Want a Science Degree In Creationism?

The Bad Astronomer writes "In Texas, a state legislator wants the ironically-named Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant a Masters degree in science. In fact, the bill submitted to the Texas congress would make it legal for any private group calling themselves educational to be able to grant advanced degrees in science. So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer." The Institute for Creation Research made a similar request to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year, but were shot down.

Comments

Working vs. Teaching

[alemaco]

Why not? If you then get a job in a related field I have nothing to object. It's full of weirdos out there, some with a weirdo PhD would only be easily recognisable. However, I wouldn't be that happy if you chose to teach my children.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Hurricane78]

Why did you post as AC? Your point did perfectly hit the problem. Mod parent up. Despite him being an AC.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[digitig]

But then, defining science is problematic, and is at best a convention. What definition of science do you propose that would allow continued teaching within science of evolution, the Big Bang and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, but that would exclude creationism/ID? The only one I can think of is that "science" is what scientists do, which is a bit circular.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he doesn't have an account, maybe he doesn't care about mods.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[schon]

By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.

So tell me, does it hurt to be that stupid?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.

I've already discussed this in detail on Slashdot, and have archived the conversation here.

But I'll copy the most relevant part. There are several specific predictions that evolution makes:

1. If a fossil is ever discovered significantly "out of place", like the fossil of a chimp laid down in Precambrian rock strata, that would be the end of evolution. Intelligent design is utterly indifferent to the fossil record because the Creator could simply have designed an intentionally deceptive fossil record.
2. It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases- a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.

That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[digitig]

There are two things there, falsifiability and predictive power. Neither evolution nor creationism/ID is falsifiable, so falsifibility doesn't give us a useful distinction in this case. Evolution makes predictions, whereas creationism/ID doesn't, so that's more promising -- except that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes. So neither falsifiability nor predictive power is enough to distinguish what is acceptable as science and what is not.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[joocemann]

The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.

Very true. The fundamental aspect of Science is the Scientific Method. As of this writing, there is no current religion that stands up to the Scientific Method. There simply isn't enough empirical/factual evidence to support those crazy theories.

This bill is a shame, not only on the religious that promote it, but the integrity of their perspective as to the value/quality higher education.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes.

The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"

It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations. Most physicists focus on the predictions, which have been verified to an absurd number of significant figures. Students work problems that give real, experimentally testable answers.

It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue. Be careful not to let the interpretations of the equations obscure your view of the equation itself.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Micah]

That's true about most young earth creationists and the wider ID community.

There is an organization called Reasons to Believe whose mission is to produce a scientifically testable/falsifiable model for Biblical creationism, from an old earth perspective.

They believe that God designed the universe for the maximum benefit of human civilization and to fulfill God's purposes for the universe as quickly and efficiently as possible, and build a model on that. For example, to sustain civilization, humans need 4 billion years of biodeposits. RTB predicts that life appears on earth as quickly as could possibly be allowed under the conditions, and that is what we see. There is evidence of life existing 3.8 billion years ago, just millions of years after the Late Heavy Bombardment. A way to falsify this would be to show that life emerged over hundreds of millions of years, as most evolutionists have tended to assume.

They also predict that future observations in astronomy will show more and more evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe.

Another prediction is that since humans are created specially in God's image, there should be no clear genetic links with hominids. It also explains the sudden burst of such things as advanced tool use, jewelry, and religious artifacts on the scene about 50,000 years ago.

They have a lot more predictions, many of which are articulated in their book "Creation as Science" by Hugh Ross.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vux984]

I believe in evolution 100%. -however- I agree that there is a looseness in evolution, in that while it does make predictions, it is difficult to disprove.

An early example on the page you linked mentioned whales with teeth vs baleen and the prediction that we'd find a fossil with both, which we later found. However, if we hadn't found one, that doesn't disprove evolution, or put it in doubt, it merely means we haven't found one.

There are no 'experiments' in evolution that can prove evolution is outright false. Making a prediction and then failing to find evidence doesn't do it. And further making a prediction that turns out to be incorrect (of which there have been several) invariably means that our prediction was wrong, that we failed to account for some variable or misunderstood the evidence when making the prediction in the first place. Its 'never' evolution itself that is in doubt.

The reality is that the theory of evolution, like any good scientific theory =is= being continually refined and improved.

However, from a certain point of view, whenever evidence pops up that challenges a prediction evolution made, it never challenges evolution itself, scientists simply discard the prediction, and explain how it was their misunderstanding of the evidence; and that now they they have this new evidence, they can see how this is what evolution really predicted all along.

To a lay-person who doesn't realize that the theory of evolution was effectively just abandoned and replaced with a new and subtly improved version. All they see something that feels like the same sort of rationalization that IDers use.

I guess the problem is that when newtonian physics broke down and we fixed them with relativity there was this new theory. When evolution screws up, and we fix it, we keep calling it evolution. So the progress of science isn't really on display in the same way.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[digitig]

Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes.

The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"

It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations.

[snip]

It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue.

Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on /. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vell0cet]

Actually, if something makes predictions, it is by definition falsifiable. Those predictions can be falsified. Which is why evolution is so strong. Consider the issue that great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Evolution makes a prediction about why that would occur if we did have a common ancestor with great apes. If that prediction was wrong, evolution would be in trouble and falsified. However, and I definitely recommend you look it up (can't find a link right now), it turns out that chromosome pair 2 in humans is a fused pair of complementary chromosome is apes (proven by the observation of two centromeres and multiple telomeres). Science looks at seemingly contrary data and makes predictions based on known scientific theories, then sets out to test those theories. Creationism looks for exceptions and assume that everything must follow the same model (without investigating further). Don't even get me started on the bacteria flagellum...

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[digitig]

Actually, if something makes predictions, it is by definition falsifiable. Those predictions can be falsified. Which is why evolution is so strong. Consider the issue that great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Evolution makes a prediction about why that would occur if we did have a common ancestor with great apes. If that prediction was wrong, evolution would be in trouble and falsified.

Actually no; evolution would not be falsified. Some elements within evolution would need revision: family trees would need to be redrawn. But evolution would be unchallenged.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

They believe that God designed the universe for the maximum benefit of human civilization and to fulfill God's purposes for the universe as quickly and efficiently as possible, and build a model on that. For example, to sustain civilization, humans need 4 billion years of biodeposits. RTB predicts that life appears on earth as quickly as could possibly be allowed under the conditions, and that is what we see. There is evidence of life existing 3.8 billion years ago, just millions of years after the Late Heavy Bombardment. A way to falsify this would be to show that life emerged over hundreds of millions of years, as most evolutionists have tended to assume.

I don't see how millions of years is compatible with creationism, while hundreds of millions of years isn't. God is omnipotent and immortal, so He could have decided to wait hundreds of millions of years before zapping life into existence. I don't see how this would be out of character for a deity who spent 1/7 of his creation time resting. (From an old earth perspective, that's hundreds of millions of years, right?)

I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution (I've explored this topic here.) It just seems like there wouldn't be any way to perform an equivalent calculation for a miraculous creation of life.

They also predict that future observations in astronomy will show more and more evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe.

... which wouldn't affect their position in the slightest if it didn't pan out. After all, God is subtle and His ways are mysterious. Perhaps He designed the universe to look like it wasn't fine-tuned, just to test our faith.

Another prediction is that since humans are created specially in God's image, there should be no clear genetic links with hominids.

In other words, hominids shouldn't share any of our DNA. In fact, they shouldn't even share our DNA bases- they should have a completely different genetic alphabet. That way, we couldn't possibly be related to them. That would be clear evidence that evolution was wrong, and it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. In essence, Darwin made a prediction that all life would use the same DNA many decades before we found out that was actually the case.

But the fact that this isn't true doesn't falsify creationism, because it's easy to assert that God created all life with the same genetic code as proof that there's a single creator, rather than multiple deities.

It also explains the sudden burst of such things as advanced tool use, jewelry, and religious artifacts on the scene about 50,000 years ago.

Is the modern technological renaissance proof of God's intervention in the world? After all, our technology has undergone a similar change in the last several centuries. Since it's usually not possible to date objects that old with a temporal resolution much less than a century, future creationist archaeologists might conclude that the rapid invention of computers is evidence that God was responsible for it.

And, just like today, no scientists in the future will ever be able to prove them wrong. Because they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. Natural, objective laws are annoyingly restrictive and can be proven wrong by clever observations.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[ImOnlySleeping]

I'm curious as to what the course requirements would be, since the entirety of ID is "God did it".

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vell0cet]

That proves that a part of it can be falsified. Then more concepts can be falsified. The theory itself can be falsified. The trouble for creationists, is that it is not. Over 150 years of testing evolution is continually upheld. There is no testable prediction or observation in creationism. It is therefore unfalsifiable. Every part of the Theory of Evolution can be tested (otherwise it would not be included in the theory), and therefore falsifiable.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vell0cet]

I think you're confusing the concept of falsifiable with the concept of being falsified. The point is that there is a set of outcomes that "could" occur that would disprove evolutionary theory. There hasn't been any observations that have, but it is a possibility because something at some point might happen that brings the whole theory to its knees (creationism is not that thing). For instance, we can test the theory of gravity by dropping something. The theory of gravity predicts that it will fall down. If it "falls up", that goes against the theory of gravity and we must re-examine the theory of gravity. If we cannot reconcile what happened with the theory of gravity, it has been disproved. Although this has never happened, that is what makes the theory of gravity falsifiable. Your example of having to redraw family trees... sure... but if there were no way to reconcile the ape/man ancestry by redrawing the family tree, then there is something seriously wrong with the theory of evolution. And that is what makes it falsifiable (not falsified). How do you test creationism? You can't. That's why it's not falsifiable.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[digitig]

That proves that a part of it can be falsified.

How so? It disproves a theory that depends on evolutionary theory, but doesn't touch the theory itself, any more than the absence of a moon around a specific planet falsifies gravitational theory.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vell0cet]

Okay... the ape/human ancestry may be a bit too advanced. Let's go basic evolutionary theory (back to Darwin). This states that traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Therefore (and we'll remove random mutation from this for now as we're dealing with the basics), if two human parents give birth to a lizard, evolution needs to find a way to reconcile that. If it can't, it's falsified and therefore falsifiable. Of course the previous ape/man ancestry theory is based on this as well as mendelian genetics and many other theories. Even natural selection is based on this fundamental concept. It's all falsifiable down the line. Got any more? It's easy to show that science is falsifiable (that's why it's science - evolution included). The only way that I can discern to falsify creationism is for god to come down and say... "I didn't do that". But that would be a whole other can of worms.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[digitig]

Let's go basic evolutionary theory (back to Darwin). This states that traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Therefore (and we'll remove random mutation from this for now as we're dealing with the basics), if two human parents give birth to a lizard, evolution needs to find a way to reconcile that.

I think you'll find that ID would have triouble with that, too. If two humans have a lizard offspring it's not evolution that would be falsified but much more basic reproductive biology.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[dhasenan]

A rabbit in the Cambrian. A fossilized dinosaur with a human skeleton in its stomach. Things of this nature are quite contrary to evolution's predictions.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[schon]

I believe in evolution 100%.

And this is your problem. You shouldn't believe in it, you should understand it. That's what sets it apart from creationism - it doesn't require belief.

Here's why belief in evolution can get you into trouble:

There are no 'experiments' in evolution that can prove evolution is outright false. [...] However, from a wrong point of view, whenever evidence pops up that challenges a prediction evolution made, it never challenges evolution itself [...] the theory of evolution was effectively just abandoned and replaced with a new and subtly improved version.

Do you not see the flaw in your argument? You start at "nothing can prove it false", and end up at "evolution has been abandonded". Both of those statements cannot be true.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[kurzweilfreak]

Predicting that there will be no rabbits, monkeys, or dogs found dating back to the pre-Cambrian, and then finding some would surely prove concretely that evolutionary theory is incorrect. My guess is that this will never happen.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

We know that today no fossils form because any living matter is attacked by microorganisms.

We do? Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article to back that up. I'm not a biologist, but I've been under the impression that fossils form best when the animal is quickly submerged as in the La Brea tar pits. I'm also reasonably certain I've seen a mummy that seem to have intact bones over five thousand years after death...

Why does it have to be common descent rather than a common functional design requirements?

It doesn't. You're missing the point. I'm not saying that creationism is wrong; I'm not saying that uniform DNA is proof of common descent rather than common functional design.

What I'm saying is that if DNA was different in every organism, that would be completely inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science.

So what is so unusual in claiming that natural creations originated in a mind; the supreme mind of God?

Again, it's not unusual. It's just not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific statement. It's interesting theology, though. I think someone absolutely should be able to get a divinity degree by asking those types of questions.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vux984]

A rabbit in the Cambrian. A fossilized dinosaur with a human skeleton in its stomach. Things of this nature are quite contrary to evolution's predictions.

True, but those both rely on us "not finding something".

And the reality is that we find fossils that are much older than expected ALL the time, and the reaction is never "OMG evolution is wrong" its "Oh, I guess these existed much earlier than we thought after all." (Granted we've never found a cambrian rabbit and likely never will, but that's beside the point.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vux984]

And this is your problem.

I don't have a problem.

You shouldn't believe in it, you should understand it. That's what sets it apart from creationism - it doesn't require belief.

Your just playing pointless semantic games with the word "belief". In the end, everything requires belief. How many fingers on your hand? 5? Prove it. Prove it with out relying on your fallible senses. Hell for all I know you don't even exist, just a figment of my imagination, or part of the program in the machine. You can't prove you aren't.

Meanwhile, in order to get things done, I believe a lot of what my senses report to me. Including the evidence I've seen of evolution. So I believe evolution is happening and has happened and that the theory is useful. There is nothing inherently mystical about saying you believe something.

Do you not see the flaw in your argument? You start at "nothing can prove it false", and end up at "evolution has been abandonded". Both of those statements cannot be true.

Precisely. Re-read my argument. Its not the case that nothing can prove it false, its that when its proved false its revised, and the new revised theory is still called the theory of evolution, making it *appear* that nothing can prove it false.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[vux984]

Predicting that there will be no rabbits, monkeys, or dogs found dating back to the pre-Cambrian, and then finding some would surely prove concretely that evolutionary theory is incorrect. My guess is that this will never happen.

See my other responses.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Dan541]

The problem is that they get the title of "Dr" so they might be mistaken for an intelligent person.

Allowing this sort of thing really is an insult to everybody in the scientific community.
Especially to PhDs because it devalues their degree.

If you see a lecture given by "Dr John Smith" you know this is someone with a high education. Giving deluded morons the same title discredits all people with this title.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Dan541]

But these assholes want a "Science" degree so they can try to pass their bullshit of as fact.

People suffering from these neurological disabilities should be given Bachelor of Bullshit degrees.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[arminw]

....Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article ...

I don't need to cite a &*^%$##$% journal article written by some evolution believer, but I can do a simple experiment. I could take any number of living organisms of any type size or shape and put it them in any number of places anywhere on the planet and see if any of them becomes a fossil.

If you are honest, you would admit, because the ubiquitous presence of microbial life, you will never get a fossil unless you sterilize the formerly living matter.

(...What I'm saying is that if DNA was different in every organism...)

But the fact of the matter is that the INFORMATION stored in DNA is different, for example, in every human being, making it possible to uniquely identify you out of all 6+ billion people on the planet. The DNA is simply the storage medium for the four level digital codes which are unique to every living creature. It is the increasing information contained in the more complex life forms that falsifies evolution of reptiles into birds and monkeys into people. It's not DNA in and of itself that does so.

There is also a big difference between intelligent design and creationism. ID simply looks at the universe and sees evidence of purpose. We know from our human experience, that purpose is associated with persons. Creationism ascribes such purpose to the person of God for the universe as a whole.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

For almost 100 years now, all automobiles have either been internal combustion engines or electric. Make something that works and then improve in it. Or how about, if we go from rna to dna and then xnv (I made it up) how can xnv eat rna? proteins, carbs and fats? If you want a sustainable circle of life, make it out of the same stuff.

Anyways. IF you found tomorrow in the middle of the sun a big sign, Allah is the True God!! would you suddenly change your beliefs? I think not. More like "oh crap, and try to hide" All people will do what they want to if not physically prevented.

A skeptic is never satisfied. Take this argument as proof. Neither side will meet... God Exists, and 'hard atheists' will not believe it. God doesn't exist, and creationists will not believe it.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[jakykong]

There is a word for this: solipsism. Look it up.

More importantly, what you're asking is to prove that I have 5 fingers without relying on empirical evidence (that is, evidence that comes in through my "fallible" senses). But that is not -- never was, and never will be -- possible. I know I have 5 fingers on my hand because I can count them. 1... 2... 3... 4... 5. There. 5 fingers on my hand. No belief involved.

Whether you believe me when I say I have 5 fingers on my hand is entirely different.

Science relies entirely on empirical evidence. That's the point of science (to explain the empirical evidence). But it also relies on modification of theories. Take the theory of gravity, for example. Newton came up with a theory of gravity which said that everything is pulled with a constant acceleration toward everything else. Einstein later came along and said that was all wrong. Gravity is the result of the bending of space. Does that mean that the theory of gravity is wrong? No, not at all. We modified the theory when more evidence came forth to show that our current understanding was wrong.

A theory is always tentative. It's the best explanation we have for the evidence at hand. When new evidence comes forth, of course the theory must change to keep up (or, if the evidence completely contradicts the theory, a better theory must be concocted to explain all of the evidence). Evolution is no different. To name a few examples, genetics, pre-cambrian fossils, and cellular biology have been introduced since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. The idea that darwin could get evolution completely right the first time around is just ludicrous. So, evolution changes when new evidence comes forth to show that part of it isn't quite right. But what changes is how evolution happens. We haven't yet found any evidence at all that casts any doubt on the foundations of the theory.

Last, but not least, is that some evidence could show that evolution is flat out wrong. Some examples were given not too far above this post. A T-Rex with human remains in its stomach is an example. A pre-cambrian dog is another (both were examples given above). IF either of these were found, then evolution would indeed have to be scrapped. I doubt that either will be found, and until they are, evolution is the best explanation we have so far.

Hope this clears it up for ya!

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Jessified]

Then how do mummies work? Do you think that they actually died yesterday, and that they will decay in a few months? Do you not accept that there are conditions that do not favor microbial growth? Do you not realize how hard it is for microbes to break down bone? Fossils also include imprints on non-living material...were you aware of that? What about animals/people that die in glaciers and still have organic matter on them? Do you just close your eyes and pretend they don't exist? What did you say your name was? I'm not convinced that you are employed at Stanford. Do your employers know how conflicted you are? Do they know that you feel you don't need to cite peer reviewed journals? I'd like to look up some of your research. I mean, do you even bother to have your own journals peer reviewed, or do you just make up your results the way you do here?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[iamhigh]

Point 1 seems a little to simplified. You make it seem a single fossil out of place ruins the whole theory... but don't you think there are reasons that would produce a single, or a small sampling, of a fossil in "the wrong place". Volcanoes, earthquakes, soil wear (can't rememeber the term), rivers forced to change path, and other things could place fossils out of place.

I guess I am just saying... that seems too simplified for something that has so many external factors, therefore giving a little too much weight to the nay-sayers.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[nog_lorp]

Ahem. DNA signatures are not unique to each living creature. Identical twins.

Also, you acknowledge it takes huge amounts of time for fossils to form, then say "I can do an experiment where I watch fossils fail to form". The problems with this argument should be pretty apparent.

As for sterilization, drop a life form in a tar pit. There, was that so hard?

Finally, I fail to see "evidence of purpose". What does this even mean? Is there some massive star cluster that spells out "Yud Hey Vav Hey" in the sky, as an author's signature?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Micah]

> I don't see how millions of years is compatible with creationism, while hundreds of millions of years isn't. God is omnipotent and immortal, so He could have decided to wait hundreds of millions of years before zapping life into existence.

True He could have, but the point of early life was to 1) transform the environment and 2) provide biodeposits as abundantly as possible. The Bible (Genesis 1:2) seems to imply that God was busy doing something valuable in the early oceans, and creating first life quickly is an obvious interpretation of that. Therefore, an old earth creationism model would reasonably predict life as soon as the earth could possibly sustain it.

I agree that hundreds of millions of years of nothing would not necessarily falsify creationism completely, but it would add more complex 'why' questions. Why would God wait so long?

> I don't see how this would be out of character for a deity who spent 1/7 of his creation time resting. (From an old earth perspective, that's hundreds of millions of years, right?)

For one thing the days are not necessarily the same length, for another thing, most OECs see the seventh day as being in progress now (Hebrews 4 implies that we are still in God's rest). This seems to be corroborated by the record. Throughout the last tens of millions of years, quite a few new unique species came into existence. But ever since modern humans arrived (which I would say began God's "rest"), there has been relatively little formation of new species, and those that have formed could probably be explained through evolutionary theory (which I do not entirely reject). In other words, while God was creating, new species that would have a hard time evolving were introduced; now that God is at rest, evolution is all we have to go on for new species.

And that is also something that can be studied and falsified. Will future studies show that during the last 100k years, the speciation rate was about the same as for the previous 10 million? If so, that poses a serious problem to a creation model. If future discoveries continue to back up what I said, the Biblical creation model gets stronger.

> In other words, hominids shouldn't share any of our DNA.

Actually, common DNA and other biology are about the same between humans and nonspiritual animals simply because this is the design that works. God doesn't have to do too many crazy things like that to prove His existence (I think He has already done more than should be necessary for that.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

I recognize that geological deposits aren't always in simplistic layers, so fossils can sometimes appear to be out of order when they're really not. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a fossil of a chimp laid down in Precambrian rock strata, billions of years ago. This would have to be carefully confirmed by isochronological radiometric dating to rule out the possibility that you're describing. But, if all those possibilities were ruled out, that fossil would be utterly incompatible with evolution. That's true falsifiability.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

I agree that hundreds of millions of years of nothing would not necessarily falsify creationism completely, but it would add more complex 'why' questions.

And that is also something that can be studied and falsified. Will future studies show that during the last 100k years, the speciation rate was about the same as for the previous 10 million? If so, that poses a serious problem to a creation model. If future discoveries continue to back up what I said, the Biblical creation model gets stronger.

While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more "why" questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of "why" questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. I'm not convinced that a few more mysteries would affect creationism in the same way that a 1950s discovery of non-uniform DNA bases would have affected evolution.

Actually, common DNA and other biology are about the same between humans and nonspiritual animals simply because this is the design that works. God doesn't have to do too many crazy things like that to prove His existence (I think He has already done more than should be necessary for that.

And that's why creationism can never be science. It's too easy to use God's omnipotence and conscious whims to explain away any problems with the model. Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not saying that creationism is wrong, and I'm not trying to bash religion. I'm just saying that it can't ever be scientific, because any "prediction" will rely on the individual theist's personal interpretation of what God "should" do. (e.g. it's perfectly okay that all life uses the same DNA bases, because God's already done more than He needs to prove His existence.)

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[bckrispi]

We really need a "-1 Insipid Fuckwit" moderation...

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Mattsson]

Well, that's the hardest part of falsifying any prediction.
When do you say "We've searched long enough, the prediction is most probably wrong"?

For instance, when do we stop looking for the Higgs boson if LHC can't find it?
Do we say the prediction of the particle is wrong or do we build a more powerful accelerator?

The most important prediction made by evolution is that we should see genetic differences between different generations of a species, that a species or race should be able to change over time and that we, with long enough observation (a small detail religious people often fail to comprehend), should be able to witness the appearance of totally new species.

I fail to see how evolution would be falsified by having dinosaurs found alongside humans or by having fossils older than we previously thought possible anyway.
That would mainly give problems to some theories regarding geology, decay of radioactive isotopes, archeology and such.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

It is the increasing information contained in the more complex life forms that falsifies evolution of reptiles into birds and monkeys into people.

I've seen this argument before, but it's always seemed less than rigorous. For instance, what definition of information are you using? Most information theorists regard information and entropy to be closely related. So saying "information is increasing" is very similar to saying "entropy is increasing," which doesn't surprise me. If you have a definition of information that's different from Shannon's, please show me your equation so I can examine it in the same way I can examine Shannon's definition of information.

On a more concrete level, I don't understand why it's surprising that information increases over time. Mutations often produce copies of chromosomes, which is what causes Down syndrome. Immediately after this mutation occurs, it only adds a tiny amount of information to the creature's genetic code because all that extra information can be compressed into the statement "take chromosome 21 and copy it from this start codon to this end codon."

But these "extra copy" mutations aren't always harmful. For instance, many modern food crops are polyploid compared to their ancestors, which makes them larger and tastier. So it's not impossible for extra copies to become permanent. In that case, over time both copies will mutate differently, which reduces the ability to compress the extra information into a mere "extra copy". Thus, information in the genetic code increases according to Shannon's definition.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this;

The creator started with a base and built out from there. He wasn't interested in creating indisputable proof of his existence, he was interested in creating. And you could even take the story of Adam and Eve as corroborating evidence in that the creator would take one creature as a base to build upon in order to create another. E.g. the creator took a rib (read bone with marrow containing adult stem cells if you will) from Adam and created Eve. Within the species granted - but it's a precedent of a creator using another creature as a base. Yes it's XY -> XX I know (no new information perhaps), yet the bible had this all powerful creator but portrays him as using one creature to make another..

Point #1 - Ancient animals alive today contradict evolution (turtles, crocodiles, octopuses, horseshoe crabs etc) - because there should be no standing still in evolution - EVERYTHING is changing whether climate, geography or the continual arms race that is 'eat or be eaten'. There can be no such thing as 'the perfect design' (unless it's the one that destroys all other life and maintains perfect control over it's environment) or likewise a longstanding 'niche' in evolution would be unlikely.

Point #2 - as I mentioned - assumes the creator wanted to create indisputable proof of his existence - which assumes we would know the motivation of a supreme being's - which is a large assumption given that we presumably aren't comparable to such a being and (talking christian creator for instance - cause he's the common comparison) there is no biblical evidence that he ever set out to create indisputable evidence. Actually the bible says he chooses who he shows himself too - I suspect in the way we choose our own friends - eg see somebody who's cruel and unjust, petty etc - we wouldn't want to make them our friend right? But those who have a heart for others...perhaps it's those he will reveal himself to (even if they believe in evolution :P ).

Also on point #2 - assuming a creator building from a base could create what would be seen as inexplicable branching of the evolutionary tree. Eg. - large land animals that became large sea animals. How can a slow moving large land animal evolve through intermediate phases into an ocean already chock full of specialized sea creatures? It's currently a 'mystery' how these 'leaps and bounds' of evolution occurred (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20265184/) But for the creator - he could have easily mixed a pinch of elephant with a dash of dolphin. (and if treating this lightly makes it loose credibility in your mind - then I pity your mind - for the concept is key).
So Point #2 is rather pointless or at least a straw man argument - as it doesn't articulate or defend the rather bold assumptions it makes of it's version of the creator.

Mind you - I've yet to read the P's link - so ... ah well - I just perused the link somewhat and what I say above is nothing compared to the excellent writings of The Famous Brett Watson - so I'll hold further comment and end here.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

Ancient animals alive today contradict evolution (turtles, crocodiles, octopuses, horseshoe crabs etc) - because there should be no standing still in evolution...

I fail to see how a slow rate of evolution in some species "contradicts evolution." The best example is the Coelacanth. How is it problematic that this fish evolved into a local maxima for its relatively unchanging marine environment?

Point #2 - as I mentioned - assumes the creator wanted to create indisputable proof of his existence ... Point #2 is rather pointless or at least a straw man argument - as it doesn't articulate or defend the rather bold assumptions it makes of it's version of the creator.

You've missed my point. I'm not saying that the uniform nature of DNA is proof that life couldn't have been created by God. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that the idea that "God created life" is compatible with the evidence "all life uses the same DNA" as well as the evidence "each species has its unique DNA with different nucleic acids". But, as I point out, evolution is only compatible with the evidence "all life uses the same DNA," which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has ever made a fossil, especially by the mechanism of evolution which requires so much time. We know that today no fossils form because any living matter is attacked by microorganisms.

Your claim has already been falsified by others. Yet, I have an even better killer argument than I found among the other answers.

To make a fossil requires sudden-death of a living creature,

Drop some insect in some plant's resin, voilà! That wasn't so hard, was it?

such as a dinosaur and immediate sterilization of the remains to kill ALL microorganisms. Only after that can slower mineralization processes begin to operate and make a fossil.

This is not necessarily true. Some fossils seem to be built through the help of microbial activities, that is, microbial excretions made a "copy" of bones or even softer tissue which resisted further degradation.

There is simply no known process, whereby such a wide variety of organisms could be fossilized.

Granted, only a very small amount of all living beings will ever become a fossil. You need special circumstances (resin, quick buildup of sediment, volcanoes (think Pompeii)) to have a fossil, thus, if there's a link missing between two different species, you may possibly never find it, because it didn't get archived. This still doesn't falsify evolution.

We have tons of fossils, that means there have been much, much more organisms being around. Vast amounts of organisms, most of which (99.999999%? Who knows?) were simply degraded.

(...a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent...)
Why does it have to be common descent rather than a common functional design requirements?

The GP was talking about DNA. The fun thing about DNA is, it makes evolution directly observable. IIRC, the first experiment used microbes unable to digest lactose (or some other nutrient). After several generations (talking about millions or billions of generations), the bacteria were "suddenly" able to digest this extra source of energy. And since this evolution is directly observable by sequencing the DNA at different times, we can actually see how new properties gradually evolve.

Finally, the mechanisms by which DNA mutates and alters the properties of organisms is fairly well understood. Siblings are not identical because firstly the parent's chromosomes are split randomly during oogenesis and spermatogenesis, then they exchange parts with each other; finally theres some amount of random mutation involved in this process.

All human creations originate in human minds. So what is so unusual in claiming that natural creations originated in a mind; the supreme mind of God?

Nothing is unusual about this assumption; still, being usual is no proof of being true.

I see no problem with believing that God made the first living cell and every other living creature and now our scientists get to figure out HOW it all works and use that knowledge for human betterment.

Indeed, there is no problem with this belief. But there is, on the other hand, no problem with believing in evolution, too. And while the theory of evolution is a scientific one which is falsifiable (not happened yet, not likely to happen), the belief in God creating everything and, yes, even the belief that God exists is a truly arbitrary one.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you got those from this respectable museum, right?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this another of those "Insightful instead of Funny because of karma" moderations?

Got to admit you got me for a second there; a simple experiment to create fossils! Ha HA HA HA!

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Doctor Faustus]

a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent.
That would be better evidence of omnipotence. Design reuse is something I would expect to see from an intelligent designer with finite power. However, chronological changes in DNA, such as showing that humans split from a common ancestor earlier than chimpanzees and bonobos did, throws a wrench in that.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it problematic that this fish evolved into a local maxima for its relatively unchanging marine environment

Because at the very least other creatures should have been evolving into it's niche, and forcing the species to evolve. And also the the implication that any 'modest / intermediate' changes were significantly detrimental (who couldn't use another fin? :P ) such that those modifications perished. I don't believe it has been demonstrated that that fish achieved such a 'perfect' design - clearly you've assumed that by it's long existence that it has - but there is nothing particularly remarkable about it despite it's age, particularly since evolution by it's nature should also be able to overcome the remarkable in it's constant arms race.

But, as I point out, evolution is only compatible with the evidence "all life uses the same DNA," which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead.

But isn't that another straw man? You (in that sentence) equate one falsifiable scenario for evolution and saying since it doesn't correspond for creationism - that creationism is theology instead.

And I don't even think it's as falsifiable as you're expecting. What if there were other non DNA types of life at the beginning (the creator experimenting / evolution doing it's thing) - but DNA was finally chosen because it had the highest utility / fitness?.

It's claims like this that also make evolution look like a theology ;)

Re falsifiability - As I mentioned earlier - inexplicable branches of the evolutionary tree surely count - although difficult to prove with a patchy fossil record granted. But the lack of evidence one way or the other doesn't remove the falsifiability of the claim.

Also - a big one also is that when biology / micro biology finally comprehends physiology, running computer simulations should be possible to calculate the requirements and the odds required for each micro/macro step of the evolution of the species. Creationism should say / says that when those odds are calculated - they'll be way too high to perhaps even fit into the time frame of millions of years. So evolution should go bust then.

Sure - you can never defeat the argument that God uses evolution. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing ID (that doesn't use evolution) has falsifiable predictions - and that last one particularly is more like an either/or for evolution & ID.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[arminw]

...Then how do mummies work?...

The same way that dried fruit and vegetables are preserved. Microbes need a certain amount of moisture in order to grow, so drying is another well known way to preserve organic matter.

(...Do you not accept that there are conditions that do not favor microbial growth?...)
Yes there are isolated places on earth where microbes do not thrive very well, but these places are relatively few. There is virtually no place on earth where you do NOT find fossils of some kind. We have a freezer because that is another well known way to preserve organic matter from microbial attack. People and animals do not generally die in glaciers but are overwhelmed by sudden unexpected, catastrophic snowfalls where they freeze to death very quickly. The snow piles up and forms glaciers in which we do find their remains very well preserved.

(....Do they know that you feel you don't need to cite peer reviewed journals? ...)
You tell me why it is necessary to quote some journal for an experiment that any sixth-grader can do at any time. Even a semi-intelligent /. reader like you could take any number of dead animals and bury them in any number of places on this planet and then come back in a year or two to check up on each one and see if it has become a fossil or is at least on its way to becoming a fossil. Make sure you do not just pick Arctic are extremely dry desert places, but distribute your samples evenly all over the planet. Try it with 1000 or more animals or plants and then publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal, if any of them are not decayed.

Please, oh please, can't you make just one tiny little fossil? It doesn't have to be a Tyrannosaurus Rex or a saber toothed tiger. A little mouse or even a dragonfly would be an acceptable fossil. In fact, do you know of anyone who can make a fossil today or has made one? I would very much like to read their report on how and where they made any fossils. Of course if such a report is published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, we both might be a bit skeptical.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there are isolated places on earth where microbes do not thrive very well, but these places are relatively few. There is virtually no place on earth where you do NOT find fossils of some kind.

Well, if you take the amount of time into account we are talking about (unless, of course, your Christian education makes you believe in things like no more than 6000 years ...), organisms had plenty of time to get preserved.

People and animals do not generally die in glaciers but are overwhelmed by sudden unexpected, catastrophic snowfalls where they freeze to death very quickly. The snow piles up and forms glaciers in which we do find their remains very well preserved.

What about mammoths? We can even extract their DNA and analyze its sequence. Please keep an eye on mammoth research, there may be more hints to evolution popping off it.

Even a semi-intelligent /. reader like you could take any number of dead animals and bury them in any number of places on this planet and then come back in a year or two to check up on each one and see if it has become a fossil or is at least on its way to becoming a fossil.

You didn't read/comprehend my first comment, did you?

Make sure you do not just pick Arctic are extremely dry desert places, but distribute your samples evenly all over the planet.

You think anybody believes that every single animal or plant becomes a fossil? No, by far not. Only very few may become so, that is, if you want to produce a fossil you have to choose the location where you deposit your organisms very carefully. Nature does this via the enormous amount of organisms that died--some of them must by chance die where they get preserved.

Please, oh please, can't you make just one tiny little fossil? It doesn't have to be a Tyrannosaurus Rex or a saber toothed tiger. A little mouse or even a dragonfly would be an acceptable fossil. In fact, do you know of anyone who can make a fossil today or has made one? I would very much like to read their report on how and where they made any fossils.

Been there, done that.

Of course if such a report is published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, we both might be a bit skeptical.

Yes, of course. But the source is much more reliable, because it was posted on Slashdot by an anonymous fossil. ;)

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

But isn't that another straw man? You (in that sentence) equate one falsifiable scenario for evolution and saying since it doesn't correspond for creationism - that creationism is theology instead.

What I meant was that evolution has made many predictions which, if wrong, would have demolished the theory. That's just one of those tests. However, there isn't a single test of creationism/ID. There can't be- any proposed test could be countered by the statement "Perhaps that's just the way God designed things. He's trying to test your faith."

And I don't even think it's as falsifiable as you're expecting. What if there were other non DNA types of life at the beginning (the creator experimenting / evolution doing it's thing) - but DNA was finally chosen because it had the highest utility / fitness?.

You're talking about a shadow biosphere. It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. What I'm talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it's possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science. What similar evidence could you find that would disprove creationism?

Also - a big one also is that when biology / micro biology finally comprehends physiology, running computer simulations should be possible to calculate the requirements and the odds required for each micro/macro step of the evolution of the species. Creationism should say / says that when those odds are calculated - they'll be way too high to perhaps even fit into the time frame of millions of years. So evolution should go bust then.

I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. You're right to say that this is an interesting and effective test. But it's a test of evolution. It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism in the slightest if those simulations showed that evolution could happen fast enough to account for the fossil record. After all, God is subtle and His Ways Are Mysterious. Perhaps he made life appear to have evolved, when He really created it with a snap of his fingers. Omnipotence and conscious whims can't ever be tested, because there's no limit to what God could do. There's no way to perform an experiment and say "God definitely didn't do this."

Sure - you can never defeat the argument that God uses evolution. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing ID (that doesn't use evolution) has falsifiable predictions - and that last one particularly is more like an either/or for evolution & ID.

Wait... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? Please repost them, because apparently I missed them. So far I think that you can't defeat the argument that God uses evolution, and you also can't defeat the argument that God created everything in 6 days. Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could... in principle... falsify creationism/ID.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

... if we go from rna to dna and then xnv (I made it up) how can xnv eat rna? proteins, carbs and fats? If you want a sustainable circle of life, make it out of the same stuff.

That's not the way the circle of life works. Proteins, carbs and fats aren't directly linked to DNA/RNA. The closest connection between proteins and genetic code is in ribosomes. A different set of DNA bases would require a radically different ribosome, or a completely different method of transcription (the latter possibility would keep RNA the same but allow for totally different DNA.) Animals don't need to eat DNA, they synthesize it from simpler molecules. All life would have to share some amino acids, because humans can only synthesize 12 of the 20 common amino acids, but there's no reason all life would need to have DNA with the same structure. (Unless, of course, all life is related...)

In fact, researchers are working on creating new synthetic life forms that have 12 DNA bases instead of the standard 4.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

... I don't believe it has been demonstrated that that fish achieved such a 'perfect' design - clearly you've assumed that by it's long existence that it has - but there is nothing particularly remarkable about it despite it's age, particularly since evolution by it's nature should also be able to overcome the remarkable in it's constant arms race. ...

No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I just don't see anything unusual about some creatures remaining morphologically similar over geological time. Remember that we can't recover intact DNA after millions of years so we don't really know how genetically similar ancient coelacanths are to modern coelacanths. We also can't examine much of the differences in soft tissues. Their behavior patterns may have evolved tremendously over that time... we just don't know.

But even if they're identical in every way, that doesn't make a coelacanth "perfect". Just very well adapted to its niche. In a world with countless billions of species, am I supposed to be surprised that some of those species are very resilient to change? Are you under the impression that evolution requires that all species' phenotypes change at the same rate?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on /. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science."

Yes but they are interpretations of ancient documents, not interpretations of mathematical equations and physical experiments. You might as well say that interpretive dance is a science too.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[digitig]

Yes but they are interpretations of ancient documents, not interpretations of mathematical equations and physical experiments.

They're interpretations of current experience as much as they're interpretations of ancient documents. When the religious person experiences something they check whether it fits with their current theories, and only modify their current theories if it doesn't fit. Much as scientific people do (after all, they're often the same people). Note that I'm not trying to argue that science and religion are the same thing -- they're not. It's just that this isn't where the difference lies.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Fujisawa Sensei]

All human creations originate in human minds. So what is so unusual in claiming that natural creations originated in a mind; the supreme mind of God? I see no problem with believing that God made the first living cell and every other living creature and now our scientists get to figure out HOW it all works and use that knowledge for human betterment.

I think the blue spahagetti monster created all life. Its just a provable as your God it. And I know it, because it was written in my alphabet soup.

Also, the fact that you supreme deity, has to take a direct hand in creation of beings, instead of creating system where Evolution just works proves that you deity is not all powerful.

Futhermore even assuming that your diety did take a direct hand it things, it could not be used for the betterment of mankind, because it would not be reproducible by human effort. Instead it is simple an act of faith. So forget the biochemistry, just sit around an pray for something to happen.

Here's a way to prove your creationism exists:

• infect yourself with HIV
• Take a syringe with saline.
• Get all your friends to pray for it to become a cure.
• When you believe the cure in inside it, inject yourself with it.
• If your Creationism, is correct, and can be put in to practice, you will be cured.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[arminw]

...Instead it is simple an act of faith...

I have never disputed even once that believing in God is an act of faith, but then so is believing in evolution an act of faith. The belief that reptiles can become birds and apes can become people, given enough time, it's just that they believe, an act of faith. If you had a super wrecking yard, wherein every make and model was represented of all cars that have ever been made since cars were invented, you would never get a Rolls-Royce or BMW if a tornado (random event) went through such a junkyard. This is essentially the dogma that evolution teaches. The high priests of evolution have given themselves scientific sounding titles and have more degrees than a thermometer behind their names.

Children believe in fairy tales, where frogs become handsome princes. Adult Evolutionists believe in a tale where even a rock, given enough time and some randomness, eventually becomes a prince. For details and how this happens you can look here if you dare:

http://www.waterfreeclean.com/forms/rock-time.htm

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you under the impression that Brownian motion requires the same number of molecules to collide with the side of a container over the same amount of time? It's all random - so there's no such requirement... however statistically....

And that's where I don't except your niche argument - from an evolutionary standpoint - I can't accept that niches occur over such *long* periods of time...

It's like the wall of the container - it's only random chance that any gaseous molecule should collide with it - however they're (statistically at least) practically guaranteed to.

So the above should give you some insight as to why I have trouble with the niche argument. So much is evolving (and mutation should be occurring randomly & relatively equal to all species (actually greater to more complex ones I imagine if you consider a mutation every X steps along each DNA molecule)) that I can't accept there can be any 'stable' niches without some mutating creature encroaching on it... Nature abhors a vacuum for a reason ;)

But if you accept evolution is true - then of course niche's obviously have to happen - because it has. It's modifying the model to add another assumption in (and I say assumption at this point because it appears to be an exceptional claim - requiring exceptional proof).

On a side note - this is the issue I have with arguing against evolution (and ignoring the ones against creationism for now - which i'd mostly probably completely agree with you on anyway) - when scientists/people have no (shall we say) believable alternative... then little problems like the niche issue over tens of millions of years sometimes aren't given the due weight consideration and skepticism.

I'm sure you can see my point - and I'd wager you'd have reasons for dismissing it?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

Are you under the impression that Brownian motion requires the same number of molecules to collide with the side of a container over the same amount of time? It's all random - so there's no such requirement... however statistically....

And that's where I don't except your niche argument - from an evolutionary standpoint - I can't accept that niches occur over such *long* periods of time...

Interesting analogy. It needs to be quantified, though. Suppose there are N diatomic hydrogen gas molecules in a cubical container of width X at a temperature T. It's possible to calculate the odds that a particular side of the container won't have any gas molecules hit it for some short time deltaT. This probability is very nearly (but not quite) zero for larger deltaT values (i.e. it's virtually certain that at least one gas molecule will collide with the bottom at least once a day.) The point is that you can write down a relatively simple equation based on the given variables that will give you that probability.

I think what you're saying is that these stable evolutionary niches represent a spectacularly improbably scenario- like the idea that gas molecules won't hit the bottom of the container at all on Wednesday. The problem is that I don't think you can derive the probability of those niches persisting with anywhere near the same amount of rigor.

For instance, try to define the problem. There are N(t) species on Earth, where N varies as a function of time. Their rate of phenotype change is P(t), but I don't have the foggiest idea how to define this in a fashion that could be useful in the type of experiment you're proposing. Perhaps to start with we could just measure the number of fins on the fish at any point in time, and define P(t) as the rate at which new fins are added or old fins become vestigial. (Obviously this is a ridiculous oversimplification, but I just don't know how to turn "rate of phenotype change" into an single variable.)

What you're saying is that the coelacanth has a very low integral of P(t) (i.e. cumulative phenotype change) over a very long timespan. I'm okay with that, except for the caveats in my last post. But then you say that this low integral of P(t) is somehow a problem for evolution. That's where I get confused, because I don't see how to calculate the probability that out of N(t) species, some of them will have an integral of P(t) over some timespan that's than a particular value (i.e. the probability that the coelacanth's phenotype doesn't change so it looks the same as its ancestors). That's what I'm really interested in- some kind of quantifiable result that shows how implausible it is that the coelacanth remained the same over millions of years.

I can't write down that probability because I don't know N(t) (we don't really know how many species never made it into the fossil record). I can't figure out how to define P(t) in anything but a childishly simplistic manner. I can't figure out exactly what the fossil evidence means in terms of how low the integral of P(t) for the coelacanth is (see my last post). I also don't know how many species had similarly low integrals of P(t), which would completely alter the probability. The rate of phenotype change P(t) is driven primarily by mutation or changes in selection pressure, probably both in varying degrees. It will be different for each species based on their lifespan, environmental conditions, reproductive method and many random factors.

In short, this looks like a very hard problem.

What you're proposing is (yet another) interesting test of evolution. And I encourage you to try to rigorously define the problem in the same way that the "box of molecules" problem can be defined. If you succeed in determining a way to define that probability, please let me know at dumbscientist.com!

On a side note - this is the issue I have with arguing against evolution (and ignoring the ones against creationism for now - which i'd mostly

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

That should read "... some of them will have an integral of P(t) over some timespan that's LOWER than a particular value"

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Fujisawa Sensei]

404, that pretty much sums up your understanding of Evolution.

And take that super wrecking yard of yours with sufficient number of random parts scattered, spend a few million years slapping random parts together until they fit, and sure you'll come with whatever car you want.

What you freaks fail to realize is the evolution has this source of very low entropy pumping energy into the system; the sun. That drives the dynamic system with the right parts to build up complexity over time billions of years.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for giving the concept serious thought.
Yes - in lieu of the quantification of said probability - it does come down to an instinctive call on whether it's probable (enough) vs improbable (which can be deceptively tricky when dealing with statistics/probability).

I'll just emphasize that a low P(t) creature is obviously at a disadvantage due to an inability to adapt to/against creatures with a higher P(t). I know you're including selection pressures in that function - but I'm just pointing out that I would expect a exceptionally high selection bias against creatures that mutate slowly. But again - that's just my instinctive feeling. ;)

On another thought - what do you think of creatures that have 'evolved' the ability to regrow limbs & organs (or possibly we have we just lost it)? But I would have thought that that would have almost been the holy grail (pardon the term ;) ) of evolution - yet the few creatures that have that capability are 'insignificant' newts and what not, that hardly seem like dominant species. To me that's an ability that never looses it's advantage (even when food is scarce). Whether your vertebrae are crushed in a fall, a croc rips an arm/leg off... your ability to attract mates / defend / fend for yourself after said disasters would give a fantastic evolutionary advantage.

BTW - I might visit your website at some point - I have been pondering lately about putting my world view down in words because though while it obviously will not be mainstream - I'm fairly happy with it's internal coherence. It attempts to integrate religion (not all obviously - but my own understanding and experience of it), science (and there's enough maverick science in there to keep the crackpots happy) and err... is there anything else? :P

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Re falsifiability of creationism.

Well - if your definition for creationism is that God did use evolution - than all falsifiabilities(?) for evolution obviously get inherited by that hypothesis of creationism ;)

But if you say God didn't use evolution, but rather his designs evolved and he just happened to instantiate every now and then (he released often as all good programmers should) - then I would expect
*inexplicable branches / gaps in the evolutionary tree (where God didn't bother with the intermediate life forms).
*new unattached branches due to inexplicable combinations of significant chunks of DNA from different species combining in a new creature.

So lack of those items would invalidate my proposal.

I guess a young earth would also be in my proposal too - so there's whole host of stuff in there. Like I'd have to explain how fossils are buried so deep etc etc.

I gotta get that world view down ;)

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[arminw]

...pumping energy into the system; the sun....
If the goal is to create an ordered system, such as a living cell, a Ferrari or Honda, or only cleaning up your messy room, any available energy must be accompanied by the information arising in an intelligent mind. Randomly throwing around units of energy will never result in any ordered complex system, at least not in the estimated age of billions of years that evolutionists believe to be the age of the universe.

I am sorry when I typed the link, because I gave the directory to a PDF file rather than the normal webpage I was referring to. Below is the corrected link.

http://www.waterfreeclean.com/rock-time/rock-time.htm

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

I'll just emphasize that a low P(t) creature is obviously at a disadvantage due to an inability to adapt to/against creatures with a higher P(t). I know you're including selection pressures in that function - but I'm just pointing out that I would expect a exceptionally high selection bias against creatures that mutate slowly.

In general that's probably true. In fact, some scientists believe that sexual reproduction evolved because genetic recombination allows for a higher mutation rate than asexual reproduction. (Otherwise, it's a lot easier to reproduce by cellular fission- no mate required.)

On another thought - what do you think of creatures that have 'evolved' the ability to regrow limbs & organs (or possibly we have we just lost it)? But I would have thought that that would have almost been the holy grail (pardon the term ;) ) of evolution - yet the few creatures that have that capability are 'insignificant' newts and what not, that hardly seem like dominant species. To me that's an ability that never looses it's advantage (even when food is scarce). Whether your vertebrae are crushed in a fall, a croc rips an arm/leg off... your ability to attract mates / defend / fend for yourself after said disasters would give a fantastic evolutionary advantage.

Remember that individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. The ability to regrow a limb is fantastically useful on an individual level, but it's probably more beneficial for the population as a whole to simply have lots and lots of babies. A similar question is "why do all creatures age?", which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

Limb regeneration might only work for small creatures, and it might carry dangers like an increased risk of cancer, but I don't know for sure.

By the way, do you mind if I copy this conversation to the comments section here?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

Well - if your definition for creationism is that God did use evolution - than all falsifiabilities(?) for evolution obviously get inherited by that hypothesis of creationism ;)

Most people would call that theistic evolution, which is scientifically indistinguishable from evolution. The Catholic church, along with most of my religious colleagues, hold this position.

But if you say God didn't use evolution, but rather his designs evolved and he just happened to instantiate every now and then (he released often as all good programmers should) - then I would expect *inexplicable branches / gaps in the evolutionary tree (where God didn't bother with the intermediate life forms). *new unattached branches due to inexplicable combinations of significant chunks of DNA from different species combining in a new creature.

So lack of those items would invalidate my proposal.

If every species had a different set of DNA bases, evolution would've been utterly demolished. That's why it's science- evolution makes a very specific claim, and is highly vulnerable to new evidence. Your proposal, on the other hand, is dependent on your personal interpretation of what God "should" do. As such it's compatible with any and all discoveries. For instance, why would God have to create inexplicable gaps? Why couldn't He create species in exactly the right order with exactly the right intermediates that they "could have" evolved that way?

Hopefully we can agree that the fossil record shows a general progression from simple microbes to trilobites to reptiles to mammals, so it seems like God was already creating kingdoms and phyla in that manner... how would your proposal be invalidated by the discovery that this method of creation extended all the way down to the species level?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free.

And I've been happily perusing your website and some offshoots for a couple of hours now :)

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

Why thanks. Glad to hear that. Any particular name you want me to give you? I can use "AC" if you want. (I'm busy with school so might not be able to do this for a while, but it will happen eventually...)

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a minor correction though - I'm not proposing what God 'should' do - but what I suspect he has done. In this regard I could be completely wrong about how he's gone about it.

So I'm definitely not saying God would have to create inexplicable gaps - I'm just putting forward the hypothesis that they would naturally occur due to him being able to think ahead a little - as it were - before he instantiated his newest designs (where as evolution would need to go through x number of mutated instantiations to get there). Obviously this assumes a creator that may appear a little more limited because he didn't create everything in the wink of an eye - but if you take the view that the creator enjoys life - and wanted to enjoy his creation, and even the act of creating it - then why the rush? He can make stuff at the pace of his pleasing...

So I guess I presume that God did not care to instantiate a creature for every little intermediate step that evolution more or less requires.

So - No gaps - I'm wrong & evolution (and Catholicism ...nooo!!! :P ) is looking good. Gaps (very hard / impossible to prove i know), evolution down the chute, debates on who is the creator begin ;)

But you're right - I need to develop some more falsifiable predictions. I think that'll largely appear once I've precipitated my ideas into written form.

And I'll definitely kick in some comments to your website though. Now that I know you're a theoretical physicist (i'm just a humble programmer) I might pick your brains on some good particle simulation software. ;)

Cheers,
Matt.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Fujisawa Sensei]

What you're missing is its randomly throwing around highly ordered bits of energy on earth, its the probably of it happening across the entire size of the universe.

In addition, the ordered quanta of low entropy light have little chance of affecting something the size of your room; something made up of cells that operating at the molecular level which is subject to direct effects of quantum mechanics on the other hand, have effects that build up over time.

Of course this is certainly lost on someone who expect to see quantum effects visible on a rock.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

arminw,

If the goal is to create an ordered system, such as a living cell, a Ferrari or Honda, or only cleaning up your messy room, any available energy must be accompanied by the information arising in an intelligent mind.

This is a random belief. The information must not necessarily be available beforehand, and current understanding is it really doesn't. Moreover, your argument is perverted (literally--no offense meant) in that you argue from what we know to be created in the end.

To build a car, you need a plan, and I doubt chance will ever produce a car from junk pieces, since macroscopic matter becomes broken when whirled around by some storm. To build a particular living cell, we need also a plan to form it. But the assumption that life as it exists today was planned is a random belief. Life is like it is because it developed to life in its current form. It could have developed different, but on Earth, it did not.

Randomly throwing around units of energy will never result in any ordered complex system, at least not in the estimated age of billions of years that evolutionists believe to be the age of the universe.

This is true of car parts, but the parts life is made of (molecules) follow completely other laws than macroscopic matter. To have the chance of understanding how current scientists assume (no, not "believe", since it's a theory, no dogma!) life came into existence, you need a thorough understanding of chemistry, which you are obviously lacking, hence your false analogy with macroscopic cars.

http://www.waterfreeclean.com/rock-time/rock-time.htm

Besides the more insinuating parts of its rhetoric, it states major false "facts". I'll dissect them for your convenience:

There these compounds, bumping into each other,
by chance (one of our magic ingredients)

"Chance" is not a "magic ingredient", but the term observed uncertainty. "Chance" is just the statistical expression for something unpredictable to happen. No magic there, really. And chance--unlike magic wands--has no hidden mechanism of how it works. It is just a mathematical term.

and time, (the other magic ingredients)

"Time" is not a "magic ingredient" either. Time and probability both just increase chance. This is most basic statistics. Neither time nor chance are supposed to be a driving force, since the driving force of our lives is energy.

made larger molecules called amino acids. These are the basic building blocks of all life, sort of like the bricks of a house.

That was assumed several decades ago, but this assumption is no longer agreed upon. The article you linked to obviously referred to the Miller-Urey experiment which was conducted in 1952(!) and published in 1953(!), before the mystery of DNA was revealed! I'd suggest you do some research including the knowledge acquired after the fifties. One thing theorized upon in those 50 years since then is the "RNA world hypothesis". This theory about that life started with RNA rather than amino acids and proteins is much more sound. (And even this isn't most up-to-date rocket science, since it was basically hypothesized in the sixties!)

Please, arminw, do us the favor to conduct some research into current, not ancient, research, because it is very frustrating for people like me never to be on the same level like those from the frontiers of creationism.

PS: While I am here as an AC, I just remembered a discussion with you a while ago, really, it is frustrating.

PPS: You did not yet respond to my former two comments (one linked from the other) on how fossilization still works today.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[arminw]

...how current scientists assume....
The basic meaning of "assume", is "to suppose to be the case without proof". The word "belief" is defined as "to accept something as true".
There is virtually nothing anyone does on any given day that does not rest on assumptions or beliefs. This is certainly true of scientists as well. They make certain assumptions and then go on from there, which is perfectly normal. It's just that the assumptions evolutionists make are different than someone equally qualified as a scientist makes, but who happens to assume a commonality of design in living things, rather than common descent.
The word theory: "A supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained".
Evolution attempts to explain the development of life as stemming from a common ancestor, while intelligent design tries to explain the development of life in terms we are familiar with in the development of man-made systems and objects. Both are equally valid and in conformity with the definition of the word "theory".
The word dogma: "principle or set of principles set down by an authority as incontrovertibly true".
Modern evolutionists set down as "incontrovertibly true" by the authority of labeling themselves "scientists". Today scientists serve the same functions in our culture, as that of the high priests of ancient religions did in those ancient cultures. Thus, what used to be called the "theory of evolution", is now being taught in our public schools as the "fact of evolution". On the authority of our modern cultural "scientific" priesthood, it is no longer allowed to dispute this cultural dogma. The excellent movie "Expelled" documents how this has happened and is continuing to in our society.
(...This theory about that life started with RNA ...)
Observations show, that DNA and RNA come from proteins. The DNA holds the instructions on how to build proteins, but the DNA and RNA themselves are made from and/or by protein. It is the ultimate chicken and egg problem. Which came first, the DNA or RNA or the proteins from which they are made? There is no way this conundrum can be solved by the scientific method. We simply do not know and cannot know.
We can only believe, or not, what the Creator who was there and did it, chooses to reveal to us. In the case of the chicken, he tells us he made birds, which includes chickens, such that they could later multiply to make more chickens. There is simply no way this question can be answered scientifically.

Mail Order

[unlametheweak]

I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.

Re:Mail Order

[Anonymous Coward]

My Doctorate of Divinity from the Universal Life Church won't hold as much water anymore. But I do think it would look great on a resume along with a Ph.D. in Alchemy.

I'm playing manager and as we know those who cannot do manage and it is all a healthy amount of 'creationism' anyway.

Re:Mail Order

[SpiderClan]

You laugh, but I've got a degree in Alchemy. I turn rocks into gold!!

Re:Mail Order

[arminw]

...I turn rocks into gold!!...

A good friend of mine has a machine into which she puts rocks which then go round and round and round and round and they've become very pretty rocks which she sells, well not for gold, but for dollars, which were made of gold at one time.

Re:Mail Order

[sydbarrett74]

I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.

Old coot! I've gotten all mine from the bottom of Lucky Charms boxes.

Re:Mail Order

[Phoghat]

My Ph. D Thesis was based on an experiment I created. I put a rock in a pickle jar and added water and various ionic salts. The result was no life evolved from the mixture proving that it must have been started by a supreme being .

Re:Mail Order

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend mail-ordered a Ph.D. in Theology for himself, me, and his dog. So, gays can't marry, but dogs can preside over weddings. Maybe I can order a Ph.D. in science, and make sense of it all.

Re:Mail Order

[akayani]

Oh for Christ's sake what have you lot got against God that a healthy dose of Creationism couldn't fix! And after that I have some flat world theory units you can build a Doctorate on!

Re:Mail Order

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.

The bill says that degree courses from exempt organizations must still involve "substantive course work". (Does anybody know how compliance would be verified?)

Re:Mail Order

[Neeperando]

Lars Ulrich also has a degree in alchemy. He turns rock into gold records.

NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Just no.

Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

is the antithesis of science.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

Religion is the antithesis of science, logically. Creationism is more of a specific rejection of science.

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, religion is not the antithesis of science. Many religions have been very helpful to science. During the European Dark Ages, Muslim scholars felt that they had a religious duty to seek out and understand the world. That information was sent back to the west and started the Renaissance.

It is true that a subset of religions, especially fundamentalists, literalists, and evangelicals for any given religion are extremely harmful to science. But there does not exist a fundamental divide between religion and science. You can be religious and still not be opposed to science. The fact that some choose to oppose science is due to their own stupidity.

I know your counterargument will be something along the lines that science does not recognize the supernatural while all religions are based on it. Thus, science and religion can never truly be reconciled because science is strictly natural while religion is both natural and supernatural. I would only point out that these are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Creationism...

[thomasw_lrd]

This is the crap that get's modded up. That's not interesting. Creationism is no more unscientific than evolution. You can't prove or disprove either.

Re:Creationism...

[obarthelemy]

It's not religion. One could imagine a religion that could accomodate facts alongside religious tenets. A religion does not have to be based on miracles or abherrent postulates, could be based solely on values + God for example, without the ridiculous children stories to go with that.

The issue is that religions won't die (and the most recent ones do not seem much better than the oldest ones, cf scientology). So we're shackled with a bunch a religions that made stupid pseudo-scientific claims when Science as such did not exist, and can't back down now under penalty of looking ridiculous, so they are hell-bent (pun intended) on refusing facts.

What we need is a modern religion, that accepts its place as mainly a moral + philosophical system, with just a bit of reality TV thrown in for its pedagogical and entertainment value. And please, no political, financial... agenda.

Re:Creationism...

[Jessified]

I don't see it as being a big issue. I mean, who would hire somebody with a Bsc in Creationism? There are a lot of people who somehow muddle their way through a science degree even though they believe in intelligent design. Really, this is a good thing, because it is a red flag to label who not to hire.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

Religion is the antithesis of science, logically.

That's a myth put about by the scientists and religionists who want a conflict (after all, it sells books), that I believe can only be sustained by taking an unusual definition of religion (or science). What do you think science is? What do think religion is? Why do you think one is the antithesis of the other? Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.

By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny considering much of religion deals with a completely different topic than science, explaining metaphysics.

Re:Creationism...

[CastrTroy]

I agree completely. Just because somebody goes to some school, and gets a degree in something, does not mean that any place of business has to have any credence in it. Just like a degree in engineering from some no name school would be worth less than an engineering degree from MIT, the same goes for these degrees. If employers put no worth in these degrees, then let people have them. And if students are stupid enough to pay for a degree without properly researching it's worth and validity, then so be it.

Re:Creationism...

[dwater]

You were modded 'funny'. Were you going for 'Funny'? That's not how I read your post anyway. Curious...

Re:Creationism...

[PRMan]

Really?

So scientists with doctorates (from other Universities) falsifying the evolutionary and big bang theories with repeatable experiments using the scientific method is NOT science?

Occasionally, they even do repeatable scientific experiments that prove that the earth might be younger than billions of years old, even thousands of years old. Again, this is all done with close attention to the scientific method.

Sounds like a very political definition of science to me.

Re:Creationism...

[SerpentMage]

Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."

Whereas in science things do get updated, changed, and altered. This is what science does in that it makes us question dogma and come up with solutions.

Many people consider evolution dogma because those who believe do not consider the alternatives. Yet I think if there were plausible alternatives to evolution we would change our thinking.

One example is plate tectonics. We assume that the earth is a constant diameter, but it is starting to become more accepted that the earth might indeed be growing. You might disagree, but there are people who are researching this.

My point is that somebody is indeed questioning dogma...

When was the last time this happened in religion?

Re:Creationism...

[Cathbard]

You are making a joke yes? I'm finding it more difficult to tell these days. Religion is empirical? It is tested and measured? Yes, you must be cracking a joke. Then again ..... oh shit I need drugs, I just can't tell anymore. Fuck you Bush!!!!

Re:Creationism...

[ahankinson]

I actually think that Religion is complimentary to science.

Consider: Religion exists to help us explain the unknown because we're not comfortable (and can't function normally) in uncertainty. That's why every religion has a creation myth - to allow us to formulate a nice, succinct answer to "where we came from." Religion is a scaffold through which we build an understanding of the world.

As we gradually explain the things around us, we replace the religious scaffold with knowledge: That's why it's not generally socially acceptable to longer think that our crops suffer because God is mad at us, or that if we don't pray hard enough, the growing season will not come. We've answered those questions.

But religion is still strong in the area of metaphysics, like what happens after we die. That's something that 'science' may never explain, because it does not deal with the physical world. Even if you don't believe in an afterlife, you've convinced yourself of such. That, in essence, becomes your 'religion.'

Because, let's face it - Nobody has proven the existence of "God" or "gods," but nobody has disproven it either. All we've done with science is replace some of the beliefs that we've held previously, like creation, with other beliefs that seem to have more of a basis in the physical world. But even the most rigorous scientist cannot point to the evidence for there *not* being a supreme being.

I think if you strictly adhere to the principles of the scientific method, the question of "Is there or isn't there a $(DEITY)" should be answered with "there is not enough data to support either assumption." Anything more than that is you projecting your already-held beliefs into the mix; something that "real" scientists would abhor. You're not letting the data speak for itself.

So, religion continues to gives us a cognitive scaffold ("sense-making") method for understanding the bits of our experience that we cannot explain yet. Science has become a religion, not because it provides "real" answers (because, lets face it, they're called "theories" because with sufficient evidence to their contrary they can be replaced), but because its adherents believe that it can provide answers to things that it has not sufficiently explained yet. (this is called "faith" in religious circles). Adherents to "science" seem to bash adherents to "religion" without understanding that they're essentially trying to do the same thing, just with different methods. In fact, I would say it's the same mechanism that has Jews fighting Muslims, Catholics fighting Protestants, Baptists fighting Anglicans, Human Global Warming vs. Natural Global Warming, Big Bang vs. The Cyclic Model etc.

We are resistant to that which we do not understand, and do our damndest to prove the other person wrong when we don't understand what they mean.

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be the Baha'is, I think.

Re:Creationism...

[foniksonik]

You are giving Creationism too much credit.

Re:Creationism...

[5of0]

scientists with doctorates (from other Universities) falsifying the evolutionary and big bang theories

There's a significant problem with that: falsifying (aka finding possible problems with) evolution or the big bang is hardly proving Creationism. I've never seen a valid defense of Creationism other than "evolution isn't true". The problem is, it's not a binary system. They are not logical opposites. Disproving evolution isn't proving Creation, not by a long-shot. If you want to get a degree in "anti-Evolution" by all means do. But don't pretend that "disproving" some small part of the dominant theory in biological and/or cosmological science negates and renders useless the entire theory, and also somehow provides evidence for an empirically random minor theory.
A good theory has to add value. This means it has to explain everything the old theory explained, and add additional, optimally risky, predictions that the old one didn't, to explain things the old one didn't. That's a pretty daunting task for a theory as big as evolution. If you want to try to counter a specific part of evolution, by all means go at it. But trying to disprove all of evolution by, say, questioning carbon-14 dating, is not the way to do it.
Einstein's theory of gravity won out over the dominant Newtonian theory not because it had Einstein's name on it, or because some religion had nonsimultaneity written in their books. It's because Einstein explained everything Newton did, explained things he didn't, and made very risky predictions as to how things would happen under his theory as opposed to Newton. Many of these have since proved true.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?

If religion is satisfying our desire for understanding by making explanations up, and science is the rational search for explanations, then the synthesis of religious explanations with the scientific method - the negation of the thesis - would be explanations based on science.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

Maybe the mods are mocking me?

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

I think if you strictly adhere to the principles of the scientific method, the question of "Is there or isn't there a $(DEITY)" should be answered with "there is not enough data to support either assumption."

You're exactly and precisely right (besides failing to consider burden of proof). That is why religion is the antithesis of science. Religion says "well shit, we don't know the answer so let's make one up." Science says "well shit, we don't know the answer so we'd better look into it."

Re:Creationism...

[foniksonik]

Religion and Science have nothing to do with one another.. one can't be the antithesis of the other.

That's like saying Math is the antithesis of Guessing. Sure you use Math when you don't want to just guess the answer but Guessing is used in many contexts other than Math... and Math isn't used for instance to discern someone's mood at the moment, while Guessing is.

Likewise Religion has attempted to provide answers to questions which are more effectively answered with Science but not all of the questions Religion attempts to answer are in the realm of Science - such as "Is there an afterlife" - Science doesn't care and shouldn't care.. but Religion does (as does philosophy). Likewise Science is not in the domain of answering questions about morality or ethics - while Religion is.

Re:Creationism...

[hairyfeet]

Yes, but you are missing an important detail: This is the USA and you have to think like a blood sucking lawyer. I can picture it now "Your honor, my client was turned down repeatedly for a job with the company in question, even though he has more than enough credentials to fulfill the position in question. If you look through their hiring record several applicants have applied to the company and you will notice not a SINGLE ONE that had a degree in creation science among their credentials have EVER been hired by this company. It is blatant religious discrimination and we demand 50 million dollars in punitive damages!"

But we should also give Texas credit for trying to create the nuclear bomb of stupid. I mean just trying to figure out WTF they are thinking could lock anyone with intelligence to having an internal discussion for 20 minutes trying to figure out how they expect to stick the words creation and science together without completely destroying the meaning of the latter.

Hell I bet Obi Wan could have used those words on the troopers at Mos Eisley: /Trooper 1/"Hey where are you going with those droids!" /Obi Wan/" Creation Science Degree!" /Trooper 1 falls back stunned with his head tiled sideways/ "Those words don't go together" /Trooper 2/"They might go together." /Trooper 1/ "No they don't. It is like saying rain falls up or saying you're having an intelligent conversation with Wookies. Those words just don't go together." And then while they argue on whether those words go together or not Luke simply drives away.

So give Texas some credit. They are trying to create the Jedi mind trick of stupidity. That is no simple task. It takes a special kind of stupid to cook that up.

Re:Creationism...

[alexborges]

..."no political, financial... agenda."

That, my friend, wouldnt be a religion.

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the antithesis because the one thing most religions agree on is that being "religious" requires "faith". Science is indeed the opposite. It requires that all "faith" based assumptions be removed, and that only the evidence is considered.

If the gravitational force inverts tomorrow we will probably all die. But if any scientists survive, they will hopefully correct our models based on the evidence...

Re:Creationism...

[graft]

Man, I love how "religion" equates to "Judeo-Christian" in these arguments. It makes us non-Western types feel so... present.

Re:Creationism...

[mdarksbane]

A very good point - but Hindus and Buddhists aren't the ones trying to sabotage science education in the US, which is what normally starts these arguments.

Re:Creationism...

[NoOneInParticular]

[citation needed]

I'm particularly interested in their method of falsifying big bang theories. These are post-hoc speculations based on empirical observation, and as such not experimentally falsifiable (hint: they're a best guess, not a true scientific theory).

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

If religion is a scaffold for understanding, it's a completely useless or often misleading one. Anyone who would approach the question of "how can I increase the health of my crops?" through the 'scaffold' of "God is mad because we don't pray hard enough" isn't going to get anywhere at all in improving their crops. The problem here is that that explanation is just made up. It has no evidence backing it and you can't derive any valid knowledge or solutions from it.

Addressing the question of "Are there any gods?" is a tough one because we can't even settle on which characteristics these entities might have. Sure, you can the the fuzzy (and completely unhelpful in understanding anything) view of God as "the creating force in the universe" and this sort of god has a reasonable chance of existing, but nobody actually means this when they refer to God. Religious people are typically referring to an entity that looks a lot like them, shares their cultural values, intervenes in their daily affairs, is influenced by praise, ... .

While nobody has disproven the existence of gods, and you can come up with a fuzzy one that has a fair chance of existing but doesn't really aid in understanding anything, the sort that most believe in and refer to when discussing "God" is extremely unlikely to exist. God is either an obviously incorrect hypothesis or a useless hypothesis.

Re:Creationism...

[token_username]

Religion is the antithesis of science, logically. Creationism is more of a specific rejection of science.

I believe what you mean to say is "atheism is the only religion you can have if you want to claim to be an expert in science. That's both ignorant and naive.

Re:Creationism...

[Sir_Lewk]

Knock it off with the fucking monospaced fonts already. If people wanted to read shit like that, they'd set the default font in their browser to be monospaced. As it is, you are just trolling for attention.

Re:Creationism...

[neomunk]

I am under the impression that evolution HAS been (mathematically) proven by use of genetic algorithms.

I myself on many occasions have overseen the REAL evolution of simulated organism. There exists a plethora of programs (at varying levels of detail) to experience the wonders of this phenomena yourself. It's truly amazing (at least to me) to watch a completely incompetent agent failing to interact with it's environment turn into an efficient resource gather overnight.

Of course I am assuming that DNA is quite a bit like our "agent definition", in that it basically makes us what we are. Holding that assumption as true, and knowing how DNA behaves in it's environment, I cannot find any reason to not accept evolution as fact.

Basically it boils down to this:
1. I assume we're agents interacting with their environment in life-like ways (eating, reproducing, dying, etc.).
2. I assume a mathematical representation of the agent (DNA) that is susceptible to random changes in its code.
3. I assume these agents are under fitness pressure, because they compete to do things like eat and reproduce.
4. I assume that none of these agents is the perfect eating, reproducing, etc. machine.
5. I assume that from the many random changes in the code, the very nature of randomness dictates that some code changes will make the resulting agent more "fit" (better able to eat and reproduce).
6. Assuming further generations of agents receive portions of code from previous generations (allowing beneficial changes to be propagated) the offspring of more "fit" agents will consume more resources and reproduce more (that being the way "fit" is usually determined in nature), thus spreading the code change further.

Every single one of those assumptions is STRONG and evidence supported. I cannot see a weak link in the chain that would allow evolution *NOT* to happen. Like most non-elementary aspects of physics, it's just another system that HAD to come about simply because of the way the universe is set up, whatwith it's mass and energy and space and particle interaction...

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?

Magic.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."

Well, the (Christian) Bible is claimed to be an update of the Torah, and the Koran is claimed to be an update of the Torah and a correction to the Bible. And a handful of books were kicked out of the Protestant Bible (and a few more were abridged) at the reformation. It does happen. Rather more significantly, within Christianity at least it's probably only a small (but vocal!) minority who believe the Bible to be literarily true, so changing or deleting verses just wouldn't be significant to the belief of many -- I suggest most -- Christians. It would be equivalent to changing passages in Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica -- irrelevant to how things are done now.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

No I'm not. People often believe in religion because they have experienced something that leads them to believe it. It's subjective, but it's still empirical.

Re:Creationism...

[arminw]

...I mean, who would hire somebody with a Bsc in Creationism?...

Or who hire somebody with a degree in evolution? Both of these are belief systems. In both cases we must believe or disbelieve witnesses from the past in the same way that a jury must believe witnesses about a crime that took place in the past.

Neither of these degrees has anything in common with, for example, a degree in solid-state physics or medicine.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

If religion is satisfying our desire for understanding by making explanations up

Few religions are just made up (I won't say ,em>no religions because at least one seems to have been invented by a science fiction writer -- shh, you know who I mean). They mainly seem to have been attempts at rational explanation of observations.

Re:Creationism...

[einhverfr]

Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."

Really? Is that universal to all traditions?

If you are a Buddhist and you question the 8 noble truths, what exactly is going to happen to you?

If you are a Hindu and say "I don't believe that Vishnu is anything more than a figmant of my imagination" what is going to happen? (Actually in Hinduism there is a perpetual dialog about what exactly the Gods are.)

Most traditional religions are orthopraxies rather than orthodoxies. Belief isn't the defining factor, but rather holding the religious observances is.

Re:Creationism...

[einhverfr]

It's the antithesis because the one thing most religions agree on is that being "religious" requires "faith".

And you define faith as a type of belief. And you are wrong.

AFAICS, the only religions which demand faith in this regard are Islam, Christianity, the Sikh religion, and Judaism. What you believe has very little bearing on whether you are a Hindu or a Buddhist, for example (or for that matter a neopagan). I would go further and say that traditional religions are almost invariably orthopraxies, where belief is not a factor but practice is definitive.

Re:Creationism...

[denttford]

Man, I love how "Judeo-Christian" equates to "Christian" in these arguments. It makes us Jewish types feel so... present.

The conflation is philosophically and historically dumb, mildly offensive, and usually exists to serve American political, Christian ideological, and assimilationist and/or Jewish defense interests. Humorously, while many Jewish authorities would prohibit entry to icon laden churches (and resist even the aniconic), the most authoritative voice on the subject, Maimonidies, permits both praying and learning inside a Mosque.

Moreover, including the word "Tora" (usually transliterated as Torah) does not make you an expert, or grant your position meaning or value, especially since it is hardly the de facto determinant of Jewish Law or "dogma," (were such a thing to exist) only a theoretical de jure one. To put it in terms you might understand - it's like hearing a Creationist decry the "genetics" of Darwinism (sic), without knowing what an allele is. Dangerously furthering the analogy: having read "The Bible," in whatever translation, makes you less of an expert on Judaism than a Creationist reader of The Origin of the Species is an expert on current evolutionary biology. Preaching to an eager Slashdot choir only may grant you +1, Insightful, but not insightfulness.

Regarding your point Torah - in the Pentateuchal sense - dictates have been removed from practice, to reflect need or reality, by its own community of followers - through an internal hermeneutic. I'm not speaking of modern incarnations of Judaism, born in the Western Enlightenment where equality is a value, but the main stream of Rabbinic Judaism where textual fealty and respect for older authority is paramount. A few notable examples -

The death penalty
Polygamy
Charging Interest

Re:Creationism...

[einhverfr]

Not quite. I am working on a paper on theories of magic (in traditional cultures) at the moment and would suggest that scientific and mytho-magical are the result of very different ways of organizing knowledge. Scientific thought is the product of an analytical, objectively distanced worldview which is fundamentally the product of writing, while magic is fundamentally the product of an aggregative, participatory worldview conditioned by the constraints of oral tradition.

Most of the patterns that James Frazer showed in The Golden Bough are better understood as products of this aggregative, participatory world view than they are some sort of parallel to science. I think that Mircea Eliade's approach is much closer to the mark of how magic is seen in traditional cultures though.

Unfortunately the synthesis between the processes of science and religion ends up being theology (which is really the worst of both worlds, IMO). The other synthesis can be the sciences relating to anthropology of religion.

Re:Creationism...

[RailGunSally]

That's a myth put about by the scientists and religionists who want a conflict...

Ad hominem.

...(after all, it sells books), that I believe can only be sustained by taking an unusual definition of religion (or science).

Very well. What are the usual definitions?

What do you think science is? What do think religion is?

Science is the systematic empirical inquiry into the nature of the universe. The hypotheses, theories and laws of science are characteristically falsifiable. They are also subject to alteration upon the introduction of new evidence. A scientific conjecture can never be proven, only disproven.

Religion is characterized by steadfast belief in a set of cultural myths in spite of the presence of contravening evidence. Given an ever-present choice between myth and incontrovertible fact, the religious practitioner chooses myth. Religion is therefore inherently irrational.

Why do you think one is the antithesis of the other?

Precisely because science, claiming to be capable of knowing nothing beyond a statistical certainty, starts from ignorance and uses evidence and logic to proceed toward a description of the universe which is both logically and factually consistent.

Religion, antithetically, begins with the assumption of factual certainty of propositions not in evidence. Religion strives to maintain belief in myth in the face of outright disproof.

Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.

Unsubstantiated and preposterous.

By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?

There can be no synthesis even in principle. Hegel assumed rationality and intellectual responsibility on the part of both parties to a dialectic. Religion is categorically irrational precisely because its tenets are immutable by definition. There can be no rationality because there can be no ratio, no balancing or weighing of fact. Religion alters its dogma only as a last resort in the face of overwhelming evidence. Absent science, the Catholic Church, one can only presume, would happily be teaching geocentric cosmology -- if the word can be applied to such a thing -- to this day.

Re:Creationism...

[arminw]

....Whereas in science things do get updated, changed, and altered...

The basic laws and workings of science have never changed and do not get updated. Nobody has altered the laws of electricity or the rules by which atoms operate. The basic laws of morality have not changed either. It has always been wrong and always will be, to behave in a manner detrimental to your fellow man.

Because both the fact that our understanding of the world we find ourselves in is very fragmentary and incomplete, it is natural that as our understanding grows, old, erroneous beliefs are cast aside.

When in a book like the Bible for example the statement: "Thus says the Lord..." occurs hundreds of times, we are, right from the beginning, left with the choice to either believe or not believe such a statement. We may accept or reject, but may not alter the truth.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

It's the antithesis because the one thing most religions agree on is that being "religious" requires "faith". Science is indeed the opposite. It requires that all "faith" based assumptions be removed, and that only the evidence is considered.

Careful, though. The religious people I have respect for also work from evidence where evidence is available -- heck, some of them are even leading scientists. Their religion isn't the opposite of science, it entirely includes science. The question is, what do you do when you don't have scientific evidence (and you're not going to have access to it in a useful timeframe)? As a scientist you (and science) just leave the question unresolved, which is fine. But as a person, what do you do if you have to make decisions in the absence of scientific evidence (eg, Spock in almost any episode of the original Star Trek)? Do you find yourself paralysed, unable to act? Or do you fall back to evidence that doesn't meet science's strict criteria (eg, subjective evidence)? Might you even fall back on stuff that isn't even evidence at all (hope, gut feeling?)

Re:Creationism...

[Dragonslicer]

What we need is a modern religion, that accepts its place as mainly a moral + philosophical system, with just a bit of reality TV thrown in for its pedagogical and entertainment value. And please, no political, financial... agenda.

I think what you want to look at is some of the newer branches of Christianity (I don't know specifics, though it seems like Catholicism is generally moving in that direction) and Judaism (Reform for sure, as well as many centrist and Reform-leaning Conservative congregations).

Re:Creationism...

[Jessified]

"Or who hire somebody with a degree in evolution? Both of these are belief systems. In both cases we must believe or disbelieve witnesses from the past in the same way that a jury must believe witnesses about a crime that took place in the past."

The theory of evolution does not depend on witnesses from the past. It relies on hypotheses that can be tested and retested today. Where are you getting your information?

"Neither of these degrees has anything in common with, for example, a degree in solid-state physics or medicine"

I'm not really sure what you are driving at here, but you seem to think that just because evolution is labeled as a theory it is no more or less credible than the "theory" of creationism. Yes, there is dogma in every field of research. But equating creationism with evolution only serves to highlight your apparent ignorance of the differences between the scientific method and hand-waving.

To illustrate that point: you imply that solid-state physics or medicine would be a more worthwhile degree. While I do not know enough about solid-state physics to comment, I can tell you that the field of medicine depends on the theory of evolution. Consider how antibiotics select for bacterial mutants with increased resistance.

Re:Creationism...

[Dragonslicer]

Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion.

Speaking from personal experience, this is very nearly completely untrue in Judaism.

When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."

Most likely not the most recent example, but see Reform Judaism

Re:Creationism...

[einhverfr]

See, most folks on this board assume that all religions are exactly like Christianity. ;-)

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

What do you think science is? What do think religion is?

Science is the systematic empirical inquiry into the nature of the universe. The hypotheses, theories and laws of science are characteristically falsifiable. They are also subject to alteration upon the introduction of new evidence. A scientific conjecture can never be proven, only disproven.

Religion is characterized by steadfast belief in a set of cultural myths in spite of the presence of contravening evidence. Given an ever-present choice between myth and incontrovertible fact, the religious practitioner chooses myth. Religion is therefore inherently irrational.

Ok, you have chosen a definition of religion that excludes all of the Christians that I know personally. On that definition, religion is irrational. Also on that definition Christianity as I have personally encountered it is not a religion, so that definition seems more than a little problematic. Yes, if you define "religion" as something opposed to reason then at least it is antithetical to what science aspires to be. But be careful not to apply that conclusion to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or whatever, without checking that the particular people you are applying it to actually fit the definition.

I have stressed the "Christians that I know personally" because I have heard reports of Christians who fit your definion but have never actually met any, so I can't deny their existence but I only have hearsay evidence.

Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.

Unsubstantiated and preposterous.

Why preposterous? Go to an evagelistic rally and there will be lots of people recounting actual experiences that lead them to conclude that a god exists and has acted in a particular way. None of it meeting the usual criteria of science, but that doesn't change the fact that it's experience-based, not pure dogma.

Re:Creationism...

[einhverfr]

As a reconstructionist Norse pagan, I find your statement insightful:

It would be equivalent to changing passages in Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica -- irrelevant to how things are done now.

This would be my argument against making changes to the Eddas. If you want to change passages in Newton's writings, you will destroy the historical value of those writings. It might not have a big impact on how science is done, but it would have a big impact on the history of ideas, and thus every one of us should object strenuously to a revisionist attempt to do this outside of, say, footnoting a translation.

Re:Creationism...

[Ashriel]

What we need is a modern religion, that accepts its place as mainly a moral + philosophical system

Buddhism, Taoism, Humanism (OK, that last one is more of a philosophy).

For more western-style religion, there's Unitarian Universalism, which focuses on moral and spiritual growth and neatly sidesteps all the dogma in order to include tenants found in all monotheistic faiths. It relegates the holy texts to their proper place (as [biased] early historical texts and sources of allegorical stories).

Re:Creationism...

[jwhitener]

"Religion is the antithesis of science, logically. Creationism is more of a specific rejection of science."

Err no.
Science is the how, religion is the why.

They seek to answer completely different questions. Perpetuating that myth that one can't exist alongside the other, is what propped up the creationist movement in the first place.

Re:Creationism...

[the_womble]

When was the last time this happened in religion?

All the time.

Changes in the dogma of Anglican churches over women priests are a recent example.

The history of the early church was full of debates.

All the founders of religions challenged the dogmas of existing religions. All the reformers of religions challenged existing dogma.

It happens slower than in science because there is rarely any new evidence to consider

Scriptures are not changed, but that would be dishonest. It would be like the police changing witnesses' written statements because of evidence they were mistaken or lying. The correct thing to do in both cases is to present both the statements and the evidence or arguments contradicting them.

Re:Creationism...

[hey!]

Creationism is not a rejection of science. The understanding of science behind it is too flawed for it be considered a rejection.

Cribbing from my thesis on scientific data management: Science has its orthodoxies, but they aren't touchstones against which the truth of a hypothesis is measured. Rather, they are storehouses of reliably negateable null hypothesis patterns. So if you are using the theory of evolution in an empirical ecological study, you set out to show that evolution does NOT occur in a situation where the theory suggests it will. What makes evolution scientifically useful is that if you succeed in proving the null hypothesis, you will reliably find a flaw in either your methods or hypothesis.

Evolution isn't an ideology, it's a tool.

The problem with "scientific" creationism isn't that it is "not true", it is that it has no scientific usefulness. You would set out to prove that creation didn't happen in some set of circumstances, and if you succeeded it wouldn't tell you anything.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

This would be my argument against making changes to the Eddas. If you want to change passages in Newton's writings, you will destroy the historical value of those writings. It might not have a big impact on how science is done, but it would have a big impact on the history of ideas, and thus every one of us should object strenuously to a revisionist attempt to do this outside of, say, footnoting a translation.

Yes, that was my thinking. Changing the Principa as scientific views change wouldn't be scientifically wrong but it would be historically unhelpful. Changing the Bible or the Eddas as beliefs change would not be theologically wrong but would be historically (and in some cases artistically) unhelpful.

Re:Creationism...

[jwhitener]

"Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion."

You don't think that Theologians constantly question interpretations of religious texts/concepts? Of course they do.

I think what you are getting at, is the "axioms" are rarely questioned. For a most Christians, an axiom might be, "Jesus was holy, is the path to salvation, that is unquestionable, unprovable, yet we start our dialogue with that assumption on faith".

Pure thought science, like Math, also use axioms as a starting point for a sequence of logically thoughts.

In terms of changing over time, just look at the Pope/Catholics. Religion constantly changes to match what that generation "thinks" the texts mean. But of course, certain axioms remain.

Re:Creationism...

[Micah]

> One could imagine a religion that could accomodate facts alongside religious tenets.

I suppose you're writing that with implied understanding that Christianity could not possibly be such a religion.

If that's the case, you may want to take a look. Forget clowns like Kent Hovind and go to apologists like CS Lewis.

I strongly hold to a historic Christian worldview precisely because I see it as matching reality better than do other religious or philosophical worldviews.

And this is essential. Believing a religion if it didn't jive with known truth would be silly.

We see the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Chris as the central truth of all of history. Bullcrap you say? Well the crucifixion is recorded in quite a few historical sources. While the resurrection is not directly cited by secular sources, those sources do describe the behavior of the early Christians that indicated that they believed with all their heart that the resurrection was real. They paid the price for this belief, being thrown to lions, etc. And many of these people are the very ones who would have seen the risen Christ.

Regarding scientific facts, although I agree that young earth creationism is bullcrap, belief in it is absolutely NOT required to be a Christian. No less than 11 verses in the Prophets talk about God being responsible for stretching out the heavens. This is exactly what is occurring -- fine tuning so extreme that it absolutely *has* to have an intelligent Being behind it. For example, from the Astrophysical Journal (Krause, I think, back in 1999), the fine-tuning of the dark energy density has to be to one part in 10^120 for any life to exist at any time or place in the universe.

Much more I could say but that's enough for now.

Re:Creationism...

[uassholes]

Don't reply to someone like this. A rock would listen and understand you better.

Re:Creationism...

[amRadioHed]

Consider: Religion exists to help us explain the unknown because we're not comfortable (and can't function normally) in uncertainty. That's why every religion has a creation myth - to allow us to formulate a nice, succinct answer to "where we came from."

As far as I'm aware Buddhism has no creation myth, no deity either.

Hinduism has a creation myth, but at the end of one version it is also acknowledge that since no one was there at the time no one really knows what happened.

Re:Creationism...

[dhasenan]

A BS in evolutionary biology won't get you much of anywhere. A PhD can get you an academic position at a reasonable university and occasional grants. Ecology has some money in it, but not a whole lot, and it's mostly if you have an MS.

Re:Creationism...

[mog007]

Religion and science CAN co-exist, but they are still mutually exclusive methods. Religions rely on faith instead of evidence, and religions cannot allow change.

If, tomorrow, a group of Physicists actually showed serious enough evidence that the sun went around the earth, then science would adjust accordingly. Nothing in science is protected from change, it's all up for grabs. If a theory doesn't jive well enough for you, go ahead and find some data that can poke a hole in it.

Re:Creationism...

[arminw]

...It relies on hypotheses that can be tested and retested today....

Can you give me an example of that which does not involve the simple adaptation ability of living things? If that is what you call evolution, then I'd agree with you completely. In that case, the science of medicine is well served by medical doctors knowing about the adaptability of various microorganisms and their susceptibility to antibiotics.

However when the word "evolution" is stretched to include reptiles becoming birds or monkeys gradually evolving into people, you will not be able to find an example of that today. Darwin studied and documented the width and thickness of the beaks of finches and available food sources. In all cases however the birds were still finches.

(...the "theory" of creationism...)

Creationism and intelligent design are two very different things that are thrown into the same pot. Intelligent design simply looks at the evidence and says that this evidence could not have come about by a random processes, but shows evidence of intent and purpose, such as can only be imparted by a mind. That is as far as many proponents of ID will go with the evidence. To become a creationist you have to go beyond this and postulate that this mind is God and that God is behind all creation. This is not what the evidence itself says, but a belief based on the evidence.

Re:Creationism...

[mog007]

I know what's going to happen to me when I die, and I can just point to science for telling me what will happen. I'm going to slowly start rotting, and after a few centuries, unless I'm lucky enough to get fossilized, there won't be a trace of me anywhere.

Our minds, or 'souls', whatever you want to call the you that makes decisions on things, is totally dependent upon your brain's chemistry and neuron firing. There's a naturalistic explanation for EVERYTHING in the universe, and religion claims there's some stuff that's unknowable.

So far, many things religion has claimed to be unknowable had been explained using science, and death is no different. When you die, your brain stops sending signals, and you cease to be. Given the evidence, that's the conclusion we have to draw, and unless you have evidence to show that this proposition is false, accept your mortality and move on.

Re:Creationism...

[mog007]

Do those religious observances change?

If I'm not mistaken, one of the doctrines of Buddhism is not to kill. But humans are omnivores, and for our own continued survival, we have to kill plants and animals to survive. Some day we might have technology in place to synthesize nutrients from non-living material, but the founders of Buddhism were still using a geocentric model of the cosmos.

Some Buddhists interpret "do not kill" to mean not to kill other human beings, and some ascribe it to be not to kill animals. It's all up to interpretation, but science isn't interpreted, because the results are conclusive, and after peer review, there's no real question about what the results are.

Re:Creationism...

[Repossessed]

[quote]eligion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."[/quote]

When they wrote the King James Bible?

There *is* such a thing as a non dogmatic religion though, mine still writes new holy texts, and the original book's copyright notice is where the term 'copyleft' comes from.

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters perhaps have too simple a view of religious dogma. The idea that no one is allowed to question religion is ridiculous.

Consider the protestant reformation. It was a serious questioning of current religious dogma, one that caused as much social and cultural chaos as say, the discovery of radiation.

The problem is that the basis on which modern people view the world has changed from what is reasonable based on scripture to what is reasonable based on observation/sense experience.

Creationists are just a few hundred years late to the party. I imagine that half a millennium from now, people will look to our finest intellectuals as people following quaint little concepts of visual/mathematical perception.

Re:Creationism...

[einhverfr]

Do those religious observances change?

Sure, they evolve over time.

For example, the Asvamedha hasn't been performed in some time.

Re:Creationism...

[Jessified]

So because it is not happening right in front of your eyes, within your lifetime, it must not have ever happened, nor will it ever happen? Pretty much every single doctor you will go to will understand and accept the theory of evolution. If you don't agree with them, then you should stop seeing doctors or accepting medicine; after all, if all of them can be so horribly wrong about evolution, how can you trust them with your health? Don't worry, God will protect you from MRSA.

Medical research depends on the fact that animal models are closely related to us; that is why we test future treatments on animals first. You don't see us testing new antibiotics on insects, right? Right, because they aren't as closely related as mammals. And why are mammals closely related? Because at some point in our history, we had a common ancestor; the difference is that the common mammalian ancestor is much more recent than the one we share with other less related organisms. You think it's too far of a stretch for one species to progress into a very different species? Then look at the fossil record. Though I suppose you must think that the fossil record is one big conspiracy, right? "Carbon dating?! hmph! The earth is 5000 years old! Physicists/chemists are also wrong, they are colluding with those Darwinian freaks!"

For those of you who can hear over the bible thumping, a speciation event occurs when a species branches (becomes significantly different) so that the gametes of one species cannot produce sexually viable offspring with the gametes of the other species. In fact, on the Gallapagos Islands, the birds outlined by Darwin are different species. You are saying that because they are all finches, they are all the same species. That is exactly like saying that primates are all the same species. Have you been producing offspring with monkeys? Or perhaps you are the offspring of a monkey and a human? Clearly you can understand the difference there.

The differences between creationism and intelligent design are irrelevant to this discussion. Neither of them constitutes science. If we were talking about a degree in theology, then yes fine, tell me the differences until you are blue in the face. But we're not. Nobody here is asking for a bachelor of evolution from a faculty/department of theology. Why the hell would you want a bachelor of creationism from a faculty of science?

If you want more of an explanation on evolution, then go get a degree in the sciences. This is exactly why we say that a degree in creationism is a redflag for, "I can't grasp straight-forward concepts that are spelled out for me." The point is, you don't want to learn, you want to stick with your own personal beliefs that you were taught in bible school. That is exactly what a degree in creationism will tell your prospective employers. So go ahead, go get your degree in creationism. See what good it will do you.

Re:Creationism...

[narcberry]

The scientific community is structured to protect current theories, rather than explore new ones. It has it's clergy too, and they are unquestionable. After all, who could be smarter than Einstein, Hawking, or Board Chair number 12?

Where does the majority of scientific inquiry happen? How is it funded, and who makes that decision? Does that party have any vested interest in current scientific theories that would prevent an objective funding of scientific inquiry?

There's a reason people are still investigating string theory with the dogma and zeal of a crusader, despite its primary purpose to reconcile a disproven theory with a proven one.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

I said science, not atheism. The moment you can demonstrate the existence of God (note: "there's no other explanation" isn't evidence), theism becomes science. Belief in that which there is evidence of is the definition of what religion is not.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

Yeah, it was a mistake. I used it for my last post before it for a legitimate reason. As for trolling for attention, I was merely correcting, or so I believe, the previous post. Anyhow, are you seriously angry at me for using monospace font?!

Re:Creationism...

[obarthelemy]

Indeed. I find there are just too many factual impossibilitites in the bible (and so many hateful statements).

Your crucifixion example: you think it's true because people believe in it... That makes a whole lot of other things true: Scientology, Arianism... I'll leave you to deal with those ones....

I know the some say the bible is meant to be heavily interpreted. It's a pity nobody agrees on how or why to interpret it. If the part about god creating the world in 7 days in false, one wonders what else is.

Re:Creationism...

[obarthelemy]

Thanks for the link.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

Actually, I suppose you're right. A bit pedantic, but right. Of course, I was being a bit pedantic myself, so I guess that's fair. ;)

But, to clarify, I wasn't making what you might call a logical statement, in the technical sense. Creationism as a theory is not by itself a rejection of science, but Creationism as a movement, the movement that exists in the real world, is.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

Well, this is an interesting question that no one can claim to know the answer to for sure. Spirituality, in the most "primitive" form - animism, generally - was indeed an result of our natural desire to find explanations for things. If you know absolutely nothing about meteorology, wouldn't it seem that the sky has a mind of its own?

But once it evolves beyond that, into a social *institution*, it exists to serve a social function and evolves to do so.

As for your argument that religions "mainly seem to have been attempts at rational explanation of observations", I disagree with the "mainly", but even insofar as you're correct, the fact that those attempts *weren't* truly rational is what makes them religious. That's what was so explosive about the scientific revolution - humankind finally figured out a way to rationally find answers without error (which isn't to say that scientists don't make errors).

Speaking of errors, scientists get stuck in their conception of how things are and begin to fail to consider that which is contrary, just like everyone else. But science isn't any more a religion than political ideology is. To include those in the word "religion" is to strip the word of all unique meaning.

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

If all we did as scientists was collect data, we'd be no different than stamp collectors. We have to explain the data. If new data comes in that the current theory doesn't explain, that theory gets modified. If it cannot be modified, it gets overturned. The person(s) who come up with the new theory will win the accolades of their peers, not their scorn as you think. If it's a significantly important theory that's how Nobels can be won. We also don't have much of this hero-worship complex either. I don't care about how smart Great Scientist X was. I care about whether they're right or not. Take Linus Pauling for example. He won a Nobel twice. An absolutely brilliant person, but his views on the health benefits of vitamin C are not taken seriously because the data doesn't add up. That's hardly the only Great Scientist that lost some war of ideas either. Einstein found cases where Newton's theories didn't work. In turn, Einstein is hardly the final word on physics either. Hawking, also ironically on your list, has his own beefs with Einstein, and Hawking's not the last word on physics either. As for Board Chair number 12, I've tangled with him personally and I'm just some pissant postdoctoral research associate. Fucker was wrong, too.

As for string theories (sadly multiplying endlessly it seems), patience is running out. If they can't come up with a coherent theory and subject it to experimentation (and potential falsification), they're toast. It won't be like they're out on their butts, but as time goes on they'll attract fewer and fewer new graduate students. No more grad students in string theory means no more new professors doing string theory, and at the rate they're going, string theory will slowly choke to death over the next 20-30 years.

Re:Creationism...

[realnrh]

The synthesis will come when religion defines a probabilistic moral system, wherein violation the moral tenets will probably send you to hell. This will then be known as the sin-thesis.

Re:Creationism...

[mqduck]

I'd say that it's creationism that propped up the idea that religion and science can't coexist, as much as the other way around. As to whether that's progress, that depends on your point of view...

Re:Creationism...

[arminw]

....Because at some point in our history, we had a common ancestor;...

Exactly why it doesn't have to be a common ANCESTOR and not a common design feature? A garden cart and a Ferrari also have common design elements, such as four wheels and a steering mechanism. However, a Volkswagen has more in common with the Ferrari in that they both have electric headlights, an internal combustion engine and other similar design elements. In neither case is there a common ancestor. If you're going to learn to be a mechanic to fix Ferraris, you might probably pick a Volkswagen rather than a garden cart to practice on.

(...Then look at the fossil record...)
Until you can tell me how to make a fossil today, don't even mention fossils as evidence for evolution. Until you can tell me how to make a fossil without killing all microbial life that causes decay, fossils are the biggest evidence against evolution there is.

(...Carbon dating?...)
Until you can show the absolute constancy of radiometric dating, all such dating is based on the assumption that clock rate of radioactivity has never changed. That may not be a bad assumption, but it is an assumption nevertheless that is unprovable.

(...That is exactly like saying that primates are all the same species...)
This is the first time I read anywhere in primates as a species at all. The term "species" is never mentioned in the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific book, but it uses the word "kind" which appears to be a broader grouping though also genetically unique. We read that all living creatures reproduce after their kind. This idea does not contradict science but is in accord with everyday experience which tells us the dogs only produce more dogs, cats more cats and people more people.

(...Neither of them constitutes science...)
Evolution in the sense of reptiles becoming birds and monkeys evolving into people is not science either, but a belief system, a religion that has managed to brand itself as science. No one has ever seen these things happen and extrapolating from the ability of all living things to adapt to their environment, to the enormous jumps required for that kind of evolution is fiction and wishful thinking.

(...then go get a degree in the sciences...)
Which I happen to have and because of that, the kind of evolution that posits everything evolved from a common ancestor, is a foolish belief masquerading as science. Having worked in atomic physics at Stanford University for over 30 years, I have learned that certain scientific principles and natural constructs are common design elements throughout the entire universe. I have never heard of or read about a reason why the facts of biology and life science should be an exception to this. What evolutionists attribute to descent, can be just as readily and more logically be applied to commonality of design and reuse of what works. Computer programmers, as a matter of course, regularly reuse working, well debugged sections of code in various places where it might fit. Why should the designer of life not logically do so also in the DNA codes of life?

Re:Creationism...

[Jessified]

Well a donkey is one species, and a horse is another species? Can we agree on that? Those two animals are of different "kinds." A donkey bred with a horse makes a mule. The mule is sexually inviable (sterile) and thus we still conclude that the donkey and the horse are different species. But if horses keep changing genetically, and so do donkeys, eventually, they will stop being able to produce any offspring viable or not. That is one example of an animal in the middle of a speciation event. I'm sorry I can't speed it up for you. I would if I could.

I am sure you are a very good atomic physicist, I'm sure Stanford is lucky to have you in that capacity. I really truly mean that. I'll also grant that you likely know more about carbon dating than I do. I get how a person with no scientific background can be a steadfast believer in creationism, but I will never understand how somebody such as yourself, who clearly must have a thorough understanding of the scientific method, can believe the accounts of people from 2000 years ago. I mean do you really think that every animal on the planet (extant and extinct, dinosaurs and all) fit onto a boat? I mean you are a physicist for crying out load! How big would that boat have to be?! I mean whenever somebody asks a question in your line of work, can't somebody just say, "Because God willed it to be so." How can you, as an apparently faithful Christian, argue against that?? I guess everything is fine so long as your research doesn't challenge any Christian indoctrination. Do you only reject the parts of science that your church tells you too, or do you just randomly pick things that you don't like? I mean, 2000 years ago people thought the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Do you believe that to be true? The people that wrote the bible thought that was true, so why shouldn't you?

As a question: how many creationist biologists (i.e. biologist who teach creationism in their classroom) does Stanford employ? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with your employment and all, but it would be a lot more impressive if you told me that Stanford was teaching creationism as fact. Or are your bosses also in on the conspiracy? I mean, if you are right, either your coworkers that disagree with you are lying or they are all very very wrong (and you would have to pretty much say they are stupid for making such a big and obvious mistake, right?)

Well it's been a good debate, and I appreciate your candor. Myself, I have a paper to write (on endocrinology of all things). I'd love to stay and chat, but you and I both know very well that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. We both think the other is foolish, misguided and indoctrinated and there is no getting around that. But nonetheless, cheers to differing opinions!

Re:Creationism...

[Sir_Lewk]

It made my eyes bleed ;(

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is a growing movement within the Christian community to question what it is that religion has told us all these years, and how far that has taken us from a truly biblical stance. For instance thegodjourney.com and freebelievers.net. But that has more to do with the human tendency to make up our own power systems, hence create religion. As far as creationism is concerned, I am sure that if the Father had really wanted us to worry about what has happened so far in the past, that he would have said so in the bible. As it is it is a very short description of the beginning. The entire bible is meant to point to his son, Jesus, and that it does.
Trying to call it science is ludicrous, as science requires a study. Likewise evolution cannot be called science as it is not studiable. Belief is better left to the individual, to make up their own mind without interference from "church" nor state.

Re:Creationism...

[Micah]

> Your crucifixion example: you think it's true because people believe in it...

That's not at all what I said. I said it has been referenced by numerous sources of the day. There is at least as much historical evidence for it as there is for many other ancient events which no one doubts.

> If the part about god creating the world in 7 days in false, one wonders what else is.

It's not false, it's just that the "days" *can* mean eras of time. That is absolutely a literal definition of the word translated to 'day' in Genesis 1.

I believe absolutely that Genesis is literal history, but we have to dig into what is actually said. Most people stop after a cursory glance and figure they know the full meaning.

Re:Creationism...

[w0mprat]

I've often thought religion is more an attempt to prosetylise in response to cognitive dissonance from the one of a number of psychological blows as we develop mentally, the most interesting one being where we first we realise our own mortality.

Re:Creationism...

[bckrispi]

What we need is a modern religion...

No we don't. Why replace classical bullshit with contemporary bullshit? Remove the bullshit from the equation entirely and you'll be fine.

Re:Creationism...

[bckrispi]

Where are you getting your information?

I bet a doctor with a pair of rubber gloves and a flashlight could answer that for you...

Re:Creationism...

[rohan972]

Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion.

Yes, that's why there are no theology discussions and debates, and no differing opinions within religions.

Re:Creationism...

[meringuoid]

There's a reason people are still investigating string theory with the dogma and zeal of a crusader, despite its primary purpose to reconcile a disproven theory with a proven one.

One of general relativity and quantum mechanics has been disproven, and the other has been proven? Which is which, and how were the two achieved?

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

As for your argument that religions "mainly seem to have been attempts at rational explanation of observations", I disagree with the "mainly", but even insofar as you're correct, the fact that those attempts *weren't* truly rational is what makes them religious. That's what was so explosive about the scientific revolution - humankind finally figured out a way to rationally find answers without error (which isn't to say that scientists don't make errors).

I think you overestimate the rationality of science. I'm not saying that science isn't rational, but that it cannot be entirely founded on rationality. The positivists tried to do that, and Karl Popper blew them out of the water. He gave us falsifiability in place of the "scandal" of induction, but had to concede that the boundary between the scientific and the metaphysical can only ever be a convention -- try reading his "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"; it's quite accessible.

Speaking of errors, scientists get stuck in their conception of how things are and begin to fail to consider that which is contrary, just like everyone else. But science isn't any more a religion than political ideology is. To include those in the word "religion" is to strip the word of all unique meaning.

If that refers to my comment elsewhere in this thread about those whose religion includes science, I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I didn't say that science was a religion, rather that some take a definition of religion that doesn't assume irrationality and that is wide enough in scope to cover all that they are engaged in, including science. I think John Polkinghorne takes that approach.

Re:Creationism...

[arminw]

...We both think the other is foolish....
No, I do not think that it all, in fact you make some very good points are very polite, and very much of a contrast to some here on /.

Everybody has a worldview and has little choice when it comes to interpreting observations, scientific or otherwise. Your worldview is clearly limited by the information available to your senses. Even with our telescopic microscopic extensions to our senses, we can only grasp a small portion of reality. When I see a computer or an airliner I know by faith, by belief, that someone with a mind conceived of and made these, even though I never met these persons. When I see an eyeball or even a so-called simple single celled organism, I know by faith that a great mind first thought of these and brought them into being.

Even though I was brought up in a Christian religious home, I rejected all that as a teenager because of the hypocrisy I saw in that religious system. However, in my studies I came to the conclusion that the complexity of what I was studying and the mathematical exactness could not be adequately explained by the mechanism of time and chance. I could see evidence forethought and planning everywhere.

I began to search for the purpose and meaning of it all and realized that science was inadequate to answer my questions. The majestic opening verse of the Bible kept echoing in my mind. If there is such a God as portrayed in the Bible, he ought to be able to communicate with any other being willing to listen. I cannot tell you here the story of my journey, but I can recommend to you the story of someone else's journey as he chronicles it a bestseller book titled: "The Case for Christ". It was written by not a scientist but by an investigative journalist named Lee Strobel.

Re:Creationism...

[badkarmadayaccount]

IOW, we need a science called ethics, and people willing to study it at least in the basics...

Re:Creationism...

[badkarmadayaccount]

Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a life philosophy.

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time this happened in religion?

You mean "When was the last time this happened in religion, and the person was not hunted down?", right?

Re:Creationism...

[socceroos]

Honestly, I don't know why the slashdot crowd even posts these articles.

You guys are arguing from completely the wrong perspective. All your arguments are based on materialism. I guess you cannot be blamed since you define your existence by what your senses tell you and your extrapolation of that data.

A true Christian believes there is another sense, the soul - that is actually the core of a human. Unfortunately for materialists, this is illogical because they can't measure or define it using their material senses - meaning endless looping arguments.

I would wager that many of you here believe that extraterrestrial aliens could exist (an existence that cannot be materially defined), but completely deny the possibility of a God who created this whole universe. I'd also wager that many of you here would believe that an extraterrestrial could exist in a form of being that we have not come across before - yet STILL won't believe in the possibility of a God that created this whole universe.

I find it quite frustrating.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

A true Christian believes there is another sense, the soul - that is actually the core of a human. Unfortunately for materialists, this is illogical because they can't measure or define it using their material senses - meaning endless looping arguments.

Who defines what a "true Christian believes"? I ask, because I don't recall the doctrine that the soul is a sense occurring anywhere in the Bible or the classic creeds of Christianity. So although I'd have no problems with "some Christians believe" but I wonder by what authority you claim them to be the only true Christians.

I would wager that many of you here believe that extraterrestrial aliens could exist (an existence that cannot be materially defined), but completely deny the possibility of a God who created this whole universe. I'd also wager that many of you here would believe that an extraterrestrial could exist in a form of being that we have not come across before - yet STILL won't believe in the possibility of a God that created this whole universe. I find it quite frustrating.

Perhaps you're missing the role of Ockham's razor in science. Ockham's razor doesn't tell us anything about what's actually true, but it helps us to decide in what order to consider theories -- scientists deal with the simplest first. Since the Christian God is traditionally claimed to have a few infinite attributes, science will only consider that possibility once they've dealt with all finite possibilities (which means in practice that they'll never get to the infinite case). Science will deal with the possibility of a being that is merely very powerful and very knowledgeable (your alien) before it deals with the case of a being that is infinitely powerful and infinitely knowledgeable (the traditional Christian God). Even if we have the extra sense you describe then the same will apply to how science would interpret the perceptions of that sense.

It's important, though, that none of this excludes belief in God, or makes it unreasonable, it just makes it unscientific. Science isn't omniscient either. There is a place in life for stuff that isn't scientific; after all, when scientists believe their spouses to be faithful it's rarely on the grounds of randomized double-blind trials of a sample of spouses.

Re:Creationism...

[BoothbyTCD]

Indeed, for an even more recent example, look for 'Reconstructionist Judaism'.

Re:Creationism...

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I love how "religion" equates to "Judeo-Christian" in these arguments. It makes us non-Western types feel so... present.

Its quite simple from the fundamentalist point of view. There is only 1 religion, Christianity. And in this religion you either follow God and Jesus, or your follow Satan. Anyway there's a verse in there about you cannot have 2 masters, I'm sure some pundit here will dig it up. But it boils down the the Christian theology that everyone who does not follow Jesus/God is following the Devil; in effect negating all other religions to the realm of satanism and heresy.

Re:Creationism...

[socceroos]

'soul' is a term. I wouldn't suggest you just *grep* the bible for the word 'soul'. There are many terms that refer to the same thing: mind, heart, spirit, etc.

Take Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) for example: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

This speaks of what supposedly happens after death to the 'soul'. In *true* Christianity, the body is really just a container for the soul. You part with your body at death, and are reunited with it at the 'resurrection'.

Oh, and on your first point: any 'true' Christian is defined by the Christian Bible. If they don't put their faith in that to be true and correct (infallible) then they are on shaky ground.

According to the Bible, the most important thing is to believe a) you're a sinner and b) only Christ can save you from your sin (the premise being: God made the rules and we keep breaking them). As long as someone truly believes these two things then they could be defined as a 'true' Christian.

But, having said that, many 'nominal' churches/'christians' believe the Bible only to the point that it suites them (non-literal six days, no trinity, etc) - thereby defeating the whole purpose of it - its what suites God that matters.

Anyway, I really can't explain it all - there's a lot of information and 'background' to explain before there is any way I can properly get a point across.

I would really suggest you look at The Westminster Confession of Faith. That book alone is a brilliant guide to the Bible and the core beliefs derived from it. I don't think you'd find a better book to run you through the basics.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

Oh, and on your first point: any 'true' Christian is defined by the Christian Bible. If they don't put their faith in that to be true and correct (infallible) then they are on shaky ground.

It's only a small minority of those who call themselves Christians who have so much arrogance as to believe they cannot be mistaken about the nature of the Bible.

According to the Bible, the most important thing is to believe a) you're a sinner and b) only Christ can save you from your sin

I've read it cover to cover and didn't get that from it.

its what suites God that matters.

Big jump from what you think God wants to what God wants.

I would really suggest you look at The Westminster Confession of Faith.

I've read that cover to cover, too. I think it contains some good stuff and some utter nonsense.

I don't think you'd find a better book to run you through the basics.

I think you should perhaps assume that I've got the basics covered.

Re:Creationism...

[socceroos]

It's only a small minority of those who call themselves Christians who have so much arrogance as to believe they cannot be mistaken about the nature of the Bible.

I'm sorry, but I didn't say that people don't mis-interpret the Bible, I said that a Christian believes the Bible to be true and correct, and that a true Christian seeks to base their doctrines an beliefs from the Bible its self - not from what they think is best.

To a Christian, the Bible is the 'revealed Will of God' - believed to be infallible. As such, 'true' Christianity is *based on the Bible*. Not someone elses opinion. While that still means the Bible is open to interpretation, there is something to be said for the verse, "interpret scripture with scripture".

I'm honestly surprised that you claim to have read the Bible 'from cover to cover' but still didn't get that the whole theme is about our sin and Christ's saving us from it.

I think you should perhaps assume that I've got the basics covered.

If perhaps you hadn't of admitted that you missed the whole point of the Bible after purportedly reading it from cover to cover then I may have taken heed to that statement.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

I'm sorry, but I didn't say that people don't mis-interpret the Bible, I said that a Christian believes the Bible to be true and correct, and that a true Christian seeks to base their doctrines an beliefs from the Bible its self - not from what they think is best.

I didn't say anything about misinterpretation. Do you believe it possible that you may be mistaken that the Bible is infallible?

I'm honestly surprised that you claim to have read the Bible 'from cover to cover' but still didn't get that the whole theme is about our sin and Christ's saving us from it.

You wen't further than that in your previous post.

If perhaps you hadn't of admitted that you missed the whole point of the Bible after purportedly reading it from cover to cover then I may have taken heed to that statement.

I didn't admit any such thing. I simply stated that I didn't agree with what you think is the whole point of it. I used to, but I studied more deeply and changed my mind.

Re:Creationism...

[socceroos]

Do you believe it possible that you may be mistaken that the Bible is infallible?

Is it possible? Yes. Do I believe I'm mistaken? No.

You wen't further than that in your previous post.

No I did not - I said exactly the same thing.

I didn't admit any such thing. I simply stated that I didn't agree with what you think is the whole point of it.

I'd be interested to know what you think the whole point of the Bible is then.

Re:Creationism...

[mdarksbane]

Buddhism is too fractured to be defined as a whole as one or the other. Pure Land Buddhism certainly fits every description of a religion I've heard.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

Do you believe it possible that you may be mistaken that the Bible is infallible?

Is it possible? Yes. Do I believe I'm mistaken? No.

So what sort of (hypothetical) evidence would make you change your mind?

You went further than that in your previous post.

No I did not - I said exactly the same thing.

Not exactly the same thing, but you may have though them equivalent.

I'd be interested to know what you think the whole point of the Bible is then.

At one level I don't think the Bible has a "whole point". I think it's a diverse collection of books each of which has its own point or points. At a meta-level, most of those books are about how people believe God has interacted, is interacting and will interact with specific individuals and/or with humanity as a whole.

Re:Creationism...

[socceroos]

At one level I don't think the Bible has a "whole point". I think it's a diverse collection of books each of which has its own point or points. At a meta-level, most of those books are about how people believe God has interacted, is interacting and will interact with specific individuals and/or with humanity as a whole.

Odd, but interesting. I would see that as a secular point of view. Arguing about the point of the Bible will always boil down to whether or not you believe it infallible or not. From what I can gather, you're on the latter.

So what sort of (hypothetical) evidence would make you change your mind?

Well, any evidence would make me change my mind. But I think you'd agree that the evidence will perhaps never come. It is notoriously hard to disprove God. Nevertheless, if that evidence were to eventuate, I would be the first to change my mind. Being a Christian isn't easy.

Also, being baffled by something I don't understand does not constitute evidence (should be obvious), but merely ignorance on my part.

I find, for example, evolution to be quite amusing. Many of their theories are just as far fetched (if not more) as the Bible's view. And while science delves deeper into the specifics than the Bible cares to go, I don't find science/evolution theory to have proved anything that can be used as evidence against a God - in the light of the Bible.

Re:Creationism...

[digitig]

Odd, but interesting. I would see that as a secular point of view. Arguing about the point of the Bible will always boil down to whether or not you believe it infallible or not. From what I can gather, you're on the latter.

I'm not even sure what it would mean for the Bible to be "infallible". It means it can't fail, but it can't fail to what? I certainly don't believe it to be without error.

Well, any evidence would make me change my mind.

I asked what evidence. What sort of thing would you count as evidence?

I don't find science/evolution theory to have proved anything that can be used as evidence against a God - in the light of the Bible.

I don't find science has proved anything that can be used as evidence against a god(with or without the Bible) -- I don't believe it could, although it could disprove certain types of claim made on behalf of a god.

Re:Creationism...

[socceroos]

although it could disprove certain types of claim made on behalf of a god.

True, but it hasn't yet - and I don't see it on the horizon.

I'd be interested if there were any claims from God in the Bible (best translated to English in KJV) that were disproved.

Having said that, theories do not constitute evidence.

I asked what evidence. What sort of thing would you count as evidence?

Ok, well, definitive evidence that the universe was created from a big bang/chemical reaction (that, ironicaly, had to mean that something existed prior to said 'reaction' to make it happen). That ought to do it. If that was proven to me - then I would drop Christianity. But honestly, you have to keep going back and back and back. Two particles reacted to eachother? Where did the particles come from? Doesn't make sense that something was made from nothing does it? Going to bring in some quantum rule that created the particles? Where did the quantum rules come from? It doesn't make sense that someone didn't start this whole thing.

Lastly, by infallible I mean: Without fault or weakness; incapable of error or fallacy.

I'm aware that is both a strong and bold assertion, but its what I believe. Until proven otherwise - in which case I would drop it all and go out and get drunk.... =P

This is not a bad idea

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.

By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?

There are many Deists in the scientific community. Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[jacquesm]

Deists and creationists have relatively little in common.

Science can only be done by following the scientific method, creationism is the opposite of that, it is dogma warmed over.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

The study of Creationism (or anything that is not science) cannot be logically classed as a Science program. Just like one can study ballet, it doesn't make sense to give a science degree in ballet since ballet is not a science. Whether the belief in ballet is logical and consistent with reality is irrelevant.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[rackserverdeals]

No, this is a bad idea.

They just want to be accredited to validate their point.

This doesn't make any sense. Creationism isn't a field of study. It would be like being aloud to give out degrees in capacitance instead of having it be just part of an EE degree.

What is there to study anyway? It's just based on what's in the bible.

It's pretty sad really. Like they don't believe the Bible is authoritative enough and they need a state government to give it credence. Maybe more ironic.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[DallasMay]

There are many Christians in the scientific community. That doesn't make Christianity science. Think about it this way. I teach my high school students to form Hypothesis's as "If/Then" sentences. "If [this happens], then [that will happen]." (Sure it's a bit simplistic, but this is high school after all.) You cannot make a God Hypothesis. Think about it. "If I pray fervently, then God will heal my mother." Well not always, as often God says no to prayers. You cannot test Him. The Bible itself says you cannot test Him.

Therefore, religion cannot be science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[digibud]

Idiot. There is no such thing as Creation Science. Creationists wanting to provide a degree in science is an oxymoronical concept. (if they can make up fake degree ideas I can make up a word). Read the Dover transcripts if you don't understand why creationism is NOT science. Discovering the theological underpinnings to a theological theory belongs in a theology class. If you clear away the religious baggage of creationism you have....nada...zip...Creationism IS religious baggage. The theory of a divine clockmaker cannot be measured, tested and replicated. The clockmaker by definition is beyond the scope of science. There can be no theory within science the starts with the premise of a deity that is responsible for creating the world and then which forces all observable data to fall under the scope of a book that is taken on faith to be true. Creationism is a purely religious position and always will be. Allowing the awarding of fictional degrees would be just plain stupid, but anyone who believes creation science is real reflects a poor education to start with so it's no surprise the same poorly educated people are in favor of spreading their lack of education. But I forgive them because they know not what they do. god that was funny...

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Saint Stephen]

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Narpak]

By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?

Serious study and research into the evolution of man and origin of our planet and the cosmos is already being done. Getting creationism in line with "current scientific thought" would pretty much destroy the fundamentals behind it. The idea that the universe is 6000 years old does not fit and can not be made to fit without a leap of faith that usually discounts any research and knowledge gained as lies or Satanic propaganda.

In short, if you "cleared away all the religious baggage" from creationism you leave nothing. Creationism is by definition religious baggage.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Asic Eng]

The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism

That is not the point. I have a MSc and I worked hard for it.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Is difficulty the ultimate metric for advanced degrees?

Maybe you worked hard because you aren't particularly suited to the field you studied?

How do you know that a degree in Creationism isn't as difficult as your field of study?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[theturtlemoves]

By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?

Clearing away the religious baggage of creationism would leave nothing. So yes, let's do it!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[c6gunner]

The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

When one parallel universe gets raped by a divine parallel universe and gives birth to another divine parallel universe which is then killed and resurrected with a zombie army of parallel universes ....

Yeah, ok, so that was a horrible attempt at an analogy, but my point was: you're completely wrong. As strange and counter-intuitive as quantum physics can be, it doesn't even begin to approach the level of crazy which most religions embrace as their founding principles.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Fungii]

By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought.

Creationism fundamentally conflicts with scientific thought, there is no light to be shed - creationism isn't a field of science with discoveries to be made, it is one theory with absolutely no supporting evidence.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Evanisincontrol]

It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.

Like going to a church or something?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[cp.tar]

By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought.

At first I thought you were serious, but the mention of evolution convinced me otherwise.
There is no evolution. Therefore, creationism cannot evolve.

Have at that, ye pesky evolutionists!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.

And yes it is important to keep an open mind. Unfortunately closing oneself off in either a religious community or a scientific community has generally involved historical atrocities. Josef Mengele is no better than Jimmy Jones, and MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[funkatron]

The study of a divine clockmaker could be quite interesting if some new testable ideas were put forward. For instance: a physical process by which the "clockmaker" can influence the universe, restrictions on what the "clockmaker" can do, how this stuff interacts with relativity and quantum mechanics. Simply saying the universe is X number of years old is not very interesting.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?

We might be better off but there wouldn't be much left - Creationism is pretty much all religious baggage. All you'd be left with is the remote possibility that some aliens seeded life on earth with some simple bacteria around 4 billion years ago.

Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?

It might or might not be a reasonable field of study - but it wouldn't be a scientific field of study. At a practical level, a science degree is about studying the scientific consensus.

Even if we ignore the scientific consensus and ask whether Creationism is science, the answer is still "No." There are a whole variety of problems with the basic Young Earth Creationism as a scientific theory - including both logical inconsistencies and inconsistencies with factual observation. A key problem, though, is Occam's razor.

Imagine that you have a clay jar. You could measure its size and its weight and if you came back tomorrow there is a high probability that the jar would have the same measurements. You could even put a few coins in the jar and, assuming you put the jar in a place where no one was going to mess with the jar, you could come back tomorrow and the coins would have a high probability of still being there.

But suppose you put the coins in the jar, put a cap on the jar, shook the jar so the coins bounced up and down and then claimed (without looking in the jar) that all the coins were oriented in the "heads" position. If you shook the jar up again before looking in the jar then you would never actually know what orientation the coins had been in but, if you looked in the jar without shaking, you would have a high probability of being wrong.

When you add details to a (proposed) scientific theory that are not based (possibly indirectly) on factual observation then one of two things happens. If it's fundamentally impossible to ever observe the details then there's no point in including the details. On the other hand, if the details could (eventually) be observed then, the more details you add, the higher you probability of being wrong.

Creationism, depending on the particular flavor, does some combination of both. Creationism makes claims that fundamentally can not be observed and it also makes claims that, not being based on factual observation, are overwhelmingly likely to eventually turn out to be wrong.

Informally, the basic rule of science is "go with what you know" (what you can observe) - and Creationism massively violates that rule.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Tenebrousedge]

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to.

Only under the loosest of terms. But there are no "mysteries" of Creationism, at least not ones that are intended to be knowable by Man. God created the world in six days (according to one version of events). We don't care how and have only a passing interest in why.

The "advanced levels of things" in science terms is more like "Why is the weak nuclear force so strong compared to gravity?" What the hell happened during nucleosynthesis?

Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Jame_Retief]

Thus sayeth the man who is open-minded enough to let any original though escape unharmed from his grasp.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

there's nothing to study, creationist would simply reread genesis over and over. Its like if there was a class on Harry Potter, except there's much more material on Harry Potter. Divinity isn't considered a science its a theological degree and its legit because its the study of religion in general. As for your comment on Media Studies... that's a very legit study because there are all kinds of aspects of art within Media and there's interest in how to better use Media. If you'd like to say that creationism is the study of an art ... maybe that wouldd be a legit study, but its DEFINITELY NOT A SCIENCE. Also Genesis is a story whether people want to accept it or not, many major religions recognize that its a story written by an unknown author and its meant to convey a truth about the relationship between man and god, NOT WORD FOR WORD FACT. There for there's very little for creationist to study and there's nothing to legitimately call it a science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty sad really. Like they don't believe the Bible is authoritative enough and they need a state government to give it credence. Maybe more ironic.

The Bible is authoritative for believers. It's not to secularists who, in their perverse view of things, believe the government is the final word. By having a secular imprimatur, non-believers will have to accept the degree, lest they be thought of as hypocrites.

Oh, wait a minute.....

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing in a regular science degree program that requires belief in a creator, non-belief in a creator, or any other kind of religious belief or lack of it. One's religious beliefs are a moot and irrelevant point in a scientific program. You are expected to follow the scientific method, but there's nothing in that method that requires any particular religious belief to be adopted, as indicated by the ENORMOUS diversity of religious beliefs among scientists and students, past and present.

What kind of "science" is it that expects you to choose your religious belief, and offers only one option as the "correct" choice, as a built-in part of the program? Religious belief should be irrelevant because science is neutral on the question. It doesn't even consider the question.

What they are offering is a theology or philosophy program with a minor in science. It makes about as much sense to call it "science" as an automobile mechanic program that also requires the students be trained as pastry chefs, and then granting them a degree in "culinary arts" when they finish.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Disclaimer: I do not believe one bit in creationism.

I agree that the scientific method needs to be applied to creationism. But I would like to know if by following the scientific method we could disprove creationism?

Can we disprove creationism? Because science is not about proving anything, it is about disproving hypothesis and then we work with the ones that we can't with all our might disprove. As long as an hypothesis has not been proven wrong, it stands!

So I'm just curious, did we or can we disprove creationism?

Valtor

Re:This is not a bad idea

[plover]

Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.

Umm...no.

Science is about using the Scientific Method to explain things. Study the problem. Form a hypothesis. Create an experiment to test your hypothesis. There's endless room for arguments, disagreements, and challenges. But that's not the point.

The point is that applying the scientific method defines what is "Science".

Now certainly, Creationism could be turned into a science. For example, I've studied the problem. My hypothesis is that if I have a sealed, empty box, some $Deity will wave his magic appendage and create a living cat inside it. If a cat appears in my empty box, I have experimentally produced evidence of Creation. That's Science. (Also note that if a cat does NOT appear in my box, that is NOT proof that the $Deity isn't a creator, or that the $Deity doesn't exist -- negative results don't work that way in the Scientific Method -- just that my hypothesis may have been wrong.)

Re:This is not a bad idea

[A_Primetime_Fool]

While I agree with you that enabling an institution to grant science degrees to an assembly line of hack "scientists" is a terrible idea, the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.

Sure, if a belief conflicts all of our known scientific knowledge, that belief should be disregarded (e.g. the earth is not 6,000 years old). But our kneejerk reaction to mock any spiritual belief, even if we have no scientific reason not to, isn't much better than Creationists ignoring evolution because it just doesn't seem very Biblical.

I'm sure there are plenty of things Creationists could propose and research that do not have an established base of scientific proof. Sure, many of their publications would be all questions with no answers, but laughing off a researcher adhering to the scientific method (no matter what his intentions) isn't right. Yes, be skeptical and throw away any idea that ends with "...as stated in Mark 2:18.", but don't disallow their valid points just because of a sense of elitism.

In short, don't be a Scully.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[mqduck]

Yes, scientists find themselves faced with the same questions. The difference is that scientists keep trying to answer them with logic and research and testing. That's what science is all about, not saying "God did it" when you don't know the answer.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Kashell]

I had this argument with some people on my flight yesterday -- they don't understand what logic is.

Their "logical argument"? "Hey look out there and tell me that the world WASN'T created by God!"

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Nemyst]

Plus, if we allow Creationism to be separated from theology, we need to allow any sort of religious group wanting to get their "theories" (read: dogma) an official recognition in the form of a PhD/Master.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[dbIII]

Unfortunately these are the bunch that has rejected the idea of an educated clergy - here there is only the pretense of education.
If you really want to get a science education with theological backing you can get Jesuits to teach you or any of a wide bunch of other groups that take education seriously - and they would tell you about Mendel and Darwin.
The whole weird creationist movement thing is just about trying to stifle any voice which contradicts what Christianity Lite has to say. I just wish they would bother to read the second part of the book, paticularly the bit where Paul muses about timespans and blows the whole idea of being able to put a date on things out of the water. That fits perfectly with geology and cosmology.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

... Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics...

Yes, but they can not sit on review boards for the National Science Foundation. As soon as the Advanced Institute of Creation Science awards its first Ph.D., a lawsuit will be filed demanding that the receiver be allowed to review proposals to the NSF. Supporters envision a time when NSF funding can still exist, but can be directed away from *dangerous* researchers and toward those whose loyalty to Jebus and the holy war against terrists is unquestioned.

The *goal* is not to award degrees, the goal is surgical strikes against selected scientist/atheists, currently somewhat protected because it's hard for Senator Biblethumper to veto each individual proposal. Currently, Senator Biblethumper has to lash out at the entire research pie, which may hamper research into WMD.

This science situation is in contrast to the media studies derided by parent. Those are funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. The correct goal there is just to starve it completely and provide no money for the arts. We can't divide artists into good and bad categories as we can divide scientists. Parent and his fellow sh*tbags won the arts battle long ago. They don't need to pretend to be artists in order to harm that community.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach creationism as a sort of philosophy and give them a degree as master of philosophy if they must. But science it is not!!!!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Hardhead_7]

>Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is >kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's >characterized by surrounding yourself by people >who exclusively think like you already think, and >not being challenged.

No, it isn't. Being open-minded is believing things because there is evidence and proof. Being close-minded is believing in things (or not) despite any and all evidence that comes your way.

Staking a claim on it's own isn't being close minded, and being a scientist isn't "just as close minded" as being a crazy fanatic. There's a difference between basing opinion on fact and fantasy.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[KeithJM]

can we disprove creationism

We can disprove some parts of the story as being inconsistent with the evidence we see, but the whole point is that it isn't really testable because it doesn't directly make predictions of how the world would be if it was true.

It's like trying to disprove 'Romeo and Juliet.' You might be able to say "There is no evidence of a prominent Capulet family in Verona in the 13th or 14th century," but there is nothing you can look at in today's world that would be different if the play was just fiction. That's what makes it a story instead of a theory.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[falconwolf]

Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.

But those degrees are not in science. If these people want to be able to offer a Masters then they can offer a Masters in Divinity, Religion, or Philosophy. All this is is an attempt to pass off religion as science.

Falcon

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

It's not to secularists who, in their perverse view of things, believe the government is the final word.

Secularists (I would hypothesize) are more likely to have no strongly held beliefs in government or religion. If anything can be proven in a logical and systematic way, then their beliefs will likely be stronger, but not absolute. Secularists don't just come out of thin air, they (in most cases) create their own belief systems through systematically thinking about things. As opposed to religious people who naturally succumb to religious beliefs through tradition and genetics (i.e. the religious brain).

Re:This is not a bad idea

[EveLibertine]

So I'm just curious, did we or can we disprove creationism?

Valtor

No, it's not a valid hypothesis.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[steve_thatguy]

Is there any way we can get this post modded "+10, The Freaking Truth"?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of universities have Political Science departments and programs. But no one protests about this.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[AmonTheMetalhead]

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

Dude, no.

Creationism is plain & simple a 'god did it' without any further questioning what & where that god came from.

Creationism is the lazy man's science, instead of actually thinking about stuff they just shrug & say 'god did it'. Ask them who created god & their eyes glaze over.

Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.

Again, no. You must be quite dense if you really believe this nonsense you just wrote, no sane person acts like that.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Out of curiosity, I would like to know why it is not valid? Are you saying that experiments were done and we were able to disprove it? That in my mind would settle the matter.

I always thought that at lot of what is proclaimed by religions can be proven wrong. But some core stuff would probably survive the scientific method. That would at least clean up religions, from a scientific point of view of course.

What I find interesting, is that the parts that could survive might actually be usable in science. At least for something like social science. And then as science advances, we might be able to disprove more of it, and maybe one day even disprove the existence of God!

We just don't know, but I find all this fascinating.

Valtor

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

While I agree with you that enabling an institution to grant science degrees to an assembly line of hack "scientists" is a terrible idea, the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.

I agree, but it's also important to (try) to understand why. The last time I checked about 97% of people had religious beliefs, and probably a fairly large percentage (19%?, 50%?, 5%?) where either strapped at school by nuns, or buggered at church by priests. At the same time these same people (or types of people) are saying they need to put people in jail for downloading pornography and listening to rap music. I can understand the casual insults. These insults are stupid, but they are understandable. If there were less hypocrisy, stupidity, arrogance, and authoritarianism shown in the religious community then things would be a lot different. Religion has a history of abuse and insulting and even condemning those who are not religious. I think Atheists deserve a little slack considering what they've been through.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[the_one(2)]

It's ironic that you say that creationism fails Occam's razor when it was invented to "prove" that God is real =)

Re:This is not a bad idea

[falconwolf]

the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.

The same can be applied to believers of religion. However while Slashdotters would let Religionists live as they want, Fundimentalists of various stripes whether Christian Talibans or Muslim Talibans would force people to live the way they say.

Falcon

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?

I'm as far as it gets from an expert on creationism, but are we certain that it does not make any predictions that we could test to try and disprove it?

Valtor

Re:This is not a bad idea

[AmonTheMetalhead]

How do you know that a degree in Creationism isn't as difficult as your field of study?

It's alot harder, it requires me to be learn how to shut down the logic & reasoning capabilities of my brain, something i've only been able to do with alcohol and other assorted mind altering drugs.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[obarthelemy]

There's a sucker born every minute, and thus surely a lot of money to be made by being the creationist PhD that lends credibility to a creationism conference.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Herr_Skymarshall]

Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.

Occam's Razor is not a test - It is a postulate that is not necessarily true - IE the simplest answer to life, the universe and everything being: God.

Modern science considers data first and tries to apply Occam's Razor to find the simplest solution given the set of data. By itself, Occam's Razor is an argument for God, not science.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.

Is there such a thing as "scientific fact"?

I thought science was about disproving hypothesis, not proving fact. Or am I missing something?

Valtor

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

Lots of universities have Political Science departments and programs. But no one protests about this.

Yes, and chances are that students would be getting a Bachelor of Arts degree when taking a major in "Political Science". It certainly is possible to study politics and religion with the scientific method, but that doesn't make Liberalism or Conservationism a science, and neither does it make Creationism a science. What's your point?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's not a valid hypothesis because it can't be invalidated. You can't prove Creation to be untrue because it doesn't actually postulate anything in and of itself that can be proved true or untrue.

So the best you can do (and what I would expect the degree requirements to include) is to postulate a hypothesis which could be proved within the Creationist framework.

On the other hand, as a multi-disciplinary field, Creationist studies could include comparative research into various Creation myths to find commonality. Such commonality could then be used to expand research into archeology, geology, and anthropology. Discommonality could be used in much the same way.

The field as represented in the media is dead except to the hard core believers. These people may be numerous, but the people who are actually involved in the "study" of Creationist Science have already tossed out young-earthism and repudiated the Sunday School beliefs of the masses (see how answersingenesis has changed over the past 10 years). It was the need to justify their beliefs that brought these researchers around to a better theory of "Creation", and I can't see how shining more light on the field will do anything but make their theory bend more to the facts.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

"Conservationism" is opposed to be "Conservatism". Damn stupid spell checkers.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[wickerprints]

The reason why creationism isn't science is precisely because it is not able to be verified nor refuted through the scientific method. Your question "Can we disprove creationism" is in itself assuming that creationism posits a testable hypothesis to begin with. You can't apply science to something that isn't scientific, because then by definition it would be scientific.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[lgw]

There are certainly scientific facts. But facts are always measured, never proven. Facts are the raw stuff from which science is built, much like taking money from credible suckers is the raw stuff from which religion is built.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

I thought science was about disproving hypothesis, not proving fact. Or am I missing something?

That really depends on how you define science. I wouldn't grant anybody a monopoly on that. And there are certainly assumptions in the use of the word "fact". For me at least Science has more to do with systematic and logical experimentation and observation; the results of which are important, and not whether a hypothesis has been proven or disproven.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[kikito]

You can at least learn how wrong people can be by studying creationism.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[jfengel]

So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?

That's true, except that the few predictions it does make are wrong. (The age of the earth is clearly greater than 6,000 years, and the creation theory contains no explanation for why all the evidence should consistently point to a much older age. Species do not always reproduce after their kind. And so on.)

The theory can be pushed and prodded to make it not actually inconsistent ("See, by 'day', we mean a couple of billion years...") But it doesn't predict those things; these explanations are formed after the fact.

That's the real problem: there is no one Creationism Theory. It continually shifts to avoid being proven wrong. Which wouldn't be so bad; every science does this. But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes, it doesn't seem a particularly fruitful avenue of research.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

I thought that the scientific method used the word "evidence" for these supposedly "facts".

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

I was defining the practice of science as following the scientific method.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Jurily]

Science can only be done by following the scientific method,

Bullshit. If that's so, why do all the breakthroughs happen by accident? Shouldn't the Holy Method itself produce the achievements?

No. It's only good for testing and improvement, not for new ideas. If Creationism can come up with something that can be tested with the scientific method, who are you to decide it's inherently wrong?

Remember how the existence of ether was widespread knowledge, up until a bored swiss patent clerk had a new idea? Did relativity come from the scientific method? No. Could it be tested? Yes. Would it have been accepted if it couldn't be tested? Hell no. In fact, in most schools they still teach Newtonian physics first. The idea that time is not constant is still weird enough to the general public that it only shows up in science fiction.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone with a Bachelor of Science in Photography, I am often asked to explain the reason it's not a BA or BFA (Arts or Fine Arts). My major was actually Industrial Technology and I concentrated in Technical Photography.

A Master of Arts in Creation Science would be a better title for this "degree" (using the word loosely).

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar Nazi alert! The plural of "hypothesis" is "hypotheses".

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

I see what you are saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

So that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[swimin]

Occam's Razor is an argument for God so long as you accept that having an all knowing all powerful being in the universe simply existing is a simple explanation. But I found that rather hard to swallow.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[gbarules2999]

Exactly. Claiming that "Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish" is like claiming that "Math = Gotta Wear A Pythagorean Theorem Hat". It's not close-minded in the least when the majority of our study of Biology is based off and assumes the verified fact of Evolution (and not necessarily Darwin's 150-year-old theories).

Re:This is not a bad idea

[adisakp]

They already have a degree equivalent to Masters of Creationism. It requires years of study and training and is already relevant to the field. It's called Priest (or as you noted, the PhD is Doctor of Divinity in some religious programs).

When Creationism starts yielding some research that is able to make independently testable and verifyable predictions, then we can treat it as a science rather than an art.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Thank you, I get it now.

So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[KeithJM]

So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?

No, I'm saying it doesn't make predictions so it's not science. You can try to pull predictions from it, but the story itself doesn't make claims about the age of the Earth. There are creationist theories that God created the Earth old, that the speed of light used to be much faster (which is why we can see light from stars that are more than 6 thousand light years away), that God planted dinosaur fossils to test our faith.

It's a story. You can dress it up to make predictions out of it, but someone else can dress it up and make excuses for it. It's not science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

From the Wikipedia:

Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove

I agree that this approach can be used as a tool, but I disagree that disproving anything should be a goal of science (or the scientific method) in itself. I could presume others may have sympathy with my opinion considering that "This article's factual accuracy is disputed."

Re:This is not a bad idea

[JustOK]

We can only pray

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Vaphell]

no it's not. Introducing God doesn't make other questions about physics and universe go away. You get old entities with their problems to solve plus God standing behind all of it - additional questions appear: why? what purpose? what is God's thought behind it?. You just effectively introduced more complexity by adding God into equation when it does nothing to solve the riddle.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[budgenator]

>

Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.

Creationist believe that a single supernatural Omnipotent being creating everything is a simpler than everything happening through happenstance.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[ukemike]

Which version of creationism? Lots of people believe that the earth is about 7000 years old and was created in 6 days. This version HAS been disproved by the scientific method.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

I understand this wiki entry might not be completely accurate. But there must be a common definition of the scientific method available somewhere.

Are you saying the "scientific community" does not have a common definition of the scientific method?? Because if so, we are screwed, and we are all wasting our time.

Would you agree?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[PRMan]

It is very easy to spot people who have never read a single creationist article.

They make statements that assume that creationists don't follow the scientific method, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Creationists have done literally thousands of repeatable, scientific experiments that cast doubt on the current understanding of the big bang and evolution. There is plenty of evidence that casts serious doubt on many of the things that are taken for granted in your science book.

Maybe people should try reading a couple articles so they can speak knowledgeably on the topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

Are you saying the "scientific community" does not have a common definition of the scientific method?? Because if so, we are screwed, and we are all wasting our time.

Would you agree?

No, not at all (on both points). And I'm starting to get the impression that you are Trolling.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[vigour]

The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock.

You make a fair point about being open-minded. I have no problem with theology institutes awarding higher degrees in theology, however I do have a problem with an anti-scientific, and purely theological subject being awarded a Masters in Science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.

I agree with you :)

Re:This is not a bad idea

[PRMan]

the creation theory contains no explanation for why all the evidence should consistently point to a much older age

You mean like this whole section of their website (with 8 subsections):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earth

But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes

You mean like the creationist that correctly predicted the magnetic fields of all the planets prior to the Voyager flybys (non-creationists got them all wrong, but their theory is in your science book, not the guy who got them all right): http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

Re:This is not a bad idea

[budgenator]

All this is is an attempt to pass off religion as science.

But that's a primary goal of creationists and iders making a end-run around the seporation of church and state by dressing up theism as science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[jamstar7]

So that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.

Exactly. I can see it as a PhD in Philosophy or Theology, but not Science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[PRMan]

Creationism isn't a search for answers.

Really, you might want to tell that to these guys: http://www.answersingenesis.org/. They keep spending millions searching for answers through scientific experiments. I wonder why they keep doing that when they could just close their Bible and say "God said so."

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Fascinating! Some science is coming out of this whole thing :)

So creationism might not be a total waste of time after all.

Interesting ! Thank you for those links.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Vornzog]

Can we disprove creationism?

No. We can't even *try*. And for precisely this reason, creationism is not science.

Strip away everything else and science comes down to these steps.

1. Posit a falsifiable hypothesis.
2. Design an experiment to test it.
3. If you fail to disprove it, it might be true.

Any argument that can be boiled down to '$DIVINITY did it!' fails at step one. By definition, God, miracles, etc. fall outside the bounds of science. You can't disprove them. You can *try* to reason about them logically. Everyone who has ever tried has ended up caught in a circular argument. This includes all statements made for *or against* the existence of a higher power.

This is why talking about science and religion in the same breath is utter nonsense. The two have no overlap, unless there is a God, and he is deceiving us at every turn just to be an asshole (the true believers will tell you he is testing your faith).

This 'grand deceiver' is the fallout of following Descartes' "Je pense donc je suis" to its logical conclusion, and the foundation for all of western philosophy until Sartre hit reset by deliberately ignoring everything that came before him. (See sig for more).

Religion comes down to one question. Do you believe? No logic, no science, no reasoning it out. So, do you believe?

Pascal's Wager helps to explain part of the enduring popularity of believing in God, despite a lack of empirical evidence. If you believe, and there is no God, nothing happens to you - this is the existential viewpoint. If you disbelieve, and there is a God, you are screwed - this is the religious viewpoint.

Me? I think Marcus Aurelius had it right. Worry about this life. The next will take care of itself, one way or another.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Polumna]

If I might throw out my opinion, I believe you are over-simplifying science. Science does have to follow the scientific method. The scientific method can only be used to show correlations and disprove hypotheses. Those are both true. However, boiling science down to only that would be inaccurate, and I believe this is where the other person was going with your 'definition' of science.

I would define science as a field devoted to explaining the natural world in human terms through models that reflect truth of how things really work. If you stop the definition at 'disproving things,' there would be no need for theories. Rather, the scientific method is the tool used to construct said models in the way that they most accurately reflect said truth.

To relate this to the current topic of religion and creationism. First, though I am an atheist, I have no problem with religious people in science. After all, science is only concerned with the natural world. If theistic scientists want to phrase their questions internally to determine "how" God did something, I have no concern. In that context, the context where religion stays supernatural and doesn't infringe on the turf of science with disprovable, antiquated and in some cases ridiculous dogmatic notions about the natural world, there is no mutual exclusivity. I believe the fundamental problem most scientists have with creationism (other than that it's pretty ridiculous at this point) is that it doesn't ask "how" God did something, it declares "what" God did.

Another corrollary about creationism: it is scientifically useless. It is easiest to declare it unscientific just because it fails the basic scientific method test, but more importantly (in my opinion), it fails to come to the table with a useful model about the natural universe. As someone else touched on, the possibility that things can be explained in terms of "because God wanted it that way" or "it's all part of God's plan-that-we-can't-understand-because-we're-mere-humans" is completely and utterly unscientific... by any definition.

If I have offended you or anyone else, I sincerely apologize.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure what the guy was alluding to was the fact that Creationism is not falsifiable.
Making predictions is a side-effect of being falsifiable. If something doesn't make predictions then it obviously can't be proven wrong. Theories that can't be proven wrong are worse than theories that can be proven wrong.

Falsifiability is what makes science science. Because one single, documented, double-blind etc experiment could prove a scientific theory wrong.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Oh I agree with you, what I know of their story seems completely wacko to me.

But a lot of the scientific hypothesis we use right now, like the earth is round, seemed completely wacko once too.

Ok ok... I know this example might be seen by most people as more then just an hypothesis ;-)

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of this psuedo-accepting bullshit response.

Studying anything does, yes, teach something. Creationism study teaches that the people pushing it are willingly trying to corrupt education for their own reasons, and hiding behind religion for authority.

This isn't a matter of right to be religious, this is a matter of right to lie to people with legal backing.

Not every field is a scientific field... do you honestly think "bringing it in line with serious study" is what they want? That has been offered countless times. They won't use science on the subject because it IS NOT SCIENCE. God-Dun-It is not science.

Look, I appreciate you trying to be the friendly neutral guy on this, but sometimes, people are just flat wrong... this is a case. Being all sweet and accepting is just allowing credability to nonsense which has long ago been laid to rest, and is being kept alive simply for the agenda's of a few dishonest people.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Thank you for taking the time to explain all this.

One thing though is that, one day we might actually be able to prove that God does not exist.

We never know what sort of incredible insight future research might bring us.

I love science! :)

Re:This is not a bad idea

[ukemike]

Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.

Interesting, we were having a discussion about creationism. I would agree that being a rational person does not preclude religious belief. I think it clearly precludes a belief that the earth was created in 6 days about 7,000 years ago. But then you have to go and drag evolution into it. Again being rational does not require having a particular bumpersticker, but to deny evolution without evidence is as irrational as saying that the earth is flat.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Please believe that I am not trolling!

I truly was not aware of this and I'm truly shocked!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[ukemike]

As soon as you engage creationists or other anti-science dogmatics on the subject of which is correct, you loose. In science there is no right and wrong, there are only models that more effectively approximate our experience of the world. The real point here is not that creationism is wrong, but that it is not science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

First, show evidence of said supernatural being.
Then, have it explain why it created the universe.

Without the explanation, "happenstance" is exactly what you are proposing. The only difference is that you unnecessarily add a god into the mix.

"all things have a beginning, except god." Why the exception? where did this god come from? If it has no beginning then why can't the universe?

For the theologically minded, if god created the universe to obtain something, then god is incomplete,and is not perfect.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[claar]

But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes, it doesn't seem a particularly fruitful avenue of research.

I was mostly following you up until this point. The Bible, the source of creationism, is full of predictive successes -- they're called prophesies, and many have provably happened many years after being prophesied (although here you will see the hypocritical side of many scientists -- rather than researching these things, proving ages of biblical manuscripts and events through the study of archeology and history, many simply deny these events on "faith").

In fact, it is partially on the basis of such prior predictive successes that some Christians such as myself base their "hypothesis", if you will, of creationism and other Biblically-founded beliefs.

Oh no, a Christian on /. -- let the flame war begin.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Thank you so much for your post.

Please note that I am just a layman here, you probably knew that :) I am a programmer/analyst. I am not a scientist. I just love science.

Your post was most informational. In fact I am in shock, this throws a couple of my preconceptions of the world out of the window.

In the light of all this then, it seems to me that we should not try to squash the believers in creationism. They might have the right to exist after all.

I still don't believe in creationism of course and I don't think they could make me change my mind :)

Thank you again !

Re:This is not a bad idea

[ColdWetDog]

They make statements that assume that creationists don't follow the scientific method, which couldn't be further from the truth.

You need to go back and read the manual. "Science" is not doing "experiments". Science is creating testable hypothesis. Just for fun, I looked at "Answeringgenesis". That's not science. That's pseudoscientifc claptrap.

Just because it has a citation, doesn't mean it is an intellectual pursuit.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[speedtux]

"The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff."

You're confusing scientific speculation with scientific theory. Parallel universes right now are merely speculation. But if they existed and could be demonstrated experimentally, they would be neither weird nor mysterious. Furthermore, for these speculative corners of physics, we know why they are hard to observe.

"God" is in a completely different category. God is supposed to be a being that is everywhere, all-knowing, all powerful, and in personal communication with every human being. You aren't supposed to need a particle accelerator or black hole to interact with God, just everyday thought. Yet, there is no physical evidence, no reproducible experiment, of his existence at all. That is not reasonable.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the morning funnies! It stretches my credulity to the breaking point that these guys actually believe this trash, but I suppose it doesn't matter either way as long as you still get to shear the sheep. The second one I read years ago (as a link on /.!) and still just cracks me the fuck up. Basically, the idiot is attempting to make the claim that God poofed the planets into existence...made out of water. But not just any old water, but special water that was carefully aligned by Gawd. Who then poofed away the water and replaced it with the planets as we now see them. Oh, but clever Gawd! He didn't poof away the magnetic field resulting from those carefully aligned water molecules! He instead made it decay at a rate that just so happened if you fudge the math like the jackass author you can spit back the correctish field strengths (what's a piddling few orders of magnitude between sheeple)! Oooooh! I'm impwessed! Give me a halleylooyuh! Praise Jebus!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[c6gunner]

In science there is no right and wrong

Really? Wow. In that case, I must say that I'm shocked we have any scientists left. They should all have died by now from jumping out of windows, ingesting radioactive materials, and blowing up their laboratories. Or, in the words of the famous old poem:

Charlie was a chemist
But Charlie is no more
What Charlie thought was H2O
Was H2SO4

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

Thank you very much for your insightful post.

I was born (or made by my parents to become) a Christian too (Catholic), I don't practice it anymore though, in fact I don't practice any religion at this time. But I still think spirituality has it's part to play in the human psyche :)

That said, I would never use any of the teachings of my religion as a point of view to do science. I would keep these two as completely separate thought processes.

I did not know there were some observations that had been predicted by a religion. Even in this case, it would only take one prediction for which we have evidence that it did not happen in the way described, for us to disprove this "prophet". Would it not?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

No, not at all (on both points). And I'm starting to get the impression that you are Trolling.

I am not trolling! I truly was not aware of this.

I am really shocked here. I am happy to have asked these questions today, because this changes things for me.

Thanks.

PS: Sorry, I first posted my reply at the wrong post.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, it's such bullshit. Creationists do too follow the scientific method. You have to define it a little bit differently, but creationists still follow it. Here's a rundown for all you evilutionists: First, you start with the Bible...or rather a certain narrow literalisticalish interpretation of the Bible. Then you ignore any piece of data that conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. Then you don't do any research. Ever. Next, you troll journal articles written by your betters to try and pry out any supportive quote--context shmontext. Presto! The Bible is true! It's true! Praise Jebus!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Valtor]

I have been told today that there is no such thing as THE Scientific Method. "Scientists" are not even agreed on a common definition of this method! I am shocked!

I don't understand why we do "science" then? Maybe we should have different types of science, different words for it, just to make sure that people know what they are talking about when they exchange "scientific" studies.

I am not trolling here. I truly don't get it. How can we cite science as "Science" if those practicing it do not even have a common definition for their practice??

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

That's OK. When people tend to continually question my answers then I get suspicious. BTW, I have been reading some of your other posts on the topic as well, just to get a better idea about you and whether you were just being a crank. I think probably not. People can certainly learn a lot by questioning; that's how Socrates learned -:)

Best regards,

UTW

Re:This is not a bad idea

[phantomfive]

I don't know what part of the bible you are referring to, but the Bible says all over the place stuff like, "If with all your heart ye truly seek me, ye shall surely find me." (Jeremiah 29:13). The idea of faith is that you will walk on unsure for a while, but then you will see more and more evidence as your faith is tested, until you see the truth as clear and brightly as the sun. Lots of people have come to know God through this method. It is something that can be tested, but you actually have to get out and do the experiment yourself. Realistically that is more scientific than reading peer reviewed journals, since that is only believing someone else's words. To quote the Royal Academy of England, we should believe "On the Words of No One."

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, that's it. Nobody's so dense as to believe these guys do research, have spent millions on it, and do it for any reason other than demanding proof from God, the little Pharisees. I call Poe.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Slashdot.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, like reading /.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Wyatt Earp]

They have to "spend millions searching for answers" so that they'll magic up answers that look "scientific" enough so that boards of education and States will allow the clap-trap to be taught in public schools.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[nneonneo]

Ahem: what you've posted has been rather thoroughly refuted by members of the scientific community:

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

I highly recommend that you peruse talkorigins.org and determine the veracity of your claims before posting. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in the relevant topics (geology, astrophysics) can quite quickly see that the articles you have linked to are not sound science, merely poor arguments presented to appear as science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts are used as evidence in the scientific method. As the GP said, facts are measured and can be accepted objectively as true.

From the facts, a scientist comes up with a theory. The scientific method is used as a tool to test the validity of a theory. In performing an experiment, the scientist uses the theory to make a prediction: the hypothesis. If, through a repeatable experiment, the hypothesis is found false, the theory is proven false. If the hypothesis is found true, the theory stands until another hypothesis from the theory can be proved false. At that point a new theory must be found to better explain the facts.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Asic Eng]

Is difficulty the ultimate metric for advanced degrees?

Sheesh - does that really need explaining? A degree in apple counting is unnecessary, since anybody can do it without any training. Using the same title for people who have attended a three week course to count apples and people who've actually gained significant knowledge in a complicated field, is cheating.

Maybe you worked hard because you aren't particularly suited to the field you studied?

Phrasing insults as rhetorical questions is a rather cowardly tactic. That science degrees usually take hard work is common knowledge - it's silly and boring to pretend to be unaware of that.

How do you know that a degree in Creationism isn't as difficult as your field of study?

The same way I know that pencil sharpening isn't as difficult to study. It's creationism, it's not like nobody here has heard anything about it. Yes: it's ridiculously easy.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[nneonneo]

I would suggest you learn a bit about the scientific method before calling it a "Holy Method" or crying bullshit.

Actually, one of the integral parts of the scientific method is to develop a hypothesis (that's usually step 1). The scientific method doesn't say how this is done. Such hypotheses can come from anywhere. But what is important is that any hypothesis which results MUST offer testable predictions. Hypotheses which do not offer testable predictions aren't even scientific, so the scientific method cannot apply.

The next step is to test these testable predictions. A testable prediction is some aspect of the hypotheses which predicts the occurrence or presence of some piece of experimentally observable evidence. For example, the theory of gravity may predict that an apple will fall to the ground after being released from the tree (as opposed to, say, hanging in midair or flying upwards) -- this is testable because we can perform the experiment (drop an apple) and observe the outcome (the apple falls). The (modern) theory of evolution predicts that humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor -- this is testable because we can perform the experiment (look at the fossil record and the similarities between chimps and humans on all levels) and observe the outcome (common ancestry can be traced back through intermediate forms).

Name a few testable predictions of creation science, and state specifically what you could do to test them, as I've done. I am interested to see the results.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[einhverfr]

Can you have a scientific study of creationism?

What about a study relating to archeology of themes relating to the Garden of Eden story?

What about the sociology of creationism as a phenominon, anthropological parallels, etc?

Is this more or less "science" than is "computer science?" Certainly the above suggestions are more closely tied to the scientific method, while most of computer science is dressed up logic rather than subject to the scientific method per se.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[DallasMay]

Well, for one, I read from Matthew 4:7, " Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' " " Some of us are blessed with more evidence than others. But, in the end, we all have to take someone's word for it.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[MisterCIA]

No...they are spending millions on "experiments" that look good to those who are already predisposed to belive in creationism. It says so in the titel of the page: Answers in Genesis. Where the scientific method requires that one attempt to disprove a hypothesis. They are attempting to prove that genesis is correct. It is simplicity itself to prove just about anything. It is increadibly more difficult to create a hypothesis that cannot be disproven. Therefore they fail before they even begin. PR and religion are not science no matter how pretty or proffesional the packaging.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you saying? Evolution has never been proven by scientific method? Have you experimentally seen an animal evolving? They are both dogmatic beliefs because neither of them are provable incontrovertibly.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design has been shown to be a direct descendant of Creationism, so I will give you my answer from discussions on ID.

ID proposes that the world/Universe was created by an intelligent being, and that that intelligent being thought about the design issues of creating anything.

There are certainly facts that make it *look* like ID and Creationism is in fact correct, I will not dispute that. We can argue over those from here till your Rapture.

However, in Scientific Theories (which ID purports to be), *every* aspect of that theory must be at a minimum *verifiable*. Because ID proposes a supernatural being, and by the very definition of supernatural shows that science could neither give evidence either way, that part of ID is in no way verifiable, and therefore ID is not a valid *scientific* theory.

I hazard to say that ID is a perfectly acceptable *non-scientific* theory, but non-scientific theories should have no place in science curricula; they belong in a theology or origins curriculum.

Basically, ID proponents want to have their cake and eat it too. They have a theory that can never be proved or disproved, which immediately makes it a non-valid scientific theory. They say that because you can't disprove it, it should be included in the science curriculum, but by that logic, we should also include Astrology (which is different than astronomy), and every other supernatural creation idea that has ever been thought up. But, you don't hear them promoting the idea of the "Great Spirit". Make no mistake, ID is the push of the non-scientific into the scientific realm, and if they are successful, they will destroy the very thing that has made America (and by extension, the rest of the world) so powerful - our ability to think rationally and pass on rational thoughts to our offspring.

But, on the other hand, if you thought that an eternal damnation awaited people who disagreed with you, you would do everything you could to save everybody else, at any expense.

I'm sorry I am showing my bias, but there it is. People should not believe in silly things and then try to enforce their beliefs on others, but Christians are exactly like everybody else, even if they don't think so.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[ImOnlySleeping]

"How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?" Religion is not science. If you disagree, feel free to list one piece of science that creationism uses to confirm itself. You could have a course examining external causes and effects of the 'theory', but it is no way, shape or form science.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[growse]

It still isn't clear to me, or apparently most people, what falsifiable hypotheses they're testing with their "millions [on] experiments". And I've read the link....
And no, throwing doubt onto certain parts of evolutionary theory does not automatically mean all of evolution is wrong and therefore creationism is correct. That's just retarded.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Arancaytar]

Because science is not about proving anything, it is about disproving hypothesis

That's completely correct. But to start with, a theory has to be able to be disproved. That means it must make a prediction which can be shown to be wrong (or not) by an experiment. This "falsifiability" is a very important quality in any scientific theory. For example, I could tell you that the entire world is a figment of my imagination. Any choice you make and any random event that occurs is decided by me. There is nothing you can do to scientifically disprove my claim (I could just say I arranged for your proof to work), despite its stupidity.

Creationism makes no predictions, so it cannot be disproved by any experiment. Ergo, it is not falsifiable, which means it is not a scientific hypothesis. :)

Re:This is not a bad idea

[msuarezalvarez]

If Creationism can come up with something that can be tested with the scientific method, who are you to decide it's inherently wrong?

When that happens, get back to us...

Re:This is not a bad idea

[msuarezalvarez]

Creationist believe that a single supernatural Omnipotent being creating everything is a simpler than everything happening through happenstance.

But that is only due to their poor imagination at asking questions... Once you've reduced everything to a single supernatural Omnipotent, you are left with the huge problem of understanding *that*, and the last few thousand years have shown that it is extraordinarily difficult to make sense of it.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[msuarezalvarez]

Why are you repeating this over and over?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Daemonax]

Ah but about a science programme on the physics of ballet? :-)

Re:This is not a bad idea

[dangitman]

There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.

The difference is that those aren't science degrees.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this idea you have of evolving the field of creationism.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I think you are missing the point here.

First, I intended no insult to you. Simply, I was pointing out that what may be difficult for you may have been easy for someone else. The suitability of a person to a particular field will form that person's impression of their field of study. If you think your degree is valuable because it was hard to get, does that mean that someone who received the same degree with much less effort should value it less because of the reduced effort?

Which then goes to the first point. If a degree's value is intrinsically tied to the difficulty of getting it, then isn't it directly tied to the recipient's impression of its difficulty? That isn't a good measure, by any measure.

A person who finds the Sloan MBA program natural and intuitive may find themselves struggling with the MBA program at Harvard or Wharton. Even within the same field, there are significant differences between programs. But does this mean that one program is inherently better than another? If you think that personal difficulty is the deciding factor, then the person who chooses the program that he is least suited for will always claim his degree is more valuable than another. But that doesn't make any sense in any objective way.

As for your comments regarding the Creationism program, it reeks of the close-mindedness that I mentioned in my original post. Without having so much as glanced at the program, you dismiss it out of hand. Your preconceived notions of the topic have already closed you off to the possibility of valuable knowledge arising from the study of it. Whether or not there is merit in the "theory", it's study can only illuminate the problems in the field, and the field either changes to incorporate the results of study or it retreats further into its dogma. Either result is preferable to the type of self-imposed blindness on both sides of the aisle.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[JavaRob]

Creationist believe that a single supernatural Omnipotent being creating everything is a simpler than everything happening through happenstance.

Exactly right, like how explaining that "Mommy went shopping for your presents when she claimed she was out grocery shopping, and Daddy wrapped them behind a closed bedroom door, misleadingly wrote 'from Santa' on the tag and then put them under the tree after he was sure you were asleep" is so much more more complicated than "Santa brought them, using magic."

Occam's razor, ladies and gentlemen.

How does the magic work? Oh, uh, it simply works.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[phantomfive]

Check out John 7:17, where Jesus says directly, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." It is by following God's will that we find out if what he says is true or not, asking for miracles will never work, which is what Satan was asking Christ to do in the verse you quoted. Those are two different ways: one says to believe and follow, and then miracles will happen, the other says miracle first, and then believe. Faith first, good works first, then you can know.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course religion is not science, but that's not to say that creation science cannot be scientific. Creation science should be viewed as a preconception on which science is based. Just as the evolutionary theory is a preconception on which science is based. Saying that creation science doesn't make any predictions is ridiculous, it predicts and implies a great, great number of things about very many aspects of life, plenty of which can be verified by the scientific method (and, we would argue, have been verified time and again.)

Among these are that certain kinds of fossils will be found, fossils that have been found, such as the whales fossilized in chalk pointing to a deluge burial, and the trees fossilized through multiple layers. It suggests that most of what we call micro-evolution will occur in the form of lost genetics, not gained, not new genetic information. And research bears that out as virii and bacteria lose sensitivity to various chemicals and antibiotics by ditching the gene that made them susceptible.

It posits that man lived with dinosaurs, another fact born out through cave paintings and historical descriptions of dinosaurs, and even the descriptions of orthodox scientists who claim to have seen apatosaurus-like animals in the Congo.

I can't list them all, but there's plenty more.

Creation theory is a preconception about the past, in the same way that evolution theory is a preconception about the past. Most scientists simply don't want to accept the degree to which a premise can color their understanding of the evidence. All of the evidence for evolution fits into the creation theory perfectly, AND the creation theory explains a lot of evidence that the evolution theory cannot explain. But because creation theory is a priori out-of-bounds, it cannot be taken seriously. But, if it's the truth, what then? Perhaps the principle of naturalism is too strident. What if a miracle was the best explanation, the truth, what then? Is naturalism more important than truth?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Asic Eng]

I think I explained everything regarding difficulty at length.

As for creationism - it's not some new idea, we all know what it's about. There are no two sides of the aisle in this case, neither creationism research nor magical elf research nor flat earth research deserve to run a masters program. How ludicrous does a proposal have to be before you discard it?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

Can you get a degree is Evolution? Or Republicanism? Or Cartesian Thought? I don't think so.
Those are only part of the field of study in which you are studying to be a master of.

Creationism could be a focus of a degree in philosophy or biology or whatever, but its really just one view among all those in a field. Even then, probably not a very important one, since it doesn't seem to have contributed anything to scientific knowledge. It doesn't seem like any groundbreaking evidence that debunks everything before it has come forth from creationists. I think virus and bacteria evolution makes this a dead on win in evolution's favor.

I always think religious people have this all wrong. There are questions science doesn't answer, at least not yet, and maybe God is the answer, we'll see. Maybe the Prime Mover caused the big bang or Divine Intelligence will pop into a formula some day, and that's fine, but science doesn't really worry about that. It just observes and tries to figure out what's going on. When evidence proves out a theory, its true. Its a slow process, but you can build other science off of it, because its a solid foundation.
Scientists really can't help where the evidence takes them. It isn't anti-god or anything like that, its really just work.

It also seems like religion answers different questions than science. When I get laid off and my dog dies and my wife leaves me, a statistical analysis of what I did wrong, or what others did to me, probably won't keep me going. Talking to a religious person or God might help me gain perspective as to what I should do.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[telomerewhythere]

I think GP was referring to Luke 4:12 and Matthew 4:7

Saying in effect, "Are you really there God, let me prove it by some scientific method." will never prove God. Yahweh popping into sight of all people of the Earth and saying "Here I AM worship me" and shooting off some fireworks will not be motivation for obedience. Take Exodus for example if you are a believer or any criminal today if you are not. Just b/c people see God or Laws and Enforcement will not make them obey/submit if they don't want to. Christianity or Citizenship only works if practitioner is willing, and educated.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Ol Olsoc]

Because Creationist study is this:

Q. Who made it?

A. God made it.

Aside from trying to prove evolution wrong - that's about the beginning and end of it.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[jc42]

But a lot of the scientific hypothesis we use right now, like the earth is round, seemed completely wacko once too.

Actually, the shape of the Earth is a bad thing to use as such an example. There's lots of historical evidence showing that people have understood the shape of the Earth for as long as we have historical records. Lots of textbooks describe the successful measurement of the Earth's size by those classical Greek guys, and similar things have been done in other cultures. Sailors on large bodies of water have always known that they were sailing on a big curved surface, from the way that things disappear from the bottom up as you sail away from them, and appear from the top down as you approach them.

The idea of a flat Earth historically has belonged to religious and political types that were insulated from real-world experience and could safely believe whatever nonsense they liked on such topics that didn't impact their everyday lives. But the guys down at the docks always knew better, because the curved surface they lived on was a significant part of their everyday lives, and they could see its shape.

It's curious especially that we still have this bizarre myth that Columbus was trying to prove something about the shape of the Earth. At the time, even the religious people accepted that the planet was spherical. The debate wasn't its shape; the debate was over its size. (And Columbus's trips didn't decide that. ;-) This is quite well documented in the historical records.

For most purposes, it's the flat-earth theory that should be considered wacko, as most knowledgeable people would have laughed at it at any time in history. Only religious nuts and political leaders believed such nonsense in the face of the evidence that any dummy can pick up in a single reasonably long sailing trip.

Part of the problem is that our main religious texts came from people living out in the desert, which is a terrain where measuring the size and shape of the Earth is both unimportant and very difficult. Now if we could just free our society from the influence of dummies who take some just-so stories written down by a few desert shepherds and insist that they are eternal truths about the whole world.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Citizen of Earth]

If you believe, and there is no God, nothing happens to you - this is the existential viewpoint.

OTOH, people who aren't schizophrenic don't actually have the power to *choose* what they believe. At most, you could feign a belief in God, but if you'd think an omniscient being who can read the mind of everyone on Earth at all times might just catch on to your deception and be a little peeved with you.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[tqk]

Yeah, ok, so that was a horrible attempt at an analogy, but my point was: you're completely wrong. As strange and counter-intuitive as quantum physics can be, it doesn't even begin to approach the level of crazy which most religions embrace as their founding principles.

I agree with your condemnation of spiritualism (for want of a better word), however, have you read Feynman? This's exactly how he described Quantum physics. "No, it doesn't make any sense, but it is how it works." [paraphrased]

Sorry. I'm looking forward to hearing it's been sorted out too. Go LHC! Please.

I miss Richard. Funny guy.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like going to the Ivory Tower?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[master_p]

Wasn't the arrival of Jesus predicted?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Atheists deserve a little slack considering what they've been through.

...and it's official: Atheists are the new Jews!

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Cederic]

A prophecy along the lines of "oh no, bad shit will happen" is not exactly scientific.

Scientific predictions on the other hand would be unlikely to be omitted from the bible. People claim success as their own; the use of science to make accurate predictions will obviously be reported in a religious tome as the success of that religion.

Could you please express your "hypothesis" of creationism in terms that permit objective evaluation and verification, and provide supporting evidence?

Just that I'm struggling to differentiate creationism from pastafarianism, both at a philosophical and evidential level.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[MLS100]

Would you be so kind as to provide examples of non-trivial predictions made by the Bible proven to have been made prior to the event itself, the event itself proven to have been accurately recorded, and the people ivolved proven to have no prior knowledge of the prophecy beforehand to influence their actions?

The real reason you think people dismiss these prophecies on 'faith' is that, since the emergence of the Bible, there have been zero verifyable prophets. In fact, since we began taking the reocrding of history seriously, there have been zero proven prophets.

Does this not strike you as strange, considering all of the history that has occured between now and then that if God were so concerned with the world and the decline of his following that he might want to do something about it? You think he just sits there and fumes over the non-believers even though he has the power to convert them with ease?

It seems sort of cruel of God, that he offers eternal damnation as your fate if you don't subscribe to specific beliefs, but offers no real proof of his existence to people. This is akin to me pointing a gun to your head and asking you if you believe I own a working magic wand. If you don't, I'll kill you, and when you ask why you should believe me, I will give you a note from the last guy I pointed the gun at who claims full faith in my wand as proof.

There are so many problems with this situation. First I have a gun to your head so anything you say is going to be influenced by it. Second, I offer you no reason to believe me other than the gun to your head and the word of someone else who had a gun to their head. Third, you've never seen a magic wand in your lifetime nor provable existence of one, yet I'm asking you to believe in mine, and your life is forfeit if you don't. You see the problem?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[rohan972]

So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?

I'm as far as it gets from an expert on creationism, but are we certain that it does not make any predictions that we could test to try and disprove it?

Of course there are predictions:
'It will be in the last days, says God,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.

Your sons and your daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions.
Your old men will dream dreams.

Yes, and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days,
I will pour out my Spirit, and they will prophesy.

I will show wonders in the sky above,
and signs on the earth beneath;
blood, and fire, and billows of smoke.

The sun will be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood,
before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.

It will be, that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

and:
He who overcomes, I will give him these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son. But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Among others. I'm not sure how you would go about falsification of these, but eventually we'll all find out.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a shut down the logic & reasoning capabilities of your brain to think that what science "knows" today wont radically change tomorrow.

History son, History.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you "evolve" a field of study whose very foundation is anti-evolutionary?

Advanced degrees are supposed to be about discovering new knowledge. What is there to discover, when you believe that it was all written up for you 4000 years ago?

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Occam's Razor doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Tenebrousedge]

You don't understand Occam's Razor. Go read about it, and then read my post again.

Occam's Razor is one way to show that Creationism is not scientific. There are others.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it not close-minded to dismiss creationism, it is correct. There is a LARGE body of evidence disproving the assertions of creationism. It isn't science, it isn't factual, and it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[budgenator]

I hope your using "you" and "you've" and meaning "they" and "they have, because I was explaining an position that I don't subscribe to

Re:This is not a bad idea

[socceroos]

hhahahaha, yeah! Or even going to an Evolutionist convention and arguing about how dumb Creationism is.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Slur]

The Creationist mindset believes intentionality goes all the way down, and can't understand how intentionality could be the result of something completely unintentional.

This is very similar to animism, which assigns spirit and meaningful action to all things.

It seems to be related to tribal and social cohesion, in the sense that insular groups attach to it, and perhaps it could be connected to the psychological wall between me...us and them...that, which breaks down in so-called mystical states, but which itself underlies everyday experience.

My sense is that there is a deep psychological reason why people feel so certain that everything must be intentional. It's projection from a place of self-ignorance. They haven't looked deeply enough into their own situation to see how it can be both, but that each level of the system has its own internal dynamics.

Kids should learn about emergent order in science class, that will help.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, it says any subject.

I want to start an educational institute of pornography and prostitution.

Students, please prepare for your oral exam.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[lgw]

Facts may give evidence for or against some theory, or may not be useful as evidence, but are still facts regardless.

People often mistake what science means by "true" and "proven". Science is not mathematics: a theory is "true" if it reliably makes useful predicitions. Theorys that have been "proven" are still occasionally wrong, but are still called "true" to the extent that they remain accurate for a useful set of inputs. Newton's laws are still "proven" and "true": for a well-defined set of inputs, they predict correct results to an accuracy greater than can be measured.

The question of what's really going on, as opposed to whether the model works, is not a scientific question (though naturally it's still of interest to most scientists), because at best you can only prove statements about "what's really going on" false. You can, however, prove whether a model works for a range of inputs, and have high confidence that it works somewhat outside that range.

Now Forrest Gump can get an advance degree.....

[rimcrazy]

Stupid is as stupid does.

Re:Now Forrest Gump can get an advance degree.....

[Anonymous Coward]

fail

Re:Now Forrest Gump can get an advance degree.....

[ImOnlySleeping]

To be fair, in the novel Gump was a savant and not just an idiot and was majoring in astrophysics (before joining NASA).

Names Please

[jmknsd]

As someone from Texas, I would appreciate the name of the legislator in the summary.

And now that you have made me read TFA, it doesn't mention the legislators name either. I guess Mr. Bad Astronomer felt like taking this opportunity to bash Texas without actually helping people get something done.

Re:Names Please

[similar_name]

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler)

Re:Names Please

[unlametheweak]

I guess Mr. Bad Astronomer felt like taking this opportunity to bash Texas without actually helping people get something done.

We are laughing with you, not at you.

Re:Names Please

[m.ducharme]

Except he's not laughing.

Re:Names Please

[Rabbitbunny]

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist6/berman.php

State accreditation

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this worse than any other diploma mill? At least Creationist U. probably has some course requirements (worthless as they may be). State accreditation is pretty meaningless on the whole.

Re:State accreditation

[budgenator]

Actually I was thinking that microsoft or Redhat for example could set up a nonprofit's and turn their credentials into "advanced degrees"

He's just open minded!

[NineNine]

... the guy who proposed this bill:

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=25464

and

http://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/censure-texas-state-representative-leo-berman/

The proof is in the...?

[Targon]

When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.

So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.

Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[maraist]

You're not looking at it through their eyes, and thus you're misrepresenting their motivations.

They're not trying to prove God. They are trying to disprove Atheism. They are as grossly offended by the teaching of Evolution to their children as they would be about condom use, sex education, condoning sex outside of marriage, promotion of interracial relations, public support of planned parenthood, etc.

These are honest points of disagreement (some being more laughable than others).

Thus, teaching Evolution exclusively is essentially forcing their children to admin that the 7-day universe is false - they come home to the parents and pose difficult questions.

By promoting at least one other distinct alternative to evolution, then the parents can successfully say, see, it's only one of several possible theories, so don't worry about it.

It's the exact same process I use to disprove Christianity. If you have 2 or more mutually exclusive descriptions of God's will, then at least one is guaranteed to be at least partialy wrong (and thus not worthy of mindless acceptance), and in the absence of any credible proof of one verses the other, then in all likelihood they are both wrong.. Continue this trend until you've reach every single man made religion, and you've welcomed the world of Agnosticism.

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[sqlrob]

Atheism is just agnosticism with added Occam's Razor

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always taken a slightly different stance on the atheism vs. agnosticism thing. Now, obviously there are atheists who take it too far, but here's the way I see it.

I find that most agnostics I've met don't actually take a neutral or deity-favoring stance; they're just atheists by another name. When one describes oneself as atheist, she isn't saying "There are definitely no gods"; she's saying "There are probably no gods," for anytime someone says anything, there's is an implied possibility of wrongness unless that person is supremely arrogant.

So a lot of agnostics just turn out being atheists who are too timid to admit it.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Nursie]

"I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something"

Congratulations on totally misunderstanding Dawekins and (most) atheists.

Religions can be dismissed based on the fact that they are flawed, contradictory of each other and themselves, can be shown to take ideas from other religions and long-dead cults and are basically patently ridiculous.

As for the possible existence of some sort of creator god? No proof of absence is offered, it is simply that there is no evidence or even credible suggestion to the positive, so for now I'll operate under the assumption there isn't one. Most atheists are agnostic too. They are without evidence (agnostic) so they don't believe in a god (atheist).

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Xtravar]

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.

Atheism just means the absence of belief in god, not the absolute denial of the possibility of existence in god. This is a common misconception. What you are referring to is "hard atheism" which is, more or less, impossible to prove and not really subscribed to.

Self-proclaimed agnostics are either, in reality, "soft atheists" or people pleasers who feel the need to assert their special individuality in such a way that offends the least amount of people.

Basically, if you're not a theist then you're an atheist... because you're without theism. It's not like sexuality where you can swing both ways.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[pohl]

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.

As an atheist, I wasn't aware that proving the absence of something was a requirement. I had assumed that non-existence was the default assumption, and that if there is any burden of proof it falls on someone willing to entertain a hypothesis that asserts existence of something.

Why not consider agnosticism to be illegitimate instead? After all, it seems intent on forcing all people to consider all hypotheses, which is extremely retarded. I have a right to bear the principles of falsifiability and occam's razor. You'll have to pry them out of my cold, dead hands.

Am I obligated, as an atheist, to prove the absence of invisible pink unicorns too?

Re:The proof is in the...?

[wickerprints]

If I could I would give you all my mod points. Well said, especially the last part (though I think you meant to use the word "dissonant").

Oh, and there was one part that made me chuckle...

...forcing their children to admin that...

You must work in IT.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[gbarules2999]

So you can still not believe in something, but still say that it might exist and we don't know, huh? So I can say I don't believe in Santa Claus but say "Oh, he still might be out there, I don't know, but he still don't believe he exists." You're confusing me here (and it's Atheist discussions like this that turned me to apatheism).

Re:The proof is in the...?

[doshell]

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.

So I take it you deeply and truly believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Because, since its absence cannot be proved, it would be illegitimate for you to affirm it doesn't exist!

Re:The proof is in the...?

[FuzzyHead]

Your argument for Agnosticism is entirely problematic. I agree with the premise that in 2 mutually exclusive descriptions of God, at least one is false in some manner and I agree that there are thousands of mutually exclusive description of God. However it doesn't follow necessarily that every description of God and thus religion is false. There could be a true one that you have never found.

Thus your point hinges not so much on multiple religions, but rather your view of credible proof. If there was credible proof for Christianity would that change things? What if there was credible proof for Islam?

In the end you haven't disprove Christianity based upon mutually exclusive religions, but rather your view of proof which may or may not be valid.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Nevynxxx]

As an agnostic I beg to differ. Being agnostic means not having firm belief in any particular religion. It doesn't mean disbelieving in any, or all of them. Agnostics accept that what others believe may be true, and tend to fight for their right to believe it. Atheists can be just as rabid as any other religious fundamentalist.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Belial6]

Yes, you can not believe in something, but still say that it might exists. I honestly don't believe there is a 9 year old Irish boy living in India by the name of Hozwald Pottybottom, but even though I don't believe in Hoz, I certainly cannot say definitively that he does not exist.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[TheoMurpse]

Hard atheism is not subscribed to? Bull.

Every time someone invokes the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they're implicitly saying that the idea of a God is ridiculous. That is equivalent to the denial of the possibility of God, not a mere lack of belief.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Draek]

If you have 2 or more mutually exclusive descriptions of God's will, then at least one is guaranteed to be at least partialy wrong (and thus not worthy of mindless acceptance), and in the absence of any credible proof of one verses the other, then in all likelihood they are both wrong.

*BIG* jump in logic there, and one you cannot possibly justify without Occam's Razor. The problem is...

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.

...that if you apply Occam's Razor to the debate of God's existence, you reach Atheism, not Agnosticism.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...you can't prove the absence of something...."

You mean, like when physicists disproved the existence of interstellar aether?

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not believing something exists and believing something does not exist are not the same thing.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[sapphire wyvern]

As an agnostic I beg to differ. Being agnostic means not having firm belief in any particular religion. It doesn't mean disbelieving in any, or all of them. Agnostics accept that what others believe may be true, and tend to fight for their right to believe it. Atheists can be just as rabid as any other religious fundamentalist.

Actually, that's not quite what agnosticism is. What you've described is more religious liberalism, without personal commitment to any one doctrine.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know god; ie, the existence or otherwise of god or gods is unprovable. Gnosis is a Greek word meaning, roughly, "knowledge" or "enlightenment". The prefix a- indicates the absence of something, like in the words apolitical or amoral. So "agnostic" means "without knowledge/enlightenment", specifically applied to the sense of knowledge of the existence of gods, and the traditional definition of the philosophy extends to saying that such knowledge is logically impossible.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of atheism as agnostic activism. You support the right of others to believe what they will, but a core belief of most religions is that others don't have the right to believe differently. And of course this dogmatism can have very negative practical effects on your life. Agnostics who turn the other cheek have a deluded faith in reason's superiority to insanity.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[tnk1]

What?

You're saying that either an Agnostic is an "atheist in denial", or he's a wishy washy guy who simply tries to get along.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. Atheism definitely brings a premise to the table which may not be provable, but act as though they are pretty darn certain of it. Hence, it is a "belief" as you pointed out.

Agnosticism, is basically the absence of a position based on the fact that there is not enough information either way. That doesn't seem like a cocktail party philosophy to me, it sounds pretty much like someone who is doing their best to stick to their experience and nothing but their experience. God or Shiva or some other random deity may well exist, but there's pretty much no way that they can use a scientific method to observe that, so they decline to believe in it.

However, at the same time, no one can prove that there is *not* a deity or set of them, so believing that also represents an untestable hypothesis, which could well be entirely wrong.

I understand that there are people who use the term Agnostic as if it was just the coolest thing evar, but you and they are using the term inaccurately. Atheism always implies a belief, Agnosticism does not, so you cannot call a real Agnostic a "soft atheist", just like you can't call an Agnostic a "crypto-deist". You're just working to turn the debate into a two party belief structure, which in reality, simply does not exist.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except that there can be mutually exclusive views on many things. I, for example, have a view that you are mean, petty and small minded. Your friends might consider you smart open minded and very friendly. Now there are two mutually exclusive views on you. So there for you don't exist. Yea!

 

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait! So when a politician says that their religion will play no role in their policies, they are playing both side, no?

Unless they are lying...? They wouldn't lie to us!?

Re:The proof is in the...?

[FroBugg]

Nonsense. The Spaghetti Monster implies that a certain class of Gods are ridiculous. Many agnostics will leave the possibility open that there is a God of a sort, but that He does not take a direct hand in the workings of the universe like most major religions propose.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[khallow]

Atheism just means the absence of belief in god, not the absolute denial of the possibility of existence in god. This is a common misconception. What you are referring to is "hard atheism" which is, more or less, impossible to prove and not really subscribed to.

That is one particular definition of atheism. The usually accepted definition is that atheism is a denial of the existence of a god. It's common usage not a "misconception". Personally, I don't understand why so much effort is given to try to force the definition to include agnosticism. I personally don't care whether the definition of atheism includes agnosticism or not. It's not a genuine issue. There's no semantical advantage one way or another.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[ukemike]

But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism.

Agnosticism is really the only rational or scientific answer. All religions require faith in something that is unprovable. Agnosticism simply says "I don't know". Personally I apply Occam's Razor, and lean toward atheism, but Occam's razor is only a rule of thumb that can point you in the direction of greater probability, it never proves anything by itself.

What really bothers me is not that people choose to believe odd things like the world was created in 6 days approximately 7000 years ago, but that so many people have a complete lack of understanding about what science is. Science is two things. First it is a process. That process uses the scientific method to test hypotheses and then uses peer review to test whether the method was applied without error. The second is a body of knowledge that has been derived from the use of the scientific method. The problem is that in school kids are taught that the body of knowledge is science. They are never taught the method itself. This allows dogmatic people to assert that their body of knowledge, derived from some old text, can also be "science." I believe that the proper answer to intelligent design crap is to teach a whole year of scientific method, formal logic, and rhetoric as a requirement for graduation from high school. This would lead to a population that would be able to make ration decisions, reject the rhetorical tricks that are so often used by demagogues, and would lead to a more effectively functioning democracy.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[katakomb]

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.

Yours is a common but twisted definition of atheism. The definition of an atheist is *not* someone who can prove there is no god. An atheist simply does not believe in a god or gods. And yes, for many people it's functionally equivalent to agnosticism, because nobody can prove the non-existence of anything.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[shutdown -p now]

Atheism always implies a belief, Agnosticism does not

Actually, GP is absolutely correct, and this statement of yours is wrong.

"Atheism" means lack of belief in any deity. That may or may not go as far as claiming belief in non-existence of any deity.

Agnosticism is a belief that nature of reality ultimately cannot be entirely known (either because of inherent limits in any conscience, or because of some mystical qualities about the universe itself). That is the core belief, and refusal to either accept or deny the existence of God is just a consequence.

To sum it up: someone who doesn't believe in FSM, but does not claim that FSM is necessarily non-existent, is an atheist. Someone who does not believe in FSM, but claims that no-one can ever tell if FSM exists or not is an agnostic.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[einhverfr]

Please demonstrate this with regard to Uppanishadic Hinduism, where the closes thing you see to "God" is an abstract idea and the religion approximates patheism.

Dawkins' argument only holds with classical monotheism and breaks down when applied to ANYTHING else.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[einhverfr]

Basically, if you're not a theist then you're an atheist... because you're without theism.

See, but see, the problem here is that "theism" tends to be seen as functionally equivalent to "classical monotheism," so by that viewpoint Buddhists, Hindus, and Neopagans are all soft atheists by that definition. This is more or less due to the fact that the secular humanism on which most modern atheism is based is largely simply secularized interpretations of Christian humanism. Western Atheists and Christians have a heck of a lot more in common with eachother than they do with Thai Buddhists with either group.....

I reject the whole framework, myself, in favor of something which is somewhat pantheistic with man-made religions functioning as an interface between a pantheistic reality and the human condition. Oddly enough this has paralles in Aristotilian thought, but is somewhat different from Aristotle's viewpoint in that I don't accept an unmoved mover, etc. In some ways that might make me "functionally atheist" to some atheists, but then I see most atheists as "functionally Christian..."

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]- because you can't prove the absence of something.

You certainly can prove the absence of something, some of the time anyway.

There is no "highest prime number", for example. Triangles with four sides? Doesn't exist. Elephants currently existing in my office? Nope, none here (given the normal understanding of 'elephant'...invisible, microscopic ones, pictures of ones, etc. don't count).

What about an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all good), entity in a universe where evil exists? Well, that would lead to a contradiction and thus, doesn't exist either.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[toriver]

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.

Why do we need to prove the non-existence of something we do not entertain the possibility of existing? Of course we do not go around proving the absence of gods - we do not need to, since it is the presence that would be provable. I mean, since you cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, do you frown on people who categorically state that unicorns do not exist as well?

Atheism is of course legitimate since it is something else than what you postulate - it is the absence of belief in gods. To say that an atheist actively "un-believes" (i.e. tries to prove non-existence) is a bit like saying someone who do not have a hobby collecting stamps or anything else is actively "un-collecting".

Re:The proof is in the...?

[ImOnlySleeping]

That's me. I don't know and don't care, but do wish people would stop using their unsubstantiated belief system to force nonsense down people's throats (especially poor gullible kids).

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Ghubi]

Actually they are as grossly offended by the teaching of evolution to their children as we would be about the teaching of intelligent design to our children.

It's much much more offensive than any of the other issues you mentioned. It's remarkably easy to explain to a child that heathens are morally corrupt. Ethical issues allow for difference of opinion, issues of fact do not.

Evolution contradicts the Bible on issues of fact. Anyone who accepts the fundamental axioms of logic can not accept contradictions.

So, Logic - Evolution - Faith: pick two.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Nursie]

"Please demonstrate this with regard to Uppanishadic Hinduism,"

Not something I'm familiar with. However if it makes any claims to divine interaction with the world then it can just as easily be dismissed.

Agnostic atheist arguments apply perfectly well to polytheism and anything else that makes ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[einhverfr]

Not something I'm familiar with. However if it makes any claims to divine interaction with the world then it can just as easily be dismissed.

How so? You are prepared to prove a negative?

Re:The proof is in the...?

[einhverfr]

Just as a note on the above, even the scientific method can't disprove an entire category of theories. All it can do is insist that the theory must be in line with observable fact.

For example, there are some physicists who think that Newton's theories themselves could be fine-tuned to address the same data that supposedly disproves the theories in favor of relativity. Similarly although the theory of the luminiferous aether was disproved, it is rising up again in certain areas of particle physics.

Why? Because falsifying a scientific theory does NOT demonstrate that the underlying ideas are false, just that the current structure cannot be sufficient to jusify a certain observation.

You can't prove that there is no such thing as divine interaction with this world. You CAN disprove a specific model for this however. You can show that Judaism, Islam, and Christainity are inconsistant with eachother, that they can't all be true, and that they all appeal to logical fallacies for support. You can also show that the idea of divine intervention as a systemic explanation for everything is unhelpful from a science perspective.

But that is not sufficient to say that there can be no valid claims of divine interaction with this world.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[maraist]

I'm a militant Agnost. I love religious wars on slashdot. The militancy and [dis]belief in God are independent.

Generally people that are frustrated by the actions of those that hold a different belief than theirs (including the lack of belief or the belief in the opposite) are likely to be militant.. if they were not personally affected by the opposition, then they tend to be neutral. Separately is one's willingness to coexist with oppositions.

I'm willing to coexist (only because I feel it would be hypocritical not to, not because I respect alternate views). But am frustrated by decisions of politicians, friends and family members as they relate to religion, and thus I'm militant.

I am agnostic, for the reasons articulated by various people in this discussion, that while there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe and life progressed unaffected by radical outside influences - that the classical view of miracles are primative testimonials, and more importantly, any mechanism that a 'God' would employ has no reason to be believed to be beyond our grasp. And thus a 'greater power' has no intrinsic specialness over us, or more specifically our understanding of Science. Thus, as Descartes might argue, even if the true God him/her/itself appeared before me, I could have no true reason to believe his testimony, as statistically it's more likely that I'm under the influence of drugs or brain-washing, than being singled out by God to change the world (though Descartes didn't use statistics to my knowledge).

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be being a bit literal... those might be dictionary definitions, but they aren't really reflective of reality. Atheists often(from my experience and that of others) seem to have a chip on their shoulder against religion and often an overt belief(and confidence in that belief) that there is no god.
Agnostics generally make no claims either way, lacking any evidence either way. I don't believe I've ever heard an actual agnostic reference the dictionary definition.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[AK Marc]

Many agnostics will leave the possibility open that there is a God of a sort, but that He does not take a direct hand in the workings of the universe like most major religions propose.

The type of god is unrelated to whether someone is theist or athiest. Someone that believes in God, but that he doesn't do anything is a Deist (of sorts) and thus is a theist.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know. In practice, every single person I've met who claimed to be an agnostic could also be said to have "an overt belief that there is no god". So, if you're unwilling to stick to the dictionary definitions, there is really no difference.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[AK Marc]

Atheism definitely brings a premise to the table which may not be provable, but act as though they are pretty darn certain of it. Hence, it is a "belief" as you pointed out.

Does an agnostic believe in god? No, they do not, so they are athiest. "God may exist" is not a belief in god. You either believe that there is a god, or you don't. Believing that you can't know, that it doesn't matter, or anything else like that is irrelevant. You must believe in god to be a theist, and everything else is non-theist. And you can define athiesm as people that don't believe in god, and then everyone is necessarily a theist or athiest.

However, at the same time, no one can prove that there is *not* a deity or set of them, so believing that also represents an untestable hypothesis, which could well be entirely wrong.

Yeah, and you are setting it up to be that agnostics are the only ones that don't have to have faith, and that athiests have "faith" or "belief" with regards to the lack of a diety. But that isn't the case. The lack of belief isn't a a belief.

Atheism always implies a belief, Agnosticism does not, so you cannot call a real Agnostic a "soft atheist", just like you can't call an Agnostic a "crypto-deist". You're just working to turn the debate into a two party belief structure, which in reality, simply does not exist.

But it is a simple choice. Either you believe in god, or you don't. If you don't believe, then you are a-thiest (even if not athiest in your definition). Whether it's a soft disbelief (you don't know and can't know) or a hard one ("belief" than there isn't a god), you either believe or you don't. It is a two-party belief structure.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Cathbard]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.

Why do People keep Saying this. You can prove the absence of something. in Philosphy it is a Modus Tollens

Premise 1 : if x then y
Premise 2 : not y
Conclusion : Not x

This is most often seen in the problem of evil

Premise 1: If God Exists then there would be no Evil in the world (Not evil is y in this case)
Premise 2: There is evil (There is not not evil, or not y)
Conclusion: God Does not exist ( or it is not the case that god exists)

Now we can argue over whether or not god and evil are mutually exclusive (Premise 1) but the point is you can prove the non existence of something if you set the argument up right and have true premises.

For my money any talk about a meaningful god means at its heat that you accept implicitly premise one and I usually dont hear to much argument about Premise 2, so yeah i am an athiest, and I do thing I have proof that god DOES NOT exist.
Julsen

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Dhalka226]

while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit

Religion can never be scientific; they're diametrically opposed concepts. Religion is based on faith, which is belief without proof, while science is a method of trying to gather proof to determine truth.

More to the point, as you say, religion has nothing to do with what makes science, science--the scientific method. And it can't, in any meaningful way, because religious claims are not testable or falsifiable, not repeatable, and not predictive. Belief in a supreme power or being itself is not falsifiable; after all, what if such a power does exist but doesn't want you to know or prove it?

That's not to say that religions might have it right, nor to say that some religions or interpretations thereof might not use science as part of a theory of creationism, like intelligent design purports to do. Nor is it to say that advanced degrees in theology aren't themselves worthwhile. It does mean that religion will never be science, and we should not treat them as equals. If they want to offer a Masters of Art degree in Theology--and I'm sure many places do--so be it. I have no objections. But trying to pretend it's science when it's not... urgh. What the hell are these people trying to accomplish? Do they realize why science is powerful and want to nose in for some reflected love? Or are they simply trying to undermine it entirely?

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Dhalka226]

Religions can be dismissed based on the fact that they are flawed, contradictory of each other and themselves, can be shown to take ideas from other religions and long-dead cults and are basically patently ridiculous.

Also because the sun is yellow. That damn sun, man, I'm telling ya. Disproves all religions.

I say this as somebody who doesn't believe in god, but those are all exceptionally lame. The fact that many religions contradict each other can at best tell you that at least one of them is wrong; it doesn't mean they all are. They may all be wrong, but not agreeing with one another is hardly proof of that. Similarly contradictions within themselves are a decent thing to go by, but that's based on a possibly faulty assumption that everything must be completely and fully logically consistent. We're talking about god here; he can be anything at all, including things our own minds can't even understand.

Borrowing ideas from one another and long-dead cults? Again, that doesn't mean any of them are wrong, just increases the likelihood. I agree with the patently ridiculous part, but that's proof of nothing other than you and I having reached similar conclusions.

I don't believe in god because I have no evidence leading me to do so. That's the bottom line. Even if we took the Bible to be absolute truth, it's still not proof for me because it's circular logic. The only thing telling us it's unaltered truth from god is the Bible itself. That's aside from the historical realities that, even if it started out exactly that way, man has shaped everything that went into (and was excluded from) it.

All that said, I think you want to be careful with the use of words like religion or religions--what you almost certainly mean is theistic religions, and very probably Christian religions, but not all religions are the same. To throw one out there, I don't have any particular qualms with Buddhism (though I admit I haven't researched it thoroughly).

Re:The proof is in the...?

[maraist]

Ok, I'll amend my argument because I missed an important point. There's a difference between the argument that you 'believe' or not, and the proclamation that there is or is not a God.. No proof is necessary, because belief is the knowledge in the absence of proof. Thus you can formally disbelief without the true knowledge that there is no god. So sure, Atheism is legitimate, and Agnosticism is legitimate in that they represent your beliefs.

The belief in extra terrestrials is held by many with a scientific mind, justified by the expression 'I want to believe'. So while you can't know that there are or aren't aliens, your belief guides your scientific process.

Knowledge in the big-bang being the limit of measurement, likewise may or may not deter your scientific mind from questing to find a prior existence - possibly divine or multi-verse, possibly related to black-holes.. It doesn't matter ultimately.. The drive to search in a particular direction is really what we're talking about here.. 'Belief' that spending your precious time, and at the expense of producing confusion to the general public by posing questions from a presumable authority.

And thus while it's legitimate to hold a personal drive and belief, there are consequences to expressing that belief.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agnosticism isn't trying to be the 'middle option' between theism and atheism. Theism/atheism split operates on the axis of God's EXISTENCE while agnosticism is a stance on the axis of the KNOWABILITY of God's existence. It is for example entirely possible for a person to believe in God because of some intimately personal experiences, but at the same time believe that its existence can not be proven philosophically or scientifically, making that person a theist agnostic.

Re:The proof is in the...?

[alexo]

But it is a simple choice. Either you believe in god, or you don't.

It is actually more interesting. I submit that the following are distinct:
1. Belief in a particular god or gods.
2. Belief in an existence of a god or gods (where "god" is usually taken to mean a supernatural entity of sorts).
3. Lack of belief in gods.
4. Belief in the absence of gods.

#1, #2 and #4 require some sort of belief without proof (for some definition of "proof", let's not pick nits)
#3 usually means that there is no strong conviction one way of the other but the possibility of either is acknowledged to some degree.
And even then, the scale is not discrete. Atheist, agnostic, etc. (and various qualifiers) are terms that fall in the range between #3 and #4. The usage depends on whoever defines the terms.

Personally, I reject the notion of a personal god. I also do not believe that the universe was created by an external entity. I acknowledge that this may be possible but consider it highly unlikely.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

I don't think this was meant to start a flamewar at all! Your opinion is both wrong and full of ignorance! It's people like you who are ruining Slashdot.

Matchbook Degrees...

[Quantos]

Yes, I would like the courses for Pharmaceutical, Locksmithing, Gun Repair...
Oh, and the parole board thinks I should get the degree in Creationism...
That's right, send the material to Rikers...

Re:Matchbook Degrees...

[couchslug]

"Yes, I would like the courses for Pharmaceutical, Locksmithing, Gun Repair...
Oh, and the parole board thinks I should get the degree in Creationism... "

You'll be able break into pharmacies, sort out the drugs you steal, modify weapons, and roll your own cult.

I'm intrigued by your potential and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

I can see money!

[loftwyr]

If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!

I'll make a fortune off the gullible who believe in every kind of pseudo-reality!

I'll have leprechaun pots full of gold fast!

*insert evil laugh here*

Re:I can see money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I buy some shares please?

Re:I can see money!

[drewvr6]

- "I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas" The money is out there. Or is it "The Truth is Out There." Have you not seen "MonsterQuest" on the History Channel? How about "UFO Hunters"? What about those "ghost hunter" shows on several channels? I'm sure I can find a couple institutions which offer degrees in paranormal studies.

Re:I can see money!

[dcollins]

If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!

Dude, you're thinking too small. I want my M.S. in Flying Spaghetti Monster Studies (MSFSMS), and I want it now.

Re:I can see money!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is actually already a chair in parapsychology in Lund university, sweden. They are looking for PhD students:

http://publicparapsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/phd-opportunity-in-parapsychology-at.html

Re:I can see money!

[dbIII]

Uri Geller beat you to it in Israel. He gets pots of gold from the taxpayers there.

Re:I can see money!

[tmosley]

I am interested by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:I can see money!

[JonWan]

If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!

If you do, put it in Crosbyton next to the MT. Blanco Museum http://www.mtblanco.com/ you will be in good company.

JonWan

Re:I can see money!

[PPH]

Mod parent down unless its re-writen in the obligatory format:

1. ___
2. ___
3. ___
4. ?????
5. Profit!

Re:I can see money!

[jamstar7]

I'm just wondering when they'll reveal the fossil of the guy found trying to bury human remains among the dinosaur bones.

Re:I can see money!

[dangitman]

Gozer the Gozerian? Good evening. As a duly-designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the next convenient parallel dimension.

Re:I can see money!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!

Never thought I'd say it, but that's a school shooting I could get behind...

Re:I can see money!

[Slur]

Your science is invalid because you can't disprove leprechauns. You must even admit that it is possible somewhere where leprechauns may exist. Your science doesn't know everything. Because God is unfathomable He remains forever outside of the borders of your scientific inquiry. How do you like those apples?

You'll notice how we go looking for evidence of a creator in the gaps of your science. Thats because whenever you look into the face of the unknown, that's where you'll find God staring blankly back at you. "You don't know everything," he says. And you know what, He's right.

In the life of the mind - the only life we ever know directly - science is just a way to name and control reality - filling in those blessed gaps with explanations that point away from a creator... and towards a blackboard full of nihilist philosophy. Every new discovery mankind makes steals a little more of the autonomy of God, placing it into the hands of men, whose character and intentions are forever flawed.

If you take evolution literally then we come from an ancient tradition of trusting the unknown. For most of our evolutionary history we existed by pure instinct without any theory about how we arrived in the present and no need to wonder who we were. Thus there's something very special about the level of our minds where everything is gaps. Doesn't that imply a "god in the machine" at the very least? We must at some level be perfectly composed and comfortable in the presence of not-knowing.

At some point we transitioned from an animal-minded being acting on pure instinct (and surviving on pure fortitude) to a rational-minded being that builds and teaches (and survives on social utility).

Well, enough devil's advocacy. I've almost convinced myself of this character.

Re:I can see money!

[alexo]

Uri Geller beat you to it in Israel. He gets pots of gold from the taxpayers there.

Uri Geller emigrated from Israel in the early '70s and currently lives in England.
He didn't get "pots of gold from the taxpayers", not more than any popular entertainer that hosted a TV show.
Uri Geller may well be a fraud but you, sir, are a liar.

Science?

[owlnation]

Science? Well, it's like science, but not science. Why not take a leaf out of the Sci-Fi channel and call it "Creation Syence".

That should eliminate any possible confusion with actual science.

Re:Science?

[DallasMay]

why did they change their name anyways? SyFy, really?

Re:Science?

[SilentBob0727]

I think it's great. I never knew how to pronounce it before. Skiffy?

Re:Science?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Trademark issues - they couldn't slap a (tm) on SciFi as it's a widely used phrase, but Syfy is not and can be trademarked.

Re:Science?

[cashman73]

Suddenly, compared to a MS degree in Creationism, renaming the Sci-Fi channel to Sy Fy sounds like a good idea! Both of these announcements were just a few days too early, though,...

Re:Science?

[maxume]

Is there some other low-rent, low-brow cable network (or entertainment company) trying to trade off of the SciFi name?

You guys are missing the point

[vivaoporto]

To all the people that already answered saying that it is people right to have a degree in Creationism, you are missing the point. The problem here is not the degree per se (there are already Theology advanced degree courses), but calling it a *Science* degree. Creationism is not science, and should not be equated to one. It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science".

Re:You guys are missing the point

[damienl451]

Just so you know, you can get an MS in Philosophy. The University of Utah, for instance, offers this degree.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[domatic]

Try punching "experimental evolution" into Google. That only turns up 25 million hits but here are a few to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bacteriophage_experimental_evolution

It looks to me like these people are doing actual work to justify their conclusions. Now you can dispute their methods and conclusions but what they are up to isn't faith in a religious sense. Sticking lots of exclamation points on astounding ignorance doesn't rescue it from that state.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[hardihoot]

As a Creationist, I have to agree with you: Creationism --the assertion that God, who has always existed and who designed and created all things and all lifeforms, cannot be declared "science" because Creationism cannot be studied. No testing can be performed, and we can only guess how and when the creation event occurred. It is not repeatable as we are not gods. You can call the observation of the creation a science, such as studying plant life, but then you should call it Botany, not Creationism.

All that can be said of Creationism is that it is an explanation as to how matter came into existence and how it was formed into material entities like comets, planets, and living creatures. This explanation declares that the proof for the existence of a creator is the fact that matter exists, and that it is formed into arrangements that could not have come about by mindless random processes.

Trying to claim Creationism as science is the same as claiming Abiogenisis as science. Abiogenisis is a philosophy of origins piggy-backed on the tested, observed, documented, and therefore confirmed fact that over time, some creatures lose/have mutated genetic material which alters the appearance and/or life functions of future generations of that species.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[WamBam]

It's a deliberate attempt to try to muddy peoples' understanding of science in order to assert a religious and political view. The fact of the matter is that there are many fine degrees with which to study religion, God and creationism. And in a way, all of these degrees can rely on science in terms of how such studies are carried out. It would be hard to carry out any academic studies in any discipline and not follow a rigid method of investigation and conversation. But what this bill and Intelligent design have in common is that they are less an assertion that Creationism is a valid theory, as defined by science, to be pursued by scientific method, but a way to undercut evolution. Intelligent Design was based on a (deliberate) misunderstanding of terms like 'laws' and 'theories'. The thinking was that since evolution was simply a 'theory' it meant that scientists weren't really sure and therefore it opened the door to other explanations of how life came about, one of those explanations being Creationism. Further, Intelligent Designers (is that the correct term?), tried to employ a very basic, flawed scientific method in order to 'prove' that one could carry out experiments that would support Creationism just as much as other experiments and evidence could support evolution. All of was meant to play out in the popular realm, not the scientific community. Again, this was a deliberate attempt to confuse the public about how science functions in order to assert a specific viewpoint rather then trying insert Creationism into a serious, scientific dialog. To me, this is dangerous. I think that many of these fundamentalist religious believers have political aims. They want to insert themselves into every aspect our lives and believe that that science, as they understand it, is a threat to their goals. They know that if they can have 'scientists' teaching their brand of religion - and let's be clear that this is a far more radical view of religion then most - to our kids, then those kids will grow into adults and be more open to their political/religious/moral/social beliefs.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[nine-times]

It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science".

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by equating philosophy with creationism, since natural philosophy is in many ways the grounding without which science can't exist.

I think the real issue here is that a Bachelor of Science or a Masters of Science should include some scientific investigation and preparation for further scientific work. And this is where the whole "creationism is not science" comes from: there's no scientific work to do in the field of creationism. It's a done deal. You know the answer. God did it.

Even if you believe in Creationism, studying life after creation would just be biology. There is no scientific study into the miraculous instantaneous creation of everything by God. In fact, I would think that expecting to put such a miracle into the realm of "human knowledge" would be considered blasphemous by those who believed those things.

On the other hand, if you don't believe in Creationism, then wouldn't it be nice to say that a bachelor's degree in Creationism is BS?

Re:You guys are missing the point

[Tenebrousedge]

Oh snap!

Re:You guys are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you're an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the hypothesis of abiogenesis, AND an idiot who doesn't understand what science is if you think abiogenesis is philosophy. You better shut down that magic compubox before its demon steals your soul.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[Vexorian]

Nice try. But nope, even though you are free to ignore all the evidence supporting evolution. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific theory, it is not even wrong.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[DamienRBlack]

Evolution doesn't reject god. Where do people get these ideas?

Re:You guys are missing the point

[justinlee37]

Yet another fucking idiot who equates the principle of evolution with a theory of creation.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[maxume]

I'm a Stone Cold Steve Austinist. We believe that the universe exists 'cause Stone Cold said so.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[hardihoot]

You are correct that abiogenesis is not a philosophy on origins. It is a hypothesis, but what a person hypothesizes about tends to mirror one's philosophy concerning life. As I was typing I was thinking about philosophy, because those who espouse abiogenesis tend to hold to the philosophy/worldview that god does not exist.

I understand very well the difference between the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis: the hypothesis/musings/nosepickings about how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

Theory of Evolution: well gee, if a species can change over time, like a wolf can become a poodle or birds can develop longer beaks then it stands to reason a lizard can become a bird. Why, I bet if that lizard species flaps its arms long enough and thinks hard enough about flying over a couple million years, heck, maybe a billion, and it wishes hard enough, them arms will sprout feathers and its bones will hollow out all on their own and golly gee whaddya know, we got ourselves a bird from a lizard! Change over time it could happen, coulda maybe coulda.

Yes yes I know: gradual changes over millions of years. Whatever. I reject it point blank. Period.

Theory of Evolution (as it pertains to humans): the belief (there is no proof of this --and don't point me to tedious, bloated "peer" reviewed baloney based on the presupposition the theory is true --I'm not reading anymore of that crap as my mind is made up already) that states humans and apes are both descended from a common ancestor. This common ancestor has never been found, only imaginative story telling and embellishment based on a few bones.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[Targon]

Creationism WOULD be a science if the focus were on the creation of new forms of life via various methods. The basic idea is that if God could do it, then eventually, so can we.

Of course, that is not the intended goal, so no Creationism should NOT be seen as a science.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[harlows_monkeys]

The problem here is not the degree per se (there are already Theology advanced degree courses), but calling it a *Science* degree. Creationism is not science, and should not be equated to one. It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science"

The word "Science" in a degree is used in its old meaning, which is basically "systematic knowledge", not in its 18th-century and later meaning--that which before then would have been called "natural philosophy". That's why numerous schools offer Bachelor of Science degrees in things we wouldn't think of as "science" nowadays, such as journalism, accounting, English, history, and many others.

Caltech and MIT, for instance, only offer the BS degree as the first degree in a field of study. Yes, you can (and some do!) go to Caltech and get a B.S. in English.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

As noted above, accepting evolutionary theory does _not_ preclude a belief in God.

Re:You guys are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution doesn't reject god. Where do people get these ideas?

He must have got it either from the Creationists or that segment of Scientists who are also vocally atheist. Not all religions have problems with modern evolutionary theories nor do all those educated in science have problems with religion. My mother graduated from a Roman Catholic school in the 1960's. She majored in education and minored in biology. After talking with her and looking through some of her old course book it's clear that other than referring to the subject matter as "The Theory of Evolution" (which could've been linguistic pedantry, science afterall is predicated on theories, not absolute truths) the nuns didn't depart from the mainstream biology of that era.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

I may be "PWNED", but you didn't answer my question. You did give me a Google list of art colleges, etc.

Let's look on the bright side.... Douchebag U!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now let's say Institute for Creation Research gets to give out Masters degrees in "Creation Science", what would then stop us from creating "The Douchebag Univerity of Texas" and give out advance degrees in douchebaggery?

Just think of all the great HONORARY DEGREES you could hand out, starting with the douchebags who proposed and support this legislation!

Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

"The Scientific Method is the only way to know anything at all."
"Can you use the Scientific Method to justify that claim?"
"No."
Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[c6gunner]

I know it was meant as a joke, but I gotta correct you anyway: the answer is actually "yes".

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

Ok, I am interested now. Can you tell me what experiment was done that demonstrated that there is nothing outside of the observable universe. Because, that is what would have to happen for someone to use the Scientific Method to demonstrate that the scientific method is the only way to know anything.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's a complete non-sequitur. By that definition, nothing is provable by the scientific method. You're using the same type of argument as when creationists claim that "evolution is just a theory" - essentially that, since we cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, then nothing is knowable.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[colinrichardday]

since we cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, then nothing is knowable.

The fault is not entirely theirs, much of Western epistemology would say the same thing.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

It is not a non-sequitur. And it has nothing to do with the ability to prove something with 100% certainty. You cannot develop an experiment or make an observation about something that is unobservable. Saying that something is knowable is an unobservable concept. Look at in another way, saying that the works of Shakespeare were great works of literature is also unobservable. You cannot observe or experiment with Shakespeare's Greatness. Literature is outside the realm of the objectively observable. So is God. The scientific method is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge. And God is not science. (therefore, a BS in Creationism is just BS)

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[c6gunner]

It is not a non-sequitur.

Yes it is.

Go ahead, say "no it's not" one more time!

And it has nothing to do with the ability to prove something with 100% certainty.

But that's what you're asking for. It's like me going through the science to show you how lighning occurs through natural processes, and you saying

"uuuummm ... naw, I still think Zeus does it"

Ok, yeah, there's no way for me to prove you wrong. And no, I didn't prove my care with 100% certainty. But that doesn't mean that you're right, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm wrong - it just means you're a fool who prefers to believe in fairy tales instead of natural processes.

You cannot develop an experiment or make an observation about something that is unobservable.

And you cannot make an observation about something which doesn't exist, either. So, really, you're creating three categories:

1. Things which are real and observable.
2. Things which are real and unobservable.
3. Things which are imaginary, and unobservable.

For all intents and purposes, the last two categories are indistinguishable. If we cannot observe it in any way, then we have no basis for supposing it to be real. Saying that your god is untestable and unobservable is just another way of saying that she probably doesn't exist.

Saying that something is knowable is an unobservable concept.

Bullshit. 2+2=4. That's knowable. If I ask you what 2+2 is, you either know or you don't know. I can observe that you know, or that you don't know. Ergo, knowledge is observable.

I'm not sure what sort of convoluted logic you're using here, but you're plain wrong.

You cannot observe or experiment with Shakespeare's Greatness.

Sure you can. Every time you read his works, you're observing his greatness. But greatness isn't scientific knowledge - it's an opinion, and an opinion is not the same as knowing.

Literature is outside the realm of the objectively observable. So is God.

No! How the hell is literature outside the realm of objective observation? If I have a book in front of me, I can observe it. What the hell are you talking about?

Maybe our opinions about literature aren't objective observations, but the literature itself certainly can be observed. If you want to compare your god to literature, then you first have to show that your god can be observed. If you want to argue that opinions about your god aren't objective, then hey, ok, I've got no problem with that. But there still has to be an objective physical entity for us to observe, otherwise we have nothing to base those opinions ON.

The scientific method is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge.

Yes, it is. Only science can produce knowledge. Everything else is just opinion and conjecture.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

Bullshit. 2+2=4. That's knowable.

Only science can produce knowledge. Everything else is just opinion and conjecture.

I really don't understand where you are coming from here. 2+2=4 is not science. It's math. Arithmetic to be be precise. You contradict yourself.

you're a fool who prefers to believe in fairy tales instead of natural processes.

And I'm rubber and you are glue. Your emotional, ad hominem response shows that the debate about theology and science are anything but non-sequitur.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[NoOneInParticular]

No need to go through the scientific method for this. This is the dogma of materialism. It is founded in logic, not science. There could in principle be lots going on outside of the observable universe, no doubt about it. For something outside of the universe to have an effect on the universe, it should have a manifestation inside the universe. In other words, for it to matter (pardon the pun), it should produce a material effect. A miracle if you wish. If something produces a material effect, it is by definition possible to study it through science, although it does not necessarily need to be reproducible. In the latter case it's a one time event (miracle). The quantity and quality of miracles can be studied, but as so far there's no empirical basis for them. All in all, logic dictates that a divine being is either powerless by virtue of being disconnected from the material world, or it can be subject of empirical study. If the latter is the case, scientific observation shows a profound lack of any form of divine presence, making the whole hypothesis cumbersome.

What this line of reasoning attempts to show is not that the scientific method is the only way to know anything, but that anything that is knowable can be studied through the scientific method. Subtle difference.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[msuarezalvarez]

Can you name a piece of knowledge acquired by any other method?

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

Yeah. How about this one. "George Washington was the nations first president." That is not science. It is not really testable or repeatable. Yet it is still knowlege.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[msuarezalvarez]

Unless you think that historians work in the same way as priests, you know that historical knowledge is also supposed to be corroborated by evidence, and so on. History is not a because-I-say-so discipline, at all.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

I agree with that whole heartedly. History is not theology, but it's not being theology dos not make it science. Literature is also not science, but is a wide feild of study that requires evidence and knowledge. And further, I bet that a theologian would argue with you about your assumption that religious studies don't need to be researched and supported by evidence.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[c6gunner]

I really don't understand where you are coming from here. 2+2=4 is not science. It's math. Arithmetic to be be precise. You contradict yourself.

Science:

sci-ence
-noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Your emotional, ad hominem response shows that the debate about theology and science are anything but non-sequitur.

I have no idea what you just said there, but judging by the rest of your comment, I'm willing to bet it wasn't much.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[msuarezalvarez]

The sudy of the history of religions is a field based on evidence, the study of the different views about religion is based on evidence, and so on... But theology itself is not based on religion, for no one has ever found not even a tiny shred of evidence that its object of study, god or (depending on the flavour) gods, even exist.

And this lack of evidence is different from not having found a Higgs boson, by the way.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

Science: [reference.com]

sci-ence
-noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

I can play that game too.

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science]

sciÂence
Pronunciation: \ËsÄ-É(TM)n(t)s\
Function: noun
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study, the science of theology,

But in a philosophical debate, the Dictionary definition of a word is meaningless. It is just one possible definition out of 6.5 Billion.

But while you have your dictionary open, look up "ad hominem" . Your close minded personal attacks on me make you no better than the worst of the zealous christians you despise.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

for no one has ever found not even a tiny shred of evidence that its object of study, god [...] even exist[s].

Now, that is where we diverge. I believe that misstated that line. You should have written that you have never found any evidence of God's existence. You cannot speak for anyone else, because religion is a deeply personal thing. Sometimes religious experiences come in grand universal form, but most of the time they are hyper-personal. I can tell you where I find my evidence, and that may or may not mean anything to you. My evidence has to do with there being extremely good people in this world that risk everything to help the most helpless people [International Justice Mission plug here] But, you cannot say that no one has ever found evidence.

(Btw, I understand the difference between sub-atomic theory and theology very well. But because you brought it up, I hope they don't find the Higgs. To me it would be so much cooler if it doesn't exist. It'ld send everyone beck to the drawing board! But in the same way, there is a difference between my hoping the Higgs doesn't exist, and your hoping God doesn't exist.)

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[DallasMay]

for no one has ever found not even a tiny shred of evidence that its object of study, god [...] even exist[s].

Now, that is where we diverge. I believe that misstated that line. You should have written that you have never found any evidence of God's existence. You cannot speak for anyone else, because religion is a deeply personal thing. Sometimes religious experiences come in grand universal form, but most of the time they are hyper-personal. I can tell you where I find my evidence, and that may or may not mean anything to you. My evidence has to do with there being extremely good people in this world that risk everything to help the most helpless people [International Justice Mission plug here] But, you cannot say that no one has ever found evidence.

(Btw, I understand the difference between sub-atomic theory and theology very well. But because you brought it up, I hope they don't find the Higgs. To me it would be so much cooler if it doesn't exist. It'ld send everyone beck to the drawing board! But in the same way, there is a difference between my hoping the Higgs doesn't exist, and your hoping God doesn't exist.)

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[c6gunner]

I can play that game too.

Not very well. You suggested that math isn't science. I showed that it is. If you then go and show that it's possible to study theology in a scientific manner, it does nothing to support your claim that math isn't a science. Since you seem fond of the study of logical fallacies, you should know that you've just committed one - it's called a red herring.

But in a philosophical debate, the Dictionary definition of a word is meaningless.

Oh, so in philosophical discussions you just get to make shit up? Sounds fun. Pointless, but fun.

But while you have your dictionary open, look up "ad hominem"

Ad-hominem:

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

I've done nothing of the sort. I first showed you how your argument fails, and only afterwards did I insult you. Ergo, I am not resorting to an ad-hominem attack - I am answering your argument AND providing an estimation of your mental faculties.

For example: you say "2+2=5"

If I say "you're an idiot", that's an ad-hominem attack.

If I say "no, it's 4, here's why, and, by the way, you're an idiot" that's NOT an ad-hominem attack.

Clear as mud?

Your close minded personal attacks on me make you no better than the worst of the zealous christians you despise.

Ah, yes, the "closed minded" defense: the last bastion of the ignorant and the clueless. The "9/11 was an indise jobby job!" crowd accuse me of that, too, after I finish spanking them on every talking point they bring up. If you're calling someone closed-minded it usually means that you can't make a rational argument, which usually means you're full of shit.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

[msuarezalvarez]

If you prefer: no one has ever found evidence in a communicable way. I would be laughed at if I came up with the notion that I had a hyper-personal revelation on the existence of the Higgs boson that I cannot even describe because of its intrinsic spiritual nature---and I fail to see why different standards should be applied to such an immensely more important point, and of such vast consequences, as the existence of a God.

My evidence has to do with there being extremely good people in this world that risk everything to help the most helpless people [International Justice Mission plug here [ijm.org]] But, you cannot say that no one has ever found evidence.

The existence of extremely good people is irrelevant as a proof of the existence of a god: there is *absolutely* no logical connection between the two. Like most other attempts at an argumentation supporting that existence, it evinces little more than somewhat disheartening lack of imagination! For example, in order to turn it into a serious argument one would need to establish soundly, at the very least,

1. how does one define goodness, exactly?
2. how does one measure goodness in order to establish comparisons of degree of goodness between people?
3. what is the maximum level of goodness that would possibly be found on people if there were no gods, and come up with an explanation for that natural bound on human goodness,
4. and, finally, to exhibit explicit examples of people whose level of goodness, established according to the methods chosen in step 2 positively exceeds the maximum level of goodness compatible with non-existence of gods.

Also, even in the case that you were actually able to do all this, and you eventually establish the claim that there is a god because otherwise there could not exist such extremely good people as the ones you've managed to exhibit, there is a lot more of really, really hard work to be done before you can connect that with any one of the many, many other things that are attributed to god. I cannot even begin to imagine what logical connection can be established between the existence of a god as deduced from the existence of extremely good people and, say, the need of eating kosher (just an example: there are millions more, involving all other theistic religions)

But in the same way, there is a difference between my hoping the Higgs doesn't exist, and your hoping God doesn't exist.)

I do not hope that there is no god or gods. I regard the point in pretty much the same light as I regard the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

Excellent Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is great. It'll be so much easier to weed out the idiots when hiring to fill a position for our organization. Anyone who has their degree from this Institute of Creationism listed on their CV will be suitably tcanned.

Speak for yourself

[smchris]

So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer.

I miss the old Chaoseum. I have a couple polo shirts, alumni association mug, auto stickers (including the parking lot passes), multiple T-shirts and the Bachelors and Masters (Medieval Metaphysics) kits from "Old Misk". It was my understanding they got the word to cool it or they might get charged with being a diploma mill? At an IT training about a decade ago I was wearing the Miskatonic U, Dept of Astrology polo shirt and the instructor asked me, "Your university doesn't really have a department of astrology, does it?"

As for Texas, or Oklahoma or much of the South and Midwest, I've been saying on the political blogs that if Chuck Norris wants to lead a secession, let him. Give Bubba a reservation to run free so the rest of us can get on with progress -- and we can deny them visas to return.

Re:Speak for yourself

[sqlrob]

You can still get degrees

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Get these fucking idiots out of our government, please.

Part of the Plan

[Sponge Bath]

Once you start shoveling out these bogus degrees, you get a pool of right wing religious nuts with 'credentials' that make them look like reasonable candidates for educational boards or other public offices. You can be sure that they won't provide any detail on where they got the degree in their campaigning, and the voting public will not be interested enough to check themselves.

"Oh look, Jebus McFearhim Phd is running for the Texas State Board of Education. That's just the kind of learned individual we need."

Re:Part of the Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

youre an idiot

Re:Part of the Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you start shoveling out these bogus degrees, you get a pool of right wing religious nuts with 'credentials' that make them look like reasonable candidates for educational boards or other public offices. "

So, just like now?

  Honestly, there's nothing wrong with removing state control over granting of degrees. At least nothing that can't be fixed by a google search for the "university" that granted the diploma, to see if it's a diploma mill.
  Anyone who avoids telling you where he got his diploma under such a structure is obviously a crook. (Same as now, but people won't have the reassurance that "Oh, the government wouldn't let him have a PhD unless he was for real!", an assumption commonly made, but still in error.)

Full Metal Achemist

[Anonymous Coward]

> want a degree in alchemy?

Some already have that!

Hito wa nanika no gisei nashi ni, nani mo eru koto wa dekinai.
Nanika wo eru tame ni wa, doutou no daika ga hitsuyou ni naru.
Sore ga, renkinjutsu ni okeru touka koukan no gensoku da.
Sono koro, bokura wa sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjiteita.

English translation:

Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return.
To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.
That is Alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange.
In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[hpavc]

They have who knows what degrees?

I feel dirty

[Anonymous Coward]

My hard earned Masters put in the same bucket as these clowns by some dumbfuck politician... way to go. :(

Re:I feel dirty

[dr_dank]

My hard earned Masters put in the same bucket as these clowns by some dumbfuck politician... way to go. :(

Do you think a PHD is devalued by the likes of Dr. Phil and his ilk that get doctorates in divinity, homeopathy, or other garbage? Anybody, for a price, can walk around with BS, MA, PHD, after their names; a place like this is nothing new.

Creationism is satanic.

[tjstork]

You can't even argue that creationism is a serious religious line of study. A good religious study is, at least in christian tradition, is deeply prayerful and meditative. It's a rejection of the flesh to try and understand the soul. It's not about this world, but the other. Becoming focused on the making of the earth and engaging in so called scientific debate as creationism does actually misses the point of religion in general and Christ in particular.

Jesus doesn't care how old the earth is. It's here, and its a sufficient vehicle within Christianity for us to make our moral choices. Arguing whether or not its some age or another only serves to deflect from the purpose of a devout Christian's life - to live in accordance with the words of Jesus as son of god. IF Christ would have wanted us to worry about the earth, he would have given us a geologists report on the mount, rather than a sermon.

I would almost argue that creationism is actually satanic!

Re:Creationism is satanic.

[dbIII]

Since these people are arguing that complex things like the mating behaviour of preying mantisis is directly defined by God then they have a pretty horrible one. There truly is a devil in those details.
Anyway, satanism is a cult based on Christianity that just happens to take the side of the loser :)

Re:Creationism is satanic.

[obarthelemy]

loser ? are you sure ?

Re:Creationism is satanic.

[johanatan]

Not so fast. Consider the ramifications of evolutionary thought [as evidenced by the Nazi implementation of it] (which is purely based on materialist philosophies). It's the philosophy which Christians have a problem with. And, it is a very dangerous philosophy masquerading as 'science' and 'fact' to the naive masses.

Re:Creationism is satanic.

[Slur]

I agree totally.

Maybe it's more about transcendence of the body rather than rejection of it. While we live we are sensual, and Christians influenced by Tao might realize that our natural desires only need tempering, not abolishment, and that there are skills involved in keeping them within bounds.

I'm not sure all Christians follow the premise that Jesus is THE son of God. Scholarly Christians may have learned that in the original languages Jesus is only referred to - or refers to himself - as "a son of God" in the regional vernacular, and therefore they may understand him not to be a supernatural being, but simply an enlightened teacher explaining how to let go. They might practice his teachings with faith in their general soundness and venerate his example, rather than pedestalize and worship him. Those who follow his advice could be called the best kind of Christians because their intent and their willingness to investigate further allow them to take the psychological guidance of Jesus to heart and go learn yoga and mindfulness meditation from other traditions in order to deepen their practice and get to the heart of the matter.

Maybe they'd stop calling themselves Christians, but that's just part of leaving the vessel behind.

As to whether Jesus cared if his followers were curious, I think it's compatible with his prophetic vision that we must and will use our senses and reason to learn about the universe and survive in it. Jesus might or might not have himself wondered about the age of the earth on a given day, depending on his mood. We'll never know how much he studied the kosmos. Maybe he took literally the Talmud's account of the origin of the world. My guess is he understood reality a little better than that, as he meditated regularly. So he's a super-high inspired guru. His job - or the job of his character in the story - is to inspire a spirit of creativity, curiosity, and life-affirming intentionality to produce better conditions for life overall, especially as inevitable hardship arises. His PR people had at heart the overall resilience and viability of life itself.

If only people took his basic advice - love others, get your selfishness under control, meditate on this here prayer, don't get hung up on custom and the world, and don't get pious and controlling with me, all you authoritarian bastards... ah, the world would be much more pleasant. And we could all investigate the origins of life and its evolution in peace together.

Giggle...

[flajann]

This gives the rest of the world one more reason to giggle at us. I mean, really.

Re:Giggle...

[coretx]

Giggle ? What you say is really true. Once this news hits the european websites, there will be " Only in america " all over the page. Wich is a "standard" reaction/meme on absurd news over here.

Re:Giggle...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, it does. it's one of the things that makes us (the rest of the world) think America is on the way down.

Re:Giggle...

[trollebolle]

Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world... *giggle*

Re:Giggle...

[flajann]

Giggle ? What you say is really true. Once this news hits the european websites, there will be " Only in america " all over the page. Wich is a "standard" reaction/meme on absurd news over here.

Yep. Which is why I am considering donning Maple Leafs to my clothing and claiming I'm from Canada the next time I travel abroad.

I'll have to spend a couple of weeks in Canada first to bone up on my Canadian accent so that I am actually convincing...

Re:Giggle...

[flajann]

yes, it does. it's one of the things that makes us (the rest of the world) think America is on the way down.

The US has been on the way down for quite some time now. Already we are experiencing a "reverse" brain-drain, where the Chinese, Indians, and others whom have come to our country, got an education, worked in the high-tech sector, and the like, are now going back home, including someone who used to work for me.

Who knows? Maybe I'll follow. As soon as my kids finish growing up. And hey, I may encourage them to do the same.

The religious nuts can have this failed country, and can pervert Science and the environment here to their heart's content. They can kill each other over who's religion is better than whom and the like. They can teach garbage to their kids so their kids will also be disadvantaged on the global arena.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can be free to be free of their rhetoric and to grow and prosper...

Re:Giggle...

[coretx]

I'd recommend you to only wear those maple leafs if you are both american and a religious politician. It's america they hate, not americans.

Re:Giggle...

[Anonymous Coward]

At us? You mean at one dumb legislator.

This will never pass.

Re:Giggle...

[flajann]

At us? You mean at one dumb legislator.

This will never pass.

It's not just one dumb legislator. It's what this country has been doing the past 8 years. Well, even beyond that, but it became more noticeable during Bush's Regime.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

... due to the snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, petty, clever fools who make up 98.317% of its posters.

[Bold added by me]. I'll take that as a compliment.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Nerdfest]

But they're not science degrees.

Doctorate in Dianetics

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be interested in a doctorate in Dianetics or Scientology. After all, it is all based on science. Isn't it?

0_o

[coretx]

I just screamed "WTF" out loud, while i'm alone. I'm trying to describe a emotion here, since words can't possibly describe how insane this is !

Easiest Degree Ever

[Doc Ruby]

Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[daemonenwind]

Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing

I have a minor in Religion from a Lutheran college, and while I don't see the point in granting a master's in Creationism outside of the liberal arts wing of academia, I will say that religion classes in general don't allow the sort of thing you describe at all.

You have to support any position you take by using the actual texts, understanding the history of the document itself as well as the Sitzt im Leben and supporting traditions. In fact, the professors tend to make you feel pretty small if you just spout off some fundie crap and say, "it's just what I believe".

It's a shame someone modded your obvious troll insightful. Try expanding your horizons before being so superficially critical.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Doc Ruby]

There's a difference between a degree in religion, which is taught as critical analysis and comparative analysis of a religion, and not indoctrination, and a Master's degree in "how to pretend crude metaphysics is science".

If I posted that a Master's degree in perpetual motion was a great way to spend some time making something out of nothing, that wouldn't be a "troll", either. That would be mockery of a sham.

It's sad that your degree in religion, that you claim was earned by rigorous analysis of actual value, has certified you despite your willingness to call a Creationism Masters "education" and not "snake oil". You seem to have got too much mere belief left in you, not properly clarified into minimal necessary faith or facts from logic and evidence. Clearly there's a market for Creationism degrees, and other shams appealing to the market with just a "religion" brand on it, regardless of its flimflam content.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!

It is not a miracle, it is a case of divine intervention

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Antique Geekmeister]

You sound like my physics teaching assistant.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Draek]

You have to support any position you take by using the actual texts, understanding the history of the document itself as well as the Sitzt im Leben and supporting traditions. In fact, the professors tend to make you feel pretty small if you just spout off some fundie crap and say, "it's just what I believe".

And what *does* support the notion of Creationism? certainly not the Pope who claimed that the part where God created the world in 6 days was just a metaphor and that evolution is a fact, contradicting the Creationist notion that fossils were put there to "test our faith".

I have much respect for many of the world's religions, specially Christianity. However, Creationism is in my opinion the biggest plague to affect the human brain during the last century, and it had to beat Scientology to get there.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[jamstar7]

t's sad that your degree in religion, that you claim was earned by rigorous analysis of actual value, has certified you despite your willingness to call a Creationism Masters "education" and not "snake oil".

Thing is, he basically agrees with you, that 'Creationism' belongs in 'liberal arts' rather than science:

I have a minor in Religion from a Lutheran college, and while I don't see the point in granting a master's in Creationism outside of the liberal arts wing of academia, I will say that religion classes in general don't allow the sort of thing you describe at all.

As such, I consider him one of the saner ones of the bunch across the aisle.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to support any position you take by using the actual texts, understanding the history of the document itself as well as the Sitzt im Leben and supporting traditions.

I read that to say that as long as I reference my work, and explain my interpretation of said references (utilizing errors of omission), then I can make up pretty much anything I want!

You know, like I just did by quoting you, paraphrasing a few sentences I've been given, then making a conclusion that was unexpected. Stephen Colbert makes a living out of this!

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[jwhitener]

I think he was making fun of the concept of a creationism science degree... not a degree in religion. The two are very different.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[TheGratefulNet]

look at what you are 'majoring' in. you think its serious?

all men have the same amount of 'special info' about god and religion. therefore there is no more secret knowledge that one has that the others also don't have (religious guys disagree but that's their problem).

why do you need to 'study' the ravings of just regular old people? that's not science or even worthy of study any more than watching some random tv program is.

it amazes me that people believe that some guys in 'funny hats' have some special insider info. I hate to break it to you, but all their secret internal-only books will MOST LIKELY say 'we know we made this shiat up'. every major religion has a secret 'head of hat-dom eyes only' book. scientology is one that we have exposed and know about, but the other more 'respected' religions also have this too.

does that make you re-think, any? that the top guys all know this is made-up shiat just invented to control and scare primitive man?

that's all it is. why bother giving fables 'serious study'?

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[syousef]

Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing

You have to support any position you take by using the actual texts, understanding the history of the document itself as well as the Sitzt im Leben and supporting traditions. In fact, the professors tend to make you feel pretty small if you just spout off some fundie crap and say, "it's just what I believe".

So what you're saying is that you're not allowed to spout off any old made up answer. You have to spout off someone elses made up answers from approved texts with citations. Much more appealing.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

With regards to the crucification (just as a well known example)... which text do site? You realize that all 4 of the gospels are horribly different, right? So good luck with your citations, and your conclusions drawn from them, meaning shit to those with an ounce of logic and reason in them.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Bit touchy?

Seems like the comment was directed at Creationism degrees, not Religious Studies.

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an Idiot.

Of course proper religous studies won't allow for making up of answers. The joke which was made was that creationism isn't known for having any backing to its claims and has been seen in the past to make up answers to difficult questions.

Obviously you have no scientific background whatsoever if you can not realise the basis for this joke.

And of course, its crying shame that some equally moronic prat has modded your post 'interesting'!

Re:Easiest Degree Ever

[VShael]

Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing.

Answers ex nihilo? But you can't create something from nothing! That flies in the face of creationism! :)

by Anonymous Coward I love how slashdot posts thes

[bpeer123]

by Anonymous Coward I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious. http://library.bpeer.com/movie/

Re:That's Fine With Me

[NotBornYesterday]

Yes, but the an important difference is that science can demonstrate beyond any doubt that pottery and baskets are in fact very real.

Science degree for creationism?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just oxymoronic!

But seriously, isn't this like getting a medical degree for murder?

non-creationist science

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that those that are not creationist typically believe in evolution. I do not believe evolution is any more of a science than the study of creation. Evolution is something that many claim takes millions or more of years. If that is the case, how many scientist have lived that long in order to literally observe what happens during that time? Science is based on observation, and we cannot go back and time and observe how things came into being. We can take measurements now and try to infer some properties of what may have happened, but it is not the same thing as observing what actually happened.

Re:non-creationist science

[sqlrob]

Takes millions of years? Than penicillin is just as effective as it was when it was discovered?

Re:non-creationist science

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the reasons that no progress is made when people actually would like to discuss the issues. We all need to define our terms better.

I do not know if this is a deliberate tactic or simply a common misunderstanding. Natural selection (sometimes referred to as micro evolution) is observable. It is as much a fact as anything we can call a fact. It does not in any way prove that given enough time, we can turn non living matter into man (macro evolution).

P.S. I'm not the original anonymous coward.

Re:non-creationist science

[vell0cet]

"It does not in any way prove that given enough time, we can turn non living matter into man (macro evolution)" That's abiogenesis. And that isn't covered in the theory of evolution. How life begins is not defined in evolution. Although many hypotheses exist not have been proven. Creationist tend to go to the argument of micro and macro evolution. Evolutionist do not make such delineations. What you call macro evolution is the summation of many of what you call micro-evolutionary steps. Creationists will also point to the nonexistence of transitional forms of species. But is they don't exist, what do you call this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish

Re:non-creationist science

[sqlrob]

Why is it always a creationist that brings up macro vs micro, does it wrong, and still doesn't understand why the difference doesn't support their position?

Re:non-creationist science

[Anonymous Coward]

dogs anyone? you could also use humans. What about giraffes. DNA is not static true, but try to selectively breed a dog into a wolf/fox/whatever and see how it works.

As the graduates will soon find out

[Dunbal]

PhD is not equal to "job". No one will hire these clowns, except other clowns. And since everyone hates clowns, grouping them all together is win-win, especially if they all move to Texas.

Re:As the graduates will soon find out

[zifr]

I'm amazed how many of you actually think this will pass. Makes me question your education level. :)

Re:As the graduates will soon find out

[Team503]

Of course it's win-win. We Texans come standard issue with an arsenal of firearms (even when we're gay, kung fu studying, yoga-practicing, car guy vegetarians). We need SOMETHING that moves for target practice. May as well be these idiots.

Re:As the graduates will soon find out

[PPH]

Is it too late to give Texas back to Mexico?

Re:As the graduates will soon find out

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's too late.

However, we will be glad to take it back if you return us California as well.

A lot of Texas residents...

[pongo000]

...are disgusted with this crap. The creationism shit is stirred up by an extreme right-wing group of legislators that don't represent the entire state (but are obviously voted in by some very ignorant Texans). The /. headline makes it appear that we're like...well, like Kansas or something. I'm a high school teacher, and most teachers I know think this creationism movement is a farce.

That said, it's important to understand that the bill is simply working to exempt "private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board's authority." The Coordinating Board would have the final say in determining whether science courses from this institution would be counted towards teacher certification requirements. At this point, THECB demonstrates no inclination towards allowing this to happen.

This all appears to be a lot of grandstanding by a right-wing nutcase.

Re:A lot of Texas residents...

[db32]

well, like Kansas or something

Rather ironic that you mention ignorant Texans...

Have you visited this place...it is in Texas... http://www.creationevidence.org/

Everything in Texas is indeed bigger...unfortunately for the rest of us that includes egos and assholes.

Re:A lot of Texas residents...

[pongo000]

No offense meant, but didn't Kansas at one time remove evolution from the science curriculum?

Seems like Texas is in good company...

Re:A lot of Texas residents...

[db32]

The original insinuation is that Texas isn't a bunch of flaming redneck fundamentalist assholes and that Kansas is. I can pull up far more redneck fundie news coming out of Texas than Kansas by a LONG shot. Additionally you might want to read up a bit more on that story since that was 1999. The folks that pulled that crap got the boot and that mess was rather quickly undone. Beyond that, not teaching evolution to high school students isn't exactly the same ballpark as trying to worm your way into being able to award Masters degrees in science for creationism. Further, according to the language it becomes far worse. I sure can't wait for special interest groups to start handing out advanced degrees with state seals on them...that will certainly make all the hot button topics more interesting.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

But, a degree is just a level of education and attainment in a subject, so why should you not be able to have a degree in pottery? The question is since when was creationism a science, not whether you should be able to have a degree (presumably an arts degree) in it.

My Degree

[Epistax]

I'll have a MS in suicide bombing with a minor in maximizing civilian casualties.

Pendulum swings, boys!

Re:My Degree

[zifr]

I didn't think Bill Maher had a Slashdot account. Sweet.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[OolimPhon]

The question is since when was creationism a science, not whether you should be able to have a degree (presumably an arts degree) in it.

That would be a degree in philosophy, not arts.

Finally!

[ikirudennis]

I can now get the degree I've always wanted: a FSM Studies Science Degree
I just loved learning about His Noodly Appendage in high school and I want to pursue a higher education with a focus on Him.

FSM Science

[neopirate]

All you nay sayers! Take notice there will be even more REAL scientist with science degrees now! The FSM will show us the way to true science and with it there will be no doubt. Because after all, we will have a degree to prove it.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Sponge Bath]

Sorry, you're part of the other 1.683% that are merely snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, and petty.

Drugs or Rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.

Either way, you're getting stoned!

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is beyond being ruined... it was totally flawed right out of the gate and is only getting worse... due to the snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, petty, clever fools who make up 98.317% of its posters.

Do you include yourself among that august body?

Next in the news

[Cathbard]

In other news, anarchists demand a more structured government with stricter law enforcement.

This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion

[PuckSR]

There are three problems with this idea.

First, whatever your opinion of "poppycock" degrees, they are drastically different from this degree in creationism. A few examples:
Degree in Religion: You have studied and become an expert on the social phenomenon known as religion. You have studied a number of different religions. This degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of history, philosophy, and anthropology.
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
Creationism: Creationism 'science' is essentially a list of poorly constructed arguments that attempt to refute evolution. The main requirement for any argument on this list is that they are 'convincing' rather than being accurate. There is no academic rigor to this field.
Creationism does not compare to other religious degrees.

Second, Creationism is currently operating under the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They don't actually want to be 'accepted', they just want to grab as many headlines as possible. They want big, showy, and silly public debates with well-respected scientists. They don't want to sit down in a lab and prove anything. i.e. Creationists frequently argue that if you place an organism in observation and wait thousands of generations, that organism will not evolve new features. However, no creationist has even attempted to demonstrate this fact. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to attempt. However, actual scientists have done this experiment and dedicated a massive amount of time to the work. They were rewarded with the exact opposite of the creationists predictions. If you want to know more about this research, please visit :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The third, and biggest problem with Creationism is that it is a concept, not a field of study. You don't grant degrees in 'ideas'. We don't have a degree for perpetual motion machines, proving Goldbach's conjecture, or any other crackpottery you can imagine. A degree is rewarded for a field of study. What exactly are Creationists going to study?

I am not opposed to this "Degree in Creationism" in the same way I am opposed to Creationism. I want to admit that I think Creationism is absurd. However, I am even more opposed to a degree in creationism for the reasons stated above. I would be equally opposed to a degree is Deism, Skepticism, or any other idea I believe in.

Re:This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion

[Arthur Grumbine]

Oh, for mod points...
Nice insights. Especially the "any publicity is good publicity" one. From the comments I've read so far for this article everyone seems to have missed that point, which seems to be the root of their motivation in this case.

Well done!

Re:This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion

[langelgjm]

Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.

FYI, some of the best universities in the country offer degrees in divinity. E.g., Yale, Harvard, U Chicago, and Duke, just off the top of my head. Of course, there are also a lot of crazy schools that offer it...

Subfields within it could be history of Christianity (so, as you said, church history, manuscripts, etc.), biblical studies (more manuscripts, textual criticism, biblical languages), theology, ethics, and liturgy.

Additionally, just because someone got a degree from (or teaches) in a divinity school doesn't mean they're a nut. There are plenty of people in, e.g., biblical studies, who are just interested in the material for its own sake.

Re:This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion

[wlt]

Second, Creationism is currently operating under the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They don't actually want to be 'accepted', they just want to grab as many headlines as possible. They want big, showy, and silly public debates with well-respected scientists.

I'd second that. Creationism seems to appeal to the segment of the religio-fundies that thrive on a "siege mentality", that "everybody is against us". What's useful to them is a large number of people "attacking" them, they don't (and won't) care about the legitimacy or quality of the criticisms of their ideas.

The third, and biggest problem with Creationism is that it is a concept, not a field of study. You don't grant degrees in 'ideas'. We don't have a degree for perpetual motion machines, proving Goldbach's conjecture, or any other crackpottery you can imagine. A degree is rewarded for a field of study. What exactly are Creationists going to study?

Does anybody offer a "degree in evolution"?

Re:This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion

[callinyouin]

Very good points.
I certainly couldn't have said it any better.

Re:This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion

[ImOnlySleeping]

On your second point, I was discussing something similar the other day. Since creationism stands no chance of actually ever being accepted in the scientific community (being non-science), I can't see this 'debate' garnering any new support for Christians (I haven't heard of anyone who was converted by this nonsense), which only leaves a loss of support (people being forced to accept facts over fiction). So by pushing this nonsense, they end up narrowing their supporters.

Creationism versus Commerce Degree?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd rather have a creationism degree than a Commerce Degree, mostly because when you are bullshitting with a creationism degree, there are many suckers who fall for it, even during an economic downturn. If you have a commerce degree, even if you are telling the truth, many people think you are just bullshitting, especially at times like these.

Urgh... Not again!

[AmonTheMetalhead]

What is it with religious zealots that makes them bumber then a rock with a lobotomy?

The smarter mankind seems to get, the more idiots that crawl out of the woodwork.

calling a pig a pineapple doesnâ(TM)t make it

[garethharris]

Lincoln gets the credit for saying you can call a cow a horse but it is still a cow. Or as another source said: calling a pig a pineapple doesnâ(TM)t make it sweet and juicy and finally - how many people even know what the word scientia means?

Great, act like jerks, do you never learn?

[zifr]

So coming off as a bunch of jerks is how we do it in science now. Typically when I back science, I try to do it with facts and not as an ass. All your doing in that case is alienating any valid point you may have. I am not a fan of the grade level learning system in Texas, it does need an overhaul. Standardized tests need to go away. But the way many of you are acting is like a bunch of clowns. Every single state gets their stupid legislation and the majority of the time it doesn't pass. Texas has a fairly balance legislature Dem - Rep, which is great, neither side gets to ramrod stuff through. As for you idiot's saying 'uhoh I'm about to go to Texas for my Ph.D.'. By all means please go to another state. Texas has a great higher learning system. I learned phenomenal amounts of useful information from my University. I am ashamed to call myself a scientist when surrounded by people who act like the guy at discovermagazine. How soon we forget what happened when the big dog at Helios in Austin trashed the teachers union. What happened? The only people he won over was part of the linux community. He pissed off the other 90% of the population. Sadly, instead of the people at discovermagazine using their brain to formulate a valid argument, they go and insults half the state of Texas. Good job......morons. You'll only help getting stupid legislation like this passed acting like that. Flame away.

PROFIT!!!

[tomhudson]

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

I don't think this was meant to start a flamewar at all! Your opinion is both wrong and full of ignorance! It's people like you who are ruining Slashdot.

Come off it - the people demanding the ability to grant degrees in "Creation Science" are the ones trolling the rest of the country, and trying to ruin the educatio system.

1. Get ability to grant "advanced degree in creation science"
2. Get all those trailer trash who believe such shit to get one to go along with their GED or their "IT degree in MS-Word";
3. PROFIT!!!

I have a better idea - if they get this "right" - get the degree, then publish about how creationism is total bullshit, and point to your "credentials" as someone with an "advanced degree in creation science." Make $$$ selling books, appearances on the idiot box/faux news, etc.

I have an even better idea - let them move to Jebus-land. What the rising waters don't get, global warming-driven hurricanes and droughts will. Problem solved.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[EastCoastSurfer]

Come off it - the people demanding the ability to grant degrees in "Creation Science" are the ones trolling the rest of the country, and trying to ruin the educatio system.

True, but it's not just the creationists. Education in this country is being ruined by everyone with an agenda. Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda.

I don't have kids yet, but I've already started thinking about how I will teach them all the things that schools either leave out or PC up. The problem is that to do it right it's going to be nearly a full time job doing research.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[tomhudson]

Well, if you get enough parents together, it shouldn't be such a load.

Or just make sure you talk with them every day - they'll learn how to take things with a grain of salt.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[networkBoy]

I do have kids.
My oldest is in Kindergarten and already the questions about our educational system are in the forefront.
The banned book list for the school district I live in is a who's who of great literary works...
Black Boy
Uncle Toms Cabin
Catcher in the Rye
To Kill a Mocking Bird
etc.
Along with slightly more understandable works (though I still believe they should not be banned):
Marquis de Sade
The Bible
The Satanic Verses
Balzac
etc.

My children will be reading all these books (at the appropriate time in their educational development) and their book reports will be on these books, if that is what they want to write about, and if they are still in school. Should they find themselves suspended for having one of these books in their backpack, or for writing about them, or for presenting their reports on them, then I will bring a constitutional case of freedom of press and speech against the school district. Our education system has gone so downhill in the 16 or so years since I was in it that I am ashamed to be involved with the American educational system.

The problem is that to do it right it's going to be nearly a full time job doing research.

Yes, it will be. My wife has a multitude of degrees (focused in Social science/humanities) and I have a hard science and experimental background. We made the decision to be "poor" so that my wife can stay home with the kids and further their education because the school system simply is too broken to keep our daughter engaged. If we relied on the public schools entirely then she would be one of those high IQ kids with straight D's, simply because she would be bored to death.

Single biggest problem with the school system in the lower grades: Teaching to the slowest children in the class. The elephant in the corner are the state mandated tests. What should happen is that the class is taught to the grade level and the faster kids can advance mid semester and the slower kids can be held back. But that's not PC so it can't be allowed to happen.
-nB

Re:PROFIT!!!

[alexborges]

No...

One thing is to shortchange Reaggan's good things (which would still be more debateable than, say, the pertinence and vigency of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, wouldnt you say?) and another to ignore all the evidence about the way life came to be as it is now to mislead children.

Not the same AT ALL.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[Main Gauche]

Well, if you get enough parents together, it shouldn't be such a load.

Except that "enough parents" constitutes a group. Groups attract those with an agenda. And you're back to GP's square one.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[eugene ts wong]

I don't understand why "To Kill A Mocking Bird" is banned. It should be required reading, or at least require students to watch the movie. Maybe I need to watch it again, and read it, too. It seemed like a great movie.

I keep hearing about "Catcher In The Rye". I should take time out for that, as well.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean text books, not history books. There are plenty of good history books or books on history. Text books are notoriously watered down. Not with an agenda, with no agenda.
I've heard that two of the largest markets are California and Texas, one liberal, one conservative, so the textbooks shy away from controversy of any sort.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but it's not just the creationists. Education in this country is being ruined by everyone with an agenda. Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda.

There are similarities but probably not the way you imagine.

The evolution/creation debate boils down to certain people wanting public schools to teach things that are not based on factual observation: they have a particular mythology that they want presented as fact in public schools (not just that the mythology exists but that the mythical events themselves are factual).

You claim that history books refuse to mention Reagan in connection with the cold war. It's not really clear what you mean by this. If for example, a history book were to intentionally omit Reagan from a list of US presidents that were in power during the cold war then that would certainly be an egregious omission.

A complete history book should probably also mention that Reagan gave a number speeches in which he made extravagant, if somewhat simple-minded, claims about the superiority of the USA to other countries (notably the USSR) - and that these speeches were very popular with certain (primarily US) demographics. Such information is factual and is properly the domain of public school education.

You may, however, also feel that a public school education should include speculation as to Reagan's role in bringing about the end of the cold war. As long the speculation was clearly labeled as speculation, I would not disagree. On the other hand, if you are advocating presenting the speculation as fact then, IMHO, you fall into the same category as the creationists who want their mythology presented as fact in public schools.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[Elder Entropist]

Education in this country is being ruined by everyone with an agenda. Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war.

Your post is an excellent example of someone with an agenda - and kudos to keeping it on topic by bringing up a modern day religious icon.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[fugue]

True, but it's not just the creationists. Education in this country is being ruined by everyone with an agenda. Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda.

Seriously? Do tell!

I've already started thinking about how I will teach them all the things that schools either leave out or PC up. The problem is that to do it right it's going to be nearly a full time job doing research.

I'm pretty sure that there are well over a million parents and protoparents in the USA who would be willing to help. There ought to be a wiki...?

Hmmm, here's a random thought: teaching out of Wikipedia would perhaps add (1) some non-PC-ness, (2) the ability to delve deeper whenever it's needed, and hopefully (3) a fundamental mistrust of all authorities, including Wikipedia (maybe introduce edit logs and edit-wars and Wikipolitics and conflicting primary sources to them after 9th (?) grade or so; I suspect that if they're younger than that it'll be a bit overwhelming).

Re:PROFIT!!!

[EastCoastSurfer]

A complete history book should probably also mention that Reagan gave a number speeches in which he made extravagant, if somewhat simple-minded, claims about the superiority of the USA to other countries (notably the USSR) - and that these speeches were very popular with certain (primarily US) demographics. Such information is factual and is properly the domain of public school education.

You may, however, also feel that a public school education should include speculation as to Reagan's role in bringing about the end of the cold war. As long the speculation was clearly labeled as speculation, I would not disagree. On the other hand, if you are advocating presenting the speculation as fact then, IMHO, you fall into the same category as the creationists who want their mythology presented as fact in public schools.

I agree. I used the Reagan example because it was the freshest in my head. I had read the other day about some history books that had entire sections on the cold war with Gorbachav, etc... and no mention of Reagan. Even if you think he had zero to do with the end of the cold war he still has to be mentioned in the conversation as the in control when it all went down.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[kurzweilfreak]

By referring to someone's mention of Reagan or other public figure in this way as "religious", you distort the meaning of the word to being useless and destroying any hope for rational discussion.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[ADRA]

Both were brilliant books that I did end up reading during my high school education. Hell, I think I read Mocking Bird in Grade 8. This is coming from Canada, so the rules are obviously different.

Anyways, Catcher in the Rye was and probably is the book that had the greatest impact on me by reading it. It was about a teenage boy going through a great deal of angst for reasons and results that require spoiling too much, but it dealt with many of the same woes that I was experiencing at the time. Since I read it as a teenager, I think the impact was more significant than if I read it today.

(Looking At the Book) its only about 200 pages, so if you were really eager, you could read it in a day, or maybe a couple flights worth of time killing.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[coaxial]

True, but it's not just the creationists. Education in this country is being ruined by everyone with an agenda. Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda.

Put up or shut up.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get all those trailer trash who believe such shit to get one to go along with their GED or their "IT degree in MS-Word"

This is Slashdot. Regardless of what you think, and of how idiotic you might think another's beliefs to be, a news site claiming to be unbiased is NOT the place to post this filth.

So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer.

A less extreme example. Like one commenter already stated: Is there really a reason, other than starting a flame war and hate comments, for posting this?

If I was going to summarize Slashdot and it's users by the article and comments here in one word (which thankfully would not be accurate), it would be childish

Re:PROFIT!!!

[rohan972]

My wife has a multitude of degrees (focused in Social science/humanities) and I have a hard science and experimental background. We made the decision to be "poor" so that my wife can stay home with the kids and further their education because the school system simply is too broken to keep our daughter engaged. If we relied on the public schools entirely then she would be one of those high IQ kids with straight D's, simply because she would be bored to death.

Have you considered homeschooling? If you want your daughter to experience school, you could still do it for a few years to give her an intellectual head start.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just teach your kids the fundamentals of critical thought; presumably they will learn to read at school and not grow up to look at the world in black and white. After all, you're their parents, *you* will have an agenda, and certainly, your interpretation of the world is no more intrinsically right or wrong than their own formed views will be.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[realnrh]

This is SPARTAAAAA!

... Sorry, the meme arose and had to be passed on before it would leave me be.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[mako1138]

I'm too young to have experienced Cold War controversy, but a new book came out last month about Reagan and Gorbachev. Apparently Reagan tried to convert Gorbachev to Christianity and kept cracking jokes.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/reagan-excerpt200902

Re:PROFIT!!!

[tomhudson]

This is Slashdot. Regardless of what you think, and of how idiotic you might think another's beliefs to be, a news site claiming to be unbiased is NOT the place to post this filth.

Give it UP already. There's a big difference between unbiased (which slashdot never claimed to be, btw), and presenting both sides equally, when one side is totally discredited. What are you, a fucking scientologist or mormon or jehovah's witness or baptist or ... (insert a looong list of the hopelessly clueless)?

The day that churches let evolution be taught in Sunday School is the day that the religious nutcases can then make some semi-credible claim to be even-handed. Until then, the world is not a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup - don't try to mix religion and science and claim any sort of legitimacy, they aren't like peanut butter and chocolate.

As for filth, the bible is hate literature that includes rape, genocide and murder, all done at "god's command" by "the chosen." Pure, unadulterated filth for the willfully ignorant, and now that atheism is the fastest-growing "belief system" in the US, expect to see more, not fewer, attacks against the ignorance and superstition promoted by religion.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[bhiestand]

Well, if you get enough parents together, it shouldn't be such a load.

Except that "enough parents" constitutes a group. Groups attract those with an agenda. And you're back to GP's square one.

So how about we all get together and decide on a system of rules to govern the decision makers in the group? Some collection of articles or something that would limit their ability to do anything but serve the members of the group, and leave all possible remaining power and rights with the actual group members? We could even make some sort of rules that would punish them if they got caught taking bribes or intentionally harming the group. You think something like that would do it?

Re:PROFIT!!!

[bhiestand]

We made the decision to be "poor" so that my wife can stay home with the kids and further their education because the school system simply is too broken to keep our daughter engaged. If we relied on the public schools entirely then she would be one of those high IQ kids with straight D's, simply because she would be bored to death.

I wish my parents could have done something similar, or found somebody else like you and paid someone like your wife to teach someone like me instead of the school system. And yes, I was the kid with straight D's... that still haunts me.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[iminplaya]

Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war.

What's to mention of note? He just happened to be there at the time, like Peter Sellers in that movie. Russia was done in by corrupt government and satellite TV, not satellite "defense". The people with the "Obama" complex don't even compare to this bizarre hero worship for a senile old man who had good writers.

I wish my life was a non-stop hollywood movie show,
A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes,
Because celluloid heroes never feel any pain
And celluloid heroes never really die

Re:PROFIT!!!

[LarryWake]

"Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda."

This sounded maybe a little far-fetched, so I went and grabbed my son's high school history textbook (we live in the SF Bay Area, which I hear is considered by some to be at least slightly to the left of center).

I wound up turning right to chapter 22, "A Conservative Era", which begins with a two-page photo of a smiling Ronald Reagan working a crowd, with the precis, "Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by appealing to a discontented electorate with the promise to return to a simpler time and conservative values. Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, presided over the end of the Cold War and huge changes in economic and social policy." (American Anthem, Modern American History, Holt Rinehart Winston, California edition, 2007)

If there's a meme being spread that Evil PCers have expunged Reagan from history books, there's little evidence to support that here in California.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[networkBoy]

So was I.
That's why we're doing this...

Re:PROFIT!!!

[meringuoid]

I don't understand why "To Kill A Mocking Bird" is banned. It should be required reading

It was, for us (in .uk). I imagine it's still controversial in some parts of the US, though. First off it portrays extreme racism - I'm guessing the official reason it's banned is because the word 'nigger' gets used. The unofficial reason it's banned is probably because it portrays extreme racism as a bad thing.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[eugene ts wong]

You mean that the people banning this are probably extreme racists?

Re:PROFIT!!!

[eugene ts wong]

Hi. I'm from Canada, too. Thanks for your feedback.

I'll try to hop on it this week, since I have too much down time.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[EastCoastSurfer]

Or you could just teach your kids the fundamentals of critical thought; presumably they will learn to read at school and not grow up to look at the world in black and white.

Exactly! This is what my parents taught me (not sure how since they didn't do it explicitly), and it has guided me to question everything and be naturally curious.

I was the kid that asked 'why' in Sunday school and was never satisfied with 'because' or 'the bible says so'.

Re:PROFIT!!!

[Main Gauche]

So how about we all get together and decide on a system of rules to govern the decision makers in the group? Some collection of articles or something that would limit their ability to do anything but serve the members of the group, and leave all possible remaining power and rights with the actual group members? We could even make some sort of rules that would punish them if they got caught taking bribes or intentionally harming the group. You think something like that would do it?

Why yes, I think you're on to something. Of course we could never have the foresight to consider all possible rules we'll ever need, so one of the rules should be that we are allowed to modify the rules in the future. I can't see that leading to any problems.

"Texas congress"?

[ameyer17]

Since when does Texas have a congress? Last I checked, the term was "legislature".

Warning: The above is from a Kent Hovind shill.

[colinrichardday]

Why don't I trust Kent Hovind?

Ymir's bones!

[SgtChaireBourne]

I'm all over that. Odin, Vili, and Ve killed the giant Ymir and made the world from him, using his blood, flesh, hair, bones and teeth for the lakes, earth, trees, mountains and pebbles, respectively. It'd be a fine thing to be able to further our science of these great deeds.

However, the summary mentioned astrology. I'd like to a double major, but avoid the hard sciences for the second major and do something like economics or pro-wrestling instead.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[digitig]

Yes, but the an important difference is that science can demonstrate beyond any doubt that pottery and baskets are in fact very real.

No it can't. Ask a solipsist. Those who haven't looled into it too closely just think that science can do that. Now, had you claimed that science can demonstrate sufficiently for all practical purposes that pottery and baskets are in fact very real then you might have had a point.

Re:Evolution is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

The evidence for creationism is strong

Evidence like a rib-woman being convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree?

what's so weird?

[pikine]

My friend who studied communications has a Bachelor of Science degree, and I who studied computer science have a Bachelor of Arts degree. A quick google showed that both are fairly common.

Star Fleet Academy

[colinrichardday]

Hey, let's start Star Fleet Academy in Texas!

Quark

[zifr]

If I dressed up like Quark, could I get my ears rubbed?

Wizard of Oz

[c4h6o5]

"I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma."

Re:That's Fine With Me

[budgenator]

I'm not sure about a masters in pottery or basket weaving, but an associates in arts with a major in clay isn't that hard to find.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[digitig]

That would be a degree in philosophy, not arts.

It looks to me as if it would straddle theology, philosophy of religion and sociology. But hey, it's the USA, so presumably it should go to a vote. (I was once in a standardisation meeting in which the US contingent forced a vote on whether pure Poisson processes are time-stationary. They didn't think they were, and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed by democracy.)

Science, religion... whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they are both the "brain child" of humans. They are both pretty persistent, none of them has managed to eliminate the other. I don't really mind that they are both here. I am not trying to get a frontal lobotomy to get rid of thoughts that I may see "stupid" or whatever label may apply. I enjoy the fact, that humans can come up with so many theories, concepts, visions, hallucinations or whatever sensations our brain can produce. I can see no reason to put limits on this huge variety and I refuse the idea that anyone should claim the authority to force me to limit what I can, want to think, "sense", etc. I don't care if the "authority" to attempt to do it called science or religion or anything else.

Big difference

[khasim]

Are you saying that experiments were done and we were able to disprove it?

No. Because in order to perform an experiment, you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis.

Creationism cannot form a falsifiable hypothesis because EVERY outcome could be "proven" by the words "God wanted it that way".

That is why it is not science.

I always thought that at lot of what is proclaimed by religions can be proven wrong. But some core stuff would probably survive the scientific method. That would at least clean up religions, from a scientific point of view of course.

That would depend upon what you mean by "religions".

I think you're confusing historical evidence with science. In order for it to be science, It must be able to be stated in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis that can be test by different scientists.

Re:Big difference

[Valtor]

I understand what you are saying. That creationism is "Not even wrong". I don't know much about it and was just curious to know if we are sure that they are not predicting anything we could use to try and prove them wrong.

I was talking about the claims religions make, are they predicting anything that explains some observations that we can't otherwise explain? I know that we might not currently have ways of testing their claims, but maybe one day we will.

I think we too often use bad language when we talk about science in definite terms. I hear too often things like: "We proved that...".

We never prove anything in science, we just very very slowly disprove everything we can. And by doing so, we narrow ever so slowly the expanse of explanations to ever more useful ones.

Valtor

Re:Big difference

[jamstar7]

I was talking about the claims religions make, are they predicting anything that explains some observations that we can't otherwise explain? I know that we might not currently have ways of testing their claims, but maybe one day we will.

None that I'm aware of. But consider the situation where somebody makes 10,000 predictions. Law of averages says, said person has to be right sometime. Now that person throws press conferences on his 'hits' and buries his 'misses', and spins it to where he's always 'right'. Does this make him a 'prophet'? I'm thinking, not.

Re:Big difference

[Valtor]

Agreed, this person would not be left with a lot of karma to burn ;-)

Re:Big difference

[shaitand]

Actually science neither proves nor disproves anything at all. Science is merely a system of educated guessing based on observations. The only thing ever established is the observation itself and even only that it was observed in that isolated incident or series of incidents, not that we observed what we thought we observed or that the phenomenon will ever happen again.

Think of many 'perpetual motion' machines that would seem to go on forever if you didn't observe them long enough. There are probably hundreds of things we believe to be true or consistent in science that are local phenomenon on a perpetual motion type loop that may be skewing things.

However, creationism doesn't fall within the realm of science. Scientific hypothesis are a proposed conclusion based on observation to that point. Creation was concluded without evidence and attempts to go back and find observations after the fact. And as others said, when making the leap from observation to hypothesis theoretically testable predictions must be made, if they fail a new hypothesis is required. Creation changes the predictions and keeps the same conclusion because the conclusion is where they start.

Chewbacca

[DJRumpy]

I equate Creationism to the Chewbacca Defense...

If the Universe Has Free Will...

[Baldrson]

Did you guys miss the article on John Conway's lecture series at Princeton on universal free will theorem?

I hate to break it to you sophomores but the fact that so-called "creationists" have their cranks that insist on the literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't mean you can just dismiss the field.

Degree in Religious Engineering

[Tweenk]

I propose a degree in Religious Engrineering. Here are example test questions:

Religious Engineering midterm exam. 5 questions, 60 minutes. You can use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In all questions, assume that Jesus is perfectly spherical and has an uniform density of G. Parying during the exam is forbidden.

1. (20 pts)
Adam and Bob are at rest. God loves them equally (L-0). Subsequently, Adam accelerates to 0.9c. From the point of view of Bob, how much more does God love Adam?

2. Stephan, a Catholic, is in a state of sanctifying grace. After some time he has an intercourse with a sheep S.
a) (8 pts) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S consented?
b) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S didn't consent, but it couldn't be said it had something against it?

3. (20 pts) The Holy Spirit's eternal, all-encompasing love is in the XY plane. The soul of Sue is at (0,0,5) at t = 0s, and its velocity vector is (0,0,5) m/s. The model was constructed according to rational positivism typical of the Enlightenement period. At what time tS will Sue's soul achieve salvation? (Hint: assume that souls are point-like).

4. (20 pts) Assume that the Ascension happens at the time t. Cameron, a saved human being in the state of sanctifying grace, at the time t has her head crushed in the jaws of an alligator. Calculate the mass of meat left for the alligator at the time t + 10s.

5. Isaac is a frictionless Jew of uniform density at rest. For his faith level, his sin factor is 11 Moseses. He subsequently eats 300 grams of pork, and he enjoys it. For this question, assume that Jews are always right.
a) (10 pts) What is Isaac's sin factor after eating the pork?
b) (10 pts) What is Isaac's heritage adjusted sin factor if he's from the tribe of Judah?

Bonus question.
25 g of wafer and 20 ml of cheap wine undergo transsubstatiation to become the flesh and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Calculate the amount of heat that is liberated during this process, in joules.

(note: originally this was a Polish text by an anonymous author)

Re:Degree in Religious Engineering

[pohl]

That is comic genius.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[budgenator]

yeah buddy, I've found that it takes really intelligent people to think up exquisitely stupid ideas; mediocre people can only be commonly stupid!

Re:That's Fine With Me

[DamienRBlack]

One of my old professors had a very poignant saying:

Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen. Every time either side has tried to cross this line, they were wrong.

Prove Creationism to me.

[mad_cat_elite]

Fine, Creationists want to play scientists. I wont be mean and will keep an open mind.

Please give me a scientific experiment that can hold up to the Scientific Method that is in direct relationship to Creationism.

Oh, and the final answer cannot be God, since God does not exist on this plane of existence and thus God's existence cannot be proved nor disproved. And you will also lose points for say that because the eye is complex, there must be a creator. Give me an actual experiment that can pass the scientific method peer review please.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dotancohen]

What schools give degrees in pottery and basket weaving?

And I would not hire a pottery specialist either, sorry.

For that matter, I am not going to start making a blacklist of individual schools, I will simply blacklist all Texas universities. Sorry, but I cannot trust your educational systems. If this passes and someone comes to me with a degree from a Texas university, they will have an uphill battle to fight.

If this spreads to other US states, then I won't blacklist individual states, I will blacklist American universities in general. There are enough qualified applicants from all over the world where I don't have to worry about issues like this.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dhudson0001]

Now, had you claimed that science can demonstrate sufficiently for all practical purposes that pottery and baskets are in fact very real then you might have had a point.

Not quite, just ask Pythagoras, who was thought to have said "wisdom is an art of mischief".

why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

a MD in Witchcraft, Unviersity of Salem?

God is all powerful

[cdunworth]

I don't understand why Christians resort to such histrionics to combat science on science's terms.

Want a retort to evolution? Here's one: God created it. He created earth, made it look 4+ billion years old, added fossils, plate tectonics, bosons, whatever you want. Why does this discussion always require God to start the game at the beginning? He started in the middle. He's all powerful.

Now, this "answer" doesn't advance our understanding of the world any. But maybe it will give us some peace and quiet.

This is excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we'll have more people to torture for their stupidity! I can't wait until it passes!

But it looks like I can't move the kids to Texas anymore. They're technically virgins, and entering into crazyland would make them eligible for religious sacrifice.

(Note: I'm not always this bitter. I just hate stupid people who try to force ideas to be true which are obviously incorrect.)

Hollywood Upstairs Medical School?

[ukemike]

Just like Doctor Nick!

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shit happens:

There is this invisible man that nobody can see who makes shit happen. We don't know how he does it but everybody says he is the one responsible. Some people think he is like a little man in their brains. Others think he is up on a cloud in the sky.

(I personally have a few issues with the shit that is happening and I don't think he is doing a very good job and I would like to get him to do a better job. Maybe he could take a course in 'relationship management' or 'earth science' and improve things. Regardless, I would like to know why things are so fucked up.)

One good thing about Creationism

[Simonetta]

The one good thing about Creationism is that it forces teachers to present the scientific method to the students at a much earlier age. Often the nuts and volts of the skepticism that is the core process of science is skipped over in schools.

  Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.

  Children will say that the earth was created in six days, 4000 years ago. Well we weren't there to witness this. But we can show records and artifacts (ones that weren't stolen from the Baghdad museum) that are over 4000 years old.

    Creationism forces teachers to instill a spirit of skepticism in students. "I don't believe you, prove it" mentality that is more important that the facts themselves.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[ProzacPatient]

Children will say that the earth was created in six days, 4000 years ago.

Some twisted denominations teach that with no basis on the bible. Each creative day is about 1,000 years totaling up to about 6,000 years. For some reason people go on the assumption that a creative day is a literal 24-hours despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

Furthermore how long it took for the Earth to be created is unknown as the Bible makes no mention of Earth's creation outside of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and then it goes on to say "And God said let there be light, and there was light and he saw that it was good, a first morning, a first day." So with this in mind some parts of Evolution fit in with Creationism because the Big-Bang, and such, fit in perfect with what Genesis does not say.


With all do respect sir, please learn a little more about the Bible before making a critical review of it.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[radio4fan]

Each creative day is about 1,000 years totaling up to about 6,000 years.

[bible citation needed]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.

At least not in the King James version.

For some reason people go on the assumption that a creative day is a literal 24-hours

Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?

despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

Good Lord! They had no days when Genesis was written?

They could write and everything, but hadn't noticed the sun is the highest in the sky on a reliably repeatable period?

With all do respect sir, please learn a little more about the Bible before making a critical review of it.

With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

American science is fucked. The fact that we're still referring to the "laws of nature" as if they are really prescriptive laws making shit happen is enough to spoil most any scientific understanding.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[ProzacPatient]

Each creative day is about 1,000 years totaling up to about 6,000 years.

[bible citation needed]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.

At least not in the King James version.

For some reason people go on the assumption that a creative day is a literal 24-hours

Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?

2nd Peter 3:8, from the King James:
"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."

despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

Good Lord! They had no days when Genesis was written?

They could write and everything, but hadn't noticed the sun is the highest in the sky on a reliably repeatable period?

The book of Genesis is believed to have been written in 1513 B.C.E. by the inspired writer Moses in Sinai.
The point I was making here is that our modern calender system which makes use of the 24-hour period is a relatively recent development. At the time the Jewish people believed that a day ended/begun at sunset, contrary to our system where a day's boundary is at 12:00 AM midnight.
Futhermore Genesis is translated from Hebrew and the word "Day" in Hebrew simply implies "a very long time."

With all do respect sir, please learn a little more about the Bible before making a critical review of it.

With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.

The Bible does not include the creation of Earth itself - or the universe as apart of the six creative days.
If you read Genesis again you'll notice that it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Then it goes on to describe the Earth's condition and then the process of the six creative days in which God made Earth habitable for life.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[kheldan]

I hate to tell ya sunshine, but it's much worse than you think it is. The "pastor" you mention won't show kids a picture of cavemen and dinosaurs together; he'll deny the existence of dinosaurs completely, claiming that "satan and his minions put fossils where people can find them to confuse them and test their faith". Furthermore, religion doesn't promote skepticism and testing of facts; they'll tell you "the earth was created in 6 days and is only 4000 years old", and when you ask them to prove it, they'll say "you have to have FAITH", essentially meaning "just shut up and believe what I'm telling you, because I'M TELLING YOU TO".
Actually I think you're a creationist in disguise, or you're being sarcastic in your post, now that I think about it. No way to tell which it is though.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Dragonslicer]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.

The Hebrew word "yom" is often used non-literally, just like the word "day" is in English. Phrases such as "some day" and "the day will come" clearly do not mean a period of 24 hours. There's also the issue that solar days couldn't exist before the sun, which wasn't created until the fourth day.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[joocemann]

What is the meaning of words if we do not intend to understand them in the long-standing definition to which the word has been used?

Re-interpretations of the bible, and other religious texts, is obviously an attempt to validate information that has been proven false. Go back 1000 years, before there was any argument against the '6 days', and I'm sure you won't find a single theotard interpreting the words to mean otherwise.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[noidentity]

Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.

I think I'd just tell the kids that there weren't any cameras back then.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[radio4fan]

2nd Peter 3:8, from the King James:

"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."

And Peter is talking about why the second coming is slow to appear, not about the creation myth.

Yes, already he is reinterpreting the theory to fit the data.

At the time the Jewish people believed that a day ended/begun at sunset, contrary to our system where a day's boundary is at 12:00 AM midnight.

A difference in duration of about 2 minutes around the equinoxes in the Middle East.

If you read Genesis again you'll notice that it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Then it goes on to describe the Earth's condition and then the process of the six creative days in which God made Earth habitable for life.

Yes, I notice that God created the Sun on the fourth 'day', the day/year/millenium/unspecified period-of-time after he created grass and fruit-bearing trees.

And I don't doubt you will find a way of interpreting that impossible statement to fit the data.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Arancaytar]

That would work if creationism or intelligent design were actually taught in a matter that promotes critical thinking.

Or, come to think of it, if it were replaced with an alternate origin idea that actually makes any sense whatsoever. Students don't learn skepticism by hearing the equivalent of "Darwin said that we evolved from monkeys. But this is a theory, not a fact. We might also have been created by space aliens. Which do you think is cooler, a boring old monkey or a big space alien?"

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[AmaranthineNight]

2nd Peter 3:8, from the King James:
"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."

Note "as one day" and "as a thousand years". These are similes, and should not be taken as a definition of a unit of measure here. That passage is explaining that even though it seems like God is taking forever to come back to earth and set up his kingdom here, you should "not be ignorant of the fact" that God experiences time differently from us and you can't impose your sense of urgency on him. This has nothing to do with the creation story.

Genesis is translated from Hebrew and the word "Day" in Hebrew simply implies "a very long time."

Except that if you actually read the bible, it describes a "day" as the progression from morning through evening. --

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Gen 1:5 (KJV)

"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." Gen 1:8 (KJV)

"And the evening and the morning were the third day." Gen 1:13 (KJV)

I think I've made my point.

The Bible does not include the creation of Earth itself - or the universe as apart of the six creative days.
If you read Genesis again you'll notice that it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Then it goes on to describe the Earth's condition and then the process of the six creative days in which God made Earth habitable for life.

If you read genesis again, you'll realize that after it says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" it begins a description of the process of creating the heavens and the earth, or else Genesis 2:1 would not make sense, which reads:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

Right before it explains that God rested on the seventh day. The most logical interpretation of Genesis 1 here is that it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, this is how he did it." not "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, this is how he made it fit for life"

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

Recent archaeological research into the time of the early Egyptian Pharaohs has turned up some interesting facts.

It turns out that you could get a decent sandwich and a pint of beer in Egypt over 4000 years ago.

That kind of brought it all into perspective for me.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Asic Eng]

Phrases such as "some day" and "the day will come" clearly do not mean a period of 24 hours.

Do you have an example for "it took a day" or a similar phrase actually referring to a period of thousands of years? (Apart from the bible, I mean.) I don't know Hebrew, maybe "yom" could stand for "turn" or "phase" or something like that? The King James Bible is a pretty important milestone though - it does appear that no-one considered translating "yom" as "turn" or "period" in 1611, and there had certainly been a lot of thought spend on bible interpretation in the hundreds of years before it was written. Also Genesis always mentions a morning and an evening - how clear can you possibly be about referring to an actual day?

There's also the issue that solar days couldn't exist before the sun,

Ok, but the duration of a day would have been readily understandable to the writers of Genesis. Also creation of light (in Genesis) precedes the creation of the sun. We can't argue with terms like "solar days" if we don't even accept that the light comes from the sun. Then there is the "firmament" and the claim that there is water above the sky, which we know to be wrong. There is also the claim that the moon provides light which is wrong. There is no way to reconcile all these incorrect claims with what we know now, unless we take it for nothing but an allegory. You could say: "well the people at the time just wouldn't have been able to understand the real process". However if you do that, then you can't take anything about this creation story literally.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Asic Eng]

Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.

Oh yeah, teachers will be so happy to have to argue to kids that their pastor is a liar. Nothing better to appease a bunch of fruitcakes who want to push their religion into science class, but that.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[bertok]

Exactly!

We don't have any particular problem with Creationists here in Australia (yet), but we do have the same failing of not teaching children about the scientific method as a part of their basic education.

I studied physics at university, and what shocked me was that in second year only a very few people could explain what science is when asked by the lecturer.

Even I didn't know! The meaning of the word was simply never explained to me.

And you wonder why the average person thinks science is guys in white labcoats torturing small fuzzy animals(*) -- that's what they get from Hollywood, and nobody else is there to give a more accurate definition.

* "There's more to science than just hurting small animals, but it's the part that's the most fun" - Scott Adams

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you've said can be just as easily applied to evolution:

A. The scientific method doesn't apply to things that can't be reproduced in a laboratory. History cannot be reproduced in a laboratory or directly viewed, and we've never created life in a laboratory or shown any way that life could've arisen from green pools of goo.

B. Pictures of dinosaurs and humans living together is prima fascia evidence that they lived together, evidence which you've chosen to ignore and rationalize away. Cave paintings are the testimony of those who lived in those times, and you have a much larger problem in trying to explain how 'cavemen' could've known about tyrannosaurus and the like that you claim were extinct millions of years before Man arose.

C. Earth in 4,000 years. Get your straw-man right, it's 6,000 years ago. 4,000 years is the rough date for the Deluge. Carbon dating itself is problematic, as is its basis on 'index fossils' thousands of which still exist and are alive today, the famous coelacanth, for instance. Nor was anyone around to witness life arising from non-life, or the pre-cambrian explosion, etc. Evidence for these are all circumstantial. You'll claim fossil evidence, of course. And I'll give you further difficult fossil evidence, such as fossilized whole whales buried in chalk, explainable only by a deluge scenario - and trees fossilized standing vertically through various mud and coal layers, which the evolutionary theory cannot explain, and claims are successive ages, but by creation theory can easily be layed down quickly in the deluge.

D. You say creation theory causes skepticism to sprout, bu how skeptical have you really been? Don't you take evidence from the experts unquestioningly yourself? If it sounds probable it must be true? Even when talking about things that cannot be subjected to scientific rigor, like past events? When the archeologists rely on the geologists for evidence and proof of evolution, the geologists cite the biologists, and the biologists cite the archeologists, why is the tautology never realized?

Evolution is little more than the modern 'earth = center of the universe' theory, and anyone who disagrees with it must be forced to repent, marginalized, and their career killed. Despite the evidence.

May I cite Jack Cuozo's "Buried Alive"
http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Alive-Startling-Truth-Neanderthal/dp/0890512388/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1237673841&sr=8-3
Which provides original research of the actual neanderthal fossils in various museums in Europe and proves via experiment and scientific rigor that they were antediluvian, not simian, using bone growth of the skull and a portable radiogram device.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Dragonslicer]

I don't know Hebrew, maybe "yom" could stand for "turn" or "phase" or something like that?

No, it translates literally as day, but just like in English, it doesn't always literally mean a solar day. I already gave two English examples, but it is also used in Hebrew to refer to some arbitrary point in time. If I remember it correctly, "hayom habah" (literally "the day to come") just means some time in the future.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth, plants, etc were created in the first days, the sun wasn't created until the 3rd or 4th, as I recall. So, by your scenario where the days are 'ages', for millions and millions of years... nothing grew, because they had no sun. Right.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

This is untrue. If any pastor did that he is simply ignorant.

Dinosaurs were created along with the other animals in Eden and the world, and were vegetarians at the time, just like everyone else. Cavemen are simply the skeletons of those who lived before the flood to long age, of antediluvians (the brow ridge continues to grow no matter how old you are).

And faith is not blind belief, a better word is trust. Trust is founded on evidence, not belief. You trust that a chair will hold you when you sit on it. Belief would be saying, "I believe that chair will hold me." Trust is actually sitting. Trust is belief in action, and is founded on evidence. Anyone who's a christian on the basis of belief is a weak christian indeed.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[rts008]

...when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

You really think that people developed writing and language before the concept of time and calendars?

I find that highly unlikely.

Calendars much older than 2,000 years old have been found and studied. The book of Genesis was written less than 2,000 years ago.(although some of the texts that the bible adopted may go back 300-400 years earlier)

And a day is a day. Period.

If you can point out some evidence that the earth rotates much faster now than it did 'back when', then I may be able to at least entertain the fictional concept of Everything being formed/developed in 6 days.

 

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Asic Eng]

I already gave two English examples,

Not really. "Some day" and "the day will come" express an uncertain duration, but unambiguously so - it's readily apparent to any reader that this refers to a not exactly defined period of time in the future. Nobody would interpret these expressions as: "it will take exactly one day". On the other hand the statement "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" refers to a clearly defined duration. How would the writers of Genesis go about making it even more clear what duration they refer to?

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[arekusu_ou]

Pointing out logic flaws of a human written book ghost written for angelic unearthly beings that people can't see, to the people who rabidly believe in it, is a very futile effort.

But yeah, hearing them say there was no "day" in genesis is hilarous. How did they use a word to be translated into "day" if they didn't have it.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Dan541]

I once had a Christian admit that they (Christians) might have miss judged the age of the earth and that it could be a little bit older than 4000 years. He suggested a small margin of error is bound to exist.

However 4.5 billion years is not what I would call a "small margin of error".

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Dragonslicer]

Take a look at the beginning of that verse (Genesis I, 5): vayikra Elohim la'or yom, And God called the light "day". This is several verses before the creation of the sun, so this clearly can't mean a literal solar day. If it doesn't mean a solar day in this sentence, it's not a very big jump to say that it doesn't mean a solar day in the next sentence. What length of time this "day" might be is wide open to interpretation (of which I'm sure there are plenty).

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[blackprint]

With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.

It clearly has to be used as a reference point to delineate events. I say clearly because there could not have been a "day" before the earth or sun were created, yes?

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[whatispseudocode]

I'm pretty sure the parent is thinking of something George Burns said in one of his god movies.

Parent's confidence in movie apocrypha makes for a poignant parallel to the mindset of the creative design folks

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Asic Eng]

Ok, imagine you are a Israeli sheep herder back in the day before the Roman conquest. Someone reads you this psalm - how are you going to interpret it? How is anyone in the whole country going to interpret it? Would you say there'd be a single sane person who thought: "hmmm - maybe that day took thousand years"? I can't imagine so, and if you have written a text that any normal person in your culture reads in the same way, then you've succeeded in being unambiguous.

As for the light thing: likely the writers wanted to emphasize that their god was greater than the sun or moon gods which other cultures were worshiping.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[telomerewhythere]

I tell myself every day that /. is not the place for bible discussion. But it keeps coming back. Last time I got modded troll bait. I will keep it uncontroversial. Or Try to.

[bible citation needed]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.

At least not in the King James version.

What GP was referring to is 2 Peter 3:8

Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?

See below.

despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

I don't know where that came from either.

With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.

OK. Here goes. Different bible translations translate different things. True. Different Denominations interpret things differently. You might like to compare KJV of Genesis 2:4 and other translations of Genesis 2:4. The rest of the second chapter actually describes the same history of chapter one and calls it one day. I could say today something like "back in my day" or "back in the Roman's day" and you would understand it to be a period of time in the past. Not literal day.

The previous quote of 2 Peter 3:8 shows that day is not always literal in the Bible. Now, was that verse describing the upper limit of time that day equated with? It doesn't really say. Actually there is approximately 365000^2 range mentioned there.

Here is where religious controversy comes in. Not all religions will agree with above paragraph. Some will say 'God made the fossils and photons and rest of universe to look like 13 billion years old to test your faith' or something like that. Is that the proper interpretation? I don't think so, but that debate is for somewhere else. (please)

Now as for the movement to force "Christianity" on others by rule of law, I personally have not found any New Testament passage that supports that. In fact, the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith is vital and works w/o faith is worthless for salvation.

Even Jesus said his followers had a special relationship with earthly governments. John 18:36. There are others, but realize please according to Gospels, Jesus never forced anything but the thievin' temple merchants.

I agree that science should deal with the observable. If there was 'creation' then all believers should be interested in how it works. I am. It is also very clear that not all "Christianity" can be truth from Bible, some religions flat out contradict each other. Most are close on the major points. I would like to think that where science and religion conflict, as in creationism vs evolution, it is a misinterpretation of Bible and possibly observed data that causes problems. I would agree that more often, religion has stepped wrong, but I wouldn't fault the Bible with that. More likely to blame is man's interpretation.

Any powerful tool can be misused/abused greatly. Look at Crusades and WWII. Religion pretty much at root. But those perps were not acting like Christ.

And finally the difference between modern conventional wisdom and Christianity. Christianity says "Please don't hurt anyone around you including yourself." Modern CW says "Don't hurt anyone around you not including yourself." Which works better? You decide. I'm not here to preach. (I hope you don't feel preached to. If so, Sorry!)

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[rtb61]

The real underlying definition here is, no matter what the idiots in the Texas legislator choose to call a science degree, will employers give dummies with a degree in pseudo science religious mumbo jumbo a job, will universities and other educational facilities in other US states and countries from around the globe recognise this degree or any other degrees coming out of Texas.

It could just be my twisted sense of humour but I am all for the idiot Texas Legislature legalising all the bullshit degrees they want to, so I can laugh at them and at the the buffoons that, what, buy the degrees or memorise a plagiaristic blood soaked book that has nothing at all to do with science. It is just going to be so much fun making a laughing stock of Texans for decades to some, damn ('sic') it is going to be embarrassing having a PhD from a Texas university ;D.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

This is untrue. If any pastor did that he is simply ignorant.

Blah blah blah. You're missing the point: religions do not encourage asking questions, they encourage blind obedience. Facts and truth have NOTHING to do with organized religion. It's all a way to CONTROL a population, and it's complete and utter BULLSHIT. If I could trade my LIFE for ONE WISH, I'd wish for ALL RELIGION to be obliterated from history, now and forever. Too much blood has been and still is being shed in the name of a false God, and too much ignorance has been and still is being spread around by assholes calling themselves clergy who are really just looking for wealth and power over the people. You can KEEP your damned fucking god of blood and vengeance, WE'VE ALL HAD QUITE ENOUGH OF THAT SHIT.

Oh, and BTW: Go ahead and mod this down to -1 you worthless FUCKS; everybody LOVES a MARTYR.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[rohan972]

Also Genesis always mentions a morning and an evening - how clear can you possibly be about referring to an actual day?

Good call, but if that's not enough:

Exodus 20: 8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 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.

Stop slacking off on the weekends, people. I sure am looking forward to our thousand years off!

This also clarifies that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." does not allow for long periods of time as claimed by ProzacPatient, who might need an increased dose.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Eunuchswear]

In fact, the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith is vital and works w/o faith is worthless for salvation.

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Eunuchswear]

Why are you wasting your time trying to troll on this thread? You'll need a much higher standard of under-the-bridge writing to get anywhere in this environment.

Cave paintings are the testimony of those who lived in those times, and you have a much larger problem in trying to explain how 'cavemen' could've known about tyrannosaurus and the like that you claim were extinct millions of years before Man arose.

Tee hee.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[rohan972]

Then there is the "firmament" and the claim that there is water above the sky, which we know to be wrong.

Having come down for the flood :)

You could say: "well the people at the time just wouldn't have been able to understand the real process".

Nonsense.
God: Aeons past, I created a life from the dust of the earth, too small to see. The life grew and changed, through the generations, and gave rise to all other forms of life, including my people.

The idea that God could not give a sufficiently good explanation of evolution to people is just a weak minded excuse for people who can't commit to either evolution or biblical inerrancy. You could go to any place that still has people living a primitive tribal lifestyle and adequately describe evolution.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[rohan972]

Go back 1000 years, before there was any argument against the '6 days', and I'm sure you won't find a single theotard interpreting the words to mean otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Creation Well you're wrong, although Augustine argued for instantaneous creation rather than long ages. This is an interesting part: Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.

So the willingness to change interpretation in response to new information has been accepted by some in the christian tradition for about 1600 years.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[rohan972]

However 4.5 billion years is not what I would call a "small margin of error".

4 thousand, 4 billion, anyone could do that. If it's good enough for the banks and the government, it's good enough for me!

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[telomerewhythere]

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[mpe]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
At least not in the King James version.

This is a translation of "The Bible". There's also the complication that Genesis contains two creation stories edited together.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[fermion]

I understand what you are saying, but the scientific method is based on the pretext "we might be wrong". For the scientific method to be of value, we must begin with a stance of humility, and open ourselves to a perhaps more complete revealed truth. Euclid and the greeks did this by drawing with straight edges and compasses in the sand. Galileo did this by carefully examining the world and seeing what were the invariants, what really was going on, and how that differed from what we believed. One thing he found was that the giants of the ancients would not be as practical as some believed, as certain aspects would not scale linearly. Micheal Servetus, who rejected the trinity, also was one of the first people to postulate that the heart pumped the blood through the body.

So the issue is whether the teacher and students are open to this sense or wonder and comfortable in a world where god is not something you read about in a book, but as Newton did, experienced through the careful observation of creation. I cannot instill skepticism in a students who is told the 95% of the time outside of my classroom that a book has the revealed truth superior to our experience, that somehow god is going to following the rules set by man.

I have had these arguments my whole life. The ability of a a priori to do science is limited by those things that he or she believes are invariant. This person may do better work than a less constricted scientist, but the limits still exist. In terms of kids, some of these limitations are reduced as the student matures and begins to understand cause and effect and leaves magical thinking behind. The problem is that many people will use skepticism not for sake of discovering revealed truths, but to hand on the handed down truths. So, as my friend said when I said we we have artifacts from over 10,000 years ago, and, as I was reading Lucy at the time, we had hominins 3 million years old, he told that god planted these things so the unbelievers could be identified and burned in hell. And that is private schooled educated, 14 year old logic for you.

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[joocemann]

Touche'. I guess the douchebaggery on the '6-days' began sooner than I had thought!

At least, from what it appears, the interpretation was not widely regurgitated and accepted as the current attempt at bullshittery has become. ... And now about those fossils, lol....

Re:One good thing about Creationism

[Asic Eng]

That's a fair point. I recall having once read the legends of the bushmen, were the phrase "at a time when there was no difference between baboons and humans" was used. In addition they had the creation myth of the moon god making all animals from clay, too. Still, I was pretty amazed to find that phrase.

However looking at Genesis it seems clear that the focus is on claiming superiority over other religions - particularly sun and moon gods. People at the time were well aware that daylight was connected to the sun. If you already have light, why does god in the story create the sun? Just to emphasize: our god is way better than yours, we don't even need your god for anything, he is just a decoration our god made. That the creation order was nonsensical didn't matter - the important thing was to make this powerful point. I suspect even then people were not taking it literally, but that's speculating.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[NeverVotedBush]

A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science. There is no way I would ever hire anyone with such a degree. If anything, I would see them as potentially being very disruptive in the workplace.

There is another way to filter on this than just schools in Texas since I would bet states like Arkansas are going to join in if it flies in Texas.

Filter on the year the degree was granted.

This might not be a bad idea anyway with all the stories of recent graduates needing to be constantly recognized for their "achievements" which is really nothing more than doing the minimum, their lack of attention to any task, little concern for quality, etc.

I know it's a sweeping generalization, but it would be the deciding factor all other things being equal. Just too many stories on how poor the recent graduates are to ignore. Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.

Here We Go Again

[CautionaryX]

Every time something like this is posted on /. everyone get in a huge flame war debating the virtues and consistencies of Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design. Anyone promoting evolution or debunking creationism often gets modded up, however anyone arguing for creationism often gets modded down. I'm a creationist, a Christian, and I just ask that we teach both in schools since it is an ongoing scientific debate. Let the children decide for themselves through providing pro's/con's of both sides.

Re:Here We Go Again

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Every time something like this is posted on /. everyone get in a huge flame war debating the virtues and consistencies of Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design.

I disagree. Every time creationism appears on Slashdot we get a few religious fundamentalists defending it then, shouted down by the 99%+ of Slashdot readers who know what science is.

Anyone promoting evolution or debunking creationism often gets modded up, however anyone arguing for creationism often gets modded down.

Actually, I've seen a few people making good comments with regard to creationism or that "side" of the debate modded up. The problem being there are very few such people and most of the people trying to defend creationism are ignorant or simply trying to rabble rouse.

I'm a creationist, a Christian, and I just ask that we teach both in schools since it is an ongoing scientific debate.

There isn't any scientific debate. Until creationists actually approach the issue using the scientific method, they don't have a side in a scientific debate. What is the specific, scientific hypothesis of creation? What predictions is it making and when will they be tested? Until There is a formal hypothesis which can be tested, creationism isn't even science. Until it passes many such tests and gathers as much experimental evidence as evolution (or at least something in the same neighborhood) there is no point teaching the debate any more than there is teaching the debate between the flat and spherical earth theories. Right now there is not even that much. The flat earth theory at least had a hypothesis and made some predictions which it did not fail.

Let the children decide for themselves through providing pro's/con's of both sides.

I see, and should we waste classroom time also teaching the flat earth debate? How about every other scientific topic? Science class should be about teaching science. That is, it should teach the method so that students can understand and use it and it should teach fundamental, well tested, and important theories that form the basis of large parts of our existing science.

If our educational system were working, you'd understand the scientific method and why creationism is pointless to teach in a science class and why it is likewise absurd to provide scientific degrees on that subject. We need to concentrate on this basics so the next generation is not as uneducated as you are.

Re:Here We Go Again

[vell0cet]

There is a point to teaching the debate, but the debate is not scientific. It is political. The teaching of the debate belongs in a sociology, history or political science classroom. Scientific debates are based on data. Creationist have no accepted, reproducible data with which to argue from. And even if there WERE, the fundamentals of accepted science must be taught first and then expanded on in post high school settings. You don't teach someone theoretical mathematics and the debates between various models before the student understands basic arithmetic.

Re:Here We Go Again

[1s44c]

I'm a creationist, a Christian, and I just ask that we teach both in schools since it is an ongoing scientific debate. Let the children decide for themselves through providing pro's/con's of both sides.

What you really mean is your ideas won't wash with adults so you want to try warping the minds of children in the hope they will believe anything.

There is no debate, creationism is an irrational belief propagated by brainwashing and nothing more.

Reminds me of V

[DrugCheese]

This always reminds me of the episode in V where the aliens rounded up all the scientific community under the guise of protecting humanity from their meddling views. Same thing going on here, fundamentalists don't want you investigating the how and why of things, they want you to do as you're told.

As long as ...

[PPH]

... we allow an unlimited amount of H-1B visas, you can teach your kids anything you want. I just need to hire competent people for my business. I don't care where they come from.

Re:Evolution is BS

[jombeewoof]

I visited your wacko website.

Just the short blurbs describing the videos were laughable.
...explains in detail how it was possible for man to live over 900 years, for plants and animals to grow much larger than today, and for dinosaurs to thrive along with man.

Dinosaurs living with man, people living 900 years Plants and animals much larger than they are today.

... people who claim they have seen living dinosaurs.
Really? Outside of Loch Ness or Lake Champlain I don't think so.

...Part 4
Lies in the Textbooks

You sir, are an idiot. Please do not reproduce. If you have already... I feel sorry for your children.

Why would any "evolusionists" to use the articles

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would any "evolusionist" to use the articles words, be making any predictions on the magnetic fields of other planets? What does biological evolution have to do with the magnetic field on mercury, and why would a biologist be making predictions regarding the magnetic field on mercury based on evolutionary principles?

Rather suitably, the catpcha for this post is acolytes.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[darkpixel2k]

What schools give degrees in pottery and basket weaving?

And I would not hire a pottery specialist either, sorry.

What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.

I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.

Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[HappyHead]

Ask a solipsist.

No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.

It's one of those few situations where the old "I'm philosophically right because I'm still alive after the duel" argument is actually valid.

These solipsism arguments could also be called "argument from pretentious stupidity", and have no place in a discussion about the real world.

Open Source Scriptures

[Anonymous Coward]

I am writing the beginnings of a new Open Source scripture that will be regarded as the 'word of god' in a few years, after the Internet population has finished editing it.

The license will restrict development to the trunk, forbidding forks and branches.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

"I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the [willfully ignorant]."

There. I just fixed your statement for you. People on slashdot do mock the religious, but this is a distinct minority. Lots of people, religious or not, join together in mocking the creationists. Creationism is willful ignorance to anyone who is rich enough and educated enough to be using a web browser and post on slashdot.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[NotBornYesterday]

No it can't. Ask a solipsist.

Prove they exist.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Ragzouken]

It's sufficient for all practical purposes to have 'demonstrate beyond any doubt' mean 'demonstrate sufficiently for all practical purposes'.

just you wait...

[3seas]

... till they find the god particle

Then it will be a man created god too.

please don't buy into their bullshit

[speedtux]

Thus, teaching Evolution exclusively is essentially forcing their children to admin that the 7-day universe is false

The literal "7-day creation" is a fringe view even within Christianity. The vast majority of Christians and Christian denominations (foremost, the Catholic church) have no problem with evolutionary theory. Furthermore, the fact that creation took longer than seven days is established in physics as well, quite independently from biology.

So, please don't buy into the bullshit of these "creation scientists": first, they do not represent Christianity or a Christian point of view, and second, this isn't evolution vs creationism, it's all of science vs creationism.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[alexborges]

Religion explains nothing. Come on.

Religion is necessary for some to pursue their happiness. That is its place in the world: to cater to those that need to beleive.

Ive no problem with them or it, if they and it just stay the fuck out of my way.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dimeglio]

I agree with that interesting statement. Maybe the dilemma is in the "what." Science and religion both claim, as an extension of the why and how, what happens, what happened or what will happen.

All these wars and for what ?

Creationist CPU Instruction Set

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a CPU with a creationist instruction set that runs Windows Creationist or Creationist Linux?

The mouse might respond after you tell it what you believe it should do. There is no way of defining one concrete result.

Re:Creationist CPU Instruction Set

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a CPU with a creationist instruction set that runs Windows

You mean that after you have the Blue Screen of Death you are able to resurrect your data? That'd be awesome!

Pascal's Wager

[falconwolf]

If you believe, and there is no God, nothing happens to you - this is the existential viewpoint. If you disbelieve, and there is a God, you are screwed - this is the religious viewpoint.

On it's face of Pascal's Wager it may seem safe to believe in "God", the problem comes in what "God" should someone believe in. If you pick the wrong "God" you're up shit creek just as much as if you don't believe. Especially if the religion comes from Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Their "God" is a jealous god. Didn't Moses smash the Ten Commandments tablet when he came down from the mount and saw the people worshiping a bull statute of the Egyptian god? Weren't the Jews then required to wander the wilderness for years before being led to the Promised Land?

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

That's how I try to look at it.

Falcon

Re:Pascal's Wager

[Valtor]

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

Very insightful comment! I see it that way too :)

Then again there will be people who will tell you: If you do not take advantage of everyone else around you to make your life better, then you are an idiot, because it won't matter after you died.

I find the thought disturbing to say the least...

Re:Pascal's Wager

[badkarmadayaccount]

Just wanted to chip in this AOL thread and say another thanks to Marcus Aurelius.

proving or disproving "God"

[falconwolf]

One thing though is that, one day we might actually be able to prove that God does not exist.

No amount of proof will satisfy Creationists, Fundamentalists, and others. They can fall back on "well that's the way god made it."

Falcon

Re:proving or disproving "God"

[Valtor]

I was saying this literally. We never know what sort of experiment future science will be able to do. So it is not impossible that at a point in time, we might be able to literally disprove the existence of God.

Re:proving or disproving "God"

[Vornzog]

No amount of proof will satisfy Creationists, Fundamentalists, and others. They can fall back on "well that's the way god made it."

We never know what sort of experiment future science will be able to do.

Falcon's got it right. Even if we manage to come to a complete, encompassing scientific view of the universe, you could still argue that there is a God, and because he is all-powerful, he made a scientifically consistent universe.

This is the point where logical reasoning breaks down. You can always add God back into the equation. You cannot prove or disprove God with logic or science.

Ockham's Razor suggests that "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." In this case, God is unnecessary to explain the world we see around us. However, that's just an observation - not really a hard and fast rule of science. That's all the further we can go to prove or disprove the existence of an all-powerful being.

You either believe or you don't. Anyone who tells you they can prove or disprove God has failed to study enough philosophy, or is lying to you. No exceptions.

They already have degrees for Creationism...

[tnk1]

They already have advanced degrees for Creationism...

They are called either Doctor of Theology or Doctor of Philosophy.

I'm not a hardcore opponent to Creationism, I simply just don't think it is going anywhere as a science. It doesn't prove anything or predict anything. Its just a retcon to make stuff look like the Bible or whatever creation story is out there.

Having said that, I see no reason why it could not be real, the problem is that if you can't test it or predict anything with it... IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

That said, certainly there is nothing keeping a real scientist from working on theories and hypotheses that prove or expand upon Creationism. However, I think the real issue here is that the lack of results does not mean that you can really accredit someone as a scientist with it. They may well someday be able to make use of Creationism... somehow... but until that day, they can't really call it a science.

So, this is some guy who is trying to appropriate credentials for his side where they don't apply.

Having said that, I will continue to point out that this is one of the dangers of involving science too closely in the deist-atheist debate. One side or the other is going to appropriate scientific credentials to prop up their unprovable belief systems, and its going to do so at the detriment of science itself.

Re:They already have degrees for Creationism...

[maxume]

How does pointing out the problem of involving science help when (much of the time) it isn't scientists that are involving science?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[maxume]

Dude, we already blacklisted you, so it don't matter none.

Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical American politics. If you can't buy someone off, buy off their superior.

what about morality?

[speedtux]

I think the real question is not who is right or wrong, the real question is whether the morality that Christianity teaches is even remotely defensible. While it's nice that Christians agree with the rest of us that murder and theft are bad things, the core of their morality is that moral behavior is based on rules handed down from a higher authority.

I find that unacceptable as a basis for morality, and so do many other religions. In fact, both gnostics and Satanists view the Christian God as either confused or evil, and they are making a reasonable case for that view.

Re:what about morality?

[the_womble]

While it's nice that Christians agree with the rest of us that murder and theft are bad things, the core of their morality is that moral behavior is based on rules handed down from a higher authority

No, it is subtly different from that: it is that a perfectly good and omnipotent being can guide us.

If God was not good, He would not be worthy of worshipping just because He is all powerful.

Re:what about morality?

[Micah]

As a Christian, I would respond that morality is not arbitrarily handed down by God, nor does it transcend Him. Morality is defined by the very nature of God. The Bible says that God cannot lie or be tempted by evil. In some peoples' minds that might make Him not fully omnipotent, and maybe that is true. God cannot violate his moral character. So when we humans do something that violates His moral character, that is sin.

Re:what about morality?

[ImOnlySleeping]

That people need a deity to tell them how to be a good person says more about how shitty a person they are than how great their god is.

Re:what about morality?

[Anonymous Coward]

*If* there is a God who made you, and all you consume and interact with, could he not just say, "get of my lawn"? *If* there is a super-intelligent Creator of you and me and rest of universe, why would he not have the right to lay some ground rules? I would postulate that following Christianity would not coerce anyone. (however it is done in name of Christianity) But rather try to convince he/she of benefits of following said course.

If you created something, would you want it to engage in self-destructive behavior? I think not. You would call it a defect. Unless you were part of the manhattan project.

Or put as simply as I can, If you or I willingly chose to follow the tenets of Christianity, what actual harm would we bring ourselves? Or others. (I am not talking about what is commonly practiced as 'Christianity' but as the New Testament describes).

Re:what about morality?

[speedtux]

If God was not good, He would not be worthy of worshipping just because He is all powerful.

It's good that you realize that; many Christians don't.

To see whether the Christian God is "good" just look at the Bible. The God described in there is not "good": he is not compassionate, merciful, forgiving, or just--he simply fails to meet the basic criteria that one needs to meet to be described in that way.

So, maybe a "perfectly good and omnipotent being can guide us", but that is not the being that is described in the Bible or that organized Christianity worships.

Re:what about morality?

[speedtux]

Oh, please, don't try to obfuscate the reality of the situation: Christian churches preach that in order to be a moral person, you need to follow their rules, based on divine revelation, and laid down in various writings. Christian churches object to abortion and homosexuality by pointing at biblical writings, not by asking God.

As for God's moral character, have you actually read the Bible objectively? The God of the Bible is an irascible, volatile mass murderer.

Re:what about morality?

[Anonymous Coward]

You failed to state what YOU think the basis of humans shared (or at least remarkably similar) morality is.

Dont even try evolution, "the strongest" are most of the time those who have no qualms abandoning their morality.

Yet generation after generation, civilization after civilization still share a common morality.

At least Christians have a hypothesis, provable or not.

Re:what about morality?

[the_womble]

I would say that it is mainstream Christianity: CS Lewis (who is as mainstream as you can get) wrote a nice essay on just this - I cannot remember which book it was in, but I do remember he kept quoting Norse mythology in it (because they believed in dying for the right side, simply because it was the right thing to do).

The descriptions of God as not good in the Bible are almost entirely Old Testament, and that reflects the tribal loyalties and cultural biases of many old testament authors. Only an idiot reads reads the Bible without taking the contexts it was written in into account.

Another note on morality: Jesus summarised the law as "love God" and "love your neighbour" (i.e. everyone).

Re:what about morality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not talking about what is commonly practiced as 'Christianity' but as the New Testament describes

And which interpretation of the New Testament would that be? The liberal protestant interpretation? The Catholic interpretation? The fundamentalist "literal" interpretation? How do you resolve the contradictions? And which translation are you using?

Or put as simply as I can, If you or I willingly chose to follow the tenets of Christianity, what actual harm would we bring ourselves?

If you base your life and actions on a lie and a false understanding of how the world works, you are not going to do the right things. And if you look at the history of Christianity, you will see that Christians have committed crimes against humanity in the name of Christianity again and again.

Re:what about morality?

[speedtux]

The descriptions of God as not good in the Bible are almost entirely Old Testament, and that reflects the tribal loyalties and cultural biases of many old testament authors.

One can argue that the rules laid down in the Old Testament reflect cultural biases and that they have been superseded by the New Testament. But whether God (for example) wiped out most of humanity or asked men to sacrifice their sons is a factual statement about God, a factual statement that all major Christian denominations believe to be true. If you don't believe in those statements about God, you are not a Christian; the factual statements in the Old and the New Testament is what defines the Christian God.

Another note on morality: Jesus summarised the law as "love God" and "love your neighbour" (i.e. everyone).

Yes, and the fact that you think that those two slogans constitute a basis for morality illustrates just how lacking in morality Christians are. Those slogans can be used to justify just about anything, and have been. Churches have tortured people because of the "love thy neighbor" rule, arguing that it is better to make people suffer in this life than to have them face eternal damnation.

Re:what about morality?

[speedtux]

Dont even try evolution, "the strongest" are most of the time those who have no qualms abandoning their morality.

For social species (like humans), evolution doesn't operate at the level of the individual, it operates at the level of the group. Evolution favors parental care, altruism, and cooperation, which is why humans and human societies have those behaviors. The fact that evolution favors those traits isn't just empirical, it's mathematical.

At least Christians have a hypothesis, provable or not.

It's not a hypothesis at all if it's not falsifiable.

It's also unnecessary; it's trying to supply a supernatural explanation for a physical phenomenon (altruism) that already has a simple, logical mathematical and physical explanation.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dotancohen]

What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.

I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.

Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.

For one thing, I believe almost every word of the Old Testament, I see very little contradiction with science. However, the point I was making is that these schools are trying to pass off one thing as another. I cannot trust them.

If you think I'm harsh, then write to the Texas legislators and let them know that us harshies will be harsh on their graduates. It's them that will suffer.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

[falconwolf]

From one of those pages linked to: 'The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters' (Matthew 12:30). Any "God" who requires faith in order to be "saved" is sadistic.

Falcon

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

... and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed by democracy.

This example reminds me more of the inadequacies of the typical human brain. Political systems (unfortunately) and ideologies don't tend to have much influence on intelligence. Most people, unfortunately, are completely unaware of how stupid they are. Education, unfortunately, only tends to give people of false sense of intelligence.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I mean, real schools offer up degrees in philosophy, pottery, and basket weaving and who knows what.

Sure they do. What's wrong with that? But they don't offer a scientific degree in philosophy. They probably offer a masters of art in pottery or clay working. The question then really is, does anyone offer an M.S. in basket weaving? If so is it validly approached as scientific basket weaving?

Creationism isn't science, it's just religious propaganda. It's fine with me if they want to offer a religious or public relations degree in creationism... just not a science degree.

CS as basket weaving

[Anonymous Coward]

And far too many schools offer degrees in computer science that amount to basket weaving. At my school there seems to be a habit of the instructors writing the answers to the assignments on the board (yes, before the assignments are due). And passing in programming assignments on paper?

This does make it easier for the vast majority of students, but way less interesting and educational for the rest of us. And the huge number of students graduating from the program with 3.7+ can't be helping my job prospects once employers see where I graduated from.

What I don't understand about this

[einhverfr]

How on earth do you get a PhD in creationism? The whole point of creationism is that it is grounded in biblical literalism. To get a PhD you are supposed to make a substantial contribution to the field, which seems to be at odds with the idea of creationism.

Now, I think one should be able to get a PhD in other (existing, humanities and sciences) fields by providing an authoritative study of mythological patterns in Genesis 1-3 as well as textual constructions, philology, structural anthropology, etc. But that is hardly the same thing as a PhD in creationism. Even if you could get a PhD equivalent in creation theology, the proper venue is as a doctor of divinity.

I say this having made substantial contributions to the field of practical rune-magic.

Although I think Robert Zoller certainly does deserve an honorary PhD for his work on topics related to astrology (whether it is through the philosophy department or the history department is a question for others). However his contributions, discussing the Renaissance significance of the Arabic Parts, their roots in Neo-Platonism and the relationship between neo-Platonism in the Middle-East and that in the West, etc. is groundbreaking both from a historical and a practical perspective. Similarly his work looking at Scandinavian sky lore is extremely interesting.

Re:What I don't understand about this

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'd suggest that you'd make a substantial contribution to the so-called "scientific" justifications that creationists occasionally make.

Of course, you'd have to be prepared for your "discovery" to be torn to shreds by people who actually understand science.

agnosticism and atheism

[falconwolf]

functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism.

In no way, shape, or form are agnosticism and atheism equivalent. Agnostic is "a", without and "gnosis" knowledge, "without knowledge". Atheism on the other hand is "a", without and "theism" belief in a god, ie there is no god, or "God". I am an agnostic, meaning I do not know if a god exists, but I certainly want to know one way or the other. Whereas Agnostics are open minded Atheists are not.

In the beginning, of Christianity, there were Christians who were the same and didn't believe in a god, Agnostic Christians. The early churches though persecuted them.

Falcon

Re:agnosticism and atheism

[AK Marc]

I am an agnostic, meaning I do not know if a god exists, but I certainly want to know one way or the other. Whereas Agnostics are open minded Atheists are not.

Someone who does not believe in god is an athiest. An agnostic who "does not know" if one exists doesn't believe in god, and therefore is an athiest. And none of them are open minded. The god-believers will deny all data that contradicts their beliefs. The god-deniers will deny all data contrary to their beliefs. And the middle ones will forever claim that you can't know for sure, and will make that claim regardless of data presented. They are all closed minded, and those that claim they aren't and the others are are even more close minded than those they seek to slight.

Re:agnosticism and atheism

[falconwolf]

Someone who does not believe in god is an athiest.

No, an atheist is someone who denies a god exists. There is a big difference between denying a god exists and not believing one does.

Falcon

I am actually an Apathist

[jlowery]

... I don't care if God exists. IMO, too much time, money and energy has been wasted on the topic. Time to move on.

agnosticism

[falconwolf]

So you can still not believe in something, but still say that it might exist and we don't know, huh?

Exactly. Up until the existence or non-existence of a god is proven I will neither believe in the existence or non-existence of one. The same applies to the spirit or soul.

Falcon

atheism

[falconwolf]

As an atheist, I wasn't aware that proving the absence of something was a requirement. I had assumed that non-existence was the default assumption, and that if there is any burden of proof it falls on someone willing to entertain a hypothesis that asserts existence of something.

This description would be more correct to say is Agnostic than Atheistic. Agnostics don't know but believe a god may exist. Atheists come right out and say a god does not exist. One is open minded and the other is just as closed minded as Fundamentalists.

Falcon

Re:atheism

[pohl]

Bullshit. I'll come out and say there's no god, and will not contradict what I wrote. Nowhere did I entertain that a god may exist, so don't go telling me I'm an agnostic when I know otherwise.

Re:atheism

[falconwolf]

Bullshit. I'll come out and say there's no god, and will not contradict what I wrote. Nowhere did I entertain that a god may exist, so don't go telling me I'm an agnostic when I know otherwise.

Bullshit I did not say you said you're agnostic, I have however said elsewhere I was. I have no idea whether there is but I'm willing to see evidence there is or is not a deity. However I see where the problem may be, in your "default assumption". The burden of proof, for and against the existence of said deity, is the responsibility of those who make the claim. I make no claim one way or the other and if someone wants to convince me otherwise they have to proof it. Now I don't know how there not being one can be proven, but a booming voice from a burning bush might convince me one existed.

Falcon

Re:atheism

[AK Marc]

Agnostic means "without knowledge" or essentially "without proof." Since those believing in god "know" there is a god, then they aren't agnostic. Every athiest I know has no proof that god doesn't exist, so (a possibly incorrect generalization) there are no athiest who aren't agnostic as well. Though the modern use of the words split athiest and agnostic, the definitions of the words don't require exclusivity.

Agnostics don't know but believe a god may exist.

So, they do not believe in god. So they are athiest. Allowing the possibility of being wrong doesn't change the fact that at this point in time they do not believe in god. And that's athiest. If they do believe in god, but not one covered by a popular religion, then they are more deist than agnostic.

Re:atheism

[falconwolf]

Agnostic means "without knowledge" or essentially "without proof." Since those believing in god "know" there is a god, then they aren't agnostic

I know, I've said that in other posts. In the post you replied to I meant to say "Agnostics don't know or believe a god may exist."

Falcon

Re:atheism

[pohl]

I did not say you said you're agnostic

In turn, I never said that you said that I said that I was agnostic.

Rather, I was referring to how you quoted my description of my atheistic self, and followed it with "This description would be more correct to say is Agnostic than Atheistic". It's not your place to correct me on how I self-identify.

However I see where the problem may be, in your "default assumption".

It's a very sane and powerful default. Without it, grown adults would have to go around admitting that they're merely agnostic about leprechauns, Poseidon, and the tooth fairy - for not knowing how to prove their non-existence.

Re:atheism

[falconwolf]

However I see where the problem may be, in your "default assumption".

It's a very sane and powerful default. Without it, grown adults would have to go around admitting that they're merely agnostic about leprechauns, Poseidon, and the tooth fairy - for not knowing how to prove their non-existence.

I believe leprechauns, Poseidon, and the tooth fairy don't exist. On the other hand I have no belief one way or the other about the existence of a deity. One, Atheism, says X does not exist and the other, Agnosticism, says Y may or may not exist.

Falcon

Re:atheism

[pohl]

Interesting. So you're an atheist where Poseidon is concerned, but an agnostic where Yahweh (or whomever) is concerned? So is it fair to say that you're monotheistically agnostic, but polytheistic-ally atheistic?

Re:atheism

[falconwolf]

Interesting. So you're an atheist where Poseidon is concerned, but an agnostic where Yahweh (or whomever) is concerned?

Yeap.

So is it fair to say that you're monotheistically agnostic, but polytheistic-ally atheistic?

Nope, I'm monotheistically and polytheistically agnostic. It's interesting you bring up polytheism, being agnostic myself I don't believe it but I had friends who are Wiccans or Pagans which are polytheistic

.

Falcon

Re:That's Fine With Me

[darkpixel2k]

For one thing, I believe almost every word of the Old Testament, I see very little contradiction with science. However, the point I was making is that these schools are trying to pass off one thing as another. I cannot trust them.

And the point I am making is that schools have already been doing that for years.

For example, affirmative action.

If you let someone into the school and graduate them not based on their skill, but their skin color--well, you're degree is worthless.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Lord Ender]

In the "bible belt" you will be ostracized from your community if you mock religion (though it's acceptable to insult atheists). In other countries you can actually get killed for mocking religion.

Really, mocking religion on the internet is the only safe outlet a lot of people have.

Should stupid people be shot?

[bradbury]

While I am all for allowing people to believe in many things -- when one operates in a manner which attempts to "institutionalize" stupidity there I have to draw the line. I have up on one of my web pages the discussion for the DVD "The God who wasn't there". Until we have some scientific evidence that there is some real evidence for Jesus as he is portrayed then the entire basis for Christianity is questionable and secondarily the Bible itself (and therefore Judaism) is hearsay collection of myths. And since the Muslim philosopy is based on those two backgrounds is it not subject to serious question?

And now that I've offended most of the world -- go ahead and mod me down.

When are we going to get a perspective/philosophy based on a modern (real) understanding of the Universe and not based in some ancient collection of relics and myths? And more importantly when is a majority of humanity -- some 6+ billion people -- going to be educated in that perspective? We have been stuck with these perspectives for 1300+, 2000+, 3000+ years. When do we say never again?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Wyatt Earp]

Religion does explain something.

It is a framework for a civilization, look at Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, the bulk of what is carried forth by the majority of the adherents is the social structure and guidelines for living.

Dietary laws have a reasonable place in the historical context, as do laws of inheritance, taboo marriage, what is and isn't "clean".

Religion isn't as much about an invisible friend in the sky as it is a framework for a society with a set of rules that can't easily be overruled.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[arminw]

....Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen...

You are certainly right about that, but you left out the "when" part. Because no one has yet invented a time machine, it is not possible to know experimentally or observationally when some event happened. When it comes to events or processes of the past, we have to rely on the testimony of witnesses. The creationists and evolutionists BELIEVE a different set of witnesses. Therefore, both the "when" and the "why" questions are not answerable by science, but only by belief.

The study of origins has much in common with criminal forensics. In both cases there are witnesses, both physical and human, the testimony of which must be carefully analyzed. On the basis of such analysis the jury must decide whether to BELIEVE the witnesses for or against conviction.

Because most "why" questions are really a long chain of cause and effect, the immediate causes and effects can be and are well studied by science. As the chain stretches into the past, the causes are not easily established and again science depends on witnesses who must be either believed or disbelieved.

Clever

[warrax_666]

That's just a clever mildly clever rhetorical trick. Your statement presupposes that there is a "prime mover" (otherwise there simply [b]is[/b] no "why"). There is no evidence of any such prime mover.

Re:Clever

[DamienRBlack]

That's not the case. No matter what science does, it can't give your life meaning or purpose. I'm just saying whatever purpose or meaning you subscribe to is the "why", and is religion/philosophy. This meaning doesn't necessitate any sort of "prime mover". If you believe in sanctity of life, there is no scientific argument that can even begin to support that -- or dismiss it. And no "prime mover" is necessary for that belief. Now you can argue that for that belief to be "true" there must be a "prime mover" (or nothing matters or whatever), but now you've gone and mixed science and religion in exactly the way my my professor was warning against.

You see, your conclusion that there is no "why" is one you've obviously reached in a "scientific" manner. This is exactly what the quote is talking about. Science can give no conclusions as to the "whys" in the world, and that is where religion/belief/philosophy comes in.

For example, myself, I don't buy into any organized religions, but I do believe that what is important in the world is the potential we have. And I reason from there that it is our duty to impact humanity in a way that increases humanities future potential. Therefor, nuking everyone is bad. Spreading to a new space colony is good. Global warming is bad. Scientific research is good. Trivialized unmotivated society is bad. Promoting creation and creativity is good.

Science cannot make judgments as to whether any of these things are "good" or "bad". If I take a scientific perspective on such questions the answer is that these things just happen. They mean nothing and are of equal value. That answer isn't wrong, but to reach that answer, you've applied the wrong tool. There are more useful tools that gives more meaningful answers then science when we are asking "why?". Those tools are philosophy and belief, and by extension of that, even religion.

Now I'm not arguing that just because science has to stay out of the way that that religion gets a free pass to go uncontested no matter what it may decide. I think that philosophical tools such as reason and logic can still be applied to the framework of religion. I just don't think that the scientific method, with its focus on the concept of one truth that is testable, provable and reproducible is the right tool.

Furthermore, I think that when belief and religion start trying to explain the how of things, (as in the creationism "argument"), once again people are applying the wrong tools. When dealing with things that are provable, reproducible and representative of how the world actually "is", I think science is the right tool.

Now in some cases, we've discovered things that have let us expand the area of what science has been able to prove. For example the empirical existence of time was a philosophical question of note. But with Einstein and his testable, reproducible theories, science has managed to give the existence of time some credit. But I think there are some things that we can reasonably conclude science will never be able to touch.

You see, I believe that both science and religion or belief have an underlying structure of logic and reason. Science is the branch of reasoning about "how" the world is. Philosophy or belief or religion is when you use logic and reasoning to explain the untestable "why".

I have to say that religion tends to be the one that errs more by attempting to cross into the "how", but there are plenty of people, like you, that like to say there is no "why" using "scientific" methods. For example, did a man exist 2000 years ago that died and got resurrected? That is a question for science. Does there exist a benevolent being outside our universe that is omniscient and omnipotent? That is a question for religion or philosophy. Did we evolve from monkeys? A question for science. Does a human life have some inherent property that can be considered non-composite in nature (aka a soul). A question for philosophy.

Personally, to the two "religious" questions above, I answer no. But I don't do it by trying to appeal to science. I do it by appealing to logic and reasoning in a non-scientific setting. Most people call it philosophy. Such appeals do not involve "there is no evidence". That is a scientific argument that misses the point.

Re:Evolution is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING: Cleverly disguised goatse link in parent!

Re:That's Fine With Me

[witherstaff]

I agree, who'd want a degree like philosophy that includes critical analysis or that forms the basis of logic. If more people suffered through philosophy it may put an end to Internet flames. Slashdot would never be the same again.

Erm...

[ternarybit]

I understand my opinion falls into a scarce minority here at /. so please direct ostracism and mockery to /dev/null. I am not an expert in either evolution or creation theory, so judge accordingly.

Creation science/creationism/ID theory is not:

• fundamentalism
• Christianity
• the opposite of evolution, even though it focuses on the inadequacy of evolutionary theory to explain biodiversity
• an attempt to disprove science
• a substitute thereof
• a religion, though it may have religious implications
• inherently unscientific

Creationists or proponents of intelligent design base their ideas on a few readily observable phenomena (or lack thereof), some of which are:

• information does not spontaneously arise from noise, regardless of timeframe; spontaneous decreases in entropy does not mean a spontaneous increase in information (e.g. ice crystals)
• abiogenesis, which is axiomatic to evolutionary theory, has never been observed nor reproduced, even with the assistance of our collective intelligence and decades of trial
• Many different biological systems rely on each other to survive, which could not have evolved independently. E.G. Bees rely on plants for pollen, and certain plants rely on bees to pollinate them.

ID proponents presuppose that every physical phenomena will not necessarily have a naturalistic/material cause & explanation. Most ID scholars acknowledge evolutionary principles (genetic drift, natural selection, "microevolution") but reject common ancestry based on a lack of demonstrable evidence (no real consensus on phylogeny, spotty/inconsistent fossil record, true speciation never observed). Creationists also assert that an unobserved, unreproducible event (abiogenesis) is as inherently unscientific as invoking a creator-god or other supernatural phenomena for origin of life. Evolution (change) is scientific and observable but the keystone event that common ancestry relies on is inherently unscientific, just like the assumption that "god did it." Both theories seek to explain events that we cannot reproduce or observe. My point is, this debate becomes metaphysical/philosophical/theological (or at least unscientific) no matter which side of the tracks we find ourselves on.

*waits for flames/mods down*

to quote:

[ILongForDarkness]

"So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer."

So what do they really think?

While I agree that it shouldn't be a science degree, I think there is enough philosophy/social studies to make a reasonable case for a MA, or DPhil out of the topic.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[digitig]

No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.

Doesn't work as an argument against solipsism. The solipsist simply experiences what appears to be someone firing a gun at them immediately before they die. No change in the experience, no change in the outcome, just a change in the interpretation.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[digitig]

Prove "beyond any doubt" or prove "sufficiently for all practical purposes"?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[digitig]

The law (surely a "practical purpose") finds it valuable to make a similar distinction. Criminal cases have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt".

Re:That's Fine With Me

[digitig]

Well, we're talking (amongst others) of somebody who got to be chair of an international technical standards committee. I'd like to think that meant they weren't totally clueless...

Re:That's Fine With Me

[shutdown -p now]

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

Such stories don't mock the religious at all. They only mock the Creationists, and I consider the latter a good thing, and a well-deserved one as well.

Great!

[BeatlesForum.com]

Wow. Slashdot isn't as full of Christian haters as it was when I left a few years back. I might have to start investing more time here.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Ashriel]

Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.

I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days. Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.

Man....

[Anonymous Coward]

... that has to be some seriously powerful Kool Aide.

Oh come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any of the so-called "prophesies come true" which I've ever come across are so vague as to be useless (i.e. you can fit almost anything to the "prophecy"). They're akin to Nostradamus' "prophecies".

So, if you're going to argue please name some actual "prophesies come true" which you think stand up to scrutiny and we'll take it from there.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[einhverfr]

Define "real."

Your statement is true for some definitions of "reality."

However, here is an interesting thought experiment: Can you prove beyond a doubt that the universe wasn't created 10 seconds ago in its current state complete with the memories of all in it?

Reminds me of a joke

[einhverfr]

A man wonders whether sex is permitted on the sabbath. So he goes and asks the priest whether sex is work and thus prohibited on the Sabbath. The priest consults the Bible and concludes that it is. The man is not entirely satisfied by this because he is unsure whether a celebate man is the right person to give him this advice, so he asks a protestent minister. The minister consults the Bible and concludes that it is work and is thus prohibited on the Sabbath. Just to get one final opinion, the man goes and asks a rabbi.

The rabbi sits and thinks about the matter for a moment and says "Of course it is is not work!"

The man asks the rabbi how he can be so sure given the views from two other learned religious men, and he answers "If sex were work, my wife would have the maid do it."

Moral of the story is that arguments from authority aren't really all that great. If your belief in creationism is because of what is written in the Bible, that is fundamentally different from an argument based on experiments and tests concerning available data. While it is quite possible to believe that God created the world and used evolution as a means to create humanity, this is different from trying to choose bible vs science.

Re:Reminds me of a joke

[arminw]

...this is different from trying to choose bible vs science...

The Bible and true scientific facts are never at odds and never can be. The differences come in from the interpretation of scientific facts and interpretations of Scripture. Science is primarily tells HOW things in nature work whereas the Bible primarily tells us WHO and WHY. It tells us who is behind nature and our existence and gives us the purpose he has in mind for it all.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork.

Where now tell me where is there a conflict between acknowledging what King David wrote so many centuries ago and modern astronomy and astrophysics being able to study the heavens in a way that King David never was able even to imagine.

I recently rented a copy of a DVD named: "The Privileged Planet". If you ever decide to watch it, pay special attention to the part on solar eclipses. I was highly impressed by the entire film where in the name of God or the Bible are never mentioned at all. Even so, the evidence presented speaks volumes, pointing to a purposeful reason why we are here to observe all this.

Re:Reminds me of a joke

[einhverfr]

The Bible and true scientific facts are never at odds and never can be. The differences come in from the interpretation of scientific facts and interpretations of Scripture. Science is primarily tells HOW things in nature work whereas the Bible primarily tells us WHO and WHY. It tells us who is behind nature and our existence and gives us the purpose he has in mind for it all.

That is a reasonably defensible position. Aryeh Kaplan has argued that one can derive the scientific age of the universe from a close reading of the Torah, psalms, and Midrash (and proceeds to show a close correspondences). Certain groups of Hindus do the same with the Rig Veda.

However, this does not diminish the fact that to Creationists, the Bible and Science are at odds with eachother, so THEY feel compelled to choose.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[uassholes]

Me too. We need a way to recognize these people. This is the next best thing to tatooing "RETARD" on their forehead.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days. Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.

Be patient, will you? Superconducting magnets are a bitch. They'll be ready soon enough, sooner than either of us would like, maybe.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Mattsson]

A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science.

Exactly. I don't know the exact types of degrees available in the higher education of the US, but it feels like studying creationism should be part of some degree in philosophy.
It certainly shouldn't be a Master of Science degree.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dov_0]

A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science. There is no way I would ever hire anyone with such a degree. If anything, I would see them as potentially being very disruptive in the workplace.

Why not? Same facts and figures coming out of the research done. Same methods. Just a different set of biases used in interpreting the data. At least Creationists acknowledge their bias. Other scientists just call their 'theories' to be 'fact'.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[fugue]

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

Me too.

One can't often persuade a religious person that his belief in [whatever] is absurd. The best solution I can think of is to mock religion openly and mercilessly, in the hopes that third parties will start looking for a better reason for their faith than "my parents | rabbi | voices | visions | etc told me it was true". It's not a great solution, but I can't figure out anything better. I'm open to suggestions.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[fugue]

A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science.

Of course, nor is a degree in "computer science". But everyone knows that, and nobody expects a computer scientist to know how to set up an experiment (some do, but it's not our training). By the same token, everyone who is likely to be hiring for a successful company knows that creationism isn't a science either. Just as I would be more likely to hire someone with a pottery degree than someone with a philosophy degree if I wanted to design a new low-flow toilet, I would be unlikely to hire someone with a "creationism science" degree for a position for which it was inappropriate (like, say, any position at all, ever).

Re:That's Fine With Me

[HappyHead]

Also, an annoying idiot has gone away. That's a positive outcome in my books. It's not interpretation, it's cold hard reality - they're dead, and their argument has failed.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

"you're degree is worthless."

Unlike you're's, I guess.

Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like a village in Texas got its idiot back.

Bible history

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of my family lore is the story of an ancestor who worked on writing the King James Bible. Apparently my ancestor's version of a Psalm was rejected in favor of another's. There are a lot of people who base their beliefs on "The Bible" who think there is just one Bible, their Bible, with no controversy between versions.

To make a point here

[fluch]

I am against the death penalty but: using the word "science" and "creationism" in one and the same sentence should get shot immediately and without warni...

!£&*^*#& CARRIER LOST.

Note to everyone who brings up fundementalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

For all you argue against Christianity by bringing up Genesis 1 saying that the
earth was created in six days, you should also read 2 Peter 3:8 which says that
God's perception of time is very different to ours.

From there we can assume that each of those days consist of whatever amount of
time it took to get the earth to a particular point.

Also genuine religious belief requires a measure of scepticism.

Handy Flowchart

[beathach]

What is the practical difference between science and religion with respect to determining truth?
Observe this handy flowchart.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

People with religious agendas should not mark Trolls Insights and Informative:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278273
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278335

And they should not mark my informative posts Troll:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278305
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278373

because (1) You are making yourself look foolish and reactionary
(2) You are wasting perfectly good moderation points

Also. If you are still here. Mark this post Troll as well. I will certainly do my best to help you get rid of your Mod points so that you won't abuse them with other people's posts.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[SanityInAnarchy]

or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime.

This is exactly as informed and insightful an understanding of evolution as Ben Stein's description of "lightning striking a puddle of mud."

In other words, it's not actually about evolution, and it's also an incredibly poor understanding of abiogenesis.

Either way, there's no solid proof.

However, there is quite a bit more evidence to support abiogenesis, and a truly massive amount of evidence for evolution. Modern biology relies on evolution, in fact.

On the other hand, there is absolutely zero proof of the Bible's Genesis.

Oh, and for that matter:

if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.

Even in high school, teachers rewarded me for asking questions, even if it led to a debate, so long as I was thinking.

Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[KDR_11k]

The problem is that the creationists look at the data, throw it out completely and then make up shit. That's not the scientific method leading to different conclusions, that's a conclusion looking for a way to reach it.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[SanityInAnarchy]

I would suggest that a lot of this has to do with people in the "bible belt" taking your attitude, and keeping quiet.

Here, a quick Google finds this study -- even if you include "religious unaffiliated" as a religion, that still leaves 10.3% of the population either explicitly atheist/agnostic, or without religion.

For comparison: Even in the Bible Belt, people are starting to accept homosexuality. They might not like it, and they might not like gay marriage, but they're willing to at least accept that it doesn't make a person inherently wrong.

And according to another quick Google, and another website that is clearly biased towards "traditional values", only 2.3% are homosexual.

You can run the numbers yourself, but either way, 10.3% is kind of a huge number. That's some 31 million people in this country.

I'm not saying that we should be mocking religion, but I do think it might be a good idea for atheists to "come out of the closet", so to speak. We're more hated than homosexuals, and we're a larger group. Really, the only reason the "bible belt" can remain so willfully ignorant is because they haven't been exposed to it.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[SanityInAnarchy]

The creationists and evolutionists BELIEVE a different set of witnesses.

The funny thing is, the creationsts' "witnesses" were a bunch of humans who wrote a book a few hundred years ago.

The evolutionists' "witnesses" are extrapolation from known scientific principles.

Put another way: Is it possible to know experimentally or observationally that a black hole exists? You can't see it, you can only see the way it affects the space around it. And you clearly can't experiment on it. Yet most of us agree that they exist.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "observation", then, right? I can clearly observe what appears to be a black hole, or a quasar, or a supernova. I can also observe what appears to be an accurate carbon-dating. In both cases, I'm looking at some particles being detected well after the fact -- and I'm not even looking at those directly, I'm looking at what my instruments tell me they are.

It's also worth mentioning: Evolution actually does conform to basic laws of physics, at least as far back as the Big Bang, and we're starting to understand that, too.

Creation really doesn't, unless we assume that the universe suddenly popped into being with everything set up just so, just to tempt the faith of scientists in the future by making it appear that there was evolution, and that the universe is billions of years old. But we actually have no evidence except some really questionable testimony that there is a being capable of doing that -- whereas we have all the evidence in the world (so to speak) that evolution did happen.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[kurzweilfreak]

The study of origins has much in common with criminal forensics. In both cases there are witnesses, both physical and human, the testimony of which must be carefully analyzed. On the basis of such analysis the jury must decide whether to BELIEVE the witnesses for or against conviction.

I'm not aware of any (either in reality or on CSI) modern criminal forensic investigations that ended in the case being closed as "divine intervention" based on the available evidence, or a murder that couldn't be pinned on a human due to the facts being irreducibly complex.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Moofie]

I mean, real schools offer up degrees in philosophy, pottery, and basket weaving and who knows what.

Let's not throw stones so easily around here.

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

Uh huh. And none of those are science degrees. What's your point?

If religion can get Scientific degrees

[s0litaire]

How about Scientists and their Labs getting TAX Free status. :D Fair's fare... eh?

Since when was the gov't involved in accredation?

[BitterOak]

I thought in the U.S., anyone could grant any degrees they like, and it was up to various private accrediting organizations to decide whether or not to accredit them. Since when did the government get to say who can and can't issue degrees? Aren't there First Amendment issues here?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[darkpixel2k]

This is exactly as informed and insightful an understanding of evolution as Ben Stein's description of "lightning striking a puddle of mud."

In other words, it's not actually about evolution, and it's also an incredibly poor understanding of abiogenesis.

How did life start on earth? I've heard a lot of different 'non-God' views--lightning strike, perfect chance meeting of various bits of 'life goo', etc... But no one seems to be able to reduce the problem further. What created the earth? Ok, what created the universe? Ok, what created the big bang, etc...

Eventually, it boils down to "We're not sure".
In other words, there's no proof of how it happened.

The same can be said somewhat of religion. If God created the heavens and the earth, what created God?

Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.

I didn't state a belief on scientists being religious or not. I agree with you that people need to understand the difference between an unfounded *belief* and scientific *proof*.

Unfortunately it goes both ways. Take the global warming debate for instance. Some people are flat out certain the oceans will be boiling in 10 years. Others have debunked that claim. And yet others have debunked the debunkers. Hell--I remember when carbon dating was considered absolute proof--then they figured out they were off by quite and bit and had to re-estimate everything again.

Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressed?! I'd be convinced if just the experiment was repeatable.

Which is exactly the problem! There is no empirical evidence for "creationism."

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

My above post was NOT a Troll. Who keeps up-modding the Trolls that, for example state that "I just SMOKED YOU BITCH!!!" when these posts just give red-herring and bogus links along with their insults? ... It does nothing for the cause of religion. What it does do is just make the religious agenda appear more fanatical to neutral parties.

I will keep on exposing you religious nuts for what you are. Are you going to mod this post a Troll as well?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

How many mod points do you moderation Trolls have? If you are an editor, I will expose you so you will lose your job. Otherwise you will just get bitch-slapped from Slashdot. This moderation abuse must stop.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Elrac]

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

I feel that mocking the religious is one of the most noble enterprises that people with working brains can engage in.

IMHO, religion is at the root of many of the world's troubles and stands solidly in the way of mankind's progression to a state of greater understanding, wisdom and gentleness.

That, and Creationism and its many sub-stories are so ludicrous that no additional mockery is required.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

Here's a bunch. [google.com] I just SMOKED YOU BITCH!!! Don't ever question me again!! YOU GOT PWNED!!!

You should apologize to me for that Flame. And ask the Slashdot community to get rid of your +2 moderation if you have any sense of honesty and justice.

It's like...

[meerling]

Giving an advanced science degree with creationism is like duct taping Charles Manson and the head of the Satanist church and making them the next Catholic Pope.... No matter how you stack it, creationism (even when search & replaced with intelligent design) is NOT science and can't be used for accreditation of an advanced science degree.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Would your other on-line pseudonym be shampoo?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[arminw]

...The evolutionists' "witnesses" are extrapolation from known scientific principles...

It is generally best, as we do in our court systems, to include all witnesses, human and forensic. In the end, those who study origins are no different than those trying to find out who committed a crime in the past. They must find a suspect and then try to convince the jury based on human witness and scientific witness, that they have the correct suspect.

When someone studies HOW an amoeba lives, he/she can perform various tests and experiments in present time. However, anyone who wishes to probe the origin of amoebas, that person has to depend on outside witnesses and therefore becomes an effect a forensic investigator. Eventually, a forensic investigator has to come to a conclusion and convince others of the correctness of that conclusion.

(...Is it possible to know experimentally or observationally that a black hole exists? You can't see it, you can only see the way it affects the space around it. And you clearly can't experiment on it. Yet most of us agree that they exist....)

  In science it is often difficult to separate the observed effects and how to interpret them. People observe matter and energy behave in certain, often puzzling ways and then try to interpret this behavior through the lens of what we think we know. You can clearly observe not what appears to be a black hole or a quasar, but certain highly energetic phenomena taking place in the distant reaches of the cosmos. The black hole or quasars are human interpretations, as the scientists scratch their heads trying to figure out what it all means. We know a little, very little about how the laws of the universe operate. In the case of black holes and quasars, we assume that the force of gravity is the dominant operator behind the observations. This is an assumption, a belief, but we do not really know. If the electric and/or the strong force is also involved, and that is an if, everything we observe will need to be reinterpreted in terms of those other forces.

(...the Big Bang, and we're starting to understand that, too....)

Boy are you an optimist!! The truth of the matter is that present-day scientists know less about the Big Bang than a gorilla knows about playing the piano. About the only thing they know is that something appeared out of nothing. They even give this proposed nothing or almost nothing, maybe something a name. They call it the singularity. Everything else is convoluted mathematical conjecture based on assumptions. In essence, the Big Bang theory says: "First there was nothing and then it exploded".

Re:That's Fine With Me

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. My theory is that a blue car or truck struck it and drove away.

How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. Last week crazy Carl told me there is a giant, invisible whale that flies through the air. Further it can tell the future. He says it whispered to him and said the "smurfiness was smithereens". How could he have known a week ago? See the smurfiness is the blue color and smithereens means little pieces, but usually refers to things being broken or destroyed, like the sign is destroyed (though not in pieces). My theory is that a giant invisible, flying whale destroyed the sign.

Since no one saw the sign be damaged there is no proof. We don't know. Does that mean we should regard both theories equally? What about after we take samples of the leftover blue material and it exactly matches the color from stock GM vehicle paint in 2001? Are they both still equal? After all we can't prove the invisible flying whale didn't leave paint identical to the color on automobiles, although it did not make that prediction either.

My point is, just because we're not 100% sure does not matter. The scientific method isn't about finding absolutes but about applying a formal method for determining the most likely truth. It works and if you don't like it fine, but don't call not applying it science or expect rational people to "just believe" something that doesn't match up with what science determines is the likely answer.

Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.

I didn't state a belief on scientists being religious or not. I agree with you that people need to understand the difference between an unfounded *belief* and scientific *proof*.

Math has proofs, not science. Science has hypothesis and experiments and theories and peer review. A rational scientist believes the most supported theory is the most likely truth and performs predictive experiments to add or remove support from theories. Evolution is a theory with a lot of correct predictions from experiments. There are several abiogenesis theories each with some level of correct predictions from experiments. Creationism refers to a vague belief held in different ways by different religions. It does not refer to a scientific theory supported by experimentation. Believing it is not rational. That's fine with me you can hold irrational beliefs, just don't try to convince others they are rational or scientific or should be taught in schools as science.

Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen[sic].

This is your fundamental misunderstanding. Science is not proving things. It is determining the most likely truth rather than trying to defend a belief by finding facts to support it after you've already made up your mind. Science is a rational process. It isn't infallible and is constantly refined, but the process works a whole lot better than anything else we've tried which is why it is held in such high regard and why people are so eager to try to convince others some belief they have is scientific when it is not.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[TapeCutter]

"science depends on witnesses who must be either believed or disbelieved"

Nope, science depends on evidence that can be tested. Belief in a particular witness is called "argument from authority" and is not part of science. For example, we don't have any evidence for "why" but we have plenty of witnesses.

Beyond reasonable doubt is not part of science, science explicitly states it's doubts in levels of certainly, 100% certainty is called an assumption. Assumptions must be noted and attacked BY THE JURY who in turn never finish their deliberations because science has NO CONVICTIONS other than the philosphical conviction that it's method is the most useful tool for understanding the universe.

Unlike religion and other forms of dogma, science does not claim to have THE answer, it claims to have the BEST answer currently available and it backs that claim with it's track record.

But hey, nice try at equating religion to science. And sure, you can claim science is "just another way of thinking" but if you BELIEVE all philosophies are equal then you are free to stop thinking and choose your beliefs based on your mood.

BTW: To get the "when" in science use "t", negative for backwards, positive for forwards.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[arminw]

...he case being closed as "divine intervention" ...

Apparently you did not get my point. At the end of any forensic investigation the judge and the jury must BELIEVE what the forensic investigator has concluded. In some cases and human witnesses and the forensic investigator are diametrically different. Now the jury must still decide whether to believe the human witnesses or, for example, the witness of the DNA evidence.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[NotBornYesterday]

Touche.

Since solipsism is not a tangible thing and all we could rely on is the testimony or arguments of one who claims to be one, "beyond any doubt", or even beyond most doubt is impossible, so "sufficiently for all practical purposes" will have to do.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

The fact that you moderate my post as Flaimbait and do not moderate the post that I am alluding to as Flaimbait shows hypocrisy on your part. You are not "punishing" me in any way, but just reinforcing my beliefs that religious people are hypocrites and don't live up to the Christian (et al) doctrines of love and kindness that they preach. You and the other abusive moderators here are an embarrassment.

NExt up PHD in playing DOOM

[Anonymous Coward]

./

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

You obviously have a lot of religious friends who will moderate you up and moderate all my posts down. But that just means that YOU lose, because it exposes your community for what it is. You can moderate me down (again) because you know that I am Insightful. The Truth shall set me Free. I become stronger with every down mod.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dov_0]

The problem is that some creationists look at the data, throw it out completely and then make up shit. That's not the scientific method leading to different conclusions, that's a conclusion looking for a way to reach it.

There. Fixed that for you. Generalising like that never does an argument any good.;)

Same as mainstream science really. A couple of bad roses in every bunch.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dov_0]

I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days. Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.

I'd be pretty impressed if ANY SCIENTIST could reproduce the beginnings of the universe in a lab! Even a Star or a small planet would be pretty neat!

Hey, It's Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Texas for you.

Easy!

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days.

That's easy!

> Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.

That's dangerous. I'll leave that to the LHC team...

Who cares?

[sbaker]

Who cares? I mean - really - you can get a fake degree based on "Your life-experience" or any number of junk bits of paper.

The fact is that when you go for a job someplace waving your Ph.D in Creationism - the people offering the job are going to have a really good laugh at your expense. The only job you're going to be able to get will be working for the Creation Research center.

Think of this as "educational Darwinism" - those with degrees in junk subjects will be rapidly eliminated from the business gene-pool.

Meh.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[tomhudson]

Just as I would be more likely to hire someone with a pottery degree than someone with a philosophy degree if I wanted to design a new low-flow toilet

I wouldn't be too sure ... during the design phase, the philosophy degree might be more useful - after all, they talk about how to deal with all kinds of shit.

For example: "If the toilet backs up and nobody is there to hear it, does it still smell like shit?"

Or: "If we move the ventilation from the ceiling fan and integrate it into the bowl itself, will the shit still hit the fan?"

Or: "Is it zen-like if we just go with the flow?"

RE: What Fools Lie in Texas ..

[Anonymous Coward]

George Walker Bush

Richard Cheney ;) sorry I just could not resist.

On a darker note, the state of Texas, is the laughing stock of the world economy ... not to mention ... anything else for that matter, like Mike Dell and Dell Computer. What a "Butt Joke" they are!

BA/BFA

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Or actually Bachelor of Arts (or Fine Arts) in Theology. That is a more appropriate terminology.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[fugue]

Nice, but I did say low-flow toilet. I believe that pretty much rules out the philosophers.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[rilian4]

Why are you so biased against people of faith? Do you really think that having faith is synonymous with stupidity? My guess is you are probably the type that thinks racism and sexism is bad. Those two things are severe biases. You are lumping yourself in with others who have severe biases by saying what you said.

Just for the record, there are thousands of people who work very hard for their degrees, and are VERY intelligent who happened to earn them in Texas. You would be shortsighted to assume that every last one of them is now unhirable because you happen to disagree with their politics.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[ChameleonDave]

There. Fixed that for you. Generalising like that never does an argument any good.;)

Same as mainstream science really. A couple of bad roses in every bunch.

It's not a generalisation. Look at creationism, and it can be seen that, by definition, creationism is throwing out the evidence and inserting Biblical dogma instead.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dov_0]

It's not a generalisation. Look at creationism, and it can be seen that, by definition, creationism is throwing out the evidence and inserting Biblical dogma instead.

Having studied BOTH sides quite carefully, it is re-interpreting the same evidence using different dogma. Conventional Western science has deepl entrenched dogma of it's own.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[tomhudson]

Nice, but I did say low-flow toilet. I believe that pretty much rules out the philosophers.

This is true ... it also rules out RMS. Great thinker, but no "mute" button, which, if you think about it, is probably a good thing - anyone less "colourful" wouldn't have been able to effect as much change.

Mind you, I'm in Canada - we simply don't do low-flow toilets up here. Supposedly, buildings built after 1996 are required to have them at construction, but you don't have to retrofit them in older buildings, or in newer ones when remodeling, so newer buildings will sometimes quickly get a "bathroom remodeling."

WOW!

[chuck9872]

Degrees in Creationism? That sounds awesome to me. I'm going to fund my own college now and sell degrees in God Doesn't Exist. I'm sure all those crazy maladjusted kids these days will eat that $hit up and I'll be very wealthy soon enough. And after that, I'll get really drunk and make some 'for mass-market' motivational tapes like L. Ron Hubbard and tell all the children my ideas about god and how he's on your shoulder and you have to take him off your shoulder before you go into a building and thats really all you have to do and they'll listen to that too. Eventually they'll be so advanced (having followed my teachings) that they'll find the most likely spot of my birth or death and scrape some sort of primitive DNA which will then be reconstituted and blended with the gammetes of a half Asian albino, half Viking warrior and become my second coming. Of course they wouldn't know that I never existed and it was my half brother Karl (who was a little more than half retarded) that the seed had come from. But hey, whatever makes you happy...

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Rasvar]

The degree is useless without accreditation, unless you are going to be "teaching/researching" at some phony baloney religious school that does not require certifications or accreditations.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[bhiestand]

Also, an annoying idiot has gone away. That's a positive outcome in my books. It's not interpretation, it's cold hard reality - they're dead, and their argument has failed.

I think you need a new moniker.

the joke's on you, bozo

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism the same as alchemy or astrology? You can study science inside a universe created by a Creator. If you believe that the universe was created in this manner, that does not negate science or mean that you do not study science.

That statement about alchemy and astrology shows that whoever wrote the story is stupid because, as an atheist, it believes that anyone who doesn't see the world the same way as it is an idiot. The real idiot is the atheist. There's a billboard near my house that reads: Atheist: Someone who believes that nothing made everything: A scientific impossibility!

Creatiobullism

[iScharfschtze]

Ok... so, lemme see if i got it right. Some religious enthusiast (probably catholic) wants to "create" some "we know where it all came from" thing... that ll actually give ppl the chance of gettin a degree in faith? For cryin out loud, how exactly are they gonna come up with an answer for, well, lets say a hindu kid, budist, even jewish, go to class everyday thinkin their parents and heritage have real answers (again, small kids) for all of the universe questions and this "certified beliveInGodKnowsWhat" ll tell em that they studied the science that isnt really sciense cuz its based on none logical facts.... or facts at all... completely messin these kids minds with questions they should b askin themself in a couple of years... So.. wheres the benefit? Are they trying to make ppl convert to a standard religion?... u kno.. white beared kinda god thing? Ridiculous. I d luv to attend one of those classes, just cant picture some "professor" sayin> "well, lets see.. am... Mr. Smith, do you know the answer for this equation? Where do we come from?.- Mr Smith: well... im thinking God, but i couldnt make my homework last nite i was busy feedin all o my 25 children"... In my opinion Religion is the unlogical logical response from the human brain to unanswered questions. But i understand the fact that it does help ppl on rough times. Again... religion should just stay as religion, a way of life, filosophy, call it whatever u like, but its definetly NOT "science" material. Just try thinkin about it the other way around, what if Nikola Tesla founded the "Church of Alternalcurrentism... am... church", based on what exactly d he huv the nurv to come up with sth as ridiculous as that! Well, just my opinion, dont get p1ssed ;)

Well shore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go an let em all give them peppers with the fancy larnin! I mean if ma & pa kettle can grant PhD's in larnin', then whots ta stop less larned folks frum gittn all fard up smarkt and givn' out pepper lak its made frum treez? Weez cud agive our houn' dawg, stumpy, wun a them PhDees in humpin' the cat or somethin' coudin we? Kat don lak it none, but ol' stumpee he jus tare afer thhe kat lak nobodees bisness, corner em and hav hes way. Kat skreems an skretches at dawg, but wunce stumpee haz a hankerin to go, thar ain nothin stoppen em. I sez we go and giv'em wun-a-them pHdees. Pepper shore luuk pertty, excep for when he gits thet doggie juce on et.

I Can't Wait to get my Masters in Divinity

[ossifer007s]

I've started to prepare to get my genuine Texas certified Masters in Divinity from FSMU when this bill passes. I figure if I learn a few Latin phrases (like "modus operandi", "carpe diem" and "e pluribus unum") that should suffice. For those interested in the FSMU campus, it's located just east of Palistine on the banks of the beautiful Trinity River. The school motto is "In Noodles We Trust", the schools fight song is "A Sauce we can Believe in", and the school mascot is cheesily named Harry Meatballs. It's a laid back kind of campus, with a gin mill in the Student Union Building and the diploma mill on the east bank of the river. When I get my Masters from FSMU I can start my own church in Kansas, bash gays, and be totally tax free in the process.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

The above post is not a Troll. The above post was pointing out a Flamebait that was using nasty language against me. Instead of Moderating the AC's post as Flamebait, you Moderate my post as Troll. Just because you AC Trolls and Flames are pro-religious and anti-secularist is no reason to treat them with reverence. Hating with moderation because of your religious beliefs is wrong. Stop the religious hatred, and stop making religious people look evil and hypocritical.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[unlametheweak]

Wow you have a lot of friends with a lot of hatred in them. They moderate all my Informative posts Troll and Flamebait, and they leave your Flamebait post up-moderated as Informative. It really shows the amount of hatred and hypocrisy in your community.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[grishnav]

A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science. There is no way I would ever hire anyone with such a degree. If anything, I would see them as potentially being very disruptive in the workplace.

Woah there, bud. Be careful. That might be religious discrimination.

Yay law of unintended consequences!

Why the fucking fuck is the government dictating what PHDs a University and issue, anyway? Does this draconian, freedom-hating measure only apply publicly funded universities, or is it anyone?

You are missing the point

[1s44c]

As a Creationist, I have to agree with you: Creationism --the assertion that God, who has always existed and who designed and created all things and all lifeforms, cannot be declared "science" because Creationism cannot be studied. No testing can be performed, and we can only guess how and when the creation event occurred. It is not repeatable as we are not gods

Translation: I'm a creationist, I believe an unprovable god created the world. I know this belief is irrational and wrong but my parents and school kept repeating it over and over so it just sunk in. I wish i had the strength to be rational like you guys but I'm scared my god will punish me if I don't believe in him.

Re:Evolution is BS

[1s44c]

The evidence disproving evolution is so strong and conclusive, it is pretty much a proven fact that it is incorrect.

Where did you get that belief?

And would you believe it if your parents and schools didn't keep repeating creationism dogma to you when you were a confused child trying to understand the world?

As an adult you now have the ability to question things you were taught, I suggest you start with everything you were made to believe as a child.

Let the flat earth MS degrees be issued ONLY by...

[Anonymous Coward]

the Hogwarts Academy. All other schools (especially those in Texas) are unable to provide the evidence based approach to a 4000 year old earth due to fraudulent technicians.

Not science.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mail-order degrees they're trying to push, not science.

Creationism?

[duit1dollar]

Actually we are not create anything, we just discover it.

Funny looking Academic Institution...

[fantomas]

This "Institute for Creation Research" is a funny looking 'academic' institute from a look over its website.

The link "Departments" has sections like "Online Store" "Press" and "About ICR". Very odd. My university has 'departments' like "Faculty of Arts" "Business School" and "Department of Maths and Computing".

I wonder what type of courses they teach in their listed 'departments'? This is not the kind of academic institution I am familiar with...

It doesn't matter what happens in Texas...

[Monty_Lovering]

... regional accreditation bodies in the US and international accreditation bodies like NARIC will not recognise the crazee religious or otherwise fake educational institutions.

So you will have someone with a MSc that isn't worth an MSc compared to anu worthwhile Uni'.

If you look at degrees in Pakistan (for example), most Bachelors degrees are only worth a Certificatke in HE or a Diploma in HE because the curriculums have so much religion in them you cannot fairly compare four years at University in Pakistan to four years elsewhere.

Looks like some Uni's in Texas are just the same, LOL

Re:money! Too late, L. Ron Hubbard did it already

[slashbart]

:-)

What do you think scientology is!

Re:That's Fine With Me

[dotancohen]

1) I am a person of faith.

2) I am sure that there are people who work hard for their degrees in Texas. I am not disputing the difficulty of their work. I am contesting the value of a Texas-accredited university. If I have to sift through 500 applications for 3 openings, I will be very liberal when it comes to cutting down on the applicants.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[SanityInAnarchy]

perfect chance meeting of various bits of 'life goo'

Without actually researching it, this seems plausible. Consider that the oceans -- that is, most of the planet's surface -- were literally teeming with the basic building blocks of life. All it takes is one single-celled organism, no matter how crude, and suddenly, you have tons of life, seemingly out of nowhere.

Describing this as a "puddle of slime" is kind of like claiming that a single drop of water can cover the world.

What created the earth? Ok, what created the universe? Ok, what created the big bang

It is actually quite possible that the big bang had no cause, at least not in our own kind of time. Hawking had a cool model of the Universe as a perfect space-time sphere, meaning time had a beginning and end, at opposite sides of the sphere. He actually disproved it later, but it gives you an idea.

As to how that sphere came into existence? "I don't know" is the acceptable scientific answer; "God did it" is an alright religious theory, just don't be too disappointed if it's disproven. In fact, Hawking did later disprove that whole sphere idea.

Ultimately, I don't really mind the thought of God creating the big bang. At least that is actually compatible with science, even if it's not itself science. If that's what you're teaching your children, at least they'll pay attention in science class, instead of asking stupid questions about Intelligent Design.

Eventually, it boils down to "We're not sure".

Fundamentally, yes. But there's a lot of certainty before that, and these are things we can eventually understand.

For instance, quantum theory gives us a better understanding of subatomic dynamics -- but before that, we pretty much knew an atom is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and how many were in each. I'm not even sure we knew about quarks before we used that basic knowledge of the atom to build bombs and nuclear reactors.

That in no way leads to your claim of:

In other words, there's no proof of how it happened.

However, up to a few very tiny fractions of a second before the Big Bang, there's quite a lot of evidence for how it happened.

In light of the history of how science tends to refine its understanding of the universe, it seems somewhat unlikely that we will find the pieces we don't know filled in with "God did it", and it seems ludicrous to think that we would be so entirely wrong as to find out that the world is actually six thousand years old.

Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen.

I wasn't. I actually spent most of my life believing that science was so often wrong, that there might be this one thing I was more knowledgeable about than them. It would vary, of course, what I assumed that one thing to be...

So I did my homework, and came to the conclusion that they tend to know what they're talking about. In general, when you have a group of people who have each dedicated their life to thinking critical about a particular problem, and they overwhelmingly arrive at the same conclusion, they're probably right, or at least close to right.

Take gravity. You might say that newton was wrong -- in fact, he was merely not as accurate as he could've been.

And when creationists attack evolution, the statements that don't immediately get them laughed out of the discussion are vagaries like "There's debate about evolution! People disagree on some of the finer details!" Well, yes, they do -- in the hopes that they can refine the theory. There seems little chance anyone will be able to wholly disprove it -- just as Mercury doesn't disprove Newton gravity, it just requires Relativity to refine it a bit.

It's also worth mentioning that we're talking abo

Re:That's Fine With Me

[SanityInAnarchy]

People observe matter and energy behave in certain, often puzzling ways and then try to interpret this behavior through the lens of what we think we know. You can clearly observe not what appears to be a black hole or a quasar, but certain highly energetic phenomena taking place in the distant reaches of the cosmos. The black hole or quasars are human interpretations

Certainly. And so is this text.

What you are actually observing are the electrical impulses hitting your brain from your optic nerve, which you interpret to be light, which you interpret to be coming from something called a "computer monitor". On that monitor, you see some shapes which you interpret to be text and windows, which you further interpret to be a representation of the website Slashdot.org.

Many of these could theoretically be wrong -- for instance, you could be plugged into the matrix, and the outside world could be nothing like you imagine. Many have actually been shown to be wrong occasionally -- someone could be performing a man-in-the-middle attack of some sort, and thus the page you are viewing, which you assume originated at slashdot.org, actually originated somewhere else.

But you don't live your life assuming this. Even Hume didn't. You interpret it through the lens of what you know -- or rather, what you've chosen to assume, based on prior observations -- and you can only assume that your memories of those prior observations are legitimate.

The biggest difference between scientific discoveries and personal ones we make as children (Balloons pop! They're loud when they pop!) is that scientific discoveries tend to take a lot more thought to interpret and understand, as they are the product of generations of effort.

Then again, some scientific discoveries, as wild as they might have seemed at the time (Lightning is electricity! Electricity is related to magnetism!) are not only confirmed experimentally, they're relied on in everyday life (chances are, a hard drive was involved somewhere between me typing this, and you reading it.) You'd be ridiculed for claiming that electromagnetism isn't proven -- yet when you start arguing against evolution (which you rely on for much of modern medicine), you get congressmen agreeing with you, or at least saying "maybe".

In essence, the Big Bang theory says: "First there was nothing and then it exploded".

Look it up sometime. There are actually some interesting things that we know about exactly what the Universe looked like several seconds after the big bang -- in fact, I believe we know what it looks like a few fractions of a second after it.

Creationists make a deal with the devil

[idea2go]

They want to submit themselves to government and academic bureaucracy? If there is any way to sap their energy and effectiveness this is it. Amen!

Finally!

[drolli]

I finally can install the PHD course for mantra singing and acting enlightened!

Re:That's Fine With Me

[cusco]

nobody expects a computer scientist to know how to set up an experiment (some do, but it's not our training).

So you never set up a lab to test the latest MS bug fixes/insertions? Don't know about you but I was certainly trained to conduct careful experiments before putting stuff into production environments.

If the teacher is from Andromeda...

[cagrin]

If the teacher is an Andromeden (preferably female), i'm in ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWvW3T84SiU

ID and evolution both true

[DiadoMraz]

Is not that possible? An ID sets the wheels in motion and the rest is evolution. After all we are on the verge of becoming ID ourselves... Well, the "I" part is debatable, but the "D" is not out of question. If we can (almost) do it, why should not it have happened before? Its turtles all the way down, young man...

Occam's Razor

[helicase]

Science doesn't really follow Occam's Razor, particularly in evolutionary biology. Many processes are not parsimonious. Go look up systematics, or look at some phylogenetic trees made with modern methods (e.g. Bayesian inference or maximum likelihood, not maximum parsimony). Occam's Razor will fail you.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[digitig]

Well, as I am a solipsist I have proved it to my own satisfaction sufficiently for all practical purposes that one exists. But note that solipsism has been rather misrepresented hereabouts. I am an epistemological solipsist, that is, I believe it is impossible to know beyond any doubt that the external world exists, but that doesn't mean that I think it doesn't. I happen to think it does, but that's a matter of belief, not knowledge, and cannot be rationally justified.

The Irony

[turkeyfish]

Is the Institute for Creation Research arguing that it is being selected against? Why are they so eager to admit they are wrong with respect to the very essence of the does evolution occur debate?

Actually, I hope this passes. I'm thinking about starting a Ph.D. program in political witchcraft. Students would study how to use witchcraft to affect the political process. They would receive, after intensive course work, of course, detailed instructions on how to cast spells over politicians. If you know anything about Texas politics, and as this article demonstrates, its obvious that such a program is desperately needed.

Shame on you.

[danielpauldavis]

The Institute for Creation Research has been awarding degrees for decades; they merely moved from here (California) to there (Texas). Shame on you. I've a better idea--instead of mocking others, how about if you actually read some of their stuff. Or do you fear finding out they are much more educated and knowledgeable on the topic than you are. You have set up such a pretty illusion for yourself, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't want to leave it. (BTW, they were opposed in their California accreditation by the state Superintendent who later went to jail for thinking he was all that.)

Re:This is VERY bad idea!

[turkeyfish]

In essence this legislation allows non-profit entities exposing anti-science philosophy to grant state sanctioned degrees in science. This would give such degrees legal standing equivalent to any other science degree program. This would then legally permit religious institutions to teach religion as science and replace scientists in science classrooms of the state with persons, who have no more knowledge or expertise in the scientific process than witchdoctors or political hacks.

This legislation is simply political cover to impose the teaching of religion as science. To say that this wouldn't be a bad idea ignores the fact that the consequences for scientific education in the United States would be catastrophic (since, most states recognize other states laws in reciprocal agreements).

The hiring process at state supported universities and colleges across the country would be thrown into paralysis as lawyers argue discrimination suits brought from both sides. Scientific departments and scientific collaboration would be torn apart by the open warfare between those that support science and those that support teaching religion as science, taking time away from those who actually want to conduct science. Its one thing for those battles to be waged on the airwaves, in print, and on web forums and quite another should we allow them to be carried out within the institutions charged with teaching, doing, and promoting science.

This legislation is little more than a another hand-grenade tossed into science departments around the country by anti-science crusaders to destroy the foundation of science in the United States. Al Qieda annd the Taliban couldn't do better.

We live in a world where the economic and political consequences of environmental catastrophe are pushing what remains of the biosphere needed to support human life to the breaking point. This is largely being done by people who refuse to accept scientific explanations for such changes because they conflict with their political ambitions, economic interests, or religious views and those who are simply ignorant, for one reason or another, of scientific studies that are relevant to these issues. The notion of "getting creationism in line with current scientific thought" is a lot like hoping the cockroaches will solve the problems that humanity seems too busy creating rather than solving. While some are "debating" whether they will be able to crank up their air-conditioners high-enough to feel comfortable in the future, many agronomists are already beginning to predict that a 4-5 deg C global temperature rise may make most contemporary agricultural practices on the planet unsustainable. Scientists are beginning to appreciate that what remains of tropical rain forests that permit us to take our next breath for granted may be nearly completely changed to scrub grasslands in as little as 100 years because of aridification. Water resource scientists are telling us that most countries will run out of fresh water resources in the next 50 years as glaciers recede into oblivion. In the US, agriculture in the largest agricultural state, California is being curtailed dramatically because of the lack of water. Texas is drying as well and many former range-lands no longer will support cattle. Likewise, marine biologists are becoming aware of the extent and rapidity at which the oceans are acidifying. The consequences to world protein budgets are large enough that the populations of ENTIRE countries may face protein starvation in as few as 100 years given present accelerating decline in ocean pH.

Folks, we are simply running out of time. Most have no idea of the scale of human-induced perturbations nor the almost certain consequences humans will face regardless of their religion as a result of these perturbations.

We must keep in mind that having an environment to support human life is not something that we can afford to leave to religious opinion. Its no longer something that we can indefinitely take for granted. The usefulness

Don't fool yourself

[turkeyfish]

There would be many in industry and at religious institution that would be eager to hire them. After all, these folks will have degrees in science legally equivalent to those of of other science degree granting institutions.

Just get a few of these folks to tie up regulations based on use of science required to establish sound public policy and you could avoid all sorts of costly regulations even though failing to adopt science-based regulations would produce catastrophic results. Likewise, insert them into discussions of the value of "faith-based initiatives" and religious based study can be granted public money by arguing that its just support for "science", while science budgets elsewhere can be cut to "reduce the budgetary impact" of such grants.

If you may not have noticed, large swaths of media conglomerates are loading with "journalists" bearing journalism degrees even though their "news" is often largely fact free. Such persons are useful to the bottom line and hidden agendas. They are hired because they can be used to say anything the owners think is in their interest, yet pass it off as "news" because "journalists" say its news.

Please answer a few simple questions.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some ve ry interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

Re:Please answer a few simple questions.

[CautionaryX]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645 ^ Article above talks about a theory that oil may be a renewable resource. TL;DR: methane gas hits pockets of hot temperatures and condenses the heavier hydrocarbons into crude oil.

Re:Please answer a few simple questions.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Except that the abiogenic theory hasn't panned out, and young-Earth geologists who actually look for oil don't stay young-Earth geologists. And the questions regarding capital, that you ignored? It turns out that deeply-held beliefs are easier to exploit than deeply-held oil reserves.

Seriously, if you really believe that conventional geology is... er... catastrophically wrong, and that you have a better theory, then that means a major investment opportunity for you and your fellow-travelers. Yet, I have run across very few creationists that are actually willing to put their money where there mouth is. Why is that?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[arminw]

...There are actually some interesting things that we know about exactly what the Universe looked like several seconds after the big bang...

There are actually some interesting things that we MATHEMATICALLY THEORIZE about exactly what the Universe looked like several seconds after the big bang.

It is possible to come up with mathematically beautiful, coherent models of physical systems by making different underlying assumptions or starting points. And weather forecasting for example several models of atmospheric interactions are used. The weather forecasters feed whatever data they have into each of them and then let their powerful computers churn away. When finished with a run, the computer spits out results that often agree more or less, but not too infrequently are widely divergent. That is why the forecasts are usually made in terms of probabilities.

There are various mathematical models of the Big Bang and its development, but none of them explain very well or predict the formation of clusters of galaxies, galaxies and their spin as well as planets and stars. Nobody knows for sure why the universe is slightly unbalanced between matter and antimatter. Some Big Bang models predict an equal amount of matter and antimatter which should have long since annihilated each other.

The currently accepted models of solar system formation and planets, consistent with Big Bang models are in major disagreement with known observations of the sun and its planets. The current theory that the solar system condensed out of a great rotating gas cloud is beginning to look more and more like a Swiss cheese full of holes made by the avalanche of recent data from telescopes and space probes.

(...confirmed experimentally...)

The problem with all theories of origins is that none of them can be confirmed experimentally, but we must rely on witnesses. Take for example the witness of radioactive dating. One of the assumptions we make about this witness is that the radioactive clock has been ticking at a constant linear rate throughout the great ages of time we wish to measure with it. This may be a valid assumption, (belief, faith) but we do not and cannot KNOW this for sure. There is evidence that this clock may have ticked orders of magnitude faster when it was first wound up at the beginning. If this is true, all testimony of this witness must be discounted entirely or adjusted for the rate of slow down of the clock. Assuming constancy or linearity in nature is an exercise in foolishness, because few things in nature behave in a linearly predictable manner. Exponential decay is a much more common event. If the rate of this clock witness indeed decayed exponentially, the way that almost all processes in nature do, the billions and millions of years collapsed into the thousands.

Analyzing the chemical composition of a rock as we find it today is a relatively straightforward laboratory exercise, where few or no assumptions need to be made. This is not the case in determining its age.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so biased against people of faith? Do you really think that having faith is synonymous with stupidity?

Not stupidity but ignorance and, most likely, early childhood indoctrination. Do you really think that if one's parents believed B instead of A that one would still believe A?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[SanityInAnarchy]

Nobody knows for sure why the universe is slightly unbalanced between matter and antimatter. Some Big Bang models predict an equal amount of matter and antimatter which should have long since annihilated each other.

The rest of that discussion... We are both speaking in generalities. Specific examples might help, but I don't really know enough about this to be sure.

Assuming constancy or linearity in nature is an exercise in foolishness, because few things in nature behave in a linearly predictable manner.

Newton's first law: An object in motion remains in motion, unless acted on by an outside force. That predicts a pretty constant, linear line until you have an outside force to affect it.

What's more, carbon dating is itself based on exponential decay.

Hmmm.

[Michael Nathan]

I wonder if my credits from the Unarius Academy of Science will transfer to Texas schools?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Chosen Reject]

I watched some of those "Why do people laugh at Creationists" videos. Whoever made them is on the right track, but I found so many problems with some of his arguments that it's hard to keep watching. For example, in part 5, while trying to refute Hovind's ice shield theory, he uses the diagram to estimate how big Hovind's ice shield around the earth is and continues with this size for the rest of the video. But previously in the video Hovind had said he didn't know how big it was but guessed at "10 or 20 or 30 inches thick." But the video uses the diagram to guess a thickness of 800km, a difference by a factor of close to 1 million at best, 3 million at worst.

Another example from part 1. He quotes somebody (Hovind I'm guessing) as saying "Scientists have been trying desperately to find water on other planets. However this search is futile..." and then the video maker cuts the quote off. I am left to assume why the quoted person thinks it is futile (which means "serves no useful purpose"). I can assume why he thinks it's futile, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he thinks it's futile because we already know it exists, or perhaps he thinks it is because finding it won't stop poverty and hunger on Earth. All the video maker had to do was continue the quote for us to know why, but instead leaves it for us to assume. Which means that maybe the video maker is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and set up a strawman.

Before you get all huffy puffy about it, I find creationist ideas to be a load of rabble. I'm only saying that the videos have loads of problems with them, not with the science, but with how he sets up and executes the debates.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[SanityInAnarchy]

For example, in part 5, while trying to refute Hovind's ice shield theory, he uses the diagram to estimate how big Hovind's ice shield around the earth is and continues with this size for the rest of the video. But previously in the video Hovind had said he didn't know how big it was but guessed at "10 or 20 or 30 inches thick."

The problem is that Hovind was not consistent. 10 or 20 or 30 inches would've cracked apart due to barometric pressure changes. The only other numbers we have to work with are the diagram, which shows much more water than there's really room for on the surface of the planet.

Follow the calculation, and the diagram is actually showing less ice than you would need for the shield to last as long as Hovind claims it did (2000 years). So, you cannot put enough ice there to survive that long, without also putting enough ice there to have the planet flooded under about a thousand kilometers of water.

Ok, that gives you the flood, but after the first kilometer of ice, the planet would be completely dark before that flood. It also doesn't explain where all that water went -- how did the flood end?

That doesn't cover all the points he made, but the points which were made are actually consistent, unless you can point to a thickness of ice that would actually make sense.

He quotes somebody (Hovind I'm guessing) as saying "Scientists have been trying desperately to find water on other planets. However this search is futile..." and then the video maker cuts the quote off.

Actually, that sounds more like VenomFangX, who is quoted (with video) later on as saying "This planet... just so happens to have 100% of the water in the solar system."

That seems to be pretty explicitly confirming the earlier statement. In fact, he continues: "Here's an interesting thing about water: Where did it all come from? We can't find a speck of H20 in outer space..."

In other words: Watch the entire video. Or, if it makes you happy, look up VenomFangX. This is not quote mining -- he really is quite frequently that moronic.

Maybe it makes me a hypocrite, but I actually couldn't make it through one video. About halfway through, he tries to make the point that we are claiming that the brain is conscious, but that can't be true, because a single atom isn't conscious, and you can't make something conscious out of something that's not.

Um... what? Replace the word "conscious" with anything else. How about: A single atom of paint isn't green, and you can't make something green out of something not green. Sure you can -- just mix blue and yellow paint. I'm sure you can find your own examples.

If you can find an actual example of someone being misquoted, or their position being misrepresented, go ahead. I haven't, so far.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Chosen Reject]

The problem is that Hovind was not consistent. 10 or 20 or 30 inches would've cracked apart due to barometric pressure changes. The only other numbers we have to work with are the diagram, which shows much more water than there's really room for on the surface of the planet.

If he wasn't consistent, fault him for that and move on. Mention that the ice would have cracked at those widths and move on. Using the diagram to guesstimate how much water he thinks would be there is disingenuous unless the diagram says "to scale" on it. After rewatching part 5, I realize I missed the part where the video goes from using the scale of the image (800 km) to using what would be needed (1,000 km), so my bad there. But then why did it even bring up the images scale? It only distracts, even for me who is in agreement with the narrarator that Hovind is an idiot.

If you can find an actual example of someone being misquoted, or their position being misrepresented, go ahead. I haven't, so far.

That's the thing. I don't think I will because I don't think the points are being misrepresented. With the water thing, this is what happens:

VenomFangX: The search for water is futile
Video: But there's water out there

Without knowing why the search is considered futile, the video stating that water exists is practically a non sequitur. Without telling us why VenomFangX thinks it is futile, we are left to assume the next part will tell us it is not futile, instead it only tells us that water exists. The video would have been much better served to just leave out that quote entirely and simply replace it with the not "a speck of H20 in outer space" quote.

Again, I had no problems with the substance of the videos. I'm not even talking about the production quality. It's just that I think the arguments could be much more thought out and organized as they are a little (not a lot, just a little) incohesive.

Re:That's Fine With Me

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that you can't prove a solipsist wrong, yes?

Re:That's Fine With Me

[alexborges]

"It is a framework for a civilization, look at Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions"

Are you trying to prove MY point?