Bang to the present happened without divine intervention of any sort and is all random chance seems to me to require every bit as much faith as believing a higher power pulled a few strings along the way.
I sometimes wonder if there will be an old creation story such as the following taught in some class in the distant future: "Once upon a time, everything in the entire universe was crammed into a really tiny dot which then exploded and eventually coalesced into galaxies, stars, and planets. At least one planet happened to be just the right distance from its parent star and had just the right mix of chemicals and conditions for them to combine in exactly the right way to start reproducing. Nevermind that we have no idea how to recreate this, but the god of Chance surely could have done it (Step 2, anyone?). Over several billion years, these simple organisms went through millions of changes, some of which had to have been a hindrance for survival until the final product was done a few millenia later. And that's where babies come from."
The Theory of Evolution is simply the scientific community's best guess for how we came to be. The details are still way too sketchy. Is the Big Bang the only explanation for the universe's expansion? Does dark matter drive it? Or is it gravitons? Does either even exist or is it something yet unknown? How could meiosis have instantly just happened, or would it have been possible for that complex process to evolve in parts over time? Science knows a lot, but is it enough to be so certain? Are any of you even real? Maybe I'm actually in a padded room right now and my life is all a vast hallucination. What I'm trying to say is that it can't be scientifically proven and in the end doesn't affect our daily lives (although our arguments over it certainly do), so why do we make such a big deal out of it?
Why do we have to run with it because it's the best we've got? For all its usefulness in everyday life, the scientific process seems to be a hindrance when it comes to abstract theories that don't affect daily life one way or another. Yes, the Theory of Evolution is the best we've got. No, I don't have a better suggestion. But why can't we at least leave it in beta until a lot more kinks are worked out before rushing it to production? Let the scientists do their research in peace before accepting it as fact and making fun of its critics. It's called the _Theory_ of Evolution for a reason.
Personally I'm from the "God created the world in 6 days" camp, but I'm not going to run around trying to back it up with selective scientific tidbits or attack established scienctific theory because the two beliefs clash. If you don't believe it, fine - I'm not going to ram it down your throat. I'd just like the same treatment in return. If I attack any theories, it will be because I see a logical problem, or at least potential for one. I'm just an IT worker that gets really bored at work - not an expert in astrophysics or genetics - so I apologise in advance for the dark matter/meiosis thing if it doesn't fit, but it's mostly there to back up my "overall, we don't know jack about shit" argument.
Could you show me proof of a protozoa evolving into a metazoa?
How is this comment NOT flamebait?
:^)
Are you seriously saying that only an idiot would believe that there might be a creator that made things, rather than believing that they just happened by chance and natural selection? You've closed the debate in your head, and assumed that anyone not agreeing with you is a moron.
"And you, sir, are worse than Hitler."
Not Dada21! Say it ain't so!
Falsify or verify spontaneous generation. I can most certainly falsify it mathematically.
Others may. I seem to recall the UK being some kind of a democracy, despite still having a monarch. Social contract dictates that the majority needs to be provided for, and that "educated atheists"(meaning only that the select people you're referring to are both educated, and also putting faith in the atheist position) aren't the only ones choosing curriculum. They'd better not be.
I do feel moved to point out that there's nothing wrong with believing evolution has a long way to go, or even that it isn't valid. I feel comfortable saying there's not much difference in supporting evolution compared to supporting a creation belief, from a proof stand point. When it comes down to it, it's where you're putting your faith. Both topics require quite a bit of it. People get all pissy when I say that, but it's true. How much true evidence is there for evolution, that's not conjuncture and assumption? Science is some people's chosen faith, however unlikely it may be. Myself, I throw down behind a protestant Christian position, but I do understand the other side of the equation.
On another note, it's very interesting to me that the world society as a whole wants to cram an incorrect definition of tolerance down my throat, and then tell me that they won't truly tolerate my beliefs. Double standards are wonderful, but I knew I'd be persecuted.
Look behind you...
Ah, you make the mistake of assuming that the English actually want to keep the Northern Irish in the union. In fact we're rarerly asked, and whenever the question is broached it generally seems that a substantial majority would be quite happy to tow the 6 counties off into the middle of the Atlantic and sink the lot of 'em. To the vast majority of English your Protestant Ulsterman is seen as being just as Irish as his Catholic counterpart.
The House of Lords is no longer hereditary, do try to keep up!
Though of course one cannot prove God exists in a laboratory (God basically says this itself if you read the Bible thoroughly enough), I believe creation and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. Anyone with a compelling reason they are needs to let the world know. Until then, this is a nondebate.
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Obviously it is impossible. That's the point. Since it's impossible, something ELSE must be happening. The only other possibility is the sudden jump from a species with exactly one or more extra or fewer pairs of chromosomes (or, I must admit, fused chromosomes that would be fewer) and IS VIABLE (excluding non-speciatic mutatiions like Downs Syndrome.)
I am aware that speciation is not dependent on number of pairs of chromosomes only; I used that example because it seems the simplest. Perhaps it was not so simple to explain. Maybe next year or next decade I will be able to explain it better.
The FSM was himself created?
You're trying destroy my belief in the Ultimate Cause of Everything!
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
1) Atheist. Those who don't believe in God and that life somehow appeared, but wasn't by any God.
2) Religious people. This category puts everyone that believes in God in it. Whether or not you worship God as he laid out in the bible or not.
The difference with those two classes is that Atheists are hard nosed about God. They don't believe in God so they will flame you and try everything they can do to make their point known and shut their ears to everything else. Essentially they are right and you are wrong. Religious people on the other hand believe in God and that he created everything. As the bible teaches, Christians are supposed to spread the Word and try to bring everyone to faith to be saved after death. I am a Christian that does follow the bible in every aspect (at least I try, no human is perfect which is why Jesus came). Survival of the fittest, adaptation, very good points to evolution. Life forming from a "goo" over millions of years, no I don't believe in it. One thing non-believers ask about is Dinosaurs. We have their bones and carbon dating says they are x number of years old. But God can create not only new things, but old things. When Adam and Eve were created, they were adults. They didn't grow up from infants. This being stated, God could have made dinosaur bones, but not living dinosaurs. Now if anyone replies to this, it will probably say 'What's the point of having old bones if they never lived?'. Answer: I don't know. God is all knowing, not Me.
I guess I am saying to all the atheist out there on Slashdot, which seems to be a very large majority, if someone talks about God, who are you to tell them they are wrong when it may be you that is wrong? And Christians, if someone flames you because you brought up Christ or God or a reference to the bible, reply to him with more scripture. We are to teach the lost even if they don't want to listen. 2Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
At first I hoped that you really CAN tell the difference between a mathematical theorem and a scientific hypothesis.
Then I thought that if you did know the difference, then you were being deliberately deceptive when you compared them, which would be worse.
Ignorance is easier to cure, and less destructive, than dishonesty.
In the end, I guess, I hope that you really do know the difference, but were just not thinking when you suggested that they work the same.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choanoflagellata .
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Don't you have a lot of Jedis over there? Maybe they thought ID was Imperial Designated or something and skewed the poll.
You're not alone. This malady plagues intelligent left-leaning people everywhere, but especially in English-speaking nations. The United States especially, and now Britain and Canada as well. There's a very weird kind of disdain and intolerance for the real mainstream thought among people. I'm not sure where it comes from, but it's evidence in political leadership, journalistic practices, etc. I would guess that the real think tanks of modern liberal/progressive thought tend to be concentrated in areas in which they are utterly surrounded by like-thinking individuals (New York, London, Washington DC, etc), and when all you hear all day is your own beliefs firmly recited back to you by highly educated and very intelligent people, it's hard not to assume that most people think like you do, and to dismiss anybody who doesn't as being a knuckle-dragging idiot.
Both are highly dangerous assumptions, for a number of reasons. First is that it breeds an elitist intolerance for differences of opinion ("you don't agree? God, you must be some kind of idiot") and it makes an honest debate and dialog difficult. Second, it has resulted in brilliant people being out of power, and their political leadership flailing away as the minority party, and in America at least, the Democrats have basically resorted to ineffectual marketing tactics to try to repackage what they think as something it's not.
The answer is not to try to make the ideas of the left look like the ideas of the right so people will vote for it. It's to convince people that the ideas of the left are better. Right now, people don't think they are, and rebranding the same old garbage isn't going to work. Look at the US election in 2004. What were Kerry and Bush's major platforms? Stay the course in Iraq, keep the tax cuts, strong national security, blah blah. Even with this new wiretapping story, the Democrats are not trying to get the program cancelled, only criticize how its being managed/executed, etc.
The problem isn't just that they're out of touch (this wiretapping story is a non-story; the only people who are really motivated and irate about it are people who were already irate at Bush - it's not a gap-closing, vote-winning issue), but that the leadership of the liberal movement is out of steam, out of ideas, and being driven and whipped by the base. The base of the Democratic party in America is not a typical American Joe Sixpack, it's angry people who are tired of Bush and his various transgressions and missteps. But, like Clinton, Bush is a winner with the suburbanites and soccer moms. Christian values, a safer America, lower taxes, these are things that are easy to sell. How have the Democrats tried to win on these issues? Run against them? "We're against Christian values, we're for higher taxes, and to hell with national security!" No. Run FOR them? But how? We mostly don't believe in those things, at least not in the same sense that the Republicans do. We embrace a code of ethics, but how to tell Susie Q. Soccermom living in Apple Valley, MN that she should vote for our guy over Bush because a secular humanist code of ethics is just as good as Christian values but doesn't violat the establishment clause? Susie is going to tell you, "Excuse me, I'm late for choir practice" and vote Republican.
So yeah. You're out of touch, and so is the leadership of progressive thought worldwide. Conservatism was originally a philosophical principle that social evolution is evitable and necessary, but is best handled slowly and incrementally to avoid chaos and civil disorder. They may have been on to something, people in mass groups don't easily let go of the things they were raised with. The Enlightenment was centuries ago and people still think God farted and produced the atmosphere.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Everyone is wrong.
Intelligent Design isn't science.
Creationism isn't science.
And Evolution isn't science either.
None of the 3 is science simply because all of them take efficient causality as if it was the same as formal causality.
That's what happens when people not study Aristotle: both sides start talking nonsense.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
78% did NOT choose creationism 83% did NOT choose Intelligent Design of those expressing a prefence, 55% chose evolution while 25% chose creationism and 20% chose Intelligent Design Doesn't sound to me like there's much debate here. Also, to the point about folks not knowing what the heck Intelligent Design is, you have to credit the ID crowd for good branding. I doubt the ID score would be as high if they called their mythology 'Pseudo-Creationism'
Wouldn't that be Chuck Norris Design (I hesitate to insert intelligence in there)...
I'm a well educated college graduate who spends most of his time reading doctrinal theses on biology, physics, chemistry and other areas of science for the fun of it. I believe in Creation. The fact is that most people who do believe in evolution probably don't know jack about why they believe in it except that its what "educated" people believe.
"believe" in evolution?
You don't need to believe, that is for unprovable things like religion.
Evolution is Science, it is proven. It is a workable theory that is expanded (incremental) en independantly proven over and over again.
It is used in many projects. It is common as gravitation.
But.
The concept that macroevolution has taken place and is responsible for life on our planet is as clear to me as the concept that the sky is blue. It's fact. It happened. This isn't arguable. Now, I still believe that God created the universe and everything in it, but it's abundantly obvious to me that He used the laws of physics (as we currently understand them - subject to update) and evolution (same disclaimer) as the raw tools of the creation. This does not conflict in any way with my understanding of the Bible, or any of the rest of my theology.
However, I'm overwhelmed by the increasingly shrill screaming of other conservative Christians - whom I probably agree with on most other issues - stating that evolution is the tool of Satan and it's a devious lie meant to doom believers to hell.
The more I hear this, the more I realize that I have almost nothing else in common with these people. I can't look at the sky and see green. I can't look at fossils and see a God that loves screwing with the minds of his faithful. I can't look at the stupendously overwhelming amount of proof that evolution is a defining process of our world and see a 6,000 year old planet. I just can't do it.
So now I'm questioning exactly where I stand on the other ideas that I share with my brothers and sisters who now wholly reject my worldview. I thought I knew exactly where I stood, but the only thing I'm really sure of is that I don't know anymore.
And that, to me, is the legacy of Intelligent Design and other related idiocies. By wrapping themselves in the warm blanket of self-delusion, its supporters have exposed those around them to a huge amount of spiritual collateral damage. A very large part of me wants to get as far as possible from these people, but the rest doesn't know what to do. These were my friends, my fellow believers, but they don't want me any more than I want them. In a way, I'm glad that they forced me to rethink my beliefs. In another way, I curse them for the same reason.
The ID crowd has done far more harm to their cause than any Darwin-fish bumper sticker could have dreamed. Science was only able to make me question my understanding of the universe. It took a conspiracy of my old friends to make me question my understanding of God.
Damn them all for damning me.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I blame Douglas Adams... and worshipfully await the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.
its pretty much standard, even living in the bible belt, that evolution is "the one". My physiology teacher even flat out tells you that in his syllubus. But thats the super confusing thing about evolution - you can prove it happened, but you can't prove how the first organism sprung to life.
In the UK, there is no constitutional requirement on the separation of church and state to spark the controversy.
;), that will take some time. I am sure that national educational standards will need to be developed.
That's probably because the Anglican Church, in response to the influence of Catholisicm, was established as a state sponsored church, back during the reformation. Incidentally, this in turn is probably also why the modern British colony of northern Ireland is very much anti-Catholic.
In fact, far from the UK having a problem with people who "want to teach religion as science", we have more of an issue with some poor quality science teachers who "want to teach science as history"
Britain is somewhat of a social pioneer for the US. My guess is we will start seeing this here pretty soon too. Already I've read complaints regarding the current administration and supposed attempts to apply non-scientific criteria in choosing to reference scientific resources to support political adgenda's. It seems to me that science and rationality in general are starting to come under fire.
I'm happy to report that the situation in the US is also not as dire as some slashdot'ers (and much of the popular media) would like you to believe it is. Fortunately, the religious fundamentalists are being held in check by both public opinion and the courts, the extreme anti-evolutionist camp has been and IMHO will be kept out of the classrooms. ID, while currently not widely taught in public classrooms, will likely survive the current backlash it is recieving because its most progressive proponents are giving it a bad rep by pitting it against evolution.
It's worth noting that in the recent Dover court case the presiding judge who ruled against the school board's institution of ID in the science curriculuum did so not because he thought ID itself was not suitable for the classroom, but because it could not be considered a science. In his opinion, judge Jones specifically suggested that ID would be suitable for the classroom if taught as a different subject, like philosophy. Furthermore, there was significant evidence suggesting that the school board in question was using it's version of ID (which was really creationism in disguise) to supplant the teaching of evolution.
In my opinion, ID is eventually going to find it's way into the public curriculuum. Initially at least, it will probably be as an elective option, and probably challenged in local school boards as is currently the case. However, if ID is to become mandatory, and it may evolve that way
It's like my dad told me when I was in high school: believe 80% of what you see, 50% of what you read, and 20% of what you hear. Good sense always prevails in the end.
If it doesn't make any difference in people's lives to know where they came from, then there is as little need for any religious form of explanation as there is for a scientific one. I think it's quite clear that people need some form of explanation, or nobody would argue about it. There would be no creation myths, no debate, and this area of science would be a boring backwater with no funding.
Your time/relativity comparison makes little sense here. The "why" and "how" of creation clearly matters to people a great deal. The reason it becomes important is that when your unconcerned-with-evolution "average person" becomes the majority, and actively works to change the science curriculum taught to students, they have an immediate impact on everyone-- including the ones who would grow up to have science jobs in that particular field. We end up teaching everyone, including the folks that you argue are the only ones who really need to know, information that runs counter to what we can observe and test.
This is not a good way to educate our scientists, whether the rest of the kids in the class will ever care or not.
Watch as you get many replies from ignorant nerds saying there are no facts in the textbooks to support evolution!
Meh.
Slashdot throws in a political left/right or religious fundamental story just to get 1000+ replies (and hence also attract attention to the other stories). This story is complete crap to start with. One has to wonder how this data was obtained, as it is clearly not even close to truth! Flame away!
Meh.
The concept of evolution is hard to understand. I'll repeat that. It is hard to understand. It is not hard to memorize and recall the consequences and conclusions that come from an understanding of evolution, which are taught, but to really conceptualize and understand the theory of evolution is beyond many people.
If you are one of those people, frankly there is little difference between accepting the assertion of evolutionists and the assertion of creationists. Any more than you could distinguish between the assertion that the interior angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 degrees as opposed to 360, if you've never really thought about geometry before. It's much easier to do simple observations of figures once you have a protractor, than it is to grok selection, and then natural selection.
"The eggheads SAY we came out of apes and stuff, but I don't see how that can be true." Such a statement should be accepted at face value... the speaker doesn't have in his head a complete picture of the process.
Discussion about evolution is everywhere, but it is very uncommon to find a clear explaination rather than muddled speculation and generalisms.
I have to disagree with your claim that there is no discernable difference between ID and creationism.
It occurs to me that there's no reason creationism and evolution couldn't be compatible with eachother. In fact, this is exactly what the Catholic church officially says. God created the universe for us ~16 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Evolution still occured here on Earth, although God may have created the universe to kick that process off.
If this is true, and your claim is true, then evolution and intelligent design must also be compatible with eachother, which is apparently not the case according to culture.
On the other hand, intelligent design could be said to have been an intelligent design of the Big Bang such that it would result in our sun forming and Earth forming and evolution occuring exactly as it did. This, however, is not the definition of intelligent design which is used. Instead we take it to mean that the universe was created by God some time in the past 10,000 years or something like that, and that nothing has evolved since then (which has been proven false).
So either your claim about ID = Creationism is false, or my description that Evolution and Creationism are compatible is false, or they're both true and they're all really entirely compatible with eachother in ways that people love to ignore.
"...your opinion doesn't count any more than mine does."
That works when talking about the existence of God, too.
> I'm a Brit myself ... this proudly secular country...
A "secular" country with an official state religion. Right.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Technically, you are correct. Theistic Evolution can be considered Intelligent Design in that it requires an intelligent designer.
Um, I think you misunderstand. TE can mean that God stepped in and miraculously tweaked the processes of evolution as a way of guiding it to where He wanted it to go. Or not; it can mean that God used only the naturalistic processes of evolution to create life. The first type is compatible with ID, though it doesn't require ID.
"There is an intelligent designer" is not ID. "We see features that require an intelligent designer" is ID.
In practice, ID as a movement and AS IT IS CURRENTLY USED is a tool for Creationists, nothing more. It does not allow for understanding or acceptance of evolution.
There are more creationists than non-creationist IDers. Creationist use of ID arguments will have a much higher profile, simply from that fact. And that fact is enough to account for your perception.
...there's this little thing called a toothbrush. Not bestowed by Zues or any other diety. It's magic properties, when combined with a substance called toothpaste, reduce the amount of tooth decay and loss in the human mouth.
Downs syndrome is a result of a rather major DNA change, I understand that some forms of it also breed true.
Also, many Ataxias are caused by faults in DNA reproduction, causing duplication of DNA sequences.
Also, some radical body deformations can occur with a single gene change, such as those where flies grow without wings, or humans can be completely without pigment.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Scratch the birth process off your list of grievances.
It simply isn't so. Your perceptions are being skewed by foolish females that insist on beginning to breed past their prime. Teenage farmgirls simply don't have the sort of problems that normally get associated with human childbirth. While it is certainly less efficient (due to the whole quadrapeds trying to stand upright issue). It is not as bad as many make it out to be.
Having your first child at 30 simply isn't natural.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
From creationists: Where is the fossil that proves....
Why not start asking for evidence too?
Eh, where is the arc, the talking snake, the flaming Bush (sorry, couldn't resist).
And if you're questioned about your knowledge of the bible, here's a question you can put in return:
Mention at least 4 authors of the bible (answer: John, Luke etc. . Remember it is the Gospel ACCORDING TO John).
Bert
An devilish demonstration of unscrupulous surveying!
"we're all well educated athiests"
"well educated"
ok, you've spent a lot of time in school...
"athiest"
& it didn't do you a bit of good.
Personally I feel that whatever science and history are no better than religion. Whatever is taught to us in schools are basically either propaganda or myths. Every few years you will find people making claims against the existing notions.
And people who stick to old notions are termed as ignorant like the Europeans did to Asians and Africans.
They are generally used as a tool to inculcate an inferiority feeling for vested interests.
The accuracy of a well-sampled survey (ie you properly randomly sample) is dependent only on the absolute numbers of people you survey, not on the size of the population you draw from. So it doesn't matter that it's 0.0033% of the population, just how many people that it has sampled.
Wiley's law is just the tip of the iceberg that shows just how fractured and inconsistent the so-called "Theory of Gravity" is. Intelligent falling provides a much more complete and scientifically based explanation than any secular gravatist could hope for:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
And yes -- this post is a JOKE folks.
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Evolution / natural selection is as simple as this. "What can be, will be." Yes, that's it. This is the principle behind life. Why? If an organism / combination of proteins / grey goo / etc. can multiply, it will. If two different entities need one same resource to multiply, the stronger will get it. Why? If it can get it before the other, it will.
/ID believers try to use science to disprove evolution, like "aminoacids can be left and right handed, but some of those are poisonous". Well, these areguments can be easily rebated. I googled 5 minutes ago and found David C. Wise's page with a pascal program called "MONKEY", that demonstrates how effective random generation can be.
Applying this to the origin of life, a combination of aminoacids which can self-replicate will flourish in comparison of those that don't. In those replications there are flaws, changes or mutations. Those that can multiply, will.
Proteins are nothing but a composition of aminoacids. Aminoacids can be produced "spontaneously" in the right conditions. I'm sure that at some point, enough different aminoacids were present so that a simple chemical reaction
(thunder, UV light) would bond them together.
Why is it difficult to believe in the primordial soup? Let's think about it. According to Ramsey's Theorem in an infinite discrete space, any specific combination of words can be found (this is also known as the infinite monkeys with typewriters writing a work of Shakespeare). So, what happens if we get enough proteins all mixed together, waiting for yet another catalyst?
(I can testify something about the Ramsey's theorem. I know a guy who based a computer research paper on it for pattern recognition. And the thing worked.)
200 million years could be enough time for simple microorganisms to form. The earch is 4.5 billion years old. Think about it.
Have you guys noticed how the book of Genesis starts with... "and the Spirit of God floated above the waters"? I was taught in school that the first lifeforms on earth originated on the surface of the sea.
Maybe the problem with creationists is not that they don't believe in evolution, but that they find it to be physically impossible. Lack of faith perhaps? I wonder, why is it so easy for them to believe that God made Adam and Eve out of a pile of mud, and yet so difficult that God let the aminoacids combine and form simple organisms that would later combine and evolve?
Creationists
I consider myself a scientist because I follow the scientific method. You can too. I believe in the big bang because there is an enormous amount of evidence that it occurred. Evolution however has spotty supporting evidence at best. Just because you can't prove how we got here does not mean you have to believe in some form of creator. "I don't know" is the basis of science. But many people can't get their head around that. Humans seem to need something to believe in. The need to understand and classify the world around us is a very strong drive. And we don't take very well to being questioned. When you tell someone they are wrong about a fundamental thing like this, you get a very strong reaction don't you. I could go into great detail about why Evolutionary theory is full of bunk. But I'd only get flamed. Science is the new religion of our age. Standard religion is on the wane. Hope against hope that an inquisition doesn't start. Because that's what humans do. If you don't believe that, just read these posts. A great shame on all of you for your lack of vision and imagination. The truth of our origins may be going unexplored. It is my hope that science may soon change fundamentally what is means to be human through genetics.
"We're all well educated athiests [sic]", says the submitter.
Apparently not quite so well-educated as he thinks. I'm guessing Cambridge, judging by his inability even to spell the name of the philosophy to which he subscribes. Or is he claiming to take that philosophy further than most? I've met some people who were pretty athy, so if he's athier than them, perhaps he really is the athiest!
Heres some scripture from the Bible, we all pose to be so wise and intelligent but sometimes our intelligence makes us just as blind as the "uneducated" or fool
1 Corninthians
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1. Mock their beliefs
2. Call them stupid.
3. Call yourself smart
Faith cannot address matters of Science and Science cannot address matters of faith. Attempts by either should be ignored not assaulted.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Those aren't absolute reversals. So the Plumb Pudding Model was revised. Was it wrong about electrons? Was it wrong about atoms having a source of positive charge? No. It was wrong by not being specific enough about where exactly positive charge falls in an atom. Thus it is an example of idea evolution.
Take Phlogiston. Okay, it sounds a little silly from our modern perspective, but does that make it absolutely unmitigatingly wrong? Of course not. It simply attributed to a gas what should have been attributed to the absence of a gas. Once again, when the evidence came out against it the modification was made. In fact, Phlogiston theory aided the understanding of gasses. The Phlogiston model was remarkably accurate except for the problem of identifying which direction reactions actually occur in.
The same is true of the others. You especially should have realized that the flat-Earth notion is not a full reversal; many applications today assume a flat Earth as a reasonable approximation of terrain.
Evolution will be the same. There will be certain aspects that have to be modified. Perhaps new processes will be discovered that enhance our understanding. But it is not reasonable to suppose that the entire framework will be scrapped.
I think the problem most people have with ID (at least here in the US, can't speak to the rest of the world) is that it is synonymous with religion, and more specifically Christianity. The theory of intelligent design simply states that something with intelligence had a hand in the origins of what we know to be the universe. Be it aliens, a god (or gods), a flying spaghetti monster... whatever.
And it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from evolution either. What if this intelligence started a chain reaction, that it knew would end up evolving into what we see today and beyond?
In the end, because (at least as far as I was taught, correct me if I'm wrong) in order to *prove* something scientifically, the first step is observation, and seeing as how no one I've ever met was there to observe the origin of what we know to be the universe, no ideas as to how it all began can ever be more than theory.
Granted, the media seems to highlight the crazies, who spout that God needs to be back in schools, and they are using ID as a platform to make that happen... but to me, ID is not religion trying to explain God, its not the conservative right trying to get God back into schools, and its not at odds with current scientific theories; its a logical explination for the gaps we see in current ideas on the origins of the universe.
Just my $0.02
Yes, organisms will development develop minor DNA changes as a result of the environment. But evolution THEORY is that somewhere along the line there were MAJOR DNA changes, there is no proof of this happening, did a dog just give birth to a cat one day?
So what do you think billions of minor changes over millions of years will result in? Anyway, we have observed plenty of major DNA changes, although the majority result in death. Some have persisted and affect a large portion of society. Obviously a dog did not give birth to a cat, but some common ancestor of both split into different breeds, which evolved into different species. Can you really not conceive of such a thing? I have a hard time seeing how this wouldn't happen over millions of years.
I remember a farside where a scientist is trying to explain a formula, right in the middle there is the words "some miracle occurs". Reminds me of the big bang theory, evolution theory, etc etc.
Obviously any theory can be refined and more evidence can always be gathered. Over time opponents of the theory evolution have repeatedly used the argument, well if this evolved from this, shouldn't there be records of something halfway in between? Over and over again we've found records of something in between and then they argue, well shouldn't there be fossils of something in between those? The answer is no. Only so many fossils are created and eventually we'll find them all on the planet and guess what, there will still be gaps between fossilized variants of some creature. Evolution has successfully predicted what we will find and nothing has ever been shown to disprove it. Only someone who is irrational or uninformed would conclude that evolution is not the most likely theory for how life changes over time.
How can a post that, not just once but twice, labels a group of people whose only "crime" is disagreeing with the poster as "morons" be considered "Informative" (especially when that's the only message in the post; no links, no cites, no anything but an ascerbic opinion of not the position but the persons)?
/.-ers would consider an ad hominem attack itself as "informative" in the first place...
Just one moron's opinion here, but maybe that's why you have trouble convincing better than half of Charles Darwin's own countrymen; whenever you resort to ad hominem attacks you send the clear message that you lack faith in your own argument.
Of course, a discussion of the parent post itself is off-topic; the issue as stated in the subject line goes more toward why moderating
And yet, the Brittish have very low church attendance:
I CLE_ID=36388
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
Just because applications assume that we have a flat Earth doesn't make it flat. What the hell are you defending a flat earth for? You're making some questionable arguments that don't really have anything to do with anything.
You probably already know this, but your analogy is flawed. (Furthermore, analogies, even if aptly chosen, are not automatically valid arguments. Certainly not if they are "aptly chosen" mostly from a rhetorical point of view.)
One problem with it is that Swiss watches are not actually alive - they don't have to do things like finding food and shelter or even mate(which, you will have to admit, is a pretty central concept of evolution.) In other words, a Swiss-watch-in-training has no feedback system to judge whether it is failing or succeeding in being a watch.
Another is that the Swiss watch, for your analogy to be valid, must be the observer, not merely something which is observed. In other words: if twenty billion years of bag-shaking does NOT result in a Swiss watch, the Swiss-watch-which-was-not-to-be will never know. This means that probability is not really an issue: if life originates naturally - even on very, very rare occasions - we are not present to observe all the occurences of life not originating naturally. (Which is good, because I have a hunch it would be rather boring.) In other words, no matter the probability of life originating naturally in any one instance, if that is how life forms, it's perfectly natural that we will always observe at least one instance of it happening.
For the record, I'm an agnostic. I agree to some degree on the matter of atheists having faith - not specifically on the matter of the origin of life, but philosophically speaking. Atheists who vehemently deny any possibility of there being a "God" of any sort are guessing, because they are speculating about things that are by definition unobservable. I've never heard any convincing explanation to the contrary(though I've heard many atheists argue that there being no god is a "good guess", most often on the basis of applying physical experience to metaphysical matters).
(Oh, and please don't give me the line about "early evolution is unobservable". By "unobservable", I mean in the strictest sense unobservable - saying that early evolution is unobservable is, to me, cheapening the very concept of "God". To (ironically) make use of a counter-analogy: If I see a ball on the ground and hypothesise that it might have been dropped by someone, I can verify this as a possibility endlessly by dropping the ball again and again to confirm that gravity still works. Even if I can't observe the actual dropping of the actual ball at the precise moment it happened, I can recreate ways in which it might have happened and choose amongst the remaining possibilities what I believe to be likely scenarios. If I hypothesise that the ball was put there by God(in a personal sense), that is a logically perfectly reasonable explanation - but, but definition, as a mortal being, I am unable to recreate the scenario, which means that I cannot know whether this is actually possible. Science intentionally restricts itself to dealing with things it can, to some degree, verify as being possible.
In other words: it is a basic axiom of the natural sciences that the world makes sense without supernatural elements. If it does not, the conclusions we draw about it from science will be wrong - but from a scientific point of view, we will never notice. This, really, is not a problem: science concerns itself with a non-supernatural view of the world, whether or not that world view is correct. So far in history, science has been a fairly productive application of the human mind, so I don't think anyone can seriously argue that we ought to get rid of it.)
I have a better education, as do all of the people I work with (we're all PhD's) and many of us (I will not say most or a few, as it would bias the point) are theists. So putting education as a qualifier for athiesm is nonsense. You should not try to give your view athority by saying many other educated people believe it too. And writing an article with such a statement is kind of insulting, is being a journalist no longer considered being a professional.?
I do not have a problem with evolution, it can easily exist within the theistic frame. But so many people automatically assume that evolution is an if and only if relationship with athiesm, which is not only nonsense, but also polarizing (both thiests and athiests do this in my experience). Perhaps if we all thought about the statement that an education takes an empty mind and opens it, then we would find it much harder to call ourselves educated without a little more effort.
People will believe what they want...
I disagree. People beleive what they were indoctrinated to beleive. That's why teaching ID or creationism is so dangerous in public schools. You are going to have an entire generation beleiving that a scientific theory is nothing more than a "hunch" and these same people beleive that their lives are guided by some God and they will soon shun other scientific "theories" as voodo or just a fairy tale, global warming and al. Once an entire generation loses their confidence in science because they were brainwashed in classes with christian dogma, we are back in a modern dark ages.
I understand the semantics, but Creationists have hijacked the movement, and are both financing and providing the political muscle to push ID into schools. I'm not concerned with the Raelians :)
1. You pray, go to Sunday services and have your faith in him, I am not against it. But some of the things are just not making sense. If God is all wonderful and benevolent, why are innocent believers dying? Why isn't god helping them? Some might say, "God helps who helps himself". That is hilarious because I helped myself and where is the God? 2. The whole ID thing arises from religious believes and it's just another way of promoting creationism. I believe in science because science exists everywhere in our lives. Car, planes, computers, TV etc etc. I can't see ID in my life at all, I haven't encountered ONE solid and convincing example. 3. If you are doing science/engineering for your higher education, don't go to Kansas.
Theory: Your theory
Evidence: NONE!
Supporting Arguments: I'm not going to list them so you obviously don't have any.
Theory: My theory
Evidence: Rock solid evidence and facts and such
Supporting Arguments: I can't remember them becuase I was drunk but believe me they prove everything and make you look stupid.
Polls about religion in the UK aren't taken at all seriously.
I asked for proof. Do you have any information that proves protozoa evolved into a metazoa. Remember, were looking for proof here... not hypothesis.
Up to 2.6% claim membership in an alternative religion.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Don't want to sound like a nitpicking smartass, but I couldn't resists...
"...we're all well educated athiests..."
I thought a well-educated atheist could spell "well-educated atheist" correctly.
1) the teaching goes on in the schools, and then you get dangerously close to - if not right on top of - seperation of church and state, with the state imposing a values system (i.e. religious beliefs) where it has no right to,
I hate to burst your bubble here, but religion does not have a monopoly on value systems. The two are not equal, which is what you just stated.
We do have a non-religious value system. It's codified in our laws. We can teach those values in school without stepping on parental toes.
As for belief in creationism, that's fine, believe whatever you want. If you believe God set up the laws of physics and set the universe in motion knowing the outcome, that is a form of creationism, and I'll buy that as a possibility (though not scientifically testable).
If you believe God created the Universe whole-cloth 10,000 years ago, I'm gonna say you're a backwards, willfully-ignorant rube. If you insist that viewpoint is taught in classrooms, I'm gonna say you are intentionally trying to destroy everything we've worked for these last three hundred years, and I'll have to ask you to give back your computers, your vitamins, all the medicines you might take for any allergies and whatnot; because if you deny science as a proven epistomology, you deny the advances made by science.
Religion is not a proven epistomology. You might be able to pass it off as a metaphysics, but that's about it. Religious belief cannot explain the hows; it can only explain the whys. And that is where I start getting pissed, when you take something that is halfway decent at explaining why, and trying to pass it off as knowledge of the how.
The quest for the divine is tricksy and difficult. If there's one thing I know about religion, it's that as soon as you know something about it, you are wrong. Near as I can judge, that is almost the fundamental nature of the divine.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
those 40% arent britons, theyre villagers. look at where this is a substantial viewpoint in the states... village states. the more you see civilisation and a decent scientific education, the less you see this sort of thing.
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
The problem with teaching "Intelligent Design" as some kind of scientific theory is that it really doesn't say anything concrete about the origin of species. It offers no observable or falsifiable hypothesis to explain the biodiversity of life on Earth. The foundation of ID is the idea of "irreducible complexity", which basically says that there are structures found in organisms today that are too complicated to have come about through purely natural processes.
Now, the vast majority of molecular biologists would probably dispute this, but that is neither here nor there. The interesting thing is that ID, even if you accept the notion of irreducible complexity, says absolutely nothing that would refute or falsify evolutionary common descent. ID cannot be used to say that evolution did not happen; it can only be used to say that evolution without an intelligent designer did not happen. So in that respect, it can be said that the vast majority of ID proponents are, in fact, "evolutionists." (I hate that word, but it's probably as good as any.)
However, even though proponents of ID can hide behind the eminently reasonable position of theistic evolution, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of them are, in fact, full-blown creationists. (By this, I mean that they subscribe to absurd notions such as a 6,000 year-old Universe, dinosaur fossils and distant starlight being tests of our faith, etc.)
And herein lies the problem with "intelligent design." The concepts of ID can be used to theorize that the Universe is billions of years old, that the Earth accreted from debris surrounding our proto-Sun, and that evolutionary common descent (all of this guided by God) is the vehicle for the biodiversity we observe on Earth today. The concepts of ID can also be used to theorize that the Earth was poofed into existence 6,000 years ago in its current form. Any "theory" which says these two things at the same time is so vague as to be completely useless, particularly in the field of natural sciences.
And to top it off, throwing the concept of an Intelligent Designer (who, by definition, cannot be observed, measured, or otherwise described) completely contradicts the purpose and methods of natural science.
It's been a while since I actually cared about any of this "debate", but the last time I checked, most people believed in both God and evolution. And the biggest lie that the "creationist/ID" movement is telling is that there is somehow something wrong with this. Leave the "what, when, and how" questions to science and the "who and why" questions to religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Attempting to combine them is just asking for trouble, but that's what the ID folks are trying to do.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
And of course, if you do - which ones, what were the numbers, where are the links ? ... ;-)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
it's important the we the people attempt to teach values that the parents might disagree with, duh.
It's also important that parent's attempt to teach values that the government might disagree with.
If we fail to expose young people to conflicting values they might end up just blindly accepting what ever they find lying about. It's important thay they are taught that the government is crooked and their parents are full of it (but not as full of it as their peers).
Believing in God isn't that bad a thing.
My page.
What the numbers really mean * 22% chose creationism * 17% opted for intelligent design * 48% selected evolution theory * and the rest did not know. Of the 17%, half those thought the "designers" were from Mars. In reference to the 22%, those performing the poll did it on a sunday morning and did not realise there was a church at the end of the street. In 10 years living in the UK i have met one person that would be likely to pick creationism, rest would go for evolution or "who knows?Who cares?"
The comment "ID is not science" is such a dishonest statement. Of course ID is not a scientific method. It's a conclusion _from_ a scientific method, just like evolution is. You can't say Darwin used evolution to discover evolution. No, he came to the conclusion of evolution by using the scentific method of which the supreme factor is _observation_, and I have no problem with that. One scientist looks at finch beaks and concludes macro-evolution. Another sees the same beaks and concludes micro-evolution. It is all so obviously about presuppositional biases isn't it?
I consider myself an educated Christian. Even if I was an atheist, I still would not believe I "evolved" from a monkey. I flat refuse to believe it.
I do not understand why they do not just teach both in school and move on. This has fallen into the "who gives a damn" category.
If you get too close to the edge, you fall off and land on the giant turtle that carries the earth on its back.
Why does this have to be divided along these lines? There are plenty of scientists across all disciplines who are both religious and intelligent, who give science its due and keep religion out of the results of experimentation. I believe in God (and happen to also be well-educated), but that in no way precludes my belief that evolution is, in fact, the way things happened (and continue to happen). My father-in-law is a respected geologist in the field of igneous petrology, a wonderful human being, and a devout Christian. His Christianity doesn't undermine his science or vice versa. My undergrad institution is a Christian liberal arts school, but the science classes exhibit scientific excellence, not dogmatic allegiance to a forgone conclusion.
Shrill, self-styled "iconoclast" Creationists/ID-ers by no means comprise the majority of Christianity. Most Christian denominations, in fact, teach that the book of Genesis is intended to teach about the character of God and God's relation to humanity, not science. For heaven's (and earth's!) sake, can we break out of this outdated generalization??
To reign is to serve.
"That's because "theory" is as good as it gets. There is never "proof." Evolution happens to be the very best explaination science has come up with. It fits the available data. If you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in science."
The problem with science isn't so much the data (and that can be debated), but the conclusions drawn from the data. In other words when presented with data, science is going to conclude that there's only ONE conclusion to draw from it.
I think what you meant to say is "Intelligent Design is false, thus is junk science, and should be tought in the seminary."
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
Cripes, not the Brits, too! Must everyone be as dumb, on average, as us Americans? C'mon, act a little superior, already!
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
You left out the ability to reproduce related to their fitness.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
strong and weak nuclear forces are finely balanced. Any stronger, and the universe would consist of the near-equivalent of a neutron star at the center of the universe and nothing any where else.
This and other reasonings that somehow hint at intelligent designers, fall under the anthropic principle. The physical realm around us will by necessity seem perfectly fine-tuned to support us, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to examine it. And if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory holds true, then there exists an infinite number of universes, of which an infinite number is incapable of supporting our kind of life.
"Outdated"? What kind of argument is that? Things are true or false independent of how long people have believed them. People have believed that gravity makes things fall down for a hell of a long time, and nobody calls that belief "outdated".
The sad thing is, there are a lot of good arguments for evolution. So why the need to pull out this kind of stuff? It only adds fuel to the fire of conflict between evolutionists and creationists. Also, when you adopt an attitude of superiority like this ("we're all well educated atheists"), you only reinforce the creationists' perceptions that scientists are arrogant. You claim to be upset that people don't believe in evolution, but you're giving them extra reasons to reject it.
Congratulations on being just what most people hate about religious people: being someone who thinks the beliefs of his group are obviously the truth and that the only reason members of other groups can't see that is because they're stupid, lazy, and inferior.
alot of 12 year olds are interested in b00bies, chemistry has led to valuable advancements in the area of plastics, Women on Baywatch seem to have lots of plastic.
You just told us that you filled it up and then tried to pretend it was filled by a dripping faucet. Obviously you're talking bollocks.
That's the problem with ID. You make an argument based on bad facts or no facts at all, in fact a lot of it is out and out lies. You don't know that god created the earth (so your straw man is drowning in your tub), but you are prepared to belittle people who spend their entire lives finding out exactly how it did get formed. I know whose opinion I'd rather trust.
Feeling belittled yet ?
It's simple:
Creationism, ID or Cosmic Muffins are things you can BELIEVE in if you choose to.
Evolution is something you can OBSERVE -- if you choose to (but is a fact regardless of what you choose)
How you adapt your personal theology to encompass both (or reject one of the above) is up to you.
For those who are interested in a compelling survey of what has been observed as far as modern human evolution and devlopment goes, check out Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies".
Is this sig nificant?
The Plumb Pudding Model wasn't simply revised it was fundamentally changed when it came to the basic principles of what makes an atom. It was infact very specific about where the positive charge fell. It was a positive mass entity that, in fact, made up the whole of the atim itself with only descrete negative elecron charges in it. Phlogiston was absolutely wrong as the basis for the entire theory itself, because it was based around a colorless, odorless, and completely weightless entity which does not in fact exist. The Flat-Earth notion is especially a full reversal. Simply because the Earth can be modeled as flat over small differences doesn't make the belief that the earth is flat to be categorically false. Any spheroid can be assumed to be flat over a small enough surface area. You also fundamentally missed the point because you were so adamant on defending evolution. You try to justify old theories that we know now to be wrong as having been modified so that you say the same could happen with evolution. My point was simply it is reasonable to not accept evolution as long as you take a reasoned and logical approach to it and simply don't make a call to false authority.
Plasticity of the mind is related to symbolic thought and abstraction.
the amazing human powers of imagination and abstraction sometimes leads to fleeting detachment from 'the real world'
when conflicts between immensely popular higher-order abstractions like creationism and evolution collide, it's easiest for most folks to simply punt, rather than try to reconcile them
in the 'real world' if these theories are in conflict, only one *could* be correct, though neither may in fact be correct. If you are a believer in both, you have selectively acommodated - or overlooked - fundamental conflicts between the theories, for no 'educated' person would claim to simultaneously believe in opposing theses
Blind? Perhaps. I think 'lacking depth' is more precise.
Fact is, there has never been an experiment with macro-evolution - until there is, Macro-Evolution is simply a theory and, IMO, a weak one at that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Here is the rest of creationist claims and their counter-arguments. Next time you're being brainwashed by creationists, try looking up their arguments there, and see if it's already been shot down.
These statistics can be misleading because we're assuming true belief in their responses without taking into consideration alterior motives and agendas. I think most people don't really believe in "God", we know its pretty silly actually but through politcal pressure, habit, the need to fit in, etc they answer how they think they should answer so to be represented and protected by the masses. People would rather run with the crowd towards the cliff knowing that at the last minute they are going to pull back and let the others jump for a variety of reasons including being the sole survivor and at the same time being protected and comforted by running with the bulls. Try running for political office telling the truth, you'll go nowhere.
It is hard because I really don't want to make people feel uncomfortable but at the same time I have no idea why it should make anyone feel uncomfortable.
Allow me to enlighten you.
First off, I'm very glad that you've had a positive experience, on the whole, with your faith. Some of us however are not so lucky.
I consider myself a "recovering Catholic". I was born into the faith, baptized, etc. etc. and so forth, but never once did I feel as if I belonged. From my earliest years, Christianity equated emotionally with ostracism. I didn't help of course that the dogma of the Church was being regarded as more important than the teachings (a trend that has no end in sight, even if Pope Benedict keels over next week). I consider myself to have been on the receiving end of a lot of intolerance and inflexibility.
When my then-fiancée and I were meeting with a Unitarian minister to conduct our service, we received the industry-standard counseling. I had no reason to sit in that office and start shaking, but I did. Religious authority figures rattled me that much. It shocked the poor guy, to be honest.
To be honest, though, I had it easy.
The current crowd my wife and I hang out with has in its ranks a lot of very disaffected people from far worse environments. We have gays and lesbians in our congregation, for example, who were chastised as sinners before their whole Southern Baptist congregation just before being disowned by their folks. Not fun.
In conclusion, while I think it's unfair that all Christians get tarred by the same broad brush, the tarring that has happened has affected people very profoundly. So yeah, there are some of us who try to be extremely tolerant, yet still get aggravated by discussions of "my faith" in public. Sorry dude, but you're striking nerves; that's just not acceptable in some situtations, like the workplace.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
My IQ has been measured at 144.
Good for you!
This evolution vs. creation debate is just another symptom of a culture war of urban elites vs. ordinary people.
There's a culture war? I'm glad I kept my right to bear arms. I'm ready for war.
There is no evolution vs. creation debate. A debate has two sides presenting logical arguments, point and counterpoint, statement and rebuttal. The evolution vs. creation "debate" is more like this:
E: Genetic diversity changes as the environment puts unequal selection pressure on varying phenotypes. Given sufficient genetic diversity from the starting population, and sufficient genetic drift, a population may change sufficiently to eventually become a new, distinct species.
C: I'm not quite sure what you just said, but we've never seen anything like this happen, so it could not happen. God did it.
E: Well, it takes hundreds of thousands of years for massive changes in larger species, but we have noticed selection pressures create new species within bacteria. Generally, though, it takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
C: But God created the universe 8,296 years ago! Evolution hasn't had enough time.
E: Uhm... so, what about the light from stars millions of light-years away? How did that get here? Did God make the universe with the light already in-transit?
C: Yep. God created a universe with the appearance of old age.
E: You believe in a God that lies to you?
C: Uh... it's not a lie if God did it. It's Divine. Plus, those stars that scientists claim are a long way away are really just God's angels holding flashlights in the heavens.
E: So, God could have made the universe ten minutes ago, and just given you memories?
C: He could have, but he didn't. He made the earth 8,296 ago. Not counting leap-years, because there's no Biblical evidence for leap-years.
E: Riiiiiight.
And so on.
Granted, I've simplified the arguments a bit, but that appears to be the essence of it, with one side claiming the Bible gives us all the truths of the universe, and the other claiming the only proven way to gain objective knowledge is through direct observervation and the scientific method.
Belief in a Creator has blinded a large portion of the US population to facts. No matter how angry you get, no matter what names you call or battle lines you draw, denying evolution is the denial of facts.
You can remain as willfully ignorant as you like. I don't really care. Be angry that none of the "urban elites" believe you, with your monumental I.Q. and your self-rightious belief that only you understand God, because those of us who believe in the results of science most certainly could not understand God.
Let me ask you this, though. Why did God create us with our curiosity and our intellect, if He did not want us to use them? Why did He create the universe, if not for us to explore? Why did He create us in multitudes, if not for us to love and respect each other?
I can't believe that the Christian God I studied in Sunday school would create 6 billion people just for us to hate and fight and kill each other. So why do you hold so much hate for those "urban elites?"
I'm not one of them, you know. I'm a rural elitist intellectual atheist pedagogue with leanings towards objective solopsism.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Britons and also all europeeans can't answer to such a poll because we don't know what it's all about, except for us who care about science.
This poll is therefore worthless and not representative of anything, since almost nobody in Europe knows what ID is.
Also, the UK is the most un-christian country around. It's one of the rare traditionally christian countries out here that has more mosque-goers than church-goers.
You just got troll'd!
Except that we have already identified the times in our past when animals and plants were mutating much faster than at other times. When there are ecological niches to be occupied, organisms will mutate fast to occupy them.
If you bring a scientist to a tap and the water is only dripping into the tap, and you ask the scientist this question, he will tell you that given the current state of the water dripping, it might have taken X amount of time, but without any extra information on the changes in water flow he will not be able to give you an exact answer. He could tell you, though, that if water was never completely interrupted from flowing (if the tap was never fully closed,) then it could take anywhere between X and Y amount of time, X being calculated with the slowest water flow and Y being calculated with the fastest possible flow of water through that tap.
You can't handle the truth.
Summary:
First God, then reality, then the created, then evolution.
Ideas used:
Theory of Relativity: Time/Space are variables. There is no reason for God to be affected by either or them.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Randomness increases in a closed space without outside intervention. Take the universe as your closed space, there is no way that something as ordered as a living being will occur.
I think the main problem with the arguments here is that people assume that only physical objects are created. For those of you who know programming, just like an object has variables and methods/functions that act on those variables, life has "variables" such as matter and energy and "methods/functions" such as gravity, time and space that act on the "variables". Yes, we are created, but so are the rules that act upon us such as time, space, gravity, etc. Once it is understood that everthing is created, it is easier to understand that God can create a reality without (which consists of matter/energy, time/space) without being affected by it. It then also makes sense that a God is never born into a reality and still considered God. If God did come into existence into a reality then the original creator of that reality would be the real God. Therefore, God must have existed outside of any reality and we have come into existence in the reality created by God.
Now for Evolution, it's a valid theory but it only works on living things. Nothing doesn't evolve into something. The dead do not evolve, and it is implausible that the living would arise from the dead while the Second Law of Thermodynamics was still in effect. For the people that think that life will randomly occur given trillions of years, I would like them to explicitly do what it takes to form life through a pool of basic elements. Zap it with electricity if you think that's what it takes. Or even better, run electricity through something that has died and see if you can bring it back to life.
He'll then do some experiments and draw you a graph of the fawcet settings vs time to fill the frigging tub. I mean come on that's a really weak analogy.
Deleted
While it is true that much the current "intelligent design" rhetoric is coming from political/religious think tanks in the US, the intellectual antecedents of design are much older, and British. Most of the arguments - and even some of the specific examples - used by today's "intelligent design theorists" were fully explicated over 200 years ago by the Anglican theologian William Paley. In 19th century England, Paley's writings were required reading for students preparing for the clergy. As a student, Charles Darwin read Paley and was greatly influenced by his thinking.
The roots of the "culture wars" are very deep, and go back long before Darwin published "On the Origin of Species." Despite the simplistic history found in most textbooks, the clash between established religion and evolution preceded Darwin's work. Darwin was participating in a long-running debate about how to reconcile biblical history with the new facts and interpretations of science.
-- Anonymous Pedant
"well educated athiests"
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
Anyone who is truly well educated would not call themselves an athiest. Or if they did call themselves one, they would concede that this belief is as much a matter of religious faith as anything anyone from any other religion believes. The existence of God is not falsifiable. The belief that there is no God is as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God.
When someone tells me that they're an athiest the only thing it says to me is that they've got issues. Some were raised by crazy people who used religion to justify their insanity. They therefore associate this religion with the pain that comes from being under the authority of an irrational asshat. From there it doesn't take much for them to associate all religion with this pain. When someone like this claims to be an athiest, what they're really claiming is that they don't believe in religion. The question of whether a particular religion (or any religion) is valid, is not the same as the question of whether god exists.
Other people who make the claim of being an athiest suffer from an inferiority complex. They think that not believing in God makes them smarter than everyone else. These are the ones who tend to advertise the fact that they are athiests in one way or another. They would have you believe that their take on the question of whether there is a God is derived from cautious rationalism. While in truth if they were really as cautious and rational as they claim they would never call themselves an athiest.
The most that anyone can say about whether god exists, at least without delving into the realm of faith, is that they don't know. Agnosticism is the only rational stance at this point because we quite frankly don't know if there is a god and it doesn't look like there is any way that we are going to find out any time soon.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
If you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer
The interesting thing about these studies by Gallup and Mori is that the results are freely avaiable on their website. Interestingly I can't seem to find the poll on the mori website: http://www.mori.com/index-news.phtml
Puzzle Daze is now my job
I have read much of what is in this whole thread. And I don't care what anyone says Evolution is as much a religion as Creationism is. It takes just a much faith (may be more) to believe that all life came from random chance as is does to believe that God created it by design. What I find interesting is how God and science cannot be "mixed" together. Who do you think created the science we use?
Evolution is just a theory. It has never been proven, evolutionary scientists have been trying for over 100 years. They have yet to proven that it has happened. There are no hard facts! Where is the missing link? There are no tranistional life forms to be found living or fossilized on the planet. Until it is, proven it's every Evolutionists "belief" that it has occurred and is occurring today, by faith. Just as I cannot see with my eyes, the very being of God, it is my belief that He exists, I believe by faith.
From my experience, Evolutionist do not really understand who God is. They think they do, "because they read the bible!" Man I can read a science book too. But have you really studied who God is and how he has/is trying to showing you who he is? I have studied Evolution, I learned about it in public school and college. Neither institution showed me that it is real and a hard fact. But I have also studied who God is and here there are facts that I can accepted.
This is going to be a debate that will never end. We will never see I eye to eye. Until one or the other is really disproved, the debate will continue.
correction: should be "...much OF the current..."
The problem with ID is that its proponents are making a passive/aggressive attack upon (the godless) theory of evolution bc they claim that Evolution has "gaps" or fails to explain everything about the existence of organisms. They are going after what they perceive is a weakness and in there ignorance running into is strength. Like all theories, Evolution evolves. It is subjected to the scientific method of test and observation. If it is found lacking, corrections are made to improve its accuracy. And this is the crux of the Creationists argument. According to them, since Evolution is subject to corrections then it doesn't have to be accepted as gospel truth. Therefore, *ANYTHING* is possible including their competing "theory" which is based on intuition and faith instead of science. Let me be clear here. The creationist are using a variation of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. The concept they are stealing is what constitutes the basis of proof. Since reason, logic, and observation are used to enhance or invalidate prior scientific knowledge that was based on reason, logic, and observation then this invalidate reason, logic, and scientific observation(!) In other words they want to USE logic to make a logical argument that logic doesn't work therefore we should turn to faith instead. What they are throwing out with the bathwater is that when science overturns previously held truths it replaces it with something better based on reason, not faith. This is really an attack on how we acquire knowledge as a species. Do we assume the awesome responsibility of thinking for ourselves and learn from our errors? Or, do we abdicate our brains, stop thinking and let mystic faith provide the answers. Human knowledge is not omnipotent, nor is completely impotent either. Just because I can't prove Fermat's Last Theoremhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastThe orem.html does not mean that i dont know 1+1=2. Human knowledge is a PROCESS of discovery and the scientific community should not be afraid to admit it.
do i believe in natural selection? yes, as an observable phenomena, but not as the underpinning of evolution.
do i believe in creation as it happened in the Bible? maybe, maybe not, but then there is no way to prove that that did happen.
do i believe in evolution? no, if it means by random chance, natural selection, and spontaneous evolution, that modern biological life "evolved" from lower life. for example, that homo sapiens came from advanced hominids that came from less advanced hominids that came from gorillas or chimps that came from something other lower order primate that came from birds or dinosaurs that came from fish or lizards that came from multicellular organisms that came from amoeba that came from random proteins that came from star dust from a comet, that was in a pool of goo that was struck by lightening, that came from older start dust that came from pure energy in a big bang which came from???
so, do i believe in evolution? in a word, no. i might be dumb, but i'm not stupid.
intelligent design (my own definition):
So I propose the following union of evolution and intelligent design, based on the idea that God works with the nature he creates rather than completely overriding it, or even acting against it :
God creates a universe that is fertile and ready for life but, like a female body, is not itself able to begin life. God 'inseminates' life, perhaps via a providential lightening strike, and so the process of developement/natural-selection/evolution or whatever begins.
Ref : C.S Lewis : "God is the infinite masculin, creation the feminine." Or something like that (but note : not male or female, except in the person of Christ). Perhaps the masculin is to instigate or give, and the feminine is to accept and recieve.
In anycase science has bigger problems than ID and creationists. It has still to explain why anything exists at all, with a scientific explanation. The religious already have existence as an axiom that doesn't require proof since God has demonstrated, in some spiritual fashion, his existence and the reciever of that proof is satisfied.
I did a bit more search into who these "scientists that wrote the text books to support Darwin's evolution" you were talking about were. Guess what I find? This:
. html
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/unlocking
I must have missed all those earlier books/articles that these particular scientists wrote supporting the theory of evolution, but I'm pretty sure they didn't write THE textbooks for the subject.
I'm also pretty sure that you (LovedByGod) won't be able to give me (valid) cited evidence to the contrary. And even if you try, I'm also sure I (or someone else) will point out a major flaw in the evidence.
Good Day,
Monika
P.S. How do you explain viruses (which don't have DNA)?
A lie maintained by a huge conspiracy, ivolving all the dog breeders.
Not to mention cat and horse breeders, farm animal breeders, crop breeders, and garden plant breeders.
Without the lie, all of these people would out of a job!
It is a little known fact that it is the success of this conspiracy that gave the government the idea to fake a moon landing (to draw attention away from Vietnam), and later the greenhouse effect on global climate (inorder to justify increased gasoline taxes).
The mastermind between all this is Elvis, who started by faking his own death, with the help of our alien friends.
Hwang Woo-Suk - "No...really, I cloned life, I tell you!"
Charles Dawson - "I present to you...Piltdown Man!"
Robert Gallo - "I discovered the HIV virus"
Scientists are human, and greedy, and fallable, just like everyone else. And they play old-boy politics, just like everyone else, science be damned.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I wish kids in school and at uni would be given proper epistemological training so that they could take part in the debate in an informed manner if they choose to do so.
Sadly, in all camps ignorance is pervasive, especially I'm appalled by the (ab-)uses of the word 'theory'.
Is evolution "true"? I think there is evidence that supports it, and we cannot deny that certain things are not explained by it appropriately. Does God exist? I believe so, but you might not agree (since it is a matter of personal belief, not knowledge or science). Can evolution claim to be a theory? Depends. You give me a falsification criterium, and I tell you its status (meta-theory or proper theory).
The last thing the world needs IMHO are naive neo-positivists (for they are the real "blind watchmakers") or equally naive creationists (who insist on literal interpretation where suitable (-> creation in 7.0 days), but allow for artistic license where it would otherwise go against their greedy personal agendas (-> perl -pe 's/Thou shall love (even) your enemy/Thou might drop daisycutter bombs on children for oil/g;' )...
It seems to me there are radical nut cases on both sides of this argument. Half of them are here on slashdot. The other half are on Christian forums getting all worked up and calling people names.
Children need to learn about science and religion. That way they grow up with the knowledge to make their own decisions. Furthermore they won't assume that everyone who disagrees with them must be uninformed or stupid.
Yes, but abiogenisis is pretty much a given, due to first cause. That is, unless you assume life was created at the big bang (or tiny hot puff, if you prefer).
This chain of reasoning leads many to God. It is one of St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God. I think this inability to accept abiogenisis is one of the stumbling blocks for most people in accepting evolution through natural selection.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
.. no country can have *that* many total idiots.
Physicists aren't necessarily falling all over themselves to "disprove" relativity. They're finding ways to test predictions that come from relativity (particles that should exist, etc) and applying those tests. If they end up disproving relativity, well that'll be something. Sometimes things are found that don't fit exactly with a theory, and it has to be modified, sometimes a theory is completely found to be wrong, even though it had worked for many other cases beforehand - the best example being Newton/Relativity, since Newton works great for most cases, but turned out to not be the way the whole universe worked.
The fact that these Theorys make predicitons is the entire reason that they can be disproved. Not only do they attempt to explain what is known already, but the Theory itself can be used to determine what should or shouldn't be found in the future. This is what makes them testible. Evolution is testible in this way, as we can look for fossils that don't fit with predictions, or look at some natural selection mechanisims as they happen (fly and bacteria studies, some historical examples of animals adapting to quick changes, etc).
There is a distinct lack of falsifiable predictions made by Intelligent Design. A statement like "these forces, if they were different, would cause the universe to collapse, so therefore they were intelligently chosen" is absurd. A theory that stated "if they weren't that way, we wouldn't have had anyplace to evolve on" is just as useful for the same case, but both are neither testable nor falsifiable, so they're useless in a scientific senseIntelligent Design needs to make some predictions that are not tautologys, affirmation of the consequent arguments, predictions that are testible, and predictions that are not answered by other theories.
I wanted to address one other part of your other posts. Evolution is a theory of change over time in species. It is not a theory of abiogenesis. The beginnings of life are seperate theories, and while they are obviously linked with evolution one is not required for the other to be correct. Perhaps it is intelligent design that started evolution, perhaps it was abiogenesis, perhaps it was something else. Scientifically, it still does not matter - abiogenesis, until disproved with something other than "well, that seems convienent, so it had to be a creator", will be the only testable theory, and therefor the only useful one to science.
"but we're all well educated athiests"
So theists must therefore be uneducated?
The Catolic Church has been pro-science for a long time. They are smart enough to incorporate science instead of fighting it, and reserving the fight to the moral and ethical questions. Here is has a consistent pro-life view, which goes across the left/right schism of secular politics. The church is anti-war, anti-death penalty, and anti-birth control (other than abstinence).
The anti-scientific sentiments come from protestant communities, mostly from people who have neither a formal theological nor scientific background. Those part of the protestants where there is tradition for listening to priests who have an academic training are much less inclined to believe that a purely "literal" reading of the Bible is possible in any meaningful sense.
Think views other than evolution is "outdated"? Well gravity has been around a long time, and it still is true, jump out a window if you don't believe me.
As for "well educated atheists", you may be educated, but you are stupid. You deny what is plainly true, the existance of God. Well, maybe you aren't stupid, just satanic. Just like those that deny the Holocaust.
Psalm 14:1 says:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
"but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected."
And the best part was evolving that third arm just for patting yourself on the back for being so nifty.
Of everyone I know the only people who even dare say they believe in creationalism tend to be those who are very very very religious in many other ways as well.
Least we do get evolution tought in schools along side religious studies which give us an idea of other faiths. Seems to me that people tend to forget how wrong it is to teach the world was created by a christian styled god, when most of the pupils might be muslim.
They also thought the earth was flat too.
Here is the write-up from the Radio Times.
I'll try and record it and maybe break a bit of © tomorrowI'm no expert but Charles Darwin was a british naturalist, right?
Is "no" the answer to this question?
I think the biggest concern of people believing in ID/Creationism is not the science of evolution being taught, because the science of evolution is fairly well established. The concern is that the philosophy behind evolution will be taught. As an example, I am a creationist, which means I believe that God created the universe and life. However, I believe that when God created it, he did not create the same genetic diversity we see on earth today. This idea is based in the meaning of the Hebrew word found in Genesis where it says "Each according to its kind." This word "kind" does not imply species, but has a broader meaning and implication. Additionally, based upon the dimensions given for the ark, it would have been nearly impossible for Noah to fit two of every species of animal on-board, suggesting that there were fewer species, but these species evolved to supply the diversity we see today. I have no problem accepting that genetic mutations can create variations within species and even new species. I do, however, have a problem with the humanist philosophy behind evolution, which is built on the idea that everything is progressing forward, towards progress, towards utopia. That was the philosophy which was prevalent when evolution was first conceived, but I don't see how that philosophy is viable (unless more divorce, more poverty, more wars, more violence, and more illegal drugs is utopia). But that is the philosophy that comes pre-packaged with evolution in the teaching styles of many of its greatest defenders. Now, as to how to teach evolution without that philosophy... I have no good suggestions, So in lieu of that, the science needs to be taught, which means evolution in the classroom. On a related note, if there were a way to teach evolution without any attached philosophical baggage, perhaps it would be possible to teach ID the same way (although that would be a lot harder because many of the presuppositions inherent in ID are intrinsically philosophical. If you could do that, then I think it would be beneficial to lay the facts for both out, side by side, and see which one is a more viable alternative. That has been the foundation of scientific advancement for centuries, no reason it wouldn't work here.
the british are also famed for their irony *and* their lack of respect for surveys.
You're not thinking long-enough term. In the short term, science proceeds in fits and starts, complete with old-boy networks and the occasional prejudice, greed, self-promotion, in-fighting, blind alleys, etc., and even falsified data and experiments.
BUT, over the *long-term* (decades, perhaps longer) science IS self-correcting. The very article you cite is proof; the truth came out. The scientific method guarantees that, given enough time, the truth *will* become known. You just have to think longer-term.
Cheers, Tim -- Tim Janke Part mad scientist, part lion tamer: sr. software engineer, global team leader, project mana
From Micheal Feldman...
2 of 3 Americans convinced they didnt evolve; other third believes they may be right.
That whole scene in Dover reminded me over the old Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70's and 80's. For you people who haven't lived that long, this was a US constitutional amendment intended to prohibit discrimination against women. Several state legislatures were convinced that the word "sex" referred to sexual practices rather than gender.
We are the 198 proof..
I find it funny how those who take part in this discussion are so quick to condemn individuals who choose to believe Creationism. Despite the fact that there seems to be so much talk of narrow minded fundamentalists it seems that there is a degree of narrow (Read: closed) mindedness within this topic.
Just a thought.......
If all of what is around us happened because of a process of pure chance, ie big bang, evolution, etc. What's the point? Taking the attitude that we really are nothing more than animals who've been around a few more years than lesser animals, why should we have laws? What's the need for morals? We answer to no one! Isn't that the logical conclusion? As an accident, we as part of the universe don't matter, we have no future and can do whatever we want.
Nonsense. The reason the world is in such a bad state - when we see the crime and all the bad things every day on the news is because people believe that it doesn't matter. If we simply realised that the reason the place is such a mess is our fault. We are all at fault, no ones any better than any other and realise that the Creator, God is perfect and becuase He created us - we answer to Him. I know, that's not something you want to hear - I didn't either but we have to face reality. The good news is that although we messed it up - God provided a way for us to get back to Him by providing His Son, Jesus.
So, I'd submit that this thread is more about people not wanting to admit that it is our fault as humans that there is wrong in the world and less about what is in the press..........
I trust people can read this objectively without deciding to flame straight away.
Isn't your head of state also the head of the state church? (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II and the Church of England)
you are asking for *proof* (or substantial evidence to make any other explanation approach unreasonable) and an evolutionist puts for a best guess?
and these are guys calling others "idiots?" -lol-
What exactly does ID say? That the world is so complex that it must have been created by a deity? How does that add to science? One sentence sums up the entire ID arguement... wtf? Why is this even an issue? Are we really that dumb? oh wait...
I'd like the methodology of this "study" to be checked.
This may be a situation of a pseudo-scientific 'study'/poll being done in order to sway public opinion.
The correlation between diminishing pirates and global warming really is alarming. I believe we should all try to be a little more piratical in our daily lives, for the sake of the planet.
I tried pointing out (in class) that mankind's past history of selective breeding of Dogs, Cats, what-have-you, could be thought of as an example of evolution in action - there was always someone who immediately protested 'Thats what god wants us to believe' (or some other similar arguement) to dismiss the whole thing completely as if it would cause earth shattering mayhem to even *consider* anything but what they were taught in church.
/hoping/ that this irrational behavior was mostly a stateside thing, but apparently not. *sighs*
Because it often stuck me as if the peer pressure that was involved had gone so completely off the scale that some people weren't even comfortable with independant thought on the subject. And I was
[Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
While I don't see intelligent design as much of a scientific theory, it is an equally valid alternate viewpoint. It's just different. Belief that God had a hand in creating our universe does not make a person stupid, I believe in intelligent design, and odds are that by a measurement of raw intelligence I'm smarter than you are. Nothing unusual or immodest about that, I'm smarter than most people, the average IQ is 100, and I'm well above that.
You, however, should know better than to generalize about a population just because they don't think the same as you. Last I checked people are free to think how they want to, something you as a scientist should really appreciate.
So why then do you give such an irrational, emotional response? It sounds little different than the irrational responses people make in defense of ID. Perhaps this is because there is more in common between you and right wing Christians than you would like to admit. I think this is because you view evolution as not just a theory, but a religion of sorts. It's your (godless) religion of how you came into being, which is a not an unusual concept for a religion by any means.
Let's be truthful here. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. There is some good evidence for evolution, but it's not ironclad. Clearly species not only adapt but it follows logically that such adaptations over time can lead to new species. What is a species anyway but a arbitrary classification by us? This does not mean that it is logical for a soup of non-living organic molecules to become a human with trillions of cells, each cell a complex organism functioning together, each doing it's part in the whole. I'm not saying it's impossible, but by no means is it the only possible explanation, and you deceive yourself if you think otherwise.
And even if that's the way it happened, I would like to point out that this universe had a beginning some 13 billion years ago, where an enormous explosion of energy far in excess of all the mass of all the matter in the universe multiplied by the speed of light squared brought everything we know into being. This is not a cyclical event, because it has both a beginning, and if the universe keeps expanding (as science tells us it seems to be) it will have a cold, dark end. I think that the idea that God provided that initial matter and that initial energy along with the very fundamental 'code' of this universe itself (which we as scientists are only reverse-engineering) is far more plausible than your theory that it "just happened".
So before you make a fool out of yourself by mocking what you do not understand, and get carried away in your own importance and puff up with pride, just remember we're just mammals on one tiny little dust ball in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, amongst hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars. Don't EVER think that you are even close to understanding it all! One day, hopefully not too soon, you'll find this out for yourself, because everybody regardless of their beliefs gets to see the truth after they die. And with all possible sincerity I pray that you will find the truth before then. God doesn't go away just because you stop believing in him.
So is it wrong to teach students that there is a (non-scientific) alternative to evolution? No, but it has no place in a science class, let them teach it outside the banner of science.
Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country?
It appears that way. It just goes to show that the nation you read about in your national newspapers isn't necessarily the nation you live in.
I realize that this is a contentious subject, second only to abortion in the hatred and bile it consumes, but I do want to add one tiny comment. As an athiest, you probably view evolution as axiomatic (an article of faith almost). But most non-atheists, the idea that the life is entirely random and without meaning is a very tough one to swallow. When people say they don't beleive in evolution, they are not saying they believe the literal creation account in Genesis. Rather they are saying that a higher intelligence was probably involved in bringing about this process we call life.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I never met a single person over here who even heard of "intelligent design"
How do you know? Do you really ask every single person you meet if they have heard of it?
Given that these views are socially unacceptable in your circles, I would expect anyone believeing them to at a minimum not bring up the subject by themselves. And most people would rather be quiet or even pretend to agree on controversial subjects, rather than be exposed as a believer in "nonsense".
It's not unlike some people who claim to never have met a gay person.
We wouldn't be as intelligent as we are hadn't God touched us with His Noodly Appendage...
As a BBC licence fee payer I am getting heartily sick of this happening. I suspect it's mainly due to the humanities graduates that run the BBC having no clue about science, but they know what makes good publicity.
Personally, I'm almost at the point of burning my tv in front of the local BBC offices to prove a point...grrrrrrrrr!
"Intelligent Design" really means *there was no evolution*. It does not mean that God created the universe in a clever way so that evolution happened, it does not mean that god guided evolution. It means God created all the animals and people as they are. Therefore you do *not* believe in ID. It sounds like you believe in God, which is completely different.
Scott Adams has an idiotic take on it. He's telling us that supporters of evolution and ID need to listen to the other. But why should we listen to supporters of ID when ID is not science?
ID makes no testable claims. Without testable claims, it cannot be science. It is only about criticising evolution. And those criticisms boil down to - "Why can't evolution explain the eye?" (It can). "Why can't evolution explain blood clotting?" (It can).
But even if it couldn't, it's like saying because the ancient Greeks didn't understand lightning, it must have been Zeus at work.
Do astronomers need to listen to flat earthers? No. Evoultionary scientists don't need to listen to IDiots either.
And Dilbert hasn't been funny in years.
-aiabx
Just this guy, you know?
Do you have any information that proves protozoa evolved into a metazoa
Check their genome sequences, you'll find all the info you will need.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
I commented in an earlier thread on ID vs evolution in the US that one problem is that science (and evolution in particular) is taught in most US public schools -as if- it is wizardry.
It's presented in sterile format, no questioning of the reasoning behind it is permitted, perceived critics are ridiculed and ostracized. Teachers teach the students to give more weight to the academic credentials of the scientist than the accuracy of his methods, and concepts such as the scientific method and explanations of why we prefer the simpler of two solutions (Occam's razor) are glossed over or ignored in favor of discussions of the roots of chemistry in alchemy and the roots of astronomy in astrology.
All students except those majoring in the physical sciences are trained to feel that science is a secret society and that a lot of it is silly, speculative crap that has no real connection to how things work.
Has Britain has fallen into the same trap of treating science as wizardry in the majority of schools?
No scientific theory can be proved. That include gravity, electromagnetism, atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory... Everything. Why should evolution be singled out?
OK so, science is better than faith. It's based completely on fact, and few errors. Let's look at some "issues" science has faced, and how they are faith based decisions.
Let's take the earth being millions of years old. Most dating methods for fossils and such have been shown to give false positives under easily replicable situations. Case in point, during the 80's (and still to a degree today) Carbon Dating was the huge big thing. It was incredibly accurate. Then, all of a sudden off the coast of the US we found tons of fossilised trees and plantlife that looked suprisingly similar to what was present today, yet were dated to be from the time of the dinosaurs. Scientists researched the issue and 'lo and behold what was found? They were trees that hadn't been down there more than a few months.
The cause? Mount St. Helen had exploded, tossing into the ocean a tremendous amount of trees and asundry vegetation. The combination of rapid heat changes and changes in pressure had immediatly fossilised the material, thus giving a false positive. So you see often times science itself and the methods used are faith based as well. Scientists must take the data they have and have faith that any outside influence that may or may not effect the experiment did not occur.
Also add in the fact that you have so many activists, and non-scientists, determining the "publically held beliefs" about science just on words alone and you have more problems. Case in point DDT is banned by the EPA as a carcinogenic even though no scientific evidence has been shown to prove it is (actually there is something like 9000 pages of scientific evidence proving that it isn't). How was it banned? Simple the head of the EPA at the time belonged to an activist group who wanted it banned, so he did regardless of the findings of the scientific community. Now everyone automatically thinks it is a carcinogenic, including otherwise intelligent people in the scientific community, not because they saw any evidence of this, but simply because they were told it was. As was lead in paint. Not saying lead isn't bad for you, but you would have to ingest so much of it to do harm that little Billy eating the paint chips peeling from his walls isn't going to be any more stupid from it than he is from not getting a decent education from parents who are content to let him sit there and eat said paint chips as long as they leave him alone.
Same thing is happening with Evolution. It is a completely unproven theory. When I was in school and we discussed it the teacher made sure to say that you can see evidence of adaptation within creatures to their environment, but nothing has ever been found or shown which can show the leap from species to species, and thus it is purely still speculation. That however is not how it is taught in schools anymore. It is taught as incontrivertable fact that evolution is how we got here period, and that is scientifically dishonest, plain and simple. But no science is no longer a study based in fact, and I would say a MAJORITY of the present day scientists build their knowledge off of "hear say" or what they have been told as to past scientific determinations rather than actual facts and researching for themselves. Basically it has become a religion unto itself, with no more foundations in many areas than those historical documents which may or may not be true that others base their personal beliefs off of.
So let's not be hypocritical or disingenuous ourselves here. If we are all so truly concerned about "science and faith" being kept seperate then we need to start fixing the crap and lies we've been spreading and letting be spread first before we start asking people to clean up their backyards. To quote an old addage, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.
For further support you can check here that shows how so much of what we "believe" about science is bunk because of bad scientists and idiots in general: http://www.junkscience.com/ [junkscien
If proof is equal to 'substantial evidence to make any other explanation approach unreasonable', it assumes that all future 'explanations' are equal to past 'explanations'. Humanity is quick to assume we have it figured out, when in all likelihood, we have very little knowledge of actual truth. History should teach us that.
That's insane and a totally bogus arguement. The scientist will observe the faucet and determine that it could be turned up to deliver more water, and thus the water may very well have been flowing faster or slower in the past.
I'd rather say that I was "Created by God" an omnipotent being...other than saying I evolved from a dung throwing monkey.
For example, if 2 organisms are born, and one is taller than the other, the taller one may outlive the shorter one because it has easier access to food, etc. This is what evolution explains.
What evolution does NOT explain is how, for example, an organ such as the eyeball was formed. No form of evolution can explain this, and trying to is just as bad as a ID or creationism believer.
You've had a scenario for the evolution of the eye linked elsewhere in this thread, so I won't repeat the argument. It's been shown that by means of plausibly small mutations and Darwinian selection it is possible for a fully functioning eye to form entirely without conscious design or intervention of any kind.
Your objection seems to be that we can't prove that scenario actually is how it happened. Well, no. Eyes don't fossilise terribly well. But then, in the scenario you give, of evolution favouring the taller, you don't ask the question 'why is this animal taller than the other', you simply accept that it is, and that if in the circumstances in which they live this is advantageous, then the taller animal will prosper and pass on its genes.
Similarly, let us say there are two creatures with light-sensitive patches on their bodies. Not eyes, as we'd know them. The patch on one of them is a little more concave than the patch on the other. This gives it an advantage, as it has a better sense of the direction of a light source. Maybe it can now follow the sun better? Or know when a large predator is approaching? Just the same thing as with your taller and shorter animals, but it's the first step on the road to an eye.
The overall point is that evolution doesn't tell us for certain how the eye was formed - indeed, looking at the animals in the world, it looks likely that the eye evolved separately, several times, in different ways - but given that eyes did form, evolution can provide a plausible scenario for their formation not involving any violation of known physics.
Think of it like a murder investigation. Without a time machine, you can't be certain, but by examining the details of the crime scene you can narrow down the possible scenarios until you have a plausible story that fits with all the evidence - and then you can finger your suspect. What no detective in such investigations ever does is say 'Well, I can't work out this bit; he must have used magic.'
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
No longer is it the inalienable right of only Americans to be overwhelmingly stupid, now the Brits too have that right.
... I pissed off ten years ago before all the population turned into speed camera weilding bible thumping fucktards (well, at least 40% of the population).
I'm a former Brit
They left out the 90% who hung up the phone.
Evan
let me get this right... downs symdrome is put forth as THE PRIME EXAMPLE of major dna change that goes to show that major dna changes IMPROVE ADAPTIBILITY to one's environment?
is that about it, in a nutshell?
As a native born Englishman...
I think that the respondents to this survey were having a laugh.
Yes, an intelligent being (let's call him God) made the world and the giant turtle.
No, No, Mr Interviewer. I DO believe that the world is flying through space on the back of a giant turtle.
What's holding the turtle up?
Well it's turtles all the way down!
(Apologies to Stephen Hawkings for this misquote)
Come on. Get real.
Marxism is in the wastebin. Darwinism is headed there. Millions of ordinary Brits, like millions of ordinary Americans, know that. It's only those who've been educated beyond their intelligence that don't.
--Mike Perry, Seattle, Editor, Eugenics and Other Evils by G. K. Chesterton
Your post does not offer proof or an answer to my question, but merely an invitation to do my own research. I was hoping that a Biologist with a PHD might offer some proof that shows protozoa evolving into metazoa, not hypothesis. If you cannot prove it, how can you tell people conclusively that it is true?
However, many biologists have concluded that biology proves we have a designer.
If I told you my house was built by accident, would you believe me? Yet, the construction of my house is much more simple than the construction of DNA. While humans recognize that a house is built by someone, we cannot see that incredibly more complex structures require a builder or designer. That is simply ludicrous.
Many scientist believe that a blade of grass happened without intelligence. Yet, those same scientists the world over with all their combined knowledge could not create a blade of grass from non-living material, and they have intelligence.
Unfortunately, they often have more intelligence than they do humility.
The first thing we do is the calculation you refer to. We discuss how plausible the constancy of rate hypothesis is. (In this case, we note that the tap (faucet, to you) is capable of delivering more or less water.) Then we discuss how the inferred filling time relates to our other knowledge (does it imply the bath was half full before the house was built?) That is the first paper. It presents an interesting observation, and the most obvious interpretation, with suitable caveats.
In the second paper, we try to infer subtle effects of the constant-rate hypothesis (CR). We observe material deposited on the side of the bath at water level, and conclude that under CR, we should see these deposits uniformly continued at deeper levels. We start applying for grants to do a bath-dive expedition to observe them, but don't get funding.
In the third paper, different group calculates that, had the rate been much higher in the past, we should observe water droplets splashed on the wall. This being easily accessible, they have looked for them and found them.
The fourth through tenth papers are analyses of how fast the water flow needed to be to spash that high, how long it was high flow to explain the frequency, and how old the drops are. It takes a while before the theorists agree on the correct mathematical treatment. The question of whether the quantity of water added by dripping is significant is still within the margin of error.
Now there is sufficient interest, we finally get the grant to do the bath dive. We observe no deposits below the current level, and conclude the dripping phase has been at most a few days. The Fast Fill theory of the bath enters the textbooks.
10 years later, the principle authors of the first and third papers share the Nobel prize in Domestic Hydrology.
I am an evolutionary scientist. We don't follow your straw-man portrayal of how science works.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
I'm not sure about schools now, but thinking back to my time at school, evolution wasn't actually taught in any of the sciences.
However, creationism WAS taught... in Religious Education classes. Along with all the other dogma from the major ''world' religions. This is probably the best system.
The major issue I see is not with the subject matter, but rather the belief structure behind proponents of creationism. ID/Creation exponents want to push their beliefs (not ideas, beliefs!!!) onto ALL children, but those beliefs are founded in (generally) Christianity. Given that there are 6 recognised 'world' religions, this gives a bias to one (well, to be honest, Islam teaches the same thing, so two) particular religions and suggests that they have more merit than the others. This is NOT a scientific method, as it fails to test the belief structures of the competing religions.
Let's not kid ourselves here, it's got nothing to do with scientific theories or origin of the species, it's just a portion of the earth's population trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us... and nothing else.
I guess the problem I have with creationists is that a strict literal interpretation of genesis and other parts of the bible is just plain silly, completely out of touch with the knowledge that man now has. Now a majority of creationists might now even share this point of view and claim it is meant more as a moral guide then a strict literal basis of fact. But why was it written so silly to begin with? Why did the majority of people prior to the modern time(and a minority of people in the present) cling to the belief that genesis was a tale of fact? Is it because these ideas were not so silly when the bible was written and were completely compatible with man's knowledge during the time the passages were authored? If that is the case, would it not suggest that the passages in question came in fact entirely from man and not a divine source? If the passages did come from man, than they would appear to be pure conjecture based on knowledge that is more than 2000 years out of date. Do any creationists see the same problem as me?
I once had a boss who was born again; he said the Earth couldn't be more than a few million years old because, given the rate that the diameter of the Sun is currently decreasing, it would have been larger than Earth's orbit that long ago.
You make the argument that we don't know whether we can extrapolate current rates into the past. But you're wrong. The fact that the Sun expands and contracts is easily explained by science (as it contracts, pressure builds up in the center, fusion rate increases, etc.) and there's no shortage of evidence that the rate of speciation varies.
(Disclaimer: I am not an atheist, but my faith is personal, and I regard Christian fundamentalists as only marginally more intelligent than baboons and more frightened of emptyness than a heroin addict is of losing his fix)
There is no topic on slashdot that stirs people up as much as creationism, ID and evolution. It's amazing. I don't personally understand why it is of such utter importance to religious fundamentalists, be they mentally cripple Christian retards from the midwest terrified of the chaos of mental freedom, Islamic fanatics from Afghanistan or Iraq spilling pools of blood believing that their kind of God could forgive them for their murder or manic Hindus burning children in a train, that everyone believes that their version of God(TM) is the one and only and that he is somehow going to make their lives better, either now or in the future, when they're fucking dead, when it won't even matter anymore.
I can only speculate that these people are terrified of being alone in the world, so instead they want us all to stop making up our own minds and let them do it for us so we can live by their mores ("beat the bitches who get an abortion up") and morals ("it's ok to execute a criminal but the very first commandment is about not killing"). In fact, while I'm at it, please, dearest Christians: Explain that one to me. Why is it ok to execute a criminal and start a war where tens of thousands die but not ok for a pregnant woman to abort a foetus. Explian to me exactly what you don't understand about "Thou shalt not kill".
It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill but it's ok if they're heathens" and neither does it say "Thou shalt not kill foetuses but convicted criminals is ok" and sure as fuck doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill but bombing a country back to the stoneage is fine". So take your religion and shove it up your arse.
Its not the count, its the content. Chromosomes are just the packaging for genes, and gene duplication or deletion can happen without reproductive failure. Science sees that happening today. Chromosomes' breaking or merging can happen, and as long as the genes are still there it doesn't automatically mean reproductive failure.
Anyways, on your chromosome question: humans have one less chromosome, but all the same genes, because 2 'chimp' genes simply fused together. Human chromosome 2 is chimp chromosomes 2P and 2Q fused together- it even still has all the broken bits of telomeres at the fusion point. Its just like someone combined 2 chapters together in a Word document by only removing the 'chapter break' mark, but forgot to remove all the end and start chapter formatting.
If you compare us with chimps, you see something like:
Take a group of "last common ancestors" that's moved away from others (is reproductively isolated). if one of them gets the 2 genes fused, they would have no problem reproducing within the group- the genes still line up. If the group never rejoins other lca hominids, then the fused gene trait gets fixed in the now-speciating group. Note that they're speciating not because they can't interbreed but because they don't interbreed. Later on some ancestral chimp (post lca split) has a change on 'gene6,' as do the humans (but a different mutation) so that we get the 98% similarity instead of identical genes.
You can compare them yourself: check out what it looks like if you line up human and chimp genes next to each other. Not at all different by the plagarism standard. In fact, you can do a letter by letter comparison nowadays: here is the human genome, and here is the chimp genome.
And to cover a few well-refuted but always repeated creationist / ID claims made in slashdot threads, as I summarized elsewhere:
Actually, they'd look at the chemical and thermal properties of the water dripping out and of the water in the tub. If the water dripping out is hot, and the water in the rest of the tub is hot, and the air in the room is cold, the scientist would probably conclude that the water was running into the tube a lot faster fairly recently, and would start looking at concentrations of dissolved gasses to see if they provide corroborating evidence.
Which is why Satan had to make sure all the fossils were situated in just the right place, 'cause them scientists are nosy little bastards.
"but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected"
So non athiests are uneducated? Funny, non athiests tend to feel the same emotion for athiests, pity.
Truth be told, I would say over 50% of athiests are actually just agnostic with no meat to their reasoning and are just as much sheep like the majority of people who follow closely to their organized religion of choice. The belief in something greater than probability and chance is a thing called hope. What a pesimistic world this would be if people didn't have anything to wake up for in the morning.
Someones beleif in something opposite of what you believe and or "know" does not make them uneducated. Truth be told as "logical" as a person can be it's still very impossible to prove God's non-existance. When you get caught into areas of concerns in someone elses beliefs and judge them by that choice you really only make yourself look more ignorant and narrow minded than the person you are judging (this is an open statement, I'm aware non-athiests do this as well).
I guess I really don't want to turn this into god vs. no god arguement (I've been through them enough in my life and I'm sure everyone else here has as well). Just tossing my two cents in the well over how ignorant this article was and some of the parent posts I have seen with only 3 minutes into reading them.
Words of the day: Condescending & Arrogance
However, many biologists have concluded that biology proves we have a designer.
Really? I know a few biologists and have read a lot from others. I haven't ever seen anyone assert that. I'm sure some religious nuts do, but do you have any evidence that a significant number of biologists or any particularly well regarded scientists have come to this conclusion? What biological evidence have they shown?
If I told you my house was built by accident, would you believe me? Yet, the construction of my house is much more simple than the construction of DNA.
Ummm, this is what is known as a logical fallacy. Non Sequitur. Just because you house is complex and it was designed, does not mean all complex things were designed.
Many scientist believe that a blade of grass happened without intelligence. Yet, those same scientists the world over with all their combined knowledge could not create a blade of grass from non-living material, and they have intelligence.
So you're arguing that because some task is outside of the ability of current technology, it must have been accomplished by a divine power? What makes you think that? Right now it is beyond human technology to control the weather. Does that mean God killed a lot of people with the last big hurricane? I don't see any logic to your assertions.
Unfortunately, they often have more intelligence than they do humility.
How hypocritical of you. These people are very smart, but not smart enough to do X. Thus you conclude they are are not humble enough to know that you more intelligent than them and have figured out the real truth. Here's a tip. If you're an egotist like me, don't go around telling others they aren't humble enough. It makes you look like a real ass.
Not that I'm supporting it, but where would Theistic Evolution fit in to these numbers? Some would lump that into the 17% since it involves intelligence directing the evolution. Others just dump it in the general evolution category even though it is quite different.
__ As a Christian I dont believe in Karma!
That is the point. If you're say building something, for example, the Flat Earth theory is good enough. If you're traveling through a region, you use a planar map. We still have applications that use it.
Second, belief is not theory. I don't believe the Earth is flat, but that doesn't stop me from using Flat Earth Theory to get around town. A theory is a model. It attempts to explain certain observations under certain circumstances. A belief ultimately is that certain statements are true or false.
Again looking at ID, it doesn't explain crucial details of biology. Why, for example, do children of any species physiologically resemble their parents? Evolution provides this as a prediction and it ultimately hasn't been contradicted. We've even discovered the mechanism by which this occurs. Evolution predicts that species experience selection, namely, that there are traits that can help or hinder the survival and propagation of a member with that trait. This is pretty straightforward. Evolution predicts that species experience mutation. Molecular biology has detected such mutations in the DNA. Finally, evolution predicts that species will adapt to selection, ie, that beneficial traits will become more common in a population and harmful traits will become less common. This is commonly called "microevolution".
However, we can now use the above to extent to long time scales. There's no reason that evolution can't result in seperate population groups that cannot breed with each other. The fossil record has been quite useful in demonstrating the existence of evolutionary pathways for most species.
In comparison, what predictions can we make with ID? I find it telling that the theory doesn't even describe who or what is the "intelligent designer" nor the mechanism by which the designer actually changes lifeforms. It doesn't make predictions on why biology looks the way it does (eg, why isn't life silicon based?) nor place good predictions on the fossil evidence. Further, it sets up a false dichotomy between evolution and ID. For example, there's no obvious reason why a designer couldn't impose selection pressure (eg, culling of a population) and artificially evolve a species. That's what humans have done for the past 10,000 or so years with many domesticated plants and animals.
Here's a better ID theory. The global mass of bacteria is wholely or in part intelligent. Information is contained in the bateria's DNA, RNA, and perhaps proteins, and communication is performed via well-known exchange of genetic material. Modern plants and animals were evolved in order to expand the bacteria's habitat and to increase mobility and reduce communication lag. As bacteria expanded the working knowledge of evolving complex structures, they took on greater challenges including evolving fly and intelligence.
Some predictions: animals and plants harbor substantial amounts of bacteria since they were designed to do so. Bacteria should have mechanisms for imposing selective pressure on organisms. Microbes can cause disease and kill infected animals so there is a mechanism that could be used for selection. The existence of a global communication network needs to be established. Perhaps, someone can insert message tracers as DNA snippets and observe their propagation in the wild. If such a network exists, then these snippets should appear in distant locations over some period of time (perhaps measured in decades).
What makes this a useful theory is that it makes concrete predictions that can be tested. We have an intelligent designer and even some description of how the designer is intelligent (ie, how it stores information and communicates with itself). We have a mechanism by which the designer can alter life (selection via bacterial infection). We even have goals (expand environmental habitat, decrease communication lag).
"And now children - lets examine the talking snake theory of science."
It goes to show you the average joe in the street is only a few steps away from worshiping rocks.
What is great about the ignorant masses is how easily they are controlled by the wealthy, rational elite.
With British education dropping to American levels, it is a wonder the English haven't gone extinct already.
Q: Who is/was living in a bubble?
...bbbut he's a geek authority! Surely he as a cartoonist must know more about the subject than biologists!
This is my view on the whole thing. We cannot prove to the complete satisfaction of everybody either evolution or creationism. Scientests will favor and point towards evolution, where religon says creationism. Is there evedince of evoulution, or have at lest some species "evolved" new traits? Yes, but is there irefutable evidence that humans evolved from monkies? No. And the thing about creationism is, all religon is based on faith? Beiliveing without evidnence. So what should be taught in our schools? Both. They both take very little time to cover and they are both the unproven, yet widly excepted therories of our day. So present both cases to the classroom and end the unit by saying. "We can't totaly prove either theory, thats why its called a theory" Or something. Fighting over which one gets taught is pointless and a waste of energy. Teach both, and then the student can decided which they except according to their own faith.
There's a logical disconnect here - "I don't understand how it happened, therefore a higher intelligence compelled it to happen."
How do you intend to "prove" a designer simply from observation of physical patterns? What is it about those patterns makes it impossible for them to have come about through the action of natural law? You commit the logical fallacy of assuming that, since we as intelligent beings are capable of designing complex structures, other complex structures must also have been designed.
Furthermore, if we are talking about God here (and I'm assuming we are), then we are talking about He who created those very natural laws from which all observable behavior arises. The nature of those laws is beyond our perception - we would have no way of knowing the laws are there just because they're there, or because some intelligence outside of the universe put them there. What would be the difference, anyway? We're discussing something that, by definition, is beyond any possible empircal experience. Unless, of course, you're positing a "clumsy hacker god", who had to go back and make changes against his original design after realizing he had made a mistake...
Further still, what's your definition of "intelligence"? Intelligence and complexity are both abstract concepts that we have created - they are not intrinsic properties of anything except as we define them.
Scott Adams has an idiotic take on it. He's telling us that supporters of evolution and ID need to listen to the other. But why should we listen to supporters of ID when ID is not science?
ID makes no testable claims. Without testable claims, it cannot be science. It is only about criticising evolution.
Dude, you didn't read his blog. Your eyes might have been pointed at a screen with it, but you didn't read it.
He didn't say evolutionists should listen to IDers. He said that evolutionists tend to misrepresent ID arguments, so it's hard for an average Joe to find a credible source for evolutionist debunking of ID arguments--one that actually deals with ID arguments as they're stated, and not with strawmen.
Even if you still disagree with Adams, at least get his argument right. (Oh, how ironic.)
+
There's the world's smallest cross. Go climb up on it, you putz.
Now ignoring the fact that the argument for creationism and ID was apparently 'Well Evolution is wrong.' which isnt actually any evidence at all.
Basically ID was based on irreducible design. Religeon decided to stop there and leave it at the fact that there is no way of having such complex creations happen through mutation. This is common for religeon because unlike science religeon is interested in finding anything that supports God and nothing else. Real science works the other way round and attempts to find all the evidence they can to disprove theories. If they cant the theory is more likely to be true.
It took a real scientist a couple of days of looking at the specimen involved in irreducible design before he found that 40% of it could be missing and it would still work fine. The evidence against evolution was a sham.
I dont advocate people giving up on disproving evolution I encourage it as with every area of science but unless you have evidence enough to counter it and not just break it down with absolute rubbish then creationism must be seen as a total fiction.
This is a serious problem. It shows both a break down in our education system and indoctrination of a dangerous religeous system.
'Evolution has a massive amount of evidence to back it and explains, lets say, 99% of how life works. The remaining 1% is yet to be discovered. Creationism and Intelligent Design explains precisely... nothing'
Richard Dawkins a scientist with his head actually screwed on right.
Why should we be surprised that 40% of people don't believe in Evolution? Probably 60% believe in ghosts! Most people are not very competent or sophisticated and do not care much about their views. As long as they can wake up, go to work, have some leisure time, who cares about what is in the world, or how we got here? Actually, most people are like this, but 'intelligent people', who are part of the world of newspapers, university, journals, the internet, etc, recognize that they'd lose their 'intelligent person' credentials, so they at least try to be 'sensible'. But, no doubt, most 'intelligent people' are as lazy as the 'dumb people', and have half-baked notions on every 'intelligent person subject', from Evolution to String Theory.
:')
It would be interesting to see the relationship between such quizes and a combination of IQ and 'laziness'. Very likely more than half the population scores below average on both counts, leading to this kind of observable idiocy.
Haha, and now you have just experiened it first-hand.
A Dumb Person
In scotland we peer across the border and are totally convinced we have evolved. Sassenachs. :)
On the other hand, the rest of the world (that is actually moving forward) is going to be living on Moon and Mars and are going to be studing the primative pepole that habit the planet earth.
scarsam/
Fables of an archetypical creature whose experiences affect all the mosre ordinary examples abound in human societies. Kipling's Just So Stories are just one example.
But, interestingly, I don't see any basis for such a belief in christian scripture; anyone who feels that way seems to be incorporating some non-christian beliefs.
It seems to me that atheists have abundantly more faith than any believer. I believe it takes more faith to believe that there is no God.
No offense, but all that shows is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
It isn't a question of believing that there is no god, it's not believing that there is a god.
One is a belief, like yours.
The other is the lack of a belief. It doesn't take any faith to look at the various contradictory, and often violently aggressive faiths out there spouting nonsense about how *their* god is all about love and so they must go murder the others who think the exact same thing, and chuckle a bit before concluding that regardless of anything else, none of those people have a reasonable believable idea about the subject. All it takes is an open mind and some common sense.
So your religion makes you happy. Great, good for you.
I don't share your religion because I have no need of one. I'm quite content knowing that there are things I don't know. That isn't in any way even remotely similar to a faith. So please, in future, do not accuse people of such ridiculous things when a half second of thought could have proven to you that is is utter twaddle.
Thanks.
But you then veer off into a list of subjects that don't belong at work. None of them.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yeah, until some smartass like Gödel comes along and proves that any sufficiently powerful system is self-inconsistent, thus throwing out a few thousand years of mathematical thought.
If you're looking for eternal truth, math ain't the place to dig.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Religion is the wool pulled over our eyes. Some people find that comforting and I don't fault them their beliefs. But if you were to ask me if someone with wool over their eyes can see clearly I will say no they can't. There are many brilliant people who believe in god and an afterlife. People smarter than you or I. I would not consider them to be stupid or inferior. However I would consider their belief to be illogical and irrational given the breadth of scientific knowledge and enlightenment. Athiests look at creationists the same way as you would look at an adult who still believed in the easter bunny or believed that baby's come from storks. We usually feel a little sorry for them but we can be accomidating and let them believe what they want. However if they try to start teaching those absurd ideas in a classroom in a public school we draw issue with that. To me, trying to teach ID in a science classroom is not any different from trying to teach that babies come from storks in a health or parenting class. I'm an athiest and I think I would have been one sooner had I not been afraid. It's like turning the breaker off in your house and then sticking a key into an electrical socket. Yes you know the power is off, but what if? Your told that there is a god when your a kid and that you will go to hell if you don't follow him. You grow up and don't see any evidence of god in the world. You can use logic to understand that there can't be a god. But that nagging "what if" makes you hesitate to be blasphemous because if your wrong your going to hell. Some people never get past this point and they either swing back to full blown religion, or else they stay halfway and become agnostic. They don't believe in any particular religion but won't deny the existence of a supreme being "just in case". Initially being an athiest is scary. When you die your dead, no after life. There are no miracles. There is no order or meaning to the universe. When bad things happen its random and meaningless. You have nothingto fall back on. No crutch to shield your fragile person from the harsh realities of existence. But at the same time the enlightenment is completely worth it. It's like Socrates story of a man living in a cave being too afraid to go outside where there is no roof, only the empty blackness of the sky. The entire universe of wonder could be going on outside his cave and he would never know because he is too afraid to change his world. I find it hard to trust people under a relgious influence to make rational decisions because they sometimes do things that are irrational, but in the name of a god. Like Bush talking about his crusade or that god wanted him to go to Iraq. That scares the crap out of me. What if god told him that freedom was an illusion and that the only path to freedom lay in faith. What if he made non christians 2nd class citizens. It worries me that Texas has a constitution that says no godless person can hold political office. Religion does not give way to logic. It is an irrational and illogical device that is used to control people. So in some ways, people who are religious or believe in god, are for lack of a better word, stupid.
Logical fallacy: "a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid."
non sequitur: "A thought that does not logically follow what has just been said: "We had been discussing plumbing, so her remark about astrology was a real non sequitur." Non sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
I have to disagree with your opinion. The arguments are very valid as in the question. Did your house evolve?
To quote you "you're arguing that because some task is outside of the ability of current technology, it must have been accomplished by a divine power".
This is incorrect. I do not assume that. Obviously many things we cannot do now... we will be able to do someday.
But think.... If humanity does not understand how to build a blade of grass, how in the world can humanity determine it was not designed?
I would ask you to expand on your hurricane comment. What point are you illustrating?
It was a broad reaching statement regarding humility. Not all scientists or learned people fall into that category, but many do.
There are two kinds of egotists: Those who admit it, and the rest of us. ~Laurence J. Peter
From http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/20 05/11/intelligent_des.html:
To make things more complicated, both sides have good and bad arguments lumped into them. If you make a good argument on your side, I respond by attacking your bad argument instead. If it were a debate contest, both sides would lose.
For example, Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can't be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old. That would be a great argument, supported by every relevant branch of science, except that it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.
If I have misunderstood his claim that IDers have good arguments, I regret it. But frankly, even his claim that there are good ID arguments blows his credibility for me. I have yet to hear one that isn't a variation on "x is too complex for us to understand how it could happen without the intervention of the Designer". If he finds these to be good arguments, he needs to get back to that high school science class.
No, I don't believe that IDers think the Universe is 10000 years old, and I've never heard a serious critic say so either. So they aren't Young-earth creationists, or biblical literalists, at least on the surface. But what are these people after? They aren't scientists. They do no research, publish no results, don't submit their work to peer review. They issue press releases and fight to get high school science curricula changed. That isn't science. That isn't how a scientific paradigm gets overthrown. It's something creepier. It is religion trying to disguise itself as science, and if Scott Adams can't see that because he's too busy sneering at people who care about science, well, fuck him and his New Ruling Class. His 15 minutes are long over anyway.
-aiabx
Just this guy, you know?
> The difference is in common ancestry and the ages of the earth & universe.
Yes, ID is "big tent" creationism, which tries to avoid splitting the ranks by being pinned down on such details. Some IDers accept common ancestry and the old earth/universe, and others don't. (The variety was brought out in the Texas schoolbook hearings last year, when the lawyer bluntly asked the 'experts' who were there to testify in favor of ID. Some of them were YECs, and they really squirmed to avoid the question. You can find transcripts on the net, if you're interested.)
> "Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism.
Generally, perhaps, but not exclusively.
You can't show that ID isn't creationism by showing that it doesn't specify what a subset of creationism specifies.
> ID is about saying that there are features of the life we see that point to design, generally by saying that the features are too complex. This can include Theistic Evolutionists, if they believe that God stepped in to tweak the evolutionary process in key places. ID says nothing about common ancestry or the ages of the earth & universe.
That is correct. However, if you visit talk.origins you'll find that the theistic evolutionists unanimously reject the sort of ID that has become popular in the USA over the past couple of decades as a result of the "missionary work" of the Discovery Institute. It's nothing but pseudoscience to make creationists feel like science supports their views (whatever variety they may be).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> He didn't say evolutionists should listen to IDers. He said that evolutionists tend to misrepresent ID arguments, so it's hard for an average Joe to find a credible source for evolutionist debunking of ID arguments--one that actually deals with ID arguments as they're stated, and not with strawmen.
So, what is the "real" ID argument that scientists haven't debunked?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There is a town in the south of France where many miracle cures have happened and indeed are still happening, and it's called Lourdes. It is no longer doubted that these miracles happen. It is also no longer doubted how to make these miracles happen and it could certainly be called scientific method. Everyone is free to look into the cures of Lourdes. Many scientists and specialists doctors (thousands) have joined the Medical Bureau in Lourdes to study the cures and document them happening. In short these cures happen because of prayer to God. Also the cures are instant. To read more on Lourdes you can search the web and there are some URL's below.
8 .html
http://www.pamphlets.org.au/cts/england/b405.html
http://www.pamphlets.org.au/cts/australia/acts151
Some Cures (the people who have been healed call themselves Cures) have had internal operations undone after the cancer that caused the operation to be performed was cured. However the operation scars have remained. No blind cancer ray gun type of instrument - if there was one - would have intelligence to undo an operation after curing the disease. Many X-rays etc, support all the findings.
Evolution does not support this. ID does. And if you think this is all hogwash... go to Lourdes and see for yourself!
Before dismissing the free market you should consider that it is working very inefficently.
Those that can afford it select school systems with their feet.
Should'nt those that can't afford to move to decent school districts be allowed some choice? I realize that poor kids with motivated parents moving to charter schools will leave the remaining schools worse. So what? The only way to assure 100% success is to redefine success.
Some people opt out of school, so long as the percentage remains at 40% or so we will have a plentyfull supply of burger flippers.
The lives of those who don't make an effort early in life will continue to suck balls and bite pillows. This is good. They serve as a warning to the young.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's my own father.
I was talking with him about evolution a couple of weeks ago and he basically came right out and said he thought it was full of it.
I didn't know what to say. I just stood their stunned.
My home has always been full of books. As a child, I read constantly. One of my favourite books was a children's encyclopedia. By age nine I knew all about cosmology, electricity, geography, geology, evolution etc, etc. My family was never religious, so I grew up under the assumption that no one believed in religion anymore.
I only became aware that quite a significant portion of people are still religious when I was about twenty. It was pretty unnerving to find out that everyone around you was suddenly a lot different that what you had thought. I still haven't gotten over it.
So when he said that, I was pretty shaken. Had the creationist propagandists gotten to him? Was he going to become a religious nut? Was he going to become the thrall of the local clergy?
As it turns out, he was nothing of the sort. He just thought the whole idea was outlandish. More like "come off it" than "it can't be". He accepts dinosaurs, that we are descended from apes, etc, etc. He just finds it hard to accept the whole idea of evolution for some reason.
I still think it was down in part to his religious upbringing, but at the same time, evolution can still be a though theory to swallow for the non scientifically inclined. Especially without presenting the evidence, which, despite there being mountains of it, is never really put forward.
There need to be more programs on dinosaurs, ancient mammals, fossils, bacteria. Evolution needs to be presented in a scientific way once again, not in a hollywoodised "edutainment" form with fantasy battles between digitally animated dinosaurs. People will just equate it with sci-fi if that goes on.
May the Maths Be with you!
You denied that complete reversals are rare. I believe that you are wrong. Does that make me "adamant on defending evolution"? I don't think so. I just think that you are wrong about this particular point.
Something can be "categorically wrong" without requiring a complete reversal. For example, Newtonian mechanics is just as wrong as the flat-Earth model. Despite being completely false, we haven't scrapped Newton because the theory does hold merit. Modern physics is not a reversal of Newton's laws, but a refinement. I don't believe I'm appealing to a false authority when I say that Newton's laws ought to appear in modern physics in some form. (Indeed they do appear - as an asymptote of relativity.)
If you're trying to say that evolution could be categorically false then you're tautologically correct. If you're trying to say that it's reasonable to deny evolution any role at all in describing biology (as in a complete reversal) then you're quite mistaken.
1) ID has no mechanistic theory.
2) ID's supporters can't agree on what it means or how it works.
3) ID makes no claims whatsoever except that there needs to be a god in there somewhere.
4) Most of IDs supporters are formerly militant creationists or so-called "creation scientists."
5) The flagship textbook "Of Pandas and People" was originally a creationist textbook that has essentially had phrasing referring to "creator" and "creation" now referring to "designer" and "design."
Sure, some ID supporters may think that it's somehow different from the various brands of creationism, but the fact it appears to be a big tent under which everybody who has a beef with evolution gathers and promotes an agenda that is not at all intellectually different from creationism.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
To answer your first question. See this post. There are a couple quotes from scientists there. However, it is by no means a conclusive list.
No kidding it not "conclusive." That is two scientists, one of whom is a biologist and who refuses to be named. That does not exactly make for a convincing argument that biologists or reputable scientists hold that belief.
I have to disagree with your opinion. The arguments are very valid as in the question. Did your house evolve?
My house is not alive and did not evolve. That, however has nothing to do with the two properties you were trying to relate, complexity and design. Non sequitur does indeed mean "it does not follow" but in a logical rhetoric it means that implying because one thing has properties that others must is in no way a logical conclusion. I might as well say, vanilla ice cream is white and sweet. Looking at how white clouds are, how can you claim they are not sweet? Do you see how the two have no definite relationship? Complexity is in no way indicative of a designer.
But think.... If humanity does not understand how to build a blade of grass, how in the world can humanity determine it was not designed?
Because their are many levels of understanding and because understanding is not the same thing has having the capability to do something. I understand that under extreme pressure and temperature a lump of carbon can become a diamond. I don't understand how to build a diamond making machine in my garage. More importantly I don't believe that all diamonds previous to the 50's were made by god, but when someone figured out the technology needed to make diamonds suddenly it was no longer the case. What is more probably, that diamonds are made by pressure within the earth, or that Jerry, the diamond fairy made them all? The first is a logical, scientific theory based upon studying geology and physics. The second is something I read in a fictional book. Truthfully I don't know for certain which is the case, but only the first one is really a logical working model.
I would ask you to expand on your hurricane comment. What point are you illustrating?
You claimed that because scientists could not create a blade of grass from non-living material that implied they were incorrect in their scientific model. I was illustrating that having a correct, but not necessarily complete scientific model does not necessarily mean you can replicate all things that are explained by that model, especially given current technology. I might further add, that biogenesis is actually outside the scope of the theory of evolution, which does not postulate a way life began.
It was a broad reaching statement regarding humility. Not all scientists or learned people fall into that category, but many do.
It was egotism. You were claiming you knew better in the same breath that you were chiding them for not being humble.
Yeah, until some smartass like Gödel comes along and proves that any sufficiently powerful system is self-inconsistent, thus throwing out a few thousand years of mathematical thought.
Except that Gödel proved no such thing. What he proved is that it is impossible to prove that a system is consistent from within the system and that any consistent system must contain statements that are true but that cannot be proved to be true within the system.
It didn't throw out "a few thousand years of mathematical thought." All it did was dash the hopes of some mathematicians that a mathematical system could "lift itself up by its bootstraps" (prove its own consistency) or be absolutely complete (prove the truth or falsity of every proposition that can be framed within the system).
So not everything can be proved, but there are plenty of things that can be proved in mathematics. Gödel's theorem being one of them.
That was the "few thousand years of mathematical thought" that were tossed out.
So not everything can be proved
...which means that math cannot provide any ultimate, unchanging truth. That's not an indictment against path, but an observation that it wasn't quite the eternal bulwark that the poster described.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Science, is (ideally) one of the few (if not the only) human thought processes designed to identify and (hopefully) rectify its own mistakes and in so doing, reinforcing good assumptions - but that's all they are - assumptions and any good scientist knows this. All these abstracted mental mappings of our world are just that, mappings with no bearing on the thing they map. "If you look at end of finger, you miss all the heavenly glory." Does H2O boil at the same temperature, under the same conditions, everywhere in the universe? We think so, but we can't KNOW it as we can't be everywhere at once to prove otherwise. If someone can - MORE POWER TO THEM. Number of times any religion, anywhere has ever come out on its own and 'corrected' a previously commonly held notion - uh, ZERO. Number of times scientists have discovered flaws in the research and conclusions drawn by other scientists, whose theory was disproven, refined or completely reworked? LOTS AND LOTS
If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
(This particular point is actually pretty interesting.) Do you really think that a round Earth is obvious? I don't. The reason it isn't obvious is that the Earth is locally flat. So, when not considering large distances, it's difficult to distinguish a flat Earth from a round one. People at one time supposed that the Earth was flat. You might think that these people were incurably stupid, but they were just making simple inferences from simple observations. (This is where I guess I'm "defending" the flat-Earth model, by not calling early scientists stupid. We love to call people stupid on slashdot, don't we?) So once larger distances were considered, it became obvious that the Earth was round.
Now you might say, "But they were originally wrong! The Earth is round!" You're right, but the topic of discussion was not distinguishing true from false. It was identifying complete reversals. (A complete reversal is an instance of a popular scientific theory being retracted and replaced with a totally unrelated theory.) It should be clear by now that a locally correct but globally incorrect (if you'll forgive the pun) theory is not an instance of a complete reversal unless it is shown to be locally incorrect as well. (It's understood that a sphere - or any smooth surface - resembles a plane at a small enough resolution. For the Earth, the resolution of the typical human was too small to properly distinguish the two possibilities.)
If you take the time to go through it, you'll find that the argument is reasonable. You can't just expect a model to disappear forever when it's been refined. In fact, there really are applications that assume a locally flat Earth. There are also applications that assume Newtonian mechanics. Both the flat-Earth model and Newtonian mechanics are false, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still valid for limited domains and resolutions.
How long could it take to say this:
"Some people think that God created every creature as they are now."
Compare that to the convoluted evolution idea which will take a bunch of class time. Simply put, creationism is a sound bite in the academic curriculum.
If you are unwilling to offer that, then your school may be more closely affiliated prostheletizing atheists. They cause the same kinds of problems as the fundamentalists anywhere else in the world.
>> "Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism.
>Generally, perhaps, but not exclusively.
>You can't show that ID isn't creationism by showing that it doesn't specify what a subset of creationism specifies.
To the best of my knowledge, "creationism" has always referred to some variety of either YEC or OEC. That's not a hard-and-fast technical rule, but I do believe it correctly describes the primary use of the term.
The reason I see a meaningful distinction between creationism and ID is that a creationist does not have to believe a single ID argument, and an IDer doesn't have to believe a single creationist argument. To be a creationist is to believe something about the age of the earth, or that life was created in sweeping, fiat, "the animals appeared miraculously" manners. A creationist does not have to believe that random mutation + natural selection + genetic drift + etc could not reasonably account for the type of life that we see. And to be an IDer, you have to believe that there are particular features of life that require intelligent input to have come into existence.
In short, creationism does not require ID arguments to be correct, and ID arguments don't involve any of the primary claims of creationism.
Please realize, I'm not saying this to try to make ID acceptable for public schools, or some such. I'm not saying that ID is valid science. I'm just talking about definitions of terms, as best I know them.
>That is correct. However, if you visit talk.origins you'll find that the theistic evolutionists unanimously reject the sort of ID that has become popular in the USA over the past couple of decades as a result of the "missionary work" of the Discovery Institute. It's nothing but pseudoscience to make creationists feel like science supports their views (whatever variety they may be).
What an odd thing to say. "The theistic evolutionists" reject ID? How do you think that was determined? A poll? Or are you simply saying that self-identified TEs who post articles at talk.origins (.org, or USENET?) don't post articles supporting ID? If so, do you really think that enables you to make this kind of sweeping generalization?
If it were possible on slashdot this should've been modded +10
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
Perhaps brits are actally a bit smarter than we thought ... in my experience the best of plans, perhaps intelligent at the time, don't look so bright thirty years on. So if, a couple decades from now, we find that we were left here by an advanced civilization, perhaps your ideas of evolution will also look fairly silly. On the other hand designing and building a self sustaining, perpetuating, and evolving system is well beyond our current abilities. Perhaps the wait and see attitude of our brit friends is actually in order.
...and knowing the British, the phrase they missed out of the original article was "of the 3% who bothered to answer our questions ...."
For example, Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can't be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old. That would be a great argument, supported by every relevant branch of science, except that it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.
Right there he's misrepresenting the arguments against ID. I've never heard or read anyone use that argument against ID (and I don't just mean here on slashdot), the main argument against ID is that it is not science which is correct and not mis-representation of anything.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
As these Luddites in training will find as they eshcew science, the population
is not sustainable today with science, with enough of these new mouth breathers
they won't (in the limit) have the wherewithal to cure themselves. Thus, the population
will ultimately shrink, science will then once again cycle back in vogue and repeat.
Hedley
Yes, I will find all the information I will need to show incredible design from an incredible designer. Your post does not offer proof or an answer to my question, but merely an invitation to do my own research.
My friend, that's science. Real science is not simple. Real science cannot be summed up in a couple of words on /. I am a Ph.D. student, this means I did a LOT of hard work to have a grasp of these subjects. I'm sorry, but your ranting on your armchair means nothing.
Study molecular genomics, study comparative genomics, study bioinformatics. Apply them. Look at the known genome sequences of protozoa and metazoa. Sequence them if the available sequences don't fit your needs. If you do it with the proper technical knowledge, you will find the only senseful conclusion is evolution of the second from the first. If you want startpoints on the subject my advices are Lewin's "Genes" and Albert's "Molecular Biology of the Cell".
You don't even have a grasp of what evolution is: the "watchmaker" argument (if there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker) you're doing is a known logical fallacy. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for a critic of the subject. Evolution is not chance alone.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Did you read his blog, where he responds that exact criticism?
So, what is the "real" ID argument that scientists haven't debunked?
Did I (or he) say there is one?
Read the blog, man. Learn what he actually said before you spout off.
Can you point out where? (yes I did read the blog BTW). All I see him do is mis-represent the arguments of opponents against ID. I have never heard anyone using the 'the earth couldn't have been created 10,000 years ago' argument against ID - not in the official statements from scientific and educational organisations debunking ID as a science, not in the various court trials surrounding the issue and not even here on slashdot.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
You are all simply missing the real question at hand. What is the end result of your life? Ask the question that most of you refuse to ask yourself? What happens when you die? I went through a near death experience; I was murdered. I experienced life after death and came in contact with who people call Jesus. He is real alright. That doesn't make me an idiot, or unscientific. I still live my life unreligiously, but I accept him and what he did for me. Wow, according most of you, that makes me equivilant to a Windows user. One thing is for sure, when you die you don't go to sleep. There is nothing wrong with accepting the truth of God. Who said you had to be religious? All I can say is my eyes are now open.
I love you.
From the blog:
PZ declares that no one has EVER argued against the young earth argument to refute ID, except for uninformed people. My very POINT was that that argument comes from uninformed people, by definition. And I've heard it three times in the past month. If he's wrong about this, and completely certain of his rightness, how can I trust his certainty on any other topic even when he IS right?
Idiot
The Theory of Negligent Design, according to Stanislaw Lem
...
Scene: The Rhohchian's have sponsored a motion to accept Earth as a member of the Galactic Council, but the Iridian representative challenges the motion by relating the true story of humankind's origins
"I shall now put a few final questions to the honorable delegation from Rhohchia! Is it not true that many years ago there landed on the then dead planet of Earth a ship carrying your flag, and that, due to a refrigerator malfunction, a portion of its perishables had gone bad? Is it not true that on this ship there were two spacehands, afterwards stricken from all the registers for unconscionable dealing with duckweed liverworts, and that this pair of arrant knaves, these Milky Way ne'er-do-wells, were named Gorrd and Lod? Is it not true that Gorrd and Lod decided, in their drunkenness, not to content themselves with the usual pollution of a defenseless, uninhabited planet, that their notion was to set off, in a manner vicious and vile, a biological evolution the likes of which the world had never seen before? Is it not true that both these Rhohches, with malice aforethought, devised a way to make of Earth - on a truly galactic scale - a breeding ground for freaks, a cosmic side show, a panopticum, an exhibit of grisly prodigies and curios, a display whose living specimens would one day become the butt of jokes told even in the outermost Nebulae? Is it not true that, bereft of all sense of decency and ethical restraint, both these miscreants then emptied on the rocks of lifeless Earth six barrels of gelatinous glue, rancid, plus two cans of albuminous paste, spoiled, and that to this ooze they added some curdled ribose, pentose, and levulose, and - as though that filth were not enough - they poured upon it three large jugs of a mildewed solution of amino acids, then stirred the seething swill with a coal shovel twisted to the left, and also used a poker, likewise bent in the same direction, as a consequence of which the proteins of all future organisms on Earth were Left-handed?! And finally, is it not true that Lod, suffering at the time from a runny nose and - moreover - egged on by Gorrd, who was reeling from an excessive intake of intoxicants, did willfully and knowingly sneeze into that protoplasmal matter, and, having infected it thereby with the most virulent viruses, guffawed that he had thus breathed 'the bloody breath of life' into those miserable evolutionary beginnings?! And is it not true that this leftwardness and virulence were thereafter transmitted and handed down from organism to organism, and now afflict with their continuing presence the innocent representatives of the race Artefactum Abhorrens, who gave themselves the name of 'homo sapiens' purely out of simple-minded ignorance? And therefore is it not true that the Rhohches must not only pay the Earthling's initiation fee, to the tune of a billion tons of platinum, but also compensate the unfortunate victims of their planetary incontinence - in the form of Cosmic Alimony?!"
- from Stanislaw Lem, The Star Diaries, "The Eighth Voyage," 1976 Avon Press paperback, pp. 42-43.
Unfortunately, they often have more intelligence than they do humility.
Humility is ultimately what this is all about. When it all comes down to it, lack of humility is the reason people don't believe in evolution. They believe there's something so special about humans that they couldn't have descended from lower primates (or bacteria/whatever), in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Lack of humility is the fundamental basis of religious thought. Science teaches that we're made out of atoms, and then we die. A lot of people have a hard time accepting that. To claim that this perspective lacks humility is as far from the truth as it is possible to get.
This guy is so proud of being secular. Why is it so cool?
It's me again. I was just attempting to provoke yet another wordlicious anti-god/religion tirade. We need more of 'em. They educate folks to think differently, logically.
Right?
Ask yourself this question - are you better off spending all day Monday preparing to live Tuesday while not actually living Monday, or just living on Monday and dealing with Tuesday when it comes? If you have faith that it will put your money where your mouth is and get on with the HERE AND NOW. When you're on that deathbed and you look back at what you've done (not where you're going) what will you feel? Regret? As useless an emotion as worry, only in reverse. "Know thyself" - but that does actually require an open mind, open eyes and a willingness to accept what you observe and not just what you'd like to think you're seeing. Science: from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to KNOW. Religion: from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See RELY. Knowing because you've seen and demonstrate (active), versus reliance because you've been told (passive). The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm adamantly unsure. The rest is anyone's guess?
If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
Atheism is as much as a leap of faith as beliving in God, smarty pants. You can't prove with science God doesnt exist.
Evolution (as the creation of life) is also a leap of faith. Science has yet to prove:
- Life can be created from a 'soup of chemicals and substances that were never alive before.
- a single cell "creature" can evolve into a multi-organed creature
- that a species can evolve from one species to another
Not to mention that all the known human fossils are considered "on a different branch" of evolution to the point the neanderthal fossils are not close enough gentically to be considered on the same gentic path as modern man. Nevertheless, here is absolutely no proof that the fossils are actually related. Most of our data is visual observation, not chemical or genetic observation.
There is a long way to go before Evolution (as creation) is proved.
Maybe you need to learn about the Scientific Method.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 25/1311231&from=rss>
This entire conversation sounds like demonstration of of that recent article...
but this case isn't like politics where there's no right answer...
Sure the scientific side has some emotional attachment to it, but there's a lot more than that on their side.
It's all cognitive dissodance -> unfortunatly for people who've spent their entire lives believing something it's easier to ignore facts then to change your world view. Especially since one of the major reasons that religions do so well is that sometimes a belief, wether or not it's true, can be benificial to the host. So you're not just asking them to go against a life-long world view, but one that has been benificial to it's host.
luckily for me my early interest in this topic (creationism vs. evolution) lead me to the facts before that threshold was reached, which would have locked me into a lifetime of religious nonsense... (I come from one of those religious-fundamentalist communities/falilies)
"give me your children until they are 12 and they will be mine forever"
generational replacement, the older generation is basically lost.
which is why it's so important that things like ID don't get into schools and cause the same kind of non-recoverable errors the next generation.
I'm looking on this page (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2 005/11/intelligent_des.html) and I can't find it, even doing a search and replace. I admit I didn't read the comments - just the blog entry. I don't see why the arguments of people who don't know what ID is relevant? How does it weaken the case against ID?
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
I hope you don't mind me adding you to my friends list.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Oh, Please.
We don't follow your straw-man portrayal of how science works.Who, exactly, appointed you the sole authoritative spokesperson to represent the entire community of "evolutionary scientists?" You are correct that studying a bath tub would be rather trivial. It's a scenario that provides for easily reproduceable testing. Rather than fixating on the details of the bathtub, however, you were meant to extrapolate the analogy to something that is not easily observed and a set of events that are highly impracticle to reproduce. Are you so devoid of imagination as to make requisite this explanation? This really was fairly obvious and very easy to comprehend. Right over Mr. EvolutionaryScientist®'s head, I guess.
---
Ah, there's the problem. I was looking at the link provided by the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent:
0 05/11/intelligent_des_1.html
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2
It's a follow-up. Adams' thesis is not that the arguments against ID are weakened, but that the misrepresentations he points to make it difficult and/or impossible for the average Joe to find a credible source for those arguments.
"Perfectly valid religious belief" -- oxymoron of the day!
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's about not starting arguements where there is no possiblity for compromise and no benefit to the job. Lunch is different (especially when going to the strip club down the road for 'free lunch').
Your last line tips me off to you though.
Who defines hatred? (I hate hippies!) Usually those who take your position are all over thoughtcrime. They just want their definition of hate speach to be the official one. Better just to keep it all out of the office. I don't want some twit telling me I need to accept everything in the name of diversity.
Cultures that cut off some of womens/girls best bits are inferiour to ours (is that hate speech?).
The perpetrators should have their tenders cut off (is it hate speech yet).
Cultures that cut off parts of mens tenders are also inferior (is that hate speech, it's antisemetic in the usual definition).
People that use one-way traffic orifices in ways that 'violate the warrenty' are sick. (is that hate speech, what if I'm talking about bulemics?)
These are all things that could come up in benign conversation. Better just to avoid some subjects at work. Especially if you have some rank.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The question was no doubt very slanted. e.g. Do you believe life on earth came about by evolution unguided by any spirtual force?
Any answer but yes is interperted as support for ID.
That's how they get the stats over hear in the USA anyhow.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And also think about how you followed up your statement: "believing that there is no god" and "not believing that there is a god" are absolutely equivalent statements. Semantics bear this out completely, especially from a scientific standpoint. Think about it.
One last thing to think about regarding God: If I'm wrong and you are right, I lose nothing and you lose nothing. But, if I'm right and you are wrong, I gain everything and you lose everything.
Something I see coming up over and over again whenever there's a discussion about evolution is silly semantic argument about the nature of the term "proof." People keep saying that scientists can never "prove" anything, only disprove things. I'm a scientist, and I would argue that this is simply a silly oversimplification without any significant value. The problem is that it implies that absolute proof is somehow attainable in the real world. It's not. The only place something can be proved is in mathematics, and as useful as math is, it's all made up. The inability of science to "prove" things is not a limitation of science, it's a demonstration of the fictitious nature of the concept of "proof" with respect to the real world.
More importantly, people make life-or-death decisions every day of their lives that are based on things they can't "prove." You can't "prove" that a twinkie isn't going to explode, but you eat it anyway. You can't prove that atoms exist, or that smoking causes cancer. By any reasonable standard, those things are considered proven, so one could argue that they're simply "proven beyond reasonable doubt." Likewise, evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. To believe in atoms, but not in evolution, because it's "unproven" or "unprovable" is inconsistent.
I'm a brit too and have not known anyone in all the areas and schools I went to that did not laugh at Creationism. I know they like Ghosts and UFO's a lot and that there seem to be a lot of Paganism around, but still...
I've seen a lot of comments without a name but in your case you've put your name down but no comments.
Religion has given humans (6) thousands of years of warm fuzzy feelings about our condition and has allowed small groups of very savvy monkeys to keep entire nations in check while dominating the course of our collective future (the crusades, jihad, immenantizing the eschaton). Science has given us just about EVERYTHING ELSE WE ACTUALLY USE EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY. I can only assume you're reading this on a computer after you entered your modern home, turned on the electric lights and fired up your PC and broadband internet connection. The TV's on in the background as your mom calls you on the phone while a friend flies through the air in a new-fangled 'aeroplane' while a brain surgeon saves someone from an aneurysm while an engineer tests a new magnetic braking system for an elevator while a print shop prepares to run off a thousand more copies of the GOD-DAMNED King James version of a book that's been translated and mistranslated through a half-dozen different languages. Please! Let's have more monkeys arguing vehemently OVER THE INTERNET about which is more real and offers more value to the human condition, science or religion? They both play their parts people, it's just that we're talking about one USING THE DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE AND MUCH RELIED UPON RESULTS OF THE OTHER. You'd think that in and of itself might be a good first clue, but guess again/ What would you expect in a world that runs news headlines like, "Nation SPLIT on Bush as a uniter or a divider." Dark Ages - here we come! Only this time, we're getting there faster because OF ALL THIS TECHNOLOGY. /shakes head dejectedly and staggers off into the growing darkness, remembers to take CAPS LOCK off first though...
If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
I wouldn't call any of those statments "Hate Speech" and that term was probably a bad choice of words by me. I would agree that all of those statements are probably inappropriate for the workplace though, the last if being a purposeful double entendre.
Things that *I* would consider inappropriate for the workplace:
Any sexual topic or topics relating directly to some form of bodily function deemed "private" in your particular culture. Although I don't see anything particularly WRONG with such topics, most cultures simply don't discuss such things in public, and I can respect that.
Openly threatening topics. Calling a group of people "inferior" isn't threatening, although it's probably indicitive if small mindedness and not very productive in any discussion. Saying you would like to see a class of people dead is definately skirting it. Telling someone you would like to, or possibly will do something unpleasant to them is definately threatening.
Thanks. We have something in common, then. Unfortunately, the demographics of /. being what they are, it isn't likely to do me much good.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Everyone who believes "God made it that way and he works in mysterious ways" is a perfectly acceptable final answer to any and every question a human could possibly conceive of, please log off forever, right now. I'm not kidding. Turn off your computer. Turn off the lights. Take off your machine knitted fabric garments and run naked out into the woods at the edge of town and don't come back. Ever. In return, I promise I won't ever again pray to your diety to protect me (and you) from you. Oh, and leave those lighters and matches too - because they're technology, of the devil and not allowed in your 'faith is all I need' world. Go on... Go on... Nope, put that ashtray down! And the thermos... Just get out there... Out into the woods so you can be closer to God. In fact, if you sleep out in the open in January in some parts, you might get to meet him just that much quicker. If the whole point of living is jsut so you can meet him in the next one, please get on with it and quit wasting my oxygen! Those of us who care about this life and this world need it more than you.
If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
You're forgetting The Theory of Unintelligent Design
This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
True dat. The Questionable Authority compared the Discovery Institute's press release output to their scientific output and found they issue 0.44 press releases per day vs. 0.0046 scientific publications per day (and that's being generous with the phrase 'scientific publications').
If he thinks that then he just hasn't looked very hard. Almost everyone who argues against ID does it on the basis that its not science, not some mis-representation that its Young Earth Creationism. I'd suggest he looks at the official statements from scientific and educational organisations for a start, but even on discussion board sites like this with nearly 2000 responses I doubt you'd find many trying to deride ID for being 'Young Earth' creationism.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
Oh, Please.
... you were meant to extrapolate the analogy to something that is not easily observed ...
You're welcome.
Who, exactly, appointed you the sole authoritative spokesperson to represent the entire community of "evolutionary scientists?"
The same person who appointed you to represent humanity. It's good to know we have a mutual friend.
You are correct that studying a bath tub would be rather trivial.
I'm sorry for the poor choice of analogy.
I tried to do so, but, alas, I failed.
As analogy has failed, please read some textbooks or web pages which I'm sure you'll find links to in other comments, and you'll find out how science works, and the overwelming wealth of evidence for evolution. E.g. the high level of agreement between phlogenies based on physical charactoristics and phlogenies based on DNA sequencing.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Astrology is falsifiable, as much as many other scientific theories. Consider the following experiment.
Take 1,000 (or so) people, with no ability to make astrological predictions themselves. Plot horoscopes for each of the twelve star signs for the next day, but don't show them to the people. Let them live out their day - and then show them the twelve horoscopes, unlabelled, and ask them to choose which one most closely predicted their day.
If astrology is accurate, you would expect most of the people to select the horoscope that corresponded to their star sign. If it's bunk, you would expect 1/12th of them (plus or minus some random error) to select the appropriate one.
That was the "few thousand years of mathematical thought" that were tossed out.
Actually, the idea tht mathematics could be completely axiomatized in such a way as prove its own validity was itself fairly recent at the time; it is generally attributed Hilbert, who was a rough contemporary of Godel.
Since all the smart people here all absolutely "know" how life was created.
lets take a step back a gazillion years ago.
Lets NOT try to figure out how this giant ball exploaded and created billions of galaxies.
Let try to figure out how it got here in the first place.
"We don't need no education..."
Has no one referenced this in the 1700+ replies yet? Isn't there a Fink Ployd on here for crying out loud?
"If men will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn
I am not trying to bait you here (although I am sure it will sound like it). How can men be governed by God? I have never heard God tell me any laws that I should personally follow. Is there some book where God's laws are written down? I have read several books that claim to be that book.
Honestly, how can men (people) allow themselves to be governed by God? It sure would be nice to not have any tyrants in charge.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Speaking to an entire community of people and expecting them all to agree with you makes you a pretty terrible person. So does implying that being atheist is the result of being well educated. These two things are not conducive to tolerence of any form and are a major problem in society. If you're of such high intelligence stop producing "us" and "them" faction. I believe in evolution but I would not for a second think that I'm more intelligent than a friend believing in creationism. Futhermore there is little reason the two ideas can't coexist.
No, dumbass, it's a prime example that major DNA changes can happen. Sometimes a mutation leads to something that improves an organism's ability to survive, like an early giraffe with a neck slightly longer than others of its generation. More often a mutation is a negative anomaly and the organism fails, such as, well, you.
I would just like to point out a common fallacy that Roblimo and many others seem to fall into. That is that a link exists between your scientific theories and your beief system. Evolutionary theory is as close to scientific fact as it can ever be short of doing several four billion year experiments to prove it once and for all. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person is secular or religious. Unfortunately, many religious people try to tie their beliefs to scientific theories they believe jive with their religious beiefs (hence the strong following for creationist or ID ideas). However, secular types are just as prone to the same poor judgement in linking their secular (read ideological) beliefs to the science that is evolutionary theory. The fact of the matter is that one has nothing to do with the other. A person can choose to believe or not believe in God. A person can choose to believe evolutionary theory or something else that makes much less scientific sense. The fallacy that there is a tie between scientific theory and theology is at the root of why we see some of these strangely cobbled together, less-than-scientific theories on the origins of our universe. Perhaps if we "more educated" people cast down this fallacy, these holdover theories would disappear. A final word - science doesn't reveal the answer to the question "Why?"
If you re-read his post you'll find he specifically avoids reproducing the effect.
Play Command HQ online
is it assumed that to believe in god you must be uneducated? Last time I checked it was called "The Theory of Evolution", which by all the statements made so far here would come to mean that this in only a plausible explaination for similarities in humans and other primates, or one of many plausible explainations of different fossilied remains. I have not heard that it is cold hard fact, only a plausible scenario. Which means it could be wrong!
... then we shall ... question why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God.
I have found that many of the "science" that we are taught in school boarders very very closely to what I would consider "faith". Non-religious types will ask you to prove that god exists. Yet they are not at all concerned that science is inferring many "truths". Study far enough into any scientific field and you start to get into having faith. Most Physics theories will get into proving that a particle exists by observing other the behaviour of other particles.
The study and drive to understand the world that we live in is a great and noble persuit. But it does not in anyway force one to abandon the belief in a god. They are not mutually exclusive. Stephen Hawkin concluded his book "A Brief History of Time" by stating that; if we do discover a complete (Unified Theory of Physics) theory,
If God does not exist then why are we trying so hard to understand his mind or how he created the universe?
Both are correct. Genetic mutation can occur that causes a small small advantage for the individual. This occurs from parent to an offspring, quick change. But it can take a long time for this gene to propagate to the entire population.
"you were meant to extrapolate the analogy to something that is not easily observed and a set of events that are highly impracticle to reproduce"
His answer to the thought experiment was explicit about proper extrapolation and didn't involve any reproduction. The observations involved were analogous those in real evolutionary science. Did you even read it?
I thought it was complete, proper, sound, funny... perfect!
Excellent post!
Just one more kudos. That was the highlight of the entire comments section. Now for a new twist on domestic hydrology: shower time before work.
Honestly, this is why I read slashdot. Bravo.
I'm perfect in every way, except for my humility.
Belief in God as the creator of the world is a perfectly reasonable, valid view. If you want theists to credit the opposite view as reasonable and valid, don't engage in putdowns. Many of us have personal experience to back up our beliefs. You can't invalidate that with just your say-so. Just a request, can slashdot please just be about technical issues and not this "at every opportunity" diatribe against belief in God? I mean anyone would think that some people find it threatening, what other people believe...
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
I'm quoting only the first sentence of your post, since it seems to sum up your views quite well. I can only assume that it was meant as an answer to my first two questions - assume, since you didn't bother quoting. And finally, please, use paragraph breaks in the future.
Now then. You state that religion is "the wool pulled over our eyes", and then go on a long time about the consequences of that. However, I asked why belief in god(s) would make one illogical, and since you fail to give any logical (or other kind, for that matter) proof against the existance of god(s), you fail to answer that question.
Your answer to my second question ("you might also explain how conformance to your worldview shows critical thinking, and how lack of such conformance shows a lack of such thought") seems to be "because I'm right and you are wrong", which, since it remains unproven, is not a convincing one.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID," Perhaps you should choose your friends more carefully? Ian
But they are to me. I hear what you are saying and I believe you think it is true. It is, after all, what you have been taught for years. I don't doubt your sincerity.
I think you are out of your field with regard to social structure and reproduction, as I am out of mine in any subject scientific. Nonetheless, I must repeat that although I cannot buy any of ID or creationism, there is quite a lot of the popularly-accepted view of evolution that leaves me doubting that, too. I have already written more than I want to about my doubts. Let's just leave it that you and I agree that the details are fuzzy and not well thought out, although we agree that the theory is in agreement with quite a lot of observed phenomena.
Cellular biologists may claim to know how this works, but, AFAICT they do not as they cannot do what Einstein demanded of a scientist who truly understood his work: explain it to their grandmother. Or, in simple language without condescention or oversimplification.
I am not stupid, I just work in another industry than university science.
So, let's get to the heart of your (and others') argument to see if I understand. Then read what I say and make sure you understand what I am trying to say as a layman.
Let's posit I accept your outline of speciation above. You say no unique mating ritual is necessary at the start (to establish?) a new species, but allow it may be necessary to sustain it.
Genetically, this is a dodgy assumption because any species is most vulnerable when its numbers of individuals is small. No species is smaller that when it has only two members. It is counterintuitive to assume that a unique mating ritual is not necessary to establish a new species given that.
HOWEVER: we only see the species that have successfully taken root. AFAIK we have not run across a singleton of a new species to study, so we cannot know whether that individual would prefer to mate with his own over others.
Back to my side: I don't know which genes or chromosomes may have been changed in the new individual, and neither do you. Species are sometimes separated (catalogued) by criteria that do not require a large change in genes, and the offspring are not hybridized and are fertile. Most times, however this is not the case.
Most times, a horse and an ass will produce a sterile mule. Every blue moon, there are reports of mules born of female mules, granted. But this is not a strong enough line to produce a viable species. A large land mammal equine species cannot survive if only a few in a thousand offspring survive to reproduce. And that is the key.
If speciation occurs as it seems to be represented by one science, another discipline says it cannot be so. This conundrum has continued since Darwin published.
HOWEVER, the absence of the proof of the MEANS OF evolution does not disprove evolution. I am not saying that. I am saying that the holes in evolution are so big, another theory could easily fit inside them. But that theory is NOT ID.
Is that clear?
One thing you can say about Creationists is that they are at least consistent on one thing,
there is a start (Genesis) and there is an ending (Apocalypse).
So it is like a line with a closed beginning and a closed end.
Shouldn't we at least consider the other options?
The last option is actually the most plausible!
No apocalypse and no genesis
I admit this requires some more brain activity.
Infinity towards the futrue is easy to grasp, simply use induction (keep adding 1 second)
date infinitum = Now; while(true){infinitum.AddSeconds(1);}
(while(true) is axiomatic in this case)
But what about infinity towards the past, simply use induction (keep substracting 1 second)
date infinitum = Now; while(true){infinitum
{while(true) is still axiomatic in this case)
So while I think that time won't just stop and matter won't just disappear,
I can assume (this is an assumption and not a logical deduction)
that time has always ticked and matter has always existed.
Although this is a Theory, until proven wrong it is as plausible as Creationism.
---
Boer Koen
Only smart People are smart enough to say: "I don't know!".
hi idiot
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After
all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
Give me a scientific explanation for anything about how life began and I will ask how.
You say that there was a big bang. I ask how.
You say a mass of energy or something stupid like that. I ask how.
You say before the big bang there was no space. I ask how.
There's only one answer and God knows it.
Your data is incomplete. It is true that clever circles can be perpetrated by clever people, but there are simply too many anomalies to be accounted for. These include heat-burst nodules on the bend-points of the stalks, and those with perfect bends and no damange at all. --While the film does not get into examining why there are two different types, (those which interrupt the life process and those which do not), neither type can be accounted for by pranksters using basic physical force to bend stalks, techniques which cannot help but cause structural crushing and breaking damage to the plants.
Seeds from genuine circles will often display odd growth patterns when compared to control seeds from outside the circle.
There have been some instances where the plant-matter within a circle has been rendered magnetic. And other instances have seen enormously advanced circle formations appearing within twenty-minute windows between flights of air-bourn observers during the day.
There is a ton of strange evidence doucumented.
An excellent documentary film is available on the subject which is available at Block Buster, if you're interested. It's called, Crop Circles: Quest for Truth. It's well worth looking up. It has an interesting extra interview with one of the researchers who was threatened by the CIA to publicly denounce circles.
-FL
The standards of western journalism have always been terrible. The said survey may be doctored. But it may also be the result of the continued feeding of "special stories" by the capitalist press towards a docile, subserviant and unthinking population.
Prof(Miss) A Mani CU, ASL, AMS, ISRS, CLC, CMS, IEEE HomePage: http://www.logicamani.in Blog: http://logicamani.blogs
Well, at least you have a sense of humour.
You mentioned a specific group with which you claim to identify and then proceeded to speak for that entire group when you used the word "we." I did neither of these.
Getting back to the whole bathtub thing... I actually thought that your detailed description of how the scientific method plays out was rather clever. I maintain, however, that you wholly missed the mark. Your analysis of the tub scenario seems to imply that, with enough application of the scientific method -- which you expertly portrayed*, ID can be shown to be either valid or invalid. This, by definition, however, is impossible. Allow me to explain.
I think your conclusions owe partly to an omission on the part of the OP in his original analogy. To make a clean correlation to the ID/abiogenesis debate, he should have specified that, after filling the tub, he released a swarm of nano-bots that broke down all evidence pointing toward the tub being filled beforehand and planted false evidence indicating the rate of drip had been constant -- all this on a molecular level (not to imply that the majority of ID adherents think that God used nano-bots, most probably do fall into the stereotype of drooling rednecks that believe in magic). Need I remind you that there exist those in the ID camp that think that the dinosaur bones were put there to test their faith? You see, this is what you're really up against. If the evidence has been purposefully tampered with on a level beyond our current ability to detect (which is basically what many ID people are claiming), all of the evidence mentioned in your analysis may not have even been left for discovery, and instead, false conclusions would have been drawn from the remaining false evidence.
I already am firmly convinced of the existence of evolution. I don't doubt high level of agreement between phlogenies based on physical characteristics and phlogenies based on DNA sequencing. I provided no evidence to indicate that I was did. Maybe you divined this information through some supernatural means? A man of your understanding should surely understand the danger in making assumptions without any testable evidence. My beef was not with the details of your extension of the analogy. It was with:
*You might have changed things around a bit, however. Your extension of the original analogy actually resulted in the investigators *validating* the corollary to ID -- that the tub was originally full. This is what gives the impression that you misunderstood the original analogy in the first place.
---
No it wasn't. See my explanation of why.
You're right about this one. Although I think it probably should have.
Right you are. I didn't have any problem with the analogy to evolutionary science -- just to the ID/abiogenesis debate. Again, have a look at my response that I link to above.
Did you read my post? I don't attack him on the points you enumerate.
---
You look like a good person to ask this question. Why hasnt other life evolved? I saw this question breifly answered, but it wasnt very thorough. This isnt a troll, Im just curious for the answer thanks.
Yes but you're creating a logical fallacy. In the scenario of filling the tub with water, there is a KNOWN AND PROVEN method bey which the tub could have been filled beforehand by someone opening the faucet all the way. Whereas with mutation and evolution there is NO KNOWN OR PROVEN method which could have "filled the tub" of the original steps to create an organism. I'm assuming that in your post you're arguing for the idea that god created creatures at some level of completeness and since that time they have evolved slowly. Except that there is absolutely no provable evidence that this is what occurred. All of the fossil records, carbon dating, DNA sequencing, etc point to the slow and steady progress of species. There is, however, no evidence that demonstrates that some unknown super-being created lifeforms wholly from nothing. What evidence have we found that has no other plausible explanation than "god did it"? In your false analogy with the filling of a tub the scientist - if he's worth his salt - would not in fact be fooled into thinking the tub was filled over a long time by the slow drip. he would postulate that could have happened but also recognize that the other mechanism of using hte faucet is available and the tub could have been partially filled to begin with. However this is the real world, occams razor applies in this case. Is it more likely that evolutionary changes through mutation and adaptation and selection occurring over hundreds of millions of years got us to where we are, or is there an invisible all-knowing super-being that can create life in a complete and finished form through sheer will? We know that adaptation and natural selection occur, examples of these have been found. The one I know off the top of my head is the moths in Britain that adapted to pollution by the ones with dark colorings that blended in to smog-stained buildings survived, while the white moths were eaten by predators because they stood out. Except for (heavily altered over time) ancient writings that come from a time when people understood little more than how to shape rocks and smelt simple soft metals, there has been no evidence that some invisble super-being is guiding or created life on this planet. To those who say that god is at work all the time but we cannot recognize his influence, I say how does that explain, predict, or prove anything? I could also tell you that objects are held to the earth by tiny invisible strings which are woven by gnomes. The gnomes however are very fast and very tiny, so we can never see them. You can't prove that statement wrong because by definition I have made it impossible to discern this influence. In the exact same way, the argument that some un-discernible diety has kick-started life on this planet or is currently invisibly altering the flow of events are unprovable by definition and could be replaced by any similar argument, hence the premise behind the creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Therefore we see that the premise that 'god did it' is at best not able to be narrowed down to what that god is, as it could have been any entity that meets the definitions of being all-powerful and undetectible. This doesn't advance human knowledge, or give us insight into how anything works. It does not allow predictions and cannot be falsified. In other words, it is NOT science. Because scientific theories undergo rigorous testing by many people according to accepted and proven methods to try to discern facts that provide a framework that provides us with useful and appliable knowledge. In your analogy with the bathtub only your one scientist makes the wrong assumption, but rigorous study of the problem by others would bring to light the fact that the tub being pre-filled could have been a possibility. In the case of evolution, rigorous study by th
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Why hasnt other life evolved?
Competition. Imagine some new country trying to independantly invent and develop technology - from zero. The first inhabitant of that brand new country figures out how to pick up a stick and use it as a club to bash people over the head. That single inhabitant of that brand new country then tries to go out and capture land and gather resourses... land that is already inhabited by countries with machine guns and tanks and aircraft and cruise missles. A single individual with no tools for farming food and no shovel for diging up resources and no clothes on his back. And he tries to take the resources already owned or being consumed by some other established nation.
But it's even worse than that. Our single individual also happens to be blind and deaf. He has no bones, no immune system, and no defenses of any sort at all. He has no brain, and merely tries to swallow anything that randomly happens to drift into his mouth. He can't move either, just get randomly pushed around by any wind or water currents. He *is* barely capable of reproduction, but he can only produce a single child once every 30 years.
Our brand new life form would simply be swallowed by the first ameoba to slither by... because it's the lowely ameoba that's armed with the machine gun cruise missle technology.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Getting back to the whole bathtub thing... I actually thought that your detailed description of how the scientific method plays out was rather clever. I maintain, however, that you wholly missed the mark. Your analysis of the tub scenario seems to imply that, with enough application of the scientific method -- which you expertly portrayed*, ID can be shown to be either valid or invalid. This, by definition, however, is impossible. Allow me to explain.
I'm tending to think you misunderstand analogies. If you give an analogy that appears to be a very good analogy, then "solve" the analogy, the answer will still be unrelated to the original problem. You appear to be assuming that the solution to the analogy is also an analogy to the original question. That is not how they work.
The analogy was originally given to "prove" that scientists make incorrect guesses. That is correct, but it left out that scientists also don't get into the dogma of presuming they are right, and all others are wrong, even in the face of evidence. The analogy was extended to show that the presumption about scientists was wrong. It was never about how the tub was or was not filled. The analogy was about how scientists would approach the problem. The analogy isn't that the tub is or is not Creation.
Learn to love Alaska
how can we be so technologically advanced and yet so stupid?
no... wait dont answer that question...
-verlorenModus-
"... something in there obviously ruffled your feathers. You immediately attacked my character and said to me that, "you have no idea what you're talking about.""
I think what it was is obvious: he, like many, doesn't like to be accused of relying on faith. I think he also doesn't like others telling him that his personal ideas on religion are completely different from how he understands them. (It's like someone telling you that you actually don't believe in God, despite what you think.) It is a little presumptuous to do so...
""believing that there is no god" and "not believing that there is a god" are absolutely equivalent statements."
Absolutely not. Ignorance of the concept of God, the agnostic position (which he claims to hold), and failure of religious faith defaulting to atheism all fall under simply "not believing". It's a simple, often tentative, and fairly meek claim, equivalent to "I have no reason to believe." It's another step--one many are not willing to take--to make the stronger claim and set it in stone that "I believe there is no god". Both are claims of nonbelief, but the philosophical baggage of one path (and some agnostics would say, arrogance) is greater than the other.
Further nobody (no atheist I've ever known, including myself) believes anything like your analogy. It was a poor denial of the very mechanization of nature that has been a contributing factor in so much modern disbelief. Almost all of nature (save a few examples like the mind, for which we have many good clues) are fairly well understood in terms of law-like determinism. The question for many is not "How could this or that come about without God?", because the very existence of the answer is so often what causes the doubt; the question is, "What place does God have, with everything physical that we see being understood so well without Him? Is God superfluous?"
P.S. I don't know a single atheist or agnostic that isn't familiar with Pascal's wager.
The problems with the argument are long-known and generally accepted as a refutation. Simply put, the basic assumption of the argument, that there is a simple binary choice between belief and nonbelief, is unfounded. Working through the math with the multiple possible gods of various natures and various possible reward systems that can not be excluded a priori, the argument fails to mark any action as being strategically preferred. Further, many believe that a moral God would frown upon such a basis for belief, perhaps considering such calculations as atheism.
Why is it so hard to just admit that we can't explain everything in the universe yet? Why must we, throughout history, fabricate gods for sun, moon, rain, fire.. and over the years through enlightenment and science, distill this down to the ONE GOD who handles all the stuff we haven't got are arms around yet?
Why can't people simply live with the fact that we don't know everything yet, and each day we exist as a society without destroying ourselves and our world, we'll chip away at the problem.
It's not the destination that's important, but it's the RIDE. Getting there, exploring and learning ignites our minds and pushes us forward. "I DON'T KNOW" what created the universe, exactly. To not strongly encourage this would be to stagnate our society. Is our society really so great that we want to leave it where it is today?
I've seen no evidence of anything supernatural, and if such a 'being' did exist, as far as anyone can see he/it created the universe with inviolable rules in which we have yet to been able to prove an impossible disconnect or contradiction.
Why do societies always have to have that checkbox marked "I know the answer, God did it" so we can sleep at night?
creationism does not necessarily imply one religion. It implies intelligent design meaning God, gods or advanced aliens. And why shouldn't it be taught?
You're perfectly welcomw to teach it. However here in the US you can't hijack the force of government to teach it in public schools. You cannot abuse the force of government for the purose of promoting or granting favor for any religion or any religious belief over another, cannot abuse the force of government for the purpose of supressing (oppresssing) any religion or religious belief.
Just becuase you want to teach creationism in a manner that is compatible with more than one religious persuasion does not make it compatible with all religious beliefs, and does not change thet fact that you are teaching and favoring a religious belief.
You can teach it to your kids at home, or in your church, or at your company picknick, or you can put up a 10 foot billboard on your property, or you can even buy advertizing space on the front page of the Newy York Times to teach it. You just can't use the force of government to do it. The constitution guarantees to the right to religious freedom, and that means the right against the force of government being used against us for promote or favor any religious belief over any other. The constitution says that religion, and the right to free speech, and the right against warantless searches of our homes, that they are NOT open to a 51% vote. It does not matter if the religion you want to the government to teach is compatible with Christianity and Judism and Islam and is acceptable to 95% of the population. The constitution says right of religious freedom cannot be violated by a majority democratic vote. That it is the right of even that 5% to be free against the force of government being used to favor one set of religious beliefs and to oppress them and their religious beliefs. The government must remain neutral and not be used for the purpose of taking sides on religion. On a semi-related point... stuidents have the right to pray in school, but the force of government cannot be used for the purpose of promoting student prayer, nor used for the purpose of suppressing student prayer.
If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it?
Yes, and any decent biology class should present a decent sampling of the science and evidence supporting evolution.
However your demand that a science class (presumable an ordinary highschool biology class?) would *need* to *prove* evolution is absurd. There is absolutely no legitimate basis for you to single out and attack evolution in that manner.
Any any decent chemistry class should present a decent sampling of the science and evidence supporting chemistry and atoms and the elements. It is ludacris to suggest that a highschool chemistry class would *need* to *prove* atoms and elements! The science and experiments and tests and challenges to the theory are done by professional scientists who spent years in dedicated study getting PhD's in their fields. The purpose of highschool science class is to teach an overview understanding of the various fields as established by the experts and professionals.
Any decent physics class covering Relativity should present a some sampling of the science and evidence supporting it, but it would be absolutely ludacris to suggest that a highschool science class would need to *prove* Relativity.
Or are you worried that *gasp* some people might prefer to continue to adhere to their faith?
Why the hell would anyone have to abandon their faith? The magority of Christians, mainstream Christians, see absolutely no conflict between evolution and their faith. The Vatican and an entire series of Popes have officially declared that there is absolutely no conflict between evolution and God. That optics is the mechanism that has produced rainbows, that the earth centered solar system is the mechanism th
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What have I learned about this? When I was young I was taught the creationist theme, just poof and there it was. This just did not sit right in view of all the dinosaur evidence at hand, the poof factor just didn't cut it.
So then I turned to science for acceptable answers, and guess what, there are just as many wing-nuts there. So here goes, and this description is pretty well irrefutable by either party. Every "EFFECT" is preceded by a "CAUSE" nested way back as far as you might want to go, right back to the "First" cause. The thing that translates the Cause into the Effect is of course the "PROCESS".
The religious or the creationists want to talk about the Cause and Effect part, and completely ignore the "Process". The scientists want to ever more finely detail the "Process" explanation, and try to make you believe that they are explaining the "Cause", which they aren't.
I watched a so called scientist on TV explaining what people experience in an NDE. All the crap about oxygen deprivation to the brain and the synapses and neurons yada yada yada. Sort of implying that consciousness originates in the brain. Totally ignoring the obvious fact that the brain is only dirt of the ground, and to dirt of the ground it will return. The real question here is what caused dirt of the ground to organize into a complex brain in the first place, because as soon as that "Cause" is gone the dirt of the ground returns. How can dirt of the ground think? How can black smelly crap turn into a red perfumed rose? Explain Cause - Process - Effect.
Despite your new-found atheism, you still sound like a damned fundie. On top of not being able to use proper line breaks, you don't know what an agnostic is but you're making claims about it. I think hard atheists are ignorant of the fact that, despite the evidence for god being vacuous at best, there is no reason or evidence to actively believe that there is no god anywhere. Hence, some of us, who don't claim to know everything, have chosen to be soft atheists or agnostics. It's not a too-scared-to-blasphem version of atheism. Just to prove myself, fuck Zeus, Hera, Allah, God, and the Easter Bunny!
Also, please realize that, even if you ARE Ellen Johnson, you still don't speak for all atheists.
While it is scary that Texas has that in their constituion, I take solitude in the "no idiot shall vote" in New Jersey's constitution...
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Because there is no real evidence of any sort FOR the existence of a god, as Bertrand russel said "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." The fact that you start at Point A and arrive at Point D is, by definition, illogical, because there was no reason to go there, no evidence suggesting you had to, and, in reality, no reason to believe the point even exists. I hope that helps to answer your question about why it's illogical. If you want some good, well-written logical arguments on the matter please read The End of Pascal's Wager and Is God an Accident?.
As to how these views are evidence of critical thinking, it's a great indicator of critical thinking when people can independently arrive at a logical conclusion despite all of the threats against them by society, religious groups, and simply the large number of people who disagree with them. The fact that it's logical is well-outlined in the above two articles, and, I think, evident to anyone who doesn't believe in fairies.
A somewhat-good example of the difference between logical thinking and religious thinking:
Scenario A: A man sees an apple fall from a tree, determines God must have done it, and decides to make his children wear nothing but white cotton to please God.
Scenario B: A man sees an apple fall from a tree, determines Gravity must have done it, and decides to wear a hard hat whenever sitting below tall trees.
In Scenario A, the man takes a seemingly random action and uses it to derive a logical impossibility (all-knowing, all-powerful being which prefers to communicate through omens) and takes a further illogical step of determining that this implies anything. Simply seeing a natural event and assigning it a supernatural meaning is illogical! You don't say "I got herpes because jesus hates me", you say "I got herpes because I fucked that skanky girl when I was in Tijuana".
In Scenario B, on the other hand, the man makes a logical (and correct) hypothesis about gravity pulling the apple towards the ground. He creates a realistic way to protect himself from being harmed.
If you can't see the difference between logic and, well, illogic, I'm sorry, but it helps prove the GP's point as well as mine. Studies have shown that partisans actually can't see the logic in perfectly logical statements from their "opposition", and the same is true of religion. Most religions have logical inconsistincies, or illogical consistencies, but most believers are unable to recognize them as such. Logic can be defined as "valid reasoning", and, despite your desire to exclude whether or not you're correct from the decision about whether or not you're logical, it is a perfectly valid test.
But I think it's easier to define faith:
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
-H. L. Mencken
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
"Lets be honest here: anyone who says things like this hasn't taken the time to figure out the most basic ways in which scientists use words like "theory" and 'fact.'"
I understand how science works, I just don't always express myself clearly in words. Trying again, my point is that Evolution is a theory, it is not necessarily true, and like many theories, I think even it's strongest supporters would be surprised if it exactly described how it really is. Again I'm not saying it isn't true either.
"If you have an alternative, then please present it. But in order for it to be scientific, it needs to be both testible AND fit all the facts. I've never heard of an alternative that does both."
Clearly the concept of God doesn't fit nicely into science, because science is belief in what we can measure, and God is about faith (belief in what we cannot measure).
But just to humor you, here's a theory that may be testable and that fits the facts. It might be a little wild, but I just made it up now to show that alternatives are possible. Never close your mind to something.
Imagine that you are a leader of a country and war took place. Roughly 1/3 of your people supported you, roughly 1/3 supported the enemy, and another 1/3 didn't have a clear affiliation. You win the war, and exile the people who fought against you. Now you're left with a significant number of people who you don't know if you can trust. One way to deal with this is design a test, keep those who pass it, and exile those who fail. Suppose you had extremely advanced technology, you could make a virtual world just like our universe and plug these people into it without knowledge that they exist outside the simulation (have a soul), you could then pass them or fail them by how they act in the simulation, at no risk to your country. Sure that's far out, but you can't rule it out either. It would allow us to explain such things as the parting of the Red Sea, or Jesus walking on water, if indeed those things happened. If you make the rules, you can break them whenever and however you want. So how might you test this? The only way I can see, is to look for examples of rules being broken - i.e miracles. You can't prove something was a miracle, but you can certainly accumulate a good amount of circumstantial (read statistical) evidence, which, correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution is largely based on too, since none of us were around 4 billion years ago.
On A side note, it's a lot easier to believe miracles that happen to you. I've lost count of the number of large and small things that happen in my life that just plain old defy the odds and seeming randomness of the universe. I could go into detail, but without having walked in my shoes you'll just discount it all anyway. It doesn't mean much to someone else, but I simply cannot as a reasoning man discount everything. What puzzles me is why do these things happen to me, what's so special about me? Why can I literally feel God's guiding hand on my life? I don't have an answer for that, but maybe I will one day. At the very least it has given me faith and has saved me from your fate, because most people of my intelligence find it very hard to have faith - for us it is easier to believe in what can be intellectualized.
"You're conflating 4 billion years of contingency down into a single sentence."
Indeed, but it underlines that evolution is not such a simple thing. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
"Your explanation of God is neither testible, nor does it explain anything more than it "just happened" (poof! is not an explanation of anything)."
'Poof' is about the best science can ever offer us, but the notion that someone brought the universe into being make more sense. It's not logical to look at a car and think 'poof, it just happened' so why is it logical to look at the universe and say 'poof it just happened' when it is clearly more fantastic than a humble car. It's not testable, but it's a lot easier to believe.
"That's your belief. But it's
I put line breaks in while I'm typing it and slashdot takes em out. I had hoped that I would get less twits with nothing to say and a hard on for line breaks.
Try selecting the "plain old text" option and just hitting enter to start a new line. I think it's evident from my other posts that I'm not just "a twit with nothing to say", and I'm obviously willing to help you with your line break problem. You sound more and more like a stupid fundie, though...
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
2. No, Atheism != Science
An Atheist would necessarily treat anything anomalous in a strictly materialistic fashion, but science has absolutely nothing to say WRT materialism vs supernaturalism. The presumption of materialism introduces a bias into the science, in exactly the same way as a presumption of supernaturalism (typically expressed as "God dunnit") would.
For an illustration, pick any of the hundreds or thousands of discourses on evolution available which are riddled from keel to crowsnest with teleological assumptions. You know, "the organism developed this" or "the organism strove to achieve that".
The organism doesn't know or care or strive or have definite species-wide goals (well, except for Harold the Intelligent Sheep), but absent external guidance there's no specific reason for an organism to develop one way versus another. Any selective process strong enough to have a significant influence is dominant enough to drive the species off any one of a number of developmental cliffs en route.
At some level, every Athiest seems to be aware of the inability of any natural process to produce anything like sufficient useful variation for a species to survive the ravages of selection long enough to evolve, and compensates by embedding the guidance in the wee beastie itself -- or in benevolent, supervisorial Mother Nature, or some similar mumbo jumbo.
This is (strictly speaking, if seldom openly recognised) an apostasy from Atheism. It is also bad science.
Lose the Atheism and suddenly the scientist is free to entertain alternatives: What if development of this species were externally guided? What if this species did not "develop" as such (ie the appearance of development is a red herring)? What if the developing mechanism is nothing like canonical evolution? What if what we're seeing here has the appearance of external, reasoning assistance?
These questions are, I know, heresy in the Church of Atheism... which brings us back to the main point: Atheism hobbles science by restricting "valid" fields of enquiry.
Atheistic moderators likewise hobble free enquiry by nuking opponents of the party line on SlashDot (as they will no doubt nuke this post) and supporting their philosophical fellow travellers regardless of the real value of said fellow travellers' actual input. Meanwhile accusing all non-Atheists of "anti-science" bigotry, of course. (-:
Religious bigots, don't start feeling too smug. As soon as you turn the discussion into a "scream for your team" thing, every shred of the conversation's value is rapidly destroyed. You're just as bad as the Atheists (but often outnumbered here).
Give it a rest, all y'all, and just vote on the value of the content, not on the precieved team affiliation of the poster.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Congratulations! You've just defined evolution as a faith.
Or at least, Mencken has, and you agree with him.
At its heart, evolution is based on the idea that you can start with a simpler core lifeform and work up from there.
Unfortunately, the simplest workable lifeform (single cell, barebones ecosystem) is considerably more complicated than an A380, which makes a belief in the spontaneous assembly of it from essentially random components somewhat less than Mencken's "improbable".
What's worse is that it must be assembled operating. There is an oft-quoted saw about a tornado ripping through a junkyard and inadvertantly producing a working jumbo jet, but the reality is that the jumbo jet (or A380, your choice) also has to be produced in flight. Probability calculations -- even those based on ridiculously short genetic codes -- all implicitly assume the entire set of support mechanisms required by a living cell, and there ain't none when you're starting from scratch.
But I digress. By Mencken's standards, evolution is a faith. Best hasten to register it with the appropriate authorities so that you can start claiming tax deductions.
Oh, and please learn to produce analogs which are actually representative of the Real Life(tm) situation they're intended to explain. The ones you chose above are useless.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I disagree with a lot of what bhiestand says, but that doesn't make him a "twit". Likewise for ultranova.
/. will do the rest. And if you try to make that blank line by leaning on the spacebar, I'm gunna laugh, I warn you. Raucously.
Your original post was unreadable: did you preview it, or was the presentation of your pearls of wisdom before us intellectual swine too urgent a matter to forgo for the few minutes (or seconds) it would have taken to make it readable?
Just leave a blank line between paragraphs, and
You need to read up on Pascal's Wager before rabbitting on about how you didn't dare "become" an Atheist. Fear of some kind of hell won't make a believer out of you any more than a signature obtained at gunpoint would make a statuatory declaration true.
Everything that you know is wrong.
Yes, really. That's a historically true statement. Long ago, Europeans "knew" that flies were generated by meat, and mice by rags (look up "spontaneous generation"). Scientists were sure only a century or two ago that travelling in steam-powered railway carriages at 15 whole miles an hour would cause passengers' heads to explode (well, that it would be harmful in a variety of ways). A handful of years ago we "knew" that comets were subliming snowballs being blown about by the sun rather than the parched, asymmetrical, electrically active rocks which our space missions now show us. And so on, ad infinitum.
Expect everything you depend upon now to reach your conclusions to be disproven (possibly several times) in your lifespan.
The first thing to go is your assumption that Atheism is somehow not religion. Atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort. This is a religious belief, stated in religious terms. If you don't understand the very words you're using, you can't expect to get good results from them.
Care to clarify your thinking (and formatting) and try again?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"They always the Nouns with capital Letter write?"
/ME had an Austrian grandmother :-)
(-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The first thing to go is your assumption that Atheism is somehow not religion. Atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort. This is a religious belief, stated in religious terms. If you don't understand the very words you're using, you can't expect to get good results from them.
It is interesting that you feel you have such a good grasp of the meaning of the word 'religion', since it is something that has eluded every other student of the field. 'Religion' is a Western word invented as an umbrella term to group together Christianity with Eastern faiths such as Islam and Hinduism, despite the fact that they really are nothing like each other. In fact, Bhuddism does not even require a belief in supreme beings of any kind, yet few would deny it is a religion.
Most definitions of religion encompass institutions, actions, rituals, and dress rather than simply belief, and I don't know what it is like where you live but I've certainly never seen atheists attending sacred buildings to celebrate their lack of belief in the existence of god, or to put aside a traditional day of the week contemplate their atheism, or modify their diet (or fast) in accordance with their belief, or dress in a particular way because of their atheism.
To describe atheism as a religion or a religious belief actually betrays a complete misundertanding of what 'religion' means to those who have faith, and the influence it has on their lives.
Do you know anyone who has genetic mutations? I do. My sister in fact has Down's Syndrome.
You evolutionists would want to call her a new species because she has extra dna.
I love my sister, she is the nicest person you will ever know. However I hate the Down's Syndrome she has. She has a much harder time learning things and expressing complicated thoughts.
Any evolutionist care to explain how this mutation is beneficial to her? Explain how this mutation will make a new species?
I thought not...
Agnostics are halfies. They have one foot in the door, one foot out the door. They are "There is a god but I don't know who it is". At least people in organized religion take a stance and say my god could kick your gods ass.
Granted, agnosticism is more open minded to the unimaginable possibilities in the universe. But to me it's just the limbo between jesus freak and athiest.
But back to the original subject, I don't think religion and science are compatible.
Science asks you to make observations on things that can be proven, and the results reproduced by independant parties. It uses logical and critical thinking to show only what can be proven, while rejecting ideas with no merit or proof.
Religion asks you to ignore logic and go on faith. It spins a story that is meant to suck you in. Yet if you criticaly consider it your branded blasphemous. Your told to take it all on faith because there is no proof that god exists. Because god doesn't interfere with mortals.
So lets do a thought experiment.
Let say that there is a room at the center of the earth. And in this room there is an alien with a machine that could control any person in the world. But this alien has been given a set of rules. He can't interfere with peoples workings. He can't reveal his presence to the world. And he can't leave the room. Lets also assume that this room was un-detectable to our current technology.
Now this alien could be down there right now, listening to all of our thoughts on it's machine. In fact you could say he's right under our noses. He has been watching us and collecting informatin on us since the beginining of time. We can't see him but he's there. We can't detect him with science, but he's there. And he won't willingly reveal himself to us. Just because it's a fantastic idea doesn't mean that it can't be true right? I mean for all we know there really is a little alien in a room at the center of the earth. But since we can't prove it we have to have faith that their either is or isn't one right?
Well if he can't affect any change in the world, and we can't detect that he's there, the big question is why does it matter? If there is a god and he's all knowing and allmighty, yet he won't interfere with us, and no where we have looked in the universe has shown him to exist, and physics itself shows that he couldn't exist, then does it really matter if you believe or not? In the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter if god exists or not, the same way it doesn't really matter if that alien exists because either way we are unchanged. But what does matter is that people use it as an excuse to act like assholes to one another, kill one another, and subjigate one another.
It matters that people would be willing to go to war to defend something that we don't know exists, that even if it existed does not interfere with us, and that is unable to co-exists with others ideas. It's almost as if religion were designed to keep us in a continuous state of war with the other people on this planet.
And it makes me so sad to see this stuff still going on. Muslims killing Hindus and Christians. Christians killing Muslims. Buddhists killing Hindus. IT's all just a bunch of people under delusions, killing each other to try to prove that their delusions are real.
I said before that intelligent people believe in god too. Well intelligent people also commit murder. And abuse others, and go to prison, and do a bunch of other things that are wrong as well. So just because someone is an intelligent christian, doesn't mean they are enlightened or right. They are still basing their moral decisions on something that doesn't exist, and that demands blood of those that don't believe. It's an abomination.
Now here is a real twit. Here we have christian argument against science number 5. The "Science has been wrong before" arugment. You see, in religion, if one thing is wrong the entire thing falls apart. So they think the same thing about science. They think that if they can prove science was wrong about something that science must be wrong about everything. In a world without microscopes, when most "scientists" were merely curious scholars trying to turn lead into gold, there were ideas that flies came from rotten meat. If you go back even further, back to the greeks, there were those that thought that fire was made up of sharp particles that would cut you and that was why it hurt to touch it. They also used to think that the world was flat. And that the earth was the center of the universe. Now here is the difference between religion and science. People didn't accept that flies came from meat, that the world was flat and the center of the universe, on faith. They critically considered it. And when science moved forward and provided a telescope and a microscope they could finally see what was really happening. And people like Gallileo were critical of these old ideas and said that the earth was not the center of the universe. And the church labeled them a heritec because it went against the christian idea of the earth being the center of gods universe. We also found out later that the earth was not flat. And a series of experiments proved that covered meat did not get maggots. And so the idea of spontaneous generation was found to be false. Yet every time science took a step forward, religion balked at the notion. You see, twit, when you take things on faith alone, nothing ever progresses. Because your mind shuts down and you don't wonder about why things are. You just keep your head down and keep trying not to go to hell. Science is constantly critical of itself. And that is why bad ideas like the earth is flat, or there is a god, get rejected because they are proven false and the work is reviewed by other scientists who try to reproduce the experiment. This twit comes off sound like he knows so much about science. Yet the knowledge he so brazenly throws around trying to sound like he knows anything, was not won easily. It's one thing to learn about this stuff in school and think back to these absurd ideas and think about how stupid they were. But if christians had their way the only book we would be reading in school is the bible. And all of this knowledge would be lost. In teaching ID or creationism in schools it is a step BACKWARDS for us and all of mankind. Survival of the fitest is not a 'guess'. It is a fact of life. If you don't survive, you don't reproduce. That is a LAW of nature not a theory. If you start trying to teach that everything can be explained by god, then you might as well start teaching that the earth is the center of the universe and that flies erupt from rotten meat spontaneously. Like this twit is going on about like he discovered it.
You are assuming that there is no evidence; this is incorrect. It is simply that evidence for the existence of God tends to be personal experience and not some experiment that could be repeated by others. That doesn't make the one believing such evidence illogical; disbelieving one's own experience would.
No one believes anything without some kind of proof. But that doesn't mean that the proof could be validated by others; that doesn't make the proof invalid, it just means that others can't validate it.
Suppose that I bought an old book from an used books store, and found a note from between the pages. Can I prove that I found the note from that book ? No. Does that mean that I'm illogical for believing that I found the note from that book ? No.
If you or anyone else is being threatened by someone, then perhaps you should inform the police of it, or at least be a little bit more specific about who's threatened you how, since it is rather difficult to comment on it with this little information.
Please also note that sticking to your position says nothing about how you got to that position. It proves that you believe it yourself, but it doesn't prove that you are a critical thinker.
Condescending remarks aren't particularly persuasive, nor do they add much to the conversation, now do they ?
In Scenario B, on the other hand, the man makes a logical (and correct) hypothesis about gravity pulling the apple towards the ground. He creates a realistic way to protect himself from being harmed.
You do realize, of course, that concluding that "mass causes spacetime to warp in such a way that objects following a straight path through four-dimensional spacetime seem to follow paths that curve towards that mass when viewed in three dimensions" just from seeing an apple fall from a tree is absurd, don't you ? So for the man in example B to logically deduce gravity (as anything except an arbitrary factor that caused an apple to fall from a tree once) requires him to have considerably more experience that is not included in your example. If you allow it for man B, why are you disallowing it for man A ? If you do disallow it for both, neithers conclusions make sen
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The person you replied to is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.
Guess you didn't read my earlier reply... Agnostics aren't "there is a god but I don't know who it is." Agnostics are "sure, it's possible, it's also possible god doesn't exist. What matters is that it's impossible for us to know." To take this one step further, an apathetic agnostic says "I don't know, I can't know, and I don't care. There's absolutely no evidence at all on this subject, and it doesn't matter one bit. Let me repeat myself: I don't care". And that's me. My issue is with the way people think, and the errors I perceive in their logic. Their seeming ability to actually perform doublethink on religious matters. If you replace every "jesus" in the bible with "alien" you're a fucking lunatic? How is it any different? How can all people be right even though everyone has a different set of opinions?
Uhh, I thought you said you weren't an agnostic? Well, I'm glad you've switched over to the logical side...
But yeah, I agree with the rest. A lot of people have been killed in the name of religion, and I don't think it's a useful tool for getting people to do the "right" thing.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
The problem is that people are drawn towards religious experiences. By that I mean they need to feel a part of something larger than themselves and to feel something other worldly.
You have your snake dancing, speaking in tongues, christians. You have your deep meditation new age stuff. You have you catholic communion. People subconsciously crave that kind of thing in their life and they will kid themselves to get it.
Athiesm doesn't have a lot to offer in those regards. Neither does agnosticism. But people want rituals and to feel spiritual so they have to find something to do. That is one of the reasons people can be their own hypocrites.
For instance I'm sure that somewhere out there are people who don't believe in god or heaven, but believe in ghosts. Or people who believe in karma but don't believe there is an order to the world. Once you cut out god from your life you get to cut a lot of other crap out as well.
You see it's one thing to consider the possibility that all religion could be a fraud. And it's another to feel it in your guts. And I think athiests feel it and are offended by it at some primal level.
And another thing. People ask that without religion, where do people get their morals? They have this big fearful image of the end of the world in total anarchy because people have no morals. I don't think the two go hand in hand. I know a lot of athiests who are very mormal people. And I know some christians that are assholes to everybody and prey for forgivness.
You know when your doing something wrong, you might try to kid yourself but you feel it. That's a good place to start. From there, philosophy has been asking questions like this since people could talk. And I think philosophy has a lot more knowledge and a lot less CRAP than the bible.
Now lets bring in a creationist. He looks at the dripping water, feels the water is much warmer than room temprature, and states "god filled it!"
"It is the perfect temprature. It is filled to a perfect level. It could not have been by accident"
I say "um no, actually I filled it."
creationist: "Did anyone actually see you fill it? how do you explain how a drip can fill a tup and keep it warm???"
I say "I turned up the water, and just turned it down to a drip. It just filled up"
creationist: "Oh yea, well then how do you explain how the water molecule is formed? It can't be by chance, its too perfect"
I say "um... what?"
creationist: "And what happened before the big bang? How do you explain how that just randomly happened. Haven't you heard the second law?"
I say "I don't know... what does that have to do with me filling the tub?"
creationist: "See you don't have all the answers. Its obvious god filled the tub. If you don't believe it, you are an atheist and going to burn in hell!"
This is an ideal rarely achieved. I really wish this were true. In reality human nature gets in the way far too much. Scientists are just normal human beings that generally try their best to adhere to ideal you describe (or not). Unfortunately, they have needs like everyone else. This allows for them to be bought, bribed, blackmailed, or manipulated in some other way (frequently through their achilles heel -- thier ego [maybe this is because so many of them were social rejects during the greater part of thier lives, and now have a need to feel superior to make up for this?]).
Please do not confuse education (or - Lord help me - intelligence) with atheism. I am very well (liberally and technically) educated and certainly a theist. (Yes, ..."a theist".) Many, many others are too - on both sides of the Atlantic. Einstein certainly was, but what did he know, right? :-)
...product of the trendy, secular-at-all-costs, knee-jerk "intelligence" (i.e. dogma) that's overrun modern academia IMO.
I respectfully submit that education and atheism are only causally related in your mind (and some others' of course).