Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Mandates the Teaching of Evolution As Scientific Fact
An anonymous reader writes "A story at the BBC explains how the UK government has put an extra clause into a funding bill to ensure that any new 'free schools' (independent schools run by groups of parents or organizations, but publicly-funded) must teach evolution rather than creationism or potentially lose their funding. 'The new rules state that from 2013, all free schools in England must teach evolution as a 'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory.' The move follows scientists's concerns that free schools run by creationists might avoid teaching evolution. Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said it was 'delighted.' Sir Paul told BBC News the previous rules on free schools and the teaching of evolution versus creationism had been 'not tight enough.'"
good
Speak for yourself.
Seriously, when you have to pass a law to ensure fairy tales aren't taught as facts in school, something is horribly wrong with society.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
The move follows scientists's concerns that free schools run by creationists might avoid teaching evolution.
Then they're not really "free", are they?
I agree. Life is too complex to have evolved by chance. Only a Giant and a Cow can explain it. (http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg)
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
I'm a creationist, and I have no problem with this. School systems' curriculum has to be governed by science first. I likely don't have a problem with this, because I don't claim to know how God created everything. From a faith-based point of view, I have some problems with Evolution, but I don't see how that should govern the curriculum in schools. I see Science as our way of understanding God's power, we may not understand everything yet, but if we don't endeavor to learn everything we can through Science, we will only block our own growth.
~theCzar
So, it seems these are not such "free" schools after all. They are not forced to follow the national curriculum, so the government makes an additional set of curriculum rules to tell them what to teach.
These "free" schools can still teach creationism in classes other than Science. If they do that, they are presenting children with two contradictory sets of "facts". What the schools should also do is to help the children to develop the tools of rational thought so that they can work out which set of "facts" is based on evidence and which is based on what some people would wish to be true. I can't really see that being allowed to happen.
Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
Should they be taught all the other creation myths around the world also?
There is one hell of a difference between creationism and evolution. Evolution is a proven scientific fact, observed and documented independently many times. Teaching about the bibles view in religious education (which British school has as far as I know)? Yes, it is part of the religious education.
But it is NOT part of science education, as little as turning water into wine by magic is in a brewers course.
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
I applaude the UK for this position. It is about time. One of the tenates of the Anglican Church is that you can use your rational mind to interpret the scriptures. You can see here that the Church of England's influence has had a rational effect on the Government that we don't see here in the Evangelical, bible belt, earth was created in 4006 BC. states (like Louisiana) that is just starting to require teaching creationism in schools.
I hope we catch the rational bug soon.
Go UK
Last time I checked, the educational process does not involve the presentation of scientific falsehoods as if they were truth, then expecting students to determine for themselves which is which. That would be fundamentally intellectually dishonest. "Teach the controversy/debate/both sides" is nothing more than a naked attempt at putting creationism on equal footing with science.
Oh you big kidder you.
My UID is prime!
"Both" naturally referring to evolution and life coming from really old leftovers.
There is no "both", when you allow for fiction like creationism, there are literally infinite possible fictions to teach.
Should they be taught all the other creation myths around the world also?
They'd sure as hell better teach whatever nonsensical theories I can make up on the spot! After all, if I don't understand something, any random nonsense I make up that I think explains it must be as good as a scientific theory!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Which form of creationism would you like them to teach?
Young-Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design
Creation science
Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation)
Omphalos hypothesis
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
that view makes God a liar, deceiver and prankster. Especially the bit where light from stars that never existed have light waves from their explosions hitting earth right now.
If they wish to have a class teaching creation myths around the world, go for it.
If they want to teach creationism as a scientifically valid theory, that's wrong. It is inherently religious and thus should not receive support from government. Let privately-funded schools teach it to their heart's content. But it isn't the business of government to fund religion.
And yes, official state religions in European countries are anachronisms that need to go, too.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
But it is NOT part of science education, as little as turning water into wine by magic is in a brewers course.
Of course not you idiot, that would be a vintner's course. It's an established scientific fact that Jesus never turned water into beer ;-)
To be fair, American breweries have been turning water and beer into watered down beer for decades.
Technically a scientific theory ALWAYS leaves the option of being proven insufficient or incorrect should some future data come along. But Evolution is a very strong theory with hundreds of thousands of scientific papers supporting it. And it predicted and is buttressed by the science of DNA which arrived nearly a century after the initial theory.
A maximum universal speed limit- the speed of light- is another such theory. It is almost a fact in that nearly experimental data and mathematical physics support. But there is a nagging suspicion it could be disproved one of these decades.
What will the Government decide must be taught in schools?
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
I had a teacher split the class into 2 sides, those who believe in God and those who believe in evolution. There was me and a very nervous oriental student on the evolution side. I didn't win the debate, but I put up a good fight.
You don't believe in evolution - you accept it, just as you accept the map of the Solar system and the periodic table. There's no place for believing.
Ezekiel 23:20
children can be taught about the various religions in "social studies" and "history" classes,
that view makes God a liar, deceiver and prankster..
Oh, so you have read the old testament.
What the fuck? You can't believe in God and also believe in evolution now? What was your teacher trying to prove?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
That is a great summary of the basic issue.
Science is the process by which we expand and refine our knowledge. It is not a system of belief. The debate has been framed in such a way that you have two sets of beliefs--science and religion--and they are in conflict, but on equal ground. Applied more broadly, this is an illustration of "my opinions are just as good as your facts." It comes from people who fundamentally misunderstand what science is and how it works.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
So, it seems these are not such "free" schools after all. They are not forced to follow the national curriculum, so the government makes an additional set of curriculum rules to tell them what to teach.
Pay more attention to the summary--they are "free" as in beer, not speech. They are government funded, and so should expect the government to impose reasonable criteria on the use of those taxpayer funds. Apparently the purpose was to allow broad discretion in the curricula, but now the government is deciding that teaching creationism as "science" is out of bounds for use of public funds.
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
Should they be taught all the other creation myths around the world also?
Yes, but instead of it being taught in science class, it should be done in a history/world culture class. So that way the context of what is being taught is correct. Creationism == Old tradition and cultural history. Evolution == science. I figure if you make this separation and teach it in the appropriate PLACE, the confusion would be set aside and we'd understand this old concept just like we understand ancient history.
You don't have to just accept it. Challenge it, test it, prove it invalid if you can. That is called science.
And the theory of evolution has been placed in that crucible and come out the other side intact, even if it is shaped a bit differently than it started.
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. A government that controls what you learn is perfectly capable of controlling how you think. If you don't believe me, explain North Korea.
You don't believe in evolution - you accept it, just as you accept the map of the Solar system and the periodic table. There's no place for believing.
There's no place for belief in any scientific endeavor, nor is it appropriate to simply tell kids to "accept this, it is fact." You either have evidence that supports an idea, or you don't. Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us. No teacher that tells kids "this is fact, accept it" is worth listening to.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
Legislation mandating the teaching of "1+1=2" is still under consideration.
I keep waiting for someone to just blurt out "Listen. Guys. Have you realized it's 20-fucking-12! How are we even still talking about this?"
If the universe could have been created 6000 years ago, it might as well have been created last Thursday. In the beginning, there was nothing. Then everything existed, and the first words ever spoken by a human were "... and a Big Mac".
There's no way of telling this isn't what happened, so it must be true!
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
That's frankly, the stupidest solution possible.
If this reasoning were applied:
1. Physics classes would teach "the 4 elements", and all the other crap the Greeks believe just because Aristotle said it.
2. Chemistry would teach the "grand arcana" and how you can live longer by drinking mercury.
3. Astronomy would teach the "crystal spheres" theory, the "circular orbits with epicycles" theory, and the "the gods just move things around at their discretion" theory.
4. Any student could derail any class at will by making some shit up and demanding that the class dedicate time to teaching it and letting everyone make up their mind.
The truth is that Creationism is not a valid theory (it's a story from a book that was probably fiction when it was written*), and if you want it to be taken seriously as a competitor to evolution by natural selection the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it 1) explains observed behavior at least as well as evolution and 2) makes falsifiable predictions which conflict with evolution that are verified by experimentation.
*No historical evidence exists to corroborate the events aside from the text who's authenticity is in question, and many of the events are believed to by physically impossible. Occam's Razor indicates it's more likely those events never actually happened, than that there is an as yet not understood mechanism that allows them to be true.
Scientific fact? What's that? I thought the highest honor for an idea in science is to be called a theory.
I have no problem with teaching the theory of evolution, or any other strong scientific theories. But I do have a problem with the abuse of science by declaring "scientific fact". There are no "scientific facts" only very strong theories that have stood up against falsification many times. The phrase itself is a lie. By declaring it a "fact" you're saying there are no problems or conflict with the theory and that no evolution can occur within the theory itself. And for something that is as little understood as evolution this is disservice to people that should simply be taught the scientific method and presented with the most recent theories put for by science in the specific field they are studying at the time. For example, evolution shouldn't be taught in a general education class or a class on government. When you're studying biology or life science evolution should be one of the core principals put forth. But to teach anything as 'scientific fact" is bastardization of science. I can imagine in the 18th century the same idea of teaching "scientific fact" being put forth by the proponents of Phlogiston theory. Science is fluid, and we learn new things all the time that make old paradigms obsolete.
Thank God!
Agree, then kids could see just how ridicules religious myths are.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
You don't have to just accept it. Challenge it, test it, prove it invalid if you can. That is called science.
Not on the high school level, though. On the high school level, things are taught that are already very well established.
Ezekiel 23:20
BTW, as to the Communist states under Stalin and Mao - they also explicitly rejected neo-Darwinian evolution and embraced (and enforced) Lysenkoism instead. The resulting crop failures when reality failed to match up to "worker's science" killed a huge fraction - possibly the majority - of the millions who died under those regimes.
Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been better off if their leaders had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Scientifically speaking it makes absolutely no difference if the universe has existed for 14 billion years or if it was created three seconds ago as if it had existed for 14 billion years. The latter possibility is literally impossible to argue scientifically. It is untestable and unprovable. If you want to argue it, do it in religion or philosophy. Science is not the place to present that idea.
I have mixed feelings about this. While I believe that the supporting evidence for evolution is enough to make it "factual", I can't advocate something like this being deemed a fact just because the government says so. Its up to the scientific community to decide what is science fact.
My Lord! If they've done this, what could be next? National socialized health care?
Three Squirrels
1. We Britons have decided we want to purchase education through collective taxation as a society. If we're going to buy education, it makes sense for our legislature to have some say over the content of what we buy, just as other purchasers would. Blah blah slippery slope doesn't really cut it, ya know. Not when you don't acknowledge that there are downsides to the *non*involvement of government in education, including lack of access, no standards guarantor, costs going through the roof, the private biases of proprietors affecting the content of what is taught, etc etc.
2. Science teachers don't merely teach pupils to accept evolution as fact. They explain how it's been tested and why it stands. That said, you wouldn't be able to do very much science teaching (or science) if you have to explain the tests applied to absolutely every aspect of science.
You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means.
Belief: "An acceptance that a statement is true ..."
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No. There is no scientific rational for biblical creation. It should not be taught outside a comparative religion class that also mentions elephants standing on turtles, the aboriginal dream time, and the incestuous bestiality that is the ancient greek/roman religion.
A great example of the problem.
You lost a debate that was unloseable.
How could they have won? They have 0 evidence.
Okay, but what is the scientific evidence that life was created by an intelligent being? "It looks too complex to me" is not very scientific.
And, pointing out gaps and ambiguous areas in the fossil record is one thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean Creationism is the only alternative. That's almost like saying, "Since we don't know why Saturn has rings, we'll theorize a magic man did it." A mystery is a mystery, not an Insert-Magic-For-Free card.
The default of a mystery (knowledge gap) is not a supernatural explanation. This is the most common conceptual mistake made by Creationists. You cannot just bash evolution to make your case; you need to present evidence for an intelligence involved and describe how to test and measure such.
I'm open to the idea of presenting both sides, but first you need a real side to join. Let's see it....
Table-ized A.I.
Of course a few god loving and brave physics teachers will state the obvious and state the infinite is reserved only for the devine, that math and science has never accepted infinity as result. Therefore, black holes indicate the foolishness of General Relativity and alternative theories must be put forth. So-called black holes are clearly part of the divine plan to cause the ultimate rapture as prophesied in the bible. This result from Relativity, like radio carbon dating, clearly indicates the ultimate inability of science to characterize the godly world, and therefore ultimate irrelevance to godly life.
Any physics teachers out there, and any parents who want their kids to have hope for their souls, must teach the controversy. This is the only way to ensure that salvation and proper science wins.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Both?
There are probably thousands of creation myths and I can make up thousands more in a couple weeks. All are as equally invalid.
If you want to have a class on creation myths go for it, but none of them belong in a science classroom.
Seriously? Never mind that school is an empirically-based system of analysis and study, evolution isn't a belief system but based on empirical evidence and Christianity is only based on faith, is not based on ANY empirical analysis; nearly 1/5th of the population of the earth is comprised of fervent Hindus. If the criteria for a program of study in schools are the number of adherents it has, then Hinduism surely should be taught as a scholarly "choice" as well.
Actually, we already have schools that teach ob subjects of faith, philosophy, and belief, they're called CHURCHES, and evolution should be left there.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Don't drag epistemology into it :) How people know things, wether it's by faith or evidence, isn't relevant to the debate -- most kids in 4th grade are going to take most of what they hear in science class on authority, which isn't much better than faith.
The debate over teaching evolution is where that authority comes from -- will it come from objective knowledge, or from churchmen? And is teaching the Origins of Man going to be about the search for truth and knowledge, or is it going to be a lesson about morality? That's the dispute.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
What if I did it all in a time travel accident?
Your claim is untestable therefore does not belong in a science class room.
Why is it the Christian God and Devil are so hard to tell apart when judged by the actions their believers ascribe to them?
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
I agree. We should teach the controversy: gravity is real vs. magical fairy dust will let you float. Then we let the little fuckers figure out which is true and which isn't. Should be able to prove or disprove evolution lickety split.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
You belong on the side of "comfortably lying to yourself to not seem like a complete idiot but just barely missing it"
Yeah, I went to Catholic school and they taught evolution (or at least never made a big deal and told us it was a lie, I was only in Catholic school through grade 8, hard to remember the exact course material). I'm also pretty sure we read some old greek mythology books and learned about their creation myths. Also, since we had quite a few kids bussed in from the local Native reservation, we spent some time learning about their Native creation myths. It's gives you quite a bit of perspective It was fun in highschool English class though. Those of us from Catholic school were much more able to understand the deeper meanings of a lot of the books, because we had a basic knowledge of what was in the bible. Which was major influence on a lot of what was written in the English Language, both older works and even quite a few newer ones.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Gah,
I can't stand it when evolution and religion are even mentioned in the same paragraph. They don't belong together in anyway and any question that compares them is the wrong question. Evolution is, like all scientific theories, the theory that best fits the facts we have. We then use the theory to make predictions and explanations. With a theory as proven as evolution those predictions usually turn out to be correct, but if they didn't we would add the new facts into the consideration and attempt to build a revised theory that accounted for them.
There is no belief anywhere in that process. It doesn't matter if you believe that evolution represents some kind of absolute truth or not. The only valid question is whether there is a better explanation for the facts that we have, and so far there most certainly isn't. If we start ignoring the facts because we believe we know something more that the facts on the ground indicate we stop being able to progress in our understanding of how the world works; we stop being able to do science.
Is this a conflict with a religious belief? I suppose that depends on whether your religious belief requires that you stop trying to understand the world around you. A well thought out religion would make no such requirement, but would instead stick to moral behavior and ways to live life to enhance personal happiness. Believing that helping out a recently laid-off neighbor will enhance your personal happiness in no way contradicts being able to function as a working scientist.
Any question that involves whether you 'believe' in a scientific theory is the wrong question. You don't believe in them, you simply evaluate their accuracy and use them to answer questions going forward.
> Which form of creationism would you like them to teach? [. . . list of forms omitted . . . ]
Your list did not include my patent-pending form of creationism, which is the only correct view. But teaching it requires payment of patent royalties.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Evolution is part of the national curriculum and there really hasn't been any issue with it not being taught. I was taught about Intelligent design in science but only from a historical PoV and as evidence of how scientific theories change based on evidence (was also taught about elemental theory).
Thanks to Dawkins drumming up hysteria in tabloids about how evil faith schools are (despite between 1/3rd and 1/2 of people in the UK having attended a CofE school) we've these waste of time legislation being put in place. Sure it wasn't enshrined in law it had to be taught but given that it would cause pretty much everyone to fail their GCSEs if it wasn't taught (and probably affect SAT scores too), kids are pretty unlikely not to be taught it.
As a strong believer in my particular brand in young-earth creationism, I don't disagree with the facts and science supporting evolution. I disagree with the popular interpretation of those facts (evolution).
Unfortunately, most proponents of both evolution and creation try to force their theories on other people. Mandating a particular interpretation of facts is anti-science and is not a step forward. I am sorry that any leader in British government would proudly force their intolerance onto other people.
Expecially in Kansas.
Dem gubmit foaks sore is ignert.
Dem scientists are teachin' our yung' uns things like Biology and Sex Edumacation, puttin' idears into their heads. Teachin' inconvenient truths like Global Warming which is unprofitable for big business. Teachin' Evolution and the Big Bang theory which Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said is a lie from the pit of hail.
We need to get the UK to stop teaching this science stuff.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Science is not about "knowing", it's a systematic way of presenting multiple candidate explanations (models) of reality, and testing each against observation to see what best fits.
If you have a better way to "get at" truth, I'm all ears.
Prayer has not proven consistent enough because different individuals get different answers, and there's no way to figure out if or who has the "proper cable" to God and who's hooked up to sky trolls or to their own poop pipes.
Table-ized A.I.
most kids in 4th grade are going to take most of what they hear in science class on authority, which isn't much better than faith
There should be a general scientific theory class in high schools. I don't know about elementary schools - you need a reasonably capable brain to process that kind of stuff. However, you generally apply authority to fourth-grades on other issues as well, don't you?
Ezekiel 23:20
I would argue the biggest problem is the perception that 'faith' is a good thing - faith, by definition, is believing in something without a good reason to do so. That is literally insane and is the worst thing we could teach our children, however, if you look at children's films (and often adult's films), they are packed with it. The idea that 'faith' is a good thing has become engrained in culture. I'm sure this is part of the reason why people get scammed so often too.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
...mandating that students should be able to add fractions? My college students can't even manage that. Can 'we as a culture' devote a little less time to the creationism/evolution circus, and at least make sure that basic scientific proficiency is getting through?
Only the major ones. Sam Adams, Firestone, Sockeye, Uinta, and Pike's all make excellent beers.
I got here through a series of tubes
So according to scientists, it's better to pray to the God of extrapolation and sweeping assumptions instead. Last I checked, if a belief cannot be tested, replicated, or falsified, then by definition it is not science. Where are the experiments to recreate the universe, the process of evolution?
You can't patent an idea, otherwise software would be patentable!
Oh, wait.
During these two years [October 1836 to January 1839], I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.
By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is suppoted, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.
But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; -- I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine.
(source)
He did count himself a theist as he believed in the necessity of a First Cause:
Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.
But it seems his preferred term was Agnostic, with a capital A:
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.
My primary 7 (~10yrs old) teacher went one further - she would ask us to say which side of a debate we were on to start with, and regularly had us argue for the opposite side. Brilliant exercise in thinking properly and one I still practice today, it's lead to at least one bar fight. Totally worth it.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
How could they have won? They have 0 evidence.
The won on the firmness of their convictions.
When you're debating, it doesn't matter how right or wrong you are, only your ability to project confidence in your beliefs.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
It isn't precisely the same thing but it is a variant of an accusation sometimes leveled against people professing faith: that because they believe in something without a rational explanation, they cannot be relied upon to think rationally about anything. On more than one occasion, I have had somebody tell me that because I profess a belief in God that I shouldn't be trusted to work as an engineer.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Chapter 2 begins:
I am sure creation apologists would explain away the two accounts as not inconsistent, but if the writer meant to convey an account of actual events, wouldn't (s)he have been more careful not to confuse the reader with two separate accounts? I guess my point is that as a lifelong Christian, I am embarrassed by the creationists who cannot let God play as he likes. I am also baffled by the faith-based evolutionists who cannot explain how the very first living cell came into being (the faith part being this very problem).
If you believe science leads to facts or to truth - the real truth if you will - then you are making assumptions for which you have no proof. First, you assume that there is no intelligent guiding hand who happens to choose to make things behave in a mathematically coherent way most of the time (but who may change things a bit when a point needs to be made). You're assuming that your brain is functioning properly and that you're sense of logic is correct - that If a implies b and b implies c, that a does imply c. Perhaps it does, or perhaps you believe it so fervently that anytime something contradicts it you refuse to see it and come up with some other excuse. Perhaps the logic of the universe is incredibly simple and the only reason we keep having to invent new smaller particles and weird forms of matter is that our brains have a fundamental flaw that doesn't let us see the logic. Of course, none of these other ideas can be proven, but neither can your idea that science reveals the real truth.
Instead we find that science seems to work for us so we use it, and it has been very reliable. That's good enough to make it part of our curriculum. That's good enough for us to trust our lives to it when we get surgery or fly through the sky at Mach 1. But we go too far if we declare that science is therefor the only truth. Looking at it logically, we just can't be sure. So people who try to push science are fine, but people who try to push science to the exclusion of everything else are indeed promoting a religious belief.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
When theology conflicts with science one or both are flawed. Evolution is not flawed. This means the theology must be flawed. God is still real, I can assure you of this, even if some people get theology wrong here or there. I have an interesting theology here called the long day theory.
God spoke to me
If evolution is an absolute fact and can never be proved wrong (as some here seem to be implying), then it is no longer a theory grounded in evidence, but a statement of belief. Evolution is far from perfect as a theory. For example, it fails to explain the origins of life ("survival of the fittest" presupposes existence of both the fit and the non-fit.) Its mechanism of random mutation followed by environmental selection does a poor job explaining the development of systems, and poses really difficult chicken-and-egg problems around the order in which system components were evolved. And, there are difficulties with the almost vanishingly-small probability that life exists at all, again, a problem that classic evolution does little to help us understand.
Personally, I think it's way to early to call it quits on trying to understand the mechanics of life. Evolution seems more like a really good insight rather than a fully-formed "law" of science. I think there must be some natural form of self-organization at work, something not explained by random mutation and selection, but much more directed. What it could possibly be, I have no idea. But I'm pretty sure classic evolution is not there, yet.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Where do the dinosaurs fall into creationism? I never read about a T-Rex on Noah's Ark
That sounds fit for a philosophy class then, not science.
As a Creationist, how do you account for the 52,800 years of leaf layers found in this Japanese lake? Time-capsule’ Japanese lake sediment advances radiocarbon dating for older objects
Yes, and dinosaurs coexisted with man c. 5000 B.C. Stone tablets were found recently found near the La Brea tar pits, in Los Angeles, California. Exposure to the elements all but eradicated the writing carved into the 8" x 12" x 2" rectangular blocks of limestone. As carbon dating is a work of Satan, no verifiable age for the tablets could be established (though logically they sure as hell aren't older then 5000 B.C.).
Of the five tablets discovered, the writing of only one could be partially deciphered. The characters are thought to be derived from an early Aramaic script, though Bible scholars have not arrived at a consensus. The writing is reproduced* below:
YAB-A DAB-A DOO!!!
No word yet on the actual meaning of the characters.
*the "-" represents a missing or unintelligible character
I'd like an order of Day-Age with a side of Omphalos.
Mmm... Greek food.
Omphalism?
That's the theory that Oompha Loomphas created the earth out of discarded cocoa bean husks sometime last Thursday night, and we all woke up for the first time Friday morning with all our memories primed to think that we'd been here for years and years, right?
Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us.
You can say that again. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence for evolution, not to mention basic common sense about how the world works. It's definitely a mystery why so many people simply refuse to look at the evidence and accept the conclusions. It really shouldn't require all of this preaching, but for some reason it does. I wonder if society was this fragmented 150 years after the heliocentric model of the solar system was demonstrated.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If you believe science leads to facts or to truth - the real truth if you will - then you are making assumptions for which you have no proof.
That is not the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to improve our understanding of the universe and how it works. The ultimate truth about how everything works is likely to be unknowable, always limited by the tools available to us and our ability to mentally grasp and understand them. However, it does produce a clearer and clearer picture over time. Sometimes it is wrong, and we later learn better. It is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for exploring and understanding our universe.
First, you assume that there is no intelligent guiding hand who happens to choose to make things behave in a mathematically coherent way most of the time (but who may change things a bit when a point needs to be made).
Science does not assume this, it simply fails to a) find evidence of such an "intelligent guiding hand" and b) has encountered no situations which require an "intelligent guiding hand" to explain them.
You're assuming that your brain is functioning properly and that you're sense of logic is correct - that If a implies b and b implies c, that a does imply c.
Which is why science is not advanced by the conclusions of any one scientist, but of many who work independently and review each other's work. It is a group effort, never relying solely on the research or conclusions of any one individual, who may have taken a flawed approach.
Perhaps it does, or perhaps you believe it so fervently that anytime something contradicts it you refuse to see it and come up with some other excuse. Perhaps the logic of the universe is incredibly simple and the only reason we keep having to invent new smaller particles and weird forms of matter is that our brains have a fundamental flaw that doesn't let us see the logic. Of course, none of these other ideas can be proven, but neither can your idea that science reveals the real truth.
There is no evidence that this is the case. You are essentially implying that your "intelligent guiding hand" deliberately plays tricks on all of us. If it does, it does so in a completely consistent manner, which means the science is still valid. But such an agent is not required in our explanation.
Instead we find that science seems to work for us so we use it, and it has been very reliable. That's good enough to make it part of our curriculum. That's good enough for us to trust our lives to it when we get surgery or fly through the sky at Mach 1. But we go too far if we declare that science is therefor the only truth. Looking at it logically, we just can't be sure. So people who try to push science are fine, but people who try to push science to the exclusion of everything else are indeed promoting a religious belief.
"Knowledge" and "truth" are not the same thing, nor did I equate them. That was all you.
As I like to say, science tells us the "how," but does not care about the "why." The "why" is left for philosophy and religion. Where the latter overstep their bounds is in saying science is wrong because it contradicts them.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
did you read the footnote #2 at the end of the words "damnable doctrine"
2. Mrs Darwin annotated this passage (from "and have never since doubted"... to "damnable doctrine") in her own handwriting. She writes: -- "I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published. It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief -- but very few now wd. call that 'Christianity,' (tho' the words are there.) There is the question of verbal inspiration comes in too. E.D." Oct 1882. This was written six months after her husband's death, in a second copy of the Autobiography in Francis's handwriting. The passage was not published. -- N.B.
God clearly created the Universe exactly how it is last Thursday at 2:15pm. Obviously you failed his test. (Oh and don't listen to those who say it was last Thursday at 3:27am. Those heathens!)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I like the way this was starting...
"I had a teacher split the class into 2 sides, those who believe in God and those who believe in evolution" ...but when it didn't follow with something like..
"then the teacher bitch slapped those who believed in God and gave the rest ice cream" ...I was a bit disappointed. :(
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
just shows the failure of logic at the onset...sad
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
What is well established is the scientific discovery process, and the difference it makes between a scientific theory and beliefs. The theory of evolution is a great illustration of that difference, and making sure that it is taught is especially timely.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
We were taught the 4 elements, along with several different atomic theories, and a couple non-atomic theories (that is, that materials are continuous instead of being made of smaller parts like atoms). We were also taught several theories of celestial mechanics including epicycles and angels. Some class time was specifically dedicated to debating random philosophical ideas students came up with; in fact extra time was scheduled outside of class for several professors and any students who wanted to show up. I was also taught about 6 versions of creationism (from Idimmu Xul's sibling comment), and a few strains of evolution like punctuated equilibrium. I also was taught a lot of philosophy from Aristotle to Camus, a lot of theology (mostly Christian of some form, but a lot of it was inconsistent) etc.
In addition I learned modern physical theories like quantum mechanics (chemistry, cryptology, and physics), general relativity (with worked examples of real systems like GPS), and post-Mendelian genetics (incomplete dominance, linkage, maternal inheritance).
Because of this, I knew my way around the "space" of various fallacies, and I am familiar with what evidence supports which theories. With years of defending my ideas in various fora, what I have concluded is true is a young-earth "literal 6-day" creation, and a personally involved, omnipotent, creator-savior God. My point here isn't to start a debate. I'm just pointing out that you can't predict people that well.
In the Top 5 sins, I would *definitely* put proselytizing near the top. This issue proves not much has changed on either continent since the Pilgrims got kicked out of Jolly Old (for being too uptight, no less!)
why just focus on Christianity? That's offensive.
I think we can increase this list size by at least an order of magnitude by including creation stories from other religions/cultures/societies.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
I'd go further than that. Show them both "theories" (better yet, also include FSM and Hindu "theories") and focus on teaching critical thinking and logic. Let the students examine the evidence, debate, and come to their own conclusion. This way, they will be better equipped to deal with life, and will think more critically in all aspects of daily life, ranging from politics to economics to lifestyle (e.g., do I eat that entire bag of doritos, or a salad with a couple of doritos on the side).
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Perhaps the more relevant question to you is why did God create weed.
Because God loves humans and wants them to be happy?
I am officially gone from
Not if you use it as a tool for teaching logic, critical thinking, and analytics. This would be a very good exercise for that. Present the "evidence" of various theories and let students analyze and debate it and come to their own conclusions. How can anyone argue against teaching logic and critical thinking, unless their purpose of trying to change curriculum is to engage in social engineering to support their own political agenda?
In any event, evolution vs. creationism doesn't really belong in primary school since it isn't practical knowledge to prepare one for the real world (I can't remember the last time knowing that humans are great apes came in useful except for making wisecracks). Physics, math and basic chemistry do, and there is not nearly enough focus on those subjects.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Like I said, it's the "best model" that gets to be at the top of the hill. If neither side can fully reproduce the process due to time etc., you still go with the best model based on observation.
And the "tree-ness" of complex life strongly favors evolution. A creator doesn't have to stick to tree-based trait sharing but can mix and match as needed. He can put an octopus butt on a bear, for example. We don't see such broad cross-mixing. (Convergent evolution happens, but usually there is a plausible tree path to such cases.)
Further, relatively small amounts of evolution have been directly observed; and "macro" evolution has been simulated in computers (using a simplified universe). Thus, it's been proven that the process of fitness selection CAN lead to complex behavior and design, at least in some circumstances. Evolution has proven it CAN create "complexity".
If you lay all the evidence on the table, natural selection wins hands-down, even with gaps. Lebron James with a broken arm can still completely beat a whole Warren Buffett on the B.B. court.
Table-ized A.I.
No, all of those are testable.
To be a theory they merely have to be testable in some way, not in an easy way or a way we can do that now.
Your yoda like english is pretty bad.
Why not last thursday? ;)
I would say that creationism/religion is PART of humakinds evolution, no? One could very well make a case for teaching that creationism is part of humans evolving much like "mythologies" of other time periods...but that would cause a stir as well, since then people would say that today's religions are being taught to be "myths" when they are "the truth"....what's that saying about the empty can rattling the loudest? Lol...
So a more honest science curriculum might acknowledge the huge gaps and leaps of faith, amounting to flicking a cigarette lighter to "prove" the big bang theory (Oh wait, did I just describe CERN?). But instead, the theories are taught as "facts", and it is against the law for students to question them.
Have we advanced much since the inquisition? Galileo was placed under house arrest for scientific misconduct, when he had no evidence to back his theories. How backward will our theories today seem to future generations, when 20th-century theories of evolution will seem as fantastical as Egyptian mythology, big bang theory as anachronistic as phlogistont theory?
No. The word you are looking for is "epistemology."
A method for determining truth is not itself a truth. Facts, or beliefs, are the result of this process.
Further, science is an empirical epistemology, as opposed to (e.g.) a rational one. So your appeal to logical principles is actually unfounded.
The above statements should not be construed to imply that rational epistemologies are "wrong." More to point out that the truths produced by each process are not equal. You may have a rational truth that "the sky is blue," and a thought experiment which proves this. You may also have an empirical truth that "the sky is blue", and empirical measurements that suggest that the light emitted is such-and-such a wavelength on average.
Both systems have problems. Rational systems can prove anything, depending on the axioms chosen. This can include things that are not empirically true: the sky is green, the Earth is flat, etc. Empirical systems cannot deliver exact results; nothing is ever entirely "true." Both systems cannot fully describe the universe -- in point of fact, nothing can, since that book would have to contain all information about every part of the universe.
The relative value of each system is mostly not measurable. Most systems make both rational and empirical claims. However, taking empiricism to extremes means not believing in anything but data. The opposite course involves believing anything that you can construct a rational explanation for. Philosophically, these things are equal. I don't presume to inform the reader which may be preferred.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
No, I don't think people should just accept facts as true, but rather analyze everything with a critical eye and base personal belief on the preponderance of evidence. It is the clerics that want you to accept ideas without question.
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
Well said, my muslim brother!
It never ceases to amaze me how many biology teachers in the UK don't even know the Qur'an well enough to even do that.
It's not like we're asking science teachers to believe, just to teach it. Sheesh! We're not asking for much.
Religion is often just a beautiful idea that is pleasant to think about. Maybe it's pleasant because it brings certainty or because it gives someone a goal or purpose. This is great and a conversation about spirituality could definetly be brought up in school but not as a truth. The purpose of school is to learn from history and those before us. Our own experiences build on eachother just as society builds on previous societies. Why is "religion" exempt? Religion doesn't need to deny what people see with their eyes and feel with touch. That moves beyond religion or faith and into lunacy.
I hear over and over that “Evolution is a fact”, but to quote the great philosopher Inigo Montoya, You keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means! Evolution is a framework for understanding what we see in the world. The *facts* are the data we observe, which are then interpreted in that framework. Creationists use a different framework to interpret those facts. As a molecular biologist, I use Evolution a lot. It is very useful in writing grants; committees like to see an Evolutionary spin. It's also critical for being published, for the same reason. In each case, its use is entirely ad-hoc. The actual hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions are based on repeatable and observable phenomena. This is standard operating procedure; however, one does not discuss such things. One's career is on the line. Which brings me to the religion vs science shenanigans: if you call Evolution “science”, then attack me when I call into question certain assumptions or conclusions drawn, you demonstrate that it is much more than science, but in fact has become a religion unto itself. You have become one of the Faithful, defending the True Faith from blasphemers and heretics. Anyone seriously interested in whether the “other side” has any real arguments to make should take a look at http://www.creation.com./
This is what I was getting at. Thank you.
I am not sure why no one seems to draw this parallel:
Kids are required by law to attend school. Why is that? What is the purpose behind that?
Off the top of my head, I would say A) Because it is in the states best interest to have educated productive people who can contribute to society as a whole, and B) Because to not do so would put that child at such a dissadvantage in life as to cause real harm.
I would argue that teaching "creationism" and rejecting evolution would violate both A & B which I would imagine is the whole purpose behind the law. To do otherwise you are circumventing the law, by basically using fake school. As such this should be enforcable anyway. What this is saying is simply making it clear that if you do not teach evolution, you are not considered a "school" under the law, and any kids attending would be seen as breaking the law. Which of course their parents would be responsible for.
Let's not allow the facts get in the way of a good Slashdot headline shall we!?
The new law does not mandate the teaching of Evolution as scientific fact, nor does it ban the teaching of Creationism (as some might suppose). What it does do is mandate that Evolution must be taught in order for a school to be eligible for government funding. How Evolution is taught in practice is still open to quite a bit of interpretation, and you can be sure that a school who does not agree with Evolution will style it in such a way that it will be presented as anything but fact.
An outstanding refutation. Simple. Clear. Concise.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
You greatly exaggerate the "gaps", but I actually agree that making a hard boundary between "theory" and "facts" is misleading. It's better to consider it a continuous scale from "weak" models up to "very strong" models.
Creationism is a "very very weak" theory, and evolution is a very strong one.
Table-ized A.I.
"No, actually your opinion is NOT just as valid as scientific fact."
Ooooh oooooh, try this one just to see how many pictures you get taken and oddballs walking up to you telling you how awesome you are:
"Your scientific fact is only an opinion, according to my MONEY"
Okay, I shortened it down to this, tell me if I'm correct or misreading what you said:
"Debate with a lot of data but no defined factual outcome should be part of our curriculum."
Cuz if my reading is correct, it already is.
I dont know how old 4th grade is in your country. I am in the UK, and I don't imagine very many secondary school kids believing anything "on authority". We did experiments in class, visited the plant breeding institute, asked farmers questions, watched evil things being done to fruit flies, etc.
And I went to a Christian (church) school.
The UK is not as committed to Moronism as the US.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Ah, one more thing we introduced to Europe: personal hygiene ... it's a work in progress, I suppose
Naturally crooked teeth are not unhealthy.
It's only unhealthy when your wife's lower bicuspid is lacerating my penis. Hey-oooo!
Obviously Americans are full of their own ideas of what is normal and correct, and we all get to hear about it :)
Yep. Suck it losers. Go have some tea, spell color wrong, add e's to the end of words that don't need it and think you have not been conquered by McDonald's and Coca-Cola. My advice? Buy bigger pants, you're gonna need 'em after you get done shoving our culture down your throat and washing it down with liquid America.
You guys are so *cute* when you get all proud and stuff!
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
That American Fundaamentalist Christians will have problems with reality?
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Could it be that the theories of cosmology and evolution, as taught in high school textbooks today, are in fact not so strong? There is no particular evidence that the sun had to form before the Earth did; recent findings suggest that the milky way is full of billions of orphan planets, and Earth may well have been floating around before the Sun came about. The orphan planets may account for a good portion of the "90% of matter in the universe that is dark". Maybe a minority of orphan planets eventually accumulate enough matter to turn into a star? The theory that stars form first, then planets emerge from the dust disks, are merely based on what we are able to observe with optical telescopes (so many blobs).
Nor is there evidence that evolution inevitably favors the formation of more complex life forms over time; there are plenty of cases of animals shrinking into smaller, simpler forms over time; any number of viruses and protists could have arisen from more complex organisms. Gene transfers between different species, once thought rare or impossible, are now known to be common. The assumption that similarity of DNA reflects evolutionary kinship is a strong faith; they could have converged to the same sequence over time. Both Big-Bangism and evolutionism rely on isotope dating, assuming that radioactive decay rates are exactly the same over billions of years, and the short experiments we have done and our limited knowledge of nuclear chemistry is sufficient to accurately date objects billions of years old.
If we are willing to make giant extrapolations into the past, then could we also make giant extrapolations into the future, where sufficiently advanced life forms are able to turn into God? Then God can do whatever he wants, recreating the stories of the bible and what not.
But apparently, it is intolerable for scientists to admit they don't know.
You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means.
Belief: "An acceptance that a statement is true ..."
In that case, all your knowledge becomes a belief and the information value of the "belief" label completely disappears.
Ezekiel 23:20
I agree that we should dismiss superstitions, fairy stories, and baseless, discredited theories*. There is so much more to life, however, than what can be proved, analysed, reduced to naturalistic explanations. To go through life holding so tightly to a position that something is only worthy of consideration unless and until it can be quantified, measured, observed is, like going to a concert to hear the sound but completely miss the music.
"Laws give us only a universe of "Ifs and Ands": not this universe which actually exists. What we know through laws and general principles is a series of connections. But, in order for there to be a real universe, the connections must be given something to connect; a torrent of opaque actualities must be fed into the pattern. If God created the world then He is precisely the source of this torrent, and it alone gives our truest principles anything to be true about." - C.S. Lewis
(*Creationism is not a theory in that sense. Intelligent Design could be more accurately described as such.)
Neither is a proven fact and both rely on faith, so both should be taught or both left out.
Personally i happen to think creationism is stupid and illogical, but i want my children taught both options so they can make up their own minds and not be programmed to think either direction.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What?
Not "in that case". That is the definition accepted by every English dictionary on Earth.
It is irrefutable and has no effect on anything since it has always been like this.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Okay, I shortened it down to this, tell me if I'm correct or misreading what you said:
"Debate with a lot of data but no defined factual outcome should be part of our curriculum."
Cuz if my reading is correct, it already is.
That's pretty much what I'm saying at least for subjects that are likely to cause controversy. It is the curricula in many places. However there are other places that fall on either side - refusing to teach the data and the common interpretations, or insisting that the kids profess their faith in one particular interpretation. That latter seems to be what a lot of people on slashdot want but I think the latter is as bad or worse than the former.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I'm a bit confused about the definition of "creationist" and "evolutionist" (these are American definitions that aren't used in the country I grew up in). Is a creationist merely someone who believes in God, or only someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (ie that the Earth is 6 literal days old)? I've done some googling and I can't seem to grasp the difference between what Americans call an "old-earth creationist" and someone who is simply an evolutionist but believes in God. Or does being an evolutionist mandate believing that no higher power exists and/or no higher power interfered in any way during the forming of the world/humanity?
You don't have to just accept it. Challenge it, test it, prove it invalid if you can. That is called science.
And the theory of evolution has been placed in that crucible and come out the other side intact, even if it is shaped a bit differently than it started.
There are two ways to obtain knowledge. One way is through discovery. That is called science and can be challenged by observation and experiment. However, a much more common way that most people obtain knowledge, is by revelation. If I tell you that I like the color blue, there is no way you can challenge that on scientific grounds. You either have to believe that I tell you the truth or disbelieve. Most of our knowledge and information comes from other people, starting with our parents. In the end, it is not nearly as important what you believe than whom you believe. This is especially important when studying history. You have to believe the people who wrote down what they heard and saw, the same way as a judge or jury has to believe or disbelieve testimony of eyewitnesses. There are very few things in life that can be “proven” to anyone who really does not want to believe. There are people today who say that the Holocaust never happened and no human being ever set foot on the moon. This is despite all the eye-witnesses, which includes films and recordings of these events.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Excellent description. Thank you!
It is indeed a matter of human rights. But should the rights of the parent exceed that of the child? I would say the opposite. From items I have read it seems that in many states children are regarded as property. It is indeed the parents job to raise and educate their children - but not to pass on their prejudices to another generation.
There are isotopic profiles of matter that the planets and asteroids manifest. Asteroids from outside the solar system have different profiles. The profiles and crater wear patterns so far fit the solar disk theory fairly well. If you can find a theory that better fits the clues, write it up.
You are correct. Evolution does not necessarily lead to more complexity. Some branches grow more complex, some simpler. My original point was that simulations showed that it CAN lead to complexity in some cases.
True, viruses can transfer genes across hosts. However, even those fit certain patterns consistent with evolution, and in some cases can be traced back to certain kinds of viruses. But there is a limit to how much can be transferred and integrated by viruses, and the observed crossing is consistent with this. Being generically altered by viruses is in fact PART OF evolution. It's yet another way to introduce changes into an org's genetic makeup.
Converged? The differences tend to fit the tree-shape of the fossil relationships. If you find a significant non-tree pattern, do publish it.
There are multiple ways to date things (such as geographic layers), and although none are perfect, they generally re-enforce each other. The existing models have many different clues that generally confirm them. They "triangulate" in roughly the same direction. No Creationist model is comparable in terms of fitting multiple clues well, unless God micromanages apparent inconsistencies by throwing magic at them. But this does not fit the way human engineers do things.
You need something to compare against to see if a model fits. There's no known way to falsify the theory that God micromanaged all the little details and made it look ANY given way because he "just wanted it that way". If that's the case, human science can't test it.
This is science class we are talking about, and if science can't test the theory of Magic Wink Wink *KAZAMM* making the universe, then it doesn't belong in science class even if true.
And scientists HAVE changed and tossed big/popular theories when new evidence came along. Some are stubborn, but the ship eventually turns.
Table-ized A.I.
The cultures surrounding Job in his day, believed that the earth was resting on the backs of turtles or elephants. Who told Job that modern scientific truth?
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
What Job is describing here is what modern scientists call the “terminator”, which is circular. Who knew about this before modern rockets were invented?
Job 26:10 He has described a circle on the surface of the waters to the boundary of light with darkness.
There are a number of other examples I could give. The Bible does not contain any statement whatsoever that has been shown to be untrue by modern scientific DISCOVERIES or observations, not necessarily modern scientific theories.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
You're having so much fun being glib because you can no longer remember that you're missing the point.
There's something deeply wrong about using "wrong" as a synonym for "could be improved". Why don't we just standardize the terminology and refer to an AAA- credit rating as "defective"?
The people who try to make hay out of science being "wrong" barely believe in the circumstances where the wrongness of science would come into play: the first minute after the big bang, the billion year evolution of black holes. It's almost like your optician flashing up the fine print then observing when you stumble over a few words that your literacy is suspect.
So true. We're a tiny bit sketchy on the behaviour of matter heated to 200 billion degrees. Say it now, I know we can: science is wrong. Not wrong like your aunt, but wrong in the most rigorous conceivable sense.
We don't have a problem with wrong. We sometimes have a problem with glamorous batshit.
Is the anthropic principle even science? I've heard mention recently from two distinct source a "change of substrate" novel entitled Dragon's Egg. My conjecture is that any interesting life form will view its universe as "finely tuned". Seth Lloyd has a definition of complexity oriented toward where the action occurs: complexity that results from short programs, but only after they run for a long time. You end up with a frothy foam of tractability and intractability. I conjecture that's where life becomes possible, in any substrate. And it will always appear finely tuned. But when we finally meet the cheela, we'll discover no common ground whatsoever in how we construe the fine tuning. The cheela will be totally obsessed with some filigree of gluon plasma structure and our wonderful periodic table and its ionic oddball partnerships will appear to them as some totally arbitrary patten expressed by Rule 30.
We're pretty sure that universes that don't exist are lifeless. Does this observation belong at the far end of the spectrum of very weak anthropic principles? What a crock of flamboyant batshit.
The coolest thing I've come across recently that had somehow not come to my attention is the Helium flash.
OK, this is normal.
Wait a minute, here, I'm accustomed to factors of 100 billion showing up on the instruments. The neutrino flux is spectacular enough to act as a cooling mechanism. They're bombarding us in numbers we can barely conceive, yet our science is so weak we can barely detect them. Well, they do slip out of maximum security solar confinement like a hot knife through butter.
The mean free path of a photon in intergalactic space is about 10^23 km (10 billion years), and these are positively garrulous by comparison. The mean free path of a neutrino is one light year of solid lead, whereas the average density of the universe is about one proton per cubic meter. To a neutrino, the entire universe is about as substantial as Bruce Willis in a movie where every review begins with a spoiler alert.
You aunt is wrong about some object in front of her very eyes, yet we apply no statute of limitations on wrongness 50 magnitudes out.
The mammal ear bones can be traced back to reptilian era skull bones. As pre-mammals grew to rely on hearing more, these bone plates gradually evolved into today's ear bones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles
Table-ized A.I.
Okay, let's try the um.....how about .....Zeus!
Table-ized A.I.
1 light year ^ 3 * 10 kg/liter / mass of sun
And it works.
A cubic lightyear of lead has roughly 4.3e21 solar masses. We're talking fourth floor penthouse of the H-R diagram. Finding out what happens when this block of material is released from the uniform density tractor beam is probably harder than achieving an accurate regatta start on a windy day the day after an epic pub crawl. You'd need an assload of litz wire to release the uniform density tractor beam instantaneously over such a large volume.
Hamilton reaches for the jack-knife he forgot to bring. I wonder why that came to mind.
Faith and trust are different things. I trust someone after I know them and have reason to believe they are likely to be trustworthy. Faith is believing in something blindly, which is a bad thing to do, full stop.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
It's even more funny to try arguing for a completely unrelated side, sometimes. For example, try arguing with a Mormon from fundamentalist Christian positions (relatively easy, if you know your sources). They usually get pretty wide-eyed when eventually you tell them that you're an atheist.
Not being from the UK, are there targeted or magnet schools in this "free school" system? Because if I were to set up a small school teaching just programming, or painting, or woodworking, why should I be forced to also teach evolution?
The Bible teaches that God created all things. That includes time. This does not contradict modern scientific theories, such as the Big Bang. Modern scientific assumptions are that time itself has always proceeded uniformly as we observe it today. Another assumption is that the speed of light, a relationship between time and space has never changed since the beginning. Nobody even still today knows exactly what this thing we call “time” really is and why it proceeds in one direction only, namely from past through the present into the future.
An assumption is merely a scientific way of saying “I believe”. There is no way to prove or disprove this basic assumption about the constancy of time. Textbooks on evolution are filled with the phrase “it is believed”, it is “thought to be” and other uncertainties. The Bible on the other hand is filled with thousands of certain phrases, such as “thus says the Lord” or “the word of God came unto me”. Therefore it comes down basically to a choice whether a person wants to believe uncertain statements in science textbooks or the certain pronouncements in the Bible. In the end, it boils down to WHOM you want to believe, some author of a science textbook or the Bible as the word of God.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
How exactly do you know all of the steps of the Krebs cycle? Or more germane to the issue before us, how do you know the half-life of Carbon-14? These simply cannot be demo'd in a comprehensive school science class, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Working scientists never actually repeat every experiment they read about, they accept the reported conclusions because they rely on the integrity of the peer review system, which is built on trust and authority. A scientist who presumes he's surrounded by liars would make an interesting doctoral dissertation for a philosophy PhD, but he isn't going to accomplish much.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Why can't FOR ONCE a "real scientist" stand before Parliament/Congress to help them get the facts straight by making it clear what a "scientific theory" really is and how it is not a "hunch' and cannot nor will not ever become a "law" etc...? Yeah - we Slashdotters mostly know better, but in my opinion articles like this are merely well targeted geek troll-bait.
Mod me to hell.
One of the best comments I've read on here. Heartwarming.
If you believe science leads to facts or to truth - the real truth if you will - then you are making assumptions for which you have no proof.
That is not the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to improve our understanding of the universe and how it works. The ultimate truth about how everything works is likely to be unknowable, always limited by the tools available to us and our ability to mentally grasp and understand them.
Precisely.
However, it does produce a clearer and clearer picture over time. Sometimes it is wrong, and we later learn better. It is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for exploring and understanding our universe.
Whether that clearer and clearer picture is more and more correct depends on whether some basic assumptions are true.
First, you assume that there is no intelligent guiding hand who happens to choose to make things behave in a mathematically coherent way most of the time (but who may change things a bit when a point needs to be made).
Science does not assume this, it simply fails to a) find evidence of such an "intelligent guiding hand" and b) has encountered no situations which require an "intelligent guiding hand" to explain them.
A proper view of science acknowledges that the "intelligent guiding hand" that is omniscient, omnipotent, and doesn't want to be put in a test tube is untestable and therefore not within the realm of science to confirm or deny. On the other hand what I commonly see here (though not in your post) is the belief that if science can't find it then it doesn't exist.
You're assuming that your brain is functioning properly and that you're sense of logic is correct - that If a implies b and b implies c, that a does imply c.
Which is why science is not advanced by the conclusions of any one scientist, but of many who work independently and review each other's work. It is a group effort, never relying solely on the research or conclusions of any one individual, who may have taken a flawed approach.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not suggesting that one individual's brain is messed up - perhaps it is all of our brains. What does of all of our science ultimately rest on? Logic. Simple logical laws like "If a implies b, and b implies c, then a implies c". Well what if it's wrong? You can't even imagine it because you have such an unshakable belief in it. If anything appears to contradict that law, you assume that your senses are lying to you, or that you're misunderstanding what you're seeing, or something else must be the problem. I do the same thing because I too use logic. But what if it's just plain wrong?
For thousands of years we assumed time moved at a constant rate, and then some guy showed us it didn't. How did he do that? He looked at some observations and applied logic. He came up with a problem and something had to give. He decided to toss out his basic assumptions about time and space (assumptions which were good enough for everything our ancestors ever encountered) . What if he tossed out the wrong thing? What if time and space are constant but it is our logic which is only a "good enough" approximation of reality and it is our logic that falls apart at high velocities and when dealing with fundamental questions of light and matter?
Of course this is all speculation because I could never possibly prove the logic is wrong because to do so I would have to use logic! You could argue that all I would need to do is point out contradictions, yet it might be possible for a system of logic to be internally consistent but still be wrong.
Perhaps it does, or perhaps you believe it so fervently that anytime something contradicts it you refuse to see it and come up with some other excuse. Perhap
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
An oxymoron is something that disproves itself, just like Evolution does. If Evolution could have worked we wouldn't still be having this debate.
You are granting the parents rights but making the child property. Children have rights too and one of those is/should be not to be lied to when they are too young to know the difference. I don't have trouble with legends and sweet baby jesus and the nativity, but they need to know these are fairy tales when they are old enough not have unrealties and false expectations of the world foisted on them.
the part about "in order to receive public funding" is missing in the title. Its not like teachers are hold at gunpoint to teach evolution, they just dont receive public money if they dont.
Anybody may teach his child any theory about how the world and life appeared. I dont object that. The less people understanding science and having sacrificed the scientific method to fairytales there are, the more thre ressource "corrrectly working scientist" will be scare, which increases my market value.
But a society is wise to separate between thing to be paid for and not to be paid for. I am sorry, climate-change-deniers and creationists. The empirical science gets more and more important. the very same methos which lead to the empirical comfirmation of evolution also opened up all the other technical progress of the last 300 years.
If I tell you that I like the color blue, there is no way you can challenge that on scientific grounds. You either have to believe that I tell you the truth or disbelieve.
Step 1: show you multiple light sources restricted to narrow bands of wavelength. Ask you which ones are blue and make you happy. This will confirm your interpretation of "blue".
Step 2: calibrate measurement tools (lie detector, various neuroimaging approaches, observation of microexpressions, measurement of facial muscles, sexual arousal, etc)
Step 3: use the tools to test your response to multiple light sources of various colours, and/or various objects of various colours
Step 4: assess whether the hypothesis "granspassalan likes the colour blue" holds up to scientific investigation.
Note that step 3 could be improved through use of one or more control subjects.
Sure, there are certain flaws in the above process, but the method can be refined and improved. But yes, I can challenge your assertion on scientific grounds.
Welcome to science. It's lovely.
"Last you checked" you might also have seen people trying to figure out how stuff really happens, instead of blindly accepting ancient stories crafted for a populace with severe limitations in their knowledge of how *anything* works. It's scary to me that people like you focus on denigrating all of science in order to promote your single fairy tale, while blithely ignoring the huge plethora of evidence around you telling you that science actually works. I *really* don't understand what you think you'll achieve by this.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
I agree that this might work if you have access to the person who gave that “revelation”. Even then, it would depend on exactly what the “revelation” was about. If someone told you that an angel appeared to them and gave them some golden plates that had the strange writing on them to translate, you could not test this scientifically, unless you had access to said golden plates. You could only believe or disbelieve.
It would also fail to work if that person were a historical figure like George Washington or Jesus Christ. In that case you would also be still confined to believing or disbelieving anything that is written about what they have said or not said. There are people today that refuse to believe that any human being ever stepped on the moon as well as others who solemnly assert that the Holocaust never happened. Anybody who does not WANT to believe, won't believe, no matter how much evidence is presented. Most information in life comes to us from other people, usually from those we trust. In the end therefore, it is much more important whom you believe than what you believe.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Yes, but do you actually like the colour blue? :)
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
The UK also has a national curriculum. The issue here is that 'free schools' and 'academy schools' are not bound to it, even though they're publicly funded. This is part of (IMO) the conservative party agenda to wrest control from Local Authorities, and in my opinion is a Bad Thing. Others disagree. 'Free schools' are set up by concerned parents, 'concerned' companies or agenda-driven religious groups. They're free to teach what they want. This is a small step to curtail the whackiest of them, but I'd rather that government concentrated on improving all schools, not just allowing some to opt-out. As I mentioned, others disagree.
Academy schools are draining money from better local schools and forcing them to close.
Any true scientist will tell you that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence, making it approach fact but it is yet to be fact. Only presumptuous know-it-alls would dare say it was fact yet.
I totally get that is fine to teach the theory of evolution. However, until it is a proven, it is a theory. Don't get me wrong, it has a lot of evidence, even an overwhelming amount of evidence, but it is not the amount of evidence that is the only factor.
There is also other evidence of creationism. Saying that every person from the time of recorded history to now who has claimed to have been visited from the heavens has lied is a pretty tough pill to swallow. Had it been only one religion in one area, sure, but every group of humanity no matter how remote or isolated believes in creationism and has records and stories of visits from beings the heavens (angels, aliens, whatever).
Ok, now add our DNA studies to the mix. We are actually manipulating DNA today. So we actually have as much proof (or more) that evolution was caused by DNA manipulation (which actually supports the theory of creationism) than we do that it was just natural selection. Scientists are making guesses based on fossils at best. Our knowledge of DNA is growing rapidly.
I find it odd that as humanity gets closer and closer to being able to perform the act of creationism, the belief in creationism is some less likely. That doesn't make sense from a scientific point of view. Also, what about the missing link? Kinda seems like there are jumps in evolution, as if species make major leaps in short periods of time (scientifically short at least) and there is no reason behind it and no evidence of the missing link between the two species. Are those jumps in evolution caused by DNA manipulation. Is it caused by God or a visiting race that is more advanced than our own?
Now that we can travel in space, it is somehow less likely that visitors from elsewhere (angels or aliens) visited this earth in its history? Despite enough eye witnesses throughout history that if it were a crime with that many witnesses, no court of law would fail to convict.
Evolution also fails to take into account infinity. No beginning and no end. Is it more likely that life started from nothing or is it more likely that life has always existed and there was no beginning to life and there will be no end. Our view is still too limited for us to be calling this theory a fact.
Whether you believe in God or in an Alien species or whatever, is it more likely that we just randomly appeared or that evolution was somehow guided?
Believe that God created the world and that evolution occurs are not mutually exclusive beliefs. God is not going to break the laws of nature. So maybe he created mankind by guiding evolution.
I believe in creationism and I believe in evolution. I believe in both. I also believe that species could have been transplanted here by God (or if you prefer, a superior alien race). I also believe that evolution could have been guided in many ways.
So are you saying that Anthropology is not science? I guess anthropology and the study of those who came before doesn't matter, is that what you are saying?
It is an anthropological fact that every human culture, not matter how far removed or isolated from the rest of humanity, has a history of a belief in a God like higher power and has a belief in visits from the heavens.
So should this anthropological fact not be taught in an anthropology course just because it goes against the theory of evolution?
I had a teacher split the class into 2 sides, those who believe in God and those who believe in evolution.
Then your teacher was an IDIOT.
He may as well have class into 2 sides, those who believe in God and those who believe in chemistry.
In the U.S. about half the population accepts evolution, and only about 4-8% of the population are atheists. Even if you put all of the atheists on the pro-evolution side, that still leaves at least 42% on the evolution side who do believe in god. Or to rephrase, out of evolutionists, something like 8-16% of them are atheists and 84-92% of them believe in god. To a rough approximation, pretty much all evolutionists believe in god. Just like pretty much everyone who accepts chemistry believes in god.
There was me and a very nervous oriental student on the evolution side. I didn't win the debate, but I put up a good fight.
Did you call him on his idiotic god-vs-evolution ploy?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
How could they have won? They have 0 evidence.
My guess is that the class probably VOTED on which side won. Sadly, most people continue to believe (and vote for) what they want to believe, regardless of any evidence which may be presented to them.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
However, it does produce a clearer and clearer picture over time. Sometimes it is wrong, and we later learn better. It is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for exploring and understanding our universe.
Whether that clearer and clearer picture is more and more correct depends on whether some basic assumptions are true.
If you want to be more precise, science progresses to enable us to make more predictions and for those predictions more accurate. For example this enables us to build airplanes because we can predict that certain wing shapes will make the plane fly, and this enables us to build computers because we can predict that certain arrangements of silicon will function as a CPU. More accurate predictions are more useful.
For practical purposes, "more accurate" and "more useful" *is* the definition of "more correct". If you want to argue for a different definition of "more correct" you may do so, but that's really only relevant in a philosophy class - not so much in real life.
A proper view of science acknowledges that [god] is untestable and therefore not within the realm of science to confirm or deny.
Right. Science makes no claims either way about things which are untestable.
On the other hand what I commonly see here (though not in your post) is the belief that if science can't find it then it doesn't exist.
(1) If there is no detectable evidence for something it may technically "exist", however if it has no detectable effect then it does not exist in any practical or meaningful sense. There is no possible useful reason to believe it exists.
(2) There are an infinite number of things that could exist and don't, yielding a zero percent chance of a randomly selected thing actually existing unless there is some evidence for it existing.
In philosophy class you can talk about undetectable things which in some sense "actually exist", however in the real world it is absurd to have a positive belief in anything which (1) does not exist in any practical or meaningful way and (2) has a zero percent chance of actually existing.
In my opinion, outside a philosophy class, and in practical-usage English language, it is more than reasonable to sweep things with zero percent chance of existing into the casual category of "doesn't exist". That comes with an implied understanding that it will be moved out of that category if-and-when there is any positive evidence for that thing.
So in a formal and theoretical sense, there *could* exist invisible garden fairies that help turn leaves pretty colors in the fall, but in informal practical language we simply say they don't exist.
I'm not suggesting that one individual's brain is messed up - perhaps it is all of our brains. What does of all of our science ultimately rest on? Logic. Simple logical laws like "If a implies b, and b implies c, then a implies c". Well what if it's wrong?
That reminds me of the question - What if you're just a brain in a jar and no one else actually exists and everything you see and hear and feel is just signals sent to your brain by a computer. And the answer here is basically the same.
To answer it, first lets assume that what you propose is true. In that case NOTHING you could ever say is reliable. NOTHING anyone could ever say could ever be trusted as meaningful. Any attempt at arguing anything would be pointless. Any attempt at communication at all would be pointless.
The very fact that you are making the argument, the very fact that you are bothering to communicate at all, it inherently carries an axiom, an assumption, that it is intended to be meaningful. If we do not take that axiom as a given, if we do not take that assumption as a given, then there is no point in responding.
The act of communicating at all is nonsensical unless it carries an implied axiom that it is meaningful.
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
nor is it appropriate to simply tell kids to "accept this, it is fact."
You're wrong.
A science teacher can state that the sun is 93 million miles from earth, and does NOT need to present all of the evidence and experiments backing it up. There simply is not enough TIME to do that for every single thing being taught in a science class. Teaching science (and learning science) is NOT the same thing as doing the science itself.
A lesson teaching the evidence and how we know the sun is 93 million miles away would be interesting and valuable, and that definitely should be done for at least a few of the key concepts for each field of science, but that obviously cannot be done for each and every point being taught.
You either have evidence that supports an idea, or you don't.
Right. And that is how science is PREFORMED. But it is literally impossible to TEACH students in that manner when you need to provide students a basic overview of an vast field of science in a limited number of classroom hours.
Each science subject really should do that with some of the key points in the field to keep the students connected with how all of the science was established, and a good teacher really should do that as much as possible when students ask specific questions. However the job of a science class is an overview of a field as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. It is sufficient for a teacher to say "This is how the field is understood and practiced by scientists in the field".
Evolution is a bit of a special case in that there is such a vast amount of misinformation out there, and a teacher pretty much needs to make an extra effort to get through to students who may have been tainted by it. Fortunately there is a vast body of powerful and easily presented evidence backing up evolution. A good and well prepared teacher shouldn't have much trouble proving all of the major points of evolution are true beyond any reasonable doubt - easily proving evolution true beyond any remotely sane definition of doubt. And he should be able to do that without diverting too much time from the rest of the lessons.
The evolution denialists generally buy into the propaganda that there's little or no evidence backing up evolution, or that what evidence exists is weak and full of holes. And of course that position comes crashing down comically when a well prepared teacher actually starts showing students the iron-clad evidence that supposedly didn't exist. Anyone trying to deny evolution looks like an absolute clown once you start showing students even a tiny fraction of the evidence. It's like some clown saying it's impossible for heavier-than-air-machines to fly, while the teacher points out the window at a jetliner going by.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It depends on the where. I like the color blue on my clothes or the sky, but not bruises on my skin. :)
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
People are free to believe what they like. They are free to believe 2+2=5. However in math class they are going to be taught an ACCURATE overview of mathematics as understood and practiced by mathematicians, and that means that MUST be taught 2+2=4 because that is THE ONLY ACCURATE way to describe the current field of math as actually understood and practiced by professional mathematicians. To pass they they need to demonstrate they have learned an ACCURATE understanding of math as understood and practiced by mathematicians. They are free to believe all the mathematicians are wrong. They are free to believe 2+2=5. If they become professional mathematicians they first need an ACCURATE understanding of the current state of the field before they can contribute new work proving 2+2=4 is wrong.
That's the key point. I'm glad we agree.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory'
Every article I read about a new finding in nature has a scientists or researcher quoted as saying "it must have developed this way" or "it probably worked this way" or whatever. In fact, they really have no idea what really happened but they say something to help add to the web of lies that has been developed over the years to try fitting everything that is found into a incoherent theory which can't predict anything. Facts aren't evidence people. There is nothing that directly proves that any given organism on earth evolved from any other living or non-living organism. The sheer fact there is shared DNA doesn't prove anything; it just shows we have shared DNA. And if one organism did evolve from another then maybe this new curriculum will actually shed more light on how that actually occurred because I've yet to see any details regarding every single step of the evolutionary process that every organism experienced, which I'd expect to find by now if this theory is so "coherent and comprehensive". Tell me again why there is only one or two examples of homoerectus and other such supposed precursors to homosapien? Where is the army of skeletons? Surely we weren't preceded by a mere handful of pre-human organisms but that's all that's been found. Seems a little fishy to me.
This is nonsense to believe any of this is worth teaching yet to the extent that they believe it is worth. Just another method of trying to convince kids that God doesn't exist and He had no hand in anything therefore we are just animals like all other animals with no souls and our lives aren't anything sacred to uphold, which means abortion is perfect fine and so is killing based on arbitrary definitions of quality of life (just like farm animals). And that means you can do anything you want, legal or not, moral or not, because when you die, you won't have anything bad happen to you because if God doesn't exist then there isn't any Heaven or Hell or Satan so everyone is on equal footing at that point. See how all that works out great for the atheists and progressives who hate religion? Start with the reasoning that a "scientific theory" is fact and must be taught in schools to make kids think that there is no other alternative. All downhill from there.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
On review, I think I jumped to the wrong conclusion about where you were trying to go with your post. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You will find that even the most hardcore anti-science religious nutjob is driving a car, flying around in planes, using a computer, enjoying modern healthcare and thousands of other things that came out of science, not out of the holy books.
Have you met the Amish? ;-)
(And yes, I know that's not the kind of hardcore anti-science religious nutjobs you meant, but they do fit that description—to the point of not teaching their children about science or history—and there are significant populations of them around where I live; I see horse-drawn buggies go past my house more than once a month.)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
"UK Government Mandates the Teaching of The Fundamental Basis of Biology As Scientific Fact"
FIFY
Yeah, right.
We do know why time (direction of entropy) goes one way, the root of the issue is called "symmetry breaking". News for you, we do know the progression of time in the past 14 billion years, we can see it and can see what occured. We can even see the transition from an electromagnetically opaque early universe to the present situation when hydrogen atoms first formed. We can see the expansion of the universe accelerating. There is nothing that has been observed in science that requires the need of your imaginary friend or the nonsensical mystic writings.
Giving something a fancy name such as “symmetry breaking” does not really define what it is. Why is this “symmetry” breaking in the first place? What broke it? In our normal everyday world, something that is “broken” usually has a cause that is considered bad by most of us. Only in the Bible are we given the root cause for all the brokenness in this creation.
According to Einstein, time and space are relative, being affected by among other things the velocity frame of the observer and the gravitational field the observer is subject to. Why is it assumed (believed), when the conditions in the early universe were vastly different than today, such as an immense gravity from all the matter concentrated in a very small volume, is it then not likely that time itself proceeded at a different rate, than it does today? The Bible reveals that this thing scientists label “entropy”, the essence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not always exist and will someday be repealed.
Most information comes to us from other people. This is especially true of the past. If a video had been made of Jesus Christ walking on the water, there would be many people if not most, who would say that the video is fake, because they do not WANT to believe “miracles” are possible at all. In the end, it matters not so much what to believe, but whom you believe. For some people, no amount of evidence will suffice for them to believe what they do not want to believe. There are people that will deny that the Holocaust ever happened and that humans ever walked on the moon. If you or anybody else does not want to believe what 40 witnesses have recorded in 66 books, now called the Bible, that is your prerogative. If you do not want to believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful God has the capability to truthfully communicate to humanity, that's OK, he gives you that freedom to choose. However, from experience we know that our choices do have consequences.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.