Why do you assume this will be a glorification? (Although I do think it will be). There is the possibility that the developers could take a deep approach to the subject matter. From the summary, "Eddie Garcia, talks about how his right leg was shredded in a mortar attack, and how he suffered survivor's guilt after he was taken out of combat" doesn't sound like glorification at all.
It's about time games started covering deeper material. Perhaps one day there will be a "Schindler's List" of video games. Now that would be survival horror.
I have a degree in Biology, specializing in genetics and evolution so I have done a lot of research on that subject. If you can tell me an experiment by which I can research creationism, I would love to do it. The problem is that no creationist experiment can be performed through observation or experimentation. The only conclusions that can be drawn are through induction alone.
This is a good thing. Teaching the strengths and weaknesses of a evolutionary theory is not good, because although evolution is scientifically very strong, it is politically and theologically weak. And this is where creationist try to get a hand hold in the class room. By changing the language to "examining all sides of SCIENTIFIC evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student" it takes politics and religion out of the equation.
And I'm like to point out for the hundredth time ABIOGENESIS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
The creation of life is not part of the theory of evolution. The application of evolution is seen every day in modern biology, medicine and even manufacturing (those bacteria that create gas out of garbage? Principles of evolution at work). I'm all for the curriculum teaching any theory that is as solid as the theory of evolution, but currently there are none. Unaccepted theories should be kept for college and university students that have a good enough understanding of evolution in order to PROPERLY challenge it. Unfortunately, very few people who argue against evolution are properly educated on the topic. All they know is that it somehow goes against their beliefs (which, btw, it doesn't). So... with that (and it seems that you ARE interested in evolution) you should watch this PBS series by NOVA. It presents both sides of the argument quite well. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
You decide.
Yes, but is it good enough for early schooling? I learned the Bohr Rutherford model of the atom first (which is not wrong, but also is not completely right) and then moved on to the Quantum Mechanical Model in college.
Should I have jumped straight into the Quantum Mechanical Model? Cause I'll tell you, with out the foundation set by the first model, there's no way I would've understood it. Not to mention that the Quantum mechanical Model isn't completely right either.
Everything you just mentioned IS evolution. That first DNA (in your example) is the common ancestry. And you're saying that it evolved into different creatures.
It's obvious that you don't really know about evolution, but I think you would be very interested in learning about it. Also, the Theory of Evolution HAS been repeatedly tested. The reason why it stands out as such an excellent scientific theory is that it has withstood 150 years of scrutiny. The greatest boon to the theory was the discovery of genetics (about 60 years ago). That discovery could have easily disproved evolution, but instead it fully supported it and is now the best evidence of the truth of the Theory of Evolution.
"Gosh, that would lead people to possibly re-evaluate observations. That would be dangerous because.... We have a lot more recorded data than Darwin had available to him in much more widely accessible forms."
Yes, and ALL of that data supports Darwin. The Theory of Evolution includes a lot more that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, but it is compltely built on its foundations. The issue here is that the people challenging evolution don't understand it. They know nothing at all. In fact, they seem to believe that evolution explains the origins of life. It does not. There is no definitive answer to the beginning of life in the Theory of Evolution.
Hera Agathon is supposed to be the identity of Mitochondria Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve). An ancient human female that all mitochondria in humans can be traced back to. Mitochondria are passed down from the mother as complete organelles. The father's sperm only provides DNA.
Okay... the ape/human ancestry may be a bit too advanced.
Let's go basic evolutionary theory (back to Darwin). This states that traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Therefore (and we'll remove random mutation from this for now as we're dealing with the basics), if two human parents give birth to a lizard, evolution needs to find a way to reconcile that. If it can't, it's falsified and therefore falsifiable.
Of course the previous ape/man ancestry theory is based on this as well as mendelian genetics and many other theories. Even natural selection is based on this fundamental concept. It's all falsifiable down the line.
Got any more? It's easy to show that science is falsifiable (that's why it's science - evolution included).
The only way that I can discern to falsify creationism is for god to come down and say... "I didn't do that". But that would be a whole other can of worms.
I think you're confusing the concept of falsifiable with the concept of being falsified. The point is that there is a set of outcomes that "could" occur that would disprove evolutionary theory. There hasn't been any observations that have, but it is a possibility because something at some point might happen that brings the whole theory to its knees (creationism is not that thing).
For instance, we can test the theory of gravity by dropping something. The theory of gravity predicts that it will fall down. If it "falls up", that goes against the theory of gravity and we must re-examine the theory of gravity. If we cannot reconcile what happened with the theory of gravity, it has been disproved. Although this has never happened, that is what makes the theory of gravity falsifiable.
Your example of having to redraw family trees... sure... but if there were no way to reconcile the ape/man ancestry by redrawing the family tree, then there is something seriously wrong with the theory of evolution. And that is what makes it falsifiable (not falsified).
How do you test creationism? You can't. That's why it's not falsifiable.
That proves that a part of it can be falsified. Then more concepts can be falsified. The theory itself can be falsified. The trouble for creationists, is that it is not. Over 150 years of testing evolution is continually upheld.
There is no testable prediction or observation in creationism. It is therefore unfalsifiable.
Every part of the Theory of Evolution can be tested (otherwise it would not be included in the theory), and therefore falsifiable.
Actually, if something makes predictions, it is by definition falsifiable. Those predictions can be falsified. Which is why evolution is so strong. Consider the issue that great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Evolution makes a prediction about why that would occur if we did have a common ancestor with great apes. If that prediction was wrong, evolution would be in trouble and falsified. However, and I definitely recommend you look it up (can't find a link right now), it turns out that chromosome pair 2 in humans is a fused pair of complementary chromosome is apes (proven by the observation of two centromeres and multiple telomeres).
Science looks at seemingly contrary data and makes predictions based on known scientific theories, then sets out to test those theories. Creationism looks for exceptions and assume that everything must follow the same model (without investigating further).
Don't even get me started on the bacteria flagellum...
There is a point to teaching the debate, but the debate is not scientific. It is political. The teaching of the debate belongs in a sociology, history or political science classroom.
Scientific debates are based on data. Creationist have no accepted, reproducible data with which to argue from. And even if there WERE, the fundamentals of accepted science must be taught first and then expanded on in post high school settings. You don't teach someone theoretical mathematics and the debates between various models before the student understands basic arithmetic.
"It does not in any way prove that given enough time, we can turn non living matter into man (macro evolution)"
That's abiogenesis. And that isn't covered in the theory of evolution. How life begins is not defined in evolution. Although many hypotheses exist not have been proven.
Creationist tend to go to the argument of micro and macro evolution. Evolutionist do not make such delineations. What you call macro evolution is the summation of many of what you call micro-evolutionary steps. Creationists will also point to the nonexistence of transitional forms of species. But is they don't exist, what do you call this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish
I think we can all agree that religion does not belong in science, but I think that the religious would also say that science does not belong in religion. The two are unrelated to each other. One studies natural law while the other studies supernatural law.
The problem is that people like Dawkins tells the religious that there can't be a God (which is beyond the domain of science) and the religious tell scientist that there MUST be a God (which is beyond the jurisdiction of faith).
So although I respect Dawkins as a scientist, I do not respect his atheist dogma. (I am an agnostic).
That's pretty sad that you think that's the solution. In fact, it's probably because everyone's knee jerk reaction is "sue" that this kind of crap happens.
Why else would they have this kind of policy unless they were trying to prevent being sued by someone who's "offended" that their child was exposed to a lesbian?
I would like to see a theme about death. Perhaps something along the lines of the importance of death and how the lack of it affects people/society. Or how in the world of Blade Runner, it could be determined that death is only for the poor and genetically engineered.
The point of the contest is not to take really great pictures, it's to try to get away with it. It all makes sense now, it's just a ploy to test their private police.
I am not and atheist. I am not a christian, nor do I belong to any denomination.
What I believe is that there is a reason that everything "makes sense", and to a certain degree this is a belief that scientists MUST share. Because they seek to understand the rules that everything abides by. My "faith" as it were, is that these rules are benevolent to us, if not for the pure reason that we are a part of these rules, that these rules created us, as well as the lake that I like to sit by to watch the sun set that brings me so much comfort (which those laws also created).
You can argue whether or not these laws were "designed" by some creator or some other alternative, but I prefer to sit and watch the sunset and enjoy how these laws work. Whether we've discovered them or not (however, I do enjoy the pursuit).
A biologist who can create artificial life is not disproving the existence of God, but is a testament to how well the laws of the universe work and the ability of man's reason to make use of them.
Another problem is that the general public also doesn't know what a "good movie" is.
I bet you more people saw the godawful Batman & Robin (to date, the only movie I've walked out of) in the theater than Blade Runner.
You are arguing from a position of ignorance, my friend. First of all, no one who really understands what evolution is says "macro-evolution" there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. Those are words made up by creationist to try to differentiate small evolutionary steps (what they call "micro-evolution") and large changes in speciation (what they call "macro-evolution").
Secondly, "theory" in scientific terms is NOT the same as "theory" in everyday speech. A scientific theory is actually BETTER than fact, it is based on many observable facts to give a set of rules that can predict natural phenomena. A single fact may at first seem actually lie outside those rules (see the bacterial flagellum argument that ID proponents talk about) but on further DEEPER investigation turn out to actually support the original theory.
An example that doesn't use evolution is this... the theory of gravity dictates that things fall to the ground. The FACT that a helium balloon floats seems to contradict the theory. But on further investigation and applying information about gas densities and whatnot, you find that the theory of gravity holds true. The THEORY of gravity is actually better than the individual fact.
This is another problem with creationists, they try to find single FACTS that seem to contradict theories and use those to prove that creationism is correct. Example: The grand canyon and other "eroded" canyons must have been created in a few days because Mt St Helen's blew up and created a big hole in a day - they completely ignore that that is a SINGLE abnormal event... but choose to use that as "proof" that all phenomena must be the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you assume this will be a glorification? (Although I do think it will be). There is the possibility that the developers could take a deep approach to the subject matter. From the summary, "Eddie Garcia, talks about how his right leg was shredded in a mortar attack, and how he suffered survivor's guilt after he was taken out of combat" doesn't sound like glorification at all. It's about time games started covering deeper material. Perhaps one day there will be a "Schindler's List" of video games. Now that would be survival horror.
I have a degree in Biology, specializing in genetics and evolution so I have done a lot of research on that subject. If you can tell me an experiment by which I can research creationism, I would love to do it. The problem is that no creationist experiment can be performed through observation or experimentation. The only conclusions that can be drawn are through induction alone.
This is a good thing. Teaching the strengths and weaknesses of a evolutionary theory is not good, because although evolution is scientifically very strong, it is politically and theologically weak. And this is where creationist try to get a hand hold in the class room. By changing the language to "examining all sides of SCIENTIFIC evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student" it takes politics and religion out of the equation. And I'm like to point out for the hundredth time ABIOGENESIS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
The origin of life is NOT part of evolutionary theory. And those teaching that it is just plain wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life
The creation of life is not part of the theory of evolution. The application of evolution is seen every day in modern biology, medicine and even manufacturing (those bacteria that create gas out of garbage? Principles of evolution at work). I'm all for the curriculum teaching any theory that is as solid as the theory of evolution, but currently there are none. Unaccepted theories should be kept for college and university students that have a good enough understanding of evolution in order to PROPERLY challenge it. Unfortunately, very few people who argue against evolution are properly educated on the topic. All they know is that it somehow goes against their beliefs (which, btw, it doesn't). So... with that (and it seems that you ARE interested in evolution) you should watch this PBS series by NOVA. It presents both sides of the argument quite well. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ You decide.
Yes, but is it good enough for early schooling? I learned the Bohr Rutherford model of the atom first (which is not wrong, but also is not completely right) and then moved on to the Quantum Mechanical Model in college. Should I have jumped straight into the Quantum Mechanical Model? Cause I'll tell you, with out the foundation set by the first model, there's no way I would've understood it. Not to mention that the Quantum mechanical Model isn't completely right either.
Everything you just mentioned IS evolution. That first DNA (in your example) is the common ancestry. And you're saying that it evolved into different creatures. It's obvious that you don't really know about evolution, but I think you would be very interested in learning about it. Also, the Theory of Evolution HAS been repeatedly tested. The reason why it stands out as such an excellent scientific theory is that it has withstood 150 years of scrutiny. The greatest boon to the theory was the discovery of genetics (about 60 years ago). That discovery could have easily disproved evolution, but instead it fully supported it and is now the best evidence of the truth of the Theory of Evolution.
"Gosh, that would lead people to possibly re-evaluate observations. That would be dangerous because .... We have a lot more recorded data than Darwin had available to him in much more widely accessible forms."
Yes, and ALL of that data supports Darwin. The Theory of Evolution includes a lot more that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, but it is compltely built on its foundations. The issue here is that the people challenging evolution don't understand it. They know nothing at all. In fact, they seem to believe that evolution explains the origins of life. It does not. There is no definitive answer to the beginning of life in the Theory of Evolution.
Hera Agathon is supposed to be the identity of Mitochondria Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve). An ancient human female that all mitochondria in humans can be traced back to. Mitochondria are passed down from the mother as complete organelles. The father's sperm only provides DNA.
Okay... the ape/human ancestry may be a bit too advanced. Let's go basic evolutionary theory (back to Darwin). This states that traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Therefore (and we'll remove random mutation from this for now as we're dealing with the basics), if two human parents give birth to a lizard, evolution needs to find a way to reconcile that. If it can't, it's falsified and therefore falsifiable. Of course the previous ape/man ancestry theory is based on this as well as mendelian genetics and many other theories. Even natural selection is based on this fundamental concept. It's all falsifiable down the line. Got any more? It's easy to show that science is falsifiable (that's why it's science - evolution included). The only way that I can discern to falsify creationism is for god to come down and say... "I didn't do that". But that would be a whole other can of worms.
I think you're confusing the concept of falsifiable with the concept of being falsified. The point is that there is a set of outcomes that "could" occur that would disprove evolutionary theory. There hasn't been any observations that have, but it is a possibility because something at some point might happen that brings the whole theory to its knees (creationism is not that thing). For instance, we can test the theory of gravity by dropping something. The theory of gravity predicts that it will fall down. If it "falls up", that goes against the theory of gravity and we must re-examine the theory of gravity. If we cannot reconcile what happened with the theory of gravity, it has been disproved. Although this has never happened, that is what makes the theory of gravity falsifiable. Your example of having to redraw family trees... sure... but if there were no way to reconcile the ape/man ancestry by redrawing the family tree, then there is something seriously wrong with the theory of evolution. And that is what makes it falsifiable (not falsified). How do you test creationism? You can't. That's why it's not falsifiable.
That proves that a part of it can be falsified. Then more concepts can be falsified. The theory itself can be falsified. The trouble for creationists, is that it is not. Over 150 years of testing evolution is continually upheld. There is no testable prediction or observation in creationism. It is therefore unfalsifiable. Every part of the Theory of Evolution can be tested (otherwise it would not be included in the theory), and therefore falsifiable.
Actually, if something makes predictions, it is by definition falsifiable. Those predictions can be falsified. Which is why evolution is so strong. Consider the issue that great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Evolution makes a prediction about why that would occur if we did have a common ancestor with great apes. If that prediction was wrong, evolution would be in trouble and falsified. However, and I definitely recommend you look it up (can't find a link right now), it turns out that chromosome pair 2 in humans is a fused pair of complementary chromosome is apes (proven by the observation of two centromeres and multiple telomeres). Science looks at seemingly contrary data and makes predictions based on known scientific theories, then sets out to test those theories. Creationism looks for exceptions and assume that everything must follow the same model (without investigating further). Don't even get me started on the bacteria flagellum...
There is a point to teaching the debate, but the debate is not scientific. It is political. The teaching of the debate belongs in a sociology, history or political science classroom. Scientific debates are based on data. Creationist have no accepted, reproducible data with which to argue from. And even if there WERE, the fundamentals of accepted science must be taught first and then expanded on in post high school settings. You don't teach someone theoretical mathematics and the debates between various models before the student understands basic arithmetic.
"It does not in any way prove that given enough time, we can turn non living matter into man (macro evolution)" That's abiogenesis. And that isn't covered in the theory of evolution. How life begins is not defined in evolution. Although many hypotheses exist not have been proven. Creationist tend to go to the argument of micro and macro evolution. Evolutionist do not make such delineations. What you call macro evolution is the summation of many of what you call micro-evolutionary steps. Creationists will also point to the nonexistence of transitional forms of species. But is they don't exist, what do you call this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish
Forfty percent of all people know that!
I think we can all agree that religion does not belong in science, but I think that the religious would also say that science does not belong in religion. The two are unrelated to each other. One studies natural law while the other studies supernatural law. The problem is that people like Dawkins tells the religious that there can't be a God (which is beyond the domain of science) and the religious tell scientist that there MUST be a God (which is beyond the jurisdiction of faith). So although I respect Dawkins as a scientist, I do not respect his atheist dogma. (I am an agnostic).
That's pretty sad that you think that's the solution. In fact, it's probably because everyone's knee jerk reaction is "sue" that this kind of crap happens. Why else would they have this kind of policy unless they were trying to prevent being sued by someone who's "offended" that their child was exposed to a lesbian?
I would like to see a theme about death. Perhaps something along the lines of the importance of death and how the lack of it affects people/society. Or how in the world of Blade Runner, it could be determined that death is only for the poor and genetically engineered.
This is what he did on his first day: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/ Not too shabby.
the education they want the public to have is "you will get sued" not "you will get sued, it could end up in court and you may actually win".
The point of the contest is not to take really great pictures, it's to try to get away with it. It all makes sense now, it's just a ploy to test their private police.
I am not and atheist. I am not a christian, nor do I belong to any denomination. What I believe is that there is a reason that everything "makes sense", and to a certain degree this is a belief that scientists MUST share. Because they seek to understand the rules that everything abides by. My "faith" as it were, is that these rules are benevolent to us, if not for the pure reason that we are a part of these rules, that these rules created us, as well as the lake that I like to sit by to watch the sun set that brings me so much comfort (which those laws also created). You can argue whether or not these laws were "designed" by some creator or some other alternative, but I prefer to sit and watch the sunset and enjoy how these laws work. Whether we've discovered them or not (however, I do enjoy the pursuit). A biologist who can create artificial life is not disproving the existence of God, but is a testament to how well the laws of the universe work and the ability of man's reason to make use of them.
Another problem is that the general public also doesn't know what a "good movie" is. I bet you more people saw the godawful Batman & Robin (to date, the only movie I've walked out of) in the theater than Blade Runner.
You are arguing from a position of ignorance, my friend. First of all, no one who really understands what evolution is says "macro-evolution" there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. Those are words made up by creationist to try to differentiate small evolutionary steps (what they call "micro-evolution") and large changes in speciation (what they call "macro-evolution"). Secondly, "theory" in scientific terms is NOT the same as "theory" in everyday speech. A scientific theory is actually BETTER than fact, it is based on many observable facts to give a set of rules that can predict natural phenomena. A single fact may at first seem actually lie outside those rules (see the bacterial flagellum argument that ID proponents talk about) but on further DEEPER investigation turn out to actually support the original theory. An example that doesn't use evolution is this... the theory of gravity dictates that things fall to the ground. The FACT that a helium balloon floats seems to contradict the theory. But on further investigation and applying information about gas densities and whatnot, you find that the theory of gravity holds true. The THEORY of gravity is actually better than the individual fact. This is another problem with creationists, they try to find single FACTS that seem to contradict theories and use those to prove that creationism is correct. Example: The grand canyon and other "eroded" canyons must have been created in a few days because Mt St Helen's blew up and created a big hole in a day - they completely ignore that that is a SINGLE abnormal event... but choose to use that as "proof" that all phenomena must be the same.