I was about to say that you could have flooding without divine intervention but then I realized that it wouldn't be a global flood, and if it was, there wouldn't be mammals around to tell the tale:)
That's what they want. A day when all you have to do to arrest someone is prove that they were trying to be anonymous on the internet is a good day to be a cop.
I don't really see how having more people who don't have the skills or time to pick up linux translates into usability issues getting solved. Grandma isn't going to be hitting up launchpad.
The only good argument for cramming linux down people's throats that I can think of is that it will foster adoption of standards. Even that doesn't satisfy me. I'm with arth1...I think linux needs more people who appreciate it for what it is, and can code. Not more MS refugees (there's enough Unix refugees as it is).
But, and this is a big but, we're talking about Ubuntu, which has the stated goal of bringing computing to as many people as possible. I think we need to evaluate this latest FF EULA stupidity in that light. Is including FF important for Ubuntu's mission? How about just temporarily?
I can see why people have a hair trigger when it comes to this...all you ever hear is "teach the controversy", and when you know there is no controversy, it boils your blood.
But they guy wasn't saying that, and the people calling for his job should be humiliated for not reading what the guy actually said before jumping to conclusions.
New breeds of dogs and strawberries have been made for quite some time.
But breeding is different from speciation. Evolution and breeding both require genetics to work, but they are most definitely not the same thing.
I don't think creationists refute the existence of genes. The point is, evolution uses random changes in genes plus natural selection to explain the diversity of life. These are both naturalistic explanations and don't require God to make them work. Creationism requires God, or at least a creator, in its explanation of the diversity of life. That is the difference. Not the how, the why.
That's not what they're arguing. They're talking about a 4,000 year old earth, and dinosaurs with saddles.
In any case, it's more subtle than just saying God 'created' evolution. Prior to the theory of evolution, the watchmaker analogy was perfectly good at reconciling God with the fact that we observe the universe following natural laws. The problem is, evolution provided a natural mechanism for those things taking place, at least as far as biology was concerned. If there's a natural explanation, why bring the supernatural in?
If every time someone discovers makes a scientific discovery, we're content with "God made it that way", then does God mean anything to us?
He gave you a specific example: fruit fly genetics. Antibiotic resistance is another.
Saying that we don't know anything 100% is not a good reason to bring creationism, which is not science, into science class. And calling out the need for "equal time" is disingenuous at best.
At which point, creationism still would have to be proven on its own merits.
There's nothing inherently special about Genesis that would cause me to pick it over, say, the story of Prometheus.
This is, in fact, one of the really annoying things about ID. Rather than justify their "theory", they pick up whatever stick they can find to poke evolution with. Then they hope that people won't notice the difference.
conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.
Dead wrong.
You seem to be trotting out the old, "evolution is just a theory", with the added bonus of pointing out (incorrectly) there there's no evidence for it. Were you just hoping no one would notice?
Sorry but the whole "science is just a secular church" thing is about as ridiculous as "cars are like birdfeeders, but they're metal and have wheels and an engine".
The way my HS biology teacher put it was that evolution happens out, not up. I think that's close enough. And from what I remember the standard textbooks do take time to point out that Darwin had some beliefs about evolution that ended with him, and didn't carry into the mainstream.
You're mixing things up a little. The history of science has largely seen teological explanations for things replaced with mechanistic ones. The fact that evolution matches the latter, and that this has been the general trend, does not mean that evolution is used to explain things outside of its domain. That said, the theory evolution is of course a cornerstone of Western thought.
I read through the first link, at least.
All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated.
They seem to be saying that, since we're using present phenomena to talk about the past, we're out of our depth and should just forget about the whole thing. Note that I could say the same thing about religion. It's a dumb argument that seems to hinge on the reader forgetting about inductive reasoning.
In general the whole "science is really a religion" thing is a huge ad hominem that fails to take into account the fact that scientists have to vet their "beliefs" by applying logic and collecting evidence. As a result, they are not called beliefs, but hypotheses.
Honestly, I think they should teach it in "social studies" or whatever equivalent. Things like Scopes trial have more to do with the study of law and government than science. Obviously it's important to learn, but the problem is when people say "let's get all the information out there", they usually mean, "I don't believe in evolution, on religious grounds, but I don't want to look silly, so let's see if you can somehow get my religious views inserted, on scientific grounds."
There is one more than one argument that suits hardcore creationists' needs, and the more political among them will use whatever gets their foot in the door. There are some, like the idea of irreducible complexity, which can be proven false. Of course, not everyone agrees that irreducible complexity is falsifiable, but at least some do. I used to hear friends talking about the eyeball as not having been able to evolve. There's a good amount of evidence to counter that, these days.
Distribute the first chapter of genesis, have students read it. Demand the children argue for and against at least 3 interpretations of the text, right there in biology class.
As long as his noodlyness, the FSM, is also included in the discussion, I'm happy.
In all seriousness, it's biology class, let them teach biology. There's no controversy, therefore, "teach the controversy" is a load of (politicized) bull.
I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.
Or, we're all just brains in jars. Or I'm a brain in a jar, and you're a figment of my imagination. Do you see how that doesn't buy you anything?
IDers make real claims, like, "dinosaurs coexisted with man". This is what gets scientists riled up. Also, scientists make real claims, like natural selection, that conflicts with their notion that everything has a purpose.
As you say at the end, the "problem" is that no one's interested in blending God and science. But every individual who doesn't ignore these issues has to come to some sort of understanding. I think most Westerners go with what you said above. And they always have. It meshes nicely with the God of the gaps. Notice that, like the above, this doesn't tell us anything. Scientists and clergymen are both in the business of telling us things, though.
You say that the scientists are zealous to debunk anything that can't be measured. I don't understand how that's a bad thing, given that, as scientists, that's their job.
When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
I get what you're saying and appreciate you saying it, but I need to point this out: Genesis was the Hebrew record of creation before it was anything else. Jews do not see their scripture as a collection of prophecies which Jesus later fulfilled, it stands on its own and does not need justification.
The first thing any primer on string theory does is quote complaints from top physicists about how there hasn't been enough testing. Scientists are up front about things like that, it's what makes it science.
The absolutely huge difference between string/m theory and creationism that you don't seem to get, is that what limits research for the former is technology. The latter is simply unfalsifiable.
Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation.
What does that have to do with science?
This is from Richard Feynman:
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
Slashdot Mirror
I was about to say that you could have flooding without divine intervention but then I realized that it wouldn't be a global flood, and if it was, there wouldn't be mammals around to tell the tale :)
That's what they want. A day when all you have to do to arrest someone is prove that they were trying to be anonymous on the internet is a good day to be a cop.
I don't really see how having more people who don't have the skills or time to pick up linux translates into usability issues getting solved. Grandma isn't going to be hitting up launchpad.
The only good argument for cramming linux down people's throats that I can think of is that it will foster adoption of standards. Even that doesn't satisfy me. I'm with arth1...I think linux needs more people who appreciate it for what it is, and can code. Not more MS refugees (there's enough Unix refugees as it is).
But, and this is a big but, we're talking about Ubuntu, which has the stated goal of bringing computing to as many people as possible. I think we need to evaluate this latest FF EULA stupidity in that light. Is including FF important for Ubuntu's mission? How about just temporarily?
Not sure why this is modded flamebait. I took issue with the string theory part, but really, the hairtrigger downmodding is ridiculous.
Um, the guys calling for his job are wrong, and should be pointed out as being wrong.
But "the rise in Atheistic Fundamentalism"? You realize that fundamentalism isn't possible unless there's doctrine involved, right?
Of course you do. You're just using scary-sounding words to argue with people you don't like. Poisoning the well, as it were.
I can see why people have a hair trigger when it comes to this...all you ever hear is "teach the controversy", and when you know there is no controversy, it boils your blood.
But they guy wasn't saying that, and the people calling for his job should be humiliated for not reading what the guy actually said before jumping to conclusions.
That's exactly what I'm saying! Nobody should stand up for anything, even if it's right. That way, no one will ever risk being incorrect.
New breeds of dogs and strawberries have been made for quite some time.
But breeding is different from speciation. Evolution and breeding both require genetics to work, but they are most definitely not the same thing.
I don't think creationists refute the existence of genes. The point is, evolution uses random changes in genes plus natural selection to explain the diversity of life. These are both naturalistic explanations and don't require God to make them work. Creationism requires God, or at least a creator, in its explanation of the diversity of life. That is the difference. Not the how, the why.
That's not what they're arguing. They're talking about a 4,000 year old earth, and dinosaurs with saddles.
In any case, it's more subtle than just saying God 'created' evolution. Prior to the theory of evolution, the watchmaker analogy was perfectly good at reconciling God with the fact that we observe the universe following natural laws. The problem is, evolution provided a natural mechanism for those things taking place, at least as far as biology was concerned. If there's a natural explanation, why bring the supernatural in?
If every time someone discovers makes a scientific discovery, we're content with "God made it that way", then does God mean anything to us?
Evidence against evolution is not evidence in favor of creationism. They are separate things.
He gave you a specific example: fruit fly genetics. Antibiotic resistance is another.
Saying that we don't know anything 100% is not a good reason to bring creationism, which is not science, into science class. And calling out the need for "equal time" is disingenuous at best.
At which point, creationism still would have to be proven on its own merits.
There's nothing inherently special about Genesis that would cause me to pick it over, say, the story of Prometheus.
This is, in fact, one of the really annoying things about ID. Rather than justify their "theory", they pick up whatever stick they can find to poke evolution with. Then they hope that people won't notice the difference.
conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.
Dead wrong.
You seem to be trotting out the old, "evolution is just a theory", with the added bonus of pointing out (incorrectly) there there's no evidence for it. Were you just hoping no one would notice?
Sorry but the whole "science is just a secular church" thing is about as ridiculous as "cars are like birdfeeders, but they're metal and have wheels and an engine".
Sounding "science-y" does not make something science, it makes it psuedoscience.
The way my HS biology teacher put it was that evolution happens out, not up. I think that's close enough. And from what I remember the standard textbooks do take time to point out that Darwin had some beliefs about evolution that ended with him, and didn't carry into the mainstream.
I read through the first link, at least.
They seem to be saying that, since we're using present phenomena to talk about the past, we're out of our depth and should just forget about the whole thing. Note that I could say the same thing about religion. It's a dumb argument that seems to hinge on the reader forgetting about inductive reasoning.
In general the whole "science is really a religion" thing is a huge ad hominem that fails to take into account the fact that scientists have to vet their "beliefs" by applying logic and collecting evidence. As a result, they are not called beliefs, but hypotheses.
Once they lost their monopoly, they had to improve the prouct.
They're still working on it, but it's getting there.
My parents sent me to religious school. I don't go to church these days though. Guess I just don't have 'good' genes. :D
Not offtopic. As I've said in other posts, Creationism is more a topic for history class or social studies. Sure, teach it. But not as science.
Honestly, I think they should teach it in "social studies" or whatever equivalent. Things like Scopes trial have more to do with the study of law and government than science. Obviously it's important to learn, but the problem is when people say "let's get all the information out there", they usually mean, "I don't believe in evolution, on religious grounds, but I don't want to look silly, so let's see if you can somehow get my religious views inserted, on scientific grounds."
There is one more than one argument that suits hardcore creationists' needs, and the more political among them will use whatever gets their foot in the door. There are some, like the idea of irreducible complexity, which can be proven false. Of course, not everyone agrees that irreducible complexity is falsifiable, but at least some do. I used to hear friends talking about the eyeball as not having been able to evolve. There's a good amount of evidence to counter that, these days.
Distribute the first chapter of genesis, have students read it. Demand the children argue for and against at least 3 interpretations of the text, right there in biology class.
As long as his noodlyness, the FSM, is also included in the discussion, I'm happy.
In all seriousness, it's biology class, let them teach biology. There's no controversy, therefore, "teach the controversy" is a load of (politicized) bull.
I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.
Or, we're all just brains in jars. Or I'm a brain in a jar, and you're a figment of my imagination. Do you see how that doesn't buy you anything?
IDers make real claims, like, "dinosaurs coexisted with man". This is what gets scientists riled up. Also, scientists make real claims, like natural selection, that conflicts with their notion that everything has a purpose.
As you say at the end, the "problem" is that no one's interested in blending God and science. But every individual who doesn't ignore these issues has to come to some sort of understanding. I think most Westerners go with what you said above. And they always have. It meshes nicely with the God of the gaps. Notice that, like the above, this doesn't tell us anything. Scientists and clergymen are both in the business of telling us things, though.
You say that the scientists are zealous to debunk anything that can't be measured. I don't understand how that's a bad thing, given that, as scientists, that's their job.
When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
I get what you're saying and appreciate you saying it, but I need to point this out: Genesis was the Hebrew record of creation before it was anything else. Jews do not see their scripture as a collection of prophecies which Jesus later fulfilled, it stands on its own and does not need justification.
(Raised Catholic, if it matters)
The absolutely huge difference between string/m theory and creationism that you don't seem to get, is that what limits research for the former is technology. The latter is simply unfalsifiable.
Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation.
What does that have to do with science?
This is from Richard Feynman:
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.