Slashdot Mirror
Putting Anti-Evolution Candidates On the Spot
hmccabe writes "YouTube is currently taking submissions for their next debate, in which the Republican candidates will answer questions. This seems like a good opportunity to challenge those candidates who say they do not believe in evolution. But since I am not an expert in the subject, I would be interested in how you all feel the question should be presented. For my own part, I think it is important to present the overwhelming body of evidence on the subject as incontrovertible fact, much the same way DNA evidence is presented during a criminal trial, and ask why the candidate feels they can pick and choose what facts they believe in. Moreover, I am wary of coming across like Christopher Hitchins, so vitriolic the candidate will defend themselves rather than answer the question. Perhaps the most important aspect of posing the question is to inform the viewers who watch the debate that this is really not a matter of opinion, but of science. So my question is: 'Hey geneticists, have you considered addressing evolution in the YouTube debates? Can you do it in 30 seconds?'"
What's the point of bringing it up in an election debate? Aside from educational funding, stance on evolution really isn't even on my radar for politicians.
If I was going to ask a question, I'd ask "How will you calm the media down from distracting issues like evolution and focus on real issues for which governmental action is appropriate?"
Now that is a question I want to hear politicians answer!
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Do you really care what the answer is or do you just want to know how best to ask a question to make the GOP candidates look bad? From the summary it sounds like the latter. Just curious ...
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Since when are any candidates anti-evolution? And on top of this why exactly do we care whether they are or aren't? If this can influence any decision they make in office please let me know because I can't think of any.
There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum. --Arthur C. Clarke
It seems to me that a great many American's don't believe that evolution occurred. Confronting a candidate on this issue is more likely to boost support among these people than it is to erode support among people who already know that the target candidate is a throw-back to the 14th century. This might do more to energize the religious right if they get a bee in the bonnet over a perceived attack on their beliefs.
The pro-evolution camp might win the debate, by lose the election.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I honestly don't give two craps whether a person believes or doesn't believe that evolution is concrete fact. What matters to me is whether the belief or lack of belief results in a regressive, narrow minded, receptiveness to scientific research and inquiry.
Candidates which don't "believe in evolution" may be in the habit to reject other scientific evidence which conflicts with whatever goes on in their minds.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
I believe that the theory of Evolution is incomplete. Of course, this could be said of all scientific theories. I will go further and say that it has some significant gaps, and that it will under go many more modifications before it is very accurate.
Does that mean I believe in it, or I don't believe in it?
I believe that mythology is a very dumb way to approach scientific and historical questions such as "how did life begin on this planet" and "by what means do biological systems maximize their ability to survive in changing environments?" I very strongly dis-believe in the notion that the creation story in the book of Genesis should be interpreted as a concrete history of life on earth.
Does that mean I must disbelieve in the theory of Intelligent Design?
Bah, I hate oversimplification.
I think it's actually a very bad idea to get into sound-byte debates with creationists, because that is exactly the kind of debate they want. You can't explain the science in 30 seconds, but they can certainly rattle off all their "evidence" in that amount of time. You also run the risk of legitimizing them by getting into a debate in the first place. You don't see geologists getting into debates with crazy people on the street who say the Earth is flat, because it's not something that sane people debate. This is a problem that needs to be attacked at the root (in schools while children are young) and in long-format discussions.
People in bamboo houses shouldn't throw pandas...Jesus said that! -Ninja
Romney- You once said you want to "double Guantanamo." Why do you condone, rather, endorse one of the darkest spots on America's record? Should we continue to deny them rights in the Geneva Convetnion?
Giuliani- Are you running as anything but the 9/11 candidate?
McCain- You've supported continuing the Iraq war voceriferously, when do we call it quits? After 1,000 troops are dead? 10,000? You joked about invading Iran, would you consider it?
Paul- You oppose abortion. Would you enact legislation to counteract (or severely restrict) Roe v. Wade?
There's a bunch more candidates, but why pick evolution? It is a fairly unimportant topic (considering the others at hand) and it is unlikely that a President will seriously impact what is taught in the tens of thousands of school districts across the nation (who pick their own cirriculum generally).
If you're going to try and correct people, get your own terminology correct before doing so.
Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
Uh, what?
Care to explain, exactly, how ID is a scientific theory? Nobody disputes that Evolution is a theory based on observable facts.
ID is a religious study or philosophy subject, but certainly not science.
Stop diverting attention on topics that are really trite and have little bearing to reality. So what, they don't believe in evolution. They're dumb, and I can accept that there are a lot of dumb people in this world. I really don't hold politicians to be the most intelligent people in this world anyway.
But really, does it really matter? Do you really expect them to push their agenda? That's like thinking a gay person automatically has an agenda of pushing gay issues, even when maybe they don't. Maybe they happen to be gay, but they wanted to be treated like a regular politican, just like everyone else, without the gay stigma. Just because someone believes something doesn't mean they will use their opportunity to push their agenda all the time.
Yes, Slashdot has publicized some instances where anti-evolution agenda was pushed, but really how many was that like, maybe 3 or 4 cases across the entire US? Come on, it's like accusing all of India of being guilty of "honor killings" when really it's only done in the most rural, primitive parts of India. In the same vein, yes, some politicians probably don't believe in evolution, but do you really think they care enough to push their agenda across all the school boards? My bet is that probably only an infinitesimal percentage would.
And plus, how much really is someone who doesn't believe in evolution more guilty that someone who is religious? Can you really stand their and feel contempt for someone who doesn't believe in evolution, yet thinks its okay if they are religious? It's probably equally as unscientific.
The real crime is focussing the talk about politics onto stupid, stupid issues like evolution, or flag burning. HOW ABOUT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING CONCRETE? What about federal regulation into hedge funds?? What about making sure we have enough social security? What about things that actually AFFECT our lives?
The "Intelligent Design" people attempt to confuse the issue of whether something happened randomly or whether it happened because someone "designed" it to happen.
If you throw the dice and get a 7, was it because of luck or because the dice were weighted?
You cannot tell after the fact if you cannot examine the dice. And that's what they focus on. They accept everything that can be demonstrated, but they refuse to believe that it was random.
So don't argue that. Focus on whether it is "Science" or not.
Who cares what they want to believe in their churches? This is about what gets taught in the science classes of our country.
If it cannot be falsified it is not Science and does NOT belong in a science class. At all. Not even to "teach the controversy". Period. End of statement.
Now, do they accept that "Intelligent Design" does not belong in science class? Yes/No?
If "Yes", how would they falsify it do demonstrate that it IS scientific?
- If you say "How do you reconcile with your belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old?" they may say that they are not scientists so they're not qualified to comment on such a detailed question, or they may say that it could be more than 6,000 but God certainly created it, or they may just say "maybe the scientists are wrong about that".
- If you say "How can you seriously claim the earth is only 6,000 years old when every real scientist disagrees with you?" they will say that not all scientists agree with evolution, and often today's heresy turns into tomorrow's orthodoxy.
Either way they will then add that science works by the free and open exchange of ideas, and so they support the right of both sides in the debate to put forwards their views. They may also add something about the bible being right about so many other things, it seems odd that it should be wrong just about this.These debates may have been the place where ideas were put forwards once, but these days they are more like a boxing match in which each candidate tries to land knockout punches on the others, and a panel of pundits awards them points for style. Fact and logic don't stand a chance.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Creationism is not anti-evolution, the theories are not mutually exclusive!! Evolution says that complex life such as humans evolved from simpler forms, yet it does not say what created those simpler forms of life to begin with. One can believe that God created life on Earth and still believe in evolution.
What is the need to post yet another hit piece on the Republican Party? I must have missed the "Putting Pro-Socialism Democrat Candidates On the Spot" article just before the DNC debate...
You don't understand what the word "theory" means. Many words have more than one meaning. "Present" has five or six distinct meanings. For example: at present, I present this present to you. Think 'theorem' instead. Maybe that will help you.
A-Bomb
I would argue that you are incorrect. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory or fact.
Evolution is scientific fact. Here, a theory is scientific fact. I believe what you are thinking of is the term "hypothesis." Evolution is not a hypothesis anymore.
Our body's blue print is DNA. This blueprint is copied from generation to generation. This results in errors which can either assist us or degrade us depending on the environment we have chosen to live in.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
Have you ever gotten a flu shot?
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I remember hearing someone once say that if you think the earth is round because the soles of your feet are arched, and God would not give you arched feet to walk upon a flat earth, then you don't really know that the earth is round. I suspect that most people just don't know enough and/or aren't good enough at thinking to really evaluate the evidence, and that most people who accept evolution do not understand it based on an evaluation of the facts, but believe it because their parents or teachers told them that it was true.
The evidence spans multiple disciplines, evaluating it requires critical thinking skills, and I just don't think that it is possible to present the evidence in a compelling manner in 30 seconds. I think it requires hours to do so, and an audience that is willing and able to think about the evidence presented.
Of course, I would love to be proven wrong.
For an example inspired by another recent
Basically, we know these theories are flawed, but they still explain many things within certain limits and are consistantly reliable within those limits.
That does NOT mean the true and complete explanation of the fundamental forces of nature (what general relativity and quantum mechanics deal with) is in fact anything like quantum mechanics and general relativity.
When a theory crosses into fact territory is when that theory can be proven to be correct. When this happens, a theory becomes what we call a Law of Nature. The fact is there are still quite a few problems with Evolution which it has never adequately explained.
Throw in the fact that the Theory Evolution itself has never been shown to be observeable, measureable, or repeatable, and you have to question whether or not it should be called "science", in the strictest sense, at all.
Since, I've got to either believe some hokey theory that says I came from bacteria, or a fish, or whatever it is these days, or I can believe in some super ultra mega dude who built it all, I think the second option sounds cooler and that's what I pick.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Sure it can be.
If a dog ever conceives a cat, then evolution has been falsified. It's as easy as that.
Whether or not someone believes in evolution is probably a good question for someone applying for a job as a scientist investigating evolution. I'm not sure it really has anything to do with politics. The only question even somewhat related to evolution that seems applicable is "Will you let your religious beliefs interfere with the way you govern?" That's a more general question that does have relevance.
What are we going to ask politicians next? Whether or not they believe in string theory? That there is a unified theory that will explain everything? Whether or not they believe time travel is possible and, if so, does going back in time change the subsequent timeline or does it cause a paradox that will destroy the universe? Is the answer really 42? Who cares?! They're politicians, not scientists.
I'm more concerned about what a presidential candidate is going to do about Iraq, how they're going to fix social security, whether or not they plan on socializing medicine, and whether or not they will support the separation of church and state while at the same time not ignoring the fact that religion does exist.
He's exactly right. For all we know, "Intelligent Design" could be "correct," in the same way any particular religion could be "correct." But because it explicitly concerns itself with "proving a negative" (i.e., that evolution couldn't have happened randomly and thus required a "designer"), it cannot be evaluated scientifically. Because of that, it is not science, in the same way that poetry or religion or literature are not science. Maybe it deserves a place in school and maybe it doesn't, but if it does then it belongs next to discussions of Greek mythology or something, not in biology class!
ID cannot be falsified using the Scientific Method. Therefore, regardless of it's "truthfulness," it doesn't belong in science class. Period!
And, of course, all the above is giving the ID proponents a huge benefit of the doubt. In reality, ID is nothing more than a scheme by which theocrats attempt to subvert our secular educational system. But it's not likely advisable to point that out to them in a debate; instead, the best strategy is to just keep driving home the point that "science" depends on the Scientific Method, and "Intelligent Design" doesn't fit within that framework of thought.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Disclaimer: I'm a molecular biologist who studies bacterial evolution at a molecular level.
Disclaimer 2: I'm a lifelong democrat and don't care what the Republicans say at this point.
There are simply so many more important things that we could challenge the republicans on: Why are you all so fucking incompetent? Why are you even more crooked than the Democrats? Have you no shame? I could go on.
Funding for the sciences is something of an important question - and I'll acknowledge a link between acceptance of objective reality and support for scientific funding. But as a scientist I will happily say that federal support for my work is far lower on the list of priorities than clean and transparent government, sound economic and social policies, better/cleaner funding for general education, and a foreign policy based on something other than bellicosity and greed. If someone wants to challenge the republicans on their failure to deliver any of those things, I might listen.
But even so, these debates are sheer pablum - I'm sure all the Repubs favor clean government which is why they want no limitations on lobbyists. The odds of getting any of these people to seriously engage on real questions approach nil.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"Evolution" is neither a theory or a fact. It is shorthand for a group of theories such a Darwinism and Neodarwinism, including sub-theories and modifications such as Punctuated Equalibrium, that describe attempt to offer theoretical models for the observed facts. Facts are things directly measured or observed, including observations of existent life forms, and the known fossil record. Everything that is an interpretation of these facts is a theory. These theories include good ones and bad ones. I think "young-earth" creationist science is completely comprised of bad theories, but they are still theories. And no theory can ever become a fact.
No, you are not using the proper usage. There ARE competing evolutionary theories, and there have been since Darwin. Furthermore, NO theory of evolution is a theory for the existence of life! Finally, if you're talking about something that is not open for debate, then you are NOT talking about science.
Easy ... God created the Earth in such a way that it appeared as if the Babylonians had been around for that long! It's all to test our faith, you see.
So you don't consider the ability to use logic and reason important?
Someday, I'd like to live in a society that values evidence more than faith and thinking more than hope. From what I know of the world, things have been oscillating between these two styles of framing the world for a while now. The only way to get it to shift towards my end is to put my ideas out there and directly contrast them with the alternative. The more national the audience the better. In all likelihood there is a twelve year old somewhere, who's gonna watch the debate with fundamentally religious parents, and who might be attracted to a different (more rational) way to see things.
I think that you are correct insofar as your criticisms of creationism/intelligent design are concerned; however, fact is something objective, in an epistimological sense. I think even science forgets about its own philosophy. My main problem with saying that evolution is a scientific fact/law is that it is so often construed to imply an objective fact, which is not provable in the least sense. Microevolution is absolutely fact, but never, ever confuse it with macroevolution, which is what laymen usually mean by "evolution." Macroevolution, as far as I know, has not yielded scientific proof, nor does it make any testable claims. There is no control, so I fail to see where the the science is. What people might confuse with the field of evolution (in the popular sense) is likely genetics. Science lives and breathes on healthy debate, even of such things as gravitation (a continuing problem).
I'm not trolling here, but I have to ask if maybe hmccabe is. For example, here are some of the issues that are important to me in the presidential election: the budget (getting it under control), the war (getting the Iraqis government/military to the point where it is largely self-sufficient as quickly as possible, including securing their borders and getting the insurgency under control), getting our own borders under control and doing something about the illegal alien problem, and being prepared to intervene (if necessary) if the housing credit crunch turns into a repeat of the S&L meltdown of the 1980s (gee, doesn't the banking business have a short memory?), patent reform, maybe even copyright reform, the e-voting problem, etc. In other words, issues that really matter.
An issue that is not of much importance to me in the election is whether a given candidate believes that the Genesis account is literal and meant to be taken literally, or if (?:s)?he believes that the Genesis account was God's way of getting across to people with little understanding of His creation, what it was that He did and how He did it, like "Let there be light" (Big Bang), wait a few billion years, form the earth, separate the land from the water, bring forth life, evolve it into people (making man from the dust of the earth), etc. Or, a candidate could even be (?:s)?he an atheist and think it was all just an accident for which science has yet to fully account but will in time completely explain. None of those viewpoints is terribly relevant to handling the important issues named in my first paragraph.
It may be because I have paid attention only to substantive issues such as those outlined in my first paragraph, but I actually don't know if any of the candidates are creationists, nor does the blurb name any names, so I am left wondering at this point if the whole thing is just an anti-Republican (I notice no other party was mentioned) troll. If there actually are creationist candidates, would someone be so kind as to post names, along with links containing supporting evidence (preferably the candidate's own words, and if possible, on the candidate's own website)? To reiterate, I don't believe whether a candidate is a creationist or not is important to the real issues, and in fact, trying to make that an issue is probably just someone's attempt at erecting a straw man to deflect attention from the real issues.
Belief in evolution is a dividing point between rational people and the 'faithful'. I believe there's no better yes or no question ["Do you believe that humans evolved from much simpler life forms over millions of years?"] for dividing people in the US these days.
Now, between a rational person and an irrational, person full of faith, I'd probably take the rational one I disagreed with over the irrational one I disagreed with. Because I'd have a chance of reasoning with the rational person. It's hard to change someone's mind when they ignore evidence and logic.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
It's plenty relevant. You wouldn't want to elect somebody who holds power over the lives of hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars who based major decisions on faith?
I mean, if he honestly believes the world is only 6000 thousand years old, who knows what other wacky shit he goes to bed with comfortably at night?
And before you think I'm trolling, I'll ask all of you here this: Would you, or would you not, vote for somebody to believed the biblical rapture was close to happening and that their main priority was laying the groundwork for it to kick off?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
What if DNA is sort of like... God's programming language (or whatever Higher Power "created" the world). Run with the idea for a minute, when you start a new project, how much of your code do you re-use? (or, a better question, how much would you re-use if you could re-use as much as possible)? The answer would probably not be 100%, otherwise all you would have is an identical program to the original, or an extension to the original. But it would hopefully be a significantly high number, at least on similar projects.
just an interesting thought...
Because they do a damn good job of it, that's why.
The NSF and NIH are far from perfect, and as taxpayers (I'm a scientist, as well) we are entitled to many critical improvements in transparency, but they are vastly more efficient than equivalent systems in Europe (I don't know so much about asia) which are riddled with hidebound cronyism, or than private systems in the US which are extremely wasteful and seldom private anyway (see next paragraph). I really shouldn't need to defend DARPA on slashdot - maybe computers are not your thing though.
Anyhoo, the reason we have computers, container shipping, automation, tele-operation, intelligent drug design and genetic engineering is because the US Federal government payed the R&D costs. Sometimes they provided outright subsidies, but they also provided an initial customer base without which many of these technologies couldn't have been developed to the point that became viable as consumer-oriented enterprises. Personally, I think that the general public is entitled to some of that money back, once technologies developed at public expense become profitable, but this is penny-pinching on my part: the return on the investment in computer technology, for example, has been absolutely fabulous.
Now, a lot of this was done through the military system - but what the military *buys* seldom really has much to do with what the military really needs. DARPA, in particular, is in the business of providing a military cover for technology that is in fact being developed for the supposedly-ancillary civilian purposes. They also do research which really does have a military motivation: it's about 50:50.
If you're some kind of fanatic who believes in the infinite grace of market forces:
1) You are about as connected to reality as a creationist.
and
2) You are proposing that we scrap the most powerful engine of technological and economic growth in human history because it doesn't groove with your ideological fantasy worldview. If you have a big bushy mustache, that's *two* things you have in common with Stalin.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Someone who believes that their ancient "holy book" is a better guide to questions of objective fact than the best scientific knowledge, has a bad relationship with reality, and should not be trusted with authority.
If someone's religious beliefs interfere with their perception of reality, it will definitely interfere with the way they govern.
Indeed, maybe the best thing is to broaden the question: "Mr. Candidate, while we all have our own internal spiritual lives, which are very important, we also all share the same objective world. What do you believe is the best way to learn about that objective world: observation and experimentation, or ancient religious texts? And why? (And if ancient religious texts, how do you know which ones?)"
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Logical and reasonable people can have differing opinions on lots of issues. Including evolution. That someone might not be believe in evolution (to some degree) doesn't necessarily mean they're illogical or unreasonable. I'd personally be less concerned that someone disagrees with me and more concerned with someone that thinks that arriving at any conclusion other than their own means the other person is illogical and unreasonable. How arrogant are you, exactly?
I mean, if someone says, "I believe God created the world in 6000 years" then I'd be concerned about that person. If a person doesn't believe conventional wisdom regarding every detail of evolution? That doesn't automatically mean that person is quack.
Between evolution and global warming, I'm getting awfully sick of zealots proclaiming the science is settled and that any skeptic is irrational.
To me it matters because it would demonstrate someone who thinks rationally and has an appreciation for science (after this administration which flat out hates scientists)... it also would demonstrate to me someone who is willing to stand up for what makes sense even when a sizable portion of the population is against it.
Imagine if an atheist ran for president.
I want someone... for a change... who represents my view. We don't need to keep electing more-of-the-same candidates who are "willing to listen" to my side of things. It's about time the other sides actually had... well... actual representation in government.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Who cares?! They're politicians, not scientists.
But it does matter. Will this candidate ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that says something is happening, and act against the data on their own belief, or political motivation, possibly even trying to stifle the scientific community and discredit their findings at every turn like our current administration has done on numerous occasions. You see, this does matter, when the President doesn't know well enough that he doesn't know enough about an issue and still doesn't take the advise of the people who DO know about the issue. It would be like the PR department of a car company overruling the engineering department and saying that the car doesn't need seat belts because they are uncomfortable to wear (while actually not wanting them to have seat belts because he can save his friends an extra million dollars a year on production costs as well as make his other friends in the medical business more money from treating more serious injuries with the added bonus making new friends of the undertakers and morgues more business from the increased amount of fatalities in auto accidents...). You starting to see my point?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
When people who don't believe in evolution try to set up straw men and undermine general scientific understanding and the scientific method, I have a problem with it. The problem is that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution doesn't believe in the scientific method, which would basically put us back in the dark ages.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
There's no zealotry in not voting for someone who rejects a well-established scientific theory in favor of a rather silly Biblical interpretation. If you think it's okay to vote for people who are willing to ignore reality or suspend it in their heads then go for it.
People who reject evolutionary theory are either ignorant of that theory (in which case, they shouldn't comment on it at all) or have a serious issue with reality. If they're ignorant but unwilling or incapable of admitting it, they shouldn't be running a country. If they have issues with reality, they shouldn't be running a country.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
By "Evolution," I was referring to the theory that humans evolved from lower lifeforms. Genetic mutation and evolution is undeniable; it can be witnessed in colonies of bacteria, etc. The disputed part of evolution is whether or not humans originated as a result of it. If we were to find a human with the exact bone structure as a modern human but dated back, say, 100,000 years, then we would need to significantly change our theory of evolution. Thus, because evidence (although I doubt such evidence exists) can change the theory of evolution, it is falsifiable.
ID, on the other hand, will simply pass off any evidence as "part of God's plan" and not change its "theory" to accommodate -- making it unfalsifiable.
Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
Um, no. There are various theories and hypothesises as to how evolution works. All of which may be true, by the way. But evolution, unto itself, is a fact. It has been observed.
And, no, YEC have no theories in the scientific sense, only in the parlor talk sense. That was the GP(Ps?) point.
Your point about abiogenisis shows that you do not even understand what evolution is. It is the variance of life, not the origins.
The earth orbits around the sun. That is not open for debate and yet has plenty of science involved. Don't be an idiot.
Let me first say: I believe in evolution. Now, onto my rant.
This entire discussion is just one big excuse for the evolutionists to trumpet their horn, degrade those who don't have the same beliefs, and make themselves feel better, all in one. Frankly, I'm sick of it. Just because people don't agree with you does NOT mean they're stupid - and I don't care WHAT kind of comparisons you can come up with to justify your point. Degrading others is never alright. A favorite topic of people today is tolerance, but it's funny how it gets applied to everyone except when it's convenient to not apply it to creationists. It's also amazing how most people here seem to think that believing in some sort of higher power makes you a crazy person. Some of America's most brilliant leaders believed in a higher power (the Christian God, most of them) and they were able to make excellent, well informed, and well-regarded decisions during their presidencies. So now, just because we have had a president for the last 7 years that most no one likes, and he happens to believe in God, it suddenly means that believing in God equals stupidity? Where's the logic in that? I'm sorry to inform you of this, but believing that there is *something* after this life does not automatically make you a nut, or incompetent for that matter.
If we, as evolutionists want people to take us seriously (e.g. those people who don't understand the overwhelming facts), then we have to first treat them with respect. They won't listen to us if we don't take this simply courtesy. To me, evolution is a fact. But another and more important fact, IMO, is that if you can't bother to treat our fellow man with respect, then you're not any better than racists, bigots, terrorists, and any other group that has no respect for others. Period.
"Rejecting a major theory with a century-and-a-half of observational and experimental evidence behind it in favor of a ludicrous Biblical interpretation"
Isn't that like when people thought the Earth was flat, despite the Bible saying it was round? ('The circle of the Earth')
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
When was that, exactly? The Earth was shown to be a sphere (not a circle) before Jesus lived. Moreover, the Bible also refers to the "four corners of the Earth", which comes across as rather flat-earth, no?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Correct.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Just so we're all clear, people realise that unreasoned opinions are not a religion-specific thing, right? I mean stupid loud people are everywhere, especially in politics! If someone has randomly decided that evolution is wrong, wouldn't that make them fit in better?
Loud people win in politics. Stupid people spend less time in quiet contemplation and more time working on their loudness.
We shouldn't be removing religious opinions from government, but instead should be working to increase the diversity of other opinions in government. This way, even if everyone is there stupid, they are less likely to agree on a stupid decision because they will all have different stupid opinions and actually have to work on them to create the consensus needed to get them through.
Sorry. When I'm frustrated with an issue I tend to over use the word stupid. This seems especially true of stupid politics.
Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
If it's not testable, it's just a conjecture. If you want to argue that just because no one hasn't found a test yet that doesn't mean it's not testable, then I'll be forced to argue that you might not even exist. I'd rather not go there. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
One is a valid, if highly unlikely possibility.
One is an indicator of simple ignorance.
I'm a molecular cell biologist studying neurodegenerative disease and cell death. In regard to evolution, well, I can't say I totally believe it. The "scientific fact" that we have acquired in the past 148 years is not enough to make me believe. Believe it or not, scientists are often wrong. You'd be amazed at the number of papers that make it through the peer review process in big journals like Science and Nature just to get retracted (not to mention the crappy papers published in lesser journals...). It's not that they're lying, it's that they misinterpret things.
Evolution can be proven in bacteria and by other micro-scale observations, but there is no definitive proof that it has occurred on a macro scale. Show me all the sequence alignments and identity percentages you want, it doesn't prove that they came from the same origin -- it just proves that specific things are needed to make (a) similar/different compared to (b). I mean, come on -- people say that dog breeds, finches or whatever else are proof of evolution. Breed some dogs or finches until you get a cat or an eagle, then I'll take macro a little more seriously.
Believe it or not, I'm not the only person in science who thinks this way. For me, rational thinking leads to inconclusion. Sometimes I think I should have chosen politics over biology -- I'd get paid a lot more to not make decisions...
By throwing an evolution related question at the candidate you're giving them a chance to avoid harder and less popular issues. You're giving them an easy out.
The candidates know most Americans are religious. They'll lose no points by siding against evolution, they won't even lose points with the atheists what with religion being so pervasive in American society. If you're trying to ensure they win over the fundies and evangelicals, go ahead and give them an opportunity. Everyone else will be indifferent.
If you want to give them a challenge, and learn something about the candidates, then give them something political. Politics, being legislated morality and ethics, is the window to a person's soul. There's no better way to learn about someone.
For example, a great question would be "are 30,000+ innocent Iraqi civilian deaths justified given our goals and what we've achieved so far?" If they say yes, then you know they believe certain ends justify any means, good or bad, and from this one small insight you can predict how they'll behave on a number of issues. You'll know they will do evil in the name of good. You'll also know they have little regard for certain groups of what they must perceive to be lesser people (i.e. probably non-Americans). Either that or a general disregard for humanity.
I doubt any candidates would pass such a test. They would all willingly go to war for frivolous and unjustified reasons, they would all approve of extraordinary rendition and the disappearing of people, they would all jail enemies of state indefinitely without charge, they would all tap your telephones, there is nothing immoral, illegal or wrong they wouldn't do in the name of whatever fucked up ends they have.
The Bible has thousands of years of evidence
Does it? Please point me to any peer reviewed journal with this evidence.
Trolling is a art,
Evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life. Next time try to research what you're attacking.
thats really not a fact...more like a opinion
"Do you believe you'll live long past tomorrow, perhaps an average-length life?"
Given statistical evidence that people with similar life styles, living conditions, and equivilent health have lived longer than I have, yes. There's a chance I'm wrong and that I get hit by a bus, but that's bad luck.
That's not faith, that's statistics. Faith doesn't even get that far. In fact, faith goes so far as to claim things opposite of available evidence. That's just stupid.
In addition, it would be very sad indeed if we all lived like we weren't as most religious psychos have demonstrated that the only thing largely preventing them from acting on their immoral and hate filled thoughts is that they might get punished by being kept from their mythical heaven (which sounds at best boring, and at worst like the place i'd least like to be). The great thing about atheists is that we don't need to be threatened to act moral, we act moral because we can reason that doing the things that are considered moral raise the quality of our lives and the lives of the people around us. We're not all holding our favorite fiction book thinking "if only it wasn't a sin to kill myself and the people I hate (everyone not like me), I'd be in heaven already. GWB, please start a nuclear war so we can all get to heaven and masturbate all over how clever we are!"
No, not an "opinion". Fact. Absolute, 100% uncontrovertible fact.
You know that. I know that. Everybody else knows it.
We, humans, know that god is fiction because he is OUR fiction. We invented him. We made him up.
There's those of us who are honest enough to admit that god is fiction, Jean-Luc Picard is fiction, The Matrix is fiction, Dr. Frankenstein is fiction. And then there's those amongst us like yourself who are too dishonest to allow a pretty piece of fiction to be fiction.
Claiming that Star Trek is fact is a lie. Claiming that it "might be" fact or "could be" fact is a lie. Claiming that there's an open question here anywhere is a lie. Claiming that any of this is "opinion" is a lie. And it doesn't become any less of a lie because Mr. Picard is replaced by Mr. Anderson or Mr God.
Between evolution and global warming, I'm getting awfully sick of zealots proclaiming the science is settled and that any skeptic is irrational.
Are you truly skeptical of global warming, or have you been told to be skeptical?
Do you see weaknesses in data, or have you been told there are weaknesses?
Have you been getting your information from sources that have much to lose if the status quo changes?
Are your sources known for their rigorous scientific reporting, or do they only talk about evolution and global warming?
THAT would be a good start on the road to skepticism.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Well, if the creator wasn't supernatural, then who created him? If Roundup-ready corn was created by Monsanto, which was created by human scientists, who were created by aliens, who were created by other aliens, at some point you need a being who wasn't designed by another.
To avoid an infinite regress of designers, you either need a designer who exists outside of causality (and is thus supernatural), or a process by which inanimate material can become alive (abiogenesis) and eventually human (evolution).
personally, screw the peer reviewed journal, just show me this evidence to begin with.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Could you cite a link for this? I googled it and could only find beer 3800 year old Babylonian beer. An obscure reference will make you and your buddies feel cool but it won't make your point to the audience.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Evolution is not a theory in the sense of people not being sure whether its true or not. It is established as something that has happened, and which can be observed at so many levels; radiological dating, genetics, sedimentation, even direct observation. The theory behind evolution concerns the mechanisims behind it; how it happens, rather than whether it happens; the math behind it, stuff like that.
It might seem to you to conflict with what the Bible says in Genesis, but evolution is as a visible as an elephant in your face; its just there; we just have to deal with it.
No data, no cry
Nature. You conduct an experiment to see whether something your theory predicts, actually happen in nature. Depending on the result, your theory is now either strengthened, or falsified (or neither).
Sure, there are places where scientific conduct is still inconclusive. Evolution is not one of them. It is up there with gravity when it comes to things we are pretty sure exists.
If creationists were scientists, they would have stopped by now. But instead of giving up their theory when it's proven wrong, they modify it a little bit, and keep shouting even louder.
Yes, evolutionists reject the bible as "evidence" (although it's perfectly possible to be both christian and an evolutionist, it's not that the bible actually claims anything of interest, it's the people interpreting the bible, and as such, creationists are actually a minority of christians worldwide). And creationists reject science. I guess there's not much to do about that.
If you're looking for a "proof", you don't know what science is. There are no proofs, only well-tested theories.
Also, Newtonian mechanics is not "trash", and you can't use that argument to say that evolution is. Newtonian mechanics was the correct theory for the experimental results of the time, and is still an excellent approximation.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
We, humans, know that god is fiction because he is OUR fiction. We invented him. We made him up.
God is a more general concept than a particular earthly description by a particular sect of a particular religion.
Your statement is more like saying that, because Mr. Picard is fiction, that the entire concept of am explorer is fiction.
The spiritual world can't be disproved, because any effects of the spiritual world on the physical world must be carried out through physical processes. It's important to people precisely because it deals with entirely unscientific subjective concepts, such as the concept of a soul; whereas science necessarily deals with objective concepts: those that can be independently reproduced and verified.
You can believe that a particular description must be wrong because of the religious bootstrapping problem you describe -- that is: once touched by imperfect humans, then passed on by imperfect languages, there is likely to be a mistake somewhere along the line. But you can't use that to refute the more general concept of God.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
My agnostic friend, I can tell you exactly where "God" came from. He's "real", because biological evolution created our overly complex brains, which in turned enabled a cultural evolution that made humans see him in the cracks of their knowledge of the world they were living in. So they labeled those cracks the supernatural. Some of the them they found beautiful, most of them they found frightening. Unfortunately, then the elites latched onto the concept and have done their best ever since to keep enlightened people from correcting that cultural error. Because there is no supernatural, there's only nature.
Thank God! that secular, humanist people are turning the tide everywhere in the world (even in e.g. muslim countries -- see turkey) and relegating religion to the place it belongs, the private life of individual people.
So, please, live a happy and peaceful life with your agnostic beliefs. As I will do with my atheists beliefs. But don't go around and tell me that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, because I can. And I will call you out on your intellectual dishonesty every time you do it. Because, in reality, agnosticism is just a cop-out.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
But don't go around and tell me that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, because I can.
Go ahead then. Let's see you do it. Simply waving your hands and saying "it's all a man-made construct" doesn't work, incidentally. That's not proof, no matter how much you wave your hands or how loud you shout.
Let's throw some science in. Do you believe in the Higgs Boson? It can't be detected (and indeed, part of its very nature is that it probably can't be detected), and we don't really know what it does. But without it, a lot of other subatomic particles start to look very silly indeed.
Atheists are the worst kind of religious nutcase, for precisely the same reason as the really hardcore Believers are *nearly* the worst kind.
So you're saying the desire of a candidate to eschew modern science and instead rely on mumbo-jumbo has no bearing on their ability to make decisions on running a country based on the available evidence?
Would you be happy for a witch-doctor to be in control of the health budget?
It provides much more hope than evolution, which says I live for a little bit, and then I die.
So you believe in God because you want to hope, not that you actually believe?
Life has no meaning, it never did, it doesn't now, and it never will. It is just time and death. Thats all. That's tough.
It's only tough if you think life has no meaning without god. I find plenty of meaning in my life without any god whether or not one exists.
If evolution is absolute fact, then why do you bother arguing about anything? What is the point? The Christian, the atheist, the undecided, will all die, and that is it.
We argue because there is this whole life thing before death. Too many religious types dwell on the idea that death is permanent without god. It doesn't matter that it is permanent because you get a good life before that happens. One of the things holding all the secular people back in life is the religious zealotry in the world. Religion is responsible for more wars and killing than anything else in history.
Do you know why the earth sucks? It is because we are under a curse.
Earth doesn't suck to me, i live a happy life without god. The only curse I see is greed and religion. You too can live a happy life without god if you wanted to. I think too many people hide behind religion, they believe they are going to heaven so they think this world doesn't matter. They don't really have to solve and problems or help any people because they are going to heaven. Some even think they are guaranteed heaven so its ok if they blow themselves and a few others up before they go.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
There are no proofs in science. What I'm trying to tell you is that the overwhelming evidence as I see it is best explained by the "theory" that God is a fiction, as another poster has put it.
BTW, I don't care about other people's religion or spirituality. Except for my closests friends and family, because I like to be on a compatible wavelength with them. I do believe though, that it should be a private matter. I see the usefulness of spirituality. (Organized) religion, not so much.
However when religious or agnostic people will discuss their beliefs in public I will discuss mine. And, frankly I specifically see agnosticism as intellecutaly lazy/bankrupt, because if you think it through to its logical consequences it simply doesn't make sense. What practical relevance to your life do you derive from the statement, that we will never know if God exists or not? How does this "knowledge" guide your thoughts and actions?
Re Higgs-Boson: Wikipedia tells me that the Large Hadron Collider built in Switzerland is expected to confirm or deny its existance. At least it will give us more understanding regarding its nature, if it does indeed exist.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
That doesn't mean you have to act as if he does - because no-one thinks leprechauns are real. But let's get the philosophy straight.
im in ur
Thank God! that secular, humanist people are turning the tide everywhere in the world (even in e.g. muslim countries -- see turkey) and relegating religion to the place it belongs, the private life of individual people.
What you describe as the "humanist people" from Turkey, is probably in reference to the sweeping reforms undertaken by Ataturk following the emergence of the Turkish republic from the ashes of the old Ottoman empire. Turkey had emerged as a modern state - a secular state, where religion was delegated to ones private life.
Unfortunately, in Turkey there is an ongoing backlash against secularists. For example, the people who won the recent elections in Turkey (AK party) are essentially very analogous to the religious extremists and their power bases in many parts of the world, except that they are good at spinning themselves as being "modern", just as fundamentalist Christian counterparts in the US for example. Its support base is generally the poor and uneducated - people with a very anti-intellectual bent. The only difference is that they are Muslim.
As in many countries, the teaching of critical thinking skills in Turkey has slid backwards by decades on account of education policies focusing on strategies for university entrance examinations and the much higher numbers of students passing through schools which could be described as fundamentally religious.
One of the by-products of all this: many people, even those who are not of a practicing religious background, treat "creation science" and "Intelligent design" as being "proven" scientific theories, just as similar counterparts in the US and other countries do. Interestingly, many fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians have such almost identical viewpoints on this topic. When discussing the topic of evolution with a fundamentalist Muslim, I could well be speaking with the graduate of a 2nd rate Bible college in the US, had I not known better.
There is one scary thing I have observed when teaching at a university in Turkey. Students from fundamentalist Muslim backgrounds, and even secular ones, are referencing very famous creationist and "Intelligent design" sites located in the US for their written work to support their views in written topics such as those comparing people with animals. And this is at one of the better universities in the country I might add.
The anti-intellectualism of "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" is not just a problem in the US or in Christian countries...
Disclaimer: I am a foreigner who has lived and taught in Turkey for a few years now.
By your logic, it's also a fact that God does exist (spare me your paradoxes, they won't hold up in intergalactic science court).
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Almost all of history's brightest people who lived before Darwin were creationists of one stripe or other. Almost none were who lived after Darwin.
You ignore the minor point of fact that Washington and Jefferson were dead when Darwin and Wallace proposed the theory of evolution, consequently they could not have an alternative to believing in creationism at that time.
Jefferson held the most advanced religious views of the time. He was a deist not a theist and was a unitarian. That is he did not believe in a personal god but rather a god that defined the initial laws of the universe and set it in motion. After that everything worked on the basis of god given physical law. Consequently Jefferson's religious belief would not have contradicted the theory of evolution.
If Jefferson had still been alive at the time Darwin first proposed the theory, I am sure he would have bee a supporter.
People sometimes ask me if I believe in God. I always reply that the question is meaningless to me, because God's existence or nonexistence cannot be proven, and it has no bearing on my life. That is, I would behave exactly the way I do whether or not God were proven to exist or not, or even if I chose to believe he did or did not exist. You might as well ask me if I believe in life beyond the reaches of the galaxy. Perhaps it exists, perhaps not, but either way it doesn't matter. And any position you might offer on the topic is nothing but speculation.
You define the statement "we will never know if God exists or not" as agnosticism, but I would call that a humanist approach, with the addendum that the question really makes no difference. Your belief that there is no God--and your implication that your belief has some relevance to your life--strikes me as self serving, not to mention "intellectually lazy/bankrupt". You clearly haven't bothered to reason out the facts, because if you had you would realize that the facts cannot be reasoned out. You cannot logically disprove the existence of God any more than anybody else can prove His existence. Science simply isn't equipped to answer questions about the supernatural, nor should it be. So you have chosen to simply draw your own conclusion, and argue through sheer verbiage that your position is the only rational one.
You may, of course, say that you shouldn't have to disprove something, and you'd be correct. However, just because nobody has proved the existence of something doesn't necessarily mean that thing does not exist. But realize that, in this case, you are choosing to believe it does not. And that's a choice you're free to make, but I don't understand why anyone would make such a choice unless it somehow made him feel better about his own conduct (for that matter, the converse is true--I don't know why one would choose to believe in God unless it brought him some comfort to do so). For choosing not to believe in God implies that you consider the question relevant to your life, and have modified your behavior according to your beliefs. How are you any better than those who congregate weekly to pray to the deity of their choice? Do you really think they arrived at their own personal conclusions regarding God's existence through a reasoning process materially different from yours?
I am a human being. I have no need for God whatsoever, so I see no reason to take a position on His existence. Clearly, you have a need for God not to exist. And that is why, as I said before, you are a slave to your own desires.
You are not going to win anybody over with facts.
... generosity.
The people who actually care about facts, are already on the side of evolution.
The people who do not believe in evolution, do so because the alternative appeal more to their feelings. They will not be swayed by facts.
Yes, you can probably make them look silly with their faith based opinions, but that will not win them over. It will only make the debate more dirty.
If you want to win them over, you have present evolution as an emotional alternative that can appeal to them.
Me, I think that's close to impossible, but more importantly, totally pointless.
I think that it would be more productive to make them understand the difference between belief and science, and get them to respect that other people may have other opinions on the matter. Make an emotional appeal to their sense of
TC - My Photos..
This seems like a good opportunity to challenge those candidates who say they do not believe in evolution.
It would be nice if people stopped saying "believing in evolution". I do not believe in evolution, because I do not believe in anything. I am however convinced, due to various solid evidences, that evolution is a perfectly valid theory.
Please, put it any way you want, but don't use that verb, we don't have faith in evolution, we are convinced that it's true because it's reasonable, and therefore, don't ask anyone if they believe in evolution, cause anyone in their right mind should tell you that they don't believe in evolution, no matter what their opinion is.
You just got troll'd!
Those who wish, for lifestyle reasons, to be atheists? I don't wish to be an atheist: I wish to hell there WERE someone in charge to fix things. But I look at the problem of theodicy, and see that a just and omniscient and omnipotent creator could NOT allow some of the horrors that have been visited upon the innocents of this world - so either I have to believe that God doesn't exist, or God doesn't care. By your definition, a God who doesn't care isn't a God at all, so you would call me an atheist.
In science, you either are right or wrong
On the contrary. You can never prove a theory correct in science. You can only know that you have a theory consistent with the experimental evidence to date. If those experiments are representative of your current situation, then you might reasonably rely on that theory to help you make decisions since it's the best information you have, but that doesn't mean the information is perfect or prove that the theory is universally true and you are "right".
It's fairer to say that in science, you are either consistent with the evidence to date or not.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You all disappoint me.
To Evolutionists: You have no sense of proportion. I don't vote someone in because he has amazing scientific knowledge. You all say that the good scientific evidence for evolution takes time and effort to present and understand (imagine teaching it to a tribal people somewhere). If a politician has had misinformation or just shoddy argumentation for evolution, is he really to blame for not becoming a scientist instead of a politician and discovering the TRUTH (TM) about the world? Besides, someone who believed that every single species was hand-designed by a loving creator might actually try to preserve the natural habitat they live in. I vote for someone to defend our country, enforce the laws, and try to work with the legislature who makes the laws in the first place. I know I'm being idealistic, but I really don't care if my candidate has some missing bits of knowledge. So what?
Plus, stop responding to the theory/hypothesis/science/philosophy semantics. Nobody cares about your terms but you. The creationists don't care what you call their ideas Your serious responses to an obvious red herring are embarrassing.
While we're at it, you do realize you will never learn from anyone you call delusional. Calling for a belief to be stamped out is a bit too much like a Salem witch trial for someone who supposedly has the truth on their side. You guys are proposing a scientific inquisition for the Republicans. Nobody likes being called a heretic. But the real lesson of the dark ages is that nobody benefits from calling other people heretics either.
To Creationists: Stop making this about evidence. You people have a lot to offer in clarifying the difference between history, science, religion, and philosophy - regardless of whether there is a God. You are one of the few groups that think that those four might offer competing narratives about the world, and even different values. Contribute better. That said, it is hard to have a debate while under attack.
That is exactly backwards. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
In fact, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" can be seen a simple rephrasing of the scientific method. Consider some falsifiable and testable proposition P. How do we give ourselves confidence that P is true? We repeatedly test the proposition P. If we consistently find P (that is, the event ~P doesn't occur, that is, there is absence of ~P), we more strongly believe P (that is, we have evidence that ~P is false). It is not a proof, because P is falsifiable, but we have evidence of the falsity of ~P.
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
On the contrary, the presence of the Higgs can quite certainly be detected (by the standards of particle physics, which means it is quite often performed by inference on the behaviour of other particles, but that is quite sufficient in general) if it exists, and we know exactly what it is meant to be: it's the requirement in the standard model of a field (and hence particle) with a specific set of properties leading to the existence of mass which has led to it existing as part of the standard model to begin with.
And, best of all, its existence is fully falsifiable. There is a finite energy region within which it can exist meaningfully - if we investigate the entire region and fail to find the Higgs, we can declare that it does not exist.
Really, if God was as rigorously defined as the God Particle, these conversations would look very different.
Suppose someone suggests to you that there is a pencil in your cupboard. If you don't look in the cupboard, do you have any evidence that there is no pencil there? No - you merely have absence of evidence. In the case of God, the door to the cupboard is effectively glued shut - we can't test the proposition. Nonetheless, we still don't have any evidence that there isn't a pencil inside the cupboard. Obviously, no-one goes around thinking there are pencils in cupboards, because absence of evidence is good grounds for not believing in something. But it's not the same as evidence that the thing isn't there.
im in ur
I don't particularly think God exists in any significantly religious way, and I think it trivializes the idea of God somewhat to equate it to the laws of physics, but the minute you start acting like it's impossible for reasonable people to disagree with you, you're being a fundamentalist.
... science isn't in the God business at all. If science does, in the end, trivialize God it will be because God was less than we thought He was all along.
... they have the burden of validity upon them. Consequently, if one wishes to function in their world, understand that anyone who gets too far out of line will be nailed to the cross (scientifically speaking.) To be nice and give credence to ideas which have no place in science and are deliberately untestable by the scientific method (in spite of false claims to the contrary) is to violate the basic tenets of science itself. No self-respecting scientist would do that: the most reasonable answer he can give in that case is, "Bzzt! Thank you for playing!" Anything else would be a lie, and anyone who finds that offensive is out of his league.
... or one does not. If a hypothesis is valid and it can be experimentally verified, it will eventually become part of orthodox science. Even if it's dead wrong, well, we'll still know something we didn't know before. It's not always easy, it's not always pretty, sometimes it's downright brutal ... but the process does work. In fact, it is working better than anything any religion has ever had to offer in the way of true understanding, as opposed to just heartfelt wishing. So I would tell our Creationist and ID friends this: forget about being reasonable, forget about irascible scientists telling you to go pound sand. Instead, go back to the seventh grade and have your science teacher give you a quick refresher in scientific method. Think about what you've been saying. Then think again. See the problem? No? Well, then we can't help you.
Not at all. Both sides in this particular conflict will cop an attitude towards the other. The difference is that one side has all the guns, and the other doesn't have a used paperclip to share amongst all its proponents. Besides, science isn't in the business of trivializing God
It's a mistake to assume that scientists have the onus of reasonableness upon them. They don't
More to the point, the scientific world is a harsh one, no less so to those within it. They don't cut themselves much slack, and see no reason to give anyone else a free pass. This should come as no surprise to the ID crowd: trying to pull the wool over the scientific community's collective eyes has always resulted in a severe and often public bitchslapping. It's the nature of the beast: by definition it has to be hard on anyone that makes any claim about the nature of reality, because to do otherwise is to step backwards. It is the reason we trust science to advance our understanding of the Universe.
This is a very binary proposition, meaning that either one has a valid, testable hypothesis than can be experimentally validated by others
Science allows room for disagreement (by it's very nature, it has, to otherwise it will become as dogmatic and useless as any of the aforementioned religions, and that actually is a problem in many fields today) but changing the mainstream understanding of Evolution or anything else will require some evidence, and some hard work. That's pretty damn fundamental to the whole thing, you know. It's a constraint that Creationism, "Intelligent" Design and the rest of the numerous fictions created by humankind to explain the world have never had placed upon them. With good reason, I might add, because they would all be found wanting.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What is the process called that new plant varities are derived? Genetic Engineering
Science is a method of proving things through experimentation and evidence. Religion is accepting something that may or may not exist based on personal faith. As soon as you start having faith that parts of science is true instead of relying on evidence, you make it a religion, while on the flip side, if you go to the extreme of proving every part of just say the Bible, you take faith out of the equation and make it a science.
Science is how the world works, and while some parts can be wrong or right, faith cannot be wrong because if it is then you no longer have it. And by that I mean that as a Christian I accept that there is a great body of evidence for evolution to exist, but I chose to believe that God created the world instead. To an Atheist that may seem like ignorance and perhaps it is in a way, but it is my choice.
As human beings we always seem to jump on the opportunity to make people think the same way we do. We push our personal opinions on others hoping that they will understand and validate our own beliefs in the process. This I feel isn't the right approach in any situation. I think we need to create an atmosphere where people are allowed to chose on their own, without bias or opinion getting in the way. Religion has been guilty of forcing their beliefs on others for years and now it seems that science is picking up the slack.
Let people read the Bible, and study science so they can choose on their own.
Well, this is rather vacuous. I would say to argue from this position of not even having looked is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. From being in the position of not having looked, it would be rather audacious to claim that there is an absence of evidence.
I think the confusing issue is the difference between knowledge and evidence. To not have looked and claim that evidence is lacking is to commit such a confusion. Note I am not claiming that somehow we can know something without evidence of it (let me now say I am excluding formally/intrinsically provable things, like mathematics, in this discussion, though what I say here could still apply). What you say is true. Without having even looked, it would be invalid to imply evidence of absence. But that is not the negation of what I have said.
-TezHaskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
I don't understand why all this is a big issue anyway? Evolution should be a single chapter in a textbook just like magnetism and gravity. How does teaching evolution or intelligent design prepare our children for life in the 21st century? Would it not be better to simply teach kids science from a scientific perspective? Teach kids to make observations, develop theories and then test them? Give them all of the observable information, present the theories and let them work out conclusions. Why should science be presented so definitively? Wouldn't creating a generation of scientists that challenge established theories possibly make better scientists? Aren't the greatest minds in science those that think outside of the box and challenge the status quo?
Let's not teach our kids WHAT to think, but HOW to think. As humans, we have something within us that seeks to know things, that is one of the things that seems to make us unique among the life on our planet. Quit putting kids minds in shallow little boxes--both evolution and intelligent design are ways of looking at what is observable. If a mind is able to consider multiple perspectives on interpreting information and able to test and draw conclusions on its own, aren't we better off as a people? Why should we be locked into teaching only one thing when there are large groups of others that teach other things--even if they might be wrong? Sure, teach kids what is generally accepted, but let them know there are other theories... even if it includes spaceships and little green (or gray) men--which Intelligent Design is broad enough to encompass. You don't have to put it in the textbooks, just encourage teachers to present other theories as a general survey of "other thoughts on the subject."
There are many other things, like Critical Thinking, Math and Creativity that are so much more valuable to a young mind than something like Evolution and Intelligent Design. I don't care about where a politician stands on hot button topics like Evolution or Abortion... I want to know what they think are the critical changes we require in education that will make our children competitive in the world market during the 21st century.
Just my $0.02,
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
That such candidates as Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee, whose apparent science knowledge is not even at the third-grade level, can rise to such prominence in US politics leads me to ask a more general question:
"We live in a world that is ever more complex in the depth and breadth of technology. I realize that no politician, or any human for that matter, can be conversant in the nuts and bolts of every area of knowledge, but what can you say to convince me that you know enough about science and technology to be able to appoint legitimate experts to serve as your science advisers and agency chiefs?"
Ed Uthman, MD
Pathologist, Houston/Richmond, TX, USA
It's very easy for a fictional story to provide more hope than a non-fiction one. The fact that your story says that a perfectly happy world exist, and that it's very easy to get there, is evidence that it was made up to fulfill the emotional needs of human beings.
Ok, think about this. Without God, nothing matters.
That doesn't make any sense to me. How would the existence of God make things matter?
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that [men] are without excuse (Romans 1:20).
If it was clear, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Do you know why the earth sucks? It is because we are under a curse. ... I am sick of living in the crap-tacular cursed world. I want to live in the restored world that God has promised is coming. Don't you?
I want to live in a better world, too. But aren't we more likely to get there by buidling it ourselves rather than hoping that some ancient fable comes true?
And as a side note, a couple of links to web pages full of rationalizations isn't going to convert anyone that really understands the issues.
One minor quibble: absence of evidence is evidence of absence -- it's just not proof of absence.
Whoa whoa whoa. If I believed in God -- that is, the same God that so much of America believes in -- I might do things like go to church every Sunday, smear ash on my face on a particular Wednesday each year, turn to ancient fables instead of science to explain phenomena that I observe, oppose stem cell research, fight against the teaching of evolution in classrooms, and persecute gay people to whatever extent possible.
The Judeo-Christian god apparently wants us to do a lot of things that are not affirmatively moral, and a lot of things that are abjectly immoral. I don't do these things. That is at least some of the practical benefit of my knowledge that there is no god.
If you want to spit out micro-evolution where something adapts slightly to its environment, then sure I can see that. If you spit out macro-evolution and say that we evolved from apes or from the goo through the zoo to you; I gotta depart from you there. There is plenty of evidence of micro and NONE for macro.
Yes, because saying "I don't believe God exists, because there is no reason to believe that" is just as arrogant as saying "I don't believe Santa exists, because there is no reason to believe that." Non-belief in Santa/elves/bigfoot is just as logically untenable in non-belief in God. But when you don't believe in those other things, people don't suddenly act as if you're claiming to be omniscient. When it comes to not believing in anything else (ESP, alien abductions, nessie, etc) we know that people just mean "I see no credible reason to believe in this, ergo I don't believe in this." Suddenly when the noun is "God," then everything changes and someone pretends that the speaker is claiming to know everything. They aren't, and it's obvious. You can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real, but you would't lament someone's arrogance for not believing in His Noodliness.
Consider this:
Whether or not someone believes in evolution is in what way relevant to their ability to govern?
Similarly, if someone believes in evolution, on what basis do they accept evolution? Have they read more than just the theory summary on wikipedia? Have they witnessed first hand experiments and evidence that irrefutably reinforce the theoretical knowledge that they have read? If not, aren't they guilty of the same "faith" that Christians, Muslims, and all other religious people suffer from and that they are being derided and condemned as irrational fools for?
Or is that irrelevant because they ascribe to the same set of beliefs that you do?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Not quite. Contrary to what some rethorically challenged people like to state, you can prove a negative. You can prove that a certain entity doesn't exist by proving that it has contradicting characteristics. In this universe, there are certain well-established limits to physics and biology. I don't think it's at all clear that leprechauns "could" exist. For example, if they have those tiny heads, do they have enough brain cells to make them behave the way stories claim they behave?
You can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist (in fact, if you work in retail or marketing, you know he's very real), but you can prove that a sledge pulled by reindeer couldn't reach the speeds and accelerations required to visit every home on Earth during that one night. So you have to either accept that Santa doesn't exist or change your definition of "Santa Claus" to something slightly different (or very different), that at least could (even if you can't prove that it does).
The trouble with "god" is that there is no universally accepted definition. So, until you define what "god" is, indeed you cannot prove it doesn't exist. "Proof" of something that is undefined is logically meanigless. For some definitions of "god", its existence can be proven in purely logical terms, but what do we gain by that?
You can take any simple system and add layers of useless, self-cancelling complexity to it, so it would be trivial to "weave god into reality". The real question is: are gods necessary to make sense of the universe? And the answer to that seems to be a pretty resounding "no". In fact, if anything, attributing phenomena to supernatural, unknowable entities is a way to limit our understanding of the universe. Ockham's razor and all that.
To quote Lewis Carroll, "Don't be in such a hurry to believe next time - I'll tell you why - If you set to work to believe everything, you will tire out the muscles of your mind, and then you'll be so weak you won't be able to believe the simplest true things. Only last week a friend of mine set to work to believe Jack-the-giant-killer. He managed to do it, but he was so exhausted by it that when I told him it was raining (which was true) he couldn't believe it, and rushed out into the street without his hat or umbrella, the consequence of which was his hair got seriously damp, and one curl didn't recover its right shape for nearly two days."
And then there's the separate (but often associated) issue of religion, which is responsible for more irrationality, obscurantism, death and self-righteous cruelty than just about any other part of human culture.
The Bible was not given to us to explain everything. It was given to us to tell us what we needed to know.
So, sorry...the burden of proof (though it should be called the burden of evidence, not proof) still lies with those positing a supernatural being. We're just saying that the natural world exists, and trying to find explanations for things we see in that natural world. Positing something outside that natural world, whether it be magical leprechauns, genies, Star Trek's Q, God, or whatever, requires evidence to support that claim. You're asking people to stop developing explanations and just believe in something that doesn't really bring all that much to the debate.
Me being an atheist doesn't require faith in anything. It isn't that I think science can explain everything, but that science is the only tool by which we can understand the world around us. We have limited data, limited powers of perception, limited intelligence, and so on, so the process, being a human construct, is limited. But again, it's the only tool we have. If you're in the dark you can rely on the guy with the flashlight, even admitting the limitations of the flashlight, or you can stay in the dark with the other guy who tells you a) really nice comforting stories, and b) that the flashlight isn't all it's cracked up to be.
As the flashlight reveals that some of the story-teller's tales are false, the story-teller will get more and more upset and point out, accurately, that the flashlight can't show you everything. But the flashlight, however limited, is still the only alternative to the pretty stories. Science is that flashlight. Trust who you want, but I trust the guys who made medicine, airplanes, air conditioning, and so on. This isn't to say that the story-teller has no value whatsoever. People apparently need someone to tell them that they should be decent human beings because God wants them to be. And people evidently need hope that there is something else out there, that death isn't the end. But when it comes to the physical world, including how biodiversity came about, I'll defer to science every time. Evolutionary theory is critical to fields like antibiotic research, and we can't throw it out just because it doesn't fit well with your bible.
4th option about Jesus: A guy like you and I with some bright ideas (love your neighbor) whose message has been corrupted by the power elite. I'm sorry if that offends you, but take this an example: Early christian communities were based on equality. Then Pete comes along and says I'm God's right hand and now we have catholism with a billion people deferring their lives to the authority of the Pope. Can you see the power play there? The same happens in your church (I assume you're not catholic), when you repeat what your pastor preaches. You do what he says, because you think he's an authority of what Jesus would have wanted you to do. This appeal to authority is what gives your preacher power over your life.
Also note that we have no primary sources from what Jesus did or said, only secondary sources (the gospel of various people). Thus to describe the state of mind of Jesus by what others have said/written is not entirely fair to Jesus, is it?
Free Manning, jail Obama.
There are stories, but no evidence. All of the evidence strongly suggests that sexuality is absolutely immutable. The best so-called reparative therapy can offer is a very high suicide rate and asexuality -- which isn't even that, really, it's constantly refusing to act on your impulses. If you decided never to look at a girl again, and you managed to follow through, that wouldn't mean that you were no longer straight.
Give it a few years. I guarantee you that the guy's still gay. I went through something similar back when I was still trying to be straight. I even dated a girl for a year and a half. People thought we were the cutest couple, completely in love, and so on. I was the only one who even had a hunch that girls weren't for me. You hear stories all the time about marriages failing after 20 years because the guy is gay. It's not something that you can will away with enough time, or suck out with enough vaginas.
For whatever it's worth, I've dated a wonderful guy for a long time now. We're completely monogamous and disease-free, and we don't do any drugs or engage in any risky practices. We're both highly, highly educated and on very high-income and stable career paths. We're still completely in love, we're perfect for one another, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we spent the rest of our lives together. How could that possibly be a sin?
Give it a few years. I guarantee you that the guy's still gay.
I dunno, he could be bi.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"