Evolution is not about how life started. See the sibling post.
Also, the people who are saying "If it isn't fact, don't teach it" obviously don't know what science is. Science is about theories, not facts. A theory is a way to explain observed evidence, such as the existence of fossilized organisms or the fact that different species have physical and genetic features in common.
We come up with different theories, and they compete to be the most accurate. Some theories, like the theory of evolution, are erroneously called "facts" because they are so well supported and because there aren't really any competing theories.
Theories are not facts, though, and real scientists don't blindly accept them as such. By reanalyzing our existing theories and probing their faults, we're able to constantly replace them with even better theories, which is the whole point of doing science.
Seriously, we need to start teaching the concepts that underlie science, rather than just having kids memorize theories. Most of the misunderstanding on the part of the "Intelligent Design" proponents stems from simply not knowing what science is.
Yay! That's science. We work based on the best explanations (theories) that we can come up with, but we never just assume that those explanations are true. Evolution is a theory, and therefore an assumption. I wouldn't call it "far fetched" (I understand a lot of the details) but I would certainly never "believe" that it is true. In fact, I could "believe" something completely alternative, but when I put my "science" hat on I would have to go back to theory, and accept that the best supported theory of our origins is evolution. Religion is about belief. Science is not.
I think the grandparent's hypothetical situation was one in which the preacher voluntarily talks about alternatives, like a scientist. In science, everything is tentative. IDer's complian that science is discounting ID because science is not open to alternatives, but the real fact of the matter is that ID *was* considered, and was immediately discounted. Evolution is absolutely up for debate, and in fact our understanding of the details change continuously.
The hypothetical preacher would never exist because religion tries very hard to stay locked in on the ideas that it already has. The religious are convinced that they already know the truth, while scientists are satisfied to find ever closer approximations of what seems to be the truth. Big difference.
Yes, it's a stupid attitude, and I'll tell you why.
Starting with a belief and then trying to justify it through evidence is a sure way to fool yourself. If you're already sure that something is true, then you're going to subconsciously ignore evidence and arguments to the contrary. Look at all these slashdotters posting about ID that have no idea what constitutes a scientific theory. They've been told over and over, but they don't listen, because their minds are not open to alternatives. Science, on the other hand, thrives on alternatives. Turning over old ideas is what drives science forward. In science, you have to work on the assumptions (theories) that you've already established, but you always have to keep checking those assumptions because eventually you will find out that they are not completely correct.
The "Young Earth Creationists" are not keeping open the possibility that their underlying assumption is wrong. Their goal is not to get closer to the truth, it is to find support for the assumptions that they started with. Very bad way to find out anything about reality, IMO.
As for the idea about God faking the age of the Earth, you're falling into the trap of thinking that because something is possible then it must be true. There are an infinite number of complex explanations for how all of the particles in the universe got to where they are now. The only way to proceed is to eliminate the ones that we can't test -- such as the "God made it to fool us" idea. Sure, it could still be true, but when it's 1 among an infinite number of possibilities, it's infinitely unlikely to be true. Anyway, even if you decided that it *is* true, you have to admit that it has to be taken on faith. It has nothing to do with science.
I don't know what the hell an "Oposite force" is, but I would say that his argument can be taken seriously because he doesn't give a hoot. He's acknowledging that the bible is not a reliable source of evidence when you want to learn about geology. I completely agree with that assessment. How could you possibly argue that it *is* reliable?
Modded up by other ignorant Slashdotters. How sad.
Are you new to this debate, or have you just not listened to anyone that you disagree with? Perhaps you've already stopped reading this -- that would explain your profound misunderstanding. Please, bear with me for just a minute, and in the future you'll be able to enter this debate a little bit better armed.
Science is not about belief. Science has nothing to do with belief. Honestly. The fact that ID requires belief is what makes it nonscientific. ID requires belief because it is untestable. You have to accept it as fact if you want to use it. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires no faith. It is *NOT* accepted as fact, because in science there are no absolute truths. The theory of evolution is a good explanation that we came up with, and we use it because we can't come up with a better one. It's not sacred, it's not "fact", and nobody takes it on faith.
"Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."
I disagree. Using myself as an example, I can say that not everyone needs a religion. I have no faith -- only assumptions.
the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.
Science makes no claim about anyone's beliefs. The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds. It would be like proposing that there's an invisible elephant in another, completely inaccessible dimension. Science can neither tell us that the proposition is true nor that it is false. It's not something that can be analyzed by science one way or the other. God is out of bounds for the same reason, as are all beliefs in the supernatural. We're not talking about teaching that God is not real, we're talking about not teaching that God is real. See the difference?
Well, since you obviously have more experience than some of us, maybe you can offer your strategy for training children not to be mindless consumers. Or perhaps you don't think that's an important thing to learn -- in which case your opinion is probably less useful to me than the original poster's.
Absolutely. I can't stand animated web pages -- the last thing I want is animated packaging.
There are potential benefits here, though. For one thing, if you can add some buttons to make the display interactive, you can fit a lot more information onto the label.
I'm glad to say that your perception of the differences between science and religion agrees with mine. I've had a very difficult time discussing the issue with fellow Slashdotters, especially on the topic of Intelligent Design. I'm interested in your opinion - do you agree with me that Intelligent Design is a valid (but unprovable) conjecture, but that it is not a scientific theory? Based on what you said above, I think you would concur.
As for the percieved hypocricy of religious people taking advantage of scientific knowledge, I think it is mostly spite for the dogmatic believers who feel threatened by science and therefore attack it. By their own aggressiveness, they open themselves up to be ridiculed. Religion is not scientifically defensible, so why deface your beliefs by shoving the two together?
As for my own philosophy, I think it's pretty well justified. I personally restrict my perceptions strictly to the observable and materialistic. My justification for doing so is that my body and my brain and everything that I know to be "me" seems to be a part of this materialistic, observable universe. To me, that is what defines reality, and so that is where I choose to live.
I hate to quibble over definitions, but the distinction that I'm making is between "laws" that are handed down by an authority figure and what I'm calling "morals" which are a set of rules that the individual imposes on himself. When I say "morals," I'm talking about what "seems" right and what "seems" wrong. These rules may agree with the "law," but they don't have to.
The original assertion that started this conversation was that such a system of morals cannot exist without some authority figure (God or whatever) at the top. This is not true. I follow my own "moral code" that I think most people would mostly agree with. My morals would not change based on changes in law, although they would change along with my perception of the world, which can be influenced by argument and observation. There is no authority figure that justifies my morals, they are based on what feels instinctually right (subconscious influences due to genetic hard coding and previous experience) and on what I think is best for the group (human society).
Morals can be based on an authority figure (laws for example, or religious commandments) but I would argue that to follow such rules blindly is a pretty weak way to justify your morals. I'm sure most people would rebel against their secular or religious laws if those laws deviated from the morals that we identify based on instinct and reason.
Why observation? Why not imagination? Or random chance?
Because we're studying the OBSERVABLE universe. That's what we're talking about here. I'm not trying to make the case for navel gazing, which I'm sure is quite satisfying for those who pursue it. So far, the only way that we know of for studying the observable universe is to observe it. If you have a better idea, I guarantee you that I'll jump on board.
The fact is that the very PROCESS of observation is rooted in assumptions that observation can tell us things about the universe around us.
Of course it's based on an assumption. This whole game we're playing here, trying to understand our conscious experience and the things that affect it, is based on the assumption that what we observe is "real". So what? You got something better to do? Assuming that you do make the assumption that studying this thing that appears to be an observable universe is worthwhile, do you have a better way of studying it other than observation? Nobody else has come up with one.
You're missing the point entirely. The question is where our morals came from. How is it that we, as a group, can generally agree that sharing is "good" and stealing is "bad"? I'm not talking about the law, and I'm not talking about the ongoing debate about behaviours that are on the line between moral and amoral. Of course there will be issues that divide us, but in general most of us agree about what constitutes moral behavior. Why is this? You can re-read my previous posts if you want my thoughts on the subject.
Do you not agree that stealing would still be amoral even if it were legal? To say that legality and morality are the same is incorrect. Surely we could make a law that makes it illegal to drink water -- does that imply that drinking water is amoral? Indeed, is jaywalking amoral? I would say not. The reason our laws tend to be similar to our morals is that we reject laws that are not. The water drinking law would not last long.
Would it get worse, significantly, if there were no rules nor stigma against it?
The question we're discussing is why there is a stigma against it.
So the planet is full of "evil" people, who only do what benefits themselves? So you would kill someone for money if you could get away with it? I'm not so sure about that. People in general may do such things in desperate situations, and some people may do it simply out of selfishness, but I don't think that's the norm. What percentage of non destitute people would find a wallet in a parking lot and not take it in to the lost and found?
From my own observations, and from historical accounts, I would say that most people do live up to the ideal of the golden rule. Maybe for many there's a religious justification for such behavior, but for me I behave according to my morals because I'm pretty sure it's best for everybody. I'll tell somebody when they drop a 20 because I would expect them to do the same for me. More practically, humans as a group tend to shun those who act selfishly. If people see that you are ripping off others, they're not going to trust you and they're not going to want to help you when you need it. I guess that can be seen as heeding a group authority, but the reason why the group observes the morals that it does is because those morals work. Those morals are the reason that the group exists. If King Bob's laws are not pretty close to the rules that the group has evolved, then the Kingdom of Bob will probably fail.
The same as if someone says they don't recognize the authority of whatever unit of society is trying to impose the rule, I suppose.
You misunderstood my justification for morals. They're not based on an authority figure, they're based on what benefits society as a whole. I would never argue that stealing is immoral because the government says so. I would say that stealing is immoral because mutual trust allows us to coordinate our efforts for the benefit of the human race, and stealing destroys that trust. You can argue against me, but you have to admit that my argument is stronger than "because God says so."
Certainly one can derive greater personal benefit by breaking the rules to one's advantage than they can by taking a share of benefit by playing along?
Sure, in the short run it will benefit the individual. In the long run, however, such selfish behavior is detrimental to the group. Don't discount the benefit to the individual of helping the group survive, either. We really are only big machines that serve to propogate our genes, and when the group dies our genes (and their close relations) die also. I wouldn't be surprised if many of our common morals are hard coded into our brains, and therefore instinctual. Such a setup would certainly benefit our genes, as it was cooperative behavior for mutual benefit that allowed us to become the dominant species on the planet.
No, you would just have better evidence. Even if you had the fossilized remains of every creature that ever lived on the planet, you wouldn't have "proof" of common descent -- you would just have very good evidence of it.
If I drop a pen off of my desk and observe that it falls to the ground, does that prove the theory of universal gravitation? No, it just gives me some (very inaccurate) evidence of it. Science isn't out to prove anything, it's out to find the best explanations that we can. In the case of some theories, like Quantum Mechanics or Evolution, the evidence is so good that we have a lot of confidence in the explanations. Even in those cases, though, we also know that there's room for a lot of refinement.
As for the theory of evolution itself, if you're looking for evidence then here is a good place to start.
...science has it's fundmantal assertion (casaulity holds)...
Science makes no such fundamental assertion. Science attempts to build a model of the universe based on observation. Science does not say that causality holds, it says that causality appears to hold, based on observation. There is no way to prove it one way or the other, just as there is no way to "prove" anything about the universe.
People who were raised with religion seem to have a really hard time grasping this concept - that we can base our entire perspective on assumptions that we *know* are wrong. Think about that. If there are absolute truths in the universe, we cannot ever know what they are. The very best we can do is say that things *seem* to work a certain way, and go from there. When we find problems with our assumptions (our theories) we correct them. In this way, science attempts to create consecutively more accurate models of the universe that we observe. It requires no faith, and nothing is sacred.
When you look at the world this way, to talk about supernatural explanations is nonsense. You can't say that "God did it," because there are an infinite (literally infinite) number of *other* explanations that fit observation just as well. You either come up with a testable explanation that can be compared against observation, or you accept that you don't know the answer.
So my question is, how is one of these arbitrary codes practically any different from religion? Especially if one thinks religion is a creation of man?
The codes aren't arbitrary, they've evolved along with humans and human society. They exist because they work, just like our bodies do. As for how they're different from religion, the difference isn't their origin (religion evolved along with human society also) the difference is in our understanding of why they are useful. I don't behave in a moral fashion because I'm afraid of God, I behave in a moral fashion because to do so benefits society and therefore myself.
So, are morals based on what we understand is best for society "better" than morals based on religion? I would say so. For one thing, morals based on religion really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes down to the nitty gritty. If I say that I think it's OK to steal, and someone else says that it's wrong because God says it's wrong, and then I say that there's no such thing as God, what is the rebuttal? How can they expect to convince me? Secondly, morals based on religion are inflexible. If the bible says that it's wrong to be gay, from a religious perspective that's the final word on the subject. From a rational point of view, however, some morals become outdated as we better understand the world and as we recognize the rights and freedoms of all humans. Flexibility is strength in this constantly changing world, which is why static ideas like religious beliefs are so out of sorts with our modern perspective on reality.
That's the real power of science - not the knowledge that we have right now, but the scientific method itself. In science, our understanding constantly evolves as we gather more information.
Your entire idea is based on the erroneous assumption that these people are somehow bound to logic and reason. By your argument, they should already accept evolution because its supported by so much observational evidence. These are the people that think their irrational conjectures can trump science in one area without any evidence at all, yet are perfectly willing to accept scientific theories that don't make them feel uncomfortable.
They're not rational, so don't expect them to behave as if they are. Have you ever tried to have a serious discussion with one of these Slashdot ID proponents? It's impossible.
just because someone doesn't agree with the myth of evolution doesn't mean that they're religious. It just means that they want irrefutable proof of something before they'll call it a "fact".
And that just means that they're ignorant. If they had any kind of science education at all, they would know better than to try and prove that anything is a "fact". Such a feat is impossible, which is why we have scientific theories that model the workings of the universe. Scientists know that our models aren't perfect, which is why we keep refining them. If we didn't refine them, if we took them as "fact", then we wouldn't be doing science - we would be practicing religion.
That's what makes evolution a theory rather than a myth - nobody "believes" that evolution is "true". We just agree that it's the best explanation that we have for a multitude of observations.
Exactly. There are nuts throughout society - from religion to psychics to astrology to new age energy-type spiritualism nonsense. May James Randi rescue the irrational.
I would disagree with you. You say that believers are miffed because science is "invading their turf." OK, now if they accepted science at all, they would reconsider their position in light of new evidence. The fact that they are "defending their turf" makes it absolutely certain that they are not opposed to particular theories, but to the entire concept of science. If you decide to look at the world scientifically, you can't make the distinction that "Electromagnetism is OK to analyze" and "The origin of the universe is off limits". Drawing that line is an affront to the very concept of trying to view the world from a rational, unbiased, materialistic perspective.
You should also note that the "turf" of religion has been gradually shrinking throughout human history. "God did it" was the explanation for lightning at one point in time. The motion of the planets used to be off limits to science, according to the Catholic church. Now we understand them so well that very few people would dispute our understanding of the structure of our solar system. The origin of our solar system and the origins of humans and other animals are fairly well understood now, although there are some "God did it" holdouts who for the most part are simply uneducated. For all practical purposes, God has been pushed back to the very origin of the universe, and scientists are now turing their minds and their instruments to that "turf" as well. The way I see it, the domain of religion is simply that which we do not yet understand. We'll never understand everything, but it seems foolish to choose a particular placeholder when there are an infinite number to choose from.
Back to the point, though, just because someone takes advantage of scienctific knowledge (i.e. technology) does not mean that they agree with the concept of science. Anybody who says they don't "believe" in evolutionary theory or electromagnetic theory or any other scientific concept is fundamentally anti science. To say, "I think electromagnetic theory may be wrong" is certainly OK, but to say that I *know* that it is wrong is another thing entirely. When religious types come around to saying, "Boy, evolution doesn't fit well with my worldview, but it's the best explanation that we've got, so I'll assume that it's true for practical purposes" then you'll know that they've accepted the concept of science.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the people who are saying "If it isn't fact, don't teach it" obviously don't know what science is. Science is about theories, not facts. A theory is a way to explain observed evidence, such as the existence of fossilized organisms or the fact that different species have physical and genetic features in common.
We come up with different theories, and they compete to be the most accurate. Some theories, like the theory of evolution, are erroneously called "facts" because they are so well supported and because there aren't really any competing theories.
Theories are not facts, though, and real scientists don't blindly accept them as such. By reanalyzing our existing theories and probing their faults, we're able to constantly replace them with even better theories, which is the whole point of doing science.
Seriously, we need to start teaching the concepts that underlie science, rather than just having kids memorize theories. Most of the misunderstanding on the part of the "Intelligent Design" proponents stems from simply not knowing what science is.
The hypothetical preacher would never exist because religion tries very hard to stay locked in on the ideas that it already has. The religious are convinced that they already know the truth, while scientists are satisfied to find ever closer approximations of what seems to be the truth. Big difference.
Starting with a belief and then trying to justify it through evidence is a sure way to fool yourself. If you're already sure that something is true, then you're going to subconsciously ignore evidence and arguments to the contrary. Look at all these slashdotters posting about ID that have no idea what constitutes a scientific theory. They've been told over and over, but they don't listen, because their minds are not open to alternatives. Science, on the other hand, thrives on alternatives. Turning over old ideas is what drives science forward. In science, you have to work on the assumptions (theories) that you've already established, but you always have to keep checking those assumptions because eventually you will find out that they are not completely correct.
The "Young Earth Creationists" are not keeping open the possibility that their underlying assumption is wrong. Their goal is not to get closer to the truth, it is to find support for the assumptions that they started with. Very bad way to find out anything about reality, IMO.
As for the idea about God faking the age of the Earth, you're falling into the trap of thinking that because something is possible then it must be true. There are an infinite number of complex explanations for how all of the particles in the universe got to where they are now. The only way to proceed is to eliminate the ones that we can't test -- such as the "God made it to fool us" idea. Sure, it could still be true, but when it's 1 among an infinite number of possibilities, it's infinitely unlikely to be true. Anyway, even if you decided that it *is* true, you have to admit that it has to be taken on faith. It has nothing to do with science.
Are you new to this debate, or have you just not listened to anyone that you disagree with? Perhaps you've already stopped reading this -- that would explain your profound misunderstanding. Please, bear with me for just a minute, and in the future you'll be able to enter this debate a little bit better armed.
Science is not about belief. Science has nothing to do with belief. Honestly. The fact that ID requires belief is what makes it nonscientific. ID requires belief because it is untestable. You have to accept it as fact if you want to use it. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires no faith. It is *NOT* accepted as fact, because in science there are no absolute truths. The theory of evolution is a good explanation that we came up with, and we use it because we can't come up with a better one. It's not sacred, it's not "fact", and nobody takes it on faith.
I disagree. Using myself as an example, I can say that not everyone needs a religion. I have no faith -- only assumptions.Science makes no claim about anyone's beliefs. The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds. It would be like proposing that there's an invisible elephant in another, completely inaccessible dimension. Science can neither tell us that the proposition is true nor that it is false. It's not something that can be analyzed by science one way or the other. God is out of bounds for the same reason, as are all beliefs in the supernatural. We're not talking about teaching that God is not real, we're talking about not teaching that God is real. See the difference?There are potential benefits here, though. For one thing, if you can add some buttons to make the display interactive, you can fit a lot more information onto the label.
Please get outta the new one if you can't lend your hand,
for the times, they are a changin'.
As for the percieved hypocricy of religious people taking advantage of scientific knowledge, I think it is mostly spite for the dogmatic believers who feel threatened by science and therefore attack it. By their own aggressiveness, they open themselves up to be ridiculed. Religion is not scientifically defensible, so why deface your beliefs by shoving the two together?
As for my own philosophy, I think it's pretty well justified. I personally restrict my perceptions strictly to the observable and materialistic. My justification for doing so is that my body and my brain and everything that I know to be "me" seems to be a part of this materialistic, observable universe. To me, that is what defines reality, and so that is where I choose to live.
The original assertion that started this conversation was that such a system of morals cannot exist without some authority figure (God or whatever) at the top. This is not true. I follow my own "moral code" that I think most people would mostly agree with. My morals would not change based on changes in law, although they would change along with my perception of the world, which can be influenced by argument and observation. There is no authority figure that justifies my morals, they are based on what feels instinctually right (subconscious influences due to genetic hard coding and previous experience) and on what I think is best for the group (human society).
Morals can be based on an authority figure (laws for example, or religious commandments) but I would argue that to follow such rules blindly is a pretty weak way to justify your morals. I'm sure most people would rebel against their secular or religious laws if those laws deviated from the morals that we identify based on instinct and reason.
Do you not agree that stealing would still be amoral even if it were legal? To say that legality and morality are the same is incorrect. Surely we could make a law that makes it illegal to drink water -- does that imply that drinking water is amoral? Indeed, is jaywalking amoral? I would say not. The reason our laws tend to be similar to our morals is that we reject laws that are not. The water drinking law would not last long.
The question we're discussing is why there is a stigma against it.From my own observations, and from historical accounts, I would say that most people do live up to the ideal of the golden rule. Maybe for many there's a religious justification for such behavior, but for me I behave according to my morals because I'm pretty sure it's best for everybody. I'll tell somebody when they drop a 20 because I would expect them to do the same for me. More practically, humans as a group tend to shun those who act selfishly. If people see that you are ripping off others, they're not going to trust you and they're not going to want to help you when you need it. I guess that can be seen as heeding a group authority, but the reason why the group observes the morals that it does is because those morals work. Those morals are the reason that the group exists. If King Bob's laws are not pretty close to the rules that the group has evolved, then the Kingdom of Bob will probably fail.
If I drop a pen off of my desk and observe that it falls to the ground, does that prove the theory of universal gravitation? No, it just gives me some (very inaccurate) evidence of it. Science isn't out to prove anything, it's out to find the best explanations that we can. In the case of some theories, like Quantum Mechanics or Evolution, the evidence is so good that we have a lot of confidence in the explanations. Even in those cases, though, we also know that there's room for a lot of refinement.
As for the theory of evolution itself, if you're looking for evidence then here is a good place to start.
People who were raised with religion seem to have a really hard time grasping this concept - that we can base our entire perspective on assumptions that we *know* are wrong. Think about that. If there are absolute truths in the universe, we cannot ever know what they are. The very best we can do is say that things *seem* to work a certain way, and go from there. When we find problems with our assumptions (our theories) we correct them. In this way, science attempts to create consecutively more accurate models of the universe that we observe. It requires no faith, and nothing is sacred.
When you look at the world this way, to talk about supernatural explanations is nonsense. You can't say that "God did it," because there are an infinite (literally infinite) number of *other* explanations that fit observation just as well. You either come up with a testable explanation that can be compared against observation, or you accept that you don't know the answer.
So, are morals based on what we understand is best for society "better" than morals based on religion? I would say so. For one thing, morals based on religion really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes down to the nitty gritty. If I say that I think it's OK to steal, and someone else says that it's wrong because God says it's wrong, and then I say that there's no such thing as God, what is the rebuttal? How can they expect to convince me? Secondly, morals based on religion are inflexible. If the bible says that it's wrong to be gay, from a religious perspective that's the final word on the subject. From a rational point of view, however, some morals become outdated as we better understand the world and as we recognize the rights and freedoms of all humans. Flexibility is strength in this constantly changing world, which is why static ideas like religious beliefs are so out of sorts with our modern perspective on reality.
That's the real power of science - not the knowledge that we have right now, but the scientific method itself. In science, our understanding constantly evolves as we gather more information.
BEDEVERE:
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
They're not rational, so don't expect them to behave as if they are. Have you ever tried to have a serious discussion with one of these Slashdot ID proponents? It's impossible.
That's what makes evolution a theory rather than a myth - nobody "believes" that evolution is "true". We just agree that it's the best explanation that we have for a multitude of observations.
Right?
You should also note that the "turf" of religion has been gradually shrinking throughout human history. "God did it" was the explanation for lightning at one point in time. The motion of the planets used to be off limits to science, according to the Catholic church. Now we understand them so well that very few people would dispute our understanding of the structure of our solar system. The origin of our solar system and the origins of humans and other animals are fairly well understood now, although there are some "God did it" holdouts who for the most part are simply uneducated. For all practical purposes, God has been pushed back to the very origin of the universe, and scientists are now turing their minds and their instruments to that "turf" as well. The way I see it, the domain of religion is simply that which we do not yet understand. We'll never understand everything, but it seems foolish to choose a particular placeholder when there are an infinite number to choose from.
Back to the point, though, just because someone takes advantage of scienctific knowledge (i.e. technology) does not mean that they agree with the concept of science. Anybody who says they don't "believe" in evolutionary theory or electromagnetic theory or any other scientific concept is fundamentally anti science. To say, "I think electromagnetic theory may be wrong" is certainly OK, but to say that I *know* that it is wrong is another thing entirely. When religious types come around to saying, "Boy, evolution doesn't fit well with my worldview, but it's the best explanation that we've got, so I'll assume that it's true for practical purposes" then you'll know that they've accepted the concept of science.