Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes

An anonymous reader writes "The Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican priest, is the education director for the Royal Society, the venerable British science institution. He recently called for creationism to be discussed in science classes, not just in religion or philosophy classes. Science journals reacted with a world of 'WTF' and the Royal Society backpedaled furiously. Now Nobel laureates are gathering to get him fired: 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.' The blogs, of course, are loving it."

Comments

First

[Anonymous Coward]

Post!

Re:First

[Forge]

so let's get this straight.

A scientist / clergyman argues that creation should be discussed in science class and 'scientists' want him fired or this?

WTF?

What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?

What ever happened to the notion that your scientific theories are better because they match the available evidence more closely than anything else available?

Now we have scientists trying to silence a dissenting opinion? You guys are starting to sound like the geniuses who after proving that the Earth was flat set out to imprison and torture those heretics who argued otherwise.

This attitude makes me more weary of Evolution than of any other scientific theory. no matter how may ways people try to argue ague against gravity or electricity, they are simply confronted with the evidence or simply ignored.

Only Biologists try to get heretics fired or simply silenced in defense of the sacred Evolution dogma.

This is wrong!

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not seeing why.

Re:First

[c6gunner]

What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?

Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!

I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!

Re:First

[LaskoVortex]

What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?

Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!

Re:First

[Leonard Fedorov]

You sir, have made me wish I still had mods points.

Goes without saying, mod parent up!

Re:First

[Sasayaki]

Wow. WTB mod points! The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence. That is why it should not be taught in science classes.

Re:First

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Idiot.

I'm probably feeding a troll here, but fuck it, this subject is important enough.

The problem with introducing "creation theory" (Hint: It's not a theory, it's dogma) into science gives it more credibility than it deserves (it deserves none).

After all, it's extremely unlikely that this guy is objective enough to actually admit that there is no evidence for 'creation theory', nor are there *ANY* peer reviewed studies whom might even give it *any* credibility.

Basicly, IT'S NOT SCIENCE AND DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS

Re:First

[eagee]

I have one word to say to your response sir: "AMEN!"

Re:First

[Crookdotter]

This post is not insightful. Gravity and electricity can be demonstrated to any idiot, within seconds, and explained.
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time. This leaves it at the mercy of idiots who refuse to see this evidence as it takes too long - hence "It's UNPROVABLE!!"
Scientists are facing a fight with this one, and the creationists (who are plainly, outright WRONG) seem to be better funded. It is wholly right that the education director for the Royal Society be fired for such outlandish claims.

IAAST (I am a science teacher) and I would quit if I had to teach creationsim and frankly I expose them for the lunatics that they are whenever that 'view' is asked about in my classes.

Re:First

[Fallen Seraph]

You contradict yourself.

The facts HAVE supported evolution so far. We've witnessed microevolution in animal populations in our own lifetimes, and evidence suggests that macroevolution does indeed take place, which also fits mathematical models as well as... well, common sense. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, works with almost all of the data we have.

The issue about teaching creationism is that the science class room should be about giving students the verifiable facts which we have. The notion of "Letting the children decide" is absurd. They don't have the foundation in logical reasoning yet, nor do they have the resources to verify claims from both sides. Not to mention that facts are not subjective. If we took a vote on which is true, natural selection, or creationism, regardless of how we voted or what we think, that does not change the facts, and that does not change which is, in fact, true.

Creationism is not a "dissenting opinion" as they would have you believe. Creationism is anti-science. Instead of trying to prove their theory right, they try to prove that evolution is wrong, thinking that if they could, it MUST mean creationism is correct. But this is simply not how science works.

Facts do not prove themselves in a classroom, they prove themselves in peer reviewed journals, with copious amounts of data, and logical reasoning. If the Creationism/Intelligent Design movements had ANY of those criteria, then we could have a discussion of its merits. But since it does not, the point is moot, and trying to force it into classrooms, on impressionable students, who have not yet fully understood how science works is simply an underhanded gimmick, and does a disservice to both the scientific community as well as the education system.

Re:First

[g2devi]

Actually, in my school, Alchemy *was* discussed in chemistry class and although Ebonics wasn't talked about in English, Pigeon English was. WRT alchemy, it was mentioned it was a precursor to chemistry, and although some ideas were sound and are still in use today, other ideas, like converting base metals into gold weren't (at least not with chemical reactions). Areas related to it, such as mercury poisoning, were also discussed. WRT Pigeon English, it was mentioned that it was a language invented by merchants who had better things to do than learn full blown English but still needed to communicate with English merchants. Do kids in the US not have a broad education in the natural sciences and liberal arts?

Back when I was in school, the boundaries between classes seemed hazy....the history of science in math class....philosophy in history class, archeology in geology class, mechanical engineering in biology class, architecture in classics class. While teaching this way isn't "efficient", every subject seemed to connect to every other subject so that knowledge was a unified whole with various facets and various perspectives.

It seems that classes these days focus more on "efficiency" or "playing it safe political correctness". Pity. No wonder post-modernism has become so wide spread. When things are not taught to fit together, no wonder people think it seems like a mixed up world.

Re:First

[centuren]

The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence.

Well phrased!

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

I think GP is upset about the reaction - something that bothered me. Maybe it's because I don't live in America (hence, few(er) bible thumping nut-jobs), but isn't firing someone over merely making a suggestion a bit over-the-top? Shouldn't the scientific ideals (read: fair and empirical reasoning) encourage them to explain to this fellow why the Royal Society doesn't think that Creationism is appropriate to teach (ie. it's batshit insane)? For all we know, he may simply have been making the very same point you've been making ("some ideas are retarded, what if I taught creationism ha-ha-ha"), and someone (either him or a senior figure) took him a little too seriously.

Punishing people for their suggestions, opinions or comments seems a little draconian..[MODERATORS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD^H^H^H IRONY, MOD ME DOWN].

Re:First

[that IT girl]

None of the things you mentioned would be facts proving themselves. Especially your first "example"--come on! There's absolute proof that the Holocaust happened. We don't have absolute proof of anything that happened millions (or even thousands, for argument's sake) of years ago that none of us got to witness. None of the examples you gave come even close to comparing.

Re:First

[centuren]

Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time.

My pure-bred pets and genetically modified vegetables (that did not exist in their current form even 100 years ago) actually make evolution one of the most observable and simple scientific concepts to explain.

Gravity and electricity are more observable, but their explanations go into more complicated roots than the basic "you only germinate seeds from the tall plants, to get tall plants" concept.

Re:First

[centuren]

The main argument I put forth against Creationism/Intelligent Design, is that it can only be considered a religious view because it is only held by those of a particular religious background. If it's to be taught (in the US especially) in public schools, every other view on how the world was created that has representation in that country has to be treated equally. Basically, there's no way to make it a Creationism / Evolution issue, since Creationism is based solely on ONE strain of religion.

Letting the children decide is an absolutely fine point; they SHOULD decide. That's the whole point of learning to make your own decisions. I don't see how this factors into what's taught in schools, however. Children have parents, and if those parents believe in Creationism, they can pass those teachings to their children.

This is an ideal scenario to illustrate something that is the parents' responsibility rather than the school's.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit.

I'm glad to see that you are only 50% a racist.

Re:First

[qmaqdk]

Well put. Mod parent up.

Re:First

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Careful with the word absolute there... there isn't absolute proof of anything, including that the holocaust happened.
However, the proof we have of the holocaust is so incredibly convincing that we can safely call it truth.

Alchemy was taken to be truth during the time it was actually taught, the difference is that now we know more by using the scientific method. Making predictions, testing theories, and throwing out those that don't fit.

While we don't have absolute proof of what happened millions of years ago, what we do have is pretty darn convincing, and getting better every year. (with minor adjustments from time to time)

Re:First

[c6gunner]

Punishing people for their suggestions, opinions or comments seems a little draconian.

It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.

With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.

Re:First

[c6gunner]

We also don't have absolute proof that "god" even exists, let alone the idea that she created the universe and all life in it. Moreover, there's no chance that we'll ever gather evidence to support that idea, since the proposition is untestable. Saying "god did it" doesn't answer anything. It doesn't let us make new predictions, it doesn't give us a better understanding of the interconnectedness of the earths species, and it doesn't allow for further research. Saying "a miracle occurs" is the END of the discussion for religion, while it's the begging of the discussion for science. THAT is why creationism has no place in science.

Re:First

[Rary]

FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now.

Oh, really?

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

At the high school where I teach, there is a emphasis on cross-curriculum teaching within all classes this year. It looks like we are coming full circle. in that aspect. I wonder if anyone really knows what the best way to teach is?

Another point here. Truth and science are not synonymous, the scientific method does a good job of finding out the likelihood of many things, but not all things. Learning to use the right tools to answer the right questions is the key I think.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

You should teach holocaust denial, it's part of history and what has happened since. And Ebonics, what it is, etc is probably well taught about alongside other modern language oddities. Alchemy would be a valuable thing to teach to bring understanding to the history of chemistry and it's roots. And flat earth theory helps to understand the motivation of the explorers, what influenced and motivated and affected the world and history of geography. Santa Claus, the easter bunny etc are all interesting oddities of modern American culture and it's reverse spread back into the world through commercialism.

You'd read a book all about it and find it interesting, but someone suggest teaching about it to kiddies and your rock solid foundation of life's actions justified is threatened and hackles raised you bay into the wind and call the pack to shed blood.

Are you so afraid that people will believe these if they are taught about them? Most certainly they will begin to give them credence as they are persecuted and ridiculed and treated with such religious hostility. Why do you think skinheads and such continue? Hide the nature of the world, hide the truth and reap the wind of ignorance. When I see the pro-evolution rants here I can't but compare them to the pro-creation rants and the rants of every other blind bride of religious/philosophical/political thought that graces the planet. So sure, so cocky, so rock solid in their belief of how the world is and will be. How many times before has this been, how many times fallen, how many times replaced?

Fallen is Babylon the great.

Re:First

[digitig]

When your knee has stopped jerking you might notice that Michael Reiss has nowhere suggested that creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. The RA specifically states that he does not believe that discussion of them in science would legitimise them. He also says that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time."

In other words, if there are creationists in the class, Reiss says that the teacher should be allow discussion of the subject so the pupil can learn why science rejects creationism, rather than the pupil simply being presented with yet another competing dogma just on another adult's say-so. He is for critical thinking; it is those who are trying to silence him who are trying to stifle critical thinking.

Put it this way: If a kid puts his hand up in class and says that the universe was created in six days, should the teacher just say "No, you're wrong" or "Science says that's wrong because...". It's the latter that Reiss is pushing for, and that is so unthinkable to his opponents.

Re:First

[timnbron]

In our first A-level chemistry lesson, our teacher sat on his desk and pronounced that the world was flat. After a stunned silence, we then tried (successfully) to prove him wrong.

His point was that a lot of the things we had been taught up to that point (the structure of atoms, the nature of reactions etc) were actually incorrect, or more accurately just approximate theory. And that the stuff we were about to learn might also prove just as 'approximate'. He urged us to begin to question the things we were taught, and not just take them as fact.

We were taught to think for ourselves, and I don't ever recall one single controversial lesson. Maybe it's because we didn't have powerful lobby groups in that part of rural Oxfordshire, but I don't actually remember being taught evolution either. And very few exams were 'multiple choice' - i.e. 'answer it like we want you to'.

Children have brains. They can think for themselves

Re:First

[digitig]

My kids were taught about holocaust denial; they were not taught holocaust denial. They were taught about alchemical theories, they were not taught alchemical theories. They were taught about flat-earth theories, they were not taught that the earth was flat. Reiss says that he wants kids to be taught about creationism, not that he wants them to be taught creationism. But then, this is /., so nobody reads the RA and everybody assumes that anybody with "Revd." in front of their name is automatically wrong about everything -- and then have the chutzpah to complain about a lack of critical thinking!

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

    Evolution only should be allowed to be taught in the classroom if they take out the part that is a lie.

The part where we evolved from a single cell organism and over billions of years we evolved from that to simple lifeforms and then
more advanced life forms to where we are today. That part is not science and it is a lie. It's not religion that says this other parts
of science itself and of course common sense.

    The rest of it such as macro evolution is true.

Re:First

[c6gunner]

Reiss says that he wants kids to be taught about creationism, not that he wants them to be taught creationism. But then, this is /., so nobody reads the RA

Actually I did read the FA, and I even made a comment earlier to the effect that I think the reaction was massively overblown, and that he doesn't deserve to be fired. You may have noticed that my comment was in response to another individual, and not to Rev. Reiss himself.

But then, this is /., so nobody reads the RA and everybody assumes that anybody with "Revd." in front of their name is automatically wrong about everything -- and then have the chutzpah to complain about a lack of critical thinking!

You were sounding pretty good until you decided to descend into stupid generalizations and shrill whining.

Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person. Now, on an individual basis, they may turn out to be quite personable, very intelligent, and highly knowledgeable about all sorts of things. But they're still not rational, and, if they truly are intelligent, they'll admit as much to you if you ask them about it.

Re:First

[renegadesx]

I think this is getting out of propotion. I will give the guy the benefit of the doubt here. First all he said was "in certain classes, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue."

Sorry but "deal with the issue" is not the same as "teach creationism" to me. And he elaborated on it later after this happened, this is what he said.

"When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."

Now personally I love that idea. Stop creationism dead in it's tracks as an alleged "scientific theory"
Educate how science works and how creationism fails to meet the requirements to be scientific.

Re:First

[digitig]

Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person.

There's a bullying sort of scientism around at the moment that insists that everybody takes everything on their terms but is absolutely unwilling to examine those terms or have anybody question them (the problem of induction, the question of solipsism). I agree that anybody with a "Revd" in front of their name is disqualified as a completely rational person, but I have yet to encounter a completely rational person, only some who deny their non-rational side and get upset (and start modding people down ;-) when confronted with it. Certainly science isn't a completely rational position, which is why so many scientists hate philosophers -- we point it out to them!

Re:First

[Requiem18th]

Truth is however much more complicated, and dare I said sinister. Whether we like it or not we occidentals, come from a christian background and starting our scientific models from a christian perspective of the world is not only acceptable but unavoidable.

  What I mean is that argumentation between creationist and naturalist modelings for the beginning of life and the universe DID have a SERIOUSLY ACCEPTABLE place in the history of occidental science.

  Ditto for Alchemy, Astrology and Geocentrism etc. Science didn't reject supernaturalism because it wanted to start from a clean slate. It did so because supernaturalism failed and naturalism won in the battle for explaining and modeling reality.

  The insult in the ID debate is that creationists want to have this debate over and over and over at perpetuity. Fuckers...

Re:First

[ElBeano]

Worse, this overreaction is exactly what creationists will use to prove that evolution is more like a religion than not, that it is the scientists who have closed minds. It plays into their hands like you wouldn't believe. Witness Ben Stein's recent production, "Expelled".

Re:First

[Hyperspite]

God damn, its a hypothesis that follows from what we know. This makes it the most useful hypothesis for exploring our genetic history. The only thing, the ONLY thing that science cares about is whether an idea can be useful for explaining something. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, because there is no way to certify that your senses are telling you the truth. Can we just stop using the word "true" please? It's a misleading term.

Re:First

[Beige]

I think you'll find that's 'midgit' not 'midgets'. Heathen.

Lo:

http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg

Re:First

[Dannkape]

While a very good description of "science" indeed, you should look into the personal lives and believes of several of the "greatest evolutionist" through history. Terribly many of them haven't merely been "noble scientists", on the search for "thruth", ready to accept whatever that might be, but rather been die-hard anti-christians, searching for something to justify their believes, (and having realized better than most christians where to best attack Christendom.)

(On a side note, of course Creationism isn't "science", by science' definition. The Bible says there is a spiritual realm as well as a physical one. But science can't deal with anything beyond the physical one. As a result scientist easily conclude that as they can't "put God in a box", He cannot exist.)

Re:First

[Sasayaki]

I am wary of euphemisms, but yes- you make an excellent point. Learning why creationism and its watered down cousin intelligent design are flawed, including their incorrect application of the scientific method, should be something discussed- but the practices themselves should not be given merit. As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world. If this man proposes something similar, then yes- I support him. However, creationism by stealth is not something I can honestly condone.

Re:First

[Haekel]

You're using a lot of red herrings in your response but the truth is evolutionism is such a sacred cow, and it is protected from ANY scrutiny, regardless. Anyone who dares to question the adult fairytale called evolution is met with ad hominem comments and or fired. It is a shame and I don't know why more people are outraged by this. The hokey idea that man are distant relatives of field mice is taught in schools and people are prohibited by questioning it, but something like study of intelligent design in life is forbidden from even seeing the light of day. It absolutely makes no sense.

Re:First

[digitig]

As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world.

It's good teaching practice. And what's more, once you learn to spot flaws in the bad code you might start finding flaws in the stuff that's supposed to be good. I think that applies to the scientific method, too. If you understand the how and why the scientific method works you can get an understanding of its limitations (as I mentioned earlier, it's based on the assumptions that there really is a world that we're observing and that rules that have applied in the past will continue to apply for instance. Both very good assumptions for getting on with life, but it's important to understand that they're pragmatic rather than strictly rational -- that way you get people who believe in science, not in scientism).

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

I think logic and critical thinking should be taught in schools

Re:First

[zerogeewhiz]

Correct. For those screaming about how closed-minded discussing ID or creationism is they are themselves being closed-minded and not getting the point.

Step 1: Put down The God Delusion.
Step 2: Think for yourself. Mr Dawkins is terribly clever, yes, but you too have a brain. And being clever does not make him right about everything.
Step 3. Read Reiss' article. It won't hurt. You might even learn something.

Re:First

[Atriqus]

I would say "you should ask the devout Catholic that wrote the text book as he will probably be able to better level with you."

Re:First

[Concerned Onlooker]

"...only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt..."

That would be nobody's. The way you used it here was in the plural form, as in 'a bunch of nobodies.' Oh, never mind. You got it right.

Re:First

[hitmark]

quick guesstimate is that most will have picked it up from a parent figure earlier in their life...

Re:First

[pacificleo]

World is not flat world is balanced on the back of turtle and We should teach "Bird and Bee" in Biology . as mentioned before in /. this not science this is sophistry

Re:First

[pacificleo]

Don't forget that you are reading this on a computer which was made by scientific methods of inquiry. I will give equal time to Creationism when it will get me a equally good machine to read /. and contrary to public perception iPhone is not Jesus phone so that won't count

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an idiot, so can you explain gravity for me? Not the effect, but the the mechanism - I assume you're referring to this by saying that it can be 'explained'?

Re:First

[CmdrGravy]

Or more worryingly, in British schools anyway, the teachers most likely won't be able to question any child who expresses creationist beliefs because to do so would not be 'multi cultural' enough.

If this guy is really asking for a open scientific discussion of creationism in the classroom then this would be a great opportunity to tackle all the children who are currently being religiously programmed by their parents and actually take them to task and destroy utterly every last vestige of religious thought with a giant science cannon weilded by the teacher.

A lot of teachers are too wishy washy and liberal to properly challenge religious nonsense in the classroom and a lot more are worried about being accused of racism or other such nonsense so in addition it needs to be made clear to teachers they not only have the right to crush religious expression in their classrooms they also have a duty to do so.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

Source please.

I'd like to see an article that clearly shows evolutions FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER as a fact, with evidence. I'm not talking about CHANGES WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.

This is a sincere question.

Re:First

[Alsee]

A scientist / clergyman argues that creation should be discussed in science class and 'scientists' want him fired or this?

What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?

No. You obviously didn't read the fine article.

According to the article a scientist / clergyman is trying to teach science in science class and he's having trouble because a few of the students come in badly misinformed by the anti-evolution PR campaign. This scientist / clergyman wants "to let[] the facts prove themselves", but he says he's having trouble teaching them the facts. He is trying to adjust his teaching of the facts... his teaching of evolution... he's trying to adjust his teaching in a way to help dogmatic resistant creationist students learn the science and learn the facts.

What ever happened to the notion that your scientific theories are better because they match the available evidence more closely than anything else available?

Right. All of the available evidence confirms evolution. The problem he is having is that some students are coming in and refusing to pay any attention to the lessons and the evidence.

Now we have scientists trying to silence a dissenting opinion?

There is political controversy over evolution and there is social controversy over evolution, however there is no actual scientific controversy over evolution.

Of professional earth and life scientists, rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of them agree evolution is the one and only scientific theory supported by the evidence. If you want to look to the tenth of a percent, 99.9% are on the evolution side. And those 99.9% consider the 0.1% to be crackpots pushing idiological bogoscience. Out of about 480,000 earth and life scientists only about 700 give any credence at all to Creation Science.

And as for high school science classes, you must teach an accurate overview of the field as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. To the nearest full percent, 100% of professionals biologists consider evolution to be the one and only understanding and practice of modern biology.

There is one and only one accurate presentation of the professional field of biology. 100% of biologists practice biology on the basis of evolution, there is no dispute over that fact, there is no dissent from that fact.

This attitude makes me more weary of Evolution than of any other scientific theory. no matter how may ways people try to argue ague against gravity or electricity, they are simply confronted with the evidence or simply ignored.

If only that would work with evolution. But people dogmatically dedicated against evolution simply ignore the evidence, and we can't simply ignore them because they keep lobbying politicians and running public relations misinformation campaigns and they keep trying to seize control of public school science classes to kick actual science out and substitute anti-evolution pseudoscience.

Only Biologists try to get heretics fired or simply silenced in defense of the sacred Evolution dogma.

If a high school science teacher is teaching that the sun is powered by electricity or anything else misrepresenting science, then yes, that teacher damn well should be fired. Or at minimum transfered to be a gym teacher or something and get some proper science teachers to ACCURATELY present the various fields of science as understood and practiced by professionals in those fields.

The notion that there is any dispute over the science is pure PR fiction.
The number of anti-evolutionists is roughly comparable to the number of scientists that claim the sun is powered by electricity.
Out of about 480,000 earth and life scientists about 479,300 are on the evolution side.

-

Re:First

[tyrione]

How this guy became the voice of the Royal Society shows you how UnRoyal and UnFreemasonry this Society has become.

Re:First

[digitig]

Who has suggested giving equal time to Creationism? Anyone can knock down straw men, but reading the discussion and responding to the points made needs a bit of thought something too many folks here seem to struggle with whenever anybody mentions religion.

Re:First

[digitig]

"Crush religious expression", eh? So you don't have the confidence in your own viewpoint to let it stand up to intelligent debate; other viewpoints need to be "crushed"? If you "crush" religious expression in the classroom, religious parents will just take their kids out of the state system and the kids will get exposure to no alternative viewpoint. Way to defuse religious/secular tensions!

Re:First

[teh kurisu]

That's not strictly true. Science is very much conclusions seeking evidence, but with the requirement of falsifiability. And I don't believe that religion seeks evidence at all. It is simply conclusions, and if some corroborating evidence happens to come along, then all the better.

I think that the fact that a theory is controversial should be taught in a science class, and the reasons for it should be discussed, in the context of scientific method. You can't teach scientific method without discussing what constitutes scientific method and what does not.

Re:First

[pacificleo]

same with Bible Brigade , try telling them that sun is center of universe and they will give you Hemlock , try telling pope that its impossible for a old man with white beard to walk on water and they will hang you . than question remain who contributed more to the progress of society ? Scientist or theologists (priest if you like ) . Its not fair to enjoy fruit of science while questioning he very basic premise of Science .

Re:First

[digitig]

Again, who is "questioning the very basic premise of Science" (whatever that is, and I'm interested that Science now gets a capital letter like God does). I think it's perfectly fair to acknowledge the benefits of the scientific method whilst still asking whether science can necessarily answer all of the questions that are of concern to us? Note that I say "asking", I don't say "claiming blindly that it can't (or, for that matter, can). When science ceases to allow questions, it ceases to be science.

Who has contributed more to the progress of society? Well, a lot of historians of science reckon that science developed out of religion; specifically that the Judeo-Christian religion taught that the universe is ordered, and so people started looking for that order. Those who thought the universe chaotic didn't bother looking because they didn't expect there to be anything to find. And, of course, religious institutions have traditionally been major sponsers of science. On that reckonning, religion can claim that it has contributed everything of its own and everything of science, so it's a clear winner. Too many people look at a view of history that has been heavily filtered by 19th century anti-clericalism.

Oh, and on the past abuses in the name of religion -- have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? He advocates initiating an apocalypse because the destruction of humanity is better than allowing religious people to continue to exist. It's an interesting book, that comes with a ringing endorsement from Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalist extremism, anybody? It's not just the religious who will kill and die for their ideologies.

Re:First

[pacificleo]

how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask . Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework . Newtonian Mechanics fail at subatomic level so we have theory of relativity and now there is no Ambiguity thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground

Re:First

[pacificleo]

"Now personally I love that idea. Stop creationism dead in it's tracks as an alleged "scientific theory" I think its like agreeing to negotiate with a terrorist

Re:First

[coastwalker]

Hey who said anything about right wrong or fair. I've had it up to here with these medieval religious types, not only do they think that they have a god given right to overpopulate the planet and kill everything on it through global warming and pollution of one sort or another - but they also want to wind the clock back past the enlightenment and subject us all to their superstitious crap. So no way am I going to sit back and let these loonies destroy my culture with their backwards rubbish. In case you hadn't noticed we are living in a time when so called religious fundamentalists of one sort or another are trying to kill us all for kicks because they don't believe we are human. Well game theory says your chances are better if your response matches your opponent. So no I'm not going to sit back and whistle whilst these creepy mentally ill people change science into a cultural pursuit like sociology.

This is war, the killing is only just around the corner, just wait and see.

Re:First

[digitig]

how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask .

That is the present situation, yes. It wasn't the historical situation; for much of recorded history there was a religious powerbase that dictated one specific interpretation of religious questions.

Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework .

Again, that's the situation now, but it's a view of science that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, with the development of logical positivism and Popper's idea of falsifiability. Newton did great stuff that we have been able to build on, but he didn't work according to the modern scientific method (which is why you find so much mysticism and alchemy in his writings; it's embarrasing to those who see a black-and-white "science always right, mysticism always wrong" that a religious mystic like Newton could get so much right.

A lot of the acrimony in the science v. religion arguments comes from a lack of awareness of our history. Scientists assume that the modern view of science is the way it's always been, but it's a 20th century development. Religious fundamentalists think that they're going back 2000 years but their ideas only go back to the 19th century. Reading up on the philosophy of science and its history can be really valuable. It won't change your ideas of who is right and who is wrong, but it should show you that the lines are not as crisply drawn as the Dawkins brigade would have us believe.

thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground

If there were hardly any common ground there would be hardly any territory to fight over -- Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria". I agree that there's a lot of ground that is not common -- everything metaphysical (unfortunately we need metaphysics -- even the scientific method has metaphisical foundations -- and nobody -- not the scientific, not the religious, not the philosophical -- has yet come up with a dependable way of dealing with it). But all religions that teach interventionist deities are teaching that there is common ground, if not common methodology, between science and religion and so come within the scope of scientific investigation.

Re:First

[Zashi]

Please don't use the term "survival of the fittest". It was not coined by Darwin, it was coined by Herbet Spencer. He was a social Darwinist. He used the principles described by Darwin and applied them (erroneously, IMHO) to sociology.

Secondly, in evolutionary biology, fitness is defined as number of offspring an organism has. To survive means to have successfully passed on genes to another generation. So if fitness is greater than zero the organism has already survived. To say "survival of the fittest" is to say "those who successfully breed successfully breed." //Took a whole course JUST on evolution.

Re:First

[OhHellWithIt]

Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!

As someone else already pointed out, Michael Reiss is advocating discussion of creationism in class, not teaching it as fact. You can't show the emperor has no clothes unless you can get him out in public view. The same goes for other crackpot hypotheses. I am pretty sure that my kid's Holocaust class at religious school this year will include discussion of Holocaust denial, so that she and her classmates will know how to debunk the people who say it didn't happen.

Re:First

[thepotoo]

You will not be able to find such an article, as one which can conclusive show speciation will effectively end this whole debate.

Naturally, speciation as we know it takes at least (maybe about) hundreds or thousands of years, so you're not likely to ever see such a study in your lifetime.

However, if you talk to the evolutionary biology department of your local university the professors there should be able to give you a detailed explanation of how change in gene frequency over time creates differences in phenotype (I'm assuming you don't reject this, there's a million sources for it - maybe one of Grant's studies would be most convincing), and how sufficient differences in phenotype can prevent individuals of the same species from reproducing-that's about as close as you can come to showing speciation.

Additionally compounding the problem is that the term "species" is piss-poorly defined, basically as just "we know it when we see it", allowing a whole lot of wiggle-room for creationists.

Re:First

[CmdrGravy]

On the contrary I have perfect confidence in science which is why I am sure once it is used effectively in the classroom to counter religious mumbo jumbo I have no doubt that the religious mumbo jumbo will effectively be crushed.

It's true some of the more extreme religious nutjobs may decide to take their children elsewhere but at least they will then become outcast from general society at large and tolerance for their ridiculous ideas will fade. At that point it may be possible to take some practical steps to eliminate them once and for all. I don't think it's going too far to suggest bringing back the death penalty for dealing with any persistant hardcore child abusers who refuse to renounce their faith, they will even enjoy the experience of becoming martyrs and meeting their God ( or not ) rather sooner than they expected.

Re:First

[digitig]

Death penalty for thought crime, eh? Welcome to the brave new totalitarian world. If you want to kill anybody who disagrees with your beliefs, in my book that makes your beliefs a religion. Hope you remember to add yourself to your own list.

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

I watched you go from a very logical scientific position to a fairy-tale in less than one sentence. You are right that we see micro-evolution everywhere, but it has never been seen that macro-evolution has once occurred on this planet. You may believe that it could happen, but that is not observable, testable, or provable and therefore is not scientific, but instead part of your religion. We have never seen a dog produce a non-dog. If they can, as you say. Why don't they do it today? Something we can measure or at the very least record. You "claim" evolution is science. I say it a religion that is only surviving off tax payer money! Don't like it. Prove me wrong. As if you could!

Re:First

[jafac]

Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!

I would suggest that, yes, those subjects SHOULD be mentioned. And they should be used as examples of wrongness. You say that we should use critical thinking to determine what is and is not taught? Screw that! I think we need to be teaching OUR KIDS critical thinking.

(In fact, I think that Alchemy was 'taught' in my High School chemistry class - and it was taught as an example of how the ancients "got it wrong" - and how, transmutation of elements *is* theoretically possible (nuclear physics) but not by any known chemical process.

In fact, in my HS Biology classes, I remember also being taught about "alternatives" to Evolution - and even outright fraud like Pildown Man. These bolstered student's critical thinking skills, and knowledge of the Scientific Method - how it works, and why it is the way that it is.

Freedom of Speech means, Bad Ideas get the honest debunking they so richly deserve - and the listeners to that speech don't have to be bothered with people who believe in that garbage, because they'll not only know it's crap, but they'll know the reasons WHY. However, there is a certain responsibility by the defenders of the correct ideas - to have to carry the weight of being skillful enough and knowledgeable enough to call out liars and charlatans, and to resist the temptation to just silence critics and dingbats. That's the easy way out, and it serves no purpose other than to give the purveyors of pseudoscience a perceived platform of martyrdom from which to continue to spew their garbage. This lends an air of credibility to completely undeserving ideas; and does more harm than good.

Re:First

[srussia]

Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!

No, clearly schools should teach what the parents want their children to be taught. Like-minded parents should be able to set up their own schools without being burdened by paying for the education of others. That way, there is more choice for everyone. Let the best education win.

Re:First

[aproposofwhat]

If you're going to try to use skeptical arguments to deny evolution, I reserve the right (since the putative Holocaust happened before I was born) to be equally skeptical about events prior to 1964.

Absolute proof?

Show me some.

Face it, you're just using sophistry to defend a creation myth cobbled together by some Bronze Age priests from other myths during a period of exile where justifying the existence of their religion was vital.

Compare that to the tens or hundreds of thousands of well sourced studies that all add their weight to the theory of evolution, and then tell me why it should be given equal weight.

Re:First

[Fallen Seraph]

You and the Anonymous Coward above amaze me with your lack of reading comprehension. I never said we have SEEN new species appear from another organism, I said the evidence we have suggests that it occurs. Evidence such as fossil evidence, which shows a clear progression between many types of organisms on the planet.

And yes, as another poster above mentioned, the term "Species" really is ill-defined. As for your apparent belief that organisms can't change over time (which is pretty much the entire point of evolution, be it natural selection or artificial selection)... well, have you ever seen a dog? I don't know about you, but the variation between a Pug and a Great Dane is pretty damn huge to me. It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that they can continue changing further until they have even less in common and be considered 2 different species. And we've seen the splintering of dogs and other animals, be it due to environmental factors or factors imposed by man. To say that microevolution is real but that macroevolution is not is almost silly. Macroevolution IS microevolution, just on a significantly longer time frame, and using a more persistent environmental variable to select the survivors of each subsequent generation.

@Zashi: BTW, Darwin DID use the term, but he used it as a metaphor. Your right about Spencer, but he didn't coin the term, he simply used it far more often and named one of his economic theories after it.

Re:First

[eaolson]

I'd like to see an article that clearly shows evolutions FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER as a fact, with evidence. I'm not talking about CHANGES WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.

OK, here you go. From talkorigins.org:

• A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
• Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
  A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
• Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

Many other examples there, too.

Re:First

[Yunzil]

You are right that we see micro-evolution everywhere, but it has never been seen that macro-evolution has once occurred on this planet.

If you define "macroevolution" as "speciation", then yes, we have seen it happen. How do you define macroevolution? I hope it isn't...

seen a dog produce a non-dog

because that wouldn't be evolution. It would be creation.

Re:First

[dreamsofcaffeine]

I have one word to say to your response sir:

"RAMEN!"

There, fixed that for you.

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

My reading comprehension is quite fine. As for your point above, let me break this down for you so that you can keep up. I said that "micro-evolution" happens. It is stated very clearly in the Bible that animals will bring forth after their kinds. You can have a Great Dane or a Pug and they are both still dogs. To quote from you, "It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that they can continue changing further until they have even less in common and be considered 2 different species." There in lies the problem with your argument. You have to imagine and that isn't science. It's a religion. Secondly, the only difference between a fairy-tale and what you believe is that in a fairy-tale you need a kiss to turn a frog into a prince, in evolution, you replace the kiss with long periods of time. You can believe that if you want, but don't call it science. Also, fossils don't count as evidence. When you find bones in the ground, the only thing you know is that this creature died. You don't know that it had any offspring. Example, you breed a horse with a donkey and you get a mule. Mules are infertile, but if you found their bones in the ground, some evolutionist is going to consider that the precursor of somebody even though it isn't. As I have stated before, evolution sounds logical but logical isn't necessarily right!

Re:First

[TheCarp]

I would say that they are really the same thing.

"macroevolution" is really just an arbitrary type of evolution that arises from mapping between the line of organisms and taxonomy.

What is a "dog" vs "non-dog". As far as I know the definition of a species is that members of that species can breed with eachother and create fertile offspring. A new species exists when there is a group that can has these properties and cannot produce fertile offspring with the other group. (I am open to correction here, admittedly I was in the bio class in HS that skipped taxonomy entirely and focused mostly on molecular biology... we talked a lot more about the crebs and citric acid cycles than evolution or taxonomy)

Anyway, its a fairly arbitrary concept. Its easy to develop taxonomies today but... thats after millions and millions of years of evolution. dogs and cats are quite different. However, at what point do you declare something a new species?

Its merely the accumulation of gradual changes over time. It doesn't happen that a "dog has a non-dog". It happens that mother has child who has child, and over time, one group ends up becoming too different from the other for breeding to work. Traits stop moving between the groups, and they continue to diverge.

The distinction between micro and macro evolution is ephemeral. What we might term "macroevolution" is simply the accumulation of smaller changes.

-Steve

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

Firstly, species is not a well defined term as you seem to think that it is. Experts vary on any blog or scientific journal as to what exactly a species should be labeled as. I on the other hand freely admit that what I believe is a religion. I have no qualms with that statement and need no proof to back it up, even though I am fully convinced that all evidence that you consider to point solely to evolution to be just as viable for creation. You on the other hand consider evolution to be science. If that is true, then what is your definition of a species. The very argument that you are throwing at me, I can just as easily throw back at you. When you define "speciation", what do you mean. I assume you mean that various mutations gradually adding up over time will create a new creature that is biologically dissimilar from what we see today. I on the on the other hand would say that there are limits to change. And unlike your argument, I can prove that there have always been dogs and that they still bring forth after their kind today.

Re:First

[Bryansix]

Actually you are not quite right there. It was not Christianity that rejected Heliocentricity (is that even a word?). It was rather fallible men who sought power and did not want to appear ignorant of the universe. There is nothing in the actual Bible that argues the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the Earth. It was actually scientists who had reached the wrong conclusion and then were being corrected when new evidence was presented.

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

You are welcome to believe that Steve, but it isn't science. You can't observe it or test it. Steven J. Gould a leading expert in the field of evolution believes in a concept called spontaneous generation. This is a concept that the evolution that you claim happened over millions of years happened quite rapidly instead. To me, that sounds like creation, but I digress. The point is that you as an evolutionist don't know how it happens, nor can you definitively prove that it did. You simply believe that it did. That is not science, but religion.

Re:First

[TheCarp]

Not science? well no, you are right, its not science. It was actually more like semantics, since my point was simply that "micro" vs "macro" evolution is an arbitrary distinction and why that is.

It includes, as needed to make the point, my own description of evolution and definitions from taxonomy. This isn't science, its english.

Now, I was using my model of evolution to describe how the current state of things came to be. Your right, thats not science. Science would be taking this model, and devising tests which could disprove those statements (then doing the tests and publishing the results).

Now, Steven J Gould probably has more information than I do. As such, it sounds like he has come to use a rather different model than I use. I can't speak as to this, as I don't know his model.

The reason its not religion is precisely because I am willing to say that new data can modify the theory. Maybe it wasn't many millions of years, Well, we can ask what the implications of that are, and we can devise a test to see if the new model works.

Thats why I hesitate to guess that you arn't too familiar with Science. There is no proof of anything in science. Only models of how we can explain to eachother how things work, and the never ending desire to know where our model fails. No theory is ever "proven". At best a theory isn't ruled out by any currently known data.

Creationists regularly take advantage of this precision of the language of science, because science is not a relm of certainty, however, its often the relm of many "nines" of certainty.

-Steve

Re:First

[Tekzel]

Let ME get this straight. You are saying that a creationist should be allowed to teach creationism, a thing for which there is absolutely zero proof in the world, in a class where the object is to teach the students to use scientific methodology to come up with a hypothesis, find PPRRROOOOFFFFF to support it, and develop it into a full fledged theory? A scientific theory mind you, not a hypothesis, which is what all religion and creationism is. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe this analogy is accurate, I don't know. If you ran a business and found out that one of your delivery drivers was scooting around in your company truck doing all kinds of crazy stuff, would you fire him? This guy was scooting around and trying to teach baseless religion in a science class.

I have no problem with him teaching creationism. IN a religion class. NOT in science class. It is... not... science. Thus it belongs not in a science class. Why don't we teach culinary arts in science class? Or comparative literature. Are you getting the idea yet?

Re:First

[Tekzel]

Damn I despise "fixed that for you" posts. Almost as much as "first post!" posts. Then you get really stupid ones like this, which should result in a 30 day restriction from posting on forums.

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

Quite the contrary. I would agree that the distinctions between "macro" and "micro" are very arbitrary. And trying to debate over something to which you cannot decide on terms is fruitless. One point you made is erroneous "There is no proof of anything in science." Really, so the human forearm doesn't have two bones? I thought that was scientific and fairly well established. However, my point was that evolution and science are two different things. People attempt to make them synonymous but they are not. You say that you are willing to modify your theory based on proof. Here is a website to a bit of proof for creation. It was submitted to a peer-review journal and has yet to receive an answer. For details, go to halos.com. This research was done by Robert Gentry in Knoxville, TN. As per the religion part, you have a dumb theory. I have no problem with dumb theories. As I stated before, you can believe whatever you want. The issue is that evolution is not provable but is taught in schools like it is. Both it and creationism should be removed as neither has anything to do with science. You may look at the forelimb structure of different animals (example: a bat and a human) and say that they probably had a common ancestor. I would look at it and say that they probably had a common designer. Neither one is provable and neither one should be taught in school.

Re:First

[renegadesx]

No not really, its more like attacking the terroist rather than pretend the terroist isn't there. Explain why creationism is bullshit, shoot the terroist.

Re:First

[Fallen Seraph]

You're right, a dead organism doesn't necessarily prove it's related to anything, but we know MUCH more than "it died" and the majority of the fossil record isn't animals we find once or twice, but that we find all over the place. Additionally, even if an animal didn't have offspring, we know it must've had an ancestor, and genetic "leaps" aren't all that common. We see, as a said, a slow progression much more often. So to discount the entire fossil record, which, frankly, is ENORMOUS, because things like infertile crossbreeds exist is rather silly. But, for a moment, lets return to the Great Dane and the Pug. They are both dogs, yes, and as such, they can interbreed. That being said, there are 37 different species of deer. Many of those can interbreed and produce fertile offspring as well. So why are they different species? Again we return to the issue of the vagueness of the term. And yes, I did use the word imagine. My mistake. But again, this is only because macroevolution, practically by definition, requires significant spans of time, mostly due to the rarity of advantageous genetic mutations. We've only been playing with the concept of natural selection for about 150 years or so, and it's only in the last 50 that we've really begun to understand genetics.

As for your frog-prince "analogy"... that's not how it works either. The crux of it, which you missed entirely, is environmental factors which give a certain offspring an advantage, which in turn increases its likelihood to reproduce. All evolution says is that organisms that are better suited for their environment will be more likely to produce offspring. Over a longer period of time, these changes can accumulate to the point where we can consider it an entirely new type organism. In Darwin's age, we didn't know where these changes came from, but now genetics shows us spontaneous mutation and exactly how genetic breeding occurs. The mistake you seem to be making is that you believe that there is some goal that evolution works toward. It does not. And the changes themselves are not a product of evolution either. Most mutations cause the organism to die earlier, to be frank (just look at genetic diseases). Some, though, give them an advantage and are more likely to be passed on. There is no real mystery as to how it works, and it's certainly not magic.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree that we certainly do see animals throughout the fossil record that are much the same, and again you are right that we find many of them throughout the fossil record. The difference is that you make the assumption that this happened over millions of years. I make the assumption that we have a fossil record (which is indeed enormous) because of a great flood. A flood would explain the huge fossil grave yards that we find them in and the fact that many of them are stream orientated. Look up a creationist professor named Walter Veith on google video. He has a whole lecture series dealing with this particular topic. He covers, in great detail, the geological column, radiological dating, and turbidity currents that could easily explain all of what you consider to be evidence for evolution.

On your great spans of time, I would agree that it is easy to imagine those changes over a vast expanse. It is also easy to imagine that a car can transform into a giant talking robot, but it doesn't make it true.

On your point about mutations, the book of Genesis describes man and the environment being considerably superior to what we have today. The mutations that you speak of could be considered genetic breakdown after many copy's of copy's from the original. After all, I am a programmer. If I took a program and made a copy of a copy of a copy many thousands of times, then I would be lucky that the software ran at all. I find it amazing that we can even have this conversation, so to me the original must have been amazing. I agree that most mutations are harmful. I would say that it is a good example of how far we and our environment have degraded.

On the topic of natural selection. That is just a mechanism that selects the most fit to continue. It does not add any diversity and in fact inhibits diversity. An example would be humans today. We are wiping out wild life at an alarming rate because we are the most fit to survive (or so the theory goes). It seems to be working in the opposite direction from creating greater diversity that evolutionists claim happens.

I am not trying to misconstrue what you say, but simply point out that there is equally plausible and viable alternative answers on the creationist end. As I stated before, what you say is logical but it may not necessarily be right.

Besides if your right, there are no consequences to me believing what I believe. If I'm right, you're in a lot of trouble. I am not saying this to scare or scold you, nor do I say it out of some sense of superiority. I was where you are now and I am now convinced that I was wrong. Believe what you wish, but evolution isn't science any more that my back door is a swimming pool. There are many problems that evolutionists can't deal with. One example would be the shrinking sun. Take it back millions of years in time and it is nearly the same size as earths orbit around it today. This was when the dinosaurs were supposed to be walking around on the planet! It doesn't make any sense.

Please understand that I consider you to be a very intelligent person and have had a great deal of fun with this debate today.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

In my school i was taught that any debate give a certain legitimacy to a notion . so no matter how much of a stupidity this idea of creationism represent to me . but when i argue my case i can bet there will be few observer who will associate some legitimacy to the notion . this is exactly whats happening on /. with thread like this . thats why we should shoot the idea of this "Equal time crap "

Re:First

[TheCarp]

Interesting article. Though, as I read it, it seemed well.... no tvery well thought out. Actually, it wasn't very convincing. Mostly because it kept saying things like "could only have".... with no mention of why that could be, and essentially makes its arguments using very bad analogy.

That doesn't make him wrong though, so I figured maybe a little reading on just what are "polonium halos" from another source... oh wait... this theory has been roundly refuted and discredited: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

but surely you knew that.

there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.

Its not scientific, but its not the the Halos article that passes my bullshit filter. The problem here is, lets say this was true, lets say polonium DID cause these rings (as highly unlikely as it is).... scientists start asking questions and asjusting their models to the new data.

This guy seems to just be taking his old idea (creationism) and finding the facts that fit it, and then calling it proof. Its not just unscientific, its intellectually dishonest.

-Steve

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

I will say this exactly as has been stated by Dr. Gentry on his site. "Despite what you find on various evolutionist websites, polonium halos â" actually creation halos â" are well and alive as unequivocal evidence of God's fiat creation of planet Earth. The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the internet is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims." This remains true to this day. So the refutation that you claim is so scientific can't get published in a scientific journal? Further, "First, because geologists claim that granites formed naturally, this means it should be possible to reproduce a small piece of granite in the lab under the same conditions under which geologists presume that giant granite monoliths formed. For that reason over 25 years ago, in the pages of EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, I issued a challenge to the entire geological community to reproduce just a single hand-sized piece of granite in the lab to confirm their unverified assumption that granites formed naturally. Their abject failure to do this is discussed in Chapter 15 and other places in my book, which you can access at www.halos.com. All the experiments attempting to do this always have ended with a formation of a rock that is significantly different from the texture of granite. For decades there has been nothing but failure and more failure. Moreover, and just as significantly, never have any of the synthetic rocks from such experiments contained the creation halos, as does granite itself." So they can't reproduce what they say is a naturally occurring event in a lab? That's interesting! Further, "Evolutionists also claim creation halos in granites formed naturally rather than being the result of God's supernatural creation. So again, by their own admission, it must be possible to reproduce them in the lab in the here and now. Their deafening silence about their continuing failure to do this is also discussed in my book, both in Chapter 15, and in earlier chapters. In other words, the entire basis of all evolutionary geology and age dating has long ago been falsified by experiments performed in the lab along with the indelible imprints of His Fingerprints in Earth's Genesis rocks. But evolutionists and others opposed to the distribution of these results are not only doing their best to hide from it themselves, but are surreptitiously doing all in their power to cast these results in doubt and thus dissuade Christians, especially Christian religious leaders, from taking a strong stand supporting Genesis' literal six days of creation and God's seventh day of rest. In essence, they have formed a conspiracy of silence to evade what they cannot overthrow, in spite of the fact that the Genesis record of creation is unambiguously restated in the Fourth of the Ten Commandments. " So if they know how they are created, why not go prove it in a lab? Dr. Gentry proposed not only what he claims in his thesis but a built in way to disprove it which no one has yet to meet the challenge of. I am well aware of the religious tone in this web site and there is nothing wrong with that. Otherwise, all the evolutionary web sites posting data would need to silenced as well. So here is my question to you. If it is as thoroughly disproven as you say, then why has no evolutionist ever challenged Dr. Gentry in a peer-reviewed journal like they are supposedly required to? I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't if they could. Just a thought.

Re:First

[TheCarp]

Yes I read much of that right on his website.

Frankly, it still smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Afterall, isn't he criticizing those same journals for not publishing him? Why would a peer reviewed journal publish a paper thats just well, a refutation of his ideas which also don't make the cut?

This guys arguments are just bad. He keeps saying things like "if granite formed naturally, then they should be able to replicate it in a lab". Really? Thats an utterly silly claim, much like many of his claims. Just because nobody has figured out how to entirely replicate a process in a lab doesn't mean that the process is entirely misunderstood.

This guy is either intellectually dishonest, or delusional. Possibly both.

-Steve

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

Think about what you just said, seriously. So they don't understand the process entirely but they know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that it was natural? That smacks of intellectual dishonesty. As I have said before, their argument sounds perfectly logical, but it's not necessarily right. Secondly, he did get published, it's recorded very well in his book.

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

Just a note, he was published 20 times on this particular topic. Go here for details. http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm

Re:First

[renegadesx]

I doubt anyone but trolls on /. would argue for that equal time garbage. I am not saying "teach it" I am saying "teach against it" where a science teacher saying "kids, creatoinism as science is totally utter garbage"

Re:First

[gandmk]

I think you need to look at the the facts swept under the rug list,it's a big list.

Re:First

[gandmk]

We need to look at the genetics to understand Micro and macro evolution,variation within a Kind is natural selection but it is a loss of genetic variation whereas macro needs to add information to the gene.Willful ignorance and denial are not science.

Re:First

[TheCarp]

Well the thing is, there is no evidence whatsoever for anything but a natural process.

Thats the problem with the entire argument. I think Dawkins said it best. There might be a china tea pot in low orbit around the sun, somewhere beyond mercury. We have no way to detect something so small and far away. We probably never will. Even if we sent space craft there, the chances of comming close enough to detect it, infinitessimally small.

If there is a china teapot there, we will never know for sure.

However, does that mean that if I postulate that there is such a teapot that you are the crazy one for not believing me because you can't prove there isn't one?

No, there is no reason other than a few ridiculous stories that someone told.

I am in no way saying all of his facts are wrong, simply that he jumps to fantastical conclusions. From everything I have found his conclusions are thoroughly debunked, and the debunkers simply made a better evidence based case than he did.

If, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, you insist on believing the earth is only a couple o fthousand years old and formed in moments, then I highly suggest seeking psychiatric attention.

-Steve

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

Firstly, I follow a different model for planetary change. If indeed a flood occurred on this planet, which there is plenty of evidence for (example is the cretacious layer or chalk layer or the rock layers in canyons all over the world being easily explained by turbidity currents underwater), then all the assumptions that are used in any form of radiometric dating are instantly nullified. Walter Veith has a great lecture series on this that can be seen on google video. There is also the age of most of the oldest plants such as the California Redwoods being around 5000 years old which fits perfectly into the Biblical chronology of a flood. Also, the age of most of the rivers on this planet are around 5000 years old. The saharah desert is also around 5000 years old. There are many more of these, but they do tend to take up a lot of space. As for the stories, a gentleman by the name of Ron Wyatt who is something of a rogue in archeology has found a number of locations that correspond to the exodus account as well as a structure that fits the size, shape, and location of Noah's ark. One video is called Discovering the Exodus and is quite interesting (check out the chariot wheels on the ocean floor and the solid gold covering for one). Not to mention the plethora of other archeologists who have found sites based on Biblical teachings and clues. I'm not saying that you have to believe it, but for me the evidence gets more heavily stacked for the Biblical model year after year. And don't worry, they have legislation coming down the pipe that will probably put me in a mental institution before long (just for witnessing or "manslaughter" as they are redefining it).

Re:First

[Yunzil]

You on the other hand consider evolution to be science.

And so does every biologist in the world.

I on the on the other hand would say that there are limits to change

Really? What are they? What is the biological mechanism that only allows changes to pile up so far and not further?

And unlike your argument, I can prove that there have always been dogs and that they still bring forth after their kind today.

Except there haven't always been dogs. Dogs are a relatively recent species.

Re:First

[Whitestone1550]

If you check out the fossil record, you will discover that your argument is incorrect. Even evolutionary scientist will admit that they find dogs and chordata (our phylum) on the lowest levels. Steven Gould has a great articles on this in several of his papers.

Re:First

[eagee]

Maybe I haven't been /.ing long enough... but I was amused :)

eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat my shorts slashdot !!

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait, is that a new one or am I too green?

It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[dbolger]

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ceoyoyo]

I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Boronx]

It should probably be discussed in any section on the history of biology as an example of an inferior theory that was replaced by a superior one.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[nawcom]

It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[oldhack]

While you're at it, throw in literary theories into science classes. Astrology should be popular also. Maybe we can get the Scientology people to sponsor that in the science class also.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ChuckSchwab]

UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.

Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[TheLink]

From the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism ), here's what he said:

"Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught."

Seems very reasonable to me.

If you do things the wrong way, you can prove you are right, but teach nothing.

If you teach nothing, you do not have a science class.

The uproar over what he said appears to be rather unscientific.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[arth1]

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.

Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method . It works on any bullshit.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Tsujiku]

"also just a theory" What do you mean? It will always be "just a theory."

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Heather D]

The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse. It would end up becoming a denial of service attack upon the system.

Frankly, it probably should be discussed in the social classes, but if the public discourse that has already happened is any indication this would probably start something resembling a riot in many schools. I seriously doubt that the same society that has allowed this mess to escalate to this level would have the spine needed to put a stop to it.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[calmofthestorm]

Yes. I remember learning LaMarckism and other ancient views (that many "teach the controversy" people seem to think is what evolution claims), and why it is utterly false and not science.

Of course you can't disprove creationism. I claim that God created all the fossils and other evidence to plant doubt and tempt us. How can you prove me wrong? You cannot. This simple lack of falsifiability is why creationism is not, and never will be, science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

And while they are at it, they can point out that the Roman Catholic Church (the one started by Peter the Apostle) is 100% OK with and supports the theory of evolution and the rest of those "christians" are simply ignorant cave-dwelling idiots.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[dzelenka]

UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.

Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...

Like the "theory of gravity"?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Drakonik]

We don't object to theories being taught, we object to things that aren't science being touted as science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[sakdoctor]

Calling creationism the antithesis of science is high praise for creationism indeed.

But this is overwhelmingly an American point of view. Science is science, and creationism is irrelevant.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[nomadic]

I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.

You couldn't spare the 60 seconds it took to read exactly what the reverend said? If you had you would have seen that's kind of what he did have in mind.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[cp.tar]

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.

Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method . It works on any bullshit.

True.
However, I find that kids are taught too much theory; dissecting creationism could prove a valuable exercise in applying the scientific method.

Bullshit is all-pervasive, and if any kind of education is to succeed, it should equip the students with proper bullshit-detectors.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[lysergic.acid]

the difference between science and pseudoscience should be taught in science classes, but that doesn't require that creationism be added into the standard curriculum. it should be up to the teacher to decide how to best convey these concepts to students. if they want to bring up creationism, they may. but if they want to use astrology, alchemy, ufology, time cube, etc. to illustrate their point, then that should be up to the discretion of the teacher.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[cp.tar]

The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse.

Tonight, on Jerry Springer: my son is an evolutionist!

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[glitch23]

It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory. Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.

Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation. The exact details are unknown which is why, unfortunately, scientists don't believe it because they seek hard facts which are not discussed in the respective religions' holy books. The various Creations though have at least two things in common: there was a beginning and it didn't happen by accident. If you stick to those general premises then you don't run into the typical separate of church and state issue that *only* arises when people want to insert topics specific to Christianity. If you make the reasoning for insertion and the actual discussion generic then those who complain of church and state go away because you can use the same excuse everyone who tries to insert Islam into the school system uses (and get away with it unfortunately): it's a history lesson. In this case, it's a scientific one.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[bytesex]

The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science. Maybe it should be prefixed with a 'shake-your-belief' class, in which you do all sorts of little experiments like trying to see colour in the semi-dark, do simple maths in base-9, explain the mating behaviour of seahorses, and compare the height and circumference of a drinking glass (just things off the top of my head that could confuse a fourteen year old).

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[modmans2ndcoming]

discussing it as a "why this is not science" subject is good. Discussing it as a scientific discipline is not good.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[TheSambassador]

I think religion should be taught, just not in Science classes. Creationism is not Science because it isn't something that can be tested.

However, "seperation of church and state" aside, would it be so bad to have a "World Religions" course in high school? Maybe one that covered the top 10 relgions in the world, talked about what they believe and explained their common practices. This wouldn't be a "teaching the Bible as fact" kind of thing, it would be the promotion of understanding of other cultures and beliefs. I have actually met people who actually believe that all Muslims are terrorists.

Of course, the tricky thing is how to cover all religions equally and without bias. A Christian teacher is probably a lot more likely to speak of other religions with disdain than with the kind of unbiased coverage that this kind of class would require.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[rhyder128k]

It's possible to demonstrate one of the scientific principles that contradicts creationism.

Take five creationists and five scientists 200 miles into the wilderness. At this point the traits of believing in what the bible and believing in science said are equally represented within the sample group.

Now give the scientifically orientated people GPS units. The creationists can rely on their God to help them.

A week later, amongst the survivors, the trait of believing in God has been eradicated. Hopefully those people will pass that trait onto their offspring.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[antaeus]

When I took biology in high school, we discussed some scientific ideas that proved not to have scientific merit - for example, spontaneous generation, or the ancient belief that sickness was due to an imbalance of earth, air, fire and water in the body. I think that creationism and other pseudoscience should be taught in science classes to illustrate a point.

But theories like spontaneous generation could be disproved without causing religious and political turmoil. There are a number of people who believe in intelligent design and creationism, and they can make a lot of trouble for any teacher who debunks such ideas in a classroom. Teachers need to know that their school boards will support them in such situations - and it's very possible that the school boards have members who favor those ideas.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mea37]

You know, the whole FSM thing is funny, but when it becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every discussion about creationism, it gets old fast.

The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.

By that yardstick, it does not make sense to worry about showing why FSM isn't science -- because nobody honestly believes that it is.

Whether one believes that science can answer all questions, or that the answers science yields are true (or what "true" even means in that context) are matters of philosophy. But when people are honestly pushing to blur the distinction between a non-scientific conclusion and a scientific conclusion by trying to insist on teaching the former in a course about the latter, then it does make sense to ensure that the curriculum includes a section on telling the difference, and a high-profile example like creationism certainly would belong as part of that discussion.

This does not mean teaching it "alongside evolution", though. The true subject matter would be the reasoning proces behind the theory, not the theory itself; and hence it would properly belong in an introductory-level general science class -- not a biology class in particular.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Skye16]

I highly doubt string theory is based on *no* evidence. If it were, it wouldn't even be a theory. It'd be a hypothesis.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sneak a quick US bash into a story making Europeans look like jackasses? How savvy of you! You get a cookie :D

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[nomadic]

Yes. I remember learning LaMarckism and other ancient views (that many "teach the controversy" people seem to think is what evolution claims), and why it is utterly false and not science.

Lamarckism was a perfectly logical and convincing theory to explain evolution; it turned out to be wrong, but there's nothing inherently unscientific about it in a pre-Mendelian world.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[RespekMyAthorati]

In general, "history of science" information could be taught in history class, but generally isn't since history teachers generally know very little about science. It's not unreasonable for history of science to be taught in science class, and usually is with regards to cosmology (Tortoise Back -> Crystal Spheres -> Geocentric -> Heliocentric -> Expanding Universe). Nobody that I know of objects to this on the basis that they are afraid that the students will leave class believing that giant earth-bearing tortoises are real.
If creationism were described that way (i.e. this is what people used to believe, but now we know better), then that discussion probably does belong in science class.
If fundamentalist parents don't like that, fuck 'em.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[antifoidulus]

why it is utterly false and not science.

Careful there, just because something isn't science doesn't mean its false(or true). Science at its core is a system of observations and predictions. How that system pertains to "truth" is a very interesting and very complex branch of philosophy and should be discussed in Philosophy class. Sadly philosophy is often absent from modern education....

You are half right though, Creationism certainly is NOT science and thus should not be taught in science class. It cannot be observed or predicted, thus cannot be tested by the scientific method.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[DarkIye]

Let me tell you about my god, the FSM,

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[francium de neobie]

As a fervent believer of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm still campaigning for teaching creationism in science classes. Not just a random version of creationism though - but the one true version.

The world started from a mountain, a midget, and some trees.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Exactly people should be confronted, as early as possible with both right AND wrong thoughts, and the evidence supporting them.

Of course, anybody can make a politic like this look bad by saying "look he's asking for creationism to be taught alongside evolution !". Of course ! How else do you suggest we teach children the difference.

Something like creationism is what a literal interpretation of the bible would yield. Distribute the first chapter of genesis, have students read it. Demand the children argue for and against at least 3 interpretations of the text, right there in biology class.

Explain the problems related to this (such as people like harun yahya using violence to enforce a similar view, the use of violence in this case is apparently mandatory for muslims). I mean this is a beautiful opportunity to explain the difference between a free society, like america, and let's say politely "the alternatives" (islamic states, communist states, dictatorships, ...)

This might also be time to just research all the different versions (Christian, Jewish, islamic, buddhist, shinto, hindu, ...), and how and why these are accepted (e.g. explain that in theory it's every muslims "sacred duty" to answer challenges to creationism with first a threat, then violence, explain how buddhism sees the world and why it doesn't have a real creation myth. Show them a few of the colorful hindu parades ...

Then take creationism under the loop. The basic principle of eternal resource wars between races and even families. The fittest survive, when faced (in some way) with a resource shortage. Perhaps even give a demonstration with a genetic algorithm solving an actual problem (although this would require teachers with actual brains, so it may be a non-starter). Illustrate with the different stages of evolution, and please for once leave the dinosaurs out of it. The eye is a beautiful example since you might actually be able to actually show the different stages in real, live, touchable animals. Skin "vision" is something all humans have (e.g. you can easily detect infrared rays even behind you), but you can show it in many animals. "blind" moles can be shown to have basic focusing abilities without a lens. Then a basic simple eye like a crocodile or a lot of reptiles have, which lacks many parts a human eye has. Then human eyes. And then some animals having much, much better eyes than humans, like cats. It should be beyond obvious that all these are mere variations on a theme, and if you show it in live animals, is there really any argument left ?

Explain the problems creationism faces, such as there being some discussions relation to abiogenesis.

CONTRAST. Let people decide for themselves, having full information.

But obviously idiots will be able to say that "creationism is taught alongside evolution". And they'll be right. For that is the RIGHT way to do it.

(I do believe this is exactly how Gov. Palin "supports creationism" despite the knee-jerk press reaction against her)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The problem is that, given evolution, the superior theory is the one that survives. It is *not* at all a given that evolution will survive.

Not to give offence to anyone, but it has been all but extinguished in the entire muslim world, and it's slipping even in Turkey. (and not slipping like this message, but there is real, actual, physical violence from muslims attempting to enforce creationism in Turkey)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Frenchman113]

String Theory is not based on *physical* evidence, but it is supported by *mathematical* evidence, as are pretty much all modern scientific theories.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is exactly what the good reverend had in mind. To quote from interview given here, he says:

"Creationism is not science, and it should not be given equal time in science lessons, and it shouldn't be presented by science teachers as a scientifically valid alternative. But as a teacher, I'm comfortable when dealing in science lessons with what students bring to the lesson even if it isn't good science. So I would want to acknowledge without in any way ridiculing the student.... I want to acknowledge that for the student that is how they understand the world, and I can respect them for that, but I want to make it very clear that's not the way the overwhelming majority of scientists understand the world, and we have very good evidence-based reasons as to why scientists understand the world they do, and then nothing would delight me more than to get into the scientific evidence for evolution or the history of the universe."

Why again are his comments a matter of controversy?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[pnotequalsnp]

A theory is testable, Creationism is provably not (see Pascal's wager, or Pearl's Causality). Be careful when you use the word "Theory".

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah burn the witches. Zealotry takes many forms. Though your assumption that advanced navigation technology would be the principle decider of life and death is amusing... ever spent any time in the wilderness?

In any case, looking at the course of history it's pretty clear that either (1) religious disposition is not controlled for by evolution, or (2) evolution actually selects for religion.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[calmofthestorm]

LaMarckism has been disproven. I was saying LaMarckism is false and creationism is not falsifiabile. You misread my awkwardly constructed sentence.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Sique]

First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory.

No scientific theory can be proven. We have always to expect new information or newly discovered facts to contradict scientific theories and finally to disprove them. And that's exactly the point. That makes a theory scientific.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict String Theory. We just don't know them yet.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict Evolution. If we ever find a halfly designed and then not finished model of a potential organism, which can not have lived this way, has no known predecessor and now known parallel, then we could hypothetize that a designer was at work (and didn't finish it).

Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.

That was never a problem with a scientific theory. They often have proved to be wrong (then they got abandoned and replaced by other theories), or incomplete (then they have been extended) or being valid only for a very small subset of events (then they have been superseeded by a more general theory).
The daily work of a scientist is not to find more evidence for a well established theory. More evidence you need only for a hypothesis, a not-yet-theory. The daily work of a scientist is crashtesting theories. Hit it with extreme conditions, with imaginative setups, with an alternate hypothesis, with better measurement. If you can poke a hole in a well established theory, a scientific price is not far away. If you find yet another evidence for a well established theory, all you get is a yawn from your colleagues.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[glitch23]

This submsission is 2 years old but if you can't trust slashdot then who can you trust? The headline could be interpreted that it would be the *first* evidence for string theory. The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter. Just a lack of evidence or evidence that is interpreted in a specific manner to help agendas.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

If we ever find a halfly designed and then not finished model of a potential organism, which can not have lived this way, has no known predecessor and now known parallel, then we could hypothetize that a designer was at work (and didn't finish it).

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Platypus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

Sure looks unfinished to me.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

People should begin to understand that science and religion do not exclude each other.

Science is based on insights we as human beings are able to conclude from observations on our environment, it is not and will never be a religion. On the other hand, religion will never be able to undo what science has learned about nature. Just never confuse one with the other.

They may contradict each other in a lot of points, yet they are still orthogonal to each other. Thus, it's not a bad idea to teach both in school - and especially the difference.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[francium de neobie]

The FSM bit is still relevant because it is yet another religion with yet another theory of creation. There have been millions of religions and variations of religions and everyone is free to make one like L. Ron Hubbard did - there are so many versions of creationism anyway so why are you thinking the specific version that your specific church told you is the real one? What kind of substantiations do you have that you're so sure your version of creationism is more real than Xenu? More real than mountain, midget and trees? More real than Pangu in Chinese myth? More real than the Greek's? More real than the Indian's?

The FSM is an eye opener for those people who don't bother to contemplate possibilities - what if we take into consideration of so many versions of creationism there are and stretch our imaginations a bit? We can get to a midget, a mountain and some trees and it still won't stand out as the most ridiculous one when compared to the other religions. If you're searching for an answer to the beginning of the universe, and you stuck yourself at the first theory you heard, then you're not even trying.

And who are those people who are actually trying that, and trying much harder than you? Scientists.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[francium de neobie]

btw the "you" in my post is referring to the "students", not the GP poster.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Sique]

The platypus a) works b) is thus finished c) has wellknown predecessors (mammal-like reptils).

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for saying so. I think the scariest sentence in the other link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/14/religion) was this one:

"Nevertheless, several Royal Society fellows say his religious views make him an inappropriate choice for the post."

Science is not to be wielded as a club against people with different ideas.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

creationism as they called it, is not science its religion and does not deserve to be place in the same bucket as hard proven evidence. That is of course unless we find gods fossilized bones lol

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that religion is not based upon science but upon belief. But there is a hook in the stew. If examined at a deep enough level science also is belief based. One need go no further than various articles posted on Slashdot to find the edge of that issue. For example we are wired for three dimensions. Consequently we see "proofs" in three dimensions. If we were to examine these proofs in four or five dimensions they might make no sense at all. In essence our truths are those that we are wired to accept.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Myopic]

I daresay that all other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Mr. Slippery]

the use of violence in this case is apparently mandatory for muslims...explain that in theory it's every muslims "sacred duty" to answer challenges to creationism with first a threat, then violence

Nice bigotry you've got there.

I know plenty of Muslims. None have threatened me with violence. None have tried to push their religion on me.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, no. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in Mythology class. The distinction needs to be made that clear in schools. Only science in Science class. Underlined, full stop, no errosion for the pop-cult of the day. For a very large section of the population it's the only uncluttered view they're going to get in their lives. Make that foundation stone as pure as possible.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

seriously though i don't back any sides, i think evolution to a certain point is only a belief. As there is no hard evidence to "evolution" actually occured but only assumption was made through what was dug up, meaning you dig up what looks like a dog and you declare it to be older than a dog, or ancestor of a dog when in fact it might be different animals. Seriously, sience and religion all require some element of faith. I think they should teach all the different theories of the origin of life and all since all of them have their point and cannot be proven.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

do you mean the torturing witch hunting institutional peadophile promoters of sexual health ignorance? that roman catholic church? yeah they definately arent idiots....

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[LaskoVortex]

The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.

String theory is not taught in any class I ever took. It's not taught in anything but advanced physics courses because it's beyond the capability of the vast majority of educators to understand. I would wager that you don't know the first thing about string theory and probably lack the proper math skill to even evaluate it objectively. Reading a watered-down pop-science book on the topic one time DOESN'T count as any expertise whatsoever. Being Stephen Hawking does.

So lets compare what an evolution class discussion might look like compared to a creationism class discussion. We'll start with the evolution class:

=====
TEACHER: Class, we have finished learning the rise of the four legged terrestrial animals in the context of global climate changes a billion years ago. Any questions?

STUDENT: Yes, how do we know about the climate changes?

TEACHER: Good question. We know because we have rock samples that we can date to an accuracy of 50 million years and can compare isotopic abundance of key elements in those rocks we know to have formed in the last million years. Differences in the isotopic profiles between the two rock samples suggest rapid significant changes in the atmosphere that were likely to allow for the colonizing land by amphibian like animals. Rock samples about two billion years old suggest that earth's atmosphere before that time would have been too harsh to allow terrestrial colonization by any animal more advanced than an insect.
=====

Now for the creationism class.

=====
PRIEST: So now you have learned that god made the creatures. Any questions?

STUDENT: Could we also explain that diversity of the creatures could come about through natural variation and selection based on adaptive advantage?

PRIEST: God made the creatures.

STUDENT: But there is a geological record consistent with a diversification mechanism based on natural selection. How do we account for this geological record.

PRIEST: God made the rocks and god made different creatures.

STUDENT: Why would god deliberately make this geological record that could go a long way towards explaining biological diversity?

PRIEST: Don't question god. You are going to hell.
=====

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Silverlock]

On the whole, I agree with what you've said. However, in defense of the FSM kneejerk, I don't think the point of bringing up FSM is to try to get it accepted. Rather, the point is to bring to light why Judeo-Christian creationism is NOT accepted as science. Any argument against teaching FSM can be turned back upon the other creationists. "You can't teach this silly FSM thing! You have no evidence! It's just something you made up!" Exactly.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Lamarckism was a perfectly logical and convincing theory to explain evolution; it turned out to be wrong, but there's nothing inherently unscientific about it in a pre-Mendelian world.

Creationism was a perfectly logical and convincing theory to explaining our existence; it turned out to be wrong, but there's nothing inherently unscientific about it in a pre-scientific world.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Really? I thought religion has always been a source of conflict.

Conflict between the religious & the heretics, conflict between different religions & even conflicts between subsets of one religion.

Religion is antiquated, face it, religious folks are becoming obsolete, evolution has been favouring the more intelligent lot.

PS: I contend that religion itself has a genetic underlaying cause and is an evolutionary treat.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Hurray for religion! *sigh*

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ceoyoyo]

Sure. Maybe toss in some Greek or Hindu for comparison. And some Uri Gellar while you're at it. Plus some homeopathy.

Coincidentally, I'm teaching a bunch of biomedical graduate students about test validation and evidenced based medicine tomorrow.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ichbineinneuben]

RTFA, my friend. That is exactly what he has in mind, as he explains.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[tim_darklighter]

A lot of debate stems from the question of "Should we even teach the controversy of evolution vs. creation?" since by teaching it, credence is given to creationism as a possible "truth". That said, one of the first lessons in a science class where the scientific method is being introduced, a discussion of what is scientific (evolution, dark matter, etc.) and what is belief-based or pseudoscience (creationism, scientology, etc.) should be presented. Also, when subjects like evolution are taught, a history of the theory and the tests of its validity should be presented alongside the actual stating of the theory. Creationism has no reason to taught at this point, because it was not a scientific alternative to evolution. Teaching the controversy at this point does nothing to teach students what evolution is. The evidence for evolution is really cool and extensive, and that is where the teaching time needs to go. That said, reminders of how the scientific method works and pointing out examples is not bad, but it needs to be balanced with actually teaching the science. Chemistry, for example, is difficult enough to learn without having to discuss political controversies surrounding it.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ceoyoyo]

Hm. From that quote he really said nothing. It's not at all clear whether he thinks we should just give up on teaching science to people who believe in creationism, or if we should just break down and teach creationism as an "alternative" because it doesn't matter anyway.

I do agree with him that a 50 minute lesson isn't enough. Fortunately in most places you have a bit more than a decade of five days a week science classes. Not to indoctrinate, but to (hopefully) show how science works, what it has done for us, and how it is being advanced.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[AmonTheMetalhead]

The reason evolution selects for religion is because the religious are pretty damn aggressive, which might aid in survival. (Destroy the competition to provide one's own cult more place/food/water)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[INT_QRK]

Re: "I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and creationism...How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?"......... Yes(!),and while we're at it, isn't anyone else just a wee bit uncomfortable with the contradiction of a scientific organizations viciously campaigning to have an otherwise esteemed scientist fired for expressing an idea? Anyone remember Galileo? How about countering argument with argument, rather than intimidation? I am not defending the merits of inappropriately teaching religion in science classes. If the professor was failing to teach science and substituting religion, I would fire him or her for not doing their job. However, broaching religious (or for that matter, superstitious) counterpoint to a scientific tenet may or may not be inappropriate, depending upon the context. I can remember on many occasions being preached long Marxist diatribes in various classes, science and others equally unrelated. I either rolled my eyes and took it, or used the opportunity to go over my notes. I don't recall anyone trying to get these a-holes fired for wasting my time, and yes, money; and, if anyone did oppose these professors the faculty would have rallied to their "free speech" rights. Fair enough. But, where is the defense of Professor Reiss' freedom of speech, or is such speech conditional these days? So, where is the "approved discussion" list, just so that we all know.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mea37]

I understand the fundamental FSM argument.

What I'm saying is this:

The FSM argument is applicable (though its persuasive effectiveness is debatable) when discussing the relationship between creationism and science, or the objective merits of creationism as scientific or unscientific.

But FSM it is not appilcable to questions that hinge on the modern significance of creationism as a global meme (for lack of a better word). FSM mythology may have "just as much basis" to become a respected theory as Christian creationism or not, but it has not in fact acheived the same position in the world mindset.

For purposes of this particular point, what makes Christian creationism different from FSM, or any of the other creation mythologies you've cited, is that somehow the idea of Christian creationism as a scientific theory keeps popping up (and not in an ironic tone).

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ceoyoyo]

You are correct. From the article it sounds like he's taken a very reasonable position. I should have read it. Unfortunately, it did take more than 60 seconds to understand the subtleties of what he said. Perhaps you should take ten minutes and reread it.

Fortunately I wouldn't fire him without interviewing him myself.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Fallen Seraph]

Aye, there's the rub: "Alternate beliefs".

This always gets me. That people seem to think that science is about belief and faith. You cannot have a theory without evidence, be it mathematical or physical. A theory without evidence is called a Hypothesis, and those have absolutely no business being taught to students. Someone above mentioned how string theory has no evidence. This is only partially true. It has no physical evidence, but the math says it's possible (proving it, of course, would require something more substantial). Science is not about beliefs. If you have actuall, verifiable data, then we can talk. In the absence of it, however, well, don't be surprised if the scientific community scoffs. Creationism is not a theory, it's a hypothesis, since creationists have been unable to produce enough factual evidence to support it. To teach is to students as an alternative explanation, and to tell them that there is serious debate in the scientific community over its validity, is academically dishonest.

Beliefs belong in a theological studies class, not in a science classroom.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[HuguesT]

This is better than most people think : string theory is a generalisation of *both* general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is consistent with both, therefore all QM and GR results can be found in ST (now M-theory). Now for ST to predict something *new* and therefore interesting is difficult, because it must happen at the QM-GR interface, i.e in very extreme environments like near black hole.

In addition the theory is difficult to handle mathematically. It would be good to be able to find things like Hawkings black-hole radiation from ST, but I'm not sure anyone has been able to pull it off yet, although the entropy of black holes have been derived from ST in some cases.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Get an Atheist to teach it, that way all religions will be treated to an equal amount of disdain (as they should!)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[tim_darklighter]

Tonight, on Jerry Springer: my son is a darwinist!

Fixed that for you.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[samkass]

The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.

This might be a good point if it weren't completely wrong. String theory is at an entirely different level of acceptance than evolution and there is still significant debate within the scientific community over its veracity. Why? For exactly the reason you mention-- there's very little evidence to back it up, merely a nice solution to a set of abstract equations that implies that such a configuration of spacetime would be awfully convenient. Which, incidentally, is how a lot of the Standard Model was first postulated which has turned out to explain subsequent experiment extremely well.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

The first thing any primer on string theory does is quote complaints from top physicists about how there hasn't been enough testing. Scientists are up front about things like that, it's what makes it science.

The absolutely huge difference between string/m theory and creationism that you don't seem to get, is that what limits research for the former is technology. The latter is simply unfalsifiable.

Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation.

What does that have to do with science?

This is from Richard Feynman:

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[XchristX]

I know more muslims than you do, and while some have kept their religion to themselves, many many others have (either openly or implicitly) declared their desire to kill me and then revise history to make it like they didn't.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mea37]

Yes, I'm aware. I'm not sure what I wrote that makes you think I think they think FSM should be accepted.

What I said is, FSM as an argument can serve the purpose you've stated; but that doesn't mean it's the answer to every question about creationism. The similarities only run so far, because whereas Christian creationism is thousands of years old and has a sizable following including some who do push for it to be accepted as science, FSM is none of those things.

In discussing their relative validity as science, those differences don't matter; hence the viability of the FSM argument when properly applied. In discussing whether to hold them up as an example of reasoning that is not scientific, the differences are a huge deal.

By way of full disclosure, I also personally dislike the FSM argument. I think it's a clever way to preach to the choir -- as those who already agree with the premise tend to find it amusing -- but as a meaningful instrument in debate, I think it's pretty much useless -- as those who don't agree with its premise find it insulting (which, of course, is exactly why those who do agree with it find it amusing).

Respect your opponent or don't act surprised when he just starts ignoring you. (I'm sure there are those who think that'd be a good thing -- get them to ignore you, then ignore them. Well, Christian creationism has a well-established foothold in the world; ignore it at your own peril.)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[init100]

Now give the scientifically orientated people GPS units. The creationists can rely on their God to help them.

Not only that, but also give the scientists guns. They'll be able to shoot animals threatening them, while the creationists can defend themselves by praying to god.

Personally, I'd strip the creationists of their clothes too. Wanna live like Adam and Eve? Then do so all the way.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[centuren]

That's actually exactly what he's claiming he meant, however.

From one of the articles:

In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."

It may be backtracking, but it still makes sense to me.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[init100]

would it be so bad to have a "World Religions" course in high school? Maybe one that covered the top 10 relgions in the world, talked about what they believe and explained their common practices.

You don't have that yet? When I went to school 10-20 years ago we had religion classes, where we were taught about various religions, including the five "world religions" (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism), as well as covering minor religions to a lesser extent.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[syousef]

Science class appropriate Creationalism audio presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGNRYNdVT7g

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[xaxa]

Do you seriously not have that in your country? I had "Religous studies" class all through school, I think we covered Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, some paganism (British Isles version), Greek/Roman theism (this last one in History class). We also discussed agnosticism and atheism.

I'm not sure how much difference a very-Christian teacher makes; in my school less than 10% of the class was Christian, with similar proportions being Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. And of those, most didn't take it seriously. A very-Christian teacher wouldn't have lasted (and shouldn't really choose the job, they know they'll be required to teach everything).

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[init100]

You are pushing a false religion on the defenseless children. You should be ashamed. Everyone knows that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only true god.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[centuren]

No scientific theory can be proven.

The scientific method may operate along those lines, but we still have "theories" of the universe and "laws" of the universe. A "law" regarding particular physics principles may be shown to be wrong in some of it's assumptions (it's caused by something else), but it doesn't reach that point of scientific acceptance if it's not been tested thoroughly (and likely has served, successfully, as a tool in more complicated models for quite a while).

The important thing to overstate in the Evolution vs. Creationism issue, is that any short-comings in Darwin's theory does NOT lend ANY weight to the Creationism specifically.

Something in Darwin's theory that isn't satisfactory may warrant scientific examination, but it's hardly evidence that a particular idea of how the world started (that happens to be contradicted by Evolution) is valid.

I also like to point out that the Big Bang and Evolution in no way contest that there is no God. That's something that science can't address (the topic at hand today?). There are Christian leaders who accept Evolution. Science only conflicts with religion when the human interpreters of that religion insist that it does.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

Distribute the first chapter of genesis, have students read it. Demand the children argue for and against at least 3 interpretations of the text, right there in biology class.

As long as his noodlyness, the FSM, is also included in the discussion, I'm happy.

In all seriousness, it's biology class, let them teach biology. There's no controversy, therefore, "teach the controversy" is a load of (politicized) bull.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[arth1]

What I said is, FSM as an argument can serve the purpose you've stated; but that doesn't mean it's the answer to every question about creationism. The similarities only run so far, because whereas Christian creationism is thousands of years old and has a sizable following including some who do push for it to be accepted as science, FSM is none of those things.

But argumentum ad numerum has no place in science. It doesn't matter how many (or who) believes something. Whether one or half a billion people believe something doesn't make it an ångstrøm less or more scientifically acceptable.

Teach the kids the scientific method, and they can apply it to whatever they like. Have them pick a "truism" and show why it's invalid from a scientific point of view. Whether they pick Judeo-Christian creation myths, FSM or homeopathy is irrelevant; showing why either is not science is what should be taught and expected. Making the pick creationism doesn't make the refutation any more or less valid, and thus it should not be given any preferential treatment. It doesn't deserve it, from a scientific point of view.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you mean by "Lamarckism" - epigenetics suggests that you *can* inherit some acquired characteristics, by inheriting methylisation of your parents' DNA, for example.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[arth1]

It's possible to demonstrate one of the scientific principles that contradicts creationism.

But why? It only lends credibility to creationism, and does nothing, scientifically, that disproving FSM doesn't. Don't give them the opportunity to place their foot in the door. They don't deserve it -- there's nothing special about Judeo-Christian creation myths from a scientific point of view. It's just one of many unscientific myths, and deserves no more spotlight than others.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Check Wikipedia, String theory is not a theory, it's a hypothesis, as it has not generated an experiment with predictable and repeatable results.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Alsee]

UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.

Theory of Relativity.
Atom Theory.
Electromagnetic Theory.
Theory of Gravity.

Yeah, let's remove all "just theories" from science class. You have a pop-quiz asking them how to spell 'science', and then you send them home with nothing else to teach. Brilliant!

Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...

Excuse me, but we don't teach Swedish in English class.

We teach English in English class, and we teach Science in Science class.

And in Science class teachers should not be teaching "beliefs". They should be teaching accurate overview of the various fields of science as understood and practiced by professionals in those fields. And the indisputable FACT is that Evolution is the one and only understanding and practice of the field of biology by 100%(*) of professional biologists. "Welcome kids, this is biology class. The one and only scientific understanding and practice of biology among professional biologists is evolution and some other things I'll get to later. Here is what evolution says and he's how it works and here let me show you this shitload of evidence that convinced all of those scientists that evolution was valid and accurate. You don't have to believe in evolution any more than you have to believe in atoms, but you do need to understand the material and you do need to pass the tests."

It wouldn't matter if Atom Theory were wrong and atoms don't exist. A Chemistry class must teach an accurate overview of Chemistry as understood and practiced by professional Chemists. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to understand the modern field of chemistry without knowing atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to enter and practice modern Chemistry unless one understands atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to do good science proving atom theory is wrong unless one first understands atom theory.

So even if you have the ignorant notion that evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter. The absolutely indisputable fact is that among 100%(*) of professional biologists evolution is the one and only modern scientific understanding and practice of biology.

(*)Footnote: Rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of biologists accept evolution, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of chemists accept atoms, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of astronomers accept the fusion-powered-sun. Just because one-in-a-couple-hundred people-witha-a-degree is a crackpot does not mean we teach the Electric Universe electric-powered-sun crapola in highschool science class.

-

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

There is one more than one argument that suits hardcore creationists' needs, and the more political among them will use whatever gets their foot in the door. There are some, like the idea of irreducible complexity, which can be proven false. Of course, not everyone agrees that irreducible complexity is falsifiable, but at least some do. I used to hear friends talking about the eyeball as not having been able to evolve. There's a good amount of evidence to counter that, these days.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[EccentricAnomaly]

The problem is that if you teach creationism in Science class, what happens when you disprove someone's religion? Many types of creationism can be disproven by Science, because Science limits itself to the natural world and supernatural explanations are not part of science... What happens to that Science teacher in Wasila? I know what would have happened to a teacher that dared to disprove 6-day creationism in my home town. :(

If you're going to teach creationism in science class, use something like the Flying Sphaghetti monster to illustrate how it is beyond the bounds of Science and a waste of breath to even discuss as Science

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[bendodge]

Wikipedia link:
      1. Define the question
      2. Gather information and resources (observe)
      3. Form hypothesis
      4. Perform experiment and collect data
      5. Analyze data
      6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
      7. Publish results
      8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

One kind of animal changing into another is the basic proposition of evolution. Call me when you've observed that (#2). Also, call me when you've done an experiment that shows how the first cell came to life or how a fish grows lungs (#4).

Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both (or rather, the right one) took place in the past. This is what science students should be taught.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

Honestly, I think they should teach it in "social studies" or whatever equivalent. Things like Scopes trial have more to do with the study of law and government than science. Obviously it's important to learn, but the problem is when people say "let's get all the information out there", they usually mean, "I don't believe in evolution, on religious grounds, but I don't want to look silly, so let's see if you can somehow get my religious views inserted, on scientific grounds."

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

The article wont tell you who these "Youths" are so everyone assumes it those evil Christians raising a stink again.

But it is NOT. Since the Brits have allowed uncontrolled Muslim migration to their country and will soon be an Islamic Country like France.

These euphemisms "youths" are for MUSLIMS. They are trying to take over the school systems and make it a criminal offense to say bad things about religion. But the UN is trying to pass an international law to make it a criminal act to "offend religion"

So we here on Slash will like be in a nasty position. All you athiest take heed.

They will come for you.....

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

Not offtopic. As I've said in other posts, Creationism is more a topic for history class or social studies. Sure, teach it. But not as science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Boronx]

Creationism is an idea. There are plenty of specific, testable theories based on the creationist idea, (Earth was created 6000 years ago by a God who was something like a man, he did it in this order, etc), it's just that they've already been tested and found wanting, to say the lease. There are plenty of people who propose untestable theories of creation, too. These shouldn't be brought into science class and are more closely related to the an internet troll than to science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

My parents sent me to religious school. I don't go to church these days though. Guess I just don't have 'good' genes. :D

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

Once they lost their monopoly, they had to improve the prouct.

They're still working on it, but it's getting there.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

There is some evidence that some organisms DO inherit chracteristics, but that might be due to chemical cues as the egss/sperm are generated by the body

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mea37]

"But argumentum ad numerum has no place in science"

What you're implying I said, is pretty much the opposite of what I said. In fact I was quite specific in agreeing that the differences between Christian creationism and FSM are irrelevant in discussing the theories' scientific merit.

It appears to me that you're so busy assuming the position of anyone who disgrees with you, that you're not reading what I actually wrote.

Neither my original post, nor the post to which I originally replied, nor any of the discussion that properly flows from those posts, are about whether Christian creationism is, or should be taught as, science.

"Teach the kids the scientific method, and they can apply it to whatever they like"

Let's also teach them physics formulae without giving them problems to apply them to and see how that goes.

Most people learn better with real-world examples to ground the theory. Picking a high-profile relevant example from the real world is a valid teaching approach.

"Have them pick a "truism" and show why it's invalid from a scientific point of view."

Your assumption that any truism is "as good as" any other is incorrect. There is direct educational value to picking examples that are relevant to the real world and setting them up as exercises.

Such dislike as you may have for the fact that it would expose students to an idea with which you disagree is irrelevant. In fact it's no better than religious dogma that would suppress the teaching of evolution.

"[creationism] should not be given any preferential treatment. It doesn't deserve it, from a scientific point of view"

I fail to see how being held up as a "how not to" example is 'preferential', but ok...

It deserves it from an educational point of view. Students don't get to pick their own test questions for a reason.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[couchslug]

"Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught."

In that case, don't try. Religion is the bitter enemy of science.

We should try to educate those who want to learn science, and let the rest opt-out so they won't get in the way.
Allow them to take the time otherwise devoted to science off so they can go to church instead. Let the rednecks go to their Christian Masrassas while the rest of us go to school to learn.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[that IT girl]

Finally, someone else out there who gets it. I've said over and over that neither side has all the answers. My goodness.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Rosey25]

Antithesis? A. God said, "let there be light." B. Science: "Big Bang" theory. Perhaps not antithetical, but complimentary? I believe the similarities are striking.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Sique]

Lets call it something along scientific trust. We trust a theory or a law as long as they don't let us down. But if they have failed us once, we never trust them again. We don't cry "My theory, my theory, why hast thou forsaken me?" and die. (Sorry, Mark 15,34). We move on.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is not to be wielded as a club against people with different ideas.

Of course it shouldn't. That's religion's job.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

String theory is, despite its name, actually not a scientific theory in the same class as evolution, the standard model or relativity. It is a hypothesis that has yet to be tested AT ALL. It DOES make predictions so it is a scientific hypothesis that can one day become a scientific theory. This is quite unlike creationism which has already been falsified, and is thus a disproven unscientific (even anti-scientific) hypothesis.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Abcd1234]

Not only does it work, but it works incredibly well. That funky beak-like thing is actually a sensory organ that lets it detect pray through their electrical field, much like similar abilities in other species, such as sharks. Pretty damn cool if you ask me, even if it looks a little goofy.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Abcd1234]

Creationism is not a scientific theory. I repeat, creationism is *not a scientific theory*. Your attempt to draw a parallel between Lamarckism, a valid, falsifiable scientific theory, and creationism, is not just wrong, it's misleading. I just can't tell if you're being misleading out of ignorance or malice.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mdwh2]

Yes, it is what he had in mind: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004 :

The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science. Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday.

Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."

The society remains committed to the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for the history of life on earth. This position was highlighted in the Interacademy Panel statement on the teaching of evolution issued in June 2006.

There might be valid criticisms against using the term "worldview", and maybe he did or didn't explain himself poorly. But this whole thing looks to be a media misreporting.

It's also just the sort of myth that plays into creationist hands - I can hear it now: "Even leading scientists of the Royal Society support teaching creationism in schools". It's not true.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[cp.tar]

Thanks.

Now, gay I could live with. Even communist. But darwinist?
I no longer have a son.

Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[RDW]

'I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.'

Actually, I think it's pretty much exactly what he had in mind. His original piece:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

isn't the usual lame and intellectually dishonest call to 'teach the controversy', agrees that [intelligent design theories] 'are not the products of scientific reasoning', and mentions that [questions about creationism and intelligent design] 'can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works'. Although he has (and respects other) religious beliefs, he makes it very clear that evolution is 'the central concept in biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every aspect of the life sciences into a single coherent discipline'. The question is, how does a science teacher get this concept across to students who think their religious beliefs conflict with the curriculum?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[destiney]

I guess you'll also want them to learn alchemy in their chemistry studies and astrology in their astronomy studies?

Until creationism is proven using the scientific method it should not be taught at all. The time wasted on it could be better spent on real, repeatable science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Kvasio]

ah, LARP :-) Beware!
God could play trick on you by eg. sending sun storm to disrupt gps service and kill the sci folk...

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Antique Geekmeister]

Let's say "surprisingly well". They don't do well against dogs, for example, and don't prosper outside a pretty limited and protected environment.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Myopic]

We hear that so often that some scientists have made a special exception for evolution and promoted it beyond 'theory' even though as a rule we don't do that for any idea anymore. I've heard scientists go into debate and talk about the "fact of evolution", then the retards have to retort something about it being a "theory", and since they raise the theory question, they have to define and defend it.

I think that's a reasonable way to preclude that shit-stupid rhetorical nonsense argument.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Antique Geekmeister]

Bring it up in a 'Mythbusters' sort of way. In fact, I think that Mythbutsters should be a good example of scientific method, experimental design, and how the presentation of an experiment can add to its chances of funding.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[spazdor]

I know more muslims than you do, despite not having asked how many you actually know
Man oh man, it must be Bald Assertion Sunday!

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ShakaUVM]

>>The uproar over what he said appears to be rather unscientific.

Right. The lesson learned from this is that if you want to get someone kicked out of the Royal Society, you just need to accuse him of being sympathetic towards religion (sorry, brand him a Creationist) and then gather the pitchforks and torches.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[TFGeditor]

"Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom..."

"Beliefs," alternative or otherwise, have no place in the classroom. Theories based on the best available *evidence*, yes; beliefs, no.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[scum-e-bag]

Your points are good... to a point.

How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.

Now go stick that in your pipe and smoke it... hippy.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Mostly a lurker]

I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.

Sigh! +5 Insightful and you did not check on what the "good reverend" did have in mind. What he has in mind in pretty much exactly that. He states that, in the past, he just tried to ignore creationism in science teaching. The problem is that this does nothing to demonstrate why creationism is not science. Why is it that, even here on /., a relatively intelligent group, most look at the words "creationism", "reverend" and "science class" and jump to conclusions without examining the facts?

If Michael Reiss suffers an academic lynching over his attempts to recommend how to fight creationist views, this will be a tragedy.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[nomadic]

Depends on what you mean by "Lamarckism" - epigenetics suggests that you *can* inherit some acquired characteristics, by inheriting methylisation of your parents' DNA, for example.

I would define Lamarckism as heritability of acquired characteristics as described by Lamarck, who from what I remember focused on large-scale physiological/structural changes (e.g. giraffe necks).

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[johanatan]

Please list the 'rules' that you use to demarcate science from pseudoscience. You might want to take a look at this before formulating your list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

Good luck! [Be forewarned: whatever rules you are able to contrive to exclude ID from science will also necessarily exclude evolution (and any that include evolution will also include ID)].

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[atraintocry]

Not sure why this is modded flamebait. I took issue with the string theory part, but really, the hairtrigger downmodding is ridiculous.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[LaskoVortex]

God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.

(1) Thanks for making the case for evolution. (2) God's winding things up and letting natural selection take over wouldn't be intelligent design, which is what I bet you are getting at. If you take God all the way back to right before the big bang and say he hasn't intervened since, then science couldn't argue one way or the other. But, if he hasn't intervened, he hasn't talked to any prophets, he hasn't had a son named Jesus, and he has never imposed his ideas of morals on the people of the earth. So scribble that in the margins of your bible, which, by your own logic, would not be the word of god, which doesn't exist on this Earth, by your own logic.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

A "theory" is not an "alternative belief". It is our current explanation that can be tested based on observations.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is there's a hell of a lot of pseudoscience out there. If a science teacher had to explain the non-scientificness of creationism, astrology, phrenology, tarot, wicca, numerology, dowsing, crop circles, cabala, geocentrism, flat earth, hollow earth, fairies, scientology, the Face On Mars, fear of black cats, etc., there wouldn't be any time left to teach actual science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[scum-e-bag]

(1) Thanks for making the case for evolution

I did not make *the* case for evolution. I do, however, believe *the* evidence supports it.

(2) God's winding things up and letting natural selection take over wouldn't be intelligent design, which is what I bet you are getting at.

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

You have made several assumptions, now I will make an assumption or two.

1) You don't understand Darwinian Theory.
2) You have had your mind polluted by those who purport to know about intelligent design, but, they really want to subvert the true meaning; and hence your understanding. This is clearly evident in your rant.
3) You had a troubled childhood and were ridiculed at school.
4) The bible often refers to sheep, you are one.

If you don't instantly understand what I mean in point 4) then you are a sheep in need of a shepherd.

EOF

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[oldhack]

What's so special about creationism that we have to squeeze that into science class? There are plenty of non-science subjects to demonstrate essence of science. If you insists on sticking such a politically motivated topic into science education, we may as well insist on throwing in FSM, Jim Jones and other "cults", and Scientology into class on religions. Let's see what sorta distinction they try to make between these and other "legitimate" religions.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[KeithJM]

One kind of animal changing into another is the basic proposition of evolution.

No, it absolutely isn't. The two basic propositions of evolution are:
1. Organisms will have random, often tiny differences from their parents.
2. Organisms will be more or less likely to survive to reproduce based on these differences.
That's all that's needed. When you throw in almost unimaginable amounts of time, eventually you'll find an organism (after a huge number of generations, each slightly different than their parents) which can be defined as a different species than the "original" one (I put original in quotes because you could take the analysis back further and use THAT organism as the end result too. But you'd never have a child that wasn't "the same animal" as its parent, except in the sense that YOU aren't the same animal as your parents (for instance, you might be taller, or have a different hair color, or have an extra finger, or have extra nipples, or have a slightly smaller appendix, or have exceptionally good eyesight or dexterous hands, or any of a million other tiny differences).

Also, call me when you've done an experiment that shows how the first cell came to life or how a fish grows lungs

First, the first cell isn't a question of evolution. Incidentally, the theory of relativity also doesn't explain the first cell, but that doesn't disprove relativity either. As far as the first fish with lungs, it was probably similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG, you are actually serious! Fucking hilarious!

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[LaskoVortex]

You've called me a sheep and a hippie. Why do you finish your posts by calling names? Oh yes, you have a villain in your head who has many names and you see everyone who disagrees with you as that villain. What is that villain's name? Hippie? Sheep? Satan? Funny that the priest finished by damning someone to hell. What happens to the sheep that never find a shepherd? They go to hell, don't they? Religion rears its ugly head once again--very predictable.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[klapaucjusz]

[Creationism] is specific to the judeochristian religion.

No, it isn't. There's Islamic Creationism, Hindu Creationism, ancient Greek Pagan Creationism, and doubtless all sorts of other brands of Creationism.

Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

Yes, but their claims still constitute forms of Creationism.

A proper Compared pseudo-science class should cover a number of different brands of creationism, and show how they contradict each other.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

A particular string of mathematical reasoning would perhaps be more accurate. Certainly DOES NOT rise to the level of "evidence"; That is exactly why it is a theory!

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mog007]

You must not be familiar with Google. Just point your browser to www.google.com and type in observed instances of speciation. You'll get a ton of links to tons of scientific journals showing a species diverging from another species.

Unless your definition of "kind" isn't "species". If that's the case, please define "kind" for us. Thanks.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mog007]

Any scientist worth a damn would never claim to have all the answers. If science had all the answers, then scientists would have to find new jobs. But the religious folks DO claim to have all the answers, but if you go from one religious guy to the other, they never seem to agree with each other.... odd.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[FlightlessParrot]

It is, in fact, apparently EXACTLY what he wanted. According to the BBC report, what he was really saying was that when he's teaching biology, if a student raises Creationism, he thinks it's better to take a little time to explain that Creationism has got nothing to do with science. The alternative is to refuse to discuss Creationism, which he believes, hardly unreasonably, is not the most effective way of going about it.

As an Anglican priest, he's also well-place to explain that biblical fundamentalism is also lousy theology, but I guess he'd feel that should NOT happen in science education.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Hal_Porter]

STUDENT: Yes, how do we know about the climate changes?

TEACHER: The overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate is changing due to evil Republicans driving their SUVs and you must vote for Obama.

STUDENT: What about Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller? Or Bjorn Lomborg?

TEACHER: They are part of a conspiracy funded by Big Oil. Don't question Obama or the world will be destroyed.

Fixed that for you.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Scannerman]

Nobody that I know of objects to this on the basis that they are afraid that the students will leave class believing that giant earth-bearing tortoises are real.

Believe or not as you wish.

The turtle still moves

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Uberbah]

You know, the whole FSM thing is funny, but when it becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every discussion about creationism, it gets old fast.

Would you like some cheese with that? FSM was invented to counter the asininity of "teaching the controversy" as a back door to get Creationism into public schools and the science classroom. Stop the Creationist push and you wont hear of the poor old FSM any longer.

The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.

Too fucking bad for them. Should English teachers make room for "ain't" and misuses of their/they're/there along with good English diction just because students do it?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[LaskoVortex]

I think you have confused the issue.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Carewolf]

Bjørn Lomborg like all the big 'sceptics' now agress that global warming is not only real, it is also human made. The new defense for 'sceptics' is that it is not worthwhile to stop the change and more profitable to adapt to the changing climate.

In short, you are several years behind in your denial than leading global warmning sceptics. Please get with the times.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[LordHaart]

While I agree with you, I should point out that the key attribute of Science which stands over religion is that if the student out-asks the teacher (ie, if there is proof against accepted theory), then accepted theory changes to the newer, better one. It's this constant evolution (no pun intended) of ideas that is what makes science such a powerful tool to base our lives on.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

And what if it's right. You know there is a reason those muslims you know live in the west. That reason is that they don't want to live amongst muslims.

Why don't you seek out the truth ? Look up how their "prophet" dealt with scientists, and poets, etc. Google "asma bint marwan" for an introduction, but she's hardly alone.

Why don't you ask to your muslim "friends"* if this behavior is morally right or wrong ? Grow some balls man. You won't like the answer AT ALL.

* quran 5:51 any muslim who is friends with any infidel is himself an infidel, unless this is for deception**

** this rule implies that "true" friendship between a muslim and any non-muslim carries the death penalty in islam

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me the transition fossils. Show me the evidence. Show me the observersations you so often require of creation, but never demand of evolution.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

If you believe in evolution isn't this good ? I mean the fittest will survive.

If it turns out the fittest aren't western "progressives", who like to think and abhor dirty hands would you even be surprised at all ? Especially if they have to contend against a religion that starts by using violence, then goes on to use more violence ?

Clearly amongst muslims evolution isn't very fit at all. So it's extermination can only be a good thing right ? Thoughts and ideas are also subject to a kind of evolution, and so the fittest thoughts might turn out to be (violently) religious, and not scientific, nor peaceful. This would not be surprising in the least, at least not to me.

Isn't evolution grand ?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

what happens when you disprove someone's religion?

What happens when you disprove atheism ? (non-dogmatism, the idea that because all rules are man made, which is true, means that they are negotiable, which is patently false. This is the real ideology of 99,99% of "atheists", and is extremely trivial to disprove (let's negotiate over the rule that killing "EccentricAnomaly" is wrong, after all nothing is inherently wrong, right ?), you could even do it "live" with Godel sentences in extreme cases, but you can do this intuitively).

I assume what will happen when a believer gets confronted with this depends on their ethics, right ? Since all religions push different ethics, let's enumerate.

1. an atheist : will declare you racist and intolerant, alternatively they might try the buddhist approach
2. a christian : will seek to convince you otherwise with patience "and good deeds" (whatever that means), ignoring any evidence that's inconvenient. They will also seek to build this evidence into the religion, and explain it "in Christian context" (e.g. the pope doesn't deny evolution, he merely states that it does not apply to humans. He does not believe humans are interlocked into an eternal extermination war for resources, and will not accept any evidence to the contrary as "inhumane". He is right in doing so imho (even though I don't agree with many other points)). If you truly don't respond to their attempts to convince you, Christians will shun you.
3. a muslim : will threaten you, then if that fails will physically attack you
4. a buddhist will declare you delusional for assuming that there is a real world in the first place, therefore claiming anything is proof is nonsensical
5. a hindu ... see a chrisian (unless of course he considers you not brahmin, in that case he will use violence directly, esp. if you're considered dalit)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[ThaReetLad]

You should read the article. That's exactly what the good reverend had in mind.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Digital End]

Yes, in the philosophy that "Nothing can be proven" or whatever nonsense, no, it's not 'false'. I could say the same of FSM or the pet dragon I have in my house

What it IS though, is untrue in our world. It didn't happen, we know this. That's my view of the word false

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

And Lamarckism is coming back into fashion. It turns out that not everything is encoded in the nuclear DNA.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not mathematical evidence. It's mathematical model that fits the real world. Mathematical model that fits the spiritual world is equally reasonable when studying the spiritual world. Just because it;s math doesn't make it science.

That said, I can see why a biologist might want to discuss supernatural forces in the context of biology. I'm studying biology now and the chemical side is pretty effing amazing. Even with full knowledge of the chemistry involved, I don't think man could have come up with it if he'd tried. It's pure art from that perspective.

For people without a mental grasp of time...which is just about everyone who has not studied geology, I can see a STRON attraction toward supernatural notions to explain what...in the context of human endeavor and scale, is to our abilities as builders of complex doodads and geegaws like the computer, as we are to the a friggin lump of clay. The processes are that frigging amazing...

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Having r'd tfa, I would say that it is exactly what the good reverend had in mind.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you could ask yourself why DNA is coded in base 3... Have a deeper think about things. How likely is it that your computer and it's hard-drive "evolved"?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

String Theory is not based on *physical* evidence, but it is supported by *mathematical* evidence, as are pretty much all modern scientific theories.

Scientific theories are based on empirical observation, not just faith and belief as Creationism is.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Shihar]

String theory is a theory because it fits the evidence. You can use a string theory model and get the universe. On the other hand, declaring that the world started 6000 years ago and that everyone descends from two people 6000 years ago is pretty violently rejected by every scrap of evidence we have from multiple fields.

Further, String Theory isn't taught in schools because at this point it is a mathematics parlor trick. People study it and try and devise ways to test it, but you will never see anyone trying to teach it in a science class room.

As to the "well everyone has a creation story", so what? Everyone civilization also put earth at the center of the universe and was pretty convinced that lightening was mystical. This doesn't mean that we should teach that lightening might be magic and that Earth might really be the center of the universe. The fact that humans like to find a reason for existence is far more interesting to an evolutionary biologist who might be able to explain why we have this urge without invoking "magic" as an explanation.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[splutty]

And the platypus was obviously created by the creator when he also had just created mind altering drugs...

God on LSD.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Nursie]

What the hell are you on about?

The only thing "atheist" means is without religion, either because they assert there is no god (strong atheism, these people are generally a bit unhinged) or because they reject religion based on total lack of evidence (weak or agnostic atheism, most agnostics and people that call themselves atheists fall into this category).

That's an impressive straw man there though, that jump of yours from "no religion" to "all rules are negotiable". It's very very similar to that tired old line that atheists must necessarily be a/immoral because the hand of god isn't over them with the threat of a thunderbolt or hell or whatever.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[khanyisa]

I think you meant prey, not pray :-)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mea37]

"Stop the Creationist push and you wont hear of the poor old FSM any longer."

Uh, yeah, you might want to take another read over my post, at which point you'll probably notice that I'm not a Creationist.

Sounds like your strategy for dealing with those who are, though, is to annoy them until they comply with your demands... Good luck with that.

"Should English teachers make room for "ain't" and misuses of their/they're/there along with good English diction just because students do it?"

Well, in point of fact, English teachers do exactly that. It's effective, so yes, they should continue to do so. Addressing misconceptions about a field that some/all of your sudents likely hold is part of teaching.

Every English teacher I had made a point that "aint isn't a word", and when their/they're/there were taught both correct and incorrect usages were given as exercises.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mdwh2]

FSM was invented to counter the asininity of "teaching the controversy" as a back door to get Creationism into public schools and the science classroom. Stop the Creationist push and you wont hear of the poor old FSM any longer.

Since that is clearly not the intent of the Royal Society, given their stance against creationism, that is off-topic here.

Too fucking bad for them. Should English teachers make room for "ain't" and misuses of their/they're/there along with good English diction just because students do it?

Well, surely they should address such issues, and correct their mistakes? That's what's being suggested here. You seem to be the one suggesting that we should ignore such mistakes, and let them slip by.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Zashi]

Actually, and I'm no professional physicist (yet), there is a lot of math (confusing and not quite kink-free yet) to support string theory. Parts of the math are supported with physical evidenced produced by particle accelerators. Why do you think we build and operate things like the LHC?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[strikethree]

I think creationism should be taught in classrooms. It should go something like this:

Many religions around the world, some current, some that are long gone, teach that the world was created by a supernatural deity. For example, religions such as the pantheons of Greek Mythology or Sumerian Mythology claim that the world was created when the newer gods slew the elder gods and that the world is the body of the elder god that was slain. Newer religions/mythologies such as Christians and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism claim that the world was created in a very short time out of nothingness. There is no way to tell how the universe itself was started and it may have even been created, but that is beyond the scope of science. Today, we are here to learn about evolution. It does not claim to illuminate how life itself started, but it does show a mechanism of how life has increased in complexity over time. Class, please open your textbooks to page 42.

strike

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

...specific to the judeochristian religion.

That should be Judeo-Christo-Islamic. Or maybe Abrahamic for short.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Jason Levine]

Your points are good... to a point.

How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.

Now go stick that in your pipe and smoke it... hippy.

I actually believe in this view to some extent. I believe in God and am semi-religious. However, I'm a firm believer in scientific theories of how the world works. (I take the religious writings as stories more meant for moral lessons than for physical explanations of how the world works.) That said, even if God made everything and simply used the "laws of physics", "evolution", etc as his methods, it still wouldn't be appropriate to bring God into the science class. We might thank him in a religiously based setting for using consistent methodology instead of just making things up as he goes along ("You know what? I think I made a mistake. From now on, protons are negative and electrons are positive."), but the basic theory of how the world progressed from the Big Bang to the present day wouldn't change.

The big problem with introducing God into a scientific setting is that He isn't falsifiable. We can falsify Evolution. Find a mammoth bone that dates from before the time of the Dinosaurs and there'll be some serious theory rewriting. But how can you prove that God doesn't exist? You can't. You can have a personal belief that he doesn't exist (and thus be an atheist), but you can't design a test that would actually measure his existence. Thus God is fine in a religious setting, but needs to be left outside when students step into science class.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Sique]

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steropodon

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teinolophos

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

Also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganucodon

Or here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docodonta

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mdwh2]

Disproving atheism would entail proving that God exists. I'm not sure what on earth you are rabbitting on about "rules" for.

And the response of virtually all atheists would be either to dispute the argument (what mostly happens, given just how weak the arguments typically are), or, in the hypothetical case of evidence actually being shown, changing their stance.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Uberbah]

Since that is clearly not the intent of the Royal Society, given their stance against creationism, that is off-topic here.

WHOOSH. That was a reply to the parent, who was complaining of how tired he was of the FSM.

Well, surely they should address such issues, and correct their mistakes? That's what's being suggested here. You seem to be the one suggesting that we should ignore such mistakes, and let them slip by.

One sentence response: that's not science/proper English. No fuss, no muss, and no risk of giving Creationism any hint of validity in a science classroom.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[sumdumass]

Why should they be expected to argue anything? I mean they are students, not instructors. Al they really need to know is this is the way that is accepted by science and this is the way we believed until relatively recently in science.

Of course what Science is and isn't should and will be part of any science course but if they had to understand the principles first, then we couldn't even discuss boiling or freezing water before they knew what science is/was. I don't think that is necessary and I don't think it is a necessary precondition to learning anything about science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.

Actually, if you read the "WTF" article, he clarified his statement and it /is/ what he had in mind.

"In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.""

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Mr. Slippery]

You know there is a reason those muslims you know live in the west.

Some do. They came here for the same reason Catholics from Mexico or Buddhists from China did: economic opportunity.

Some of the Muslims I know are from South Africa and still live there; my karate school has several branches there. Islam in South Africa is rapidly growing; it is seen as an alternative to Christian churches that supported apartheid. (Does that mean that all Christians supported apartheid? Of course not.)

Why don't you seek out the truth ?

Why don't you? I'm sure it saves on mental exertion to assume all Muslims think and feel the same way, but bigotry is no way to get to know the world.

Google "asma bint marwan" for an introduction, but she's hardly alone.

Whether true or false - at least some contemporary Muslims say the story is an outright fabrication - the story is utterly uninformative of the attitudes of any given contemporary Muslim.

I suggest you go read some Rumi and relax.

quran 5:51 any muslim who is friends with any infidel is himself an infidel, unless this is for deception...this rule implies that "true" friendship between a muslim and any non-muslim carries the death penalty in islam

Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Does this mean all Christians and Jews want to kill Wiccans? Thankfully, no.

Some Hindu use "cow protection" as an excuse to murder non-Hindus who eat beef, and Hindu fundamentalists have managed to get "anti-conversion" laws passed.

During WWII, Japanese Zen monasteries raised money to build fighter planes.

Name a religion, and you can find incidents of violence in it. That does not mean that all followers of that religion support those teachings; to think otherwise is nothing more than bigotry.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Rohan427]

You are (possibly) one of the students that needs to be educated about Creation. To make a statement that Creation involves no science shows that you know next to nothing about it.

Sadly, this is the case with most "educated" people who scoff at Creation. Anything that is not part of the establishment is ridiculed and tossed out with the garbage. Those that try to teach it or even discuss it are fired and blackballed, and called radicals or even worse. It's not surprising though as it's been happening for centuries. Look at those who believed the world was round and how they were mocked and ridiculed by the "educated" scientists (and everyone else) at the time.

PGA

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[TheCarp]

Well, you can't really take articles for the lay person and expect them to get everything right.

Science doesn't look for proof as much as disproof. The goal is to find the mental model that most simply fits the most observations (the holy grail, of course, being one that describes everything).

Notice I said "most simply" thats in the "Occam's Razor" sense. Sure "God did it" is very simple, but requires just too many assumptions. (He exists, he is all powerful etc etc) Furthermore, it must be disprovable. You have to be able to say "Well if this explanation is correct, then it predicts this must be the case", then you can test. If the prediction is right, then the theory works and you havn't done much of interest (unless its something nobody has been able to test before.) If the prediction is wrong, then you have to adjust your model (assuming your test isn't flawed).

The situation that we are in now, is that we have a couple of models that have trouble jiving. We have different models that make different predictions, and we find that both of them have merrit, even though neither leaves room for the other to be true.

So basically, we have multiple flawed models, each that explains part of the story. String theory is merely an attempt at a model that can reconcile the predictions of the other theories.

It doesn't need "proof" Proof has nothing to do with theory. A theory either makes reliable predictions or it doesn't.

The best analogy I have heard is to think of a pocketwatch someone gave you that you can't ever open. You can observe it, you can watch the hands move around, you can measure its movements, describe the accelerations involved with each tick....

Once you did that, you could design a mechanism that would do the same thing. It can tick the same way, at the same rate, etc. Your proposed mechanism is a scientific theory. Its "this is a model for how it works".

Maybe more observations will be found that require changes to you rmechanism. In any case, its a mistake to think of your model mechanism as the watch itself. You don't know how it works inside, you "can't know".... all you can do is describe what you can measure, and predict what will happen in various cases.

-Steve

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

how is that a troll?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[glitch23]

It's like watching a stop motion animated movie with so few frames you have to wonder if they are in the right order and if the order given actually produces the intended story of the writer.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[glitch23]

How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.

You can use that as your version of history however that defies what the Christan Bible states which is that God made man in His image. Basically the first man and woman were just that, the first human male and female, not hermaphroditic organism A and hermaphroditic organism B which developed into male and female humans through evolution. If you want to make up your own Bible story go right ahead. Many people already do that to avoid accepting the fact they commit various sins. Cast the Bible off as hogwash and you have no absolution to answer to, a moral free-for-all. Good times, good times.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Hertzyscowicz]

Even better, from TFA:

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time. [...] If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.

So, he isn't even advocating teachers bringing the subject up, but that they should politely refute any arguments in favor of creationism made by the students. Of course it's a lot to ask that anyone remain civil while refuting creationist claims. I think the controversy a knee-jerk reaction to the article containing the words 'creationism' and 'classroom'.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Reservoir Penguin]

I'm a math major and you've just completely discredited yourself if you think that a hypothesis in a natural science can be in any way proved by mathematics (which can come up with any kind of crazy made up system as long as its axioms are logically consistent)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Opyros]

And now he's resigned his position over what was a misunderstanding to begin with.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

These fellows supported creationism.

      1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
      2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
      3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
      4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
      5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
      6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
      7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
      8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
      9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    11. Max Planck (1858-1947)
    12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[mapkinase]

Realizing this is one step in a right direction. Next step is admitting that "pretty much all modern scientific theories" are not in fact "scientific".

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[shutdown -p now]

How much of the world-wide scientific development is the Muslim world (including Turkey) actually responsible for, anyway? If they choose to remain ignorant, who cares? The West, China, and other places with no dogmas will move on regardless, and if Muslims want a self-imposed Dark Age, they may well have it.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I think that people who bring up the fact that the earth is flat and that all spaceflights are a hoax should be given equal time too.

C'Mon England

[religious freak]

I thought you were better than this. This is one American import I hope you don't accept.

Creationism is not science. Period.

Re:C'Mon England

[S-100]

Creationism is not science to the same degree that evolution is not religion. However, evolution is usually taught as a secular religion, and for the most part, the people pushing for creationism to be taught alongside it want nothing more than parity for the two philosophical beliefs.

Of course, the "open minded" evolutionists want the other side muzzled, marginalized, fired and otherwise silenced. People knowing the true meaning of a "liberal" education can only shake their heads.

Re:C'Mon England

[beardedswede]

"Creationism is not science. Period."

But Intelligent Design is!!

Re:C'Mon England

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were better than this. This is one American import I hope you don't accept.

American? You think creationism arose in America? That's very amusing. Or are we just looking at a way to take a swipe at Americans? Because I notice while we didn't invent creationism, we did discover the molecular structure of DNA and the fossil remains of australopithecus afarensis.

Re:C'Mon England

[Daniel Dvorkin]

evolution is usually taught as a secular religion

[citation needed]

Re:C'Mon England

[Kneo24]

The point you're missing here is that Creationism (Christianity - ID) being taught in schools has been largely an American phenomenon.

Re:C'Mon England

[catman]

Evolution is a fact. There is a (at least one) theory about it that is still being developed, as predictions and observations are made.

Creation is a hypothesis that cannot be falsified or produce predictions, and therefore cannot become a scientific theory.

The theory of evolution has no more to do with religion than has Einstein's theory of gravitation.

Therefore, creationism belongs in religion classes, not in science classes. This has nothing at all to do with silencing creationism!
I have tried to make these points as simple as I can, but still, some creationists will be unable to comprehend them -

Re:C'Mon England

[oliderid]

Read the article. It looks like common sense to me.A lot of kids have been told home that the earth is 6000 years old (Jehovah witnesses , Muslim extremists, and so on). That's a fact.

If you don't want to lose them, you have to confront their beliefs (creationism) with facts (science and in this case the theory of evolution). I find it quite healthy, it forces them to argue and to understand the way science works (no belief, observations, experimentations).

Re:C'Mon England

[S-100]

A little Googling will bring up many examples. But for the lazy:

http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-as-Religion-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278333

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

http://www.evolutionfantasy.org/

The scant scientific theory of evolution of the Earth's creatures extends that theory to encompass the creation of the ecosystem, planets, solar system and the entire universe - something Darwin never advocated. And these teachings are taught as scientific fact, not the theory that they are.

Re:C'Mon England

[moosesocks]

No, but given that science has been at odds with religion for much of history, it definitely makes sense for the two to be objectively discussed side by side.

Science and philosophy naturally go side by side. The early Greek philosophers were the pioneers of science as we know it. "Modern" science, as first practiced by Newton and the likes (and founders of the very Royal Society mentioned in the article!) was frequently termed "Natural Philosophy." Ph.D still stands for "Doctor of Philosophy".

Students should know how to objectively differentiate between religion and science. Neither are inherently bad, or even necessarily at odds with each other. Even the Catholic Church is generally very pro-science. The previous pope was a vocal supporter of evolution.

As long as we remain objective (which I do believe is perfectly possible, at least in Britain), I see absolutely no problem with this.

Re:C'Mon England

[thermian]

Evolution is not taught as a religion. Its just that religious people are so blinkered that they can only see it that way. Its taught as an established fact, with a great deal of corroborating evidence.

Look, if you could prove to me that some bearded dude came along with a bag'o'miracles(tm) and created the world and all the little creatures in one day, I'd accept it. I wouldn't 'believe' it, in the same way I don't 'believe' in rivers or tree's. They exist, I see them, end of problem.

You can't prove it though, because the very basis of religion is the concept of belief without requiring proof.

Re:C'Mon England

[Artifakt]

Darwin himself specifically criticized Christianity (as opposed to criticizing religions in general) in his second major book, "The Descent of Man". His argument was that Evolution tended towards a state of perfection, so a religion that specifically believed the world was imperfect, and God would eventually replace it with a flawless version, was superfluous. Now, not one professional biologist in a thousand believes this today. The standard phrase is "Evolution tends only towards a local optimum, never towards any abstract notion of perfection.". Ergo, Darwin's argument on that point was simply wrong.
      Have you ever had a class on Evolution? Did the teacher draw this distinction? If they did not, that's teaching Evolution as a secular religion, right there. I know I got it in college biology at the Junior level, but not earlier, and most definitely not in my high school course. A friend who took Biology for pre-med students said he didn't remember it in the popularized course he got in college either.

Re:C'Mon England

[c6gunner]

Wow. Nice list of credible websites! How could ANYONE not be convinced by that!

</sarcasm>

Re:C'Mon England

[c6gunner]

lol

Apparently you haven't read much about the UK school system.

Re:C'Mon England

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not traditional Christianity either.

Re:C'Mon England

[AmonTheMetalhead]

WTF are you talking about? I don't know what education is like in your cave, but i was thought why the theory of evolution was considered to be correct, the fossil record, lineage, genetics, it was all touched upon & explained.

You do know what the scientific method is right?

Re:C'Mon England

[AmonTheMetalhead]

What? If i read your gibberish correctly, unless one was thought that Darwin has been known to make mistakes one was thought a religious version of evolution?
WTF?

Re:C'Mon England

[init100]

American? You think creationism arose in America?

No, but America is the only country in the civilized world that has such a strong religious/anti-science movement. America is largely a country of fundamentalist Christians, with a few islands of scientifically minded people in the northeast and in the far west. The rest is a hell hole of religious fundamentalism.

Re:C'Mon England

[bendodge]

Creationism is not science. Period.

Straw man fallacies are not logical. Period.

Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both (or rather, the right one) took place in the past. This is what science students should be taught.

Re:C'Mon England

[atraintocry]

You're mixing things up a little. The history of science has largely seen teological explanations for things replaced with mechanistic ones. The fact that evolution matches the latter, and that this has been the general trend, does not mean that evolution is used to explain things outside of its domain. That said, the theory evolution is of course a cornerstone of Western thought.

I read through the first link, at least.

All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated.

They seem to be saying that, since we're using present phenomena to talk about the past, we're out of our depth and should just forget about the whole thing. Note that I could say the same thing about religion. It's a dumb argument that seems to hinge on the reader forgetting about inductive reasoning.

In general the whole "science is really a religion" thing is a huge ad hominem that fails to take into account the fact that scientists have to vet their "beliefs" by applying logic and collecting evidence. As a result, they are not called beliefs, but hypotheses.

Re:C'Mon England

[atraintocry]

The way my HS biology teacher put it was that evolution happens out, not up. I think that's close enough. And from what I remember the standard textbooks do take time to point out that Darwin had some beliefs about evolution that ended with him, and didn't carry into the mainstream.

Re:C'Mon England

[atraintocry]

Sounding "science-y" does not make something science, it makes it psuedoscience.

Re:C'Mon England

[Alsee]

However, evolution is usually taught as a secular religion

Huh?

As far as I am aware, Evolution is taught EXACTLY the same way Chemistry is taught. Or at least it shout be taught exactly the same way.

the people pushing for creationism to be taught alongside it want nothing more than parity for the two philosophical beliefs.

We are talking about SCIENCE CLASS. Not philosophy class.

In science class we teach an accurate overview of the particular field of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In Chemistry class that means teaching Atom Theory. In Biology class that means teaching the Theory of Evolution.

Of course, the "open minded" evolutionists want the other side muzzled, marginalized, fired and otherwise silenced.

A teacher should not be teaching existentialist philosophy in Chemistry class.

Nor should a science teacher be presenting th Electric Universe theory of an electric powered sun. It would be a gross misrepresentation of the facts to give students the slightest impression that professional astronomers or professional physicists consider the electric sun theory to have any scientific basis or any scientific credibility whatsoever. It would be a gross misrepresentation of the facts to give students the slightest impression that professional biologists consider any of the anti-evolution stuff to have any scientific basis or any scientific credibility whatsoever.

People are perfectly free to talk about and teach Creationism in private school sand in the home and pretty much anywhere else. However it in no way represent biology as understood and practiced by professional biologists and has no place in a public school science class, except perhaps as part of a lesson on identifying non-science and fraudulent science.

Oh, and people are completely welcome to actually *DO* some science trying to disprove evolution / support creationism, or any other research they like. In fact Christian groups have TRIED to give these anti-evolution crackpots money.... "Here please take our money and go do some of this wonderful science you keep talking on and on about". And they they still didn't did any science. You can't PAY them to do science because there is no science to back up all of their bogus anti-evolution claims.

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

Full article.

There is social controversy over evolution and political controversy over evolution, but no scientific controversy. These lying anti-evolution sacks of shit won't even do any actual science even if you shove bags full of money into their hands begging them to do some science. They have a public relations campaign against evolution, but they don't have jack-shit scientifically to back up their claims. They get millions of dollars per year in donations, and what do they spend that money on? Science? No. They spend that money on political influence and on public relations campaigns and on lawyers. They don't spend any of it on science because the science refutes all of their claims.

P.S.
Sorry for the crude&flammish language. I'm in a bad mood, I am sick and tired of all the lies and misinformation, and I haven't gotten any sleep. Oh well. Fuck you to everyone that deserves it. I'll either get modded flamebait or +5... or probably both... and I'm to tired to give a shit either way.

-

Re:C'Mon England

[TrekkieGod]

You know, I was actually going to follow and read all the links you posted as an attempt to understand why creationists sometimes consider evolution and other sciences another form of religion, and then I intended to post a well-formed rebuttal. However, I couldn't get past your first link. I couldn't even finish reading it.

Basically, the contents of that page offended me. Not because I care what other people believe in, but because it was obvious that the people who wrote that piece are not actually that dumb, but are trying their best to mislead the less educated and that's just really dishonest. Examples:

However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution -- in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.

Citation needed for the whole "the majority of evolutionists are not Christians" part, but most importantly, evolution doesn't try to disprove God had a role in the creation of life. It simply cannot include God, because God is an unfalsifiable factor. Individual Christian scientists can and do believe that God directed evolution, but understand that this is a personal belief, and not a scientific theory (so they don't push for ID in classrooms either).

On the other hand, Adam and Eve being created 6,000 years ago with the rest of the Earth is a falsifiable claim, and there's plenty of evidence against it, so give up already. So far, that could be attributed to just an honest mistake, but here's where it gets dishonest:

On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

That's not at all what they said. They said, "if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis" and NOT, "if all the evidence supported Genesis." So, for example, if at some point in the Bible it is mentioned that God makes things fall, the theory of gravity "best fits" the statement that "things fall" by saying that objects with mass are attracted to one another. It does not require a God, but it does not serve to "disprove" God. Again, the reason why we need to keep religion separate from science is because nothing can disprove the hypothesis of an all-powerful being that can do whatever He wants and that makes it unscientific. By the same token, it means you people can stop feeling like we're out to get you. Nothing science ever says will disprove the existence of God, it can only disprove certain things like a 6,000 year-old Earth.

What pisses me off is that I didn't even read the full context of the original quote, and I could spot their mistake. I can only expect it would be even more obvious if I had read the full article. Here's another dishonest moment:

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand t

Re:C'Mon England

[ch0knuti]

we did discover the molecular structure of DNA

While Watson is an American, Crick and Wilkins (born in New Zealand) were both British citizens. Also the study was conducted while Watson was in Cambridge University.

Also Rosalind Franklin, whose work was influential on Watson's and Crick's research was also a British citizen.

How does that become an American discovery?

Re:C'Mon England

[Anonymous Coward]

I say, if they want to teach creationism in science class, they MUST accept science/evolution being taught in Sunday School and mentioned during all eulogies that mention life, it's beginnings etc.

Fat chance. They're taught to....just believe, have faith, and never question.

Religions are for the sheepishly stupid and brain-washed. Look at how gullible and easily manipulated the Right is in the States. A bunch of lemmings masquerading as humans.

Re:C'Mon England

[KeithJM]

Darwin's argument on that point was simply wrong. Have you ever had a class on Evolution? Did the teacher draw this distinction? If they did not, that's teaching Evolution as a secular religion,

Darwin died in 1882. This may surprise you, but some scientific work has been done in this area since he first published. He was wrong about a handful of things.
Incidentally, one of the ways that science is unlike a religion is that a respected scientist can be proven to have made a mistake and we can all acknowledge that it was wrong. Now, if the founder of a religion (say, Jesus) was proven to have stated things that are demonstrably incorrect, we'd all have to pretend that he didn't mean what he said, or that we just misinterpreted it. But no, Darwin was a guy who said a few incorrect things. Newton did too, incidentally, but that doesn't mean gravity doesn't work at all -- just that it doesn't work exactly the way he described it.
You didn't refer to evolution as "Darwinism," but I've always assumed that the people who do that share the same misunderstanding that evolution is some kind of cult of personality based on Darwin's charismatic personality.

Re:C'Mon England

[Schnoogs]

Which is funny because this was actually imported to the US from your country/continent.

Re:C'Mon England

[mog007]

How is Evolution not scientific?

It makes predictions that have been confirmed by experiments and observations. Isn't that the crux of science?

Creationism is not science. Period.

Straw man fallacies are not logical. Period.

So you claim calling creationism non scientific is a straw man, but then you agree with it in your NEXT SENTENCE. Do you know what a straw man fallacy is?

Re:C'Mon England

[Atriqus]

...ugh.

If what you got out of evolution to be a secular religion, then you're not paying attention, or the teacher doesn't know what they're talking about. It is not a philosophical belief, it is a theory based off of decades of research and observation. If it were a philosophical belief, then it would not belong in the science room either.

In case you missed it, here's the universal disclaimer of all science: This is for modeling purposes only and is subject to change for more accurate models.

Of course, the "open minded" evolutionists want the other side muzzled, marginalized, fired and otherwise silenced. People knowing the true meaning of a "liberal" education can only shake their heads.

And Flat-earthers say the same about the globularists. So should we devote a good portion of geology and astronomy class discussing whether the Earth is(n't) a spheroid, or should we fill it with topics that will be useful?

Re:C'Mon England

[religious freak]

Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both (or rather, the right one) took place in the past. This is what science students should be taught.

Let's see:

"Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both ... took place in the past" - huh? So physics is not science because the big bang occurred in the past? Or is it just the stuff in the future/present we can call science?
Has evolution stopped for some reason since we found out about it in the 1800s? Evolution IS occurring RIGHT NOW.
"or rather, the right one" - The "right" one? Which one would that be?

Re:C'Mon England

[Anonymous Coward]

Another one who jumped on the bandwagon without actually RTFA.

Current Score - Blog Trolls: 4000, Facts: 0

Re:C'Mon England

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be brainwashed.

Re:C'Mon England

[Artifakt]

Thanks for both insulting me, and putting words in my mouth. You have certainly proved that evolution cannot be a religion and I am obviously a heretic who should be burned at the oh-so-non-religious stake for ever thinking otherwise.
    For the thinking impaired: What I said was, if a class on evolution taught that there was a big, overall trend for evolution, that the 'goal' was some sort of abstract perfection, if it frequently threw around terms such as 'progress', or if it implied that the world was getting better and better because of Evolution, then that was Evolution being taught as a religion.

Re:C'Mon England

[Artifakt]

As I said, "not one professional biologist in a thousand believes this today." Does that really read like I might be surprised to know there have been some changes since Darwin? Or do you feel that statement is inaccurate?
      Thank you for assuming that anyone who dares say Evolution can be mistaught or even just that it is not always taught correctly is an unsophisticated yahoo who needs to be brought back into line with the True Doctrine. That certainly deals a blow to my contention.

Re:C'Mon England

[Artifakt]

You had a better HS Biology teacher than many.

Re:C'Mon England

[KeithJM]

And you missed my point. This was the quote from your previous post:

Darwin's argument on that point was simply wrong. Have you ever had a class on Evolution? Did the teacher draw this distinction? If they did not, that's teaching Evolution as a secular religion

The role of a science class it not to point out everything that was once believed but has now been discredited, even if we're talking about the great minds. It's to teach the process, and include some highlights of what currently has NOT been discredited.
Your argument that it's a religion if we don't teach the specific beliefs of one guy who died 125 years ago is nonsense, even if they are only taught to point out that they were wrong. There is certainly a place for that sort of discussion (a history of science class, for instance, or in some kind of biographical discussion). Science class (especially at the pre-university level) just wouldn't be possible if we had to teach everything that every luminary ever believed to be true that has since been discredited.

Re:C'Mon England

[Nursie]

There are some religious schools teaching this bullshit, yes. but in the main it is not a concern. It's really only the US where whole states have gone over to it.

Re:C'Mon England

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism is not science. Period.

reports religious freak. News at 11.

Re:C'Mon England

[Artifakt]

My argument is that many teachers are still teaching the part that's discredited. You keep putting words in my mouth, then attacking the multiple straw men you create, and lecturing me over things I already know in a way that is downright insulting, acting as though there is some epistemological reason I simply must be the ignorant one everywhere we disagree, and assuming things (as you yourself put it) which are not in evidence and are not appropriate to assume.
      You've somehow taken my last post completely out of context, so that you think I'm arguing some point over the history of science. I bothered to spell things out ("This distinction" and not just "it" or something ambiguous) so what I meant should be clear. The distinction (For the third time) is between teaching Evolution as producing a local optimum state for a given species and teaching Evolution as producing an abstractly perfect creature or even perfecting the entire physical world.
      My conclusion is you do believe the Theory of Evolution is supernatural, and has the occult power to make everyone who teaches it understand and teach it flawlessly. That would explain your behavior. You're right of course, I'm a heretic who has challenged the infallibility of the priests of the one true faith. Oh, you didn't mean that? Then why are you taking such pains to 'correct my misconceptions', when the fundamental claim I have advanced all along is simply that it is possible to incorrectly teach Evolution as having religious implications, and some people do it. If you're claiming the opposite, you're the one who has an incredibly heavy burden of proof, not I.

Misleading summary

[Homburg]

The summary here is absurdly slanted. Reiss didn't advocate discussing creationism in science classes; he wrote that, if students bring up creationism, science teachers ought to be in a position to explain why creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution, rather than simply refusing to discuss the issue at all. Quote:

"If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works."

That's an eminently sensible position.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

What? You expect a group of militant atheists to be any better behaved than a bunch of religious fundamentalists? They are basically the same thing, and rely on unbelievably literalist or warped interpretations of various religious texts to attempt to maintain their relevance.

I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science. The only way the militant atheist can even begin to pretend to "disprove God" is to rely on bizarre interpretations of God in the most literal sense from the most wackaloon fundy.

I suspect that if somehow we could destroy one of these polar forces the other would follow and we would finally wind up with a balanced world wehre Science can do Science and Religion can do Religion and neither one will have penis envy over the other and we can all move on.

Re:Misleading summary

[cp.tar]

Knowing the way we functioned in school, though, this position may prove to be a hindrance. It only takes one or two trolls to turn every class into a creationsim debate.

But if what you quote is correct, why has it turned into such a heated issue? The last thing that should happen is science not discussing certain issues.

Re:Misleading summary

[calmofthestorm]

Angry people will be angry and hateful people will be hateful regardless of their beliefs. Those only determine how easy their arguments are to destroy, not what they believe.

Re:Misleading summary

[cp.tar]

I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science.

Now, I must admit I haven't read any atheists more militant than Dawkins, so I might be out of my depth, but I haven't ever encountered the stance that "science proves there are no gods".

As a linguist, I can readily assert that gods do in fact exist. So do elves, gnomes, unicorns and honest politicians. Now, outside language, that's a wholly diferent and highly debatable matter (do note that I never put trolls on the list, as we have the whole of the internet to actually prove their existence).

Re:Misleading summary

[stormguard2099]

People have a hard time reading things apart from their biases. Look at all of the fanboyism that runs rampant. Look at any politically motivated debate.

People tend to intepret vague things the way they want. Here is a section from the bottom of the WTF article linked:

the Royal Society has put out a statement affirming that it is opposed to creationism being taught as science.

In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."

Well, no-one would argue with that. But it's a bit different from implying that creationism should be taught alongside science, as he did when he said that "in certain classes, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue".

That last sentence seems very far from advocating teaching it in a class but if you are looking at this with the preface of a priest talking about the topic i suppose it can seem different.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

Roam through the science section of a book store. There are quite a few out there. Multiple books on the subject. Which amuses me that they would waste so much of their lives dedicated to proving a negative that, according to them, has absolutely no impact on their lives anyways. The most amusing piece for me is that aside from that whole proving a negative problem, they fail their own logic. The very definition of an omnipotent force existing outside of the rules of science pretty much kills science ever being able to prove or disprove its existence. So, they "disprove" the existence of their own concocted definition of God.

Similar to this concept. I can prove right at this moment that I do not have a wizbanglefrat in my hand. Since I get to define what a wizbanglefrat is and it doesn't have to match anyone elses definition of a wizbanglefrat I can indeed state that there is not one in my hand. Then I can proceed to make outlandish statements about anyone who has a differing definition of wizbanglefrat and write numerous books on the subject rather than doing anything actually productive. :)

Re:Misleading summary

[cp.tar]

Roam through the science section of a book store. There are quite a few out there. Multiple books on the subject.

I will take your word for it, as I haven't seen anything like that in any Croatian bookstore.
I have, however, seen Behe's tracts, as well as other creationist books, placed in the science section, which I find to be even worse.

Re:Misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you why it's turned into a heated issue.

It's dead simple, people see science as a religion now. Rather than successfully teaching the bulk of the world to think for themselves, we've taught them to view whatever science turns out as "right", like a dogma. Rather than that whatever science turns out is our best approximation of the right answer FOR NOW, has a good chance of being wrong, and almost unquestionably is not the full picture.

I am anything but a creationist, but in this debate so often people say "what do you believe". Anyone who "gets" it will say one of a) "what I believe doesn't matter" or b) "I do not believe in any scientific theory at all, as scientist it's my job not to". Anyone who "believes" in evolution and thinks the concept of "belief" has any place in science has completely missed the point. In the words of XKCD "science, it works bitches". Belief is irrelevant, and THAT is the point of science.

Re:Misleading summary

[entrylevel]

You sir, are an extreme moderate.

No worries though, I also make an attempt to stand between the darkness and the light. It's an impossible goal that is worth pursuing.

Re:Misleading summary

[Reality Master 101]

Which amuses me that they would waste so much of their lives dedicated to proving a negative that, according to them, has absolutely no impact on their lives anyways.

I'm not sure what world you live in, but in my world, the existence of religion has a *very* significant effect on *everyone's* life, whether they want it to or not. If only we had a world where belief in religion only affected that individual, and their actions were completely independent of whatever superstitions they wanted to embrace.

But I agree with the other poster. I've never seen any atheist or agnostic claim to "prove" God didn't exist, which is logically impossible. Overwhelmingly convincing evidence, yes. Proof, no.

Re:Misleading summary

[lysergic.acid]

why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?

if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and there's no reason to make special allowances for discussing pseudoscience in a science class just because it's based on a popular religion.

otherwise, science teachers would spend the entire school year refuting pseudo-scientific beliefs, such as creationism, dianetics, homeopathy, paranormal phenomena, indigo children, astrology, numerology, bible code, chakra, astral projection, ESP, ufology, big foot, etc.

if teachers allow students to bring up non-scientific/religious beliefs during science class, they will have to refute all of these beliefs. aside from the time it would that it would take away form legitimate science education, it would also upset a lot of religious parents who don't want their kids to start questioning their "faith." it would be safer to just avoid such sticky subjects as they have nothing to do with science.

Re:Misleading summary

[dangitman]

Militant atheists?????

Re:Misleading summary

[Plutonite]

Hopefully the Royal Society's intervention is not needed in telling [mature, responsible] teachers how to deal with their students' questions on any topic in the classroom. If you train and employ educated and worthy individuals, this entire "debate" on what our teachers "should do" would not exist.

Re:Misleading summary

[dangitman]

I don't think it has anything to do with that. It has everything with fundamentalists increasing their push to drive religion into the classroom, under new guises, such as "Intelligent Design."

Re:Misleading summary

[dafrazzman]

Knowing the way we functioned in school, though, this position may prove to be a hindrance. It only takes one or two trolls to turn every class into a creationsim debate.

The success of such a strategy would depend completely on the teacher's capability. I don't think anyone is suggesting that teachers be required to entertain any suggestion or question in class, but that they be given the liberty to do so. Any competent teacher knows when to say "Enough questions. I need to finish this lecture. If anyone has questions they can see me after class." However, if teachers aren't capable of reasonably handling these questions, they would be better off not accepting them.

But if what you quote is correct, why has it turned into such a heated issue? The last thing that should happen is science not discussing certain issues.

The sad thing is that individuals and groups can get so wrapped up in their beliefs that they start to act unreasonably; they abandon science altogether and/or shun anyone who believes differently (we see this happening here with the Royal Society, and with "young earth" creationism (belief that the Earth was created not long ago should not be confused with the "young earth" system. Both originate from a belief, but only the latter has catapulted into an entirely new (and mostly false) system of beliefs)). In fact, the reactions to creation proposals today are hardly different than the reactions involved in the scopes trial. Some people are so fixated on their belief in evolution (and on the fact that THEY are the scientists) that they completely abandon the science which they claim to stick to, and move to an almost religiously inspired zeal for the removal of all traces of anything they don't believe in from society as a whole (in the same way early evolution skeptics did).

Re:Misleading summary

[florescent_beige]

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. ~ Michael Reiss

My world view involves turtles and free sex for nerds. I demand accommodation!

Seriously though, who in their right mind believes that teenagers are going to think up all sorts of salient arguments in defence of creationism. They aren't. They will bring to class talking points that have been drilled into them by their religious leaders. Class will then become just an extension of the big muddle that Christianity wants to drape over all intellectual pursuits so they can offer their belief system as the only alternative to "theory".

This is politics, not education. Fanatical Christians are like a mosquito keeping you up at night, they just won't go away. The only thing you can do is keep swatting, or get bit.

Re:Misleading summary

[WeirdJohn]

why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?

if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and there's no reason to make special allowances for discussing pseudoscience in a science class just because it's based on a popular religion.

As a teacher, I believe it is vital that we take the time to explain why creationism is not science, so that the students have a solid understanding of the issue to debate and defend their positions. Your approach is asking the students to accept your statement on faith, which will not help them learn science.

Re:Misleading summary

[TheLink]

I think the Guardian wrote the headline and blurb:

"Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design
Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds - which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory"

And I believe the actual stuff Reiss said is the stuff that follows that.

We've seen the "bad summary" stuff before on Slashdot :).

So either the Guardian misread, or they are up to mischief.

I've even downloaded the mp3 that's linked and I don't hear what the Atheists are getting uptight about.

Obviously their uproar is not based on evidence, but on faith ;).

Re:Misleading summary

[Artifakt]

Back in the 1940's - 50's, when the Steady State theory still looked popular in Cosmology, some very serious scientists (Bertrand Russell and Fred Hoyle, for two), routinely pointed to the SS as a disproof of God. They argued that an infinitely old and infinitely large universe never had a moment of creation, or a point of origin, so the theory proved there could not be a creator God. They didn't say it was an absence of evidence for the proposition, or anything like that, they claimed it was, in Sagan's phrase "evidence of absence", a positive disproof.
      Most of these scientists, when the Big Bang theory won out, fought to find ways to use it as a disproof too. They ended up arguing for a version of the Big Bang that had only one point in common with the SS and one prediction in common (The point being they were both scientific theories, and the common prediction being that both of them somehow disproved the existence of God.).
        Before that, there were quite a few astronomers who held the theory that planets were produced only when a very rare event occurred - two stars passing closely at the right distance and velocity to raise tides on each other. They frequently pointed out that the extreme rarity of such passes meant the universe was full of lifeless sterile suns, and this waste of space was somehow a proof of God's non-existence. (So presumably, all these extra-solar planets make God more likely - a pity the astronomers of the 1900's - 10's are all dead now.).

Then there's Carl Sagan:

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to persue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" - Carl Sagan - Cosmos p.257

Before writing this, Dr. Sagan has already outlined the two main recent theories of cosmogenesis in previous chapters - The "Big Bang' theory, and the competing "Steady State" theory were both covered in the third chapter of Cosmos. He has then explained why the best evidence supports the "Big Bang" model. But, if we accept the big bang model, we can't simultaneously conclude that the universe has always existed. Dr. Sagan, by his own writing, does not really think the universe has always existed, and so he has a good reason for not "saving that final step". Why not conclude that the universe has always existed? Because the cosmic microwave background records the flash of its birth, so we are not allowed to take that step. You told us that, Dr. Sagan, so why are you asking this question like it is a rhetorical one? If the Steady State prevailed, we could save your step.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

Care to define the overwhelmingly convincing evidence? All I have seen is diatribes about how Christianity is frequently hyporcitical or uses logical fallicies to describe God. This of course relies on Christians to have the "Correct" definition of God, which in a weird way only serves to validate them. But, by all means, show your evidence of the nonexistance of something that cannot be described. Science and Religion have squat to do with each other.

Also, that you have never seen any atheist claim to "prove" God didn't exist is pretty willfull blindness. A few quick google searches will bring tons of results and a quick stroll through the bookstore will bring more.

Re:Misleading summary

[fastest fascist]

Well, I can't see how anything "supernatural" could both exist and have an effect on the natural world. If something affects the world, it must interface with the world somewhere, which puts it squarely in the realm of the natural. The things you use the scientific method to understand, otherwise. This does seem, to me, to prove a supernatural god just can't exist.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

Funny how I every time I mention the militant atheists in a bad light I get modded down as a troll, but when I challenge the roaming fundies here I get modded insightful. It is almost as if by virtue of being an athiest they believe they are a better person. Stunning that I hear that same logic from the religious folk.

Re:Misleading summary

[Plaid Phantom]

Agreed. It's the only position where you can actually get people on both sides to agree on something. Namely, hating you. ;)

Re:Misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I've even downloaded the mp3 that's linked and I don't hear what the Atheists are getting uptight about.

The Slashdot article was about scientists (who might, or might not, be atheists) getting uptight.

So, what is there to get uptight about?

Let's start with a hypothesis that this Reiss guy is merely stating that if a student asks about creationism in a science class then the instructor should explain why creationism is not science. How is this different from what already happens? Is it currently standard practice for a science instructor to drag a creationist students into the street and shoot them through the lungs?

Under our initial hypothesis, this Reiss guy seems to be under the impression that students who ask about creationism are somehow mistreated by science instructors. It would certainly be troubling if this hypothesis were true. Not only would this Reiss guy be massively misinformed about current practice by science instructors but he would be fanning the flames of a false persecution complex that many religious fundamentalists desperately cling to.

Another hypothesis is that this Reiss guy is trying to get a foot in the door for eventually requiring science instructors to teach creationism as valid science. That is also extremely troubling.

Or, it may be that this Reiss guy really doesn't much like science. Given that the US government is spending trillions to fight over the last scraps of oil in the Middle East but orders of magnitude less on scientific discoveries to develop energy alternatives, I'd say this is also quite troubling. If people want a society focused on war and religious fundamentalism, that's fine. But as a scientist you certainly don't want to be living in such a society.

Re:Misleading summary

[Reality Master 101]

Care to define the overwhelmingly convincing evidence? All I have seen is diatribes about how Christianity is frequently hyporcitical or uses logical fallicies to describe God.

Sorry, I've loooooonnnggggg since stopped trying to talk people out of supernaturalism. Wikipedia seems to have a rundown of various arguments. Personally, the sheer absurdity of the concept of god(s), much less the absurdity of Christianity or other religions, goes a long way in my own mind.

Actually, I like the succinctness of this one teenage atheist in a news story of how they had been persecuted by the wacko religious fundamentalists in their Bible Belt town: "I don't believe in God because they can't bring him forth." How perfectly rational is that?

Or to put it another way, it's not up to me to disprove god. It's up to others to prove god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there's no more extraordinary claim than having knowledge of how the universe "really" works.

Re:Misleading summary

[lysergic.acid]

creationism is derived from religious mythology; hence creationism is religious mythology; hence it is not science--where is faith required to grasp this tautology?

should a math teacher have to prove to a student why numerology isn't math? every field of learning, and indeed every logical argument, is founded on some basic premise that is either accepted or not accepted. even in science there are logical assumptions that we have to make to proceed onto the synthesis of real knowledge.

but there are subject matters which are appropriate for a particular classroom and ones which are not worthwhile to discuss. if you explain the principles of science (eg. the scientific method, parsimony, etc.) then a rational student will understand that creationism isn't science. if they want to hold onto their irrational religious beliefs, then it isn't a science teacher's job to disabuse them of their religious convictions.

if someone wants to say that fossils were planted in the earth by god to test us, then there's no rational argument you can give to convince them otherwise because their convictions are founded on faith, not logic. you can't prove that god doesn't exist because it's not a testable scientific hypothesis. likewise, you're not going to convince any religiously inclined students that they shouldn't believe in something just because it was written in scripture.

discussing creationism/ID in a science classroom is merely validating the false perception that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution. frankly, only someone who doesn't understand the difference between a scientific theory and religious myth would suggest that not believing in god/creationism requires faith. i want my kids' science teachers to teach them about science--chemistry, physics, biology, etc.--not explain to them why the tooth fairy and easter bunny aren't real. it takes faith to believe those things. it doesn't take faith to see that they aren't real.

Re:Misleading summary

[Plaid Phantom]

Interestingly, the 'fundamentalists' feel it is the other way around, starting back when the small, one-room American schoolhouses often included Bible scriptures in their lessons. Many people are still sore over Madalyn Murray O'Hair "taking God out of the schools".

Re:Misleading summary

[TheLink]

Do listen to the interview - it's a downloadable mp3.

"Is it currently standard practice for a science instructor to drag a creationist students into the street and shoot them through the lungs?"

No, if some of the teachers are like the slashdotters here, it'll be standard practice to talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and/or ridicule creationists. Those Nobel Laureates are not much better.

He's seriously trying to educate people, and that he's right that those approaches won't work well.

You can prove you are right, all while not reaching and teaching your student. While that may be enjoyable for your ego, it does no good for your student.

Re:Misleading summary

[nategoose]

I'd mod you higher if you weren't already 5. I was thinking about this just yesterday and think that this is the most sensible thing to do. I've seen kids ask teachers about Genesis, and if the teacher doesn't handle it well those kids will quit listening and just sit there and steam and complain to their parents. If this is ignored then it's like saying that people's religious beliefs aren't even worth addressing. That not only feels like a slap in the face, it is a slap in the face. Teachers having preparation for the questions of the students and their parents will smooth teaching evolutionary concepts and in the end will educate people better. Also, teachers may have their own internal conflicts because of their own religious beliefs and upbringing. The much of the same preparation would also help them in this regard.

Re:Misleading summary

[WeirdJohn]

As a teacher of maths and science, I see teaching the kids to think clearly and critically as just as important as the key content. I know that much of what I teach (in science) will be outdated in their lives, so they have to be equipped to critically discriminate fact from fiction.

I also expect my students to question what I say. They are expected to question anything I teach until it makes sense to them.

If the Easter Bunny, creationism or pink unicorns can be used to do this I'll use it.

Re:Misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

"If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works."

That's an eminently sensible position.

It's also an eminently sensible position that scientists shouldn't beat their wives.

But why bring it up? Unless you have evidence that scientists beat their wives more frequently than other professions.

What does this Reiss guy think happens when a student asks a question about creationism? That the students gets taken outside and shot?

More than anything this Reiss guy seems to be feeding the false sense of persecution that religious fundamentalists use to justify doing bad things to other people.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

So because Aristotle said that all matter was made of the elements of earth, air, fire, and water you can discount that all matter is made of smaller component elements? Just because the popular belief involves a shitty explanation does not mean it should be discounted. Thankfully, there were a number of people that didn't discount it completely and found better ways to describe it and here we are on the brink of finding some rather elusive elemental components of all matter.

So some teenager saying he doesn't beleive in God because a bunch of wackaloons are morons is a fairly stupid statement. What do a bunch of wackaloon judgemental assholes have to do with the existence of God? (In fact, their own damned book speaks a great deal about both not judging, how the majority who claim to know Jesus/God etc will be false, and ironically the hero of their story was VERY vocally against the legalese approach to religion saying the only thing that really mattered was "love thy neighbor")

Again, by your argument here, creationism is valid science now. Because we cannot prove the exact evolutionary path of man you must now disprove creationism. Proving a negative is pretty a logical impossibility, to watch atheists rely on that while touting logic amuses me greatly. I will agree with your claim about having knowledge of "how" the universe works, that absolutely does require evidence. Religion fails miserably when they continue to attempt to answer "how". Now, as far as proving/disproving God goes. If you can prove God, then there is no faith required. If you can disprove God, then you are beliving in a lie. So faith basically puts God outside the scope of being proven or disproven. What you CAN prove/disprove is various descriptions of God, just like you can prove/disprove various descriptions of natural events. A few minutes with the Bible for example and you can pull out hundreds of examples major logical problems.

The real problem is when Science or Religion tries to cross into eachothers territory. Science works with "how" and Religion works with "why". Water for example, one of the few substances known to man that decreases in density as it freezes. This is a terribly critical property of water in terms of life as we know it. Now, Science answers "how" that works. How does water act behave that way is because the hydrogen bonds natrually form in a way that creates a very open crystaline structure making it less dense. Science gets down in the weeds of how the polarity of a water molecule works, the electrons and protons and all of that wonderful stuff. When ultimately the why does water act so uniquely is that at some point at time=0 some cosmic force in some fashion said "because I fucking said so".

To be fair, I have great problems with the religious crowd when they try to explain "how" based on a couple thousand year old book written based on an even longer "telephone game". My version of "God" is a hell of a lot more complex than playdough snakes. (However, given human stupidity I find it hard to challenge that whole story about being conned into eating something based on the reassurances of a talking snake...we do that to this day every election). I also don't insist on a personied God. Every human culture has personified things, trees, birds, spirits, angels, whatever. When Religion X says "well everyone does it and it is silly, except when we do it" it shows a willfull ignorance of reality. I think the religious crowd saying God didn't do XYZ because they don't understand the science of it is a tad insulting to God. "Well, because we were to stupid to understand molecular biology a few thousand years ago that means God clearly could not understand it either!". I am inclined to give a bit more credit to the force that is supposed to be responsible for all creation. In my belief "God" is the ultimate scientist, all we can do is observe the existing (and undeniably unbelievably complex) rules of existence, arguably God would have had to bring all of those

Re:Misleading summary

[WeirdJohn]

By the way, illustrating the sampling errors in Ivor Panin's "biblical numerology" is a great way to show kids the importance of proper sampling and experimental design in senior maths.

Re:Misleading summary

[that IT girl]

I wish I could mod you up, there are not enough people who believe this way. I've been trying to explain my moderation and disbelief in either of these sides, and getting flamed to death for it. This is even worse than the Microsoft-Apple-Linux battle! God-or-Darwin forbid that someone be able to stand back and find good and bad points from both sides and discuss them rationally! That would be intelligent.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

I have fought this battle more times than I can count. You are either with them or against them. The most ironic thing is that both cling to the same insane structure of religion/god/etc whether they agree or disagree. The thing I have been pushing lately is that Science is "how" and Religion is "why" and when they cross into each others territory bad shit ensues. Science only describes how everything works, but ultimately "why" everything exists is beyond the scope of Science. Trying to limit the "how" based on interpretations of "why" is nonsenseical. The notion that whatever "God" there may be can't understand the finer points of quantum physics or molecular biology when "God" is supposed to have been the creator of such things is a little screwy.

Re:Misleading summary

[mdwh2]

So either the Guardian misread, or they are up to mischief.

This news was misreported in a large number of media sites - it's unclear who started it, but it's rather sad to see them all copy and pasting the same false story off of each other, none of them citing sources or giving the full context of original quotes. Not one of them thought to ask the Royal Society themselves for clarification on whether they really thought this.

It's even sadder to see the misreporting continued when the Royal Society have stated their position, and that the media reporting on this is wrong.

Why? Do we want to give the impression that leading scientists support creationism? That's just the thing that creationists would love people to believe!

I've even downloaded the mp3 that's linked and I don't hear what the Atheists are getting uptight about.

I'm an atheist, I don't see this is an atheist thing. It's just bad reporting.

Re:Misleading summary

[Alsee]

I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God

I call bullshit.

I participate in virtually every discussion on here even remotely connected to evolution, and in umpteen years I have seen someone make that argument exactly ONCE, and I personally called him on it. He immediately replied apologizing profusely for his careless comments, and that he he did not intend to make that claim.

Having conversations with invisible some sky wizard is silly, but science can no more disprove the existence of God that it can disprove the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns.

I suspect that if somehow we could destroy one of these polar forces the other would follow and we would finally wind up with a balanced world wehre Science can do Science and Religion can do Religion and neither one will have penis envy over the other and we can all move on.

LoLz.

You could kill every atheist on earth and the radical fundies would be just as dedicated as ever to hijacking the force of government to push 6000 year ago 6-day wacky-literalist Creationism in public school science classes.

If we could somehow muzzle the anti-science cranks and just teach science in science class, you'd be hearing pretty well squat from atheists on this whole science thing.

-

Re:Misleading summary

[Antique Geekmeister]

Yes, I do expect the militant athesists to be better behaved. They don't have the history of wars over heresies, slaughter in the name of atheism, and cultural genocide. (The various Communist revolutions were not militantly atheistic, they were militantly political: I propose that there is, in fact, a difference.)

Moreover, right-wing religious zealotry has existed throughout the history of humanity. It can, and has, lashed out against far milder heresies than 'evolution' with the death and subjugation of their proponents in ways you need merely look at history to document. Right-wing atheists won't cure the existence of right-wing fundantamentalists at all.

Re:Misleading summary

[dangitman]

Well, they can keep their small one-room schoolhouses. Why should they expect government funding to preach their religion? Why do they want government involvement in their religion, anyway? Much of America was founded on the basis of religious freedom from government, for good reasons. Do they really want a return to world they left for America, where European countries had an official state church? I'm beginning to think that many modern fundamentalists do.

Re:Misleading summary

[johanatan]

_God Delusion_ anyone? If God is a delusion, does He exist? I think quite obviously, the intent is to provoke a resounding 'no'. Why *do* athiests have to be so double-minded? You can't have your cake and eat it too--either you are hostile towards God or you aren't.

No one who has seen Dawkins give even a short summary of his work on Colbert Report would doubt his motivation and what his claims of greatness are based on (hint: circular and foolish reasoning). Though Colbert was obviously in his usual character, this was one time that his wit made even his own ally Dawkins look foolish (it's fun when the sword cuts both ways isn't it??).

Also, if you are interested, look up the debates between Hitchens and D'Souza--Hitchens was made quite the fool it seemed to me. I"m sure the results would be the same if Dawkins would step up to the plate.

Re:Misleading summary

[entrylevel]

It is really not funny at all. But I don't have to tell you that.

To db32 and "Plaid Phantom": I wish to meet you both one day.

Re:Misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

As a teacher, I believe it is vital that we take the time to explain why creationism is not science [...]

Will you then also be explaining why the FSM's creation myth is also not science?

What about all the other crazy creation myths out there?

Teaching why Biblical creation is not science would be OK if there were only two conflicting proposals for creation. But because there are countless alternatives to the scientific approach it makes it silly to try to explain why each of them are not science.

Then (at least in the USA) there's the problem of the 1st Amendment. If you teach why biblical creationism is wrong, you'd be violating your students' first amendment rights. You would either have to teach why all the creationism myths are junk or stay away from it completely.

It is far simpler to say "Anything which does not make testable predictions or is not based on verifiable evidence is not science; philosophy class is down the hall." and be done with it.

If you do a good job of teaching scientific method and critical thinking, it will help your students much more than wasting time trying to debunk creationism. And, done right, will cause students to debunk creationism on their own.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

I would like to point out that if the Unicorn is Invisible then by definition it cannot be Pink. So yes you can disprove the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns.

I didn't say which side to eliminate first. I fully suspect that eliminating the fundies would be far more effective in defanging this. In the absense of the militant atheist the fundie will turn on the next group least like them and call them Godless. I suspect the vast majority of the militant atheists would go away if the fundies weren't around making asses of themselves. I think both sides are largly nonsensical arrogant assholes, but I suspect that you are right and the militant atheists would silence themselves in the absense of fundies.

I honestly don't care if people want to be atheists, that is their business, just like any other choice of religion or not. Its when they start getting on soap boxes about how better they are than everyone else that they are no different than your average fundie.

Re:Misleading summary

[ultracool]

We had a creationism troll in my high school biology class. She was quiet until we got to the human evolution bit, and then she'd say things like "What a pile of nonsense, we didn't come from monkeys!" The teacher told her that she was entitled to her opinions, but can she please shut up and not disrupt the class. My town was fairly Christian, but there weren't complaints from anyone else in the class.

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

Let us be real here. There has been precious little slaughter because of religion itself. However, there has been a great deal of slaughter due to money, power, etc and justified by religion. The people that lead most of those bloody events would have found another way to rope the masses into it. Religion is just the easiest one to use, and probably one of the most effective given that you can play the "for your immortal soul" card as payment rather than actually having to fork over some of real spoils of war.

The vast majority of horrific things done in the name of religion are no more about religion than rape is about sex. It is about power, control, money, etc.

Religion just makes for an excellent excuse to liberate earthly goods from "heathens".

Re:Misleading summary

[Hal_Porter]

There's a real tragedy with Sagan I think. If you read Cosmos he's very hostile to Christianity, mostly for the right reasons.

And he's hostile to ID too, on the grounds that people are allowing their religious views to get in the way of their scientific views.

But the problem is with things like Steady State theory he allows his religious views to get the way of his scientific views. And it's the same with TTAPS - his politics totally distorted his science. He knew what he wanted to prove politically and then cherry picked the science to fit that conclusion.

It's like religion got him in the end.

Re:Misleading summary

[MindlessAutomata]

Militant atheist, n.
An atheist that passionately argues for atheism as if one would argue any other political or philosophical position in the public square. Often used in a derogatory manner by the politically correct and theists.

Re:Misleading summary

[Antique Geekmeister]

Religion should not be allowed to play 'innocent bystander' in these slaughters, or play the 'guns don't kill people' sort of innocent plea. And goods are hardly the only reasons for religious slaughter, although to continue to full-scale genocide it helps continue the program.

Re:Misleading summary

[cp.tar]

_God Delusion_ anyone? If God is a delusion, does He exist? I think quite obviously, the intent is to provoke a resounding 'no'.

I do so adore people who have only read the title of a book and yet feel they are competent enough to discuss it.
In God Delusion, Dawkins declares himself a rational atheist, quite unwilling to even attempt to disprove the existence of god(s). He does present a convincing argument against the existence of a specific instance, though, which is not the same.

Why *do* athiests have to be so double-minded? You can't have your cake and eat it too--either you are hostile towards God or you aren't.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.
However, hostility towards the idea of gods is not an issue here. "Science proves gods do not exist" is not mere hostility; I am rather hostile to the idea of gods myself, yet would never even attempt to prove such a negative.

Oh, and a final nitpick: it's atheist.

Re:Misleading summary

[Whiteox]

If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.
G.K. Chesterton

I can't believe how narrow minded the crop of the 'pro-science' slashdotters out there.
There are many different sciences, all based on scientific methodology.
But most forget the origins of science and the conundrum that science still prevails. Scientific Methodology is not perfect and will never be able to explain the universe (as Newton originally desired), because they only look for the cause. Or they see the effect and try to find the cause. How successful has that been? Not very. There has been no agreement about anything, but theory after theory, based on 'subjectively observable' hypotheses.
There should be a continuum of understanding and an ability to accept a point of view.
For example, Newton while head of the Royal Society had to contend with bizzare experiments like those scientists who wanted to store sunlight in cucumbers, or feed dye pigments to spiders. That was 'science' too.
Rupert Sheldrake - a biologist of some repute, has theorised the concept of 'Morphic Resonance', which is detailed somewhat here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
Paul Davies is another recognised scientist 'on the edge'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies
When you can't think of a scientific reason, there is always GOD or some kind of absolute or constant that helps the way.
Science is a dynamic development of paradigm after paradigm and shouldn't shut out 'thoughts' because it is not scientific.
A blind scientist is just as bad as the most dogmatic preacher.

Re:Misleading summary

[Chrisq]

Its a question of how much time is spent. A brief explanation of why creationism is not science would benefit the whole class. Getting into a hour long "but the Bible says" debate would not.

Re:Misleading summary

[Alsee]

I'd say that's an agreeable point to let this wrap up. Tho it's tempting to argue invisible-pink :D

-

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

Neither should Democracy then eh? Just because a shitty leader rallies support for a war by saying it is to "free" some people from oppression it should be Democracy that gets punished and not allowed to play 'innocent bystander'? The blame religion is just the same as blame the corporations and all of that silly shit. It is a wonderful way to continue cycles of hate, avoid holding anyone personally responsible for anything, and ultimately leave the powers that be in charge. Every time I hear people "blame the corporations" I cringe. Corporations are a terribly good thing, it has allowed unbelievable growth and productivity. That doesn't negate that idiot assholes wind up at the top and then do bad things. This is yet another byproduct of our society avoiding personal responsibility at all costs. It allows all manner of shitheads to rise to the top. The same thing happened during various timeframes of various churches. When they held their clergy above the law, ambitious idiot assholes climed the ladder and warped things for their own purpose. That has nothing to do with religion, or corporations, or democracy, and everything to do with human nature when no personal accountability is the norm.

People only can be controlled by any of these things when they are willfully ignorant. The kind of propoganda that gets used for any of these falls apart rather quickly under any kind of educated examination. I know an atheist that voted for George Bush because a talking fucking cartoon donkey on a Snickers commercial said "I invented the internet" and he "knew that was a lie" so he voted against the Donkey. So willfully ignorant morons come in all shapes and sizes and are not tied to religion in any specific way.

Re:Misleading summary

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, make no mistake. That wasn't about democracy: that was about religion, money, and power. But no, democracy doesn't get to play 'innocent bystander' on it. We let our leaders lie to us, playing on refreshed fears of terrorism. And we've let those fears erode democracy itself with the Patriiot Act, Guantanamo Bay, and genuine war crimes in Iraq, and before that in Bosnoya. (Take a good look at the legal protections for US mercenaries in both Bosnia and Iraq: they can't be tried under foreign law or US law for their war crimes in either place.)

Religion has been a particularly powerful justification for it: the idea that God, or gods, give a special right to the leaders to perform acts that override law and which are a sin to disobey is insidious and dangerous. Oddly enough, the 'militant atheists' mentioned earlier don't seem to exist as an organized group with that sort of behavior. And if you've not met idiocy tied particularly to religion, I suggest you look at Ethiopia, Bosnia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and even parts of the USA right now.

Re:Misleading summary

[Artifakt]

I thought he had a real problem by the time he wrote the introduction to Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". It was a two page intro, and he brought up the issue of religion specifically as opposed to science several times, none of which were particularly relevant to the book. He managed to commit a logical fallacy of exclusion at least three times in a single sentence, which is so impressive it ought to be a text-book example. I'm somewhere in the borderline Zen-Gnostic heretic-Sufist range, and I'd never claim Atheism has to be a religion, but for Dr. Sagan, it definitely was.
     

Re:Misleading summary

[db32]

Oh no, I don't mean you don't find idiocy tied to religion. I mean that idiocy is not specific only to religion. To be honest I view organized religion as a huge affront to whatever God there may be. In my belief, God is far more complex than making playdough snakes. I also don't view God as some magical father figure coming to help us. I view God as the creater...the voice at time=0 that said "because I fucking said so" and all the rules of existance came to be. I find the notion of a creator building this infinite and expanding universe that operates on an unbelievably complex set of rules to be quite inspiring. The *bamf* magic God seems intellectually lazy. The ultimate painter that gets to both make the masterpiece, and the perfect observer with the desire to examine and appreciate every minute detail. I think it is pretty insulting to said creater to say no, we were *bamf* magic created as humans and we did not come to exist through billions of years of processes that eventually allowed elements to combine in such a way that they became alive and grew into increasingly complex critters.

That said, I think God is also a personal issue, not a group decision. Organized religion is just a clever way to get a bunch of people to think the same and follow orders.

Re:Misleading summary

[Homburg]

why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?

I don't see teaching children about philosophy of science as depriving them of a real science education. Quite the contrary.

if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there.

Why not explain why creationism isn't science, thereby giving children a better understanding of what science is and isn't?

Re:Misleading summary

[johanatan]

I was basing my analysis of Dawkins on his own summaries as given on Colbert Report and several other channels (as stated previously). I have not read the book, but I know people who have (some of whom are atheists), and even by their account, Dawkins is about as extreme as they come. He's the atheist version of a fundamentalist extremist to put it bluntly (and that's rather ironic given his an Hitchens' hatred of their counterparts--they're just as extreme and evangelical as they come).

Re:Misleading summary

[dangitman]

A blind scientist is just as bad as the most dogmatic preacher.

Uhhh, what the fuck does any of that have to do with my comment? Can you please tell me who these "militant atheists" who are using violence in the name of spreading atheism? Scientists with strange ideas is nothing like the religious people who are actually using violence and murder to push their particular sect.

Re:Misleading summary

[Whiteox]

Uhhh, what the fuck does any of that have to do with my comment?
Nothing really. I posted my comment in the wrong thread.
Can you please tell me who these "militant atheists" who are using violence in the name of spreading atheism?
I don't interpret militancy that way. There are obviously atheists who propound their non-beliefs strongly enough to appear militant. Hitler was a militant athiest (disliked ALL religion) and so was Stalin's regime - religion got in the way of the State.
Scientists with strange ideas is nothing like the religious people who are actually using violence and murder to push their particular sect.
I'm not being pedantic here, but you must agree that WMDs are a product of science. Oppenheimer was one who was bivalent on the moral issues, quoting from religious sources regarding death and destruction of mankind, yet pursuing nuclear weapons at the same time.

Re:Misleading summary

[TheLink]

Bad reporting? Is it just bad reporting?

Don't you think it's strange that the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, Times Online, Guardian, New Scientist, Dawkins, two Nobel laureates and various bloggers are all reading his remarks differently from how you and I read it.

For example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4734767.ece "Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools"

And it quotes him as: Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson."

Anyway I hope the Royal Society keeps him in his current role (professor of science education), in my opinion he does know how to educate people, whereas all these journalists clearly don't.

In my opinion, either they can't read or they are up to no good.

Re:Misleading summary

[Darby]

Hitler was a militant athiest (disliked ALL religion)

Hitler was a militant *Christian*. Don't spread idiotic lies about decent people to try and hide reality. It makes you a scumbag.
Go look up some of his speeches. Go read "God mit Uns" on the buttons of the German soldiers which he had put there. Go read Martin Luther's (father of Protestantism) "On the Jews and their Lies" which laid out the holocaust in explicit detail.

You can blather along about how he's not a "real" Christian, but if you take an honest look at that religion's history, you'll have a real hard time making that argument.

Creationism vs Evolution

[fluffykitty1234]

This is a great class to teach kids about what science is, and what the differences between scientific theories, and a non-scientific theory is.

For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.

It could be a great teaching tool IMHO.

Embrace, and extinguish. ;)

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

What?? You mean God pushes the evil fruit away from heaven.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[glitch23]

For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.

Creationism doesn't predict anything (although the Christian Bible does) and what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop. So what say you now? Past evidence for both is actually the same set of evidence but interpreted differently depending on whether you have an aversion to group thinking not biased towards secular beliefs. Because we all know group thinking occurs in church and schools alike and we are all taught to take what a teacher says as gospel, pun intended.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Yokaze]

> what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.

Speciation has been observed.

The principle of evolution is not only a theory, which withstood the test of time, but one, which has been proven to work in other fields.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Artifakt]

There are some testable predictions of Evolutionary theory. For just one, Darwin pointed out that the mechanisms of heredity could not allow unlimited blending, or his theory wouldn't work. Until Gregor Mendel developed a theory of genetics that didn't allow for blending, (more accurately, until Mendel's writings crept out from their isolated source into the general scientific culture) many people pointed to this as a weakness of the theory.
      In point of fact, one of the reasons Crick and Watson got their Nobel is that the discovery of the genetic code supported Darwin and Mendel, that is the model of genes expressed in the four base pairs of the DNA rungs was a code that didn't produce unlimited blending effects.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Also... you can look at the fossil layers and how the match with the timeline of evolution. The prediction is that you're not going to find modern evolved creature fossils in 300 million year old sediment beds. So far, every run of that test has succeeded.

Similarly, genetic analysis of some higher level creatures gives us clues of other things to look for in specific other creatures, or gives us clues as to how some features might have developer, and when we go look for them, where we think they'll be... they're there.

The trick is that because you're dealing with such long timelines, you have to broaden your mind a little as to what an experiment is.
You set up conditions, make a prediction as to what you will find, gather new unknown data (the results) and see if it matches.

In a normal lab test, you set up the experiment, make a prediction, then do the experiment and confirm/deny.
In these evolutionary tests, your initial conditions are preset, you make your prediction based on your theories, and try to find new data that confirms or denies it.
It's not an experiment until new data is applied to it.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[bendodge]

Well, let's see you predict something that evolution will make. Now let's see it come true.

Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both (or rather, the right one) took place in the past (you can't say Evolution is taking place right now since you can't fulfill the above challenge). This is what science students should be taught.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Anglican priest do you really think that is what he was advocating? Are you really that naive? He will be a priest first and a scientist second. Always! Because of this he should never have been given the post in the first place. And by all accounts the society were warned about this when they appointed him. They were probably just trying to curry favour with the openly and conveniently religious Labour government.

As they are egged on by US Christian success and feel more and more pressured by the growth of Islam in the UK you expect the Church of England to become more and more vocal. I wonder how much longer "cake" will remain on the option list when flying Church of England airways?

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[atraintocry]

conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.

Dead wrong.

You seem to be trotting out the old, "evolution is just a theory", with the added bonus of pointing out (incorrectly) there there's no evidence for it. Were you just hoping no one would notice?

Sorry but the whole "science is just a secular church" thing is about as ridiculous as "cars are like birdfeeders, but they're metal and have wheels and an engine".

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

You are thinking about the problem wrong. Evolution predicted that a species like Tiktaalik existed, long before a fossil was found.

So yes, there are predictive values, which have been proven multiple times.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[porjo]

This is what I predict: In the millions of years it will take for Evolution to be observed in any meaningful way civilisations will rise and fall, the theory of Evolution will be forgotten, and new ways to ignore God will have taken it's place

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Dimensio]

What relevance do means of "ignoring God" have to do with a discussion of evolution?

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Paul Pierce]

what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.

I know very little about evolution. I believe I understand the big concepts, but here is my question:

If evolution explains where all species came from, then shouldn't a snapshot from any time period that the earth has existed show evolution in virtually all species? What I mean is shouldn't there be a monkey that is much closer to being human at all times? Shouldn't there be tons of different squirrels, and rats, and elephants. What is evolving into an elephant? I understand these things happen over an incredibly long amount of time, but doesn't that make it even more impossible to find a period without millions of species in between other species. If a giraffe turned into an Elephant (no idea what did) then wouldn't there have to be tons of types of giraffe's that were starting to look more like an elephant at all times? Wouldn't these at least be the case for the 'leading' species?

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Yokaze]

> If evolution explains where all species came from, then shouldn't a snapshot from any time period that the earth has existed show evolution in virtually all species?

No, it means, there could be, provided that it wouldn't be such a rare chance, that fossils comes into existence. Living things, that die the usual way, are decomposed within mere decades.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[Paul Pierce]

Let me say this first - I believe in evolution.

No, it means, there could be, provided that it wouldn't be such a rare chance, that fossils comes into existence. Living things, that die the usual way, are decomposed within mere decades.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Ok, so there could be - check - but it is hard for us to find because most decompose fast; therefore almost impossible to find any at all. I guess I'm still not sure why there aren't a tremendous amount more species and variations of species. If elephants are evolving- which they must, right - and it will take thousands of years for them to evolve, then how come there are so few types currently? Is the elephant done evolving? Or does the elephant fail Darwinism if we decide to kill them all?

Re:Creationism vs Evolution

[glitch23]

Dead wrong. You seem to be trotting out the old, "evolution is just a theory", with the added bonus of pointing out (incorrectly) there there's no evidence for it. Were you just hoping no one would notice? Sorry but the whole "science is just a secular church" thing is about as ridiculous as "cars are like birdfeeders, but they're metal and have wheels and an engine".

If I'm wrong then why didn't you just give me a credible reference to evidence of macro-evolution creating a new species instead of a bunch of rhetoric? The evidence must show end-to-end the line of species leading up to the current species without the need for someone to make assumptions or fill in the gaps to make the lineage logical.

Eh...

[that IT girl]

Honestly, why NOT teach both? Look, depending on which way your beliefs slant, you have a little bit of evidence and a lot of faith that it happened that way. Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

Re:Eh...

[mikey1134]

I don't think the word theory means what you think it means...

Re:Eh...

[gardyloo]

Along with all the other "major theories" that have every come along? L. Ron will thank you.

Re:Eh...

[mikey1134]

Don't forget the Pastafarian creation story, or Last Thursdayism...

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

To expound upon that...

Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it, and plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way. The only thing we know 100% is that we don't know 100%. The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time, and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept. I think this is the best way to make new discoveries, actually. If a young, bright, enterprising student is presented with two possible options, harmonizing on some points and conflicting in others, they may want to do more research, test things, and who knows? Maybe they will find the missing links in the fossil record, or maybe they'll find a giant fingerprint of God or something. Whereas if you just present one side and have the students remain ignorant about the other side, they will accept it complacently and not question things much further. That, obviously, would be a bane to discovery, and to progress.

Re:Eh...

[biryokumaru]

Inconceivable!

Re:Eh...

[Cantareus]

Both major theories? I wasn't aware there was more than one. I think if there is another major theory that is supported by half as much evidence as the current theory is it should be definitely be taught.

Re:Eh...

[LurkerXXX]

Please point out the credible evidence for creationism. It's not science. Creationism isn't a Theory in the scientific sense. Just in a layman's sense.

Re:Eh...

[SerpentMage]

I happen to believe in Evolution, and believe Evolution is strong enough to withstand the crackpots who believe in Creationism.

Talking about Creationism is about being able to speak openly and being able to discuss things. Of course Creationists will always resort to the bible as proof, which is kind of ironic since the bible is just words that somebody happened to have written. It's like saying, "oh Lead Zeplin in the stairway to heaven meant blah, blah."

Getting back to the point science is about discussion, even if sometimes that discussion is pointless.

I always bring up the following point. Imagine today somebody came up and said, "hey God spoke to me and said we should do x,y, and z." The first reaction is crackpot, and that is not good. Because who knows maybe God did speak to them. Maybe God did say something. We have become so cynical that if something does not fit into a nice neat folder xyz then well it simply cannot exist. And I know that this is not the case since so many things happen that we cannot explain.

Here is an example, why can twins "sense" each other? I am not going to revert, "because God did xyz" What I am saying is that this ability of one twin sensing the other is something that we have just not being able to explain and it does not fit neatly into our standard discussion points. And hence we kind of have to be careful of what is right, and wrong.

Though I am all for a good logical creationist discussion, and I am guessing it will be rather short.

Re:Eh...

[nawcom]

that IT girl, I was gonna make you my next beat-off girl, but now that I know that you are a follower of this "evidence of the supernatural" when it comes to the ehem CHRISTIAN religion, I'll beat off to someone else. Personally the pagans always win me over. If you want to worship anything, worship nature. I'll continue to understand what theories REALLY ARE, and keep my own mind open on feasible possibilities, none of which are based on the supernatural.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then you should have absolutely no difficulty in presenting the evidence for creationism. Where is it, by the way? I ask in all seriousness, and I've read a few books by creationists, they've never presented any. Every single discussion or debate I've seen or been in no creationist has ever presented evidence for creationism. Absurd, easily disproved pot-shots at isolated bits of evidence supporting evolution, sure. Quote mines aplenty. But pro-creationism evidence? Not a shred. So could you please kindly direct me to it? I've been asking and waiting for it for nearly 20 years now.

Re:Eh...

[calmofthestorm]

There is no more evidence for creationism than there is for absurd theories like the IPU (may Her Grace forgive me) and the FSM, I'm afraid. I've read their materials, their textbooks. They are full of misinterpretations, science that was current two decades ago, and outright false facts presented as truth.

A fact which contradicts natural selection is not the same as a fact which supports creationism. That is the product of a false dichotomy.

Re:Eh...

[rossdee]

I have no trouble wuth people believing in Creation, or in a Creator. However if this is mentioned in a Science class, then the facts taught should be those that are scientifically verifiable. ie the Creation Event happened BILLIONS of years ago, not thousands as taught by _some_ christians, and that while there is no scientific proof of the Existance of The Creator, there is nothing to disprove that existance either.

Re:Eh...

[nawcom]

The fact that one requires blind faith pretty much takes it out of the requirements for it to be a scientific theory.

And if you really want to count Creationism as a theory, even though it requires the lack of evidence in order to follow it..

Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it

There are not 2 major theories; there are more than 200 major theories! You don't understand what you are talking about. If you really want to limit how humans were created (from dirt and a rib and a finger from a supernatural man no less) then you are one ignorant person.

Re:Eh...

[mikael]

Explain how matter can spontaneously come into existence, and then not only form itself into complex arrangements of molecules (DNA, RNA, viruses), bone, muscle, skin, brain, but also happen to be in just the exact state to be able to live and reproduce. For any species, there must be at least eight such creatures to be instantly created otherwise they would have been inbred within several generations.

Why go to the effort of creating hundreds of thousands of different species (flowers, insects) that only exist in tiny clusters in places all over the world?

Then why also go to the effort of creating and burying the skeletons of hundreds of species that never existing (since the world didn't exist before 3000BC?).

Why would native people like the Aborigines in Australia have legends passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation that relate to a time 10,000 years ago, when there were forests and lakes in Australia (confirmed by analysis of soil core samples?). What about cave paintings which are carbon-dated to before this time?

You end up with a whole set of physical evidence which contradicts one theological research paper.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an example, why can twins "sense" each other?

They can't, apart from in the normal human senses sense. That was tested years ago.

They might _think_ they have a magic ESP connection to their twin, they might _say_ they do, but it's indistinguishable from random.

Re:Eh...

[orkysoft]

Creationism / Intelligent Design isn't a theory. The only "evidence" for it is some text in a book and some fake photoshopped pictures of digs of four meter tall humanoid skeletons.

It is not reasonable to present both evolution by natural selection, which has mountains of evidence behind it, and creationism / ID as equally plausible scientific theories. The only role Creationism / ID should play in a science class is as an example of a nonscientific explanation of how we came to be here.

What missing links are you talking about? More fossils are unearthed every day, and regularly, they discover a new species of hominid that fits in between two known species. Then you'll just whine about the missing links between the older known species and the newly discovered ones, ad infinitum. Take the real numbers: there's an infinite amount of them between any two integers. The "missing link" between 1 and 2 would be e.g. 1.5, and that would give rise to two new "missing links" -- one between 1 and 1.5, and the other between 1.5 and 2. This could go on and on forever (no barrel-throwing monkeys at the end, though).

Of course they should not let students be ignorant of the fact that many people prefer to believe some old book instead of a theory that's been debated and improved for 150 years by thousands of very smart and diligent scientists, all trying to disprove (parts of) it, and replace it with new ideas -- that would make them very famous and allow them to hold a speech in Stockholm. There is no conspiracy to push evolution by scientists who are afraid of religion or something like that. It would require thousands of intelligent and ambitious people to willfully forego their chance at the Nobel Prize. Never gonna happen.

It comes down to this: evolution by natural selection is a good theory that explains the wide variety of life found on this rock, and which makes biology make sense, and creationism and ID are just the LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU yelling of desperate religious people.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as credible evidence goes, the theory that a giant monkey shat out the universe is equally valid to Creationism. But you don't see THAT taught in science classes...the bastards.

Re:Eh...

[Dannkape]

If you mean evidence supporting "void to earth in 144 hours", then no. There isn't any.

The arguments used to support creationism are mainly arguments *against* evolution. (information theory, transitional forms, etc.) The only "original" arguments mostly involve a global flood some 1600 years later...

Re:Eh...

[cp.tar]

If I lined up all the coincidences I have experienced with my girlfriend in the past year, I'd have proof enough we are identical twins. At least using the normal identical-twin-ESP metric.

This, BTW, includes my IM-ing her a Slashdot comment about a beer commercial at the precise moment she got sprayed by a beer.

Re:Eh...

[Teun]

I agree concepts like Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Astrology and Scientology should be mentioned at some appropriate time of the curriculum.

But science classes is not that place.

See, you can teach Evolution but only warn for the others.

Although I have generally little (no) faith in the way the British handle progress I feel they'll get this one right as it just requires them to stay where they were a century ago.

Re:Eh...

[Improv]

No there are not. Only evolution has any significant degree of scientific consensus, and creationism isn't even a scientific theory. It is the job of the educational system to present the current consensus of the academic community to the masses, discussing any significant splits in that if necessary. That's not the case here.

The fact that you have to compare a "giant fingerprint of God or something" to digging up missing-link fossils should tell you something (although the "missing link" is drastically understated - given the rate of preservation of fossils, we should not expect every stage of speciation of every form to be available for our perusal.)

Re:Eh...

[hairykrishna]

Creationism isn't a theory. It cannot make predictions and is impossible to falsify.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories

No there aren't.

that both have evidence

No there aren't.

and plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way.

That's a paradox.

The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time,

No it isn't.

and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept.

They do this every time one of them falls asleep, in class or church.

I think this is the best way to make new discoveries, actually... who knows? Maybe they will find the missing links in the fossil record, or maybe they'll find a giant fingerprint of God or something.

Track record currently stands, Science: 1341353150135, God: 0. And it's not for lack of trying on God's end.

Whereas if you just present one side and have the students remain ignorant about the other side, they will accept it complacently and not question things much further.

If only. We'd be rid of this nonsense already.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because creationism teaches people that they are god's most precious holy turd and as such they have a "god-given" right to use and abuse this planet without fear of repercussions. We've lived with this implicit LIE for over 2000 years on the promise that we would have "heaven on earth", and look what it has gotten us. Pollution, over-crowding, mass-extinctions, wars, rising poverty, and the mass displacement/murder of all who don't believe the LIE. Compared to the life of a modest "pre-christian" farmer we live in hell!

That is why we don't teach "the LIE" in science classes.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to believe in Creationism, and believe Creationism is strong enough to withstand the crackpots who believe in Evolution. ;)

I also believe you're quite possibly the only reasonable person on Slashdot. I have never before seen an Evolutionist admit they don't know something. They always attack, attack attack.

It's like they are afraid to answer your honest questions. (either that or every other word is a curse word. ugh. its annoying. like "i am right because i curse more than you."

anyways, just wanted to say that your someone I might could respect. unlike the rest of the idiots around here.

P.S. posting a AC cause I don't have an account. I just like looking around... hardly ever post anything. -nods-

Re:Eh...

[Maelwryth]

Although your suggestion sounds fairly reasonable, it has a few problems I can think of.

1) We don't have enough time to learn all we need to learn anyway. If you start throwing in the old theories, creationism, pan genesis, "god wills it", people won't have time to learn the current theory.

2) People get horribly, and I mean horribly, upset when their religious beliefs are exposed in this manner. Do you really want a classes of crying, violent students lynching their teachers? Maybe in university you could get away with it, but at any lower level you have just attacked their relationship with their families, friends, and church. People say science has nothing to do with the god, this is true. However, science is diametrically opposed to religion. Religion says, "This is the word of god, you shall believe what we say" and time and time again science has come along and said, "Bugger off, Jack!".

3) It is completely the wrong way round. If creationism wants to be accepted as an equal contender to evolution then it needs to be held to the same standard as evolution. Namely that it is testable by us, and that is where it falls over. It isn't testable at all. Unless you expect people to spend their lives looking into an empty test tube waiting for it to happen?

Re:Eh...

[UnknownSoldier]

> The only thing we know 100% is that we don't know 100%.

Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean everyone else is.

Re:Eh...

[PieSquared]

Information theory? Are you talking about the idea that mutations are noise and so you can't get anything meaningful out of them? That'd totally be true if evolution was "there are mutations and they cause new species". But since "natural selection" is applied to the mutations (low points in the noise of mutation disappear instantly and high points become the new baseline on which more noise is created) there is nothing in information theory that would be "evidence against evolution".

And transitional forms? Looks like someone needs to take biology 101 again. Every single lifeform is the transitional form between its parents and its children. What exactly do you mean by a transitional form, then? Do you want an example of every single mutation, in order, between two species you know of? An animal being fossilized is incredibly rare, and many mutations wouldn't show up in fossils anyway, so that's obviously not going to happen.

The vast majority of the "evidence against evolution" is like yours - evidence against some other theory of evolution that only creationists know about. One where mutations are selected at random instead of only beneficial ones being selected, one where a one species gives birth to a "transitional form" that has the body of the old species and the head of a new species, which then gives birth to a new species (or sometimes directly from one species to another, like a cat giving birth to a dog). The rest of the evidence is outright falsehood or "the bible doesn't say evolution is true so it isn't" or even "I wouldn't want to be related to a monkey, so I'm not".

And even if there were evidence against evolution - that doesn't make it evidence *for* creationism.

Re:Eh...

[orkysoft]

Yeah, and the modest "pre-christian" farmer lived in paradise:

• drink water from a river that people in the upstream village shit in
• get ill from unhygienic circumstances (bad water, handling manure, then handling food, infectious diseases)
• inavailability of medicines such as antibiotics
• bad food, especially in winter
• bad weather wiping out your crops
• drafty houses
• dying of old age by age 40
• losing a significant amount of your children while they are very young, something that is widely recognized as the worst thing that can happen to anyone
• rampaging Roman armies come to steal your grain and kids (for reinforcement or entertainment, depending on their gender)
• have you ever read old myths and legends? People with a bit of power had serious ego problems back then, and would sometimes kill you if they thought you looked at them funny, and get away with it. This is still somewhat of a problem, but has mostly been contained these days
• people were generally more aggressive, because there was no insurance or social security, so you had to look tough and intimidate potential enemies to make them think twice about stealing your cows

On the plus side:

• no reality tv
• no Microsoft Windows
• no DRM
• no SUVs
• no anime
• no DMCA
• no Jehova's Witnesses

Overall, I think the world is getting better and people are getting nicer. Of course pollution, climate change, and concentration of wealth and power are big problems that affect us all and need to be handled.

Even the poor people in rich countries nowadays have it much better than the poor people thousands of years ago. Thousands of years ago, the poor people would starve, nowadays they can grow grossly obese while watching the above-mentioned tv programs (albeit on a crappy old CRT instead of a big-screen plasma screen).

Compared to the "pre-christian" farmer, we live in heaven. You're just someone who'll never be satisfied, and expects everything to be handed to you on a platter. The world owes you nothing, you just happened to be born, and it is up to you to survive. Just use your advanced human superpower called cooperation, which has allowed us to bring the bigger, stronger, and faster animals to the brink of extinction, while we are slow, weak, and have tiny teeth and no claws.

Humans are the ultimate zerg rush, kekeke!

But you just sit there, complaining about how hard it is today, and how much better you imagine it must have been in the past.

Re:Eh...

[skulgnome]

Thing is, creationism is objectively wrong. The Earth was not created 7000 years ago. There should not be any teaching of objectively wrong things in science class aside from as an example of nonscience in the later, philosophy-of-science type courses.

And as for conclusive proof, you should be aware that in natural science there is no such thing. And evolution and origin of mankind and stuff like that are most definitely matters of natural science.

Of course your "god" will explain everything purely and perfectly and conclusively, so how the heck could some mere humans even hope to compete -- except for those bits where, you know, heliocentrism turned out to be objectively wrong and such. Having learned to rely on a preacher's version of god, you expect everything to be nice and platonically pure and conclusive and final. Carved on slabs of marble, so to say.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't quite work that way.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

Have you actually done any research on this? Because I have.

http://www.creationscience.com/

Just a start.

Re:Eh...

[celle]

Except you didn't expound upon the previous poster you ignored him. Creationism isn't science and not a theory no matter how you package this superstitious non-sense. Leave creationism to history and religion/theology classes where creationism belongs. Just remember, most kids take science to get through requirements and won't go any further than that. So teaching both just sends a mixed message and turns classes into potential debating matches where nothing will be taught for lack of concensus, if not eventual combat and bloodletting later in life. Most kids just accept what's taught and won't research so you just create confusion and potential problems later. We had creationism for thousands of years and got nowhere. Well, with exception of persecutions/executions of those scientific ones/anyone who disagreed, and let's not forget the book-burnings and medical deaths and exterminations due to blind-ignorance(cats during the black plague). It took thousands of years to get rid of creationism and all the murderous, burning books, mass-manipulation crap that it would cause. Now that scientific method has proven extremely effective for the last few centuries or so, why would we want to go back into the self-blinding, manipulatable, murderous, hellhole that is creationism?

Yes, I was religiously educated and learned/observed this first hand. Creationism is blind-belief, science is not blind but is belief based on reason, are you thinking yet?

The time of enlightenment and wisdom is over it seems as more idiotic fools come out of the woodwork indicating that the pendulum is swinging back to ignorant from intelligent. If Mccain gets elected it'll swing faster.

Re:Eh...

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I lack beliefs you insensitive clod!

Actually, the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, the evidence to disprove it is only overwhelming in it's absense

Re:Eh...

[Dannkape]

Information theory?

I might have used the wrong word, as I was mainly just listing a few types of arguments of the top of my head...

And transitional forms? Looks like someone needs to take biology 101 again.

I know things are gradual, but how please tell me how something like a birds wing is supposed to evolve? "gradually glide a little longer" sure looks nice in picture books. But wings are completely differently built to any other bone, (and pretty useless without feathers, feathers of course being pretty useless unless perfectly tuned as well.) That's the kind of transitional forms I'm talking about, not the "dog" creatures gradually becoming bigger and stronger ending up as a wolf, while others turn into little things that fit in a handbag...

The vast majority of the "evidence against evolution" is like yours - evidence against some other theory of evolution that only creationists know about.

Would you seriously expect die-hard evolutionist to point out the known flaws in their theories themselves? Why does the news always put it on the front page whenever someone find a "missing link", yet barely mention it when someone admits it was a hoax half a year later?

one where a one species gives birth to a "transitional form" that has the body of the old species and the head of a new species

Anyone seriously claiming anything like that, I wish would shut up, as they are doing more damage than good to their own cause by their outright stupidity.

The rest of the evidence is outright falsehood or "the bible doesn't say evolution is true so it isn't" or even "I wouldn't want to be related to a monkey, so I'm not".

As above, there sure are lots of arguments being thrown around, that leading creation scientists seem to spend nearly as much time telling people not to use, and they do spreading their latest findings. It's actually interesting to see how often non-christians realize that christianity is worthless without literal creation, while so many christians are eager to "adapt/compromise"...

And even if there were evidence against evolution - that doesn't make it evidence *for* creationism.

I know. And I myself pointed that out in another (very brief) post, and got modded down for it.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

Sure it does. A theory is an idea, supported to whatever degree, about something. As much as people throw around the word 'science' when it comes to this argument, they forget that both sides have supposed scientific evidence to support their idea. Furthermore, both sides have some evidence they claim that could just as easily be twisted to support the other side. And neither side looks at the evidence and draws a conclusion; rather, they pick a side and then grab evidence to back it up. That is in stark contrast to the scientific method.

This is exactly why I don't pick a side. Yes, let that sink in.
Neither side has enough evidence to convince me. My opinion is unique I think. It says the world is already here, and it has a lot of problems. How it got here isn't really an issue because that already happened. I can waste energy trying to figure out something that I can't do anything about, OR I can focus on trying to fix some of the problems in the world and make it a better place here, now. The whole "creation versus macroevolution" debate strikes me as being the same as arguing over who spilled the water in the floor. Who cares? The point is, there's now a big puddle there. Let's focus on cleaning it up before somebody slips on it and gets hurt.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

As with so many before you, you assume that just because I don't believe what you do means that I, by default, believe your opponent.

I don't believe either one, and probably never will. There's too many good points on both sides and too many gaping holes on both sides. I've done my research for both sides, as objectively as possible, and I threw up my hands a long time ago. Most people just don't actually look objectively.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

Are you actually claiming to have proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that one side or the other is right?

Please, enlighten us. There are millions of people who are dying to hear this, and an enormous gaggle of scientists who will be out of a job now with nothing left to research. Since you seem to have all the answers, please.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

I the previous poster. You expect me to believe what you have to say when you don't even check your sources?

I'm laughing right now, I really am. And I'm sorry you went to such a brainwashing sort of school, that has caused such revulsion towards what is otherwise a fairly moral and peaceful set of ideas. People like you make me glad that I wasn't imbued with such a love or hate of religion that I can't view it objectively and take the good from it.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

Actually, I'm not a fan of either side, but I'm quite happy to have made my way out of your personal sexual life. Thanks! :)

Re:Eh...

[Comatose51]

"Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it, and plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way"

If you put Creationism and evolution in the same category, then there are way more than just two. There will be as many theories as there are religions around the world plus one for evolution. The trouble with all of those, with the exception of evolution, is that people who believe them are quite certain that they're correct without the need for evidence or testing. Evolution isn't something you based purely on faith; there is a possibility that evolution can be wrong. All the religious theories don't have that quality. Hence, evolution and Creationism (or any other creation myth held by other religions) are not in the same category.

Re:Eh...

[c6gunner]

they forget that both sides have supposed scientific evidence to support their idea

Except they don't. There is not one iota of scientific evidence which would suggest that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that life arose and evolved through supernatural means. None. Period, end of sentence.

This is exactly why I don't pick a side.

You seem to think that indecisiveness is a virtue. I suggest you get that notion out of your head. There's nothing noble about declining to commit - especially when the supporting data on the subject is easily accessible by everyone.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not to mention the subject of, say, reproduction. How does that gradually happen, that you go from reproducing asexually to suddenly having a male and female with a fully evolved and developed, simultaneously matured sexual reproduction system? If there's even a relatively tiny gap of time in there, you have no reproduction at all, and therefore the species ceases to exist.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. There are just too many questions that have to be asked of both sides. I can't buy into either one.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

If only. We'd be rid of this nonsense already.

Good grief, you sound just like the God-people you criticise so harshly. Listen to yourself! "Believe this and shut up", and getting "rid" of dissenters? You sound like a crazy fundamentalist. Or a ruthless dictator. Either one scares me.

Re:Eh...

[init100]

They always attack, attack attack.

Sounds like a good description of most creationists.

Re:Eh...

[init100]

I agree concepts like Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Astrology and Scientology should be mentioned at some appropriate time of the curriculum.

But science classes is not that place.

Creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in Politics classes, since that is what they are mostly about. Scientology and Astrology should be taught in Superstition classes, together with other fairy tales. Tarot cards also belong there, along with all the religions.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

I didn't say indecisiveness is a virtue. In fact, I strugged with this for a long time, because I don't believe what one side hands me any more than I believe the other. I've always tried to dig past the popular, hyped ideas and find as close to the truth as I can, which I DO believe is a virtue. And my conclusion is just that there is no way to know beyond the shadow of a doubt. The only thing I know for a fact is that the earth exists, and I'm just going to go forward from there.

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

And you might be one of the only ACs who have earned my respect. :)

Re:Eh...

[that IT girl]

Since when does not picking a side at all get you modded "flamebait" on Slashdot? This is like the twilight zone...

Re:Eh...

[c6gunner]

And my conclusion is just that there is no way to know beyond the shadow of a doubt. The only thing I know for a fact is that the earth exists, and I'm just going to go forward from there.

There is no way to know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. How do you know the earth exists? How do you know you're not just floating in limbo, dreaming up your own reality?

Your statement is essentially a caricature of the Socratic argument - "all I know is that I know nothing". That's simply not a tenable position. Yes, it's good to keep an open mind and to judge every argument on it's merits rather than on how it compares to your preconceived notions, but at some point you need to form an opinion.

The best method we have for analyzing the world around us is the scientific method. Why? Primarily because the scientific method acknowledges that we all have inherent human weaknesses, and it provides a framework which minimizes the impact of those weaknesses. Science isn't dogmatic, and it isn't authoritarian - two problems which have traditionally been a massive crutch for religious "knowledge" and other methods of inquiry. It allows for free inquiry, and encourages not only new discovery but also the easy overturning of old ideas.

One good way to point out the practical differences of the approaches is this:

Disagreeing with religion is considered heresy, and is often punishable by death.

Disagreeing with scientific hypothesis is considered an everyday event, and disproving them is the greatest accomplishment which a scientist can make.

We didn't honour Einstein because he went along with what everyone else was saying - we honoured him because he showed that Newtonian physics aren't an accurate model of how the universe works, and he gave us a better way to explain it. Meanwhile the Church wanted to burn Galileo at the stake for daring to suggest that the earth might spin around the sun, instead of the other way around.

Can you truly say that you do not see the difference?

Re:Eh...

[mdwh2]

Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it, and plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way.

There's only one scientific theory full stop. And which scientists support creationism?

If a young, bright, enterprising student is presented with two possible options

What possible options? "On the one hand, we have facts supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence. On the other hand, we can close our eyes and pretend that's all bullcrap, and instead believe in this fairy tale that I made up"?

Re:Eh...

[atraintocry]

Evidence against evolution is not evidence in favor of creationism. They are separate things.

Re:Eh...

[mdwh2]

See, you can teach Evolution but only warn for the others.

Which is exactly what's being suggested - teach evolution, and how to convince students not to believe nonsensical ideas like evolution.

Re:Eh...

[mdwh2]

One side is a scientific theory with overwhelming evidence to support it. The other is a made up story, with no evidence, or even evidence against it.

There's only one major theory. Indeed, there's only one theory.

If your argument is that neither has absolute 100% proof, well okay then: we don't have 100% absolute proof that America exists. I guess by your logic, British schools should also teach the "theory" that America doesn't exist, and instead the area there is filled up with islands made of jelly? Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

Re:Eh...

[Dannkape]

I know. I never tried to say anything else. I merely stated "how it's done", yet I got modded down for it.

(The only arguments "for" creation is actually for a global flood, as the two depend on each other.)

Re:Eh...

[Alsee]

I know things are gradual, but how please tell me how something like a birds wing is supposed to evolve?

There are at least two ways. We're pretty sure bats too the "trees down" path, and that birds took the "ground up" path.

The "trees down" path is pretty obvious if you consider flying squirrels. They don't actually have full flight, they have advanced gliding abilities. The flying squirrel jumps or falls out of a tree, and the more and better "winglike" structure it has the more safely it can fall and "parachute" down, and then the further and better it can glide for distance or to other trees. From there it is clear and simple to develop efficient gliding into level gliding and then into upwards powered flight.

As for the ground-up path...

But wings are completely differently built to any other bone, (and pretty useless without feathers, feathers of course being pretty useless unless perfectly tuned as well.)

Nope, feathers are useful before flight. They are useful for keeping warm. Birds have a coat of feathers to keep warm just as mammals have a coat of fur to keep warm.

And guess what? There are dinosaurs with feathers. Just google it. That right there should be a giant flag waving in your face that evolution is true. Dinosaurs with feathers are transitional.

And back to "how wings evolved"... some of those feathered dinosaurs were fairly small really fast runners. They had feathered arms which were much too small to be wings. As fast runners, the wings had to be reasonably aerodynamic over the body. A small fast runner does not want crude clunky feathers sticking out with rotten air drag. Then note that when you run you pump your arms. If you look at chickens or any bird, they pump their wings to help them run faster. Flapping your wings can give you a significant boost to running speed, even if they are way too small and weak to actually take off into the air. It should be pretty easy to see how improving aerodynamics and improving the arm flapping will steadily and continuously improve running speed, eventually to the point of short hopping micro-flight a few feet at a time and eventually full flight. This path can also make use of the trees-down pattern mentioned above for bats. They could climb trees and evolve downward gliding and flapping for better distance from tree to tree.

That's the kind of transitional forms I'm talking about

Yes, we have quite a few transitional forms on the bird line. As I already mentioned there were feathered dinosaurs. I'll just address the famous Archaeopteryx. It is a perfect example of a transitional. Anti-evolutionists try to dismiss it as "fully bird", but that is so ridiculous that they would in fact be better off trying to dismiss Archaeopteryx as "fully dinosaur". Except for the wings, Archaeopteryx is in fact fully dinosaur and essentially zero percent bird in every respect. Archaeopteryx has a jaw and teeth, just like dinosaurs. There is no bird on earth with a jaw or teeth, they all have beaks. Archaeopteryx has a long bony tail, just like dinosaurs, not birds. Archaeopteryx has heavy solid bones, just like dinsaurs. All birds have very light hollow bones. Archaeopteryx has abdominal ribs, like dinosaurs. Birds don't. Archaeopteryx has an ordinary small flat breast bone just like dinosaurs, it is completely missing the big keel bone that all birds have to anchor their powerful flight muscles. Archaeopteryx's shoulder joints point downwards, just like dinosaurs have, pointed in the proper direction for walking and climbing. Birds have their shoulder joints facing outwards, properly oriented for flapping motion. There are about five or six technical characteristics of the spine (vertebra fusings and shapes and vertebra counts and their attachments and orientations) that exactly match dinosaurs but completely unlike any bird.

In every respect EXCEPT wings, Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur and lacks absolutely every defining characteristic of birds.

Oh, and I almost forgot... Archaeopte

Re:Eh...

[Dannkape]

The fact that one requires blind faith [...]

"Blind faith", ey? Now, which side is it that has a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" on it's reading list...

Re:Eh...

[Dannkape]

Since the topic became "origins of the universe". If you're not a clearly supporting evolution and making fun of creationists, the best you can hope for is that people leave you alone.

How you're supposed to encourage constructive arguments that way is beyond me.

Re:Eh...

[Dannkape]

The "trees down" path is pretty obvious

But doesn't even remotely explain a birds wing. How having a semi-hollow/fragile limb that neither gives any real advantage for flying, yet gives major disadvantage for anything that requires strength.

Nope, feathers are useful before flight. They are useful for keeping warm.

Feathers for warmth are different from feathers for flight. Unless perfectly shaped in the minutest detail, (and that's changes along the wing) they will give no advantage. Chances of all those consecutive changes happening and surviving without giving any benefit defy math.

There are dinosaurs with feathers. Just google it.

How does the existence feathered dinosaurs in itself prove evolution anymore than a Jackalope would?

I'll just address the famous Archaeopteryx.

First of all, you spend a lot of time saying it's "fully dinosaur" rather than "fully bird", which really doesn't move the argument much at all... And it seems you're already read any counterargument there is on that one, so I'll just leave it.

There are tiny animals in the ocean called Foraminifera.

I'm sorry, but I haven't read much about those at all yet, so I can't comment.

And oh, ID without YEC makes absolutely no sense at all. Without a global flood, ID isn't anything more than pointing out flaws in evolution...

Re:Eh...

[atraintocry]

I was about to say that you could have flooding without divine intervention but then I realized that it wouldn't be a global flood, and if it was, there wouldn't be mammals around to tell the tale :)

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to the website http://www.icr.org/ which is the Institute for Creation Research. REAL SCIENTISTS have been brave enough to do real research and risk all to follow that path.

There are many, many scientists not as brave who realize that the Evolution model, the Theory of Evolution, does not explain too much.

But the power structure that reputations, careers and salaries are based on is very strong and intent on stuffing the Theory of Evolution down our throats 'for our own good' and shut down any possible dialog.

Re:Eh...

[Stephen Ma]

Have you read "The Blind Watchmaker"? If so, can you tell me what its major thesis is?

Re:Eh...

[MindlessAutomata]

Irreducible complexity again?

You have a poor understanding of both evolution and science, if you think that irreducible complexity in this context is a good argument at all.

Stick to the romance novels, science ain't your bag.

Re:Eh...

[Alsee]

Based on handle and sig I take it you're a programmer. Me too.

Take a look into genetic algorithms. Not only are they fun to play around with, they are incredibly powerful for solving some classes of programming problems that are almost impossible to even attempt to code for by any usual algorithms. More than half of all Fortune 500 companies use Genetic Algorithms somewhere or other in their business.

The basic concepts are quite simple. You have a population of "individuals" and a string of digital DNA for each "individual". You interpret the DNA as some sort of rules or solution to the problem - there are a couple of ways to do that but exactly how doesn't matter too much. You then let each individual try the problem, maybe competitive with each other, and rank the better ones higher and you kill the worse ones. Then for the survivors you do sexual reproduction taking half the DNA from each parent to generate a child generation. Sprinkle in a *very* low rate of mutation - the real power is in the sexual recombination. Then you just loop generations.

It is amazing watching evolution in action. Starting from purely random DNA it generally starts improving rapidly. Depending on the problem it can often evolve better solutions than the best human experts have ever designed by any means.

Digitally implemented evolution is a commercially applied science. The process of evolution is an incredibly powerful information creation engine. As programmers we are uniquely positioned to see and deeply understand evolution as an information processing system. It really is an amazing experience witnessing it in action. It's fun, fascinating, and it adds a unique technique into your programmer's bag of tricks that potentially enables you to solve certain categories of problems that you couldn't even attempt to tackle before. Just search up any of the countless sources out there on "genetic algorithms".

Oh, and on sexual reproduction.... you're pretty much right that evolution can't really jump from asexual to complex male and female forms. The only problem there is in imagining there was such a jump. In biology there are many species with a variety of far more simple forms of sexual reproduction. Just to cite one such point, you overlooked hermaphrodism which is quite common in plants and worms and other species. No male and female forms, just one form, and that form is often capable of self-fertilization. There are even unicellular sexually reproducing species. No male or female or sexual organs...you just need two cells to swap half their DNA. In the most primitive sense you could just have two cells merge, let the chromosomes pair up, then undergo pretty much a normal cell division. Single cells varying between that sort of sexual shuffling and asexual divisions.

-

Re:Eh...

[Alsee]

I posted to you a few minutes ago about genetic algorithms, but I just saw this post with the creationscience.com. It is easy to show that that site is one big pile of misinformation.

For example they do the usual Young Grand Canyon thing. The simply refutation is that a torrent of fast water will forcefully carve its way in straight lines. A cursory review of the Grand Canyon immediately shows not mearly a meandering path, but multitudes of tight U-turns. Places where fast water would immediately wash straight over and cut away the middle of the U-turn. It's obvious once you notice the issue. You can't quickly carve U-turns with a blasting torrent of water.

The whole notion of a young earth is refuted by evidence from across the entire planet. If you dig in the arctic or ant arctic ice pack you can clearly see and count visible yearly snow layers. During the summer 6 months of dust and pollen settle down from the atmosphere, and the surface bakes under the summer sun for 6 months altering the coloration and texture. If you dig and count down 1929 layers you can find traces of ash from the famous 79 A.D. Mt Vesuvius eruption that destroyed Pompeii. If you dig and count down the layers you can find traces of volcanic ash from every major volcanic eruption in recorded history. If you dig down about 5300 layers you find faint traces of lead contamination first appearing in the snow... because about 5300 layers down is about 3300 B.C. and that was the beginning of the bronze age when civilizations first started mining and smelting lead ore... releasing lead contaminated dust and lead contaminated smoke into the atmosphere.

The visible countable layers continue down well over 100,000 years worth. Beyond that the layers get squeezed to thin and blur together. The the deep blurred icepack goes down about 800,000 years. The 100,000+ visibly countable layers have the normal scattering of ash of 100,000+ years worth of volcanic eruptions. And the full 800,000 years worth of icepack too has about 800,000 years worth of scattered eruption ash layers. 1 layer = 1 year all the way back through all of recorded history, the layers continues smoothly and unaltered beyond that point, and the record of volcanic eruptions authenticates that timeline all the way down. You can't suddenly start putting down thousands of layers per year when it takes a year or two for each event of volcanic ash to settle out of the atmosphere. Any attempt at a "fast layering" excuse completely falls apart, each volcanic ash event would stretch across thousands of layers instead of one or two layers, and you would be completely missing the year worth of pollen and dust of each layer.

The earth is way over 100,000 years old. There was no Global Flood any time within the last 100,000+ years.

One side is the entire scientific community and an entire planet worth of evidence, and on the other side are people engaging is wishful thinking, and willful blindness of inconvenient facts, and twisting the evidence way beyond the breaking point to fit the picture they want to paint.

-

Re:Eh...

[Alsee]

Chuckle... I just saw this third post. Oh well, a third reply. I didn't plan it this way. hehe.

plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way

No there aren't.

Out of about 480,000 earth and life scientists there are only about 700 who give Creation Science any credibility at all. Link.

That is less that zero point one five of a percent. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of earth and life scientists consider the who Creation science thing non-credible. And the common term for a scientist considered non-credible by 100% of the scientific community is "crackpot". If you want to look to the tenth of a percent, 99.9% of earth and life scientists consider 0.1% to be non-credible crackpots.

The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time

If I dig up 0.1% of astronomers who are into the Electric Universe stuff, do we spend 50% of a science lesson teaching that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion and 50% of the time teaching that the sun is powered by electricity? Present both theories? Give them equal time?

Maybe they will find the missing links in the fossil record

There is a substantial chunk of the fossil record spanning thousands of diverse species with NO missing links. Copy/pasting from an old post of mine:

There are tiny animals in the ocean called Foraminifera. They are generally a tiny fraction of an inch in size, they grow intricate mineral skeletons called 'tests', and they literally number in the trillions. Vast numbers of them die every day and their tests settle to the sea floor in a continuous rain. A vast continuous rain of perfectly layered tiny fossils in the sediment that slowly builds up on the sea floor. In the 1970's deep see oil exploration lead to advanced deep see drilling technology, and that exploration drilling started bringing up sediment drill cores to be analyzed. Cores to be analyzed for oil purposes, but incidentally loaded with an effectively limitless supply of tiny Foraminifera fossils. A perfect continuous record tracing the branching tree of diversification and speciation over many tends of millions of years. Not merely a continuous sequence of transitional species, but a hyper detailed record of entire populations along each speciation split. Scientists are studying exactly how long each speciation split took, and examining in detail how populations behave and change during speciation events, and studying how and why the rate of speciation increases after mass extinction events. A perfect record tracing diverse currently existing species back to their common ancestor.

I'm perfectly fine with "teaching both sides"... however that lessen proceeds as follows.... the anti-evolution side says there are no transitional fossils at all, they don't exist. Then you present the evolution side, and you show the students the absolutely continuous foraminifera record showing ALL transitional forms. That's how it all goes... the anti-evolution sides says X, and then the evolution side presents the facts proving the anti-evolution-X is total fiction. It's like presenting both sides of flatearthism. The science side wins on the facts and the anti-science side completely falls apart under any informed critical scrutiny.

-

Re:Eh...

[Alsee]

How having a semi-hollow/fragile limb that neither gives any real advantage for flying, yet gives major disadvantage for anything that requires strength.

You accidentally reversed the order.
Proto-birds were flying with heavy bones first.
Later they evolved air pockets inside their bones, evolutionary pressure for weight savings to improved flight.

Feathers for warmth are different from feathers for flight. Unless perfectly shaped in the minutest detail, (and that's changes along the wing) they will give no advantage.

The feathers on the just-before-flight dinosaurs are nearly identical to modern feathers. And yes, small fast running dinosaur want a nice aerodynamic flow across it's entire body, and yes, pumping undersized proto-wings for more running speed gives you exactly the pressure to adapt into exactly the wings you need to flight. Exactly the evolutionary pressure to continuously evolution to exactly the advantage you cite.

Chances of all those consecutive changes happening and surviving without giving any benefit defy math.

Right - *if* they didn't give a benefit along the way.
All of the changed I cited are advantageous all along the way. Fast running with pumping arms flows directly and beneficially into flight. Later bones became hollow and the hands are lost from the wings and the shoulder joint rotated outwards and the breast keel bone and other changes were all evolved to improve flight.

How does the existence feathered dinosaurs in itself prove evolution anymore than a Jackalope would?

Evolution predicted exactly that sort of evidence of birds evolving directly out of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs with feathers are an intermediate form directly supporting evolution. Anti-evolutionists keep trying to claim there are no transitional forms and that there are no links.

Dinosaurs evolved into birds, and the first step was the appearance of feathers.
The next step was running feathered dinosaurs with "wings" too small for actual flight.
The next step is a dinosaur with functional wings.
I don't recall the exact sequence, but he have step by step a sequential appearance of the "bird toe" feet, the loss of hands from the arms, the appearance of the keel bone on the breast, the disappearance of the abdominal ribs, the appearance of hollow bones, several changes to the spine, the loss of jaw and teeth and the appearance of the beak. There are dozens of such features that biologically distinguish modern birds from dinosaurs.

It is a clear sequence of changing traits over time. For the fossil steps we have, one or a small number of those traits changes from dinosaur to bird traits. And evolution predicts that new fossil fines will fit in between them. If there is some step in that sequence where two traits change, evolution predicts there was an form with one of them changed. And evolution's predictions are right. New finds always fit properly on that evolutionary sequence.

Predictions are the test of science. Evolution has made millions of predictions, and evolution has been endlessly confirmed as those predictions are tested by now fossil finds or tested by DNA analysis and as tested in countless other ways.

First of all, you spend a lot of time saying it's "fully dinosaur" rather than "fully bird", which really doesn't move the argument much at all

I call it "fully dinosaur" making a mockery of the anti-evolution attempt to dismiss Archaeopteryx as "not an intermediate form" because it is "fully bird". Archaeopteryx is one of the most blatant intermediate forms one can imagine, and trying to dismiss it as "full bird" shows how far they distort reality trying to dismiss inconvenient facts. It is willful blindness.

If, prior to the find of Archaeopteryx, one asked a creationist what sort of evidence they would demand to prove evolution, they'd say a half-dinosaur-half-bird. They would say a dinosaur with feathers and wings. And then we found the feathered dinosaurs, and then we found th

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it.

You must be a lunatic.
You are comparing a fairy tale with research.

Re:Eh...

[Dannkape]

As they say, the devil is in the details. Gradual change sure looks nice on the surface, but it's the genetic level that causes issues.

You say "predictions" quite a lot, but don't forget that it's all been done *after the facts* no matter how you look at it. With several (slightly, or not so slightly) different forks of evolution kicking around, it's easy to have enough to choose from, so that there is always one that fits newly uncovered evidence reasonably well. Whenever something disagrees with the currently accepted model, someone will present another theory that fits the evidence. If said theory matches the next evidence to be found, "hooray, we predicted it!", if not, there will be modifications to adapt. (So in a sense, even if the world doesn't evolve, the theory of evolution surely does.)

Too lazy to look into the Grand Canyon in particular at the moment, but I think its almost funny that whenever something like Mount St Helens does something that is supposed to take millions of years right in front of our eyes, it's written off as the exception to the rule, rather than considering that it just might in fact be the rule.

As for the ice-cores. Well, everyone agrees that the world has been pretty stable the last few millenia, which also it pretty much the time frame for fairly accurate contemporary written accounts, so no surprise that you identify volcanoes in it. However, there seem to have been made assumptions about the deeper layers, and that is where a global flood theory comes in.

One thing I will give you. You certainly seem to have spent time looking into both sides, before making up your mind (even if predetermined). (Which is partly why I'm not bothering to look for arguments you've probably already seen.) That is more than can be said for a lot of people in both camps. You sir, are a worthy foe.

Re:Eh...

[UnknownSoldier]

Why do you assume truth is mutually exclusive? One truth does not negate another. ID and Darwinism are both junk science. You don't build a house and THEN come up with the idea for it. The idea (non-physical) ALWAYS comes first, then the manifestation (physical.) Similiarly ID doesn't understand God, or how s/he works.

Simply asking for enlightnment shows that you don't understand how enlightenment or gnosis works. You are like a blind man asking for proof that these so-called various "colors" exist. You don't have a frame of reference to understand the answer. In the same way a baby can't do calculas until its mind has developed, you need to spiritually develop your mind and body, so that you can understand. You demonstrate what you understand by the life you live. When it is time for you have the answer, you will.

Another part of the proof involves the joy of finding your own proof and I will not take that away from anyone. You think the Maya knew that the age of universe was 16 billion years from asking others? Stop asking _others_ for useless knowledge, find your _own_ answers within, and you will have all the proofs you need.

Peace
--
Unless you have been dead, you _know_ NOTHING about Life.

Re:Eh...

[Alsee]

You say "predictions" quite a lot, but don't forget that it's all been done *after the facts* no matter how you look at it.

No.
Anything "after the fact" is not a prediction.
Evolution has made countless thousands of predictions, and every time tested, evolution passes with flying colors.

Evolution predicted the nature and geological layers of bird-dinosaur links before they were found, and it predicts the nature and geological layers of future finds. Evolution predicts that for each "gap" in the fossil record, there are intermediate forms at intermediate times. Each time a fossil is found in a "gap", now there are two "gaps", one above it and one below it. And now evolution makes two new predictions, intermediate forms at intermediate times in the upper gap and intermediate forms at intermediate times in the lower gap. We are constantly finding new fossils filling in the "gaps". Each such find is a test of the prediction of evolution, each such find offers two new predictions of evolution, and with each such find the "gaps" get smaller and smaller. And in some cases, like Foraminifera, the gap size is zero.

The largest body of predictions would be pretty much ALL DNA analysis ever done. There are thousands of labs across the globe doing thousands of genetic analyses for the last two or three decades. Evolution predicts an extremely strict set of relationships between the DNA of different species. Evolution predicted a strict tree of common descent long before scientists ever knew what DNA was. DNA analysis establishes evolution's tree of common descent with the same absolute certainty that DNA establishes human family trees of descent in a courtroom.

Let me explain one small sliver of the genetic evidence. There is something called endogenous retroviruses. When you are infected by a virus, on rare occasion a chunk of virus DNA accidentally gets inserted at some random point in the DNA of one of your cells. A new chunk of "junk" DNA. On even more rare occasion this happens in a sperm or egg cell, in which case the child will carry this random insertion in all of the DNA in their entire body, and they pass it down to their descendants. Humans have thousands of such chunks in our DNA, as do other species.

It turns out that different species share some of these chunks. The same chunk of virus DNA at the same exact 1-in-4,000,000,000 location. Evolution says that each shared chunk is inherited from a unique insertion event in a common ancestor, and evolution says that by testing different species you can trace back in the family tree to locate that common ancestor. According to evolution each insertion happened at a specific point on evolution's tree of life, species below that point will carry it and no other species can carry it. So if you pick some particular chunk and test a couple of species you can use that to pin down the insertion point on evolution's tree, and you can then predict which other untested species will or will not carry it.

For example humans and chimps carry almost the exact same collection of endogenous retroviruses. There are chunks found in humans and in no other species. That insertion happened after the human-chimp split. There are chunks found in humans and in chimps and in no other species. That insertion happened shortly before the human-chimp split. There are chunks found in humans and chimps and a few other primates - the ones that evolution says happen to be more closely related to us. That insertion happened earlier in the primate tree. There are chunks found in all primates and in no other species. That insertion happened in the very earliest primates. There are insertions found in all primates and in certain other species evolution happens to say are closely related to primates. There are insertions found in humans and dogs and whales and all mammals. There are insertions found in all mammals and some reptiles - the reptiles evolution happens to say are more closely related to mammals.

And of course the same relationsh

Re:Eh...

[shutdown -p now]

plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way

Not if you count the scientists in fields relevant to the subject (i.e., the ones who actually have an informed opinion, and aren't just laymen). As I recall, less than 1% of biologists are Creationists.

Then again, it's no secret than scientiests on the whole tend to be more agnostic/atheist, and particularly so those in such fields as biology, geology, etc.

Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God. How dare people say that God, being all knowing and all powerful, could not design and impliment a dynamic system but had to settle for a simple static one.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[MicktheMech]

This is essentially my position. By saying God couldn't have created life through an evolutionary mechanism is essentially placing limitations on His power. Something we Christians generally don't do. It's very sad that a very vocal group mostly localised in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Canada) have been creating this image of Christians being irrational zealots.

The root of it all is that these American "evangelicals" aren't what the rest of the world uses "evangilcal" to mean. It's just a word the've taken to replace "literalist". These are literalists, plain and simple. Why don't they call themselves that? Because literalism is frowned upon by most of mainstream Christianity.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[calmofthestorm]

Humans wrote the bible; God wrote the rocks.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, creationism seems like little more than paint by numbers, if thats as powerful as your invisible sky wizard is, I pity you.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Dannkape]

1. It's not all static anyway. New breeds of dogs and strawberries have been made for quite some time. (Difference between "evolution" and "natural selection".)

2. Several million/billion years of death disease followed by "it was all good" contradicts God being good, and the whole thing about first sin, and Jesus redeeming people...

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Dannkape]

By saying God couldn't have created life through an evolutionary mechanism is essentially placing limitations on His power. Something we Christians generally don't do.

What would be more awesome, to watch a building crew spent months constructing a high-rise, or a single person erect a big red cloth over an empty field and reveal fully stocked shopping center from it 2 minutes later?

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Androclese]

I thought it was "God wrote the rocks, Humans wrote ON the rocks."

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Anonymous Coward]

If evolution is true, then can someone please use a highlighter marker and tell me once and for all which parts of the Bible are facts, and which ones are illustrative fiction? Because I'm at a loss here.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Alain Williams]

Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God. How dare people say that God, being all knowing and all powerful, could not design and impliment a dynamic system but had to settle for a simple static one.

If we assume that there is a god; what are his characteristics ? What are his aims ? You seem to assume that your god would want to make something that is complicated/intricate - presumably to show how clever he is.

What evidence do you have that your god wants to be a show off ?

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[funkatron]

The evidence available suggests that if there is a God then he/she/it is either a vindictive bastard or a bit of a retard. Going by the usual books on the subject I'd guess that it isn't stupidity.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

It is not that he wants ot show off but that he wants to sit back like any falther and watch his children develop, grow and discover the wonders of the Universe as he/she/it has implimented them. And then when we finally figure it all out he will take us all up to heven to be with him for the rest of time.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution just like any good lie has a lot of truth in it.

    There is a lot of truth in Evolution. This is not a static world. Things are evolving.
You only need to look at a baby before it is born and in the womb. Look how it grows or evolves
over time until it is born.

    The process that I don't agree with and think is a lie is the part about we just started
from a single cell and somehow over billions of years that single cell evolved into a tree of life
and we all came up from that tree to where we are today.

    This is where I think fantasy seperates from true science. Scientists say there is evidence for this
but the evidence can be from anything. It does not have to be the way they are explaining it to come about.

    If there is a bloody knife on the ground, that is called evidence, but how did it get there and how did the
blood get on the knife. Was it because someone stabbed someone to death or was it because someone was cutting
something for dinner and cut their hand instead.

    This gives an example on how there can be different views on the exact same evidence and lets also not
forget that as good as the scientific method is, there is always going to be politics and world views that
taint the evidence.

    What if the Earth is really not Billions of years old? Then that means that the evolution picture above
that I drew could not happen. Even if scientists found out that the Earth is really not that old you would
not find out about it. They have an agenda.

    When you deal with people, you deal with problems and that is not something the scientific method can deal
with.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[bendodge]

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. -Exodus 20:11

You must not be talking about the God of Christianity.

Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both (or rather, the right one) took place in the past. This is what science students should be taught.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Alain Williams]

It is not that he wants ot show off but that he wants to sit back like any falther and watch his children develop, grow and discover the wonders of the Universe as he/she/it has implimented them. And then when we finally figure it all out he will take us all up to heven to be with him for the rest of time.

How do you know this ? I assume that you will say the bible/quoran/the_Vedas/... Other than those texts, what independent and verifiable support do you have for these assertions ? I know of no people who's discussions with god are objectively and well reported and especially none in modern times.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[zoney_ie]

The mentalities seemingly increasingly prevalent in the US "Bible Belt" are proving an increasingly popular import from the US. Literalism in the US is IMO an overreaction to the extremes of liberalism also present in the US (and the fact society there is becoming more and more a mess). Indeed also within mainstream Christian churches in the US (and indeed UK) there are now practices that at no time in the past could have been reconciled with Christianity and are reasonably hard to reconcile at all with the fundamentals of the faith.

I think in some ways, those who have the worst time are the so-called "luke warm" traditional Christians of many mainstream churches. They are tarred with the same brush by extremist non-Christians, and they are regarded as weak and wishy-washy (or derided as worse than non-Christians) by literal extremists. Ironically traditional Christian faith is what has weathered the day best in the past against "the world" or over-zealotry. The zealots in their struggle tend to lose sight of really important parts of Christian faith (e.g. focus on "Love God" and forget the "Love your neighbour" - just because others do the reverse)

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[init100]

or a single person erect a big red cloth over an empty field and reveal fully stocked shopping center from it 2 minutes later?

That wouldn't be awesome, except for the awesomeness of good trickery. Everyone by the creationists would understand that he must be an illusionist. Who knows, maybe you just read the manuscript for David Copperfield's next illusion?

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Antique Geekmeister]

Or to have shopping malls grow from snowglobe eggs, with shopping carts as the larval stage? (From Terry Pratchett's "Reaper Man").

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[snakeplissken]

I thought it was "God wrote the rocks, Humans wrote ON the rocks."

actually: "God wrote the rocks, Humans banged them together!."

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[atraintocry]

That's not what they're arguing. They're talking about a 4,000 year old earth, and dinosaurs with saddles.

In any case, it's more subtle than just saying God 'created' evolution. Prior to the theory of evolution, the watchmaker analogy was perfectly good at reconciling God with the fact that we observe the universe following natural laws. The problem is, evolution provided a natural mechanism for those things taking place, at least as far as biology was concerned. If there's a natural explanation, why bring the supernatural in?

If every time someone discovers makes a scientific discovery, we're content with "God made it that way", then does God mean anything to us?

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[atraintocry]

New breeds of dogs and strawberries have been made for quite some time.

But breeding is different from speciation. Evolution and breeding both require genetics to work, but they are most definitely not the same thing.

I don't think creationists refute the existence of genes. The point is, evolution uses random changes in genes plus natural selection to explain the diversity of life. These are both naturalistic explanations and don't require God to make them work. Creationism requires God, or at least a creator, in its explanation of the diversity of life. That is the difference. Not the how, the why.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

I know this because it came to me in a set of gentle visions over several years. I am putting it down in a set of books entitled "Dynamic Creationisum". The first book goes for $19.95 and acts as an introduction to the consept of Dynamic Creationisum with subsiquent volumes guiding the reader through the higher planes of knowlage. Of course as you progress the knowlage is much more valuable and so it is reflected in the costs of the publications.....

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

Actually the Bible as it exists today is a govenment publication and should be treated accordingly.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

Looking at my life I would have to say 'vindictive bastard'.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If you don't believe in evolution it means you are saying your God is incapable of designing a system of evolution, a system mere humans have discovered and understood.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[calmofthestorm]

My apologies for ever implying the government is human;)

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[johanatan]

No one I know says anything of the sort (and I'm a Christian). We say rather that God could have designed whatever He wished, but He chose this specific universe with its certain observable physical constraints for a purpose (see: anthropic principle).

And, the universe He did create is obviously rather dynamic. What makes you think anything about the world you inhabit is "static" besides physical constants (and these physical constants actually pose more of a problem to evolution than to ID)? What do different theories on the origin of the universe have to do with the nature of the universe itself (which is obviously rather dynamic)?

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[johanatan]

No one says God couldn't do anything, we say rather that He didn't do something (i.e., create the species through macro-evolution). There's a big difference there.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[johanatan]

[Pls ignore run-on sentence. The first ',' should've been a ';'.]

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

You did not read what I said. My 'God' created a dynamic universe. It started form a single entity billions of year ago and blossomed in to what we have today and it is still changing and evolving. It is the Creationists that insult him by saying he did not that what he created was static and could never evolve.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[johanatan]

Well, you apparently didn't read what I said either. :-) dynamic != evolving from primordial soup. In fact, you could throw evolution out of the discussion completely and the world would still be rather 'dynamic'.

My point is simply that the mode of creation and the mode of operation are two separate things. No one says that mode of operation of this universe is not dynamic (except maybe schizos). And, it's the word 'could' that I took exception to. God 'could' have designed a universe that evolved over billions of years into its current form, but rather didn't.

I am curious about where you base your belief that He did--because every reasoning I've seen on this topic comes from atheists who start with the assumption that there is no god. Why would a theist accept a theory that starts from and is built upon the assumption that there is no God? The atheist interprets all empirical data through the lens of his atheism and does not even consider for a millisecond that he might want to re-consider his base assumptions.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Alain Williams]

I trust that you enjoyed whatever you have been smoking!

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they're saying he couldn't do it, but that he didn't do it?

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

Immensely

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

Why, Genisis of course. Over a period of time we go from void thru several phases to people on a planet. Starting at a single point and blosoming into what we have now. a totally dynamic system. Mind you I should probably not reallyillistrate my faith with a Government publication like the Bible but it is what is in standard use today.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Just Some Guy]

Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God.

It's also an insult to his sincerity. Young-Earth creationists would have us believe in a God who loves nothing more than to screw with our heads.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

Hate to break it to you, but neither I nor any other creationist limited Him. He told us how He did it in the book. And (I'm sure this will get a nice verbal lashing) contrary to popular "opinion", Creationism isn't as crazy or pseudo-science as many of the people here have made it out to be. I am Christian and unfortunately, the Bible states that death came into the world by Adam's actions. According to evolutionary logic, death brought man into the world. Those two positions are diametric opposites and there is no middle ground. Second is your comment about literalists. There is nothing in the creation account that would indicate that He wasn't speaking of a literal event instead of an allegorical one. Thanks, The Literalist

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is flawed if you think Creationism is mainly localised in the U.S and Canada. In the UK we have 'Academies' that don't teach Evolution only Creationism, (look up Vardy and creationism) we have reports of school teachers being intimidated and refusing to teach either because of parental pressure from fundamentalist of both Islamic and Christian beliefs add in to that the various unregulated Faith schools and you'll see that Creationists are organised and political and in the UK. Even discussing their unsupported beliefs in Science classes will give the purveyors (such as the Discovery Institute and its international siblings) a 'wedge' to force their beliefs into the Curriculum. By all means answer questions on why Creationism is not science, but not in a science class, rather do it in a Religious, Social or Citizenship class. Creationism, even discussions of it are no more fit for science classes than atheism is fit for Sunday School.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

You do realize of course that the Bible is a derivitive of several government documents and has been for almost 1600 years, since the time of Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea and as such should be treated accordingly.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

As with me, the Bible is worth more than the sum of it's parts. I freely admit that I have faith and that my view is religious. It's people who claim that Evolution is proven that drive me nuts. Evolution is also a religion, but is (for some reason) touted as science. You have to imagine macro-evolution because we don't see it. That isn't science!

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

So you freely admit that you are wasting the intelegence that God enabled you to aquire in order to interprate the many signs that exist that prove he created a totaly dynamic and evolving system and instead rely on a book that was writen thousands of years ago ignoring that last several thousand years of descovery into his universes inner workings. You must be a real disapointment to him/her/it I know that if my son stopped thinking and asking questions I would be disapointed in him as well.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

Firstly, HE and yes he is a He, does exist. And it wasn't until I listened to what He had to say that everything started to make sense. You live in a world where there is moral grey. I live in a world where there is a genuine black and white. Sometimes it isn't fun to choose, but the choice is still just as clear. As for the intelligence He gave me, my nature by definition of that book is corrupt and untrustworthy. Thankfully, He sent me that book as a rule to measure my actions, thoughts, desires, and reasoning by. Without it, I am leaf in the wind that could be blown about by any change that anyone sent my way. I don't expect you to understand, just know that one day I will be standing on one side and unless you change you will be standing on the other. I know that like the black and white decisions that I spoke of before, that is not a pleasant thought, but it doesn't make it any less true. Besides, if I'm right you are screwed. If I'm wrong, your god won't care! Have a good one.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[arthurpaliden]

You are right my god will not care because he is a loving and understanding and knows that I have actually used the itellegence he/she/it has given men as opposed to yours which which uses it as a trap and is vengeful and unforgiving.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

My God is very loving to those who are sorry for how they have broken His law and have a repentant heart. That is why Jesus came so that we didn't have to fear that vengeance. Unfortunately for you, He does have some rules because He did make this planet, and He expects us to act in a certain way. It is His after all. Let's end this here, the conversation won't go anywhere from here anyway.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[TheCarp]

You remind me of a moment I will never forget.

I was all of 11 years old at the time. I had just had an argument with my CCD Teacher and I was done. It had finally clicked, and I wasn't going to church on sunday anymore either.

Well my mother didn't like that, and she told me "but if you don't go to church thats a sin and you could go to hell".

It was an odd moment, it was kind of like the moment that I found out santa clause didn't exist. Except, I was really floored, because it wasn't that I realized there was no god, it was that I realized that my mother never figured that out, and I was floored. All I could say was "mom, you actually believe that?"

I mean, can you imagine coming to the realization that after all these years, after just all that life experience, imagine realizing that your mother still believes in Santa Clause, and you might begin to understand my bewilderment.

-Steve

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

If you're right (which I would find impossible), then there will be no consequences to me believing what I believe. If I'm right, you are in trouble. I'm not trying to condemn you nor speak with some sense of superiority. The comment I made above is accurate. Either you are right or I am, only time will tell. Blessings go with you.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

P.S. I don't go to church on Sunday either, it's actually Saturday!

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[TheCarp]

Actually no, you could be right, or I could be right... or we could both be wrong.

What if the Dali Lama is right? What if the one who is right is an imam? How about the Sikhs? Or even the Greeks?

At least if its the greeks you wont have to remember how silly you were in life while you exist in the river lethe!

Yours isn't the only god I am an Atheist for, I just don't discriminate... I am an atheist for everyones god.

-Steve

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[TheCarp]

Oh and you are wrong:

If I am right, then you lose out big time, because all the time you have spent in this life, trying to buy yourself a personal pass to the afterlife, is for naught.

So you will have lost the only thing that I believe you have... time. Pretty big cost if you ask me. However, if you don't value this life, I guess thats up to you.

Good luck trying to buy the next one with your time in this one. Really, I hope that works out for you.

-Steve

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

There is another small misconception you have. I don't buy it. It's a free gift. I am this adamant not because it's required or I have to be, but because I choose to be. If I'm wrong then I will gladly bear that burden, but I'm certain that this has not been in vain. Best Wishes to you as well!

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Darby]

Firstly, HE and yes he is a He, does exist.

First, that is not a fact. It is merely something you have a desperate need to believe because you are weak and cowardly. There is no rational basis for that statement, and not one single scrap of evidence to back it up. You can't really expect people to listen to you if you disrespect them so outrageously as to lie through your teeth about simple basic facts.

And it wasn't until I listened to what He had to say that everything started to make sense.

Listening to voices in your head is a sign of mental flaws.

You live in a world where there is moral grey. I live in a world where there is a genuine black and white.

No, your "morals" are all over the place. If you follow the bible, then you are a leaf in the wind being blown all over because god's morals are all over the map. "Don't kill" *and* "Go commit genocide and steal all that great land from the people living there". "Murder heretics with rocks". and on and on and on.

It's bad enough that you are so far outside the bounds of sanity that you can't even understand that those are contradictory, but you willingly choose to *worship* such a blatantly evil creation of man's ignorance. You don't get to play the moral card as long as you postulate such an inconsistent and evil creature as the source of all morality. That's how reality works.

Besides, if I'm right you are screwed. If I'm wrong, your god won't care! Have a good one.

Well, more people believe in gods that will happily send you to hell than there are that believe in your particular magical fairy, so your argument fails. Again, this in entirely attributable to your lack of basic critical reasoning skills.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

I'm not even sure what to say! I'm not the one who is angry, but your "god" is supposed to be one of love and understanding? Great representation on he/she/it's behalf. You don't even know who your god is let alone what it stands for. Secondly, go read the Genesis account and Judges, and find out why he would order the genocide of those people (which He did do and had good reason to do). As I said before, I'm done. Best wishes and good luck with that he/she/it thing that you worship!

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Darby]

I'm not even sure what to say! I'm not the one who is angry, but your "god" is supposed to be one of love and understanding?

No, that would be you. I'm a thinker, not a believer, so the very idea of a god is silly nonsense to me. You're the one claiming absolute morality and lying in an attempt to put forward your delusional view. I called you on your blatant dishonesty.

Secondly, go read the Genesis account and Judges, and find out why he would order the genocide of those people (which He did do and had good reason to do).

So you think genocide is good. That makes you a monster. You have lost any sort of moral argument that you could ever hope to make, especially that there is anything absolute about your *evil* "morals".

As I said before, I'm done.

Yes, you've been proven a liar and so you run away since you can't defend your position as it's completely wrapped up in delusion.

Best wishes and good luck with that he/she/it thing that you worship!

Again, that would be you. Your demand that your delusions are true is the reason that you're inable to think rationally or even avoid bald faced lies.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Whitestone1550]

Children and their games. I didn't order their genocide. If He is God as i believe that He is, then He does have not only the right, but the imperative to judge His creation. If He knows (being all knowing as He is) what is in their hearts, then it's His call and their blood isn't on my hands. Secondly, you call me a monster. That is from a french word that means to show. To show something in yourself that you don't like? Secondly, I have not proven to be a liar and if so, then on what point. I have said nothing that I didn't readily point out wasn't religious. Go and eat of the knowledge of good and evil, I choose the tree of life. As I had wished to do before, I am leaving. Not in a defeat, because you can't loose to someone who cannot fight back. Dogs are chained to trees in much the same way that you are trapped by your own flesh and cannot see past your own point of view. There are truths in this world and yours are not those. As I said before, best wishes.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[Darby]

If He is God as i believe that He is, then He does have not only the right, but the imperative to judge His creation. If He knows (being all knowing as He is) what is in their hearts, then it's His call and their blood isn't on my hands.

Their blood obviously isn't on your hands. You weren't alive at the time. Were you alive at the time (and place), then you most likely would have been a non-Hebrew and hence deserving of brutal extermination by your own argument. By worshiping the evil monster who ordered such atrocities out of pure jealousy over other gods (which your god believed in as much as he believed in himself, remember), you remove yourself from the collection of decent, moral people.

Secondly, you call me a monster. That is from a french word that means to show. To show something in yourself that you don't like?

I don't speak French. I was using the term to mean what it actually means in common English usage. You consider the source of all that is moral to be an obviously evil monster. That makes you one since you don't even have the most basic understanding of moral principles. That's a very serious problem with your brain. It makes you a sociopath.

Secondly, I have not proven to be a liar and if so, then on what point. I have said nothing that I didn't readily point out wasn't religious.

You said it's a fact that god exists and that he is a "he". That either of those are facts is a bald faced lie. It's something your weak will and cowardice forces you to insist is true. Hence by repeating blatantly obvious lies, you're a liar.

As I had wished to do before, I am leaving. Not in a defeat, because you can't loose to someone who cannot fight back.

Yes, in defeat. You have been entirely unable to defend your position since you're wrong. I've proven that you are wrong, but you're too dishonest and deluded to honestly deal with that fact.

Dogs are chained to trees in much the same way that you are trapped by your own flesh and cannot see past your own point of view. There are truths in this world and yours are not those.

That's right, reality *must* magically conform to some insane delusions you were force fed when your brain wasn't developed enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality just because you really really want it to. I pity you your brain damage.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God

[shutdown -p now]

You must not be talking about the God of Christianity.

No, he's just not talking about your personal God, but the one belief in which is shared by more than 1 billion Orthodox and Catholic Christians worldwide.

You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[khasim]

Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

Because then you would be perpetuating the error you just made.

A "theory" in science has evidence to support it.

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

The bible. And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand? A science textbook?... Heeey...wait a minute...Isn't a violation of some such n' such amendment?

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Dannkape]

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

It's called "evidence that contracts evolution". Creationism is then offered as an alternative.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Nimey]

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

Here.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[dosius]

inb4 abuse of Hebrews 11.1

The only evidence is what can be proven true.

-uso.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Skye16]

That's patently absurd.

If your theory is that the earth is flat, and I provide evidence to the contrary and then submit the hypothesis that the earth is, in fact, shaped like a torus, that does not mean that my hypothesis has any more validity than it did 20 seconds before I submitted evidence to the contrary to your theory. My hypothesis is just as crap as yours.

In this case, we're talking about "here is a tested hypothesis that is true in most cases but has a few holes here and there", vs. "here is something we just came up with because we so DESPERATELY want to believe we weren't the result of billions of years of trial and error, and that god REALLY does love us, so very, very much".

(I know, some people just want to posit the idea that some creature somewhere out yonder created some spores that got pulled into Earth's atmosphere and life started that way - that's fine. I can deal with that. But it still dodges the question of how that other life form was created. Somewhere out there, some shit went down, and I'd much rather entertain hypothesis that are able to be tested and verified than some bright shiny bobbles and jangly keys, thanks.)

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[meringuoid]

The bible. And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand?

I always found the idea of swearing on the Bible to be very amusing.

But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is God's throne; Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

-- Matthew 5:34-37

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

-- James 5:12

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Alain Williams]

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

The bible.

OK: The bible is a great start, we now need to look for independent evidence to support the theory put forward in the bible ... the trouble is that it is pretty thin on the ground.

So: let's take a look at other theories and seek independent evidence to support them. Darwinism does quite well here.

Find us the independent evidence to support the bible's theory for the origin of man and we will take another look.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[forsey]

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

The bible.

So some how something being written down magically makes it true? Science doesn't depend on that, which is why scientific papers include the information needed to recreate the experiment in question so that the author's findings can be verified by others. What part of the Bible offers the information necessary to verify its claims?

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[funkatron]

I recently did jury duty (in Britain), they have oaths and books for all major religions as well as a non-religious oath.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wrote that bullshit?

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I'm kinda curious what this "evidence that contradicts evolution" is, and whether it truly contradicts it, or just fits in a part we haven't figured out yet.
There's a difference between refining a theory and destroying it.

General relativity didn't destroy Newtonian mechanics, though it directly contradicted several of its predictions.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[atraintocry]

At which point, creationism still would have to be proven on its own merits.

There's nothing inherently special about Genesis that would cause me to pick it over, say, the story of Prometheus.

This is, in fact, one of the really annoying things about ID. Rather than justify their "theory", they pick up whatever stick they can find to poke evolution with. Then they hope that people won't notice the difference.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Myopic]

That's correct. Evolution is a theory, whereas creationism doesn't even qualify as a theory. So if we're debating theories, we don't even need to consider nonsense like creationism.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Alsee]

I'm kinda curious what this "evidence that contradicts evolution" is

The generally recognized "best" source for the anti-evolution side is collected at answersingenesis.org. Be warned, the bullshit runs about three miles deep over there. There is no "evidence that contradicts evolution" that has gone through the scientific peer review process without being torn to itty-bitty-shreds, often on the basis of gross math errors.

There's also discoveryinstitute.org, but they are not nearly as comprehensive as the answersingenesis.org site.

Note a significant difference between the pro-evolution side and the anti-evolution side: The pro-evolution side such as talkorigins.org and pandasthumb.org and most other sources and individuals are more than happy to point people to websites and sources for the anti-evolution side. However you oddly NEVER find anti-evolution websites offering any links for the evolution science side.

P.S.
Here is an old post of mine that. Check it out, it won at least one skeptic completely over to the evolution science side.

-

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[johanatan]

On what evidence are murderers convicted? Is it not the evidence of intelligent activity (i.e., the elimination of chance and necessity as causes)? Modern science simply excludes design as an explanation for our origin. But, you do not have to look very far or hard to see many other fields where design is a perfectly valid explanation (forensics, cryptography, archaeology, etc). So then, why is it off limits for explaining origin?

Easy-- scientists are materialists and atheists and could not come to grips with a conclusion they do not want to believe (and besides, they've worked very hard in coming up with and mass marketing a believable theory to stifle their consciences and promote indulgences--we all know that sex and evolution go hand in hand). When these frauds stop letting their personal 'beliefs' and deviant desires bias their conclusions (and in some cases the 'evidence' itself), then they will start doing 'true' *science*.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[Uberbah]

And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand? A science textbook?... Heeey...wait a minute...Isn't a violation of some such n' such amendment?

Constitution for me. I'll bring a copy if necessary.

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly.

[MadMidnightBomber]

I know Christians who have had to give evidence and refused to swear on the Bible for that very reason. Ironic, huh?

Yeah, stupid

[DurendalMac]

But people are trying to get him fired over it? That's bullshit. The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion? These Nobel laureates aren't the ones being taught in his class and have very little to do with him, but they'll gang up anyway. The theist/antitheist sword cuts both ways. Both sides are capable of being intolerant assholes, and this is just more proof.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found it to be an axiom of politics and religious debate that the only sane people are the ones in the middle.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[TheLink]

Worse. Go read _everything_ he said here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.

What next, are they going to burn down churches because of what he said? Just because someone happens to mention creationism in the same breath as science classes?

They're starting to behave like religious nutters too.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[PuckSR]

I must first agree with several other posters, the slashdot summary is incredibly slanted when compared with the actual comments made by Michael Reiss.

That being said, it isn't stupid that people are trying to get him fired. This is similar to the situation in Texas when a member of the education board was dismissed for speaking out against creationism. It isn't as much an issue of what is being said, and more of an issue of who is speaking. Michael Reiss addressed an inflammatory and incredibly hot topic. He made comments that could easily be twisted and misinterpreted, as SLASHDOT did, and he made these comments without discussing his public opinion piece with the rest of the royal society.

Let me provide an analogy.
It is unethical for a CFO to cook the books. It would be unethical to fire an accountant because he refused to lie.
However, it would be an entirely different issue if an accountant for a major company wrote an article claiming that he thought that "company X" was a failure and that he thought they would be bankrupt within a year.
Get the difference?

Re:Yeah, stupid

[ColdWetDog]

I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.

I think you're right. His actual words are really quite reasonable - to paraphrase - teachers of science (and particular of evolution and related subjects) need to be able to deal with persons of the Creationist persuasion in some sort of functional manner. His recommendation is that the science teacher gently try to reinforce that the Creationist viewpoint isn't a scientific one and then goes on to the realization that this is not likely to change the world view of the afflicted individual.

Really, nothing more, nothing less. I think it speaks worlds for how touchy a subject this is. The base issue is that the dis separate "world views" -- scientific or essentially non scientific -- drive politics, social mores, economics, foreign and domestic policy, schooling and many other important issues. Neither side wants the other to 'win'. Getting along peaceably is tough.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[jimicus]

But people are trying to get him fired over it? That's bullshit. The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion?

Because his job is to act as ambassador to education for a highly respected scientific society. If he starts spouting stuff which no scientist is prepared to take seriously, then he shouldn't be doing the job.

Having said that, there's a world of difference between "We should teach Creationism" (what he's quoted as saying) and "If a pupil asks, a teacher should be prepared to explain how Creationism isn't scientific rather than just ignore the question" (which is what he claims to have meant).

I know which one of those comments makes better headlines, though.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is hes the FUCKING DIRECTOR.

When he speaks he speaks for the Society, not himself.

Its the draw back of positions of authority, you don't get to have opinions, you have policies.

People in charge of large organizations don't get the same freedoms the rest of us enjoy, because their statements (especially statements relating to their feild) will always be viewed as not their position but their organizations position.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, and this is the point people very willingly overlook. A lot of people don't want truth, they want justification. A lot of bunk with a sprinkling of salt has gone a long way towards convincing a lot of people of the "Absolute Truth" that allows them to live their lives as they see fit. A lot of assumptions and beliefs because too many very smart people and "real scientists" believe so for it to possibly be untrue. Don't look behind the curtain, don't rock the boat, don't threaten the funding, the work of a lifetime, etc. Real scientists are unbiased, the system works, real science always proves out, etc, etc, etc.

The human factor always fracks that, history current and past is eminently full of examples to that end, and despite their deep desire otherwise, geeks and nerds are human, and not as in control as they think they are, which means they are also controlled and misguided.

If I'm wrong it won't matter, but if I'm right - well, please give it a real chance, a real study, and don't get sidetracked by misconceptions, untruths and propaganda that have been ladled out like gravy to keep you from doing just that. Go to the source, don't go to find errors so you can walk away patting yourself on the back - if it's too much try a few of the hefty works of the skeptics that went before you and found truth.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[mabhatter654]

I like his point. Why shpul evolution be taught over creation if the teacher is not prepared to explain the logical flaws...anything less is merely teaching science AS a religion.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[atraintocry]

That's exactly what I'm saying! Nobody should stand up for anything, even if it's right. That way, no one will ever risk being incorrect.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[atraintocry]

I can see why people have a hair trigger when it comes to this...all you ever hear is "teach the controversy", and when you know there is no controversy, it boils your blood.

But they guy wasn't saying that, and the people calling for his job should be humiliated for not reading what the guy actually said before jumping to conclusions.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion?

Because, according to TFA, he didn't keep it out.

Plus there's the issue of having someone opposed to the scientific method being in charge of a scientific organization.

It's like having a flat-earth believer in charge of NASA.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[TheLink]

Yeah, worse - the attitude of most of those people is part of the problem he is talking about.

Imagine if they were teachers and some kid in their class says they believe in creationism.

Do you know some of those people (including Dawkins) have said Reiss should not have his current job just because he happens to have a religion:

Zoologist Richard Dawkins, a Royal Society fellow, said: 'A clergyman in charge of education for the country's leading scientific organisation - it's a Monty Python sketch.'

"'I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be,' said Kroto, a Royal Society fellow, and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. "

Re:Yeah, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

> The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion?

Because he's the EDUCATION DIRECTOR for the ROYAL SOCIETY of Britain.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[DurendalMac]

Read the rest of the responses to my original post, numbnuts. He wasn't advocating teaching creationism by any stretch.

Re:Yeah, stupid

[Uberbah]

This is similar to the situation in Texas when a member of the education board was dismissed for speaking out against creationism.

Not remotely similar. The board member was 100% right, Creationism has no place in public schools or in science class.

tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ...

[josepha48]

.. to be taught in science classes next year.

It's spreading to Europe too?

[hkz]

It's a bit worrying that the creationist movement is starting to raise its head in Europe as well. It's not that it's new, it's that previously only US creationists were bold, loud and revered enough to take science on headfirst and actually win. It used to be that we west-Europeans, including the creationists, took it as self-evident that creationist beliefs were just that, beliefs, and hence confined to the private sphere. But from the looks of it, our fundies are getting audacious and trying to manufacture the same kind of "controversy" here. Meh, did these people not learn about the Enlightenment? Do they not care? I guess that's why we cannot have nice things.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[meringuoid]

It's mostly not Christian creationists - they remain a vanishingly small minority. It's Muslims - a substantial number of them do believe that rubbish. We're developing a population sector which believes in the literal truth of its holy book, and I suppose the Royal Society doesn't want to get firebombed for insulting the Prophet by suggesting that Adam and Eve never existed and so the Koran is a lie and Mohammed a fraud...

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[FlyingBishop]

As already mentioned, Reiss is clearly not a creationist (as you would know if you had RTFA.)

His basic point is that students with creationist views will clam up and refuse to learn any biology since the basis for biology is contrary to their beliefs. Failure to address these beliefs is failure to teach these students real science. These students have not heard of the enlightenment, and are guaranteed to be hostile to it if their beliefs are not addressed.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[pagaboy]

It's a bit worrying that the creationist movement is starting to raise its head in Europe as well.

It's not starting to raise it's head over in Europe, and probably never will. Even in Christian circles it's a pretty limited phenomenon in the UK, and has been since Darwin got buried in Westminster Abbey.

I suspect the reason it's getting so much press recently is the rise in Atheistic Fundamentalism. The more cases of daft Christianity they can get in the newspapers, the more their stance seems reasonable.

This article is a case in point - Reiss is not even a creationist, but hey, let's create an uproar (these anti-enlightenment Christians eh, who've even infiltrated the Royal Society - Newton would be turning over in his grave... hold on...) and hope no-one notices.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[rrohbeck]

That's what really bothers me.

Dawkins gets beat up because he's too harsh and divisive, while creationists get lenience because... why?

Because they're the poor deluded non-thinkers? That's exactly what Dawkins says!

Because being religious is somehow better than being atheist? Why?

Because religious people are "better" than atheists? Yeah right.

May I point out that the major political problems we're having worldwide are at least in part caused by religious differences - from Israel and the Palestinians to Christian soldiers in Mekka, to Christians (or economic interests of a mostly Christian country, or a Christian leader going nuts over terrists, whatever) vs Muslims in Iraq, to Iran feeling threatened by the US and viewing that as a fundie Christian threat (which it probably is to a small degree.)
Just listen to Bush and Palin making dangerous statements that the Iraq war was commanded by God. Sheesh. Cut out this nonsense and 90% of the fighting in the world would stop.

This article hits the nail right on the head. It's being criticized for being over the top, but I can only think "Imagine".

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Muslims - a substantial number of them do believe that rubbish. We're developing a population sector which believes in the literal truth of its holy book

It should be mandatory to show Muslim children a picture of Mohammad wearing a bomb turban, with strips of bacon hanging out of his mouth, while fucking a pig.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[atraintocry]

Um, the guys calling for his job are wrong, and should be pointed out as being wrong.

But "the rise in Atheistic Fundamentalism"? You realize that fundamentalism isn't possible unless there's doctrine involved, right?

Of course you do. You're just using scary-sounding words to argue with people you don't like. Poisoning the well, as it were.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, the UK in the last three-or-so decades has not had an issue with "religion being taught as science", but has a big problem with "science being taught as history". School students often have very little idea how you might test whether something evolved, but they have been told very firmly that we did evolve. They might even know the rough order of the various precursors to humans (rather like memorising the list of kings). Of course, ironically, so far as slashdot opinion is concerned, that makes them good little scientists, never disagreeing with that trusty old science textbook, but obediently lapping it up. Ah, and we wonder why they find science a bit boring and drop it at the first opportunity.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[Uberbah]

His basic point is that students with creationist views will clam up and refuse to learn any biology since the basis for biology is contrary to their beliefs.

Then they can fail. You don't see English teachers making accommodations for use of "ain't" or the misuse of their/they're/there.

These students have not heard of the enlightenment, and are guaranteed to be hostile to it if their beliefs are not addressed.

Too damned bad.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[Uberbah]

Uh huh. You have anything more than anti-Muslim paranoia to back that up?

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[saforrest]

It's mostly not Christian creationists - they remain a vanishingly small minority. It's Muslims - a substantial number of them do believe that rubbish.

I have no doubt that is true, though its truth is largely a consequence of the fact that old creationist beliefs in Muslim countries have not yet been subjected to the same cultural pressures as Western European ones have.

Respect for science and rational inquiry arose out of seeing firsthand what these things could *do*, and the respect for science was cultivated for centuries before Darwin. The rate of discovery was fast, but not fast enough that most people couldn't adjust.

(If evolution had been "unlucky" enough to have been discovered in the age of Copernicus or Newton, we could well have had a sufficiently large backlash from those who didn't like their worldviews shattered in many & myriad ways to end the Enlightenment altogether.)

In any case, while I have occasionally seen pamphlets, websites, or TV programs by Muslims endorsing creationist views as per the Qu'ran, I've not yet seen any attempt to seriously push for it in Western countries. In my experience, the militant creationist movement is associated exclusively with the American Christian religious right and their fellow-travellers.

I don't believe Reiss is seriously advocating teaching creationism, and I don't think he deserved to lose his job over this; now and then some well-meaning person tries to split the difference and "discuss the controversy" (it happened in Ontario in our last provincial election to the Conservative leader).

Frankly, though, this is one point on which am I quite happy to take a militant position. We don't give the Flat Earthers any free coverage in our classrooms, and I don't see why this ought to be any different.

Related stories

[MK_CSGuy]

Related Stories:
[+] Ask Slashdot: How Do You Interview A Sysadmin Candidate? 476 comments

wtf?
doesn't /. editors have control over the related stories section?

Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[CrazyJim1]

I know general principals in evolution. The only thing I have against the word evolution being thrown around so much is that people use it for different things. For example last year the news was reporting,"Over fished species are showing signs of hyper evolution." They said this because weird genes are expressing themselves. They implied that when a species gets low on population that they evolve faster. As an arm chair scientist, I rather see this as the inbred effect that when there is less DNA in the gene pool that genes are expressed strongly for several reasons. I wouldn't call it evolution as much as gene loss or genetic erosion. I just think that the word evolution is overused.

I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too? There is no end to the number of ways that the universe can be created when you use man made religions. I mean having all sorts of different theories on reality through string theory is bad enough. When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[Boronx]

At the most basic definition, evolution is the change in gene distribution in a gene pool, so your fish example is definitely evolution.

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[Yetihehe]

I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too?

And maybe throw all this into new classes? We may call them "religion" or "philosophy"...

When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.

I agree. Creationism CAN be mentioned in one sentence with evolution. But only using "contrary to".

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[grasshoppa]

I know general principals in evolution. The only thing I have against the word evolution being thrown around so much is that people use it for different things. For example last year the news was reporting,"Over fished species are showing signs of hyper evolution." They said this because weird genes are expressing themselves. They implied that when a species gets low on population that they evolve faster. As an arm chair scientist, I rather see this as the inbred effect that when there is less DNA in the gene pool that genes are expressed strongly for several reasons. I wouldn't call it evolution as much as gene loss or genetic erosion. I just think that the word evolution is overused.

That's exactly what evolution is. Evolution can be most evident when there are severe pressures on survival.

I'd liken it to "Driving". The individual processes inherent in the action are still called driving ( shifting, accelerating, braking, ect.. ), yet they are each unique in and of themselves.

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution doesn't happen without selection - without some selective force that pulls some mutations out above the rest, mutations are just noise. And so a population with no predators and more then enough food... can't evolve. If you then start killing any of this population that you can easily catch, then suddenly they'll start evolving with a selective pressure for evasiveness.

But evolution is more then just on/off. How quickly a selected trait spreads through an entire population depends on how much a benefit it is as measured by what percent more descendants of an animal with the trait has compared to an animal without it. And so a small population under extreme selective pressures *does* in fact evolve more quickly. The overfishing doesn't cause more mutations then usual, but it does cause these mutations to spread far more quickly.

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[Artifakt]

Changes in gene distribution can be stochastic, that is they can vary for other reasons than selection pressure. When a given population becomes extinct, there was no successful long term selection pressure, as all alternatives lost equally in the end (Extinction being defined as the ultimate negative outcome).
    As an example of stochastic genetic distribution, many scientists studying HIV are now suggesting it is a stochastic mutator, with at least four major variants on the protein coat, which are equally likely to mutate back to the baseline or into alternate variants. At least until some medical treatments began targeting a particular protein coat, there was no real selection pressure between types. (Which does not mean HIV doesn't also occasionally have other, no-stochastic mutations, of course it can.).

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[rrohbeck]

Gaah. There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start, except to mention that you can't even spell principle.

Genes for hyper evolution have been found in several species. It is a basic tenet that the speed of evolution depends on environmental pressure - that has been found again and again. If a species is comfortable in its ecological niche with little pressure, there isn't anything to optimize, and evolution moves sideways and/or towards slower development, longer lifespans and more care for the brood. Under environmental pressure, this changes: Evolution branches out, there is more offspring with less care, and lifespans shorten. This has been found from bacteria to mammals.

And you know that creationism happened... Ok, I know that too. I read about in the paper and on the Net every day. If you mean that creation happened... why? Because people a couple thousand years ago had no better idea than "God did it" and wrote that down?
The only creations that happened at some point are abiogenesis and the Big Bang, and, yes, we don't understand how. Yet.

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[Alsee]

The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also.

The force of government should only be imposed to indoctrinate people in the right religion!
Duhh!

-

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[Myopic]

When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.

Huh?

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents.

[GrahamCox]

I also know creationism happened.

Can you back that up with evidence?

You've just repeated your error.

[khasim]

The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time, and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept.

Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.

Yet you keep using the same word to describe evolution and Creationism.

It is that exact error that is the reason against teaching Creationism.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Dannkape]

Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.

Just how to you suggest we test evolution? Chisel some complete DNA-sequences in rocks for whoever are here in few million to compare to see if they have any species that are similar, but has *new* genetic information in them? (All mutations witnessed so far, have been removal of information, which sometimes can in fact be beneficial.)

When dealing with the past, there isn't much you can do for repeat experiments. As the collected data stands today, both camps can get some of it to fit their views. Difference being that the serious creationists (as opposed to the "Bible says so" parrots) admit that they have a "view", while the evolutions deny it.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Crookdotter]

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

You obviously didn't take biology or study - because if you did, you'd know that a few weeks and some fruit flies could give you all the evidence that you need.

That's not even talking about the absolutely MASSIVE amount of DNA/RNA evidence in all living things today.

Here's a funny thing - you don't need to wait for millions of years to confirm evolution, just like we don't need to wait thousands of years to confirm the half life of C-14.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Dannkape]

No, I didn't study biology. (But what do you mean by the part "or study"?)

But if you could provide a link to some info about said fruit flies, rather than saying "it's there", I'd be more than interested in reading about it.

If you by "all living things" basically mean "we're here, so that proves evolution", then you have to do better. If you mean something else, could you be a bit more specific? It's one thing to say there is massive amounts, but something different to actually point to even a little bit of it.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[AmonTheMetalhead]

You really need to read up on genetics, mutations do not remove "information", mutations are *alterations* to dna, that can be obmission of parts, badly repeated parts of dna or just new dna.

The info is out there, at your fingertips, just ask google.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[rrohbeck]

All mutations witnessed so far, have been removal of information, which sometimes can in fact be beneficial.

Wrong. See Lenski's results of E.coli developing the capability to metabolize citrate. E.coli can not even transport citrate into the cell; those strains developed first that capability, then learned to metabolize it.
And how do you define "new"? Do you say that any of the random mutations that are witnessed in any genome that is analyzed have been there before? There's a contradiction in there. Or do you say that a random mutation is not "new genetic information" unless... what?

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[bendodge]

I'd love to know what evidence could falsify Evolution. Even something as straightforward as the Law of Biogenesis isn't enough to falsify so eminent a theory as Evolution.

And as another commenter said, how does one test evolution?

Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both (or rather, the right one) took place in the past. This is what science students should be taught.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Dannkape]

That is indeed a neat experiment. (And thanks for actually providing something specific, even with a link, unlike a few others...) However, a guick googling for a respons, gave me this. I'll freely admit that I don't know that site much, but then, the results are quite new, so there hasn't been much time to analyse their findings properly.

The main arguments are that 1) the E.coli used can metabolize citrate under other conditions (so it's not completely new to them), 2) there was an abundance of citrate present compared to other "food". 3) the time it took (in generations) was way too long for even a minor change to explain anything on a larger scale.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[that IT girl]

That last sentence makes a lot of sense, actually. I never quite thought of it that way, although I do believe something similar--that both sides have a little bit of evidence. Not enough to make a leap to that theory proving anything conclusively, but a little. You're right, real science should at least be honest enough to say "we think this idea makes more sense than that one, but we can't prove it either".

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[atraintocry]

He gave you a specific example: fruit fly genetics. Antibiotic resistance is another.

Saying that we don't know anything 100% is not a good reason to bring creationism, which is not science, into science class. And calling out the need for "equal time" is disingenuous at best.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[mdwh2]

See here for the issue of falsifiability: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html .

And evolution has been observed, including speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It is not something that just happened in the past - but even if it did, that doesn't mean we can't determine what happened. By your logic, determining who committed a particular crime is not scientific. And does this mean that overwhelming evidence that a particular person committed the crime, should be treated on equal grounds with a made up story about someone else who did it - a story with no evidence, and even evidence to disprove it? Of course not.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fruit flies experiment is a farce. You start with flies and you end with...... ......flies.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Dannkape]

The only thing on the first page of google results for "fruit fly genetics" that was remotely readable at 2am was a page with pictures of various common mutations. They sure looked pretty, but every single one of them was stated as being caused by a *defective* gene. They *lost* a feature, rather than developing new ones.

Antibiotic resistance? Pretty much same story. The bacterias usually loose the ability to attach themselves to the antibiotics. (In the body a few of these are present before the antibiotic is introduced, and if the immune system fails to kill those the antibiotics can't deal with, they easily multiply back to old levels)

I don't want "equal time" as such. But a good beginning would be to stop teaching kids things that even leading evolutionist have admitted to being mistaken about decades ago. (Like those little drawings of fetuses that was still featured in textbooks several decades after actual photographs proved them to be nothing but fiction.) Would also be nice to tell them where the gaps are at the moment, rather than pretending there aren't any.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[KeithJM]

I'd love to know what evidence could falsify Evolution.

You know how every once in a while someone refers to evolution as a cat being born to a dog, or some variation? If that could be proved to happen, it would be pretty damning evidence to evolution as we know it. If one species could give birth to an animal which was so different from its parents it couldn't reproduce with the species of its parents but COULD reproduce with an existing other species, we'd pretty much have to re-evaluate the whole theory.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously didn't take biology or study - because if you did, you'd know that a few weeks and some fruit flies could give you all the evidence that you need.

You obviously didn't understand what you were learning. Genetic variation is NOT Evolution. The variations were and are all contained within the existing DNA.

Science has come a long way. The knowledge base required to evaluate evidence, even old 'known' evidence has increased and continues to increase dramatically. Anti-creationism has become a rabid belief that necessitates excluding any evidence that doesn't fit, or forcing interpretations that demand belief rather than facts. Cold science would argue possibilities and interpretations and data and tools, not emotional belief.

What is wrong with that dialog if one is truly interested in truth? Like the Global Warming (now Global Climate Change) faction that insists that mankind is driving the change and therefore has the power to stop it, facts have gone by the board and hate has taken the place of facts. That mindset, no matter what it is applied to, will hurt us all.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[rrohbeck]

1) the E.coli used can metabolize citrate under other conditions (so it's not completely new to them)

"Almost" doesn't quite cut it. It doesn't in nature, period. So the bacteria made a significant change in their metabolism.

2) there was an abundance of citrate present compared to other "food".

Yes, that comprises an ecologic pressure. Evolution doesn't happen without ecologic pressure and the availability of food is the second biggest of all ecologic pressures.

3) the time it took (in generations) was way too long for even a minor change to explain anything on a larger scale.

Bad argument. How big is the population in this experiment compared to the worldwide population of E.coli? Of course, if you have a specific probability density for something to happen, it will take much longer in a small population than in a larger population. And bacteria exchange genetic information all the time, so these changes don't have to happen sequentially, they can happen in parallel. I.e., if you take a much larger population, some changes will happen quickly and are exchanged via conjugation, and other bacteria populations can build on top of them, especially if they confer an advantage and these populations expand relative to the total population.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[johanatan]

That's quite some extrapolating you're doing there. That's much more tenable to do with radioactive decay (though even that seems quite dubious to me). What makes you think that the rates of decay have always and will always be the same? We've been keeping records for only 1.45x10^-8 of the time that you people claim the universe has been existent.

Why can't you evolutionists and old-earth geologists have more imagination when it comes rates of decay and the vast amounts of time past? You always claim that we ID theorists do not have the mental facilities to 'imagine' evolution, but this is one direction that you do not want to turn those immense powers of imagination towards.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[johanatan]

Not only the rates of decay, but the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-14 (which scientists assume has always been 1:1 trillion).

See this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

The 'A Critical Assumption' section is where it starts getting interesting (if you are already familiar with the basics).

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Crookdotter]

You're kidding, right?

You say 'evolutionist' and 'old-earth geologist' as if there was any kind of rational alternative.

What makes me think that the decay rates have remained constant? You can apply that idea to anything and the net result would be....? Yes. Zero knowledge.

Grow up you imbecile and stop wasting everyones time with your 'theories'.

It's not my job to teach you reality, so instead I'll simply tell you that you are wrong and move on.


ID Theorist........ what a joke.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Dimensio]

What makes you think that the rates of decay have always and will always be the same?

Significant alterations in radioacitve decay rates would imply events that have not been observed; for example, alterations of decay rates posited by some creationists would imply that the earth's crust should have melted a few thousand years ago yet evidence of such a catastrophic destruction of the planet has not been observed.

Additionally, multiple radiometric dating methods consistently produce results that agree with one another. It is far more rational to assume that the decay rates for all of these isotopes are constant than it is to assume that they have changed at varying rates that coincidentally produce the same recorded age at this particular moment in time. Finally, no one has offered any mechanism to allow for significant alterations of decay rates, while an explanation for decay rates consistent with a constant effect has been provided.

You always claim that we ID theorists

Please define "ID theory".

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[johanatan]

Ok. That seems reasonable enough (if true).

Are you saying that there are multiple independant methods of radiometeic dating that agree on the ages of organic material?

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, it hasn't been that long that science and religion have existed as distinctly separate entitities. This is largely a western cultural norm probably born from the Renaissance.

In the course of human history, how long ago was it that when confronted with the 'evidence' of a sun that travels across the sky by some invisible force, that the civilizations of the time declared that Apollo carried the sun in its journey across the sky?

People once believed confronted with the evidence of sick masses that the night ushered in evil spirits to sicken people.

Here's the point: They used their knowledge of the world at that time to draw conclusions about the phenomena they observed. Using their FAITH (and that is the operative word) in what they KNEW to explain that which they could otherwise not explain.

So now that people know a little bit more than their ancestors, they place more faith in their ability to observe and draw conclusions about their observations, but recognize that just as in religion, faith is involved.

Potential Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, and other phenomena require a certain investment of faith. You may declare a lower investment is required because such explanations 'fit a model' better, but even so you must invest faith in the model to begin with.

I'm not saying that I have a problem with teaching science and religion as separate disciplines, but I do have a problem with the fact that many seem to like to elevate science over religion as if it invalidates it in some way.

Even Einstein believed in God.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html

Long before scientists called a "Big Bang", there were those who said that God said "Let there be light", Long before scientists discussed the "primorial soup", there were those that said God brought life from the oceans and the mud puddles. Long before scientists discussed relativity and the twin problem, there were those that said "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

I'm not here to convert anyone, but there is nothing about the belief in God or that God ultimately created all that we see that merits the dismissal of anyone... especially in an arena of *ideas*.

Like it or not faith is employed at some level in both religion AND science... and while scientists may arguably be more prepared to rethink where their faith is invested based upon whichever evidence they select as being relevant, because they too have agendas, they don't always do so any faster than any church might revise its doctorines.

Piltdown man anyone?

I suggest that western culture notwithstanding, that science and religion aren't really as different as scientists like to portray them as.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Anonymous Coward]

And, ID theory is the 'theory of intelligent design'. It posits the idea that the observable phenomena of life are of such complexity and specificity to warrant the conclusion that it was designed and was rather not arrived at by chance (as materialist philosophy would have it) or necessity.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[johanatan]

You say 'evolutionist' and 'old-earth geologist' as if there was any kind of rational alternative.

There are plenty of rational alternatives (even if you limit yourself to materialistic methods, although I would recommend using your reasoning faculties to the fullest without placing artificial boundaries on them).

What makes me think that the decay rates have remained constant? You can apply that idea to anything and the net result would be....? Yes. Zero knowledge.

Not quite. The knowledge of historical science (especially when we're talking about billions and billions of years) might approach zero but it still wouldn't reach it. And, that would be a good thing--there's way too much speculation in this particular area of science. It's quite ridiculous really the imaginations put forth as science in the popular media. An idea so preposterous as evolution only begins to seem reasonable when you introduce an almost infinite amount of time.

Grow up you imbecile and stop wasting everyones time with your 'theories'.

Who's the one stooping to name-calling? Seems rather childish to me.

It's not my job to teach you reality, so instead I'll simply tell you that you are wrong and move on.

The problem with your view of 'reality' is that it cannot be both complete and consistent. That should be enough to encourage you to include philosophy in your studies.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[johanatan]

Significant alterations in radioacitve decay rates would imply events that have not been observed; for example, alterations of decay rates posited by some creationists would imply that the earth's crust should have melted a few thousand years ago yet evidence of such a catastrophic destruction of the planet has not been observed.

But, as I mentioned previously, we've only 'observed' 1.45x10^-8 of the supposed billions of years that have passed. Wouldn't it be quite the jackpot to actually 'observe' these (or any really) events in that amount of time? Furthermore, these 'alterations of decay rates as posited by some creationists' are obviously incorrect if they would imply the melting of the crust. However, there must be a nearly infinite number of possible 'alterations'. That's why I challenged you all to use your imagination a little more.

Re:You've just repeated your error.

[Crookdotter]

And you're allowed to vote, and have children? I find your type of lunatic particularly disturbing. I won't return to this thread because uneducated religious nutters aren't really worth the bother.

Friends, it is time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for space pants!

Re:Friends, it is time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I fully concur. In fact I am sporting my very own pair of space pants at this very instant! Jolly good!

society in decay ignores creators' advise

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing new there? there's no where left to hide, & it's becoming more&more clear that EVERYTHING made by man fails.

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&

Discussion != Endorsement

[LaminatorX]

The columns seem reasonable. Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[Manip]

Discussion is equal to Endorsement.

By discussing it in a SCIENCE classroom you're admitting it science, which it blatantly is not.

A better place for discussion would be Religious Education or Social Studies. Both classes a lot of schools have in the UK.

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[xehonk]

While we're at it, let them teach about all the other religious creation myths in science classes as well. They're about as scientific and some have more believers than creationism.
Or.. let's stick to science in science classes.

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[LaminatorX]

So by saying that before Pasteur's experiments it was widely thought that mud turns into frogs and rotting meat turns into maggots I'm somehow lending more weight to those ideas?

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[mdwh2]

Or.. let's stick to science in science classes.

No one is saying that we shouldn't teach science in science.

However, if a growing number of children have creationist beliefs (of whatever religion), that are ingrained into them (part of Reiss's point is that this makes it hard to correct them, like a simple misconception), the question is how do we tackle this? Reiss gives his suggestion, for which he is for some reason ridiculed. So what's your suggestion?

Yes, it is a fair point that there is no need to debunk creationism anymore than we debunk belief in fairies. On the other hand, belief in fairies either isn't widespread among fairies, or it doesn't affect their accept of scientific facts.

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[Uberbah]

However, if a growing number of children have creationist beliefs (of whatever religion), that are ingrained into them (part of Reiss's point is that this makes it hard to correct them, like a simple misconception), the question is how do we tackle this?

Um, telling them it's not science?

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[Uberbah]

Don't be obtuse. No one believes anymore that rotting meat turns into maggots, so there is no risk in legitimizing the idea of spontaneous generation, anymore than little kids are going to start worshiping Zeus and Apollo because they read some old Greek tales. That's not the case with Creationists, who number in the millions and even built their own crazy museum in Kentucky.

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.

The difference is that heliocentrism and spontaneous generation were valid scientific theories. They successfully explained the observed world at the time and they made falsifiable predictions about the world. They're good science. Wrong, but still good. Creationism, on the other hand, makes no predictions (ie: whatever happens is what God wanted) and relies on no specific observations (ie: whatever you see is what God created).

That point is exactly what Reiss is saying we should be prepared to make. Rather than simply say that creationism has no place in science class, we need to be prepared to explain why is has no place. We need to be prepared to explain that spontaneous generation is science that has been shown to be wrong and that creationism has no characteristics of a scientific theory.

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[mdwh2]

Um, telling them it's not science?

Exactly. Which is what the Royal Society and Professor Reiss are saying. From http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004 :

"Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."

xehonk's suggestion was not that we tell them it's not science, his suggestion was that it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

Re:Discussion != Endorsement

[LaminatorX]

Sounds like you'd make a good science teacher.

I've attended lectures by Roberts and Nurse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nurse is the President of Rockefeller University, though his claim to fame is with the cell cycle, and Roberts was the restriction enzyme guy at New England Biotech. They are good speakers. All I remember of Nurse's speech was... "Check your wastebins on Friday night," as you may have thrown out an important culture earlier. Roberts was pimping a nonprofit journal article library.

Seems fair to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems fair to me. Teach in science class why Creationism and ID aren't science, and in religion classes, why, for examples, Dawkins views on religion are stuck firmly in the victorian age.

Re:tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ...

[kitsunewarlock]

Hey, I've done years of serious research/dissecting regarding the presence of the tooth fairy and would appreciate it if you wouldn't clump my serious research with nonsense like creationism, you inconsiderate oath!

As for recording my work--the police records, widespread word on the forensics of the dentist blood on my trusty axe, wanted posters and signs at the ADA are more than enough credible sources, despite what those elitist tooth fairy wiki editors say.

Both? just two?

[BitterOldGUy]

Honestly, why NOT teach both? Look, depending on which way your beliefs slant, you have a little bit of evidence and a lot of faith that it happened that way. Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

We also need to teach the Indian version, Chinese, some of the Wica versions, etc...

But it's all a waste of time because Nyx created everything and this nonsense of Evolution or God is just superstition.

Anyway, I have my afternoon prayers and I need to discuss my stock purchases with the Oracle. Shit, i forgot to get my bull for my sacrifice. Boy oh boy, the gods are sure going to be pissed! Hurricane Ike came because of me! Sorry!

How do you know you're right?

[ProteusQ]

When you're able to shut everybody else down.

Of course, that usually doesn't mean a gag order, but with topic, we'll make an exception. That's how we maintain our status as open-minded, free thinkers.

Re:How do you know you're right?

[BitterOldGUy]

That's how we maintain our status as open-minded, free thinkers.

Who was it that said, "You don't want to be so open minded that your brains fall out!"

Why no teach "Mother Turtle"

[snarfer]

You advocate teaching the dogma of ONE minor branch of ONE religion. Why not force kids to learn about "Mother Turtle", too? Why not force teaching of Scientology as well? Or Satanism?

How does a scientist know what's true?

[LrdZombie]

All facts begin as dreams, dreamt by a wizard. If the wizard crosses the path of a scorned widow, then he shares it at the town council. Now, it is a hypothesis, and it is time to drown the wizard. If he floats, he is an evil wizard and must be burned alive. If he drowns, then the hypothesis is true! The king is told and he consults with his menagerie of birds. If the king is satisfied, then it becomes an Old Wives Tale and science is once more advanced!

Re:How does a scientist know what's true?

[poopdeville]

I wish I had something funny and relevant to share, but all I can think about is Bob Odenkirk yelling "FUUUUCK" and running down the street with a shopping cart full of eggs.

Fire him?

[Heather D]

Hm, this is the sort of response that I'd expect from the other side of the field on this issue. The suggestion that he put forward is reasonable and rational. The only error he made is in assuming that the public schools are rational and reasonable places. This has yet to be adequately demonstrated.

Ideally it should be discussed in the social classes, but the most likely result, at least in the US, would be chaos. Maybe it's different in the UK but I'm not optimistic.

Re:Fire him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, this is the sort of response that I'd expect from the other side of the field on this issue.

Thankfully, yes. Had he offended your side of the field, he would have faced death threats if not outright murder.

I like the other side of the field better.

Reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Reiss has been repeatedly taken out of context with his comments. The media has consistently misinterpreted what he said to mean that he supports the teaching of creationism in science classes. In fact what Dr. Reiss said was that if a student asks about creationism, the teacher should be prepared to explain to that student why creationism is not science, something that I think most level-headed people would agree with. To reiterate, Dr. Reiss did NOT say that creationism should be in any way be endorsed in science classes, only that the student should be made aware of WHY it is not science.

Verify or falsify, or quit calling it science.

[getuid()]

I don't think the word theory means what you think it means...

What about the words "verifiable", or "falsifiable"? Do you think that means what I think it means?

Well, if it's verifyable/falsifiable, it's sicence. If not, it's not.

The moment you stop trying to verify/falsify a theory, it stops being science and becomes belief, because -- the name gives it away -- if you refuse to "verify", then all that you're left with is having to "believe" it...

Re:Verify or falsify, or quit calling it science.

[mikey1134]

Um, that's what I was trying to point out.... The parent appears to think a theory is something you think up after a night of binge drinking.

Burn the heretic!

[John Jorsett]

I think creationism is nonsensical, but the reaction over this is reminiscent of the Inquisition. Calling for firing someone for voicing a heterodox opinion is getting uncomfortably close to a modern-day auto da fe.

Re:Burn the heretic!

[slapyslapslap]

Just think if he questioned humans' contribution to global warming.

Entertainment And Truth at the same time

[uassholes]

Funny stuff and painfully true standup comedy about trogladytes living among us who still believe in ancient primitive superstition (religion):

http://www.youtube.com/patcondell

Re:Entertainment And Truth at the same time

[rrohbeck]

Mod parent up!

And s/Islam/evangelical Christianity/ in many places.

Re:Entertainment And Truth at the same time

[Maelwryth]

Mod parent up. This link is great!

If I may expand upon that ...

[khasim]

The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science.

Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.

All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.

All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.

All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.

All claiming that evolution is a religion.

Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?

Re:If I may expand upon that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to some "science", we have big-bangs every few eons, and a mighty lot of evolution in the meantime. I challenge YOU - where do you think human progress and technology will be in a BILLION years from now? -Can you seriously believe that our world, and our little ideas of science, and it's physical world are all there will ever be? The fact that we are alone, with no incomming communication signals from anywhere else ever recorded proves that something completely unexpected is occurring. If science is right about evolution, then this should not be the case. I think, regardless of your beliefs, that to just teach evolution, confined only on this planet, with no possibility of vastly more intelligent design having been used to engineer our whole biology, is incredibly blind and short-sighted. What do you think? Are you ready to broaden your horizon and think like a real scientist? - and not just throw away real possibilities that you cant cope with? Have a nice day!

Re:If I may expand upon that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the good reverend is trying to make a very subtle point that seems to be lost on many people. Much of the "teach creationism" crowd wants to see creationism taught as though it were a scientific theory. Teaching creationism in this way gives it much greater validity than it has, opens the unfortunate teacher to the situation you describe, and in no way advances student's grasp of "science."

The reason to mention (not teach) creationism is not to prove it wrong, but to prove it not science. All scientific theories make predictions, and given an experimental condition, one can say certain observations would or would not be consistent with the theory. With creationism, for any experiment, any observation at all is consistent with the "theory," which is equivalent to making no prediction at all.

For example, imagine moving a flock of flamingos to Anchorage, or Kirkwall. Evolution would predict that many birds would die but those those that don't would pass their survival traits to their progeny, who would survive better. Creationism would predict that a) all animals die because man interfered with God's plan; b) all animals thrive by the grace of God; c) those animals chosen by God for their exceptional faith survive; d) all animals spontaneously sprout heavy fur coats; e) climate conditions in and around Anchorage suddenly become favorable for flamingos; etc

Discussing or addressing creationism does not mean teaching it as a valid-but-wrong theory. Perhaps, if we could find a way to discuss creationism, and other non-scientific uses of the word "theory" in this way, we would eventually see fewer calls to teach creationism in science class.

Re:If I may expand upon that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I challenge YOU - where do you think human progress and technology will be in a BILLION years from now? -Can you seriously believe that our world, and our little ideas of science, and it's physical world are all there will ever be?

What do you think? Are you ready to broaden your horizon and think like a real scientist? - and not just throw away real possibilities that you cant cope with?

I can imagine a lot of things. Those things I imagine are commonly described as "fiction." You're right that a good scientist should be open to new possibilities, but you're wrong that he should be ready to accept those possibilities strictly on the basis that someone thought them up. In science, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes a theory.

If you want creationism to be taught as a valid alternative, then you have to come up with some actual observations (as opposed to the absence of observations) that support it. Show us a new species or trait spontaneously generated from no precursor. Show us some progeny completely unlike their parents. If you can't provide proof or demonstration, then your ideas have to be deemed as fictional as Star Trek's transporter.

Re:If I may expand upon that ...

[thepotoo]

Oh, really? I think we should teach the controversy. A couple of days ago in my evolution class we learned about creationism - it was probably the single most interesting class ever.

We got to look at and talk about the Wedge Document (see also Wikipedia's writeup). This stuff is amazing. Their political and social motives are like something beyond the 9/11 conspiracy theorists wildest wet dreams.

So let me ask the creationists here: Do you really want any of this stuff to come up in a science class? Really?

Re:If I may expand upon that ...

[jacquesm]

I think a big part of the problem here is that while science is simple in basis in practice it's hard, creationism is simple in basis and simple in practice. It appeals to a moron much more than a lifelong dedication to study would.

Those 'self described nerds' are just parrots by another name.

Creationism doesn't even really have a place in a religion class, it is more of an orchestrated campaign to destroy education, as soon as you'd remove it from the palette altogether it will be replaced by the next plan of these nutjobs.

Re:If I may expand upon that ...

[Dare nMc]

imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.
All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.

Now imagine you spent 8 hours breaking down those 10 students beliefs into how their wrong, they now each go home and tell their 2 parents, now you got 20 people (not including their contacts) yelling at the principal and shaking books and yelling...
You may be able to convince 10 students who have been exposed to some of the facts of science in the last year to listen. Your not going to get 20 parents to all acknowledge, to their kids and peers, that they don't know it all (and may never have had any science teaching, at least not likely in the last 20 years.)

Re:If I may expand upon that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's Reiss point - you don't concentrate on telling them how they are wrong.

You say gently - this is not the scientific way of doing things, BUT this on the other hand is the scientific way.

Get rid of it all!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop teaching how the world started and about evolution. Then there will be no need for creationism to be taught in schools. If you want to learn about creationism go to Sunday school. If you want to learn about evolution go to Sunday school of sciences or what ever. Let the parents decide what their kid needs to learn. OMG did I just say let the parents make the decision. Whoops!!

CoE apologises!

[Simmeh]

On a related note:
Church of England to apologise for rejecting evolution
As moderate religion steps away from fundamentalism, our scientists (if only through media slant) get closer to it!
Think of the children!!

What do you mean, two theories?

[Kupfernigk]

As well as Creationism, a belief held by a few North Americans, you would have to include the ideas of the Jains, the Buddhists, the Hindus, Orthodox Judaism, the Manichaeans and presumably the Hollow Earth believers. They are all just as good as North American Creationism and differ in important details.

In that lot, when are you actually going to find time to teach real geology or biology?

The fact that you refer to "missing links in the fossil record" shows you know absolutely nothing about modern biology. I suggest you read the essays of Jay Gould, some recent stuff on how the finches of Galapagos continue to evolve as they are driven by a changing environment, and an account of the history of geology in the nineteenth century, and then you will know enough to know that you don't know anything and will perhaps STFU.

options C, D, and E

[johnrpenner]

> Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

i have always found it a poor choice between ONLY a) science (of the darwinian we came from frogs), or b) creationism (we came out of nowhere, with no proof, and you jus gotta believe).

why is there never any discussion of option c) d) or even something like e) the occult evolution of the cosmos?

no doubt, not many would choose option e) -- which both the creationists and scientists would think is just nuts -- but insofar as the number of possible theories examined, out of the many theories, it always only comes down to just two - ludicrous creationism, or ape science - other options aren't ever discussed, when there are other options. why are we caught in this polarity between the two ideas that have no overlaps in venn diagram...? :-P

Re:options C, D, and E

[johnrpenner]

and here's an example of option C) John Davidson, Natural Creation or Natural Selection

i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.

then there's another, call it option D) -- and it doesn't necessarily contracdict darwin, but is based on a non-kantian epistemology -- theory of knowledge implicit in Goethe's World Conception - revision in Darwinian conception of time

it just seems that trying to even acknowledge the existence of any other stream of thought other than options a) judeo-creation myth and b) the darwinian version of evolution seems impossible with some people though.

Re:options C, D, and E

[the_arrow]

In Swedish schools there are discussions about all kind of "theories" behind the creation of earth and man. However, it is in a subject called "religion", and contains information about all major and some minor religions (like christianity, buddhism, islam, norse gods and beliefs (of course), shinto, hindu, and some others.)

These discussions are good, but they do not fit into a science class. Unless any of them can be proved they way evolution have been of course.

Re:options C, D, and E

[dada21]

i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.

I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.

For me, the biggest difficult I face living amongst Christians is their inability to discern what they believe in and why. Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life. Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.

So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop with this sola scriptura nonsense. It's not Scriptural, and has nothing to do with how one lives today. Genesis was about God's SPIRITUAL Creation, not about the physical world. Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant with the Ancient Israelites being fulfilled about 2000 years ago (1938 years ago, how I read it), not about some future physical destruction of the physical. God's Kingdom is not of this world, Christians. So stop trying to force it here, when there's no need to. It only pisses off the non-Christians, and makes all your good actions fruitless since they're countermanded by your misuse of Scripture to try to change the physical world.

Re:options C, D, and E

[dnoyeb]

I was under the impression that the idea of a "spirit" did not exist in the old testament. Further, that the idea of a spirit is something introduced by Europeans who held other beliefs. The idea of a spirit was blended with the beliefs of the Israelites when they and/or Egypt was conquored by Europeans.

So I would expect to see it in Revelations, but not Genesis.

Either way, if you can comprehend why religious leaders are conservative voters, then you will see that its not about God at all.

Re:options C, D, and E

[xaxa]

This is currently the case in the UK too.

The Royal Society don't dictate what is taught, but they do have influence as a group of respected scientists.

My science class (UK, 2002-ish) included some discussion of scientific method, how it developed and some examples of where scientists were wrong (e.g. heat and light being chemicals, or everything being made from earth, air, fire and water). Then we looked at the scientists who'd proved these theories wrong, and how.

Re:options C, D, and E

[dada21]

I was under the impression that the idea of a "spirit" did not exist in the old testament. Further, that the idea of a spirit is something introduced by Europeans who held other beliefs. The idea of a spirit was blended with the beliefs of the Israelites when they and/or Egypt was conquored by Europeans.

Yes, this is true, actually, and one of the reasons I came to faith even though I am a hardcore believer in logic as a good way to discern how to live. When I read the Bible (or as I call it, Scriptures), I realized something that mosy Christian lifers didn't: God used the Ancient Israelites to prove the need for Jesus (to that generation of people). The Jews (Ancient ones) time and again failed to understand God's desire for them, and His desire to reconcile humanity to God.

Jesus's most confusing words and actions still stifle the Christian Church today, because even today most Christians can't understand what He was talking about. His own Apostles, some/many of Jewish upbringing, didn't understand Him, either. Some of his most powerful words are the very ones I quoted in my initial post: John 18:36 "My Kingdom is not of this world." Over and over and over again Jesus used imagery that should have been commonly understood by the Jews and Gentiles of the day as a description of God's spiritual connection to man. Husband and Wife. Marriage. Homosexuality. Kings. The poor man, the landlord, the fig tree: all are spiritually accurate descriptions of how God interweaved Himself with man, and yet man misunderstood.

2000 years later, man still misunderstands en masse, holding to a Pharisee-like belief that God cares for the physical world, when in fact God cares completely and spiritually, no longer blessing or cursing anyone for their physical actions. I do believe God reigns with love for all, and cares little about the inanities of our every day life. Scripture also defends my beliefs here.

So I would expect to see it in Revelations, but not Genesis.

Yet the Ancient Jews didn't hold Genesis as a true physical description of creation. Those who want to control and coerce others do.

Either way, if you can comprehend why religious leaders are conservative voters, then you will see that its not about God at all.

Ahh, there are many religious leaders today who are liberal voters who also have not made it about God. Christ was clear in what we're to do: Love God, Love Others. There's not much else to say or do, but the majority of Christians are definitely not doing it.

And even if it IS to be about God, we're to do it all in private. I would never pray in public (Christ never did except ONCE as an example of how to pray in private). I would never tell others about the aid I've given to a private individual. We're to keep it private, between ourselves and God. How sickening it is when Christians do otherwise, even though Christ was specific, VERY specific, and understandable, and reasonable, in His proclamations for us to keep our work for God in secret, our relationship with God in secret, our communing with God in secret. Amazing that the very Christians that proclaim Sola Scriptura are the ones to yell out on the street corners or display their charity in public. Ugh.

Re:options C, D, and E

[TheSkyIsPurple]

So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?

Re:options C, D, and E

[atraintocry]

When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.

I get what you're saying and appreciate you saying it, but I need to point this out: Genesis was the Hebrew record of creation before it was anything else. Jews do not see their scripture as a collection of prophecies which Jesus later fulfilled, it stands on its own and does not need justification.

(Raised Catholic, if it matters)

Re:options C, D, and E

[dada21]

So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?

Well, I "came to Christ" fairly late in life, even though I was in and out of churches as a teen. My parents were fairly agnostic, raised in totally different faiths (Catholic and Islam, neither were practicing ever as I was raised). I went to youth group because there was a 10:1 ratio of girls to guys, and because I dug the climate. The faith meant little.

I was intrigued by religion in my very early 20s, because of the obvious move of government to being under the power of various religious groups. It was then that I studied Scripture (and the Koran, and various other holy books) more closely, and started to "understand" practically everything that was attributed to Christ. For me, the proof was never "Did Jesus live?" but "Was Jesus God-anointed?"

Once I "accepted Christ" as many Christians do, I feared this dilemma as a possible prevention of this so-called Salvation issue. Was I saved because I was unsure of the logic of Christ's divinity/deity?

It was then that I started to try to discern Scripture from a Hebrew/Greek context. The day I discovered that people were saved not by faith in Christ but by faith of Christ (a common modern mistranslation of Scripture), I realized that the issue was mute. Once I solved that huge dilemma (for me), I was able to dig deeper into historical texts, as well as other non-holy texts written from the same age as the New Testament records probably were. I began to firmly hold faith that a man named Jesus did exist, and left a markable stamp on the people of His generation. Again, I realized that my faith in His deity was not important, regardless of what the man-invented Creeds required of "Christians." I put a lot of my belief in Christ as the Messiah of the Jews in attribution to many early Jewish writers of the period.

That left me with a chicken-and-egg situation that I still live in today, but am comfortable living with. I realized my agreement with what Christ said put me on uncommon grounds with Christians as a whole, but also put me afar from non-Christians. I trusted Jesus's words and actions, because I was able to discern that EVERYTHING he said that confuses most people is easily understandable from a spiritual angle. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality because that is a physical issue. He also had not much to say about the Jewish rules of marriage and re-marriage, again a physical issue. When He spoke of marriage, He was speaking about how God (Groom) would be married to man (Bride), and He was explaining this spiritual connection in a way understandable to the people of His time. If Jesus had actually come to exist today rather than 2000 years ago, He might have explained it this way:

"Linux on its own can not function unless it has the Processor, which is fine on its own without Linux, but wants Linux to be fulfilled in all it does, knowing that it is supported fully by the Processor. The Processor no longer judges Linux for its crashes and bugs, because of the Hardware Abstraction Layer that has come to protect Linux from the overwhelming power of the Processor." Something like that, at least. He was speaking to THEM, not to US. He was explaining God's Spiritual connection to THEM in a way that made sense to THEM, even though few understood it. Scripture is a historical record of God and man, and nothing more. While Scripture is fine for teaching and explaining God to people, it is relatively useless as a way to live today, other than Jesus' only two commandments: Love God, Love Others. The rest of the commandments are fruitless, because if you follow Jesus's own words and actions, you won't need commandments or rules or law or God's Judgment.

I don't think Scripture was written with understanding in mind, I believe fully it was meant to be misunderstood because even the Apostles didn't get it fully. Thankfully, because God fulfil

Re:options C, D, and E

[bendodge]

I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.

I hate to break it to you, but the ancient Israelites didn't translate Genesis.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:45-46, Christ was the "last Adam", who is a "quickening spirit". (Through your deep study, you should know that "quickening" in 17th-century English means "making alive".) The first Adam was made a living soul, and according to verse 46 was "of the earth". This quite plainly shows that Adam was a real man (living soul) with a real body (of the earth).

Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. -John 1:1-2
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -2 Timothy 3:16
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21

You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.

Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
-John 18:33-37

Jesus is NOT "bemoaning" his apostles. His apostles aren't even in the picture. Jesus is saying that if he had come to be an earthly king, then his servants would use force to overthrow the Roman empire (what the chief priests accused him of plotting). But that isn't why Jesus came into this world.

So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop wi

Re:options C, D, and E

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I remember getting saved multiple times as a child because I wasn't sure.

I like how taking "no man cometh unto the father but by me" as "if it weren't for me you wouldn't go to heaven, but now you are" as opposed to "you must believe in me specifically" takes God's a-holishness out of the picture. (you created us knowing we'd sin, then you "sacrificed" your son to save us from damnation that your judgement will send us to, etc... just not a problem anymore)

I can also see following some of what Jesus said as good examples, but there were good examples of this same behavior from many earlier sources, and most societies of any size have developed them in one form or another.

It's largely as if Jesus, in a useful sense, has been written out of the picture. We're all saved, so let's just try to live like reasonable humans and not try to kill each other. (which, excluding the saving part, is very secular humanist)

So, with no Extra-Biblical support for Jesus in a miraculous sense, or even documentation that he said the things he said, and with as much of the Bible has written off our current need for him, and with as much of the Bible is misunderstood... I'm still not following how you can believe in Him.

Humans wrote the books, humans spoke the traditions, humans screwed up and altered and lost so much of it, how can you believe that that one part is actually true?

(I presume it boils down to faith)

Re:options C, D, and E

[jez9999]

Or perhaps, every now and then after killing and/or socializing with other creatures and finding relics and things, the Creator decides to modify us...

Re:options C, D, and E

[ArsonSmith]

You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.

Something, I, myself, make up? I prefer to derive my faith and belief from what god tells me through consciousness, subconsciousness and the understanding of right and wrong. Not from the scribbles of people 2000+ years ago. If gods greatest gift to man was free will, why would he want people to submit all faith to a churches teachings?

Actually I'm more of an agnostic leaning towards atheist, but the above would be the only way I could swing the other direction. I don't believe the bible to be a negative. In fact there are a lot of good lessons to be learned from it. I also don't see it to be a final word. I can find just as many good references and bad examples in almost any literature or story lines. Whether it's Moby Dick or Star Wars.

Re:options C, D, and E

[dada21]

I hate to break it to you, but the ancient Israelites didn't translate Genesis.

No, they passed the story of man's fall through verbal means. Yet exegesis of the OT by many Jews (ancient and modern) cast to the theology that Genesis was not written literally.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:45-46, Christ was the "last Adam", who is a "quickening spirit". (Through your deep study, you should know that "quickening" in 17th-century English means "making alive".) The first Adam was made a living soul, and according to verse 46 was "of the earth". This quite plainly shows that Adam was a real man (living soul) with a real body (of the earth).

Yes, that is a common interpretation by Futurists. It is not the only interpretation. Adam was considered by the Jews of Jerusalem as the "first man" but only in bodily form. Adam, and the fall from God, was a well knock and accepted story of the history of man in sin. Jesus, though, would be the second man, who was full in spirit. It was a comparison of the natural world ("Adam") and the spiritual world ("Jesus") as I talked about in other parts of this thread.

I don't see any attribution that Adam was real or figurative anywhere in Scripture, except as an example that was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time.

You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.

I don't need faith as human faith falls short of the faith Christ had in God. Christ's faith is what saved the first fruits, and Christ's faith is what reconciled all men with God. I do deny the literal interpretation of Scripture because it fails too often in proof and in ability to discern what is historically important versus what is modern-culturally important. Scripture is NOT the Word, because Scripture does not describe itself as the Word. Jesus is the Word. That is all that is important, the understanding of the actions of Jesus in terms of bringing forth a New Covenant to man by fulfilling the Old Covenant between God and the Jews.

Jesus is NOT "bemoaning" his apostles. His apostles aren't even in the picture. Jesus is saying that if he had come to be an earthly king, then his servants would use force to overthrow the Roman empire (what the chief priests accused him of plotting). But that isn't why Jesus came into this world.

Jesus showed his Apostles to be wrong many times when they did not heed what He was saying. They asked Him basic questions about what He meant, and he gave them figurative examples that should have made sense, but they were still unclear. Just as the Ancient Israelites refused to see Jesus for what He was, Futurists also fall short of understanding the spiritual nature of Jesus' actions for all men, Jew and Gentile alike.

Evolution is heavily dependent on uniformitarianism ("all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation"). What you say, "Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant ... fulfilled about 2000 years ago" sure sounds like the scoffers Peter warns about in this verse ("saying, Where is the promise of his coming?"

There should be no promise of His coming, because He came, in judgment, in retribution, and in fulfillment of all He promised to do. We no longer see God's harsh judgment on the world, we no longer see prophets or speaking in tongues or miracles or other items that were needed to prove Christ's nature to the people of His generation. Christ made a promise to His generation: He would return in that generation, so that people alive before the Resurrection would still be there, alive, when He returned. And return He did. His Second Coming was fulfilled fully at the fall of the Temple and the destruction or banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem forever.

Tell me, what are the spiritual water, firmaments, and heavens talked

Re:options C, D, and E

[Myopic]

darwinian we came from frogs

No, frogs and humans share a common ancestor. Don't worry, though, it's a common misunderstanding.

Re:options C, D, and E

[rohan972]

So, with no Extra-Biblical support for Jesus in a miraculous sense, or even documentation that he said the things he said...

The execution of the apostles is a type of evidence. If someone is willing to die for something, it shows that they believe it. Now, if someone in 2008 is prepared to die over something that happened 2000 or so years ago, that isn't evidence about the event, but if someone who claims to have seen it is prepared to die over it, that does lend some credibility.

The apostles, when faced with trial over their claims, could have just said "You're right, it's a hoax, we did it for the offering", but they didn't. Why not? The existence of Jesus is a credible answer, more credible IMO than mass hallucinations or other possible explanations.

Re:options C, D, and E

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I have never heard their stories used that way. Interesting.

I've not read of their executions outside traditional stories though... nothing in anything that wasn't either Christian, or something the Christians rejected. ("Acts of Philip", which describe miracles attributed to him...) It always comes, in my experience, from traditions, not histories.

Thank you for answering though.
In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter as we're all saved anyway, but you've definitely given me a perspective I've not run across before.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

You're nuts. You're as bad or worse than the average christian. "Deep studier of scripture". What a waste.

Re:options C, D, and E

[ArsonSmith]

Evolution has no proof. An overwhelming pile of evidence is not proof. Evolution may be the closest thing to actual truth, but proof, there will be none. Only an all seeing, all knowing, being would be able to show proof.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Bombula]

The problem with your position is that your personal faith represents a comprehensive abandonment of everything that is substantively "Christian". You disagree with literal interpretations of the Bible, you don't believe any of the assertions it makes about the physical world, you view God metaphorically and non-anthropomorphically the way deists like Einstein and Spinoza viewed the notion - as a concept, not an entity - and you bandy about abstractions like "SPIRITUAL" and "the Word" that would certainly have gotten you killed for heresy or apostasy in prior centuries.

So I'm curious why you bother calling yourself a "Christ-follower" at all. Why not just be a deist or plain old agnostic who appreciates mysticism? One of Dennett's 'murkies' - people who love the mystery of faith, not the details. Then you wouldn't have to bother being annoyed by other Christians tarnishing a label you've chosen to share with them. Better to dump the label and be your own person, no?

Re:options C, D, and E

[JosephU]

To: "Raised Catholic, if it matters" and others interested in Catholic Church Teachings and "Cutting-Edge Science": What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins? http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm (Partial quote) - God created everything âoein its whole substanceâ from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I) - Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909) - Genesis contains real history â"it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII) . . . - All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church) . . . - St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302) . . . - Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis) - Investigation into human âoeevolutionâ was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs. . . . What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins? - Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter. - Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like galaxies. - Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes. - Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes. - Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life. - The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings. (End of partial quote).

Re:options C, D, and E

[TapeCutter]

"Only an all seeing, all knowing, being would be able to show proof."

"I think therefore I am". Now get on your knees!

Of course outside of formal systems with accepted axioms that is the only proof anyone can show, problem is they can only show it to themselves.

Re:options C, D, and E

[dada21]

If gods greatest gift to man was free will, why would he want people to submit all faith to a churches teachings?

I don't believe God's great gift to man was free will. I also don't believe that God wants people to submit to the Church, as we the people ARE the Church. Christ ended up destroying the Temple in 70AD, once and for all, never to be rebuilt. Why is that? Because He showed man that the only temple the Church can exist in in in one's body, and through the love man shows for one another.

I don't submit to a congregation's teaching, even though I "attend church." Then again, when I attend, I don't bow my head or even pray with the rest of the congregation, because I don't see it as Christ-like, I see it as a manifestation of man not of God. I "do church" because I like to see avenues opened where I can help others, privately, so a congregational meeting is a great way to introduce myself to the community of need. Also, I like to be open to hearing what the Evangelical movement is teaching, even if I disagree with much of it. It helps me review my beliefs.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Sebilrazen]

"Linux on its own can not function unless it has the Processor, which is fine on its own without Linux, but wants Linux to be fulfilled in all it does, knowing that it is supported fully by the Processor. The Processor no longer judges Linux for its crashes and bugs, because of the Hardware Abstraction Layer that has come to protect Linux from the overwhelming power of the Processor."

Thanks, now I'm a Linux convert.

But honestly, I wish I personally knew more Christians like you, you sound like you could have a meaningful discussion on the subject and understand the logic from both angles. So many people think that the questioning of one's faith is the same thing as an attack of one's faith. You seem like you'd be able to reason the difference. I'm an avowed Atheist, but I admire people of faith that can look at their faith logically.

Re:options C, D, and E

[the_B0fh]

The other theories will have to fight it out, and the winner will be taught just as soon as there's a viable 3rd party in US.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Sebilrazen]

I'm not doing this to be a dick, or funny like usual, but I think it's important to clarify parent's point.

These discussions are good, but they do not fit into a science class. Unless any of them can be subjected to the scientific method they way evolution have been of course.

I'm normally a grammar Nazi and would have fixed the spelling too, but I figure if you're mentioning Sweden you're not a native speaker of English, so there you go.

I think it's important that people that don't have a desire for Creationism to be taught in a science class need to continue to point out that since it is neither observable nor testable, it can't be science, it can't even be a theory - as evolution, relativity and special relativity are. Discussion of the worlds creation stories should be kept to philosophy and/or religion classes.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts.
Holy Scripture is NOT the Word.

You must be following a different "Christ" and studying a different "Scripture" than I am. The Bible is rather clear in what it says. No matter how hard you refuse to accept what is clearly written, it still says what it says.

Re:options C, D, and E

[dada21]

The problem with your position is that your personal faith represents a comprehensive abandonment of everything that is substantively "Christian".

More like I am abandoning things that men introduced into Christianity. Google Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna, and read it. It's an exceptional review of things I've been decrying for a decade about "church." Christians today have abandoned Christ's teachings, instead trying to hold to what the Apostles did to hold the Body together before Christ's final return in their very generation.

You disagree with literal interpretations of the Bible,

Of course I do, because Scripture, especially the New Testament, is more allegory and example than it is literally acceptable. There's too much that makes no sense from a physical standpoint to accept it as literal, and since God decided not to have it written to decipher what would be considered literal and what figurative, we should try to look at the substance of what Christ was teaching (or the previous Prophets).

you don't believe any of the assertions it makes about the physical world, you view God metaphorically and non-anthropomorphically the way deists like Einstein and Spinoza viewed the notion - as a concept, not an entity

God reigns in Heaven, of course he is not physical. God does not send blessings or miracles down anymore. This is why so many people RUN from God, because they say "If God exists, why has He forsaken me?" God does not worry about simple things like disease or war or abortion or homosexuality, because of what Christ did in His life and through His Parousia. God is reconciled to man.

God also can't be looked at anthropomorphically because God is more than man, He is all. Alpha and Omega, remember?

- and you bandy about abstractions like "SPIRITUAL" and "the Word" that would certainly have gotten you killed for heresy or apostasy in prior centuries.

More reason for people to run from religion. I say so be it: run from religion, and instead embrace the love that God wanted for thousands of years, the same love that Christ encapsulated so well in the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings.

So I'm curious why you bother calling yourself a "Christ-follower" at all.

Hmm, let's see. Christ showed that prayer is done in secret, as He always prayed in secret away from people. I never prayer in public. Prayer in schools? Heresy. Prayer in the Temple? Heresy. I do what Christ did.

Christ destroyed the Temple to bring forth a new temple in our bodies. I don't give offerings to any congregation because I don't believe in the buildings that "Christians" are building, wasting money that they could better use to help their neighbor, their brother, their community. I do what Christ did.

Christ spoke of loving others as you love God. I would never harbor hatred against Muslims, or Atheists, or Russians, or Blacks or whoever, because I know that God is Love, and for me to love another is to bring a piece of God into my life, spiritually. I do what Christ did.

Why not just be a deist or plain old agnostic who appreciates mysticism? One of Dennett's 'murkies' - people who love the mystery of faith, not the details. Then you wouldn't have to bother being annoyed by other Christians tarnishing a label you've chosen to share with them. Better to dump the label and be your own person, no?

No. I have Jewish friends, in fact I married a Jewish gal, and I said the best thing you can do to those who wrong you is to take over their brand and make it your own. If I was a Jew, I'd remake the Swaztika as a Jewish symbol of pride and unity instead of disparaging it. Socialists took over the term "liberal" from libertarians, and now use it as their own (see: Classical Liberal). As someone who believes that the modern day Church has subverted the teachings of Christ in exchange of more power for egomaniacs, I believe as an individual in faith I can help others see the light

Re:options C, D, and E

[dada21]

Thanks, now I'm a Linux convert.

Ha, thanks for that!

But honestly, I wish I personally knew more Christians like you,

You probably do, but they follow what Christ taught and likely keep their motivations on loving you private. That's the Christian way. Even Jesus was not one to go and help the needy in public without prodding by his unsure Apostles. Grab a Bible if you have one and look up the section about the widowed. She's crying, her only son is dead, and Christ is ready to walk on by, not say a word to her. His Apostles forced him to do a good deed in public. Read about Christ and his close friend Lazarus, who was dying. He ignored him and let him die (only to raise him from the dead later). Look at Christ and the 5000 who gathered who were hungry. He was going to keep teaching, but His Apostles forced him to feed the masses. Just because a Christian says they're doing good doesn't mean they're following Christ's example. I do my charity work in private, away from everyone's eyes. I help others one on one, rather than through groups who may end up trying to entice the person being helped to join their religious cult. No thanks.

you sound like you could have a meaningful discussion on the subject and understand the logic from both angles.

I concur. I have many friends who disagree with my theology (both faithful and atheists), but we have excellent discussions on the idea of God. Few get angry at me, except those who have lived the modern Christian life and they feel like my theology makes their lives fruitless. Which they may have been, actually, but I won't be the one to tell them that :)

So many people think that the questioning of one's faith is the same thing as an attack of one's faith.

Those people don't have faith, then. They have religion. They think Christ taught a set of rules to follow, even though He really didn't, but the two I've mentioned, which non-Christians can easily do and actually seem to do more often than Christians do.

You seem like you'd be able to reason the difference. I'm an avowed Atheist, but I admire people of faith that can look at their faith logically.

Atheists don't worry me, because I believe God loves everyone unconditionally, and sets no precedent for a believer versus a non-believer. Christ didn't teach about Hell, either, no matter what most Christians may try to scare you with. Hell does not exist. So even if you don't believe in Christ, you're not going to get tormented, I believe. The only thing a non-believer may miss is seeing the Kingdom as it exists on earth, which does offer a sense of peace and harmony that many of my non-believer friends lack. Then again, many of my believer friends lack it also, because they don't have faith, they have religion. It's sad.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your position is that your personal faith represents a comprehensive abandonment of everything that is substantively "Christian". You disagree with literal interpretations of the Bible, you don't believe any of the assertions it makes about the physical world, you view God metaphorically and non-anthropomorphically ...

None of which stops him from being a Christian, which requires only that he follows Christ. Only a minority of Christians world-wide subscribe to a literal intepretation of the Bible. The majority of Christians accept St. Augustine's prosciption against taking scripture as a statement of science, and as a consequence the majority of Christians accept evolutionary theory as compatible with their beliefs. The separation of the spiritual (which scripture addresses with authority) against science (about which scripture is silent), which the OP draws is actually the mainstream Christian position. OK, if he belives in a metaphorical God he'll be in some kind of a minority. It is fallacious to argue against Christianity by assuming that only the most radical evangalists and fundamentalists define "Christian."

Re:options C, D, and E

[commodoresloat]

You sir, by denying the very first verse of the Bible, deny Christianity and are I contend are NOT a Christian.

You, sir, by arrogantly presuming the spiritual and scriptural authority to excommunicate someone based on a slashdot post, ARE a douchebag.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ didn't teach about hell? Have you ever even read the Bible? Christ spent more time warning people of judgment and hell than any other topic.

Here's some of the many scriptural references Christ made to hell: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/truth_about_hell.htm

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I think, therefore, I think I am.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to add something there as well.

Some fundamentalists claim that creationism rather than evolution explains pre-human history. They assert that all physical creation was produced in just six days of 24 hours each sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. But in doing so, they promote an unscriptural teaching that has caused many to ridicule the Bible.

Is a day in the Bible always literally 24 hours in length? Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that JHVH God made earth and heaven." This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible's creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.â"2 Peter 3:8.

Commenting on claims that the creative days were only 24 literal hours in length, molecular biologist Francis Collins remarks: "Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history."

Re:options C, D, and E

[TapeCutter]

Carefull, that sort of recusion will lead you straight to the loony bin.

Re:options C, D, and E

[rohan972]

("Acts of Philip", which describe miracles attributed to him...)

Writing being rejected as scripture does not imply (even from a christian perspective) that it isn't true, or useful, or contain accurate records. It simply means it wasn't regarded as part of scripture.

Acts 8:6 (KJV)
And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is heavily dependent on uniformitarianism

Typo? From your description of u13ism, I get the impression that it is completely antithetical to evolution

Re:options C, D, and E

[indifferent children]

I think it's important that people that don't have a desire...

I think it's important that people who don't have a desire...

Re:options C, D, and E

[Curtman]

If someone is willing to die for something, it shows that they believe it.

People do stupid things regardless of which fairy tale they believe in. It's not evidence of anything in particular, just that people are gullible.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

You simply don't know the Bible. According to Genesis 1, God created trees and plants on the second day. He created the sun on the third day. If days were "thousands of years" each, the plants and trees would have died with no light.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Raenex]

Of course I do, because Scripture, especially the New Testament, is more allegory and example than it is literally acceptable.

That's why I accept Aesop's Fables as my bible.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Anonymous Coward]

My interpretation of a myth is more true that your interpretation of a myth! Neener Neener Neener!

Re:options C, D, and E

[benhattman]

no doubt, not many would choose option e) -- which both the creationists and scientists would think is just nuts -- but insofar as the number of possible theories examined, out of the many theories, it always only comes down to just two - ludicrous creationism, or ape science - other options aren't ever discussed, when there are other options. why are we caught in this polarity between the two ideas that have no overlaps in venn diagram...? :-P

I think it's as simple as students only receive a limited number of class hours in the study of science. If everyone spend an hour a week for their entire life studying science (or philosophy) you would have time to study any number of increasingly "out there" ideas.

As for why it comes down to those two, it's because one of them is appropriate for the course and the other is advocated by a large and vocal portion of the population. Or, to take your argument further...

Why do we insist on only teaching algebra/geometry/calculus in high school math courses? Why not alternative math theory b) or c)?

Re:options C, D, and E

[Whitestone1550]

Hate to break it to you guys, but scripture says clearly that through Adam, death entered the world. Evolution teaches that through death, man entered the world. One of these two is wrong. I'm with Bendodge on this one!

Re:options C, D, and E

[bendodge]

I haven't excommunicated anyone (nor can I or anyone else). I'm simply saying that his beliefs are something he has made up and not true Christianity.

Suppose someone claims to be a Free Software Advocate and posts "It is immoral to release source code for software, since it means the author doesn't control what he made and might starve." There wouldn't be anything terrible about you saying that he isn't a Free Software Advocate based what he says in his post.

I certainly don't hate dada21 or want to ship him to Siberia or anything, I'm just saying that he is claiming to be part of a something he doesn't actually believe.

Re:options C, D, and E

[rohan972]

People do stupid things regardless of which fairy tale they believe in. It's not evidence of anything in particular, just that people are gullible.

If they die for a cause it's evidence that they genuinely believe in that cause. It isn't conclusive evidence of the cause itself, but it is pretty conclusive that they believed in it. So it eliminates the possibility that they were deliberately lying, but doesn't eliminate the possibility of them being mad or mistaken.

Regarding your reference to Jonestown, "I find this man to have compelling teaching and charisma" is significantly different to "I've known this man for several years, I saw him get brutally tortured to death, and later I saw him alive again". Roman soldiers given the task of executing someone where typically diligent to carry it out thoroughly. If the resurrection was a fraud, it was one well beyond the ability of Jim Jones and his ilk.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Curtman]

If the resurrection was a fraud, it was one well beyond the ability of Jim Jones and his ilk.

Yeah, and Santa drives a sleigh pulled around by reindeer giving toys to little boys and girs. Jim Jones couldn't do that either.

Don't get me started on the Easter Bunny.

Re:options C, D, and E

[rohan972]

If the resurrection was a fraud, it was one well beyond the ability of Jim Jones and his ilk.

Yeah, and Santa drives a sleigh pulled around by reindeer giving toys to little boys and girs. Jim Jones couldn't do that either.

Don't get me started on the Easter Bunny.

and there are so many accounts of people being martyred for their belief in Santa and the Easter bunny, right? My point stands, if you can convince people (to a degree of certainty that makes them willing to die for you) that you are the resurrection of their dead friend who they saw executed last week, you would have pulled off a spectacular fraud. It would require a far above average ability to trick people. That isn't proof that it wasn't fraud, but it isn't the sort of thing that is within reach for the average con artist.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Curtman]

If we're counting martyrs to see who's view is more believable, Islam will win that one. They are much more stupid about these things.

Re:options C, D, and E

[Herby Sagues]

So you seem like an open minded person that in the search for truth found Christ in the way. May I suggest that you also, with your mind still open and with some patience, also read the brilliant book "God's Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? it is a great book that might make you think (and that can't be bad, ever) and might help you to further advance your search. I sincerely hope you find it useful. I did.

Re:options C, D, and E

[shutdown -p now]

You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.

...

Tell me, what are the spiritual water, firmaments, and heavens talked about in Genesis 1? What are the spiritual birds and plants? You sir, by denying the very first verse of the Bible, deny Christianity and are I contend are NOT a Christian.

Not at all true - there's also the Church Tradition. Of course, you'd need to belong to a Church that can reasonably claim to have one - such as any of the well-established Orthodox ones, or Roman Catholic.

Then again, it's no secret that many evangelicals consider both Orthodox and Catholic Christians unbelievers precisely because they do not believe in sola scriptura. Given that the first two groups together have a significant majority, however, for any practical purpose aside from narrow theological doctrines, sola scriptura is not a requirement for one to be considered a Christian. The only thing that's needed for that is for one to accept the Nicene Creed in its fullest - no less, no more.

60 seconds?

[TheLink]

It could take far longer than 60 seconds to read and understand what he said, after all we're talking about slashdotters and Nobel Laureates.

It's far easier to issue a fatwa on him, excommunicate him, etc.

Oh yeah and try to get him fired too :).

Meanwhile, to protest Reiss's inflamatory opinion you may wish to blow up a church:

http://www.inflatablechurch.com/

Teach Science in Science Class

[Walter Wart]

This isn't about "teaching them both sides" or "balance". It's about pushing religion into science class because of a religious culture which is hostile to the very idea of science. Creationism, Scientific Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever they're calling it today is not science. It is dogma which borrows a few scientific words. At best it's cargo-cult science. Mostly it's a fraud. We might as well teach "the other side" in Astronomy and invite in the Flat-Earthers and geoncentricists. It would make just as much sense to say that there's a "controversy" about Pasteur and say that since the germ theory is "just a theory" we need to let students make up their own minds and give equal time to vitalism, the four humors and spontaneous generation. The Royal Society stepped on its collective tallywhacker making this guy a spokesman. Let's see if they shoot themselves in the foot with their response.

WTF!?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF!? Now, where could I find these levers for furious padalling? Not that I don't make mistakes in life, ever...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is not news

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a news story

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004

this is some hack work by a bored journo who kept one thumb permanently glued to the fast forward button.

It could be science with some tweaks

[Tablizer]

Creationism is not science.

It *could* be made science, somewhat comparable to SETI though. For example, looking for patterns in DNA such as pi and primes. However, the religious are not really interested in this sort of research. (Actually, its more like intelligent interventionism rather than creationism.)
   

Simpsons quote...paraphrase

[BitterOldGUy]

"We don't want religion taught in science class anymore than you want science taught in church."

Sort of what Lisa Simpson said on one episode.

reiss was taken completely out of context

[buddyglass]

Read his original article. He's not suggesting creationism be taught as science, or even as non-science. He's suggesting that, when students raise objections to evolutionary theory, even objections based on a creationist foundation, that those objections be discussed in a scientific context. He's also suggesting that, rather than try to "change students' minds", science teachers focus on simply presenting the standard scientific view of cosmology. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Re:tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ...

[MRe_nl]

"Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in the City or in government." ; )

Science converges, religion doesn't

[mangu]

Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

There were several different scientific opinions on the origin of the universe, but when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in the 1960s, scientists agreed that the "big bang" hypothesis is the most likely.

That's why science is an absolute truth, which ultimately will prevail over personal opinions and beliefs. Science is based on experimental facts, to which logical reasoning is applied. You can believe as much as you wish on a "steady state" cosmology, for instance, but anyone with a microwave antenna and a spectrum analyzer will prove you wrong.

Re:Science converges, religion doesn't

[Mr. Slippery]

That's why science is an absolute truth

Science should never be confused with absolute truth!

Our scientific "knowledge" is a tentative hypothesis, subject to revision at any time as new observations or new patterns of data come in. Science is a means, a compass that indicates the general direction of truths about the consensual objective universe. If you want "absolute truth", science will disappoint you every time.

Re:Science converges, religion doesn't

[julesh]

You can believe as much as you wish on a "steady state" cosmology, for instance, but anyone with a microwave antenna and a spectrum analyzer will prove you wrong.

Tell that to Fred Hoyle. He continued proposing modifications to steady state theory to make it fit the evidence gathered until the '90s.

Just what's wrong with his suggestion?

[Stephen Samuel]

All he's asking is that science teachers acknowledge that

1. Some people actually believe in creationism, and
2. creationism (in it's various forms) is *not* science.

Both of those points can be scientifically proven, and thus, 'admitting' them is science, and attempting to gloss over, or ignore, those facts is antiscientific.

Taking this approach could also open to door to discussing how the biblical descriptions of creation are not necessarily at odds with creation.

for example:

• Science only address how, not who or why.
• The bible really only addresses who, of creation, and offers precious little detail on how (and almost nothing of why). Most creationism proponents make up the details and then act like the made-up details were actually written in the bible.
• "God said 'let there be light'," and whoof there was a universe. -- and that's inconsistent with 'big bang', in just what way?
• How long is God's day? Remember, the earth doesn't even exist until day 2.
  Saying that God's days are 24 human hours long is creating God in man's image, not the other way 'round.
• the biblical account is severely lacking in details. Most creationists have added details and then acted like those added details are actually in the bible.

Once you acknowledge the creationist's world view, and address them from within it, you actually have some hope of getting them to seriously look at the scientific world view. At the very least, it gets them to acknowledge their creationist view as non-scientific.

Science and religion have very different purposes.

The acolyte went to the the senior monk and asked "What is the difference between faith and knowledge?"

"Knowledge is like the sun", said the monk. "Faith is like a candle."

The acolyte was scandalized. "That must be wrong! Shouldn't faith be bright and strong like the sun, and knowledge the little candle?."

The monk sighed, and thought for a moment.

"Come back and ask me again at midnight", he said.

Re:Just what's wrong with his suggestion?

[mad_robot]

• "God said 'let there be light'," and whoof there was a universe. -- and that's inconsistent with 'big bang', in just what way?

Where does it say "whoof there was a universe"? Isn't it more like "and there was light"? By this time the earth had already been formed, so there's an inconsistency of a few billion years right there.

If you think the biblical version of events is even remotely scientific, then I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read it. This would be a good place to start.

Re:Just what's wrong with his suggestion?

[mog007]

The Bible contains two different creation stories. First it defines three days before the sun is created, but then it defines a day for certain kinds of animals.

If we made "day" an arbitrary measurement of time, and set 3 of them to the age of the universe from the big bang until the formation of our sun, then 3 "days" is approximately 14.5 billion / 5 billion ~= 3 billion. So one "day" is about three billion years. That doesn't quite fit with the formation of life, because it took god six "days" to create the earth. 6 * 3 billion = 18 billion. That's more than 3 billion years past the highest current estimates for the age of the universe.

Now let's talk about your other point. Science DOES only address the how, but you assume there IS a why and a who. We can ask those questions, but you're assuming they have an answer. They might not have an answer.

Re:Just what's wrong with his suggestion?

[Stephen Samuel]

" And the earth was without form, and void;"

and you should notice that the direct part of the quote ends after 'light'. The 'and whoof, there was a universe' comes from big bang theory, but it's not that different than 'and there was light' in genesis.

You have to remember, too, that the bible was written for people for whom the closest thing to quantum theory was "there's nothing smaller than a penny" (well, whatever the equivalent was back then), and it wasn't intended as a science text.

Creationism != Science

[Nom du Keyboard]

Creationism is the very opposite of Science. It is the belief that our current situation is so very improbable that it could never have arisen on its own. To support itself it denies EVERYTHING (e.g. dinosaurs) that conflict with its belief. It is founded on the very LACK of evidence supporting it.

Proof of evolution?

[mangu]

Imagine today somebody came up and said, "hey God spoke to me and said we should do x,y, and z." The first reaction is crackpot, and that is not good

Well, then at least we are evolving as a society. Two thousand years ago, they would nail the guy to a wooden cross...

Creationism's Foundation: God Isn't Infinite Enoug

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism's Foundation: "God Isn't Infinite Enough..."

"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created a balanced, self-sustaining, self-correcting Universe."

"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created billions of years, instead having to fake it."

"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created evolution, instead having to meddle endlessly to compensate."

Point out, forcefully absolutely & relentlessly, that creationism insists that god is incompetent, and that if god were REALLY infinite, then "god's hand" would be un-findable through physical evidence, and only perceivable through spiritual instruments/experiments.

The Earth is a Swiss cheese!

[mangu]

our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!

No, let's teach that the world is like a Swiss cheese: round, flat, AND hollow, all at the same time! That way nobody's feeling will be hurt.

what an idiot!

[FudRucker]

Pat Condell's opinion is what I agree with and place high value and respect when it comes to religion...

http://www.liveleak.com/group/Atheists

Multiculturalism

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the great things about multicultural societies like the UK is that all the involved parties are so busy arguing amongst themselves that religion can't get a look in on the curriculum. Actually, their efforts actually help drive mumbojubo away from schools rather than bring it closer.

Take my bog standard high school in South London. It had people from just about every faith you can think of. If one group of fundamentalist parents tried to usurp another group of equally fundamentalist parents from a different faith then there was all hell to play. The fundamentalist Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian et al parents were so busy fighting amongst themselves that any semblance of religion was kept far from sight. No one got their way, which was the best for us kids from all walks of life.

No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

I've always thought that these ideas were nowhere neither as polar as they are usually presented.

I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.

Hey presto! Science works. Physics works. Evolution works. And God created it all, quite possibly in six days, albeit in some other frame of temporal reference. Job done. The scientist can carry on with what they do, and the creationists can carry on with their beliefs, and neither has to feel threatened by the other side's epistemology. Granted there's a bit of work needed to reconcile 200,000 years of biological human history with six thousand or so from biblical references - but then Darwinian evolution isn't entirely without flaw either. I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to reconcile the two.

Except that I don't think anyone's interested in a framework that lets both belief systems co-exist. I think this is about intellectual authority. The religious right would like to be the ones who control what we are and are not allowed to believe, just like in the good old days when they could burn inconvenient scientists and philosophers at the stake if need be. I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.

Re:No Overlap?

[dada21]

Except that I don't think anyone's interested in a framework that lets both belief systems co-exist. I think this is about intellectual authority. The religious right would like to be the ones who control what we are and are not allowed to believe, just like in the good old days when they could burn inconvenient scientists and philosophers at the stake if need be. I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.

I concur more than you realize.

On one hand, we have religious nutjobs who want to control us through man-made laws (even though the Christians should be ones to abhor government control of the masses in every way). On the other hand, we have an ever-growing government-paid science-base who wants more money to further their own cushy lives. Both disgust me, both are trying to use force to further their own lives. It is truly disgusting.

I have friends who are religionists, who I confront often on their misuse of theology. I have friends who are scientists (government-funded ones, too), and I confront them on their misuse of tax dollars. Both tend to dislike me on occasion, and I'm happy with that.

I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in Creationism. I'm a science-lover who abhors most "science" because its manipulated data that means little to me but another nickel popped out of my paycheck to some goon who continues to manipulate the data to scare others into more funding for his or her pocket. Both are of little use to me.

Re:No Overlap?

[xaxa]

I think the Pope has said he's fine with evolution (but assumes God made the world work that way).

The strange thing is, in the UK we don't have a religous right to appease. So why is the Royal Society bothering? They had two full pages of ridicule devoted towards them in the Times yesterday.

I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.

If it's impossible to measure, weight, dissect, essentially observe or influence -- then what's the point of trying? Religion isn't science! That's not saying "religion is wrong". It's saying it has nothing to do with science.

Re:No Overlap?

[atraintocry]

I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.

Or, we're all just brains in jars. Or I'm a brain in a jar, and you're a figment of my imagination. Do you see how that doesn't buy you anything?

IDers make real claims, like, "dinosaurs coexisted with man". This is what gets scientists riled up. Also, scientists make real claims, like natural selection, that conflicts with their notion that everything has a purpose.

As you say at the end, the "problem" is that no one's interested in blending God and science. But every individual who doesn't ignore these issues has to come to some sort of understanding. I think most Westerners go with what you said above. And they always have. It meshes nicely with the God of the gaps. Notice that, like the above, this doesn't tell us anything. Scientists and clergymen are both in the business of telling us things, though.

You say that the scientists are zealous to debunk anything that can't be measured. I don't understand how that's a bad thing, given that, as scientists, that's their job.

Re:No Overlap?

[that IT girl]

As someone who also has a differing opinion than the standard two-sided violent battle, I appreciate this post.

Re:No Overlap?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, Terry Pratchett was interested when he wrote "Strata". And for a more reasoned explanation of why creationism and a lot of guided evolution ideas are silly, there was his 'The Science of Discworld', a pretty good collaborative effort that compared magical thinking to real science, among other efforts by a gifted parody writer.

Re:No Overlap?

[FroBugg]

I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.

The problem is that this is a completely meaningless supposition. From our point of view, there is absolutely no difference between a universe that really is fifteen billion years old and a universe that's 6.5 thousand years old with nearly fifteen billion years of perfectly falsified history.

Science claims to attempt to explain the universe. If God stands completely outside spacetime and never affects the universe in a way that violates the physical laws we believe it operates by, then God may as well not exist. He has no influence on us in any way we can ever quantify.

Creationists claim there is a God and that He affects the universe in ways that specifically violate our current understanding of physical laws. If you suppose a God that simply is those physical laws, then your argument has nothing to do with creationism as the term is commonly used in these discussions.

Re:No Overlap?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Because the UK has been colonizing Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Confucian, and other countries for centuries, and now has reaped the global outlooks of their former colonies. The US are latecomers at this with their recent colonization of Afghanistan and Iraq, but both have to deal with members who hold right-wing, 'scripture overrules biology' members of their cultures. Every Western society has to deal with people who engage in this kind of magical thinking.

It's worth going and reading what this biologist priest member of the Royal Society actually wrote. It's actually a fairly sensitive suggestion to take Creationist and other religious beliefs into account in the classroom, to _illuminate_ them as faith-based rather than scientifically based beliefs and to illuminate their tendencies to masquerade as science. This kind of illumination of the politics of science can be very educational, indeed, and help reconcile the issues for a student getting one message from home and another in the classroom.

Re:No Overlap?

[spazdor]

I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.

This sentence is incoherent, because it talks about the creation of time (one of those 4 dimensions) at a particular moment in time.

Re:No Overlap?

[Arterion]

What you describe is called "Intelligent Design", and that idea has already been kicked around enough on both sides.

The age-old quandary still remains, how can an all-loving and all-powerful god allow evil things to happen? If he just stands by as you suggest, and allows them to happen, and he created the universe, knowing every detail of its existence even before he created it -- then truly, he is responsible for all evil.

I've always said, I don't know of god exists, but if he does, he's a supreme asshole, and I'd like to give him an earful.

Re:No Overlap?

[myowntrueself]

I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.

This.

Can a creator-god not create a universe with an infinite past?

Why would it need to be constrained by time and space and create a universe 6000 years ago and limit the past as perceived within that universe to 6000 years?

Re:No Overlap?

[mog007]

Funny that England doesn't have a religious right, because you have a state religion. There's no wall between religion and government in the United Kingdom, so I'm curious what kind of recourse English citizens have if creationism were made part of the science curriculum.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

Or, we're all just brains in jars. Or I'm a brain in a jar, and you're a figment of my imagination. Do you see how that doesn't buy you anything?

I do. Which means that the scientists are free to ignore the whole thing and get on with doing actual science. That's more or less the point.

You say that the scientists are zealous to debunk anything that can't be measured. I don't understand how that's a bad thing, given that, as scientists, that's their job.

I say some scientists are, and I strongly disagree that debunking is the job of science.

As I see it, the correct scientific response to any belief that cannot be scientifically verified is to say "there is no way to verify such a proposition", and then to move on. The trouble is that many scientists seem prone to the fallacy that absence of evidence implies evidence of absence.

"Debunking", from its very name, starts from a position of disbelief, which makes the debunker's arguments just as much faith based as that of their opponents. I think this demeans science, just as religion is debased by attempts to masquerade as science, such as Intelligent Design.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

The problem is that this is a completely meaningless supposition. From our point of view, there is absolutely no difference between a universe that really is fifteen billion years old and a universe that's 6.5 thousand years old with nearly fifteen billion years of perfectly falsified history.

Not falsified. Imagine you have a fractal equation with four variables. Arbitrarily label one of them "time", and assign the other three to spatial axes. Now, with the right software you can watch the fractal unfold in time as well as navigating it in spatial terms.

Now, suppose you want to start the software running with temporal variable set to 50% of the way through the fratal's sequence. Does that make the unviewed portion false in some way?

Science claims to attempt to explain the universe. If God stands completely outside spacetime and never affects the universe in a way that violates the physical laws we believe it operates by, then God may as well not exist. He has no influence on us in any way we can ever quantify.

Exactly right, from a scientific viewpoint. We have two ways of understanding the universe here that are (or should be) orthogonal to one another. Trying to discus them as polar values is pointless - they don't intersect at all.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

What you describe is called "Intelligent Design", and that idea has already been kicked around enough on both sides.

Nah. Intelligent design is religion dressed up as science to try and fool people. I'm just pointing out that it's not that hard do construct a philosophical framework that allow both science and religion to co-exist peacefully.

The age-old quandary still remains, how can an all-loving and all-powerful god allow evil things to happen?

I dunno. If I ever see Him, I'll ask Him. Although I expect Heaven will have a FAQ by this stage ...

Re:No Overlap?

[Chrisq]

The strange thing is, in the UK we don't have a religous right to appease. So why is the Royal Society bothering?

Living in a British city where there are more Muslims than Christians the answer is obvious. Islam is the religion that demands representation in the schools. If they don't mention alternatives with a cringing "it's perfectly alright to believe this" there will be many irate parents calling on the school.

Most teachers won't even try to push the point, because they are worried that one of the extremists will take offence. If that happens you have to worry about a lot more than a complaint to the Education Authority.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

This sentence is incoherent, because it talks about the creation of time (one of those 4 dimensions) at a particular moment in time.

Yeah, like starting a video half way through. It's a matter of perspective.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

Why would it need to be constrained by time and space and create a universe 6000 years ago and limit the past as perceived within that universe to 6000 years?

I'm told that if you add up the years in all the X-begat-Y-begat-Z bits, you get a date for God saying "Let there be light" some six and a bit thousand years ago. If you accept the assumption that all the stories in the Old Testament are literally true, then this gives you the true age of Creation and the zero point for absolute time.

Personally, I find the phrase "dingo's kidneys" springs to mind in this connection. But then it's not my beliefs that we're discussing here.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

Oh, Terry Pratchett was interested when he wrote "Strata".

I'll rephrase that: I don't think any of the people making all the fuss are interested in reconciling the two viewpoints.

I'd forgotten about Strata. Must read that one again.

Re:No Overlap?

[Nursie]

Same as anyone else -

The right to take your kids out of school, or send them to a private school. Plus the right to vote the scum that put the policy in place out next time.

I guess in the US you *could* try taking the government to court over it. But that doesn't seem to have stopped some US states.

Frankly I think the state religion has done us a world of good - in the UK christianity is (almost) uniformly regarded as a weak, watery religion that exists mostly to make people feel virtuous without having to put in any effort. And support the tea and cake industries of course.

It's become so nondescript and permissive, and so associated with little old ladies selling jam and sponge-cake on a sunday afternoon,and english village society in general, that whenever the leader (Archbishop) dares voice a political opinion he tends to be told by the public and the press that he's irrelevant.

it's great really.

Re:No Overlap?

[Nursie]

"The trouble is that many scientists seem prone to the fallacy that absence of evidence implies evidence of absence."

No, the problem is that (the bad kind of) religious folks don't see that absence of evidence is pretty much as good evidence as absence when it comes to building a huge, precarious worldview and belief system, and then using that to make claims about objective reality. Usually in direct contradiction to things for which there is plenty of evidence. That's where conflict arises.

Re:No Overlap?

[Nursie]

"Now, suppose you want to start the software running with temporal variable set to 50% of the way through the fratal's sequence. Does that make the unviewed portion false in some way? "

No, it doesn't, but from the point of view of a thinking being in the continuum described by your fractal, where you've started it makes no difference at all. To all intent and purposes you are irrelevant. Unless you start messing with the terms.

Re:No Overlap?

[mog007]

I've heard that a state religion can actually weaken the religion over time. There's probably a higher percentage of non-believers in England than the United States because of the state religion, but it's also got some negative consequences. You guys have a royal homeopothist who's funded by tax money. Because religions aren't allowed to be funded by taxes here, there's no worry of homeopathy having tax dollars put into it because somebody believes in it with absolutely no scientific rationale.

I guess it's because I was raised in a country with a wall in place between government in religion, but I'd be pissed to have to pay money to a religious institution that I wasn't a member of.

Re:No Overlap?

[Nursie]

"I'd be pissed to have to pay money to a religious institution that I wasn't a member of."

Oh I am, and the fact that there is public funding for other religious schools in this country, christian, muslim and others.

I don't like it one bit, and there is public debate on it. But I think the bad point of having a weakened state religion is that most people then assume all religion is just as weak, watery and broken, when some of it is outright pernicious. We now have a few schools that are at least partially state funded that do teach creationism/ID and a young earth. And who knows what the muslims are teaching their kids. Shouldn't be allowed! Or at least shouldn't be publicly funded.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

No, the problem is that (the bad kind of) religious folks don't see that absence of evidence is pretty much as good evidence as absence when it comes to building a huge, precarious worldview and belief system, and then using that to make claims about objective reality

Three things there. First of all absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, nor even "as good as" evidence of absence. If a scientist can't make his or her case without resorting to logical fallacy then they can't make it, full stop. At least, not without departing from science.

Second, I agree that religion is a poor way to make predictions about objective reality. But that, I submit is a separate discussion and doesn't in any case invalidate their faith.

Thirdly, there's poor logic and flawed reasoning on both sides of the debate. I don't think you can absolve those scientists who abandon the scientific method in favour of "pretty much as good as" any more than we should tolerate the religious types who dress up belief in pseudo-science in the hopes of deceiving their audience.

Re:No Overlap?

[Nursie]

"First of all absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, nor even "as good as" evidence of absence."

In terms of making accurate predictions about the nature of reality it is. If I find a god-of-the-gaps style gap, put all sorts of mythos into it, and then berate people to live their lives according to my dogma, going so far as to solicit changes in the law. If I also challenge well evidenced scientific theories based on my gap "theory". If I do these things and then argue "you can't disprove me", well you catch my drift.

Is it as good in gathering knowledge about the nature of the universe? Of course not. Does it allow us to dismiss the claims of whackos? Why yes it does.

"I don't think you can absolve those scientists who abandon the scientific method in favour of "pretty much as good as" any more than we should tolerate the religious types who dress up belief in pseudo-science in the hopes of deceiving their audience. "

I respectfully disagree, so long as they are not using it in their science. I also don't really think the term scientist is particularly appropriate here. Not everyone that understands scientific method and the nature of this debate is necessarily a scientist by trade, nor do they need to be. I'm noticing lay people elevating scientists to the level of revered authorities. I know some scientists. They're human like the rest of us, and usually drink more :)

Re:No Overlap?

[jacquesm]

If you know of any demonstrated flaws in Darwinian Evolution I for one would very much like to hear of them.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

If you know of any demonstrated flaws in Darwinian Evolution I for one would very much like to hear of them.

Well, as I understand it, Darwin proposed a series of single mutations - each a rare event that happened over time and were selected for by the environment and survival of the fittest. So once upon a time you'd have a species of short necked short legged giraffes. Then one of the got the long neck gene, and you had a herd or short stubby giraffes plus one with short legs but a stupidly long neck, but because of that, he could get at mroe food, so he had more descendants and eventually they all had long necks.

The thing is that the fossil record seems to show species appearing with several changes at once. Giraffes don't just get long necks. They get necks and legs and those subby little horns that only really make sense if you've got a really long neck and can put a hell of a lot of angular momentum behind them. That's hard to see in terms of a single mutation.

I'm not saying the mutation + survival of the fittest ideal is wrong. But the notion of mutations causing single features that are gradually selected for and amplified over time doesn't seem to fit with the evidence we have.

I'm also not saying this is evidence of God. I just think that Darwin's original theory (at least as it was taught to me) needed a little tweaking.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

"First of all absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, nor even "as good as" evidence of absence."

In terms of making accurate predictions about the nature of reality it is.

I keep thinking of Ecluidean geometry in this connection. Euclid couldn't prove that parallel lines never cross, but he reckoned that he had pretty much made the case, and for more than a thousand years mathematicians tried to prove it for him. It wasn't until someone had the bright idea of trying to disprove the converse case that we discovered that you can construct consistent non-Euclidean spaces, and the area was able to move on. Godel did something similar with respect to attempts to automate the proving of theorems. So I think "as good as" really can get in the way of making accurate predictions. Of course, I'm assuming here that mathematicians are pretty much the same as scientists here, so maybe I just invalidated my own argument :)

If I find a god-of-the-gaps style gap, put all sorts of mythos into it, and then berate people to live their lives according to my dogma, going so far as to solicit changes in the law

Mmmm... but I'd have said that the problem with berating people was that you were bullying them, not that you had a non-scientific belief. People are entitled to believe as they please, but that doesn't carry with it an entitlement to behave like assholes. Nor does it excuse legislators passing measures without any evidence to suggest they may be useful and effective.

"I don't think you can absolve those scientists who abandon the scientific method in favour of "pretty much as good as" any more than we should tolerate the religious types who dress up belief in pseudo-science in the hopes of deceiving their audience. "

I respectfully disagree, so long as they are not using it in their science.

See, to me that smacks of a double standard. It's like saying: What you say is rubbish because it depends upon assumptions that are fundamentally unfalsifiable, bit it's ok for me because I'm not doing it as part of my job.

I also don't really think the term scientist is particularly appropriate here.

mmm... I'm using it loosely to mean people arguing the science side of the creationism debate, rather than guys in white coats who count quarks for a living. :)

Not everyone that understands scientific method and the nature of this debate is necessarily a scientist by trade, nor do they need to be.

I think if you're going to argue what is and what is not science, you ought to have a decent understanding of what science is. And I think we ought to hold ourselves to the same level of intellectual rigour we require from the other side of the debate.

I know some scientists. They're human like the rest of us, and usually drink more :)

Pretty much my experience as well :)

Re:No Overlap?

[jacquesm]

the fossil record is - by necessity - incomplete, if every organism left its skeleton intact then you would be able to trace an unbroken line between us and any ancestor, and the same would go for any other organism alive.

The spotty fossil record does not in any way invalidate Darwins theory, it just doesn't reinforce it as strongly as it would if it were complete.

With every new fossil found Darwins theory gets a little stronger.

Re:No Overlap?

[vigour]

On the other hand, we have an ever-growing government-paid science-base who wants more money to further their own cushy lives. Both disgust me, both are trying to use force to further their own lives.

Very few government-paid science jobs are well paid. I take offence to statements such as yours. On average, we work long hours, for poor pay compared to what researchers in industry get paid with similar experience-levels. We spend around 8 years (depending on the system) as a student with no money (EUR12,000 pa for a PhD student), and come out with the possibility to get a post-doc position that pays EUR28,000-34,000.
That might seem like a lot to you, but in a country like Ireland where half of that will go on rent (not even a mortgage), it doesnt go very far.
If you look at the breakdown of where money is spent in academia, the vast majority is spent on equipment and supplies. Researchers are fighting for money to do experiments. If you look at NSF funding in the US for example, even though the amount of funding available has increased over the last 50 years, in real spending power it hasn't changed much at all. On top of that there are now more facilities and researchers all fighting for essentially a smaller and smalller pie.

Doing research is not a cushy job, the work can be interesting, but also dangerous (toxic chemicals, radiation exposure -eg. Mossbauer Spectroscopy, and more simple hazzards like water & electricity). We are derided by the public as nerds and geeks, and look down on us.

If you want to have a family, settle down and buy a house it's hard. You have to spend a fews years as a postdoc researcher, essentially a journeyman, trying to get good papers so that you can get a decent position. So money is tight.

another nickel popped out of my paycheck to some goon who continues to manipulate the data to scare others into more funding for his or her pocket

You have no idea what is going on in research, or how funding proposals work. Scaremongering rarely (if ever) works. A lot of funding is now towards applied research rather than fundamental studies. So a lot of it is benefitting people like you. Where do you think the latest hard-drives came from? Fundamental studies on the effect of magnetic fields on anti-ferromagnetically coupled multilayers (GMR, now maybe obsolete) and tunnel barriers between ferromagnetic layers. Along with developing high density granular material to record on.

If you were genuinely interested in science then you would learn more about the world around you and some of the amazing work being carried out by people in a vast array of fields. Just because you don't understand the data doesn't mean it's not important. It can take some time to percolate through the community, but sometimes the small details can change how people study a particular topic. eg. In the case of TMR (Tunnel Magnetoresistance) it was first seen in 1975, but it was only a curiosity (it had to be carried out at low temperatures) no one saw a use for it, and now all the read heads in recent hard drives use TMR stacks.

In essence, don't criticise what you don't understand, you end up as bad as the creationists.

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

the fossil record is - by necessity - incomplete, if every organism left its skeleton intact then you would be able to trace an unbroken line between us and any ancestor, and the same would go for any other organism alive.

But still we see speciaition. You'd expect species to be in a constant state of flux viewed over evolutionary timescales, but we find species widespread over area and time. Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils, for instance date over about three million years.

And we still don't see any short legged giraffes.

The spotty fossil record does not in any way invalidate Darwins theory, it just doesn't reinforce it as strongly as it would if it were complete.

I never said Darwin's theory was invalid, just that it doesn't seem to fit the available evidence as well as it might. Arguing that it would fit the evidence if we had more of it, on the other hand is a classic faith based argument.

Re:No Overlap?

[jacquesm]

Evolution fits the evidence as good as it can with the fossil record being as spotty as it is. A single fossil that would not 'match' the theory would invalidate all of evolution, but every new fossil found fits in to the existing record thereby strengthening our 'belief' (I use the term loosely) that evolution, in fact correctly predicts that if we had all the fossils we would have an unbroken line of small modifications which at some point lead to mating incompatibilities (which we call new species).

Please keep in mind that 'species' are a human convention, nature doesn't necessarily agree with our interpretation here, in fact nature probably sees us all as individuals, some of which are unable to mate. That we assign a rather arbitrary label 'species' to that ability may not reflect reality.

Nature is often more subtle than we initially imagine. Personally I expect Darwins theory to be further refined but never replaced by anything dramatically different. But then again, that *is* a belief, and not something grounded in fact.

If you think of individuals being more or less genetically removed from each other then you have a much better chance at seeing how artificial our species concept really is, more than likely there never was a single generation that was unable to mate with a previous one, it builds up over time (one barrier) and space (another barrier). Until two populations are so far removed from each other that individuals from the one population can no longer mate with another, but both are descendants of a single 'parent' population.

The 'short legged giraffe' example shows a serious lack of understanding in how genes affect the development of an organism, I don't even know where to begin to set that one right, I suggest you read a textbook on genetics and another one on embryology, it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

 

Re:No Overlap?

[NickFortune]

Please keep in mind that 'species' are a human convention, nature doesn't necessarily agree with our interpretation here, in fact nature probably sees us all as individuals, some of which are unable to mate. That we assign a rather arbitrary label 'species' to that ability may not reflect reality.

And yet we find Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils dated over a period of three million years scattered across the whole of western North America. The issue here isn't whether Tyrannosaurs could have sex outside their species. It's that the species apprently stayed stable for three million years, which shoudn't happen if we're seeing random mutation as an ongoing process. Given the conceeded spottiness of the fossil record, and the time span in question, we shouldn't see enough data points to identify species at all.

The 'short legged giraffe' example shows a serious lack of understanding in how genes affect the development of an organism

Yes, yes, yes, I know that genes don't affect things in quite that way. I also understand that the mathematics of complexity allow for several apprently unconnected changes to emerge all at once.

But that's not what Darwin originally proposed. He knew none of this. Hence my comment that Darwinian evolution was flawed. We don't see the gradual change in, one characteristic at a time that he described. See?

I really don't see why this notion inspires such vehement opposition. The best tested science we have probably lies with Newton's laws of motion - and they've been refined at least twice. Once for speeds approaching lightspeed, and once for interactions on the atomic and subatomic scale. What makes Darwin so Holy that none dare suggest he might bear some improvement?

Personally I expect Darwins theory to be further refined but never replaced by anything dramatically different.

Yes. That's been my point from the beginning. Darwin's theory required some refinement.

Let's let the West fail on its own

[gelfling]

The West seems determined to destroy itself through earnest and dedicated revisionism no matter what. I say let's let the West implode into medieval fundamentalist superstitious ignorance. And while we're at it, let's replace civil law with religious law too. It's unstoppable so we who are objecting to it might as well pull up the lawn chairs and watch it all burn.

String theory isn't what you think.

[morgan_greywolf]

String theory isn't that kind of theory. The purpose of string theory is to attempt to unify two different theories (or really classes of theories) -- relativity and quantum theory -- each of which are based, partially, on directly observed data in an effort to provide a theory for everything. This is why string theory is called a 'unified field theory'. String theory is provable by mathematical proof.

As far as 'many religions having a concept of Creation' -- well, there are also many religions that do not have any relgious dogma regarding the creation or cosmology of the universe. You make it out like every religion has a 'holy book' with a bunch of content stating what it is you are supposed to believe. This is definitely not the case. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share a dogma and are classified as 'revealed religions.' Other religions, such as many Eastern religions and philosphy, don't have any actual dogma on what is to be believed -- beliefs are to be attained by enlightenment. These religions focus on shared practice. For example, Buddhism concentrates heavily on correct thought and correct action -- things that are to be done. There's not much written Buddhist text that specifies or attempts to describe any explanation for how the universe came into being or what it is necessarily made of.

OTOH, Christian dogma, for example, attempts to describe how the Earth was created, and, in fact what it looks like. The Bible also describes the world as having four corners and states that is being held up by pillars. Why don't you Christians start arguing with the scientists about the shape of the Earth?

Mmm...doesn't sound very "open to me".

[hackus]

So, science is open to all topics except religion, eh?

Doesn't sound very open to me, or very scientific.

Sounds like a bunch of people ganging up on a guy because he has certain personal beliefs. Beliefs that threaten an athiestic view of the humanists.

From what I have been reading in a book by John Grant called "Corrupted Science", this type of behavior is quite common in the practice of science, probably even more so today.

Robert Oppenhiemer, arguably a very brilliant man....

until he said his religion brings us a warning about the use of Nuclear Weapons and creating them that he finds hard to justify building them.

Unfortunately, his career and his life thereafter where pretty much destroyed by the scientific community and government labeled him "questionably patriotic US citizen."

Sound familair? "Oh, but scientists are so much better human beings and so much more educated in thier ways than those backward religous people!"

Yep, but it isn't the preachers these days I would like to point out that are so "hell bent" on killing God and inventing ever more gruesome weapons of destruction.

No, that would be our scietific community.

So for those of you posting his speech should be censored, and he be removed...

I would like to point out you are following in the fine scientific footsteps of hundreds of scientists that are morally bankrupt, cheat, steal and corrupt ever so nicely documented in "Corrupted Science".

As far as I am concerned, I am more worried about what will happen to our world if science is not managed correctly and the humanists win.

I assure you, the existence they envision for humanity is far more horrific than any Spanish inquisition ever was.

There will be no place on the planet that is safe.

You will have no where to run.

This will be our destiny if science continues to be a free for all, all in the name of progress and anything goes.

After all, God doesn't exist so there really is nothing to be worried about.

If these people are so concerned with the mans private views, then may I suggest an experiment that conculsively demonstrates God does not exist.

Then we can go about our business destroying ourselves with a clean conscious.

-Hackus

Re:Mmm...doesn't sound very "open to me".

[the eric conspiracy]

So, science is open to all topics except religion, eh?

Doesn't sound very open to me, or very scientific.

You obviously should spend some time reading on the philosophy of science before spouting such utter rubbish.

Re:Mmm...doesn't sound very "open to me".

[rrohbeck]

So, science is open to all topics except religion, eh?

No it's not and nobody ever claimed it was.
You know, there *are* topics outside of science.

Re:Mmm...doesn't sound very "open to me".

[Chrisq]

The problem is religious people ask to be judged on a scientific basis - and then when they are say that they have not been judged on their criterion.

I have nothing against judging religions scientifically, or against saying they are non-scientific beliefs. The problem is when someone wants to say it is a scientific belief but won't evaluate the theory against evidence.

Re:Mmm...doesn't sound very "open to me".

[hackus]

Let me get this straight.

Religion is outside the realm of science?

MMmm.....then why is it that many facets of string theory are so "religious" in nature.
(i.e. absolutely NO CHANCE of it EVER being tested, but is put forth as credible "pure science" research.)

String Theory is THE cutting edge that we have to offer in physics today about how all of the forces in the Universe relate and work together to form reality.

Even those working on the theory are concerned with it, in that it is becoming almost "religous" in nature. (Oh isn't that just so HORRIBLE?).

See: ``The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next'' by Lee Smolin; Houghton Mifflin

Sounds like there are great leaps of "faith" as it were, based on some logic that may or may not explain how reality is.

So it is OK to have faith based on a logical result of a series of assumptions, as long as it is called "science", but it is not OK to have such beliefs if it is called religion?

I am going to call your bluff, and point out that science frequently intervenes in areas it has no conclusive proof otherwise, and decrees things impossible simply because, well, "I am a scientist. You will not argue with me."

Lets take the age of the earth.

Science says....about ~5-6 billion. (If we can depend on the rate of decay being the same and constant for that length of time. Even THAT may not be the case. See: http://groups.google.com/group/libero-captivum/browse_thread/thread/de09483b3d89936d?hl=en )

Bible thumpers say 10,000 years or so.

On one side you have the decree of the scientists saying any other finding other than 5-6 billion is impossible because we said so.
(This result cannot be proven directly, only indirectly through decay estimates, which MAY or MAY NOT be constant over that length of time, probably not, see above.)

On the other hand you have the bible thumpers who say the ancestry of man can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve, and its about 4000 BC.

For Example:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~emsleyjohnson/

Now, which one is based on faith.

Answer: Both.

Which one is technically right?

Mmmm....I am not qualified to answer that question, but neither are you.

The only person who is qualified to answer that question is the person who was there when the universe was created and seen it happen, and started the clock.

I wonder who THAT would be.

Wanna take a guess?

-Hack

It's kdawson

[Anonymous Coward]

All he does is post trollish, misleading, slanted, inaccurate garbage. But I guess it brings in the ad revenue, so that's all that matters.

Swearing on the Bible

[AxeTheMax]

I always found the idea of swearing on the Bible to be very amusing.

An answer I remember from school about Matthew, that he only tells you not to swear by Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, or by your own head - so swear by the book instead.

I have to admit the James version, in English anyway, is clearer - don't swear by anything.

If not science classes, where?

[smchris]

It isn't like most high schools offer informal logic or the history of scientific methodology as separate classes.

I don't have serious disagreement with the article. I think much of what he is saying speaks directly to the practice of pedagogy and is not promoting the creationist belief system per se. Maybe we are assuming that since he is an Anglican priest, he is being less than sincere in his objectivity?

Re:If not science classes, where?

[Abcd1234]

Comparative religion, where else? Your school doesn't offer such a course? Well, then try to get the curriculum changed. Given the rise of the middle east and asia, we in the western world could do with more awareness of the various major religions and their roles in history.

they don't teach evolution in kansas

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson." i think they put even less thought into the things they say than the things they think. in my science classes if a kid brought up creationism it would be discussed (and proven a folly) but there is as much reason to go out of your way to teach it as it is to teach about fairies or leprechauns. i really hope this dude gets fired as he is obviously scientifically inept and deserves no job where he is a blatantly ignorant authority figure.

Creationism ISN'T Christian specific....

[the_raptor]

The biggest flaw in the arguments of people who want creationism or intelligent design taught in schools, is that they are doing it to "back door" in their religion. However neither creationism or intelligent design are Judeo-Christian specific. That was the whole point of the flying spaghetti monster satire, to make the IDer's admit that they just wanted to teach Christianity, and not an "alternative theory".

ID supports everything from alien's doing the designing, to Vishnu, to the Great Arkleseizure.

Re:Other religions

[AxeTheMax]

I The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too?

The thing about Islam (and Judaism) is that they are both part of the western religion which originated in the same tradition, and with Christianity they accept the account of Genesis with minor variations. Hence they could and would lend support to Christian creationists. Other religions have quite distinct ideas. Some eastern religions teach that the world is an illusion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion) ), or that we are all part of a dream by some great being. Such teachings are not likely to lend support to creationism.

what the bible says

[bakoolguy2]

Romans 1: "18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." To summarize: 1) God reveals Himself clearly through his creation. 2) Man rejects God, even as He was clearly revealed. 3) Man is left empty and alone, with no explanation for existence. 4) In an attempt to fill this emptiness and justify himself, man makes idols and invents godless myths. One such myth that scientists talk about in a very unscientific way is the idea of the early "primordial soup" from which life began from a single cell. Ask for proof, and all you will receive are stories about what 'could have' happened. That is no explanation for the origin of life at all. You have life and breath and being. You act and make decisions. You are a living soul created by a God who loves you. You have everything you need to come into a relationship with him. Don't fight it! Just come.

Re:what the bible says

[Legion303]

"To summarize"

Don't bother, troll.

Defense Against the Dark Arts

[Databass]

If Royal Society students were blank slates, who were helpless but to believe exactly the words any sacred professor spilled into their brains like a blank hard drive being formatted with an operating system, then a professor espousing a controversial or even ridiculous viewpoint would be dangerous indeed.

I'd like to think the average Society student is a capable student already familiar with skepticism and the scientific who could handle dismantling the logical flaws of untenable positions.

It makes me think of an academy of legendary knights and wizards. Do they need to be protected from any and all threats? If the occaisional monster wonders in, they should be able to subdue it with their budding hero skills. In fact, one might go as far to say that occaisionally monsters should be introduced DELIBERATELY, so the students don't get too comfortable or cloistered. Diplomatically disagreeing with someone in a position to cut your funding (or GPA anyway, in this case) is actually a useful real-world skill to have.

What Science is and what Science isn't

[davidwr]

Science is an attempt to find testable hypothesis that help us understand how the world might work. Science knows that it doesn't know all the answers and the "answers" it puts forward may turn out to be incorrect.

It is not an attempt to explain how the world works. By the very nature of the question, any attempt to explain how the world works must allow for the possibility that some particular untestable hypothesis is in fact how the world works.

The key advantages of science include:
* Testability: Even if a theory cannot be proven today, it should be provable or disprovable with enough information and technology. Big Bang and human-evolution theories fit into this category.
* Utility: Most scientific theories have or in the future will have applications which allow us to create new things, good or bad.

While you can argue that religious theories that explain the way the world works have some utility, by definition they are not testable. If they were, they would fit in the realm of science or, if and when a given religious theory is proven false, in the realm of discarded theories.

Is Biblical Creationism the correct explanation of how the universe works? Maybe. We'll never know as long as the universe is obeying the rules it is currently obeying. Of course, if rapture comes all bets are off. Is Biblical Creationism science? Not hardly. Is it wrong to teach a science course that says "according to the data we have available, the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin and tweaked by others best explains the variety of life forms found in the fossil record and on earth today"? No, it is not wrong to teach that. In fact, if you are going to teach the science of biological history, it's both scientifically incorrect and morally wrong not to teach it.

The one scientific disservice we do to our youth is to pretend that non-scientific explanations of the world are junk. They may be junk science, but as non-scientific explanations of how the universe works, they may turn out to be correct. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Creationism/Intelligent Design isn't science!

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is supported with scientific experiments. Creationism and Intelligent design are based on faith and cannot be tested using the scientific method. Therefore there is no place for them in science class. They would fit just fine in a class called "religion." Or maybe a philosophy class debating what we are in this world.

Creationism is an alternative to Science

[EccentricAnomaly]

Teaching creationism in a Science class as Science is like teaching Spanish in and English class as English. Creationism is no more Science than Astrology. It should be discussed as a different branch of Philosophy as an alternative to Science, along with Astrology and Ghost-Hunting.

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".

I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess.
Or you end up with the folks in Texas who are allowed to answer that "it doesn't agree with my beliefs", and get credit.

We are incapable of handling the controversy appropriately in general, so I think its best to just leave it out. Science is X, following from X and these observable facts we learn Y...

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[c6gunner]

I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".

I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess.

Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more. Similarly, you can teach about pre-Galilean follies because nobody will take offense to it or try to argue that the sun spins around the earth.

Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it? It's not so much a question of education, as de-programming.

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[Wonko the Sane]

Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more. Similarly, you can teach about pre-Galilean follies because nobody will take offense to it or try to argue that the sun spins around the earth.

Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it? It's not so much a question of education, as de-programming.

But de-programming children from their religious indoctrination is prohibited by the constitution.

In any case, did anyone actually read what the guy said?

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

That fact needs to be addressed somehow. I don't see how anything he said is just cause for him to be fired.

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[blahplusplus]

"Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it?"

The question is why has evolution selected for people that believe in a mystical being? It must have survival advantages that most people at slashdot are unaware of.

I've been reading the literature on this and they think it is an artifact of being able to realize that one is going to die i.e. cognitive sophistication. Thereby the mind builds a buffer against despair, depression and hopelessness. For instance being poor, being ruled by rich people, having your country invaded by an empire, being born with a disease, you suffer an accident, etc, etc.

Lastly, your entire argument assumes naturalism the philosophy which was conceived by men is correct for the how and why the universe exists, and that we even know what the universe is. Everything we think is true is based on some foundational master concepts and philosophies of 'what we believe is', and a philosophy of how we separate truth from error, who has truth from who has only illusions of truth.

As for science only being 'approximations to truth' I call bullshit the whole method of science assumes that detectability/measurability = basic knowledge of a thing. If you can measure it you know absolutely that something is, even if you don't understand that something fully. So science already believes in certain absolutes when it comes to truth itself the truth of detectability (an act of observation IS an act of detection).

Yyu can't even have a single perception if there are no absolutes btw, logical contradiction. Is something there, yes or no? From that simple question we assume that existence exists, otherwise we should throw in the towel.

I've been reading ancient cultures that believed the universe is a living thing and in other eastern cultures they identify god as nature, i.e. god is all that exists, therefore everyone is merely a piece of that one existent god, etc. The identify god with all of existence itself.

Our environment is simply an environnment, we can call it nature, god, energy, whatever but it doesn't mean we understand the nature of deep reality.

From wikipedia:

Philosophical naturalism has been described in various ways. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature."

This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method. It requires that scientific hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.[2] Yet another form of naturalism is the idea that the methods of science should be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum and, hence, the same methods apply to both. W.V. Quine and others have advocated this view. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[c6gunner]

The question is why has evolution selected for people that believe in a mystical being? It must have survival advantages that most people at slashdot are unaware of.

Not really - evolution only selects against harmful mutations and for positive one. It is entirely possible for a mutation to propagate through a population, which is not harmful but also not beneficial. It happens all the time.

More importantly, we have no reason to believe that evolution acts on thought processes and beliefs the same way it does on genes.

Personally I think that religious belief DOES have certain positive effects for the propagation of genetic material, especially in extremist religions. For instance, Islam encourages cousin-marriage, which is guaranteed to pass on genetic code which will be more similar to both parents than, say, when a white male marries a black female. Also, ALL religions encourage excessive procreation, so more offspring are going to survive to pass on the genetic code. However, belief in any particular religion is NOT genetic, so there's no reason why propagation of a particular set of genes should result in the propagation of a particular religion. Rather, it's the fanaticism and indoctrination of children which primarily determine how quickly a religion can spread, although other factors certainly play a role.

If you meant to say that religious belief of ANY kind is beneficial to human survival, that's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't explain why so many people look to organized religion as a guide. And it's organized religion which is the real problem. People who are Deists - who believe in a God but not in organized religion - generally have no problem accepting evolutionary theory as a fact. It's the fundamentalists who insist on the biblical (or Quaranic) interpretation of the universe, and discard all contrary evidence.

I've been reading the literature on this and they think it is an artifact of being able to realize that one is going to die i.e. cognitive sophistication. Thereby the mind builds a buffer against despair, depression and hopelessness.

Yes, that's one popular theory, and one in which I see a lot of merit. People need SOMETHING to believe in, and in the absence of fact they invent their own goals, explanations, and justifications. We also like to anthropomorphise - to ascribe human motives to inanimate objects and natural events. That's probably the misfiring of a beneficial evolutionary trait - the ability to guess what other people are thinking or feeling.

Lastly, your entire argument assumes naturalism the philosophy which was conceived by men is correct for the how and why the universe exists, and that we even know what the universe is.

No, it's based on the idea that observation and rational thought are the best instruments we have for analyzing the world around us. That, if we are EVER going to figure out what the universe is and how it came to be, we are going to do so by using objective analysis, and not by listening to the subjective feelings of some Italian guy in a funny hat.

Let me put it this way:

Let's assume that science is wrong about evolution. Even if we accept that as a given, there is still ZERO reason to believe that religion is right. If the rational, evidence based conclusions of hundreds of thousands of highly educated people all turn out to have been wrong, how would it be logical to conclude that the religious preaching of some stone-age simpletons must then be right?

If we ever disprove evolution, it's going to be through the gathering of more data and the analysis of that data in a logical manner. The best approach we have to finding truths is the scientific method because it relies on physical observation, falsifiable hypothesis, and the predictive ability of those hypothesis. Meanwhile religion relies solely on feelings, guesses, and the institutional unquestion

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[blahplusplus]

"No, it's based on the idea that observation and rational thought are the best instruments we have for analyzing the world around us."

But this supposes a philosophy and conception of what is rational and what is not - i.e. an philosophy of truth. We are once again back to the master concepts by which all other concepts are interpreted and judged.

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[skam240]

Even though I am an agnostic I take issue with your phrase "Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being." While I would readily agree that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the earth has certainly developed over billions of years and not thousands, it is well within possible bounds that a divine hand had a role in guiding the gradual process over such a span of time (and I do know many Christians who believe this as such). Of course even still, this is not science and should not be taught in science class but to say it is unfortunate that people believe in a creator seems a bit bigoted to me.

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[Anonymous Coward]

and some people still believe that garbage creates flies...

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[JasterBobaMereel]

"Or you end up with the folks in Texas who are allowed to answer that "it doesn't agree with my beliefs", and get credit."

The answer is to simply fail them automatically, the syllabus says they learn the subject, if they refuse to then they fail....

Otherwise, I believe that blood is normally found in the lungs and the brain is only used to cool the body, can I automatically pass my exams and become a surgeon....

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[gandmk]

The "Creation Society" can not get a debate from the atheists,they refuse to debate.I'm starting to see why though,Darwinism is is not founded in facts it is a faith position also.

here's your proof

[EccentricAnomaly]

We have myriad proof that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old (geology throughout the Solar System, radioactive decay, stars, the existence of heavy elements, fossils). Ergo Creationism is as de-bunked as the hypotheses involving abnormally large turtles. Heck, the Creationist story in Genesis isn't even self consistent.

If you knew your Illuminatus Trilogy

[smittyoneeach]

You'd be aware that Bugs Bunny is God,
and the Earth is shaped like a carrot.
Now begone with your novel speculations, knave.

Re:If you knew your Illuminatus Trilogy

[lostguru]

it's turtles all the way down

The Real Problem

[EccentricAnomaly]

Maybe Evolution can't be proved true... But the Creationist story laid down in the Bible can be disproved in a few minutes. The I.D. people teach a version of creationism different from Genesis, one twisted and morphed from the Biblical story so as not to be so readily disproved... but what they're left with is something with neither a scientific basis *or* a religious basis.

NOT Science

[EccentricAnomaly]

What you propose is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one. Science is a branch of philosophy that limits its scope to the natural world. Supernatural theories are beyond the bounds of Science... comparing your theory to Science is like trying to compute the nutritional value of a rock... or the arithmetic sum of a frog and a flower... it's out of scope and meaningless. The fact that most Americans don't get this basic tenet of Science shows how very bad our Science education is.

What about the apocalypse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it ironic that the same folks who take the book of genesis at face value and cannot understand a metaphor even it kicked them in the ass, are in many cases the same guys that gladly interpret all sorts of phenomena as signs that match those described in the apocalypse?

Royal Society doesn't support teaching Creationism

[mdwh2]

So why is the Royal Society bothering?

They're not: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004

(It's one thing for the media to misrepresent them, but it's rather poor for Slashdot to post this, when it's old news, and already debunked by the Royal Society, and without even linking to their statement. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised...)

You guys do it wrong

[4D6963]

America, watch and learn. That's how ludicrous we find theories that you find worthy of debate, in our decently educated countries. The content of the debate isn't as relevant about your poor education system as is the fact that the debate itself could even survive and thrive rather than get instantly shot down and laughed off.

Re:You guys do it wrong

[Just Some Guy]

America, watch and learn. That's how ludicrous we find theories that you find worthy of debate

We're watching - to see how our favorite pupil, the UK, has learned our lessons. Strident over-reactions to an inaccurate paraphrase rather than a thoughtful analysis of the source material? It seems that we've taught you well.

Re:tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ...

[Myopic]

well, santa, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny are topics for an International Relations class.

Nonsense

[Jane Q. Public]

The mathematics is not "evidence" for string "theory" at all. (Theory being in quotes because it is actually only a hypothesis; it has not earned the title of "theory" yet.)

And the reason that the mathematics is not evidence of the string hypothesis is that other hypotheses mathematically explain the same observations that the string hypothesis was created to explain almost as well, or even as well, as the string hypothesis does. For example, the MoND hypothesis arguably matches with prior math better than the string hypothesis does, since all it requires is a very slight (otherwise insignificant) adjustment of certain constants, whereas string hypothesis requires the addition of multitudes of dimensions and a great deal of other complexity.

Therefore, while the math for the string hypothesis might work out in a somewhat consistent manner, it is not "evidence" favoring the string hypothesis at all. On the contrary, if anything the mathematics favor other hypotheses such as MoND, which is approximately as consistent but much simpler. Admittedly, both hypotheses have some inconsistencies that researchers are trying to iron out.

In any case, in direct contradiction to your claim, it is clear that in order for ANY of these ideas to move from the level of hypothesis to the level of "theory", they require some kind of real-world testability. That may be forthcoming with the recent startup of the LHC; on the other hand it may not.

Re:Nonsense

[Draek]

And the reason that the mathematics is not evidence of the string hypothesis is that other hypotheses mathematically explain the same observations that the string hypothesis was created to explain almost as well, or even as well, as the string hypothesis does.

So, you follow Occam's Razor and for anything that doesn't specifically require String Theory, you assume as true the theory that requires the least assumptions to explain the phenomena (ie, not String Theory).

I simply don't see the problem here.

Re:Nonsense

[Jane Q. Public]

Not really. Perhaps I did not explain clearly. My assertion is that when there are several competing theories, and the math supports more than one of them more-or-less as well, then that is not "evidence" for any particular one of those theories, any more than it is evidence for the others. Much of the math that points to the string hypothesis being true can also be considered to be evidence for competing hypotheses; therefore it cannot be claimed as "evidence" for any of them.

Re:Nonsense

[Draek]

Well, I see it as the math supporting *every* one of those theories, instead of none. An internally-inconsistent theory can't be true since it contradicts itself, so having consistent math is already a step-up for me.

Re:Nonsense

[Jane Q. Public]

That is what I stated: that it supports none of them more than the others.

Nor is string theory what YOU think.

[Jane Q. Public]

First, it is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis. It will not be a theory unless and until a means of testing it is devised.

Second, it is NOT "provable" my mathematical proof. A lot of the math does work out. But some of it doesn't... quite. There are some inconsistencies in the string hypothesis that have not been cleared up yet just as there are in other, competing hypotheses.

The recent startup of the LHC may provide some evidence. Or it may provide some counter-evidence. But even that is very much up in the air, since the string hypothesis itself predicts that any such thing would be very hard to observe.

I might add...

[Jane Q. Public]

Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation. What does that have to do with science? I would like to add that the first comment is doubly specious, since you almost have to have some kind of story of creation in order to qualify as a religion in the first place.

They didn't "back-pedal"

[cryptogryphon]

They corrected sloppy journalism http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004

Your argument does not justify your conclusion.

[fugue]

Evidence has a place in science classes, but what should really be taught is the scientific method. Teach creationism in science classes, by all means! It is a fabulous example of a scientific theory that makes all possible predictions and is therefore scientific crap. Teach it, and teach why it is junk. Science class should be about teaching a thought process, not a bunch of facts.

Except that it isn't.

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it should not be discussed as an inferior theory, because Creationism is not a theory! That is a point that a lot of people in this thread have tried to make.

Creationism is merely a "dogma", not a theory. Theories are testable. Creationism, and "Intelligent Design", have gone to considerable trouble to make sure that they are NOT testable. They are accessible only via faith, which means that they cannot be theories, according to the very definition of the term.

I am not trying to nitpick; I am trying to point out an important difference. Calling Creationism or Intelligent Design "inferior theories" is like calling a child's tricycle "an inferior airplane". They are not even in the same category, and education should not glorify them by treating them as if they were.

Re:Except that it isn't.

[Boronx]

There are certainly scientific creationist theories, it's just that they've been supplanted for almost 200 years by better theories.

"God did it" is not a theory, but "God did it in 6 days 6000 years ago" is easily testable.

Re:Except that it isn't.

[Uberbah]

There are certainly scientific creationist theories

Contradiction in terms. There have been attempts to rationalize parts of the Bible with science (i.e. Noah and the Flood), but no theories.

Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[interactive_civilian]

How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.

So, basically, what you are saying is that we have these two possibilities based on the exact same amount of evidence:

1.) All living organisms came about via evolution.

2.) All living organisms came about via evolution because God did it that way.

As there is ZERO empirical evidence for the existence of any such entity, what, beyond your fragile ego, makes the second option more compelling? Now, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but when faced with a complete lack of evidence, the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until such a time when evidence is available and the hypothesis can be re-evaluated.

*sits back and enjoys his smoke*

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[scum-e-bag]

I used the word "and" not "or"... nice try at divide and conquer though. You have used a good example to whence forth build reason for separation of religion, science AND politics.

There is always something smaller, there is always something bigger; and in between these there are infinite dimensions. Evidence so far is that the universe is infinite (please correct me if I am wrong). Outside of the infinite is the realm of God... until we can explain what lies beyond the infinite, God remains the only comprehensible explanation. (note that I used the word *until*).

*don't get greedy, pass it on*

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[interactive_civilian]

That word "infinite". I do not think it means what you think it means. Your post is made of words forming sentences that appear to have meaning, but which in the end are as meaningless as the question "What came before the big bang?" or "What is north of the north pole?".

Those questions are meaningless. The first question is meaningless because time is a property of the universe and concepts like "before" and "after" can only apply inside of it. The second question is meaningless because the North Pole is the limit of that way of thinking about the world and trying to go north of it is beyond the scope of the definition of the word. Saying "outside of the infinite" is just as inherently meaningless.

But I digress. Back to the topic at hand. Yes, I see the word and. Read my post again. The only difference between the two possibilities is that the second has God. Is that not what you were saying/asking in your previous post? My point is that any discussion of God in a science class as an explanation for the science is COMPLETELY unscientific. I don't know what you were suggesting in your post if you weren't suggesting that bringing God into it in a science class is acceptable. It is not. For the reasons I stated: given a complete lack of evidence the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until evidence is available with which to re-evaluate the hypothesis.

If you want to believe that there is God behind it all, that's fine. That's you. But, understand that it is irrational, and irrationality has no place being taught in a science class, or even really discussed beyond explaining why it doesn't belong in a science class.

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[scum-e-bag]

The first question is meaningless because time is a property of the universe and concepts like "before" and "after" can only apply inside of it.

Then what is "outside" the universe? Implicitly there must be a boundary. I believe that God lies outside this boundary.

What came before the "Big Bang" a meaningless question? That is very unscientific.

because the North Pole is the limit of that way of thinking about the world and trying to go north of it is beyond the scope of the definition of the word.

Infinitesimally small as you approach the North pole?

...but yes, enough digression...

Read my post again. The only difference between the two possibilities is that the second has God.

Point taken.

My point is that any discussion of God in a science class as an explanation for the science is COMPLETELY unscientific.

True, when you replace "an" with "the". Mind you, in my previous post I did slip and use the word "only". It is possible there are other explanations for what lies outside the universe, however, the most plausible one (for me personally) is that of God.

I don't know what you were suggesting in your post if you weren't suggesting that bringing God into it in a science class is acceptable.

That God exists. Perhaps He only exists in my mind and not yours. Thats cool.

So, I guess my point was one of "God is what exists outside the universe".

So if God lies outside the universe, did God create the universe? I believe God did. You, however, may believe whatever you like.

In a pure science class, God has very little place. As you have alluded to, only in such a discussion as this. Separation of religion, politics and science is important.

But, understand that it is irrational, and irrationality has no place being taught in a science class, or even really discussed beyond explaining why it doesn't belong in a science class.

I understand and apply this wrt my scientific studies. I would like you to understand that my understanding of God does give me certain insight to problem solving... in what way, I can not explain, I just believe that it allows me to think differently. I freely accept that some people may never understand God, or what I believe to be God. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on ones religious convictions. (Religion is another topic again, I am talking about God in this thread, not Religion).

I believe that diversification in a population is important to it's survival. Therefore it is important that neither of these view points try to eliminate each other. They must respect each other mutually whilst remaining closely separate (almost a contradiction in terms).

...but hey, maybe my head is messy from all that pot smoking back in college... %)

If you don't have one, you are in one. What is it?

Gods Creation. The Universe.

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[interactive_civilian]

If you don't have one, you are in one. What is it?

Gods Creation. The Universe.

I find it interesting that the actual answer to the riddle is "a shadow".

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[interactive_civilian]

What came before the "Big Bang" a meaningless question? That is very unscientific.

No, it is not. It is literally a meaningless question. Time is a characteristic of the universe. Without the universe the idea of time is meaningless. Literally. It has no meaning. Only within the confines of the universe does time have meaning. Asking "what happened before the start of the universe?" is like asking "what time was it before there was such a thing as time?". They are words. They do form questions. But those questions are without meaning. They don't make sense.

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[scum-e-bag]

Only within the confines of the universe does time have meaning.

By this definition there is a boundary to the universe. What lies outside this boundary? If our universe has a boundary and there is something on the other side of this boundary, does this next universe have a boundary... and if so, isn't it plausible that there are infinite universes, which brings us back to only one universe? Is this how some people see the non-existence of God?

I see a boundary. On one side there is our universe, on the other is God. Some people may call it Heaven. I could also go on about my thoughts of Hell, but, this goes off topic and deviates towards religion. I will suffice by mentioning that I make speculations around Dimethyltryptamine and possible connections which lead people to these conclusions, with false potential.

With only one universe we could expunge the idea of God as there is no room for him in our universe. This assumes an ever expanding outward universe. Inner universe? Sideways universe? Dimensions within dimensions? What lies beyond a dimension? The same could be said for these questions.

I am human. My brain is only so big. It can not comprehend the entire universe and what is beyond, if it could, then it would be as big as the universe itself. To quell thoughts I have faith. The one thing I am truly certain of is that God exists, it is my belief. I have faith that this is true. I have faith in my belief and that is what it is, faith. It is not scientific, my belief is most likely irrational, but, it is my belief. This irrationality is probably why it is called faith.

Asking "what happened before the start of the universe?" is like asking "what time was it before there was such a thing as time?". They are words. They do form questions. But those questions are without meaning. They don't make sense.

True, if time only exists within the universe as per the given definition. Point taken. Now tell me this, what lies outside the bounds of space and time?

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[interactive_civilian]

True, if time only exists within the universe as per the given definition. Point taken. Now tell me this, what lies outside the bounds of space and time?

Again, it's a meaningless question, because "outside" is a property of space. The simplest answer is "nothing". If there is "something" then it must, by definition, be part of the universe and it's just that the universe has a larger scope than we realize right now.

Look, I guess my belief is this: As far as everything that we have access to and everything that can affect us, all that must be "within" (for lack of a better word) the universe. If there is anything "beyond" the universe then it is as good as not existing because we could never know of its existence and its existence could never affect us. If we could or it could, then it would have to be, by definition, part of the universe.

Granted, this belief is somewhat based on faith, but I feel that is more of just going with the null hypothesis. A hypothesis with no supporting evidence is, for all intents and purposes, false. If something is out there that cannot ever be measured or known, then, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. That is how I see the universe. I keep an open mind and will happily examine any available evidence, but God is very persistent in not supplying any evidence at all.

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[scum-e-bag]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have enjoyed this. It has given me greater insight into other people and other thoughts.

I keep an open mind and will happily examine any available evidence, but God is very persistent in not supplying any evidence at all.

I see the evidence in everything. Everything is Gods creation. I believe that the study of science is, in itself, the study of Gods creation.

If there is anything "beyond" the universe then it is as good as not existing because we could never know of its existence and its existence could never affect us.

A CPU allows software to run. The software may not know about the CPU, but it still has a life cycle. The software is not directly created by the CPU, but, it relies on the CPU... I'm sure if we both trundle off into this discussion there will be an analogy or two with computers amongst the 1000 or so comments which could be posted today. Just thinking of this will give me food for thought over the next couple of years.

I do not have time for much more discussion this week; I look forward to this discussion again in another few years time. Hopefully we may cross paths again when this topic invariably pops up again. :)

Thank you again.

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[TheThiefMaster]

You're welcome to believe that everything is God's creation, but you can't use that belief as the evidence that everything is God's creation, or as evidence that God exists, which is what you are saying you are doing. Science pretty much requires direct observation of God or the act of creation (preferably both) for "God created everything" to be considered a scientific fact. Until you can provide one of those two bits of evidence, you can't convince an atheist scientist that god exists.

If I came up to you, handed you a rock and said that I made it, would you believe me? No, you'd ask me to prove it by letting you see me make another rock.

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[scum-e-bag]

You're welcome to believe that everything is God's creation, but you can't use that belief as the evidence that everything is God's creation, or as evidence that God exists, which is what you are saying you are doing.

No. That was not what I was doing. Read again.

In case I wasn't clear in my previous posts; I have faith, which allows me to believe that God exists and the universe is His creation. Proving my faith is not possible, this is most likely why it is called faith and not science. This is, in part, what separates me from an agnostic and an atheist.

I am not trying to convert or convince anyone to a belief that God exists. When someone has a faith in themselves that God exists, then they will know that God exists. Everyone is free to believe in the existence or non-existence of a divine entity as their faith dictates.

If there are more replies, I am just going to start to get annoyed and I will do silly things such as pointing to Genesis 1:1 and telling people to go google it. Atheists and Agnostics should just accept that this is who I am, and that I have faith that God exists. I'm sorry I have so little time to talk, I need to do some work to get some food on the table. If you want to pay me to sit around and philosophise all day, then by all mean pay me, but for now I need to do some work.

EOF

Re:Ouch! Dammit, Occam!

[Urkki]

What came before the "Big Bang" a meaningless question? That is very unscientific.

No, it is not. It is literally a meaningless question. Time is a characteristic of the universe. Without the universe the idea of time is meaningless.

It certainly is not meaningless question. For starters, we don't even know how universe began, we don't have science that covers time t_zero. So making assertions about meaninglessness of "before t_zero" is a bit arrogant.

Secondly, "before" can easily be imagined to mean something other than "before in time". As a simple example, "before t_zero" could mean anything that was part of determining how exactly our universe is, the universal constants etc. For example, if you're into brane collision theories, clearly the branes existed "before" they collided and created our universe. Maybe not "before" in our physical time, but still "before"

On Alchemy

[DesScorp]

"Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more."

But we do teach Alchemy now. We just don't call it that anymore, because "Alchemy" is nothing but the idea that one element could be turned into another. What was once ludicrous fantasy and fiction is now science. We see Alchemy happening every day. The Sun turns Hydrogen into Helium constantly, and our earliest nuclear scientists practiced Alchemy, when you get right down to it. Modern Chemistry and Physics very much includes fields that were once considered Alchemy.

Re:On Alchemy

[Hyperspite]

I recall that when the scientists first transmuted elements, the paper they wrote explicitly avoided any mention of alchemy or the word "transmutation" to avoid being seen as flaky science.

Logical positivism

[CustomDesigned]

I am a creationist, but the obvious problem with creation in a science context is that it is not testable. There are no experiments that can be done because it is not repeatable, and thanks to apparent age, there is no observable historic event. (Think about it - if the earth was created 6000 years ago in a 4 billion year old state, how old is it scientifically?)

Science is a world of logical positivism - "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless". Creationism is meaningless in that context because it cannot be verified. Intelligent design doesn't apply to the creation of the universe as a whole because it is a singular event. (It could apply to the creation of life or the earth - but requires experience with other worlds to have a better idea of just how special our world is.)

Now, where I diverge from your typical modernist is when they make logical positivism the end of the story. The problem is that the statement, "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless" is a statement that cannot be verified, and is therefore meaningless. When you try to make science the sole source of knowledge, you end up with meaninglessness: intelligence (literally "to choose between" i.e. free will) is an illusion, and all that.

And finally, intelligent design theory is *not* creationism in disguise. It is a general theory that is applied in many other fields. As a statistical analysis, it provides no absolute answers. But everyone should be familiar with the concepts, because they apply to forensics, archaeology, SETI, and many other other settings that need to distinguish (imperfectly) between intelligent and natural causes.

Re:Logical positivism

[EccentricAnomaly]

The problem is that in I.D., the intelligence that interacts with the natural world is supernatural in nature and beyond the scope of science. That doesn't make I.D. notions meaningless, but it does make scientific discussion of I.D. meaningless and a waste of time.

If human intelligence is 100% natural in nature then Science has hope of someday explaining how it arises... but rather if human intelligence has a supernatural component, i.e. a soul, then science will not ever be able to explain intelligence.

If the Intelligence in I.D. is natural rather than super-natural then the existence of this intelligence can be tested via Scientific methods. However, such a test comes awfully close to proving or disproving the existence of God. That is why God is to be considered supernatural and beyond the natural world and the realm of Science. An Atheist would be one who discounts the supernatural and a Theist would be one who believes in some notion of the Supernatural. An Atheist is therefore forced to accept Science, but a Theist is forced to neither accept nor reject Science.

<ok enough being polite... now I'm going to go into a Palin-induced rant-mode>

This is the philosophical framework of Science laid down by DesCartes. Proponents of I.D. are at best ignorant of what the word "Science" actually means, and at worst they are dishonest in their attempts to proselytize their religious views under the guise of pseudo-science.

We would be well to remember that the current scientific enlightenment that brings us the many benefits of modernity is but a small blip in human history. To protect our children from the brutish lives more typical of humanities 20,000+ year history, we must stand steadfast in our opposition to the mindless minions of conformity and orthodoxy who would force-feed us knowledge based on tradition and authority over knowledge based on reason, questioning, and experiment.

Re:Logical positivism

[EccentricAnomaly]

One more thing... Science is not Logical Positivism. Science can be interwoven successfully with Theism, and General Relativity is a great example of this.

The basic derivation of Relativity is very Kantian is approach as it starts from some basic assumed logical truths from with a testable theory is derived. In fact this is how many of the great theories of physics start... they start with a priori truths rather than from empirical data. The empirical data is needed to test ideas, not to generate them.

Oh, and by the way, The Big Bang theory is based on Genesis and was formulated by a Priest as a way to give physics a "moment of creation" that was previously lacking in the steady-state notions of the Universe. (But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin).

Re:Logical positivism

[blahplusplus]

"(But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin)."

That's because any 'real' christian (a christian that attempts to subscribe to what is actually said in the bible vs someones made up interpretation of it) cannot accept a billions of years old universe. The problem is modern Christians cherry pick what they believe and ignore in the bible itself. Therefore the allegorists as I like to call them are just the tail end of immature people unable to give up their silly heritage for deism, agnosticism or atheism.

For some reason people need some kind of structure to their social existence that secular world does not offer... i.e. community, etc.

The real secular world is a very harsh, individualistic and selfish place. So can we really blame people looking for community in turning to religion? One only has to look at the vitriol on Slashdot when someone offends another slashdotters cherished values or ideology and the vicious attacks start. The Religious impulse in human still exists, we just feed this impulse with science, ideology, or some other pursuit with which we identify.

Re:Logical positivism

[mrrudge]

Isn't there already a razor for this kind of thing ?

a / A supernatural being whom we have no direct evidence for, and who differs radically depending on what isolated group of the species you happen to be part of, created the world in a four billion year old state, 6000 years ago.

b / The world is four billion years old.

Why ? Why would he/she/it do that ? Is this an ideal state to test us / prove to us that obeying a set of rules will gain us entry to unlimited pleasure ?

Why would a benevolent creator test us anyway ? Why would you make something imperfectly, to damn some of them to an eternity of pain ? Is this benevolence ?

Don't get me wrong, I believe fully in a great deal of the social religious teachings, kindness and respect.

A God who believes in the balance of good and evil and who allows so many of it's creations to be so badly hurt and killed in it's name is not something I want any part of.

IMHO, the sooner we realise that we're alone on a ball of rock floating through an inhospitable space, and stop wondering where our mysterious mommy/daddy went the better.

Re:Logical positivism

[Weedlekin]

"Oh, and by the way, The Big Bang theory is based on Genesis and was formulated by a Priest as a way to give physics a "moment of creation" that was previously lacking in the steady-state notions of the Universe."

While Lamaitre was definitely a priest, he was also a physicist who built his ideas around hard data from astronomical observations (he worked closely with astronomers) and how they fitted in with Einstein's theory of general relativity. Claiming that he based it on Genesis is therefore a notable disservice to the memory of a brilliant scientist whose work was often discounted by others at the time because they accused him of peddling Creationism disguised as science.

Re:Logical positivism

[EccentricAnomaly]

Claiming that he based it on Genesis is therefore a notable disservice to the memory of a brilliant scientist whose work was often discounted by others at the time because they accused him of peddling Creationism disguised as science.

The Big Bang is clearly inspired by Genesis. Many great theories come from some notion that is built into a framework that produce testable hypotheses. Just because it comes from a desire to explain the Universe with a moment of creation, that doesn't make it "Creationism disguised as science."

Re:Logical positivism

[Weedlekin]

"The Big Bang is clearly inspired by Genesis."

You saying this does not make it true, especially given the fact that Genesis has two distinct creation stories, one of which has the Earth already existing as a misty desert when God starts creating things in an entirely different order.

Lamaitre's theory was _actually_ inspired by new (at the time) astronomical data which indicated that all observed galaxies appeared to be moving away from one another. He wasn't the first to propose the idea that this could best be explained by assuming that they all started at a single point, but he was the first to formulate a falsifiable theory which explained the assumption in terms of Einstein's general relativity.

"Many great theories come from some notion that is built into a framework that produce testable hypotheses."

All _scientific_ theories must be falsifiable, not just the great ones.

"Just because it comes from a desire to explain the Universe with a moment of creation, that doesn't make it "Creationism disguised as science.""

My assertion was that some people said this when Lemaitre published his theory, not that it was a valid criticism.

Re:Logical positivism

[EccentricAnomaly]

Lemaitre published his paper in 1927, two years before Hubble published. He developed his theory and predicted Hubble's result before it was found.

All _scientific_ theories must be falsifiable, not just the great ones.

My point is that some theories come from an a priori assertion rather than being derived from empirical data. Relativity is that way.

From: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19159583

"Among his chief inspirations to think about the origin of the universe, we draw attention to his persistent fascination of light as the primeval state of the world. Although this idea was originally seen in a theological perspective, religion played no direct role in Lemaître's hypothesis of 1931."

His theory was constructed with mathematics but was inspired by a desire to find a moment of creation and his attraction to the concept that "in the beginning there was light". This does not diminsh the Science in his approach, but I bring it up to point out that religious notions can inspire theories that are real science... unlike, I.D. which is not science. Furthermore, even when science is inspired by religion, religious people may still reject it :)

Re:Logical positivism

[Weedlekin]

"Lemaitre published his paper in 1927, two years before Hubble published. He developed his theory and predicted Hubble's result before it was found."

1) Lemaitre's 1927 paper proposed that the red-shift (which had been observed by astronomers since the early 1920s) indicated that the universe was expanding from an initial fully-formed state similar to that of the static model which was popular at the time. His "primal atom" theory was published in 1933.

2) Hubble didn't discover, or claim to have discovered red shift. His 1931 paper said that the red shift which astronomers already knew about was proportional to the distance of observed objects (Hubble's Law), and contained a formula for calculating their distance from the degree of that red shift.

3) In the early 1920s, Lemaitre studied at Cambridge University under Eddington, and Harvard College Observatory under Shapley. Much of what he knew about cosmology and observational astronomy very likely came from his contact with these brilliant scientists. Eddington wrote a 1930 paper in an attempt to publicise Lemaitre's 1927 one, which he described as being by far the most elegant solution to the existing body of data from observational astronomy (i.e. red shift of distant objects).

"My point is that some theories come from an a priori assertion rather than being derived from empirical data."

They do indeed, but there is no evidence to suggest that Lemaitres' theories fall into this category.

""Among his chief inspirations to think about the origin of the universe, we draw attention to his persistent fascination of light as the primeval state of the world.""

This is a quote from a single paper which doesn't supply any supporting evidence. There is however a fair amount of contrary evidence, e.g. Lamaitres' (mistaken) belief that cosmic radiation rather than light was the major artefact of the "Big Bang", and his later studies into the nature of cosmic rays.

"His theory was constructed with mathematics but was inspired by a desire to find a moment of creation and his attraction to the concept that "in the beginning there was light"."

Lemaitre's theories were constructed from known observational data, and there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he either believed or wished to believe that light existed in the immediate "post-Bang" universe, and quite a lot of contrary evidence which indicates that this excellent physicist thought photons and most other fundamental aspects of our current universe did not exist until some time after the event.

It should also be noted that the Jesuit order that Lemaitre was part of have been arguing against literal interpretations of Genesis in particular (but also a lot of the rest if the Bible) since the mid 18th century, so it's unlikely that Lemaitre would have joined an order with a history of claiming that the Old Testament is a human-produced text containing elements of several common regional myths if he didn't agree with that position, especially when there are so many other Catholic orders he could have chosen instead.

"Furthermore, even when science is inspired by religion, religious people may still reject it :)"

It's not unusual for religious fundamentalists to reject anything produced by Jesuits, who they think of as being part of a plot to discredit the divine provenance of the Bible, and therefore Christianity (they've even accused prominent and outspoken Jesuit scientists such as George Coyne of being atheists).

What makes science so holy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Creationists are attacking the holy altar of science wrongly. We need to argue about what makes the "scientific method" so holy that no one can dare tamper with it - we should argue about the definition of science itself.

Unlike what many have said here there is an overwhelming body of evidence for an intelligent designer to anyone who is honest with themselves and has half a brain (the former requirement is the most difficult to most).

Also, unlike the science community claims, acknowledging a creator does not necessarily mean weakening the fundamentals or ability of science - eg "because God made is so" does not equate to "we'll just believe that and not try to understand it how God made it so".

Now they are spending how many billions more to find the "God particle" to essentially prove that God doesn't exist.. good luck!

Re:What makes science so holy?

[mdwh2]

Who claimed it was holy? Sure, feel free to argue the philosophical definitions of what science is. But saying that science includes creationism makes the word meaningless - you're not talking about science, you're talking about making up stories.

Unlike what many have said here there is an overwhelming body of evidence for an intelligent designer to anyone who is honest with themselves and has half a brain (the former requirement is the most difficult to most).

You only have half a brain?

And what is this overwhelming evidence?

Also, unlike the science community claims, acknowledging a creator does not necessarily mean weakening the fundamentals or ability of science - eg "because God made is so" does not equate to "we'll just believe that and not try to understand it how God made it so".

So why this insistence of trying to pass of religion as science?

Now they are spending how many billions more to find the "God particle" to essentially prove that God doesn't exist.. good luck!

Please tell me you're just trolling, and that you really aren't this ignorant?

Re:What makes science so holy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is evidence for an intelligent designer? You're joking right? Open your eyes and look around... how does the Eagle know how to build its nest? How did a Venus Fly-Trap Evolve? (How did anything evolve?) How are you reading this? Even atheists should admit there is plenty of evidence (not proof) for an intelligent designer - but most wouldn't of course.

And you my friend are the ignorant one if you don't believe the scientific community, generally speaking, are desperate to disprove God.

They are both religions

[bonekeeper]

I've come to the conclusion that science, *at least how we have today*, is just a kind of neo-religion. Take, for example, theoretical physics and regular religions: 1) Both try to build a system to supply the need to explain how human beings and the cosmos came into existence. Even though religion doesn't "believe" in God, there are also religions that doesn't believe in a greater power creating and ruling everything (buddhism, for example). 2) Both does so by creating theories that go on evolving and changing, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. For example, a long time ago *christians* accepted the idea that the universe was 10 thousand years old, but now they don't. Then, science also had his own hiccups, believing Earth to be flat, etc. 3) So both use theories that eventually change, get disproved, evolve into more complex theories or are substituted by newer, more elegant ones. But they continue to be just that, theories. 4) In both fields, religion and science, there's a great tendency of ignoring new developments in order to keep the orthodox, more comfortable understanding. For example, there are several holes with quantum physics and relativity in general that, although observed in practical terms, are ignored because they don't match the *theory*. So both fields tend to favor theories against direct observation, when the phenomena observed cannot readily be explained by the current official theory, nor explained with a new theory. 5) Both fields do so in a belief that their method is the best way there is. Religion believes they are right because of their faith, Science believes they are right because of the belief that everything can be explained and deducted away by the "Scientific Model". So, both religion and science are founded upon a theory that should work, but in practical terms, is not applied (hence the bloody wars that "loving" christians fight, hence the attachment of the scientific establishment to obviously flawed theories just because they have become commonly accepted). Just because the bible says that the planet is a sphere suspended upon nothing (if that's what it really is), doesn't mean that it's right about everything. Just because some things can be explained using the currently preferred scientific theory, it doesn't mean that the theory is wholly right and a "law", as the "laws" of physics are called (at least until disproved). Because "laws" on religion are more subjective, they cannot easily be disproven, but they are just like scientific laws, only harder to disprove. Scientific law's, because are purposedly based on objectivity, can be disproved if enough objective arguments are shown, but they are still wrongly taken as "laws". So if someone, one day, disproves the "law" of conservation of energy, the next new theory will still be called a "law" and considered a hard truth, until also disproven. Just like religion. 6) Both religion and science should be based on direct observation of reality, without judments or prejudices from either the past, from the commonly accepted model, nor from the observer's own mind. It should be ok to say "I don't know", instead of creating myriad theories to explain things away, or worse yet, taking these explanations for granted as "truth". So, if you don't know how humanity came into existence, just say "I don't know" and explore it. If you don't know how the universe came into being, just say "I don't know" and try to understand the universe, instead of creating *theories* like the big bang, for example. Get the Spaghetty monster, throw in some calculations, and BAM, you got a reasonable scientific theory for today's standards of science. Silly. 7) Even if you consider the Big Bang theory as being elegant and probable, it is still a theory, and only that. People in the past must've thought, for some reason, that the idea of one or many omnipotent, omnipresent, always-existing, never-born personal being creating the entire existence was very elegant and a good explanation, but that also is just a theory. After all, if such powerful being(s) ca

On the one hand, thank you for saying this.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, as an outsider to your religion I have to admit that it sounds just as crazy as Creationism. Every other word is capitalized (Kingdom, Scripture, Covenant, He, Him...). There were an awful lot of FULLY-CAPITALIZED words. It reads like a more erudite Time Cube.

Re:On the one hand, thank you for saying this.

[dada21]

On the other hand, as an outsider to your religion I have to admit that it sounds just as crazy as Creationism. Every other word is capitalized (Kingdom, Scripture, Covenant, He, Him...). There were an awful lot of FULLY-CAPITALIZED words. It reads like a more erudite Time Cube.

Thanks for calling me out on this, I was going to put a PS at the end of my original post apologizing for the use of capital letters. As I have been invited to discuss my views with a variety of congregations around the country, and as I write for a modern Christian audience primarily, I tend to habitually capitalize words relating to God. It's not a deference thing by me at all, I have no problem spelling god this way, or says his kingdom. It just tends to make those specific words more appropriate for my typical audience.

I never use backspace or edit what I type, it just flows, so the habit of typing certain words in certain contexts comes naturally as well. Difficult habit to break, and I've been meaning to for quite some time.

A funny sidenote: one of my close previously atheist friends was a big fan of the time cube comedy, and he actually came to appreciate my faith views solely do to the logic of how I sell the idea of Jesus over what the typical mainstream Evangelical does (fear, hell, fire, torture, torment, eternity, satan, and a bunch of other things that are not Scripturally sound when researched).

Thanks, again, for pointing it out. It frustrates me, too.

You're confusing Apple and Oranges

[RexDevious]

The "Theory" of Evolution is to Evolution as the "Theory" of Gravity is to Gravity. They are both attempts to explain an *observed* phenomena. Creationism and "Intelligent Design" make no attempt to explain the observable phenomena of evolution. They are concerned primarily with Biogenesis (ie. How did live get started in the first place) and essentially ignore evolution If they should be compared to anything, that comparison should take place in physics classes where the Theory of the Big Bang is discusses, as *that* is the scientific theory which concerns itself with Biogenesis.

There they can be compared against an actual scientific theory (meaning a testable, and tested hypothesis) and shown to fall short of even meeting the definition of hypothesis (ie. an *educated* guess).

But Creationism and "Intelligent Design" are most appropriately taught in philosophy class. That's where untestable guesses at the *meaning* of life are discussed. Putting them in science or physics classes would be like putting novels where the characters don't need calculus to succeed in life in math class, or teaching the views of the Amish in an electronics class as an "alternate view".

Technically they are an alternate view, but they're *so* different (essentially arguing against the discipline itself) that they belong in the disciplines which discuss the merits of pursuing other disciplines: philosophy class.

All major religious deserve equal time with Plato, Socrates and Machiavelli because they address the same subject matter, take the same approach, hold themselves to the same standard, and are widely discussed. I'm sure people with other philosophies that conflict with science would like their views to be equated with it as well, but there is a standard they do not meet and thus cannot yet be granted equivalency yet. Take it, leave it, or meet the standards of the area you want your ideas discussed in.

Those who think their ideas need special treatment, to be held to a *lower* standard than anything else, clearly do not have much confidence in them. It would be an insult to those who do to, listen only to those who don't - and that goes for any idea.

It isn't flat, it's shaped like a burrito!

[zooblethorpe]

"But the world isn't flat. Nope, it's shaped like a burrito!"

Extra points to those who catch the reference. :) And therein lies a hint as to why this is just more of the same.

Cheers,

Re:It isn't flat, it's shaped like a burrito!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloom County.

Re:It isn't flat, it's shaped like a burrito!

[zooblethorpe]

And a cigar for the AC!

Now, for the super-secret bonus question, can you tell us all when the strip ran, and what it was poking fun at? :)

Cheers,

Re:It isn't flat, it's shaped like a burrito!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I seem to remember the context was "penguin evolution", but don't quote me. It's been a long time. I can't recall who said the "burrito" remark.

like sharks??

[commodoresloat]

much like similar abilities in other species, such as sharks.

yeah but where does the platypus put the laser beam?

Re:like sharks??

[Random_Goblin]

much like similar abilities in other species, such as sharks.

yeah but where does the platypus put the laser beam?

male Platypus have a poison spur on their back legs that delivers one of, (if not the) most painful toxin known to man it pretty much ignores most pain suppression mechanisms, including morphine. i think this possibly trumps lasers

Don't cross the Orthodox Professors..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't cross the Orthodox Professors...

They'll have you fired; your job at (the) stake!

And it has been...

[Jane Q. Public]

and been found seriously wanting as a theory. Utterly void, in fact, of any real physical evidence. So: one might conclude that it is a theory, but if so, it is an astoundingly bad one. Approximately, in my opinion, about the same quality as a theory as a tricycle makes a quality airplane.

Re:Proof Earth 6000 Years Old

[arthurpaliden]

If you are lucky enough to live in a northern climate you will see, if you go to an open field, that in the spring once the snow starts to melt there will be an acumulated layer of dirt on the top of the snow. This is dust that has dropped out of the air during the winter. Now if you are even further north, say the Greenland Ice Cap, the snow will never really melt away. So year after year you will have layering in the ice cap, in the same manner as you have tree rings. One layer of dust per year.

Now if say today we were to go down 28 layers (28 years) we would find dust from Mount St. Helens. Go down another 87 layers and you will find dust from the Krakatoa erruption, another 1816 layers and we get to Mount Vesuvius which errupted in AD67.

So we have gone down almost 2000 layers and it equals about 2000 years. Now if the world were only here since 4004 BC then there should be only 4071 layers more in the ice cap. Instead we find that there are over 100000 layers to go.

Now we have seen and can prove that since 67 AD we have one layer per year so if we have over 100000 layers the earth must have been around for at least 100000 years in order to creat those layers.

Science and the Creation

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of what we know about the development of this universe is unverified, and unverifiable theory, completely dependent on our current understanding of things as we observe them today. That will change shortly. It always has. Don't think so? Wait until the LHC has been running a couple years. Then check what is accepted theory now vs then. This fellow is also a biologist - that makes him a scientist. Perhaps we should check the facts before we all freak out.

Current theories make a number of assumptions which we have no way of checking - that is why they are theory. One such assumption is the continuity of time. What if we discover mater is a stable form of some infinitely recursive energy construct, which assumes some fundamental frequency unique to the local system, cluster, or galaxy? What if time is relative to this local fundamental frequency? What if gravity results from the "noise" of these recursions? Time could no longer be considered continuous throughout this universe, and most everything we know about gravity could become historical belief. This of course instantly results in a lot of broken equations. These two simple discoveries could wreck much of our idea of what a universe is, and much of what we know would need to be re-computed.

Some readings of the Genesis account suggest the seven "days" are actually seven ages, and the third age is particularly interesting, in that it seems to include months and seasons - that would mean it could not be a 24 hour earth day. These ages roughly correspond to known geological periods. The Genesis story is not science, but a world view which has given our civilization a time line of where it exists in the grand scheme of things. Is it really necessary that all parties to this issue eradicate every trace of non-conformist thought? I think not.

(Sci = logic) && (ID != logic) -> ID !=

[zooblethorpe]

Yay for more people talking sense. :) I agree that any talk of how valid science might be versus other possible explanations belongs in a philosophical context, possibly even as a matter for epistemology (nailing down how we know what we know).

However, you bring up belief within a scientific context, and I find myself thinking that this is exactly the problem:

The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.

(emphasis added)

This reveals a profound misunderstanding about what "science" is. Religion has its fundamentalists -- I say it's high time scientists go a similar route -- teach the fundamentals. Science is an extension of logically viewing the world. It is about observing, as objectively as possible, and then logically deriving the best possible explanation for the perceived phenomena. A very important part of this is posing a hypothesis -- a fancy word for supposing something about what you've observed -- and *testing* that in a logical manner to make sure it's the best possible fit. It is entirely about logic -- belief does not come into it.

Within this logical framework, there is *nothing* about creationism that fits.

1. Is it testable?
   Nope.
2. Is it logical?
   Nope.
3. Does it fit the observed phenomena of the known universe better than any other hypothesis?
   Nope.

Logically, quod erat demonstrandum, creationism is not scientific. Also, logically, it is therefore bollocks to teach it as science. Sure, it may be viewed as an alternative to the scientific view of the world, I certainly agree with Michael Reiss on that account. But then any other view at all also counts as an alternative...

Philosophy in class

[BountyX]

I read the original article. I agree that teachers should explain why creationism isnt science. In fact, they should be proactive and explain what psuedoscience is. These issues raise a bigger question. Where did reasoning go? What happened to basic principals of logic and fallacy? These are things kids in school are no longer learning. They should mandate a philosophy class emphasizing what consitutes a rational argument, recongizing fallacy, exploiting fallacy, burden of proof, and historical progress of philosophy. Heck, throw in a segue to the scientific method as it applies to logic. Philosophy is the basis of inquisitive and rational thinking that would set a healthy atmosphere for math, science and arts.

Reality-based thinking leaves us unprepared

[zooblethorpe]

As the son of a life-long bureaucrat, I say, Amen brother! ;)

he was NOT taken out of context

[Uberbah]

His own title for his own article: "Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design". And then:

For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

Sack him is right.

Creationism in Science class - my memories

[Monkier]

for some reason Creationism was taught in my science class (1991 sydney, australia) - about all I remember from the class was dating the Earth by tracing the number of generations in the bible.
the science teacher probably not happy about this addition to the curriculum protested the best way he could: teaching a lesson on critical thinking and "what qualifies as science?" (falsifiable claims, etc) the day before.

Pidgin, not Pigeon

[An Elephant]

A pigeon is a kind of bird. A pidgin is a kind of language -- one that is created as a mix of others by children. It usually turns into a full-blown language within a generation or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin

Re:Pidgin, not Pigeon

[zooblethorpe]

Minor quibble, but pidgins arise regardless of the presence of children. What you're probably thinking of is how, when children grow up in a pidgin-speaking community, the pidgin gains more linguistic structure and tends to develop into a full-blown creole language, much as what was seen in Suriname.

Cheers,

you left out

[Trepidity]

Biology should probably point out that there is no human entity, just human Cubics - as in 4 different people in a 4 corner stage metamorphic rotation - never more than 1 corner at same time.

Also, mathematics could probably be reformed to acknowledge the controversy over what -1 x -1 equals. Although +1 is the "standard" answer given by secularists, I happen to be of the opinion that it's WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. Even if it's going to be taught, the alternate theory, that the natural antipodes of +1 x +1 = +1 and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres - ought to be taught alongside it.

Re:you left out

[Random_Goblin]

can't believe this bit of wisdom is still at 2 that's the trouble with mods today they are just educated stupid

Why is creationism so important?

[LostMyBeaver]

Let's face it, there are contradictions throughout the bible to easily make this seem like a silly topic.

Genesis (which I've read in several interprettations as well as in hebrew as b'rashit) and even when I was younger and willing to believe what my parents believed and I hadn't even heard of evolution as of yet, I had many questions regarding the logic behind it. After all, it seemed very unrealistic to me that everythe was created so quickly.

This didn't change my faith. It just struck me as if God had provided us with a VERY short answer to a question that he himself didn't consider to be the important to what he was attempting to accomplish. He described it in a way that people who lacked education could be pasified and if you wanted the real answer, you can look deeper and figure it out. What Genesis was saying was that God created it all. He provided something similar to a childrens book version of what he did and moved on.

So, now that I'm enlightened and no longer believe in fairy tales like God, I am forced to wonder why creationism is taken so literally by religion. They constantly try to tell us that it is not our job to question Gods motives but instead to accept what he did was for our best interests in the greater picture. Yet, they can't accept that a story of creation fed to Mose's flocks might have been an extremely simplified version of what happened and that the real deal could in fact be a process that took him 13 billion years to accomplish.

So, why is the literal interprettation of Genesis so important to them? I mean really... they talk about Intelligent Design to try and make science accept the literal translation of Genesis. Why can't they assume that maybe the scientists have simply finally figured out what their God did and take credit for that instead?

After all, who would want to pray to an ever eternal God that has existed infinately, who considers a billion years to be little more that how we see waiting 5 minutes for a bus that slapped all this shit together in 7 days? I mean really, if God loves us nearly as much as they say he does, wouldn't he have spent the equivilent of one of our hours (about 13 billion years hehe) trying to actually get it right?

hang the pope

[shnull]

didnt we settle this division of church and state bull like a few hundred years ago ... maybe we should burn all churches and stake all priests and let those who need God talk to her or him ... or it, directly , and hang the pope while we're at it , who needs 'im anyway?

Never said it was...

[NickFortune]

comparing your theory to Science is like trying to compute the nutritional value of a rock

It's not a theory. It's an epistemological framework that lets scientists ignore religion and get on with actual science, and which lets creationists believe in the Creation without needing to feel threatened by scientific evidence for evolution.

What you propose is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one.

Indeed. You got a problem with that?

Re:Never said it was...

[EccentricAnomaly]

What you propose is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one.

Indeed. You got a problem with that?

No I don't have a problem with that... I like philosophy. I'm just saying that Science is very limited in its scope... which I think is a big part of why it is so successful.

Discuss Creationism and methods to reconcile creation with science in philosophical terms... not as Science, because such things are outside of the scope of science. (e.g. rocks exist, but they aren't food... so don't think of rocks in terms like food (nutrition, etc).. think of rocks in a broader context).

String theory is perfectly testable

[Morgaine]

Joe Bloggs is getting entirely the wrong idea about String Theory, owing to the misunderstood statement that "we can't test it".

String Theory is perfectly testable. It's just not testable by us RIGHT NOW, at the energy levels we can currently generate. (Although the LHC might provide some very early hints in that area.) In due course though, we'll be testing it alright, fully, and having a good laugh if it's way off target, or dishing out Nobel Prizes if it matches scientific observations.

This contrasts markedly with alleged "explanations" such as done by religion, which are not testable ever, even if we live a billion years.

Maybe you aren't

[Anonymous Coward]

a zealot (and good for you!), but belief in anything supernatural is irrational whichever way you try to spin it.

DesCartes

[Lafeek]

It's not "DesCartes", but "Descartes". Do you write "ChurchHill" or "Churchhill"?

Don't take it personally, but I see this mistake far too often.

Re:Proof Earth 6000 Years Old

[teh kurisu]

That assumes that Earth wasn't created in 4004 BCE with 95 929 layers pre-packaged. Such a thing is of course untestable and therefore not scientific, but there is room for such a viewpoint.

I'd liken it to my ability to start virtual machine instances from certain saved states. In an odd way, familiarity with computers has brought me round to the creationist way of thinking a little.

History and the Royal Society..

[Anonymous Coward]

From its very founding the Royal Society of Science was closely tied to the church of England. I find this not so surprising.

On Pastafari and the FSM

Its all about world view...

[Genda]

At the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool, Reiss said "creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view."

In much the same way as having your head stuck in your rectum shouldn't be construed as an anatomical misadventure, so much as a world view... ask almost anyone in Washington D.C. these days...

I completely appreciate that a tremendous number of people in the world are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of life and death, and that when faced with the utter immensity of eternity they feel compelled to come up with a story that saves them from the sheer terror of having to deal with their relationship to the eternal. Anything that gives one a sense of lasting peace, comfort, and solitude, by all means, have at it.

I would suggest however, that in your indulgence, you should at least attempt to remember that your spiritual thingy is housed in a biological entity composed primarily of C,H,O,N, expressed as a colony of hundreds of billions of individual cells, in an ecological community of trillions of living organisms, in a 3+1 Space Time Continuum, and that your existence obeys certain laws of physics and chemistry. For instance, if you should walk onto a busy highway, and pray fervently... I'm going to simply guess the odds are vanishingly small that you will successfully miracle that oncoming semi from splattering your earthly remains all over the scenery. If there is a deity, he made the universe with rules, and for the most part (save a couple passages in various religious texts) those rules are ignored at extreme risk to your (and others) personal well being.

As a society, we need to begin working at putting an end to what have become a riot of magical thinking. The universe is miraculous enough, filled with more than sufficient wonders and amazement, to keep our kind occupied without resorting to weird, ficticious, and superstitious, beliefs. I have no problem with spiritual endeavor, as long as one clearly understands the line between metaphysics and physics, and doesn't resort to sticking one's head a dark place to avoid the sometimes painful confrontation between what is so, and what we wished were so. The universe doesn't care, any more than that semi on the busy highway. A brief exercise in philosophical courage, should yield high dividends in building a world that works, and putting truth ahead of social expedience.

Why unscientific?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see why it is so un-scientific to say that a highly intelligent life-form may have designed the physics around us.

Re:Why unscientific?

[Whitestone1550]

Don't worry, it's not unscientific. It just challenges the status quo, and a lot of people hate that.

Testable Results

[Digital End]

I saw a post on here about 'testable results' and can't find it, so I'm being lazy and starting a new thread.

Evolution DOES have testable and predictable results. The problem is you have to know every peice of enviromental factors to predict where evolution will take a species. You can't exactly say "Well, this bug will be purple in 8924 generations" because in order to know what's going to happen you have to know everything about it's situation between now and then. In the wild, that's difficult. In the lab it's still tricky, but possible.

To give an example, evolution would predict that if a large population were poisoned in a way that all were exposed but it was only killed 50% of them (weak poison for example, or only a short term exposure) then the 50% survivors would breed and their children would have more resistant children. If this repeated every generation or ten, then eventually the whole population would be resistant or immune.

We see this all the time, it's why hospitals are having trouble with super resistant illnesses. Your treatment kills 99.9% of a microbe, that .1% who were strong enough to survive now have tough children just like them. Next time, your soap kills 99%... then 95%... soon those surivors are getting tougher and tougher.

And don't give me that microevolution crap. We control evolution on a daily basis. Dogs, Cats, Cows, Horses... any number of other cases where WE chose what traits get to breed, and which ones don't. You think that pomeranians were the natural 'next step' in survivablility in wolves? When you breed dogs for a specific trait, you're altering their evolution manually... all the theory of evolution states is that this form of breeding happens naturally (the best fit for their enviroment survive to breed again) taken over a LONG ASS TIME (I think this is the part people really can't grok) cause a species to change.

crap, this is turning into a rant...

I really wish I could tie down creationists, tape their eyes open clockwork orange style, and force feed them facts untill they woke up. Most of them are good people, just overly defendent of what they grew up hearing...

Re:Creationism's Foundation: God Isn't Infinite En

[Ginger Unicorn]

that might work in some cases but the only info fundamentalists have to be fundamental about is what's printed in their holy text. in the case of fundamentalist christians if the bible says god did it in 6 days, then that's as good as god telling them himself.

if you try to contradict the bible with logic and evidence they just disappear down the rabbit hole of denialism and supernatural conspiracy theories, whereby any contrary evidence is either god testing their faith or satan spreading lies.

pretty much the best inroad into opening their minds is to demonstrate where the bible contradicts itself - since the bible can't be true and not true at the same time the conflict can't be explained away as satanic lies or faith testing divine trickery.

this at least forces them into a moderate position of having to take some of the bible with a grain of salt, which then opens the door for them to be more reasonable about accepting scientific evidence about the history of the world.

if you stand back and look at it, it becomes clear that fundamentalists don't worship their god, they actually worship their holy text - only once you knock it off its own pedestal are you able to open their minds to any external evidence.

Misleading argument

[Geoffrey.landis]

Back in the 1940's - 50's, when the Steady State theory still looked popular in Cosmology, some very serious scientists (Bertrand Russell and Fred Hoyle, for two), routinely pointed to the SS as a disproof of God. ... Most of these scientists, when the Big Bang theory won out, fought to find ways to use it as a disproof too.

Sorry, no. Fred Hoyle in fact never did accept the big bang theory, so it's disingenuous to suggest that he pointed to the big bang as a disproof of God.

Nor did Russell make such an argument. Famously, in his article "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?", Russell stated "I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God." So it's a little hard to say that he used the big bang as an argument to prove God doesn't exist, when he already said that no such argument exists.

...Then there's Carl Sagan:

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to persue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" - Carl Sagan - Cosmos p.257

Before writing this, Dr. Sagan has already outlined the two main recent theories of cosmogenesis in previous chapters - The "Big Bang' theory, and the competing "Steady State" theory were both covered in the third chapter of Cosmos. He has then explained why the best evidence supports the "Big Bang" model. But, if we accept the big bang model, we can't simultaneously conclude that the universe has always existed. Dr. Sagan, by his own writing, does not really think the universe has always existed, and so he has a good reason for not "saving that final step". Why not conclude that the universe has always existed? Because the cosmic microwave background records the flash of its birth, so we are not allowed to take that step. You told us that, Dr. Sagan, so why are you asking this question like it is a rhetorical one? If the Steady State prevailed, we could save your step.

If you actually read what he wrote he said that if you ask the question "where did the universe come from" and get the reply "God created it," then you must logically ask the question "where did God come from," which is exactly as difficult a question as the original question "where did the universe come from."

There are two proposed responses to the question "where did God come from?" He points out that you can take either answer, and apply that answer to the original question, "where did the universe come from" as easily as you can apply it to the question "where did God come from."

His response is phrased using the word "if". If you are told that "God always existed" in response to the second question, then you can answer "the universe always existed to the first question.

So pointing out that "the universe always existed" is inconsistent with the big bang cosmology is irrelevant... that was an if statement. When I say "If you tell me that elves exist, then you should leave a bowl of milk on your doorstep" -- this does not imply that I believe elves exist.

The difference between us and europe

[unity100]

is this. in u.s., kooks who are saying world is 6000 years old run rampant, whereas anyone who dares such sh@t in europe gets the boot.

and that is coming from a turk. get a load of that irony.

Teach the controversy

[jandersen]

Teach the controversy - that is the latest tactic from the Creationists. I have a number of problems with what they propose; none of which have anything to do with talking about Creationism in a science class. After all, it is important not only to teach what science is, but also what it isn't, and what example could really be more suited that ID?

The problems I do have are centered around their driving motivations. A scientist genuinely searches for the truth; this is probably because as a scientist you are not as interested in the answer as in the quest to find it. It is quite common for a scientist to hold a strong opinion about something and then change his opinion in the light of new evidence; it happens many times every day all over the world. The Creationists, on the other hand, have decided what the truth is; or it has been revealed to them (the question being, of course, by whom?). They don't want to let evidence get in the way of their Truth, so the evidence is interpreted to fit with their conclusion.

This is why scientists so often are atheists - they say things like "if God exists, then he would probably manifest himself like thus; after all, that is what the Bible says". After a while one tends to run out of faith, because apparently God never, ever manifests himself in any way that we can detect. That is not to say that all scientists have rejected the possibility of the supernatural or even of God; but if he is real and not just a delusion, you would expect to find solid evidence of some sort somewhere. Let us see it and we will believe.

On the other hand, Creationists and their ilk will explain away the lack of evidence rather than face the logical conclusion, sometimes resorting to impressive intellectual feats of reinterpreting "God's will". Allegedly God hears our prayers and answers them, he is good and relieves our pain and cures our illnesses miraculously - so you pray for your child, who is slowly rotting away of some disease, in constant pain that no medicine can help; but to no avail. And then you are supposed to explain that away as "God's will that I don't understand"? To me that kind of "faith" has nothing to do with faith; it is simply unwillingness to face up to the truth. Truth is not something insanely complex, full of insoluble self-contradictions - this is why we call it "the plain truth"; it is generally plain and straightforward.

Apart from that whole discussion there is another, much more down-to-earth reason that Creationism should not be taught as if it were "another possibility on par with science" - public schools are publically funded. They are paid for by everybody, and it does not make sense or reason that you shold be made to pay for the religious indoctrination of your own children, unless you yourself agree with that religious view. Would Christian Creationists accept it if their children were taught Islam or Hinduism rather than the Christian religion? Of course not, and since public education is paid for by everybody, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Atheists, Satanists and what have you, the only reasonable solution is to ban religion from education; and certainly from science education.

Yes - creationism SHOULD be discussed in Science

[jafac]

If nothing else, when teaching Biology and Evolution, the "idea" of creationism SHOULD be discussed - if for no other reason, than as a concrete and relevant example to demonstrate to students, how the Scientific Method works to debunk garbage.

The best part of this is that every student can be taught the basic arguments AGAINST creationism; why it is NOT a theory on par with Evolution, why it is unscientific, and why Science informs us about the true nature of our reality far better than myths and legends.

Does this waste valuable classroom time which would be better spent on teaching scientific facts?

Possibly - but Science class is not all about teaching facts. Science should be first and foremost about teaching Scientific Method and sound Critical Thinking skills. If a student forgets every scientific fact they ever learned in science class, but remembers the methodology, then they should (theoretically) be able to derive everything else for themselves. It is this fundamental concept that is far more important than the memorization of facts. The reason why pseudoscience and other crap is so dangerous, is because kids who have been taught the facts, were not taught to THINK for themselves. So when they're taught about dinosaur fossils on Wednesday, then someone else comes along on Sunday and tells them it was Satan trying to fool them, what do you think they'll believe? If they don't have those critical thinking skills, they'll believe whomever they feel is the higher authority (a logical fallacy). Well, they've already been told that their Creator is the highest authority by default, and that scripture (myth and legend) comes directly from there - so Science class doesn't even have a chance.

Mark Hoskins

[Markimedes]

Disassociate government from the school system so you have teachers of science arguing about what to teach rather than politicians and voters; most of which have no idea what they are talking about or have reasons (constituency, see "no idea what they are talking about") to disassociate themselves from the truth.

It will never be right with non-scientists directing what scientists teach.

Old earth

[CustomDesigned]

That's because any 'real' christian (a christian that attempts to subscribe to what is actually said in the bible vs someones made up interpretation of it) cannot accept a billions of years old universe.

"In the beginning God created" doesn't exactly place creation 6000 years ago. The young earth theory is a weak extrapolation from incomplete genealogies.

Re:Old earth

[blahplusplus]

""In the beginning God created" doesn't exactly place creation 6000 years ago. The young earth theory is a weak extrapolation from incomplete genealogies."

You are completely incorrect, go read what Jesus and the apostles actually believed in the new testament about moses and adam and eve, they conveyed thus:

Romans 5:14

Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.

Death can't reign over non existent allegorical characters, the whole point of christ is to conquer sin:

Romans 5:12

Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death resulted from sin, therefore everyone dies, because everyone has sinned.

Note "sin entered the world through one man and death resulted from sin"

Liberal Christians are some of the most ignorant bunch on the planet.

Re:Old earth

[CustomDesigned]

I didn't say they were allegoric. I just said there is nothing in there about 6000 years.

just because you can ask a question

[Nursie]

doesn't mean it makes sense.

just because you can ask "why do we exist?" doesn't mean there has to be an answer. It's like asking "How wide is blue?"

Which proves that God is Anansi ......

[Tungbo]

or at least a being with a great sense of humor.

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman

[Tungbo]

I recommend this and other books by the biblical scholar and Christian. By studying how the modern 'Scripture' that you read are arrived at, you can see why a 'Literal interpretation' is fraught with perils at best, and nonsensical at worst.
The Snake Handling Pentecoastal sects believe that THEY are following the literal words in Mark and Luke, you know.

Even worst is how some people wield the 'literal interpretation' cudgel to label as heretics others who may have different interpretations. It astounded me when I first learn of how many variant sects there are among Christians. Sometimes, they are at each other's throat. Can this truely be what Jesus wanted to have happen 2000 years after his live?

Re:Proof Earth 6000 Years Old

[Anonymous Coward]

Time is relative. If you are omnipotent enough to create the universe, who says it doesn't take YOU 6000 years?

Remember the twin problem: One twin travels into space at the speed of light, the other stays on earth. The first twin returns to find his sibling much older than he. Relativity and time dilation make it extremely possible that the earth is 6000 years old depending upon who's clock you use. If you are capable of operating at speeds in excess of the speed of light the multiplier between time frames could be one to many. (btw: The relativity of time as it relates to God is detailed in the Bible)

However, people need to remember that the Bible wasn't created as a construction manual for how things came to be. From the Big Bang to the appearance of life, it basically got it right or at least as right as might be expected given the time that it was written.

I think that people need to accept the history of the relationship between science and religion, and to recognize that each has its place without one invalidating the other.

Professor Michael Reiss has quit

[RMB1]

Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal Society. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm