Slashdot Mirror
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
cold fjord writes: "Dan Kahan at the Yale Law School Cultural Cognition Project says, 'Because imparting basic comprehension of science in citizens is so critical to enlightened democracy, it is essential that we develop valid measures of it, so that we can assess and improve the profession of teaching science to people. ... The National Science Foundation has been engaged in the project of trying to formulate and promote such a measure for quite some time. A few years ago it came to the conclusion that the item "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," shouldn't be included when computing "science literacy." The reason was simple: the answer people give to this question doesn't measure their comprehension of science. People who score at or near the top on the remaining portions of the test aren't any more likely to get this item "correct" than those who do poorly on the remaining portions. What the NSF's evolution item does measure, researchers have concluded, is test takers' cultural identities, and in particular the centrality of religion in their lives.' Kahan also had a previous, related post on the interaction between religiosity and scientific literacy."
There is no "belief" for evolutionary principles. It is not a system of religious thought.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
But it sure measures the amount of faith people want to put into "a wizard did it" as a valid explanation of something.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While Dan has certainly taken pains to show the many correlations between one subset and another, I think the most important one to consider is this:
Those who firmly believe that a "God" was involved in the universe/mankind, were less likely to score at the upper tier of scientific knowledge. Everyone else drew mixed results.
I also like this quote here:
Nevertheless, the subgroup of such students who did back away from two particular beliefs hostile to naturalistic evolution (that the “living world is controlled by a force greater than humans” and that “all events in nature occur as part of a predetermined master plan”) consisted of the students who scored the lowest in critical reasoning skills.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
What an amazingly stupid TFA... In what world does belief in anything have scientific literacy as a prerequisite?
A person can "believe" in evolution or general relativity or the Higgs boson the same way they can believe in Zeus or Jesus or the Easter Bunny. In the former set of cases, they hold true beliefs entirely by coincidence, with no more solid basis than those who adhere to the latter set.
The difference between the two domains of belief comes from the demonstrability of the former as viable hypotheses, not yet disproven (or more accurately, "not yet rejected for the null hypothesis") by experiment. The latter have pretty much exhaustively had all but the most untestable of their predictions thoroughly trounced. And where science grows as the gaps shrink, well, the gaps necessarily shrink.
Yeah, Satan planted evidence of evolution like fossils to test your faith. If you believe in evolution, you falling for his evil tricks and will spend eternity in hell.
(I really hope this doesn't need a sarcasm tag...)
I could also go to a 3 year old and ask him, the main difference would probably be that his explanation is very likely more entertaining.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The belief that evolution requires "belief" to be factual is in itself a measure of science literacy.
Inconvenient question:
You need brain surgery. Who would you want to have perform brain surgery:
1. Good party-line atheist who recites a firm belief in evolution but has shaky hands.. but who cares, after all your brain is just a randomized mix of mutations, so why should it matter? Don't you BELIEVE in evolution?
2. Religious whackjob (gasp! he may even attend a non-atheist church!) who has a detailed understanding of the brain structure and functions. After years of studying the brain, he may even secretly harbor the politically incorrect belief that your brain isn't just a random hodge-podge of mutations.
P.S. --> This doesn't necessarily mean that he disagrees with evolution and mutation as a mechanism for change or that there is common DNA across a large number of species.
Oh, and for those of you who think that anybody who has any religious beliefs is obviously too stupid to be a brain surgeon, you obviously haven't met very many brain surgeons.
Azimov even wrote a story about a similar situation involving robots and an orbiting solar power station back in the 1940s.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
a belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. the scientific theory of evolution is grounded upon a mountain of scientific research so overwhelmingly exhaustive as to render it a fact of life, no different than gravity. What the study is comparing is overall scientific literacy as a product of the comprehension of a single scientific concept. those who willfully choose to disregard the science will, of course, be marred with an incredible blind spot in their science comprehension. inferential logic would suggest that, yes, their scientific comprehension of everything from mutagenic bacteria to human reproduction will be degraded. They will be left empty handed when challenged to explain things like the shape of the human ear and the color of a persons skin.
the fact remains that so long as we recoil upon realization that doing science has offended the well-mannered intentions of the clergy and its congregation, we will forever remain as a species one heel in the well from which we shared company with the four humors and ritual sacrifice.
Good people go to bed earlier.
How can one be considered scientifically literate if he still believes in creatism!?
What is embarrassing, though, is for those who don't understand something to claim that their "belief" in it demonstrates that they have a greater comprehension of science than someone who says he or she "doesn't" believe it.
I've witnessed and do witness over and over. Whether it's about evolution, dark matter, global warming, etc. It's just a basic fallacy of human nature. I know something you don't (even though I'm not privy to a complete understanding of how it works) therefore I must be smarter than you and you must be dumb... but don't you dare challenge me any questions on it because I will get super pissed. Kind of the applied definition of "ignorance" in action.
Or in other words, believing in science others have painstakingly proven for you is not an automatic cure for ignorance. When you put it that way, it's common sense isn't it?
The belief of a creation event and the existence of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
What is the point in a test that measures scientific literacy, if that test does not measure a person's commitment to the philosophy of science? A key indicator of an understanding of science is one's commitment to the scientific method. Evolution is a direct result of that commitment. When one eschews that commitment, what kind of literacy are we left with?
Literally or figuratively. The only way they can't work together is if you believe the Bible is a literal document. If you have any basic ability to read literature as symbolism you can easily see the creationist story as a story of evolution. If you believe everything happened in six literal 24 hour days not so much so.
Again society is pitted against literalists with no imagination and those that can think beyond the rigid parallel lines. It's always the same thing.
A scientific theory ties together a broad range of observations into a coherent model and makes testable predictions, that have since been tested and found to be accurate. It's still called the germ theory of disease, after all. Or the theory of Relativity, which you use every time you use a GPS. Without Relativistic corrections, the whole system would drift to the point of uselessness within six hours.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Science eliminates the need for believing -- holding an unsubstantiated opinion.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
That's correct, belief in God does not measure biblical literacy. A good many atheists are very well acquainted with the bible, and can offer cogent exegesis of its contents, even if they don't believe a word of it.
Because for everyday life, and the science which applies to it, evolution (the idea that all current creatures are descended from single-cell organisms which came into being by spontaneous generation) is irrelevant. For that matter, most people who say that they do not believe in evolution are saying that they do not believe that everything which exists and happens is a result of the interaction of random chance and the laws of physics.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This is like asking:
What would like being hit by?
a) A bus in your favorite color.
b) A banana. (You don't like yellow.)
Believing in evolution doesn't mean thinking "it's without a consequence to mess with anatomy / genes" actually it means the complete opposite. We actually think that the human brain evolved into something very powerful but also very delicate, you know?
But one inconvenient question for you:
How do you think selective breeding of plants and animals works?
As I read it, some people let their religious beliefs trump the answers to questions about their scientific literacy. I don't think means they're less committed to the scientific method, just that they're more committed to something else (or want to appear that they're more committed).
Indeed
Science doesn't disprove "Creation" although scientific evidence does suggest that the event of Creation was 13 and a bit billion years ago.
And the fossil evidence suggests that life on this planet has evolved over the last couple of billion years or so.
But both of those facts are contrary to the words of Genesis. So many Bible literalists refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Its easy enough to prove that the universe was around for way longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years, just look at other galaxies that are millions of light years away.
"human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," shouldn't be included when computing "science literacy."
Very roughly, IMHO, believing in someting based on available provable facts, data and information stands closer to science, and believing in something even without (or despite of) them stands closer to religion [*]. However, without definitive proof for the quoted statement, if only yes-no can be chosen one might answer 'no' even when not being a religious fanatic. Thus, I'd say not asking the question is a good compromise (vs. starting yet another religion-science debate).
That said, the above question could've been left to be part of the test, if formulated more correctly [i.e. scientifically, yes], e.g. including something like 'based on currently available scientific data and information, human beings, as we know them today, likely developed/originated from earlier species of animals' - or something similar, you hopefully you get my point.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Short of actually being able to understand and verify every single piece of data that has gone into proving it - like it or not you take it on faith. Faith is a measure of trust in your sources in the same way that people respond differently to news from different outlets. I can walk outside and prove gravity. I cannot do the same with evolution.
The basic fact of most information we receive on a daily basis is that we trust it until we have a reason to question it. Evolution has zero effect on the daily lives of anybody outside of investigative curiosity. If somebody has their life changed by God (and it happens all the time) they'll spend a huge part of the rest of their lives searching for answers and understanding...and that will give them cause to question evolution because the Bible makes a tremendous amount more sense when reading it AFTER something like that happens to you. If you're not the slightest bit religious, you have no reason not to simply accept it because it doesn't affect you at all. Plus you can use it as a cognitive tool to reinforce your belief that religious people are all simply dumber than you because they don't fully agree with something that you claim to know as a fact, even though you're simply trusting your sources.
I generally don't bother arguing the point because people don't accept information that contradicts their world view and being able to verifiably prove something from that perspective from one side or the other won't have any affect on the lives of...anyone. It's just something useless to argue about. Getting into "arguments" where nobody is going to change anyones mind and you believe you are correct serves no other purpose than to boost your own ego.
Try to wrap your mind around this and see it from another perspective. If you KNOW God is very real (not believe; God has directly impacted your life in a tangible way...you KNOW) then come at the question from that side. If you know God is real your entire perspective on the Bible and everything in it changes specifically because any questions you may be able to have about it to try to cast doubt on its text go out the window...because ultimately you know the most important part of it is very real and that changes your entire perspective on it.
One of my favorite quotes:
"The test of first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Many people like to assume that people just go sit in a service or read a book and are magically convinced to believe. That's naive. There is also this idea that people lack the critical thinking to question it. That's also naive since those questions are the first thing that everybody asks. It takes a lot of ego to assume every single person in those pews hasn't questioned it, strongly. Especially the ones who donate huge sums of money to it.
The reality is that life change happens much more often than most people would like to admit and hearing enough people you know give testimony about that life change creates trust in the information, even if it has not happened to you personally yet. This is buoyed by the fact that those people are telling you this because they want you to be able to receive the same help that they did. There is no financial motive. There is no other incentive than sharing their experience of something they didn't previously believe which they now feel obligated to express for the betterment of those around them.
Writing those people off, however, takes a tremendous amount of hubris. I never take any issue with a person who has questions. I only take issue with people who think they have all the answers.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
Being able to learn and transmit tradition has survival advantages for humans. A question that directly challenges a known tradition may not be the best test of how well someone learns in areas where tradition does not exist. School knowledge and parental lap knowledge may have different ways of registering for evolutionary reasons.
It's like saying how people spell "Mississippi" shouldn't be included in overall spelling ability because it doesn't predict their ability to spell "Banana".
Yep.
Literalists have a hard time with the mythic stories from the various cultures of our planet and what exists on our tiny ball for all to see. Ultimately, none of us from this tiny backwater of a planet have a clue how this universe came about. What the nature of the universe is or its ultimate origins are will likely remain somewhat of a mystery far beyond the existence of us as a species.
But a bold statement about belief in creationism preventing folks from scientific literacy seems a stretch. I know many fantastic scientists who have strong religious beliefs. Generally, they are not literalists, but they have a firm knowledge of science and its methodology.
You're absolutely right. You don't need to have much theoretical knowledge to practice a particular skilled trade. It's only when trying to develop beyond the current state of the art that a good grasp of theory helps. If you're not interested in that, go ahead and don't worry about the whys and wherefores.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
For starters, there is no more "belief" in evolution as there is a "belief" that 2+2 = 4. A more important statement would have been the following: Belief in Creationism Measure Science Illiteracy.
Someone would be very hard pressed to show me with actual data that this is not true in the general case.
Agree, that's the problem :-) If there's a proper understanding of the philosophy behind science, that can't happen.
As I read it, some people let their religious beliefs trump the answers to questions about their scientific literacy. I don't think means they're less committed to the scientific method, just that they're more committed to something else (or want to appear that they're more committed).
I dunno. To me scientific literacy implies a certain commitment to scientific methods. The opposite of this would be like saying an person understand arithmetic while not being committed to accept 2+2 = 4 as a fact, or that a person is ethical while not subscribing at the very least to the basic, most fundamental human rights.
Literacy or competency on something implies some very strong commitments on that something.
Evolution says nothing about how life was started, just how it changes. Plus "spontaneous generation" is incredibly old-fashioned and no biologists would believe in that these days (what with evidence and what-not). The thing you're looking for is "abiogenesis".
What this says is people will accept science except where they feel it contradicts with their beliefs.
Gravity - ok
Electricity - ok
Evolution - nope
I think this says it all. Even with the one nope they have proven themselves not to be scientifically literate. They have proven that they have a rational space that cannot be challenged by science. No matter how rational you might otherwise be if there is a think-space where you refuse to be rational you are at root irrational.
If you can't use science to overturn part of your cultural identity, then you are missing the most critical requirement of an enlightened democracy and you don't actually comprehend science. Science is applicable to all beliefs and every decision you make everyday.
I'm curious. What, exactly, are the "basic, most fundamental human rights"?
And what is ethical about each of them?
Also, do you think that Christianity had anything to do with your list of "basic, fundamental human rights"? If so, do you concede the possibility that people who grew up in Muslim/Hindu/Taoist societies might define "basic, most fundamental human rights" differently than you? If not, why do you believe that these "basic, fundamental human rights" are universal in nature, but NOT recognized the world over as "basic, fundamental human rights"?
Do you believe that different people might think different things are ethical?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This really is simple. If you believe in creationism you are not scientifically literate, saying that some of these people got the other questions right doesn't change the fact that they proved in the one question that they do not take science seriously. That said, belief in evolution, does not preclude scientific illiteracy, this is a topic with enough publicity that people who are clueless may still come down on the right side.
"Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy"
Exactly. You also need unbelief in magical transformations of wine to blood, ghosts, imaginary friends an a 'next world'.
The overall level of scientific literacy is woefully low, and this particular data point doesn't happen to cluster nicely with the others.
Thought experiment: suppose your test of driving law literacy discovered that knowing you are supposed to stop if possible on a yellow light correlates poorly with knowledge of other traffic laws. So you toss out that question. This means that a subject can in theory get a perfect score on your driving literacy test without knowing one of the most basic things about driving laws.
The reason that people (usually social scientists) do this kind of thing is (a) it's often useful to do so and (b) they don't understand statistics.
What Kagan is doing here is he is re-engineering the concept of "scientific literacy" so he can treat it as a "parameter". It's not. You can get twice as many answers right on the test, but that doesn't make you "twice as scientifically literate" because that's a meaningless statement. The truth is you need to know certain things like conservation of energy, the germ theory of disease, and evolution to be functionally literate in science
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It seems to me that the article is more an attack on the wording of the exam because it's an ambiguous question that asks the test taker to guess at what the makers of the test want to hear, not whether the answer is true or not. If the same article were written attacking the wording of a test at a conservative high school in the American south, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the opinions posted here would swing the other way, attacking the test makers themselves for expecting an answer with a religious base. By putting the words "According to the theory of evolution," at the front, the rewording is measuring the test taker's breadth of scientific knowledge, not whether the test taker actually believes any part of it. Hence, literacy: "Competence or knowledge in a specified area." (OED)
That shouldn't affect my calculus or physics literacy, right? Freedom of religion and all.......
Its easy enough to prove that the universe was around for way longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years, just look at other galaxies that are millions of light years away.
For useful definitions of "prove", this is accurate, but YEC's often prefer non-useful definitions. One popular reality-bending theory is that God created the 'light streams' emanating from the galaxies that you mention in transit, which gives us the illusion that the universe is old.
When your priorities lean heavily towards preparing for an afterlife, the observable reality of this life takes a back seat. This seems to be a strong psychological driver of religious belief, allowing humans to escape from the terrors and hardship of the world.
The theory of evolution interprets this observed phenomenon and posits the completely unobserved transition between kinds of animal.
"posits the completely unobserved transition between kinds of animal"
Well, no, there's no transition between "kinds of animal" really. I suppose you could say such transitions happened when different "kingdoms of life" appeared (we really have no clue how exactly that went down, just wild speculation), but not between animals. Or to put it another way, cat will not have evolutionary transition to a dog, just to a different cat. From this follows, humans, cats and dogs are just different tetrapods. Earlier tetrapods had "transitions" to cats (still tetrapod), dogs (still tetrapod) and humans (also still tetrapods).
To repeat, there is no transition between "kinds of animal" in the theory of evolution. And rest of your post kinda falls apart from this simple misunderstanding.
I've been saying for years that not accepting the theory of evolution doesn't mean a person can't perform scientific work. Now there's some scientific evidence to back it up. I wonder if people will be scientific about this now and drop the idea that those who do not accept the theory of evolution are somehow hindering scientific progress.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
In the context of this question, most people would understand evolution to include abiogenesis*. And while it is possible to believe in evolution without believing in abiogenesis, most people who care that others believe in evolution are also firm believers in abiogenesis.
* one of the main reasons biologists prefer the term abiogenesis to spontaneous generation is because the true beginning of scientific biology occurred when Louis Pasteur proved that the emergent growth of bacteria in a nutrient broth was the product of biogenesis, not spontaneous generation. As a result, they needed another term for life coming into being from non-life, but abiogenesis and spontaneous generation refer to the same phenomena.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
easy there...you're cutting off your nose to spite your face
we don't need to exaggerate scientific claims to counter arguments, ever...
"belief" is too complex of a human action to describe with scientific level certainty, so the notion is useless to this discussion...people "believe" things strongly yet directly contradict their beliefs with action depending on the situation...the word is not fit for comparison
no one has "observed" evolution in the same way we observe a snake molting or a comet
it's just a fact...that doesn't mean, at all, that evolution isn't scientific
just because people who don't understand science misuse it, doesn't mean that you have to abuse science equally to counter them!
science is not inherently anti- anything...it's pro-active...its a formal method for observing the world...that's plenty
Thank you Dave Raggett
the only thing this shows is that people who are more religious are more likely to get this science question wrong.
in other words, religion makes you bad at science.
it doesn't show at all whether or not the question is indicative of science.
it just shows that peoples understanding of science is shallow and religion tends to decrease the depth of understanding.
i call this the head in the sand approach.
just going to ignore the world and live in my bubble because it's easier and i'm dumb mentality.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
your post is interesting but the above comment is just wrong
evolution *requires* all life coming from a common ancestor
it's change over time...there's no other way to interpret change over time as "transitions between kinds of animal" in laymen's language
you're just being pedantic on this point....stop it....it makes us all stupiderer
yeah...that was GP's point...
life changes over time...that's the "origin of species"...that's the theory, in laymen's terms...
you're overcomplicating it to make yourself be "right"
Thank you Dave Raggett
Evolution of species is what we observe. The theory is the theory of natural selection (evolution by natural selection). natural selection is what we use to explain the observed evolution.
TL;DR : observed data=evolution; theory=natural selection. In common parlance it became the theory of evolution. but in reality it should be rightly called the theory of natural selection.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If the theory of evolution is accurate at all, then yes, there HAVE been transitions from one kind of animal to another. Monkeys, apes, and humans, are supposed to have a "common ancestor" after all. That ancestor was almost certainly "ape-like", but he wasn't an ape, or a monkey, or a human. Yes, of course he's in the same family as all of us, but he was something else, or rather, WE are all something else. Reach back far enough, and someone has to explain where the hell the first mammal came from, after all. Was he hatched from an egg? What KIND of egg?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
yeah...see your comment is the problem
by your definition, watching a lab tech fertilizes a human egg with sperm in a dish is the same as watching two people fsk
in another context (not evolution) your description of what constitutes "direct observation" is not proper for comparison
you're exaggerating and you ***DONT NEED TO***
it's like you're padding your resume for a job where you're the only applicant
also, the condescending tone is alienating..."just go to your local university...fruit flies!...direct observation....**smiles**..."
give me a fsking break kellymcdonald
this is why creationists exist...you exaggerate and over-explain which gives the creationist book authors grist for their mill
for the record, a laboratory experiment where fruit flies DNA is mutated causing different traits does not "prove" something as complex and time-spanning as evolution, and what you described *is not* direct observation of "evolution"...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Evolution is just one theory in science amongst tens of thousands. It also happens to be one that given religious groups don't like... but whether or not you believe in it or understand it doesn't mean you understand anything else in science.
Its all too common for people to adopt or refute a scientific position as if it were a political position. And then assume scientific sophistication merely on that basis.
Science no matter how much the politicians and religious leaders would like it to be... is not politics or religion. It is science.
It is not a matter of faith or of popular support. You do not believe in science. You do the math. Its a process. You go through that process and that process is science.
If you don't go through this process then science didn't happen.
Its not like a court trial. You don't have advocates and prosecutors. Rather, everyone has to have an open mind and seek the truth for its own sake.
That is science.
Not only do most people not do this but most don't even understand what that means. And so they have no claim to scientific sophistication being that they're more often then not politically minded rather then scientifically minded.
The truth is not a democracy or a matter of faith. It merely is.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Kinds of animal:
Dog kind (Genus Canis): wolf, husky, poodle, etc.
Frog kind (Genus Rana): pond frogs, bullfrogs, etc.
Etc.
There are definitely different kinds of animal. The theory of evolution tries to explain how these kinds are related. There is a book called "On the Origin of the Species" which tries to explain how the different sorts of animals are related -- Darwin used "Species" because his theory makes the most sense when thinking about small changes. There are definitely different sorts of animals, the question is about how they are related.
The animals are not all the same but they have significant similarities. If they evolved then they have a common ancestor and that explains the similarities. If they were created by aliens or God or something then they their common creation explains the similarities.
No - it would change into something morphologically incredibly similar to a dog, but its genes would most definitely still be feline.
They all lost out the the dinosaurs and only occupied the mouse like environmental niches until the dinosaurs went extinct.
And, what's the dividing line? The first monkeys probably looked a lot like lemurs. Early birds had reptile traits, and I expect the first mammals did too. When is a creature not a reptile and instead is a bird (or mammal)?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
the question on evolution, as the data shows, is the only question that reveals whether or not you are truly scientific, or simply ruled by cultural norms. that makes it the BEST question on the test. the data shows that if there is only one question on the test, it should be that one.
Also: http://whyevolutionistrue.word...
why are you telling me this?
is it b/c you think i'm a creationist?
don't bother litigating "creation vs evolution" with me b/c i'm not a creationist
you're the problem here...people like you exaggerate and misconstrue real science to "win" a conversation
you're feeding the very creationists you're trying to fight...stop...just stop forever
Thank you Dave Raggett
For the record, my ancestors killed him a couple millennia ago. Trust me, when we kill 'em they stay dead.
Now, back to the main point - evolution is a theory, like Einstein's theory of general relativity. It's not a fact like "two plus two equals four", it's a theory. It has been tested in laboratory experiments with lower life forms and appears to have produced accurate predictions. It explains observed phenomena well and has not been contradicted by any documented observations to date. It is not accepted as scientific fact. It remains a theory.
And . . . I do believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. That theory most certainly exists. I happen to believe that it is a correct theory which explains the state of life on our planet.
republicanism, or conservatism, is just that: not willing to change / adapt, intellectually. liberalism is the opposite: willingness to change / adapt, intellectually. learning and thinking is by definition acquiring new information and altering ones behavior and mental models on the basis of it. by the very definition of liberals and conservatives, yes, conservatives are stupider than liberals. that's essentially saying "non-thinkers non-learners are stupider than thinkers/learners" it's a tautology. and tautologies are yes, inarguable facts.
oh my god i am so sick of hearing that fallacy! oh, just take it figuratively. when the bible says you should stone children to death if they don't listen to their parents, that's meant to be taken figuratively. oh really? when the bible says the lord commanded someone to eat babies, they meant to _figuratively_ eat babies, right? how the f do you _figuratively_ eat a baby? it really just wows me when people think they can just wave a hand "figuratively..." and suddenly their immune to any rational discourse.
and of course, i don't mean any of this literally, only figuratively. so if you're offended by it, that's only because you're not using your imagination and understanding it figuratively.
So, there are a few key takeaways here. I'm just going to blatantly steal the author's version:
Okay, well and good. But I'd argue that he's also eliding a key epistemological question. Namely, can you lay claim to fundamentally understanding a theory of science if you're wrong about it?
Let's say I'm Tycho Brahe. My contemporary, Nicolaus Copernicus, has published a book in which he suggests that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Based on my knowledge of astronomy, mathematics, and religion, I propose an alternate view, one which says that it's actually the sky spinning around the Earth. After all, the Earth is way too heavy to spin like Copernicus suggests.
So with regard to this subject, does Tycho Brahe understand the science?
if you can't see that children are not exactly the same as their parents, not only are you completely blind to observation evidence - ahem, science - but you are quite simply completely blind. period. evolution is so basic observationally that it should be a litmus test for basic sanity. and if you fail that test, i don't think any score on a science test is going to meaningful at all.
This is the problem with leaving taxonomy to straight men. Like we only see a handful of colors, we try to group things into sets that are too small and fail at the edge cases. We need the amaranth, puce and malachite* of species classification.
(*I had to look those up BTW)
It's funny how these Jesus freaks go from "can't prove a negative" to "my sky father will send you to Hades! Idiot!"
To these people, lack of evidence to the contrary is not only proof that their god exists, but also that he thinks and judges people exactly the same way that they do. But then there isn't enough evidence to support natural selection. This is why Christians are famous for holding double standards, and arguing from positions completely at odds with each-other.
So, because nobody has proven God doesn't exist, they conclude that he hates gays, Muslims, non-believers, wants you to vote Republican, etc etc etc... Perhaps that isn't the mental process of every christian, but judging by the propaganda I see coming from their temples and leaders, many if not most of them. Being based on their actual history and evidence you can actually observe, I doubt they will agree that to be true either.
Thanks for perfectly proving my point.
Hint: perhaps you should check your definition of conservatism for strawmen? I'm pretty sure there are at least a couple lurking in there.
I'll even give you the first: "reluctant" != "not willing to"
-Styopa
Your response certainly sounds insightful but in reality, when something is a fact, there is no need to state that you believe it or why you believe it. Injecting yourself into the conversation is trading on the value of fact, which ought to be illegal. Facts are something that everyone is inherently owed as debt to the pains of life.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
this "take it figuratively" b.s. is known as "special pleading"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
and "moving the goal posts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Reptile : cold blooded Avian : warm blooded Mammal : live birth
http://www.amazon.com/The-Repu...
Read it.
Or prove it. (and/or i should say)
Book description:
Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s Republicans reject reality—it's just part of who they are.
From climate change to evolution, the rejection of mainstream science among Republicans is growing, as is the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy and much more. Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts?
Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas and less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.
Goes beyond the standard claims about ignorance or corporate malfeasance to discover the real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts (e.g., there were no “death panels” in the health care bill).
Explains that the political parties reflect personality traits and psychological needs—with Republicans more wedded to certainty, Democrats to novelty—and this is the root of our divide over reality.
Written by the author of The Republican War on Science, which was the first and still the most influential book to look at conservative rejection of scientific evidence. But the rejection of science is just the beginning
Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Repu...
Review
* ""Drawing on a growing body of empirical research, he provides an intelligent, nuanced and persuasive account of how conservatives and liberals tend to differ at the level of psychology and personality"" (Financial Times, April 2012)
From the Inside Flap
Why do so many Republicans believe man-made climate change is a hoax? The two most common explanations are that the deniers are uninformed or that they have been bought off by corporate money. Bestselling author Chris Mooney isn't buying either of those arguments. In fact, as he points out, the better educated a conservative is, the more likely he is to dismiss climate change concerns. How can that be?
Part of the answer lies with motivated reasoning—the psychological phenomenon of preferring only evidence that backs up your belief—but in The Republican Brain, Mooney explains that is just the tip of the cognitive iceberg. There is a growing body of evidence that conservatives and liberals don't just have differing ideologies; they have different psychologies. How could the rejection of mainstream science be growing among Republicans, along with the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy, and much more? Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: it's just part of who they are.
Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.
The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance, people more wedded to certainty tend to become conservatives; people craving novelty, liberals. Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are better predictors of political preference than income or education. If you like to keep your house neat and see the world in a relatively black and white way, you're probably going to vote Republican. If you've recently moved to a big city to see what else life has to offer, you're probably going to vote Democrat. These basic differences in openness and curiosity, Mooney argues, fuel an "expertise gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today over what is true.
Being a good liberal, Mooney also has to explore the implications of these findings for Democrats as well. Are they really wishy-washy flip-floppers? Well, sometimes. Can't they be just as dogmatic about issues close to their hearts, like autism and vaccines, or nuclear power? His research leads to some surprising conclusions.
While the evolutionary advantages of both liberal and conservative psychologies seem obvious, clashes between them in modern life have led to a crisis in our politics. A significant chunk of the electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no matter how strong the evidence. Understanding the psychology of the left and the right, Mooney argues, should therefore fundamentally alter the way we approach the he-said-he-said of public debates.
Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
I think they should leave that question in there, not because it is an indicator of literacy, but because it an indication of whether the person actually BELIEVES in the science that they are supposedly literate in.
Just because somebody knows what evolution is, doesn't mean that they believe it to be true, and people tend to vote based on their beliefs, not on their knowledge.
As long as churches exist, scientific literacy will always be an uphill battle
First off, what the hell makes you think I'm an atheist?
How arrogant and ignorant of you to think that no belief in Jesus = no belief in one or more deity. Most of the world doesn't believe in Jesus. They are not atheists.
Second, it's clear that I meant the belief in him as a god, or son of god, or someone who is magically both...not as an individual. No one gives a fuck about weather he existed as a person. It's of no consequence.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Jesus the human may not have been a fictional character.
Jesus the son of God most certainly is.
Given that there is no evidence one way or the other you seem to be making a religious-like belief, an article of faith of your belief system. :-)
Why does your faith in G*d preclude accepting Darwin's theory of evolution as valid? Genesis tells us what G*d did, not how she did it.
Various Christian denominations and churches accept evolution, accept cosmology, accept genetics, ...
Hell the Big Bang Theory was introduced by a Catholic Priest while teaching at a Catholic University.
"The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven. Science tells us how the heavens go."
First off good sir, how did you know I'm an atheist? I had always assumed that other religions didn't believe in Jesus either.
Because only someone with an incentive of Jesus not existing would contradict an established fact like that. Just as Christians will assert that Mohammed and Buddha are historical factual people, all of the major religions of the world will assert that there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth at the beginning of the first century.
Second, I must admit I misspoke. What I intended to say was that I meant that I didn't think he is the incarnation of God. Out of curiousity, do people have an interest in whether a historical Jesus existed?
Great question, schlachter! Yes, there is a lot of time and money spent researching Jesus. Given the huge impact Jesus, and by extension Christianity, has had on western culture; Jesus is one of the most well studied historical figures of all time!
You are assuming that "kind" is a well-defined term. This, however, is not true. When species split, in the first few generations, there is no observable difference between them, and they can, in fact, still interbreed. Something, however, acts to separate the two lines of descent. Over time differences between the populations in the two lines accumulate until the members of the two populations either cannot or will not interbreed. At THAT point one can start to talk of them as two separate species. During the entire intervening period the "kind" of each population is in a sort of superpositon of states. If the barriers between them collapse, then they will likely merge back into the same species.
And then there are "ring species" where the two "kinds" at the opposite ends of their range are different species, but as you move toward the middle they become more and more similar until at the midpoint of the range they are clearly the same species. There is (was?) a butterfly that lives on the East Coast, the West Coast, and in the center of the US. It can breed continually all across the country. But the butterflies of this species that ive on the West Coast cannot interbreed with those that live on the East Coast.
The "kind" of any individual is not well defined without a total knowledge of its environment, and sometimes not then.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Why wouldn't I claim that Linnaean Taxonomy falls apart. He made a large number of errors, some quite basic.
OTOH, I admit that I have trouble when I try to consider a trout as more like a cow than like a shark. I accept that it is true, because I'm philosophically a cladist, but I still have trouble with it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And, wouldn't it be funny as hell, if we DID send a time machine back, and as it drifted further and further back, we gathered shitloads of evidence that evolution really is real - BUT, there was also an entity at the beginning that started it all off? Then, EVERYONE would all be embarrassed!
Everyone except me, as that's the exact scenario I've been advocating for years.
Even the simplest living organism is so complex -- dependent on correct interactions between hundreds of proteins, and the instructions for synthesizing each of those proteins are quite cleverly encoded in its DNA -- it's obvious that the first living organism could not have simply assembled itself out of random chemicals dissolved in the "primoridal soup."
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Your honor, I have succeeded in observing all the federal and state statutes as symbolism.
If it pleases the court I recommend that my imagination be recognized for the creative genius that it is.
I cannot be imposed upon to follow the US law code as a literal document as it would confine me to rigid parallel lines.
As you must have surely inferred, my commitment to lawful behavior is unassailable and completely genuine.
I wish you luck.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I do realise this is incredibly unlikely but was trying to make the point that there's no reason a species can not become a different species.
Species evolving into new species is not incredibly unlikely, it's basically inevitable. A species evolving into another *existing* species, like some population of cats evolving to become dogs (able to breed with other dogs) genetically, that's much less likely than "incredibly unlikely", it's so unlikely it's indistinguishable from impossible.
Which is part of the meaning behind this article. You can't gauge scientific literacy based upon an acceptance of an evolutionary concept ("human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals"). People retain a simplistic view of evolution that they learned in high school, sort of the dumbed down version that leaves off the complex parts better suited to college or which scientists are still actively working on.
Kinds of animal:
Dog kind (Genus Canis): wolf, husky, poodle, etc.
Frog kind (Genus Rana): pond frogs, bullfrogs, etc.
Etc.
There are definitely different kinds of animal. The theory of evolution tries to explain how these kinds are related. There is a book called "On the Origin of the Species" which tries to explain how the different sorts of animals are related -- Darwin used "Species" because his theory makes the most sense when thinking about small changes. There are definitely different sorts of animals, the question is about how they are related.
The animals are not all the same but they have significant similarities. If they evolved then they have a common ancestor and that explains the similarities. If they were created by aliens or God or something then they their common creation explains the similarities.
Problem is, what does "kind" mean. Both dogs and frogs are "tetrapod kind", are they not? So they are same "kind" then? Or there is no "tetrapod kind"?
The answer is, "kinds", whatever that means, are nested. And ultimately, all living organism are all same "DNA with certain specific protein encoding scheme" kind. So there's just one kind. This usually isn't compatible with the religious doctrine of those who like to talk about "kinds" and "micro evolution" and who really really want multiple distinct, separately created kinds to exist. Alas, reality does not seem to match their belief.
There are definitely different kinds of animals (that is why we use the words "Species" and "Genus" to classify the different kinds) but there are also similarities between those kinds.
From another point of view, there's just one "kind" of living organisms on Earth, the ones who share the same DNA/RNA and protein encoding scheme. Inside this one "kind", you can take a gene from any other organism and insert it into another, and expect it to produce the same protein.
I suppose one could get into semi-interesting argument about prions, which don't have a protein encoding scheme as such. As far as I understand them, they could and would exist just the same as long as there are proteins, no matter how and where they're encoded in whatever genome of "real" living organisms.
There's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions about how animals are related. Dimetrodon, a reptile that lived almost 300 million years ago is more closely related to mammals than any other extant group. "Reptile" is an awful catch-all term that includes lots of species not even closely related to each other. Crocodiles are much more closely related to birds and dinosaurs than they are to other reptiles, for example.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
Well, no; abstract concepts like "belief" and "literacy" don't really "measure" each other.
"Imply" or "correlate with" seem like better choices, to me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
> the event of Creation was 13 and a bit billion years ago.
13 billion is just an estimate. Newer data possibly suggests 18 billion years.
http://www.economist.com/node/...
> Ultimately, none of us from this tiny backwater of a planet have a clue how this universe came about.
That's a fallacy.
Pro-Tip: You look like an ass when you make assumptions about people you have never met.
A fallacy in what way? I'm not sure you are using the term correctly.
I am not positing some sort of argument. I am making a statement. And more than that, my statement is neither misleading nor deceptive. You can agree or disagree, but if you disagree then please present a concrete counterpoint about how my statement is false. Perhaps you are interpreting what I am saying wrong since it is only a one line statement. You an I could even perhaps agree on most points in fact. or not.
Do you know how the Universe came about? If, as your "That's a fallacy" statement infers then you must have a clue how the universe came about. To me such an inference would be a bold statement indeed. I would then have to ask you to qualify this understanding of yours further. Where did everything before the big bang come from? Was there a before? Will there be an after? Is the universe we currently exist in merely 15 billion? What is the nature of time. What is the nature of space as it currently exists? How many dimensions actually do exist? Are we even living in a real world? Are there things beyond the known universe or is ours universe it? If there are other universes, how does ours fit into a larger scheme. Is there some sort of generator of universes or are they merely spontaneous. Have there been recurrent big bangs of our universe?
There are so many questions to be asked and answered. Many of the answerable things are being answered, yet the amount that has been answered I feel is still small compared to the larger questions about the vast unknown. Because we live on one pinprick of a planet in all of this vastness, our ability to determine things observationally are a bit limited because of our perspective. Because human civilization has been around merely some 10k years roughly and of those it has been merely 500 or so years where we have really began to delve into things as science began to take hold, I feel there is much more to learn and find out about the 15 billion year old universe, its origins, and the nature of the great infinite which seems to surround us. We have a lot more learning to do.
Firstly it isn't a fallacy to make an opinion statement, but even more I doubt very much that you can construct a coherent argument as to why my opinion is false. You can merely disagree with my statement, but I am not sure what the point of that would be either. None of us really has a clue since there is much to be learned yet and I include myself in this mass of humans who don't know much. We are trapped corporeally in our universe of apparently 3 discreet spacial dimensions. We are stuck in a universe that theoretically came into existence with a big bang some 15 billion years ago, but we know nothing about beyond the universe or outside the universe. Our knowledge is rather paltry in the grand scheme of things although we fashion ourselves as enlightened somehow.
Is your "pro tip" directed at me for saying that 'none of us from this tiny backwater of a planet have a clue how this universe came about.' Seems a bit of a misguided ad hominem. Especially in the face of such massive uncertainty such as the ultimate nature of our universe and the vast complexity of what exists. Plus you just did the very thing that you were warning about in your pro tip. Seems a bit like Kafka's the Castle to me ending up where you began.
I make no assumptions about people I have never met. There are those who have infinitely greater understanding than do I in all areas of human endeavor, and yet, all of the people I know, are stuck on this one planet, in this 3-d spacial paradigm, with a scant few hundred years of observational data and theory about what our universe ultimately is and how it came about. Last time I checked everything regarding what we know is still theoretical. Humanity seems to be stuck on the same boat called earth and all of our knowledge and understanding is bottled up with us.
If your experience is different that is nice. I think you need to define what you are talking about more before making easy statements like "That's a Fallacy"
Elaboration would be needed if you wish your statement to have heft. but first you would have to know what fallacy is and not confuse fallacy with mere statements and opinions.
Can I have some of what you're smoking?
Understanding the role of evolution in changing the way life operates is a necessary but not sufficient condition to indicate understanding science enough that when someone says "we can cure autism by stopping immunizations" you can probably call BS and not pass a law enabling such ignorance. So, the hypothetical candidate's answer to the question "is evolution part of your personal belief system" is a good start as a litmus test for me when deciding how to vote. If the politician's answer is "no" then I would believe that they would not understand the concerns about the overuse of antibiotics and why the free market cannot protect this commons.
It's all about testing how the person approaches uncertainty and decisions and not at all about what they believe. I think that the Middle East is showing us how poorly it works to have gut-instinct religious beliefs driving government behavior.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
'Belief' in evolution does not indicate science literacy but most of the science literate acknowledge evolution as the cause for diversity in biological organisms, all having a common ancestor.
Oh it is without a doubt true that different people think different things are ethical. This is easily shown just by considering that different people are at different stages of moral development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
However, this says nothing about whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. Just that if there are, not everyone respects them. Which is a "well duh!" That is true regardless of whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. It's a non-sequitor. Yes, we have criminals and psychopaths and people with behavioral issues and people who just don't have a lot of compassion and all that. That means that people think different things are ethical.
Despite these differences,
"There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commossion of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. The non-aggression principle is considered to be the central principle from which all other universal ethical principles are derived. Most cultures also have some version of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.[2]A practicable Code of Universal Ethics was proposed by Enno Winkler.[3]
There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it's better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society's government or its dominant ideology."
--from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
do not grasp it any more than most people who "believe" in religious stuff.
Yet they are held in higher esteem by people who also believe in science. Just like religious people.
It is the kind of semi tragic comedy people who study philosophy find mundane and predictable.
And sometimes a bit amusing, while simultaneously being a bit nauseating.
(n/t)
The law of gravity states that any two objects in space will exert an attractive force on one another; that force is readily computed based on the total mass present and the distance between the two objects.
One theory of gravity states that objects with mass curve spacetime, and that this curvature in spacetime makes objects appear to accelerate toward each other; two objects falling towards one another are not accelerating but are obeying Newton's laws of motion. Curvature in spacetime makes the objects appear to accelerate towards one another.
Quantum theory is also widely accepted, and has also produced accurate predictions. Quantum gravity and relativistic gravity are mutually exclusive theories. Are both of these theories facts?
Creationalism, Evolution in its various (heh evolved/revised) forms are just theories.
Stick to science. Scientific method. By that evolution was disproved years ago and replaced with a new theory called the same thing. Seems to me at least three times in just my lifetime. To measure scientific ability by a belief in evolution is just a political test. It's good they admit this now, something I told them 40 years ago to the look of deer in headlights.
Scientific method, wonderful stuff. Disproves all kinds of political BS if they would just apply it.
It may suit your agenda to do so, but do everyone the courtesy of NOT deliberately conflating two related but very different meanings of the word "believe", please.
1) I will routinely admit that I "believe" (small "b") any number of things. In that usage, I mean simply that something is my opinion (one that I may hold very strongly in some cases, but that I still recognise for what it is). Based on such facts as I know, the balance of probability seems that something is the case. But I recognise that my opinion may be wrong - something that causes me not the slightest degree of difficulty, discomfort or internal conflict. If presented with reasonable conflicting evidence, I will weigh it to the best of my ability to do so impartially and honestly, and adjust my opinion accordingly if required.
2) I most definitely do NOT "Believe" (capital "B") in ANYTHING, in the sense that the word is used in religion - to cling dogmatically to a particular viewpoint in the absence of testable evidence (or, worse, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary), secure in the "knowledge" that I already "know" the "true" answer, and that anything that conflicts with that can be ignored because it is "wrong".**
So:
Do I believe in evolution? Of course I do. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming.
Do I Believe in evolution? Of course I don't. If I'm presented with a scientifically sound, alternative explanation that embraces the existing evidence, yet points to a different conclusion, I'll give it due consideration. And if the evidence for the new theory versus the old is sufficiently compelling, I'll happily change my opinion.
but evolution does not include abiogenesis, so most people would be wrong.
you're basically saying that most people in the USA are scientifically illiterate.
unfortunately i'd have to agree.
"I have personal revelation of god and do not consider it delusional."
Well of course you don't.
"What it does do is raise the question of where the intelligent designer came from and how it evolved."
Just define away the problem. The designer doesn't exist in the framework of the universe. It has no need of an origin because time and space are meaningless to it.
Problem solved.
I'm curious. What, exactly, are the "basic, most fundamental human rights"?
Uh, I dunno. Don't rape. Don't steal. I'm sure any sensible (sensible =/= misanthropic fucktard savage) can come up with a few the general population of the civilized world can agree on.
And what is ethical about each of them?
Because they imbued the essence of right and wrong by stating things that cannot be done to an individual? After all, ethics deals with the study of right or wrong. source
Also, do you think that Christianity had anything to do with your list of "basic, fundamental human rights"?
No, I did not. But hey, don't let that stop you in the way of building a nice strawman (#whatthefuckiswrongwithyou)
If so,
Well, I didn't so...
do you concede the possibility that people who grew up in Muslim/Hindu/Taoist societies might define "basic, most fundamental human rights" differently than you?
I don't have to concede shit because to me it is a given. Someone in another culture might think it ok to chop a little girl's genitalia, but that doesn't mean that child's right to not be mutilated is not universal as in it-fucking-exists-whether-you-accept-it-or-not. You don't debate if 2+2 = 4, or that raping is bad even if there is an entire culture out there that rape people daily while chanting 2+2=5.
You are just simply looking for a strawman to fight and proclaim victory.
If not, why do you believe that these "basic, fundamental human rights" are universal in nature, but NOT recognized the world over as "basic, fundamental human rights"?
They are universal because they apply to all individuals regardless of age, gender, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation or lack thereof, and so on and so on. Just because a culture says "these rights don't apply to so and so" does not make them so. If that were the case, then we are forced to conclude that women, universally, have a fundamental right to be treated equal just because some cultures do not accept that as a fact.
Do you believe that different people might think different things are ethical?
I don't have to believe it. I know it. It doesn't matter. When you distill their differences, you find commonalities shared by the majority of cultures (don't rape, don't steal and so on.) And by "shared", I mean "acknowledge" in some way or another. That there is institutional violations of those rights (even in cultures that some type of written or verbal tradition of acknowledging them) is inconsequential. That is just breaking some form of law or having a subjective, partial application of some form of law.
That is the thing about a right that is universal to all humans. It means shit to its nature as a right if entire cultures decide to ignore it.
and on the topic of abiogenesis, creationism is actually a form of abiogenesis. so you see religious people are also firm believers in abiogenesis. just that their particular, err, less then even a hypothesis -- creationism -- fails the scientific test miserably, and never really explained anything in the first place.
Yes, creationism is a form of abiogenesis, which is why I used the term spontaneous generation in my first post.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
When evolution is contrasted with creationism it does...or to be more precise, when evolution is contrasted with creationism it must include an explanation of where life came from in the first place (Otherwise it is merely being contrasted to a specific creation story, not to the idea of creationism). The explanation most evolutionists choose is spontaneous generation.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
... that just might puncture some inflated egos.
Nah. That would require self-reflection.
Huh. A hit-piece on Republicans talking about how stupid they must be.
I like the tautology at the end: "You're stupid because you reject what I say!" "Uh, no?" "SEE?!?!!?"
Sounds compelling.
I'll quote Jonah Goldberg: "If you say that about homosexuals, you are tolerant and realistic. If you say it about blacks, you are racist (unless youâ(TM)re black yourself). If you say it about women, you may or may not be sexist, depending on who is manning (er, womanning) the feminist battle stations. If you say it about men, you just might be a writer for Esquire. But if you say it about conservatives, youâ(TM)re a scientist."
Quick tip: resisting the growth of the STATE isn't the same as resisting change.
I'd cheerfully advocate lots of changes: eliminating Social Security, for example. That would be a huge change. Will you join with me in embracing change?
(And seriously, who replies to their own post just to post MORE? Do you 'like' your own facebook posts too?)
-Styopa
One's understanding of science and theory formation in general is independent of whether a theory (even a true one) is believed. Only ideologues (see warming denial, global) would need to think otherwise.