With the theory of evolution, you have scientists trying to make theological decisions.
Sorry, but that gets a blunt: BULLSHIT.
Galileo and other scientists examined the evidence and said the earth moves around the sun. Some on the Church engaged in denialism on theological grounds. Galileo was proven right by more than a hundred years of science and evidence. Galileo and other scientists were not "scientists trying to make theological decisions".
Darwin and other scientists examined the evidence and said life evolved. Some on the Church engaged in denialism on theological grounds. Darwin was proven right by more than a hundred years of science and evidence. Darwin and other scientists were not "scientists trying to make theological decisions".
Just because you have the hubris to tell God that He is forbidden to have used a moving earth does not mean that scientists supporting Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein and making "theological decisions".
High school science class must give an ACCURATE representation of each field of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. And the fact is that 100% of biologists consider evolution the uncontested foundation of their field.
Yes, there exist people-with-biology-degrees who deny evolution, just as there exist people-with-astronomy-degrees who deny stellar fusion and instead claim the sun is powered by electricity, and just as there exist people-with-history-degrees who deny the holocaust. But a single crackpot does not represent a genuine controversy. A handful of crackpots do not represent a genuine controversy. To the nearest percentage point, 100% of biologists accept evolution and 100% of astronomers accept nuclear fusion powering the sun, and 100% of historians accept the holocaust.
Teaching children that historians consider there to be any controversy about the holocaust is just plain fraud.
Teaching children that astronomers consider there to be any controversy about stellar fusion is just plain fraud.
Teaching children that biologists consider there to be any controversy about evolution is just plain fraud.
If you want us to stay out of the schools, stop funding the schools with tax dollars
Sorry, but just because you pay taxes does not give you the right to shove mathematically REFUTED phony statistics in math class.
Sorry, but just because you pay taxes does not give you the right to shove historically REFUTED holocaust-denialism in history class.
Sorry, but just because you pay taxes does not give you the right to shove scientifically REFUTED evolution-denialism in science class.
The purpose of science class is to present students with an accurate overview of that field and understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In biology, that means evolution. It doesn't matter if you think evolution is wrong - the fact is that evolution *is* the field of biology as understood and practiced by professional biologists.
There exist a handful of crackpots in every field, like holocaust denialists and those who claim the sun is powered by electricity. One denialist, or even a handful of denialists do not constitute an actual scientific controversy. The sun is not powered by electricity, and we do not "teach the controversy" that a handful of crackpots think the sun is powered by electricity. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of astronomers agree that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of astronomers agree that no scientific controversy exists over stellar fusion. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of biologists agree on evolution. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of biologists agree that no scientific controversy exists over evolution.
If you REALLY want to get into decimal percentage points, it's 99.9% vs 0.1%. 99.9% of historians consider the holocaust denialists to be crackpots. 99.9% of astronomers consider the stellar fusion denialists to be crackpots. 99.9% of biologists consider the evolution denialists to be crackpots.
So no, just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you can teach refuted holocaust denialism in public school history class.
Why does kdawson think that analyzing strengths and weaknesses is a setback?
The same exact reason bringing a "strengths and weaknesses" textbook into chemistry class would be a setback.
It's just plain anti-science, it's just plain fraud.
The proper battleground for science is expert scientific peer review. And they lost on that battleground. Every single "weakness" they are attempting to push has been refuted by scientists. All of their attempts have been found flawed and just plain wrong, on the evidence and on expert scientific review.
They lost on the scientific battleground, so they are fighting on the public relations battleground, and fighting in the courtroom battleground, and the battleground of political lobbying, and now they are stooping so low as to use OUR CHILDREN as a battleground. They want to shove refuted pseudoscience down the throats of our children.
Would you let them push "strengths and weaknesses" to undermine and deny chemistry?
Seems to me that he'd rather see an evolution-only curriculum.
We teach a chemistry-only curriculum. We teach a chemistry-only curriculum because 100% of chemists accept chemistry.
We teach a solar-system-only curriculum. We teach a solar-system-only curriculum because 100% of astronomers accept the solar system.
We teach an evolution-only curriculum. We teach an evolution-only curriculum because 100% of biologists accept evolution.
If you had the impression biologists were split over evolution, they lied to you. Rounded to the nearest full percent point, yes it is 100%. Rounded to the nearest TENTH of a percent, it's 99.9%. Out of about a half million scientists across all of the earth and life sciences, there are about 700 denialists, that is 0.1%, and those handful are considered crackpots by the other 99.9%.
So, where do you suppose the "Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water" came from?
There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter.
Notice that the field of science you are fundamentally attacking there is chemistry, not biology.
Most people accept God and science. This anti-evolution nonsense is fundamentally anti-science. It's impossible to "just" deny evolution and/or the age of the earth. Virtually every field of science from geology to chemistry to radioactivity to physics to genetics and on and on, it all ties in and they all confirm that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is accurate. They "just" want to deny evolution, and oh by the way they have to deny carbon dating, and deny all radioactive dating, and oh by the way ALL of geology is completely wrong, and oh gee erosion is all wrong, and oh yeah lets toss chemistry on the trash heap too because chemical weathering and other slow chemistry doesn't work either, and the global record of billions of years of meteor impacts, and the geomagnetic record, and hell all of astronomy is wrong too because there's all sorts of 10,000+ year and 100,000+ year astronomical cycles recorded in the earth, just throw out Relativity and Quantum Mechanics when they too show a billions-year old earth and they confirm the sequence and timeline of biological evolution.
It's really simple. The activists on one side is deceiving people with misinformation.
The National Academy of Science for virtually every major nation on earth has a public position statement affirming evolution and that there is indeed overwhelming evidence conclusively supporting it. Every national or international science body with a public statement on evolution says the same thing. Out of about a half million degreed biologists, 100% agree evolution is established by the evidence. If you want to go to decimal points, it's 99.9%. Out of a half million biologists, there are about 700 denialists. 99.9% vs 0.1%. In absolutely any field, you can find at least 0.1% who are just plain crackpots.
Most people accept God and accept science.
This whole thing is just a replay of the Church-vs-Galileo fiasco. Some people decided they knew how God did things, and they had the dogmatic hubris to tell God how He was and was not permitted to run His universe. Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, and more all say "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" and more, and in their presumption of self-perfection in religion and in their understanding of the Bible and their knowledge of God, they forbid God to have made a moving earth. They declared Galileo equal to atheism. They declared Darwin equal to atheism.
Psalm 19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
The heavens and the earth uttereth speech and sheweth knowledge. All the earth is writ old, and all the evidence testifies to evolution. Galileo was right, the earth moves. Darwin was right, life evolved.
A spinning moving earth is the "how" for creating day and night and the seasons. The science of optics is the "how" for creating rainbows. And evolution is the how" for the diversity of life. God does not need to manually insert rainbows, He does not need to hand-craft each snowflake.
As I read it, your point seems to be presenting an argument for the existence of god.
I never mentioned god.
You said "but deep down you also believe that god started it all.
That kinda looks to me like you mentioned god, and as your concluding statement it sure seems to me to confirm my reading that the point of everything above it was to present an argument for the existence of god.
I didn't say that god created the big bang.
You said "But where did all this come from? you said it yourself, it's all too beautiful to be a coincindence.... deep down you also believe that god started it all."
You imply there must be some bigger explanation "where did all this come from?", and you project that he must secretly believe your answer that "god started it all.".
So yes, you directly asserted god started it all, and you directly equated the Big Bang with "started it all". So yes, again I think you did say exactly what you claim you didn't say.
Maybe you're thinking of some other post you made somewhere else:D
You also missed the point of the big bang. Not just a bang. The best science has it that nothing existed before the bang. Nothing, not matter, not space, not time. Nothing.
I understand that. However I also understand that that "best science" is far from accepted solid science, and that it is at the outer most fringes where all of our current understanding breaks down. Right now it appears that time-as-we-know-it breaks down. It's possible that it is only our mathematical/theoretical grasp on time that is breaking down there, or if time-as-we-know-it does indeed cease to exist, it would merely mean we do not yet have the language to explore the "before" or "origin" of the big bang. I would say our grasp of that general era is still very slippery.
I am insulted by pop scientist posing as real scientists and trying to "prove" that, not only is there no god
I see that general accusation a lot, but I have exactly once seen someone claim science disproving god, and I personally smacked them down for it, and they immediately replied profusely apologizing for his careless language.
Zeus and all of the other gods are human creations, but science cannot disprove Zeus.
Anyone claiming to "disprove" god is wrong. But unless I am seriously missing something, there really isn't anyone out there claiming a disproof of god. People like Richard Dawkins (the most commonly icon of anti-theism) publish books and speak on why people have a habit of inventing gods and on why the arguments for god are wrong and why god is unnecessary or even silly, but even Dawkins has explicitly stated that there is no proof and cannot be any proof of non-existence of gods. Dawkins says "We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."
Either I am seriously missing something, or your "insulting" blight of scientists-trying-to-"prove"-there-is-no-god don't actually exist. Maybe you are insulted by people who think god is "very very improbable", or maybe you are insulted by people who think god is silly, but I don't think you can fairly complain about some blight of people claiming to "prove" there is no god. By interpreting them as claiming "proof" of no god, you are turning them into straw men that are obviously wrong and irrational. People who don't believe in any of the various gods are generally fully ready to agree it is obviously impossible to prove Zeus doesn't exist.
if one thinks that there is[god], then one must be a snake handling rube stump jumper.
I certainly didn't say that, and I think that sort of egregious over generalization is generally confined to wild internet flamefests where the theists get just as ill behaved against atheist
I'm a major science geek, and I've learned about evolution in crazy detail, and I've literally done my own amature experiments implementing evolution of "digital DNA" on a computer and witnessing the fact that the evolution process can and does create new useful complex information.... and I think I've studied it in so much depth for so long that I just assume too many things about evolution are "obvious".
I don't mean this to be insulting, but I'm having trouble understanding how so many people ask that question. I don't understand the I don't understand what (if anything) you were taught about evolution in school, and I'm finding it hard to imagine where you are coming from.... hard to figure out your idea of what evolution means and how you think evolution works.
To me, when I hear that question from so many people, this is what I hear: If my brother and I both came from our parents, why does my brother still exist?
The question seems that odd to me. It seems that obvious to me. Brothers came from the same parent, of course the brother still exists.
Humans and chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas are all "brothers" and "cousins", and we call came from the same great-great-great-great grandparents. The gorilla-brother built his home in the mountains, and the orangutan brother built his home atop forest trees, the chimpanzee brother built his home on the jungle floor, and the human brother built his home in the grasslands. And the human brother stood up when walking to see over the tall grass, and to run down animals on the open plains. The other brothers simply built their homes somewhere else, and they generally kept climbing trees a lot more than the brother who took up jogging around the plains.
About the only explanation for confusion I can see in in your question is the unfortunate arrangement of language. The problem that "ape" appears twice, the first time referring to the dead grandparents as "apes" and the second time referring to the living brothers chimps-orangutans-gorillas as "apes", and the essentially incorrect common language usage that "apes" does not include humans.
The currently living brothers chimps-orangutans-gorillas are as different from the grandparent as we are. Todays "apes" are as different from the grandparent "apes" as we are.
Other than our more sophisticated intelligence, it is surprisingly hard to identify any real significant distinction to separate humans from "apes". Genetically and biochemically we are almost identical to chimps. Anatomically we are virtually identical to any other ape, slightly shorter arms and slightly longer legs, our pelvis is slightly adjusted for walking upright, but bone for bone and organ for organ, it is astounding how little real difference there is. If an alien came to earth and all he had to go by was naked dead-body anatomy, he would call us apes. It's just that we are highly attuned to recognize other humans. Minor details like facial curves scream out as us shouting "other human!" in our brain. And of course we place a huge focus on our intelligence as separating us from any other "animal". People talk, people think, other people look just like me, people aren't "animals", people aren't "apes". But physically, we are no more different from gorillas than chimps are. The number and sizes of differences between humans and gorillas is no bigger than the number and sizes of differences between chimps and gorillas.
Cheetahs are children in the cat family that specialized in super-duper fast running. Humans are children in the ape family that specialized in super-duper thinking, with a minor by-the-way that we also developed the habit of walking upright.
Orangutans have super-duper muscles and can rip us limb from limb like rag dolls. If orangutans and we came from the same grandparents, why do *we* still exist?
Cheetahs are the super-duper runners of the cat-brothers, but of course the lion and tiger and panther and house-cat brothers are still alive. Different brothers live in different places and specialized in different things.
If we're willing to poke holes in long standing theories like gravity why can't we have a class discuss the possible flaws in evolution.
But that's not what we're actually facing here.
In the Dover Pennsylvania trial, an extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge BLASTED the Intelligent Design side for lying under oath about what it was they were trying to do. He BLASTED them that their proposed class curriculum failed to be science for a multitude of reasons. He listened to the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, and he blasted the anti-evolution side that all of the "possible flaws" that they wanted to present in class had already been refuted.
There are two sides fighting this battle over evolution, and one side is wrong. There are two sides fighting this battle over evolution, and one side is being unreasonable. There are two sides fighting this battle over evolution, and one side is presenting gross misinformation.
Yes, all science is indeed open to challenge. If you come up with some new evidence that atoms don't really exist and that element theory is all wrong, if you have some new better alternate to atom theory and element theory, if your new theory is even better at explaining all of the evidence and experiments of chemistry, GREAT!
However our children are not the proper battleground to fight that battle. Our high schools are not the proper battle ground to fight that battle. A public relations campaign in not the the proper battle ground to fight that battle. The court room is not the the proper battle ground to fight that battle. Politics and legislation is not the the proper battle ground to fight that battle.
The proper place to fight that battle is in scientific expert peer review.
Grade school children are not equipped to evaluate the validity or abuse of statistics. Grade school children are not equipped to judge the validity of scientific arguments. Grade school children are not equipped to judge the validity or flaws in definition of terms. Grade school children are not equipped to properly interpret the scientific meaning of results. Grade school children are not equipped to evaluate standards of evidence and scientific procedures. Grade school children are not equipped to check for errors or abused in complex math. Grade school children are not familiar with what evidence exists to support or refute a claim. Grade school children are not familiar with what experiments have been done and what they mean. And on and on and on.
Not only are grade school children ill equipped to identify the million possible errors or flaws that might innocently invalidate a scientific claim, they are completely unprepared to root out and chase down dishonesty or outright deception in a (pseudo)scientific argument.
The scientific peer review process does bring the expert skills needed to properly evaluate the quality (or lack of quality) of a scientific claim or argument. They have the scientific knowledge of the multitude of innocent errors and flaws that can so easily invalidate attempts in science. They have the depth of experience to know many arguments that have been raised and properly refuted before. And they have the expertise and capability to deal with dishonesty and outright deception.
The anti-evolution side is waging a public relations campaign, and they are grossly misleading the general public about the facts and the situation. They claim that there is scientific doubt over evolution, and it's just not true. To the nearest full percentage point, 100% of professional biologists consider there to be no scientific controversy over evolution. If you want a decimal point, it's 99.9% of biologists who consider evolution conclusively established by the evidence. And that 99.9% consider the other 0.1% to be badly unscientific crackpots-who-managed-to-get-a-degree.
All the stuff they want to shovel to our kids in high school science class, it's all been checked and all been scie
Again show me where we can make a definite prediction about the results of future observations.
Evolution has and does make endless such predictions, and the success of those predictions is largely why scientists consider evolution "Proven beyond all reasonable doubt".
Just to cite a single example, every once in a while when a cell is infected by a virus, a random bit of virus DNA accidentally gets inserted at a random location into the cell's DNA. Every once in a rare while, that happens in a cell destine to become a sperm or egg cell that produces a child. That child will carry that random chunk of virus DNA inserted at that particular random location in the DNA of every cell in his body, and he will pass that random insertion down to his children. This is called an Endogenous Retro Virus. ERV.
Human DNA and other animals' DNA are in fact loaded with thousands and thousands of ERVs. In fact in most cases multiple species carry the same random chunk of viral DNA at the exact same location in their DNA. Forget the chance of to separate ERV events randomly inserting the same chunk of viral DNA - just the location alone is about a 1-in-4-billion random factor. The chance of two ERVs independently being the same chunk of DNA and being at the identical location is nearly zero. The chance of multiple ERVs matching up is virtually impossible... much less the fact that thousands of ERVs match up across species.
Evolution's central aspect is common descent. The evolutionary tree of common descent. According to evolution a particular ERV was inserted in a particular individual at some particular time in history, it happened at some particular point on the tree of common descent, and that ERV will *only* appear in species that branching under that particular point in the tree.
Evolution predicts an extremely strict tree pattern in which species will and will not carry a particular ERV in their DNA. For example there are ERVs that appear in humans and in chimps, but which are found in no other species on earth. There are older ERVS found in humans and chimps and all primates, which are found in no other species on earth. There are even older ERVs that are found in humans and primates and all mammals (including whales) but which are found in no other species on earth. And there are ERVS that are found in all felines (lions tigers panthers cougars house-cats) and found in no other species on earth. And ERVs that appear in all of the carnivore branch (the dog family and feline family and bear family) and found in no other species on earth.
If you examine the DNA of several species, you can look at which species do and no-not carry each ERV, and you can use evolution's tree of common descent to PREDICT what ERVs will or will not appear when you do the DNA analysis of some other untested species. And this has been done many times, and evolution passes this and other predictions with flying colors.
Some people try to say that matching DNA across different species is merely evidence of copying by a common author. But we are absolutely NOT merely talking about copying here. We are talking about an extremely strict PATTERN of copying. We are talking about an extremely strict TREE STRUCTURE of copying, a strict family tree of inheritance structure of copying. We are talking about an extremely strict pattern of copying-and-not-copying that specifically matches the evolution's claimed tree of common descent. Merely dismissing the copying as done by a "common author" in no way explains the strict patterns and rules of that copying. If there was a "common author", then the pattern an rules of that copying are detailed evidence into the rules and process that author used in doing his work and doing his copying. If there is a "common author", then the evidence and testable PREDICTIONS demonstrate conclusively that that author either used evolution as his method of operating, or he did so in some other method that was functionally identical to evolution and and effectively indistinguishabl
>the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution
Why would you even spell that out? I bet the NCSE also promotes teaching of water being wet and the sun being a hot thing we orbit.
A bet you'd pretty much lose.
I'm a huge fan of the NCSE, but yeah, the NCSE has the very particular purpose of defending evolution-education and fighting back against the antievolution forces. I'm sure the NCSE approves of "teaching of water being wet and the sun being a hot thing we orbit", but those things are not under attack. The NCSE doesn't do anything to "promote" those things.
Yes. The best of contemporary science. However one would be foolish to think that "the best of contemporary science" it the end-all be-all of science. It wasn't so long ago that we were unable to peer inside the atom, not so long ago that we were ignorant beyond the stars of our own galaxy.
One of the greatest lessons of science is to learn the humility and awe of "I don't know", and to learn that "We don't know" is almost always properly completed as "We don't know, yet".
What was the Big Bang? How did it happen? Why did it happen? We don't know. Yet.
What came before? We don't know. Yet. We don't yet know how to look there, just as we once did not know how to look inside the atom.
The Big Bang is indeed "the best of contemporary science". "The best of contemporary science" is eternally nothing but the limit of our vision, it is the farthest closed curtain in an endless line of formerly closed curtains. "The best of contemporary science" is but the next curtain to be brushed aside to peer beyond. The Big Bang is but the next curtain for us to thrust aside.
I do not have an answer to "before the Big Bang", and I feel no shame, no inadequacy, no failing, in humbly answering "I don't know." "Yet.".
But where did all this come from?
Where did God come from?
You can certainly say "God always existed", but if that is a rational acceptable answer, then one could equally say "this", the Universe, whatever, that it always existed in some form. That is at least as rational and at least as acceptable as the notion that God aways existed.
I find it comical that some people think they have such a "gotchya" proof of God in the question of where did the universe come from, and that they are so utterly blind to the absurdity of shifting the unexplained "always existed" onto God instead and thinking that is somehow any better or different. If "always existed" is a problem or is absurd, then it is equally a problem and equally absurd to slap it onto God.
I like how there are some Young Earth Creationists who try to explain light from a distant star having travelled billions of years as having been created by god as 'already en route'!
An even better philosophical point... the universe is supposedly only ~6000 years old and The End times are supposedly coming some time soon meaning only ~6000 years worth of would need to be Created un-route to arrive at the earth during this pre-End existence. Which leads to the question, for things billions of light years away did God just Create the necessary ~6000 years worth of light en-route or did he Create all of the billions of unneccessary unused light years worth of light between there and here? And if God didn't actually need to bother Creating anything more than ~6000 years of light from those distant stars, well then he didn't actually have any need to Create those distant stars at all. If God created the light already en-route, then anything we see more than 6000 light years away may never have been Created at all, anything more than 6000 light years away may only exist as Created light showing an image of an entire non-existent fictional universe.
In fact that doesn't just go for things more than 6000 light years away. The closest star is ~4 light years away. Did God even bother to Create THAT star? Or did God just Create ~6000 years worth of light-en-route showing that star? The star LOOKS to us like it's 4 light years away, but what we see today might just be light Created en-route, that started out 6000 light years distant from here, light-en-route that was stretching out 6000 years more distant than where we think that star exists.
Heck, even most of the other planets might not ever have been Created, just ~6000 years worth of light-en-route might have been created. God might not have bothered Creating Pluto, he might have just Created the light-en-route image of Pluto that we see today, and originally placed it ~6000 light years away do it arrives and we see it today.
And better yet, what about the light that no one happens to see? If at some particular moment no one is looking up at the sky, if there's no one to see the light-Created-en-route of some particular galaxy a billion light years from here, did God bother Creating that unnecessary light-en-route that no one would ever see? If a tree falls in the forest and there's no on there to hear it, did it make a sound? Hell, if there's no one there to see it, did the tree ever even exist? Did God bother creating it? When you close your refrigerator door, does the light inside actually go out? When you close your refrigerator door, does the light bulb inside even exist? When you close your refrigerator door, does your food inside even exist? When you're lying in bed and you close your eyes, is the ceiling still there? When your mother walks out the door and you don't see her, does she still exist? Does anyone still exist when you're not looking at them? Is everything I think I see and hear and feel, is everything just light and signals "Created en-route" by God? Am I just a brain in a jar? Does the Jar even exist if I have no eyes to see it? Does my brain even exist when I'm asleep? Am I ever even asleep, or do I just think I'm sometimes asleep? Do I still have to tip the delivery guy if this pizza doesn't exist except as signals Created en-route by God? If two wrongs don't make a right, how come three lefts do?
"Probably" - only in the most technical sense of "probably". As in "Chemistry is probably true". There is an enormous body of evidence that proves evolution true - "proof" in the courtroom style "proof beyond all reasonable doubt". 99.9% of professional biologists agree that there does exist overwhelming and conclusive evidence establishing evolution. The other 0.1% are scientific-crackpots. Every field has a handful of crackpots. There are a comparable number of astronomers who reject stellar fusion, claiming instead that the sun is powered by electricity.
However that's not really the point I wanted to address...
it's not above criticism - nothing is.
Correct. But there is reasonable criticism, and there is unreasonable criticism. And then there's just plain lies and misinformation.
All science is open to rational criticism and challenge. Even atom theory and element theory are open to challenge and revision. If someone were to present evidence that atoms don't exist and that the whole "elements" idea is wrong, and they present some better new theory to explain chemistry, some non-atom theory that explains all of the stuff atom theory explains, great! Scientists will subject that new theory to peer review searching it for possible flaws or errors. If and when experts find that atom theory really is flawed, f and when experts find that the new non-atom theory is solid and better, then-and-only-then does that new theory become standard accepted science and then-and-only-then should that new theory be taught as basic science in public school science classes.
The purpose of high school science class is to provide an overview of standard mainstream science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In biology, that means evolution.
High school science classes are not an appropriate place for battles over science to be fought. Grade school kids are not equipped to scientifically judge competing claims. Grade school kids are not equipped to identify scientific flaws in arguments. Grade school kids are not equipped to identify flawed or bogus definitions. Grade school kids are not equipped to spot abuse of statistics or sophisticated mathematical errors. Grade school kids are not familiar with proper scientific standards of evidence and experimentation. Grade school kids are not familiar with what evidence does exist and what experiments have been preformed, and are ill equipped to challenge or refute erroneous or outright fraudulent "scientific" claims.
The scientific peer review process is the proper place for rigorous scientific criticism to take place. The peer review process, where actual experts *are* well equipped to spot flawed arguments and flawed definitions and math errors and misuse of statistics and are well familiar with the evidence that exists, and where they are well equipped to run down and refute fraudulent or mistaken claims.
The anti-evolution camp has abandoned the battlefield of the scientific peer review process, because for a hundred years and more they have perpetually lost on that battlefield. They always lose on the evidence, their claims and arguments are always shot down in scientific peer review because they are riddled with specific identifiable errors and false claims.
They abandoned the battlefield of scientific peer review, and they moved on to the courtroom battlefield. They have consistently lost there as well. In 16 Federal court cases since 1968 the courts have consistently struck down their anti-evolution efforts. The courts have consistently ruled that the anti-evolution position is fundamentally theological in nature, and that the "Teach the Controversy" curriculum to "critique" evolution is fundamentally theological, that their "criticism of evolution" program is neither based in legitimate science nor is it based on legitimate educational concerns. The Dover ruling was a particularly sharp defeat for
Correct. Scientists constantly question everything from gravity to quantum mechanics. However some highschool teacher "questioning" chemistry by teaching scientifically-refuted garbage and propaganda to children is very very wrong.
until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students.
Your terms are acceptable.
One of the sides in this battle obviously must be wrong.
One of the sides in this battle obviously must be being unreasonable.
One of the sides in this battle obviously must be spreading gross misinformation.
The issue is which side is telling the truth, and which side is spreading gross misinformation, which side is misleading people.
The only conflict here is that you were never taught in school the extensive proof of evolution that does exist, and you have the mistaken impression that it doesn't exist. Just because you never saw it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Evolution is also in the core "standard accepted science" by any remotely reasonable definition. DNA analysis proves the family tree relationships between people in a court of law - proves it true in courtroom-style Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt. And in almost the identical manner, DNA analysis proves the evolutionary family tree relationships between species with the same Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt certainty. Not only does the "gappy" fossil record establish evolution Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt, but there are parts of the fossil tree that are in fact continuous and complete. For example the fossil record for Foraminifera is absolutely continuous, a perfect complete record not merely thousands of of transitional species, but a continuous record of transitional forms ALONG individual speciation events. A record not merely that parent species can and did split into new child species, but a detailed of exactly how it happened. A perfect complete record tracing diverse modern living species back to their common ancestor a hundred million years ago. Mathematicians have proven exactly how evolution can and does create new complex information. Computer scientists (and in fact *I personally*) have done computer implementations of evolution on "digital DNA" and experimentally proven the fact that the evolution process can and does create new useful complex information. In fact computer-implemented-evolution is an applied science. It is in fact used somewhere in their business by more than half of all Fortune 500 companies to create valuable new information and to solve problems, in many cases creating new information and solving problems above and beyond the "intelligently design" capabilities of the best human experts.
Every national or international scientific body with a public statement on evolution has stated that evolution is in fact overwhelmingly established by the evidence.
Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of professional biologists agree that evolution is overwhelmingly established by the evidence. If you want to get picky about it and go for decimal percents, 99.9% of professionals biologists agree that evolution is overwhelmingly established by the evidence. Out of about a half million degreed experts in all of the earth and life sciences, only a few hundred consider the "Creation Science" to have any credibility whatsoever. The number of "experts" disputing evolution is effectively zero. Zero percent. The handful that do exist are crackpots. Every field has a handful of crackpots. The number of "biologists" that dispute evolution is comparable to the number of "astronomers" who dispute stellar fusion and instead argue the sun is powered by electricity. Some people try to claim a "lot" of scientists question evolution by calling a few hundred a "lot", however it is ZERO percent. It is ZERO POINT ONE percent if you want the decimal fraction of a single percent.
No. The use of 'law' comes mostly from the dawn of formal science. It basically meant "the world works like this, but we don't completely understand why". It basically refers to "fortune cookie" style equations or observations. Things like Newton's equation for gravity (F=G * m1 *m2 / r^2), or for Chemistry's law of Conservation of Mass (Mass is not created nor destroyed).
While a "law" is a useful Fortune Cookie style rule of thumb for doing engineering or scientific work, it is a lesser achievement than a full theory. It's an observation that appears to be true, without necessarily any understanding of why it appears to be true. The very earliest Chemists made the observation that contained burning and other reactions seemed to preserve total weight, speculated that it was a general rule, an unexplained "Law of Nature", and called it the Law of Conservation of Mass when explaining it to other proto-chemists of the day. Many many such "laws" were proposed, and most of them quickly proven wrong by others and have been forgotten on the trashheap of history. "Laws" that worked for a hundred years and more, like the Law of Conservation of Mass, became famous rules of tum. Fortune Cookie science. Famous one-sentence observations.
The fact is that almost all historical "laws" have been proven wrong. The first law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy) is just plain wrong, the "law" of Conservation of Mass is just plain wrong (mass can be converted to energy and vice versa), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only "true" at random with high statistical likelyhood. The "law" of Gravity equation is known to be wrong in one direction by Relativity and in the opposite direction it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.
Scientists do not consider "Law" to have any real or special meaning. "Laws" often fall short of even the status "a theory" providing no explanation at all, and they are often just plain wrong.
When you get technical about it, the modern view of science is that everything is theory and that everything is open to constant testing and refutation and replacement by newer and more accurate understanding. Even atom theory. It would be insane to doubt the theory of atoms, but if some day someone comes up with some experiments invalidating the theory that stuff is made of atoms, and they come up with a better theory better explaining the vast body of evidence in Chemistry, then great. Then atoms would be disprove and we'd have some new and better theory. However until someone actually comes up with some evidence to disprove atoms, it would be insanely perverse to deny or atom theory. It would be insanely perverse to assert even an active doubt in atom theory. Chemistry and the theory of atoms are "provisionally true", in the most anal-retentive sense of "provisionally true".
The phrase "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" pretty well applies to the entire core of "standard accepted science". Scientific theories only become part of the core "standard accepted science" after they have been exhaustively challenged and tested and no meaningful scientific dispute remains. It is a process where theories earn their way up in accepted status, and there absolutely is a gray zone as evidence accumulates and the last serious doubts are answered, but by any reasonable standard the age of the earth is in the core science of "true beyond any reasonable doubt". You can go to the north pole and dig in the snow and see visible yearly layers, you can see and count a hundred thousand plus years. And all examination and all evidence shows that there is no remotely plausible alternative explanation other than them in fact being an accurate record of more than a hundred thousand years. It is "provisionally true" that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, in the most anal-retentive sense of "provisionally true".
Evolution is also in the core "standard accepted science" by any remotely reasona
I have yet to see proof that Evolution explains how life began. Sure, it explains how life can change/advance, but not how it started. I think it is disingenuous to suggest people are closed minded for pointing out this fundamental limitation of the theory.
I have yet to see proof that Chemistry explains how life began. Sure, it explains how life can function, but not how it started. I think it is disingenuous to suggest people are closed minded for pointing out this fundamental limitation of the theory.
Just to be perfectly clear, the above was intended to be a comical illustration of exactly how and why your comment was wrong.
Chemistry does NOT explain how life began. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Chemistry doesn't explain how life began. Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Chemistry is obviously wrong. Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Chemistry is obviously silly.
Evolution does NOT explain how life began. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Evolution doesn't explain how life began. Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Evolution is obviously wrong. Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Evolution is obviously silly.
If you want to see really ignorant closed minded people, look at socialist or communist ideologues
It's hard to top the fundies and their anti science crusade. People who miss the subtle and complex reasons ideologies may fail have absolutely nothing on these fanatical delusional nutcases who ignore the most blatant physical proof they are wrong, and who actively battle not-to-understand simple concepts and simple physical facts.
About only people in the same league here are the moon-landing-was-faked and other conspiracy theorists. The arguments against evolution, and particularly the 6000 year Young Earth arguments, are as atrociously bad as the Moon Landing Hoax arguments. In fact if you actually look at some of the better Moon Landing Hoax arguments and evidence, some of them are rather impressive. Much better than the crap the Young Earthers and antievolution propagandists are spewing.
Yep, one way to resolve the gay marriage issue would indeed be if all reference to marriage were dropped from the law. That also would also have resolved the interracial marriage issue. I have no objection to doing that. I don't advocate it, but I don't oppose it either. It would be a huge and very messy change to implement. I think it exceedingly unlikely that it will happen in the foreseeable future.
Current law does address marriage, and so long as it does, it can no more discriminate between applicants on the basis of gender than on the basis of race or religion.
a big-brother like system in order to track usage so as to fairly apportion the proceeds to the artists
For what it's worth, I think that could be done without becoming a big-brother problem.
One possible arrangement: Artists can submit their files to the government to be hashed, the government randomly selected people offering some modest payment to be sampled, people who agree to be sampled have their files scanned and the hashes anonymously aggregated. Then you use that to apportion payments. That way even artists who've already released stuff under Creative Commons could get paid.
Score +5 Informative, because there's no score -HolyFuck GougeMyEyesOutWithASpoon.
4chan Random image boards. Daily flood of random crap.
GNAA Internet Troll headquarters. Obnoxious text, but I'm not aware of any eye-gouging image content.
kids-in-the-sandbox Some men might scream in pain at the thought of a dildo being shoved INTO their penis.
2girls1cup.mpg The most famous video you really really don't want to see, unless you have a fetish for watching girls eat soft shit then vomit it into each other's mouths.
efukt Tag line "Porn you wish you never saw". Assorted video collection: Anorexic sex, a donkey giving itself a blowjob, gay anal fisting nearly to the shoulder, etc etc etc.
Goatse The original mammoth asshole you wish you never saw.
And how can we not include TubGirl Another image you really wish you never saw, unless of course you think getting blasted in your face with your own fountain of enema spray is really really HOT.
>>atheists are quite significantly UNDER-represented in the prison population (3) Atheists are, as a group, more highly educated, have better jobs, etc... Do you have any data that controls for these factors?
My "explanation" (2) that atheists might be criminal masterminds not-getting-caught was purely my sense of humor:) Your (3) alternative is basically that atheists might correlate with more socially successful socially well adjusted non-criminal traits is interesting, but I think in any case it still paints atheists with an at-least-neutral light.
I don't cite the prison statistics to claim any sort of superiority, nor do I claim any certain knowledge or explanation for it. Like many things about people, it is a very messy question and any attempt to explain it is going to be at least partially creative speculation. One thing that is clear though, is that any attempt to interpret it to cast a negative light upon atheists would be pretty obviously a biased manipulative dreamed-up rationalization.
Any reasonable interpretation of it casts atheists in at least a neutral and equal light.
I have seen people assert that any atheist is inherently going to be some sort of rampaging monster of evil (you didn't go there, chuckle). That statistic is an extremely powerful point in establishing that, by an extremely reasonable and extremely objective measure, atheists can and do manage to behave at least as well as theists. Atheists don't go around raping robbing or harming people any more than theists do, if anything there's pretty strong indication they do it less. It can still leave the question - as you ask - of how and why atheists behave as well as theists, but I think it strongly shows that they do. I think it establishes that even if you don't understand it, that some valid explanation must exist, and that somehow it does work.
I find that if people actively believe something to be false, if they believe there is no valid explanation for something, they can be reluctant to believe that explanation when they see it. You said "The way I see it, this is a question atheists have no good answer for, period." That sounds to me like at least a partial active dis-belief that an answer exists. I was just hoping that the prison factoid would lead to increased openness to explanations, that some explanation must exist, so therefore possible explanations should not be viewed with an overcritical expectation of failure.
(1)Why should I consider anything "evil" when done to me, to start with?
Whether you call it "evil" or "bad" or "not good" or "undesirable" or whatever, it is sufficient to get things started that you simply don't like it when the other children hit you or take your stuff away. You personally find it physically and emotionally painful when other children do criminal/immoral things to you. Your physical or emotional pain is "bad".
And once you start categorizing things into "good" and "bad", you quickly learn that it just plain Doesn't Work in society if you attempt to ignore the principle of symmetry. You consider getting kicked to be "bad", and if you ignore symmetry and think kicking others is ok, you go and kick another kid and discover that you often get kicked in response. There are many ways that social interactions teach and reinforce the symmetry principle and even actively punish disregard for symmetry.
(2) What about genuine disagreements between people as to what things they should judge to be "evil" when done to them?
There are disagreements.
Twin bothers of the same religion and faithfully attending the same church will have genuine disagreements.
Atheists don't have divine perfection of logic, they don't have identical experiences, they don't have identical temperaments and emotional reactions, they don't have identical priorities. Despite all that, atheists come up with nearly identical systems on the big picture points, and they come up with substantially equivalent s
here are plenty of women who are larger than plenty of men. I find it hard to think of a case where it would be appropriate to write a law naming "women" vs "men".
maternity leave
If I may, I don't think that is even appropriately legislated as "women" vs "men". I would say that is in fact a personal medical issue of childbirth. If you want the law to grant leave, or increased leave, for 'ternity, then you define childbirth as a medical cause for leave or for increased leave. If you have two married women, the one who gave birth is the proper target of the legislation. If at some point in the future a man is medically manipulated to have a uterus, and he carries a baby to term and gives birth, then he is the proper target of the legislation. Writing the legislation in terms of "men" and "women" often seems the obvious way to do it, but I think it simplistic and careless, and that it leads to errors when common assumptions fail. When legislating in reference to "men" vs "women", I believe that there is either an improper discrimination involved, or that you have overlooked the underlying issue that you intended to address (such as medical childbirth leave).
I would be interested if you or anyone else thinks they have counter examples where the law should be written or needs to be written in a gender specific manner. I would consider it an interesting game to see if I can (a) call it improper discrimination, or (b) re-write it in a gender neutral form, or (c) rewrite it in terms of the non-gender underlying issue that the law should more properly have addressed.
Our founding fathers would cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen from the path of justice and equality.
Anyone want to speculate on how many of them would "cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen" that a black man is president and a woman was runner-up(*) for the job?
(*) Just to clarify, I am implying Hillary would have beaten McCain.
Some of the Founding Fathers were brilliant and idealistic men, but so much has changed that their heads would spin trying to grasp it all. If they were alive today, it's hard to say to what extent their idealism would win out over their own prejudices of their day, and win out over some of the current popular prejudices of our day.
Slashdot Mirror
With the theory of evolution, you have scientists trying to make theological decisions.
Sorry, but that gets a blunt: BULLSHIT.
Galileo and other scientists examined the evidence and said the earth moves around the sun.
Some on the Church engaged in denialism on theological grounds.
Galileo was proven right by more than a hundred years of science and evidence.
Galileo and other scientists were not "scientists trying to make theological decisions".
Darwin and other scientists examined the evidence and said life evolved.
Some on the Church engaged in denialism on theological grounds.
Darwin was proven right by more than a hundred years of science and evidence.
Darwin and other scientists were not "scientists trying to make theological decisions".
Just because you have the hubris to tell God that He is forbidden to have used a moving earth does not mean that scientists supporting Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein and making "theological decisions".
High school science class must give an ACCURATE representation of each field of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. And the fact is that 100% of biologists consider evolution the uncontested foundation of their field.
Yes, there exist people-with-biology-degrees who deny evolution, just as there exist people-with-astronomy-degrees who deny stellar fusion and instead claim the sun is powered by electricity, and just as there exist people-with-history-degrees who deny the holocaust. But a single crackpot does not represent a genuine controversy. A handful of crackpots do not represent a genuine controversy. To the nearest percentage point, 100% of biologists accept evolution and 100% of astronomers accept nuclear fusion powering the sun, and 100% of historians accept the holocaust.
Teaching children that historians consider there to be any controversy about the holocaust is just plain fraud.
Teaching children that astronomers consider there to be any controversy about stellar fusion is just plain fraud.
Teaching children that biologists consider there to be any controversy about evolution is just plain fraud.
-
If you want us to stay out of the schools, stop funding the schools with tax dollars
Sorry, but just because you pay taxes does not give you the right to shove mathematically REFUTED phony statistics in math class.
Sorry, but just because you pay taxes does not give you the right to shove historically REFUTED holocaust-denialism in history class.
Sorry, but just because you pay taxes does not give you the right to shove scientifically REFUTED evolution-denialism in science class.
The purpose of science class is to present students with an accurate overview of that field and understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In biology, that means evolution. It doesn't matter if you think evolution is wrong - the fact is that evolution *is* the field of biology as understood and practiced by professional biologists.
There exist a handful of crackpots in every field, like holocaust denialists and those who claim the sun is powered by electricity. One denialist, or even a handful of denialists do not constitute an actual scientific controversy. The sun is not powered by electricity, and we do not "teach the controversy" that a handful of crackpots think the sun is powered by electricity. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of astronomers agree that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of astronomers agree that no scientific controversy exists over stellar fusion. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of biologists agree on evolution. Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of biologists agree that no scientific controversy exists over evolution.
If you REALLY want to get into decimal percentage points, it's 99.9% vs 0.1%.
99.9% of historians consider the holocaust denialists to be crackpots.
99.9% of astronomers consider the stellar fusion denialists to be crackpots.
99.9% of biologists consider the evolution denialists to be crackpots.
So no, just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you can teach refuted holocaust denialism in public school history class.
-
Why does kdawson think that analyzing strengths and weaknesses is a setback?
The same exact reason bringing a "strengths and weaknesses" textbook into chemistry class would be a setback.
It's just plain anti-science, it's just plain fraud.
The proper battleground for science is expert scientific peer review. And they lost on that battleground. Every single "weakness" they are attempting to push has been refuted by scientists. All of their attempts have been found flawed and just plain wrong, on the evidence and on expert scientific review.
They lost on the scientific battleground, so they are fighting on the public relations battleground, and fighting in the courtroom battleground, and the battleground of political lobbying, and now they are stooping so low as to use OUR CHILDREN as a battleground. They want to shove refuted pseudoscience down the throats of our children.
Would you let them push "strengths and weaknesses" to undermine and deny chemistry?
Seems to me that he'd rather see an evolution-only curriculum.
We teach a chemistry-only curriculum.
We teach a chemistry-only curriculum because 100% of chemists accept chemistry.
We teach a solar-system-only curriculum.
We teach a solar-system-only curriculum because 100% of astronomers accept the solar system.
We teach an evolution-only curriculum.
We teach an evolution-only curriculum because 100% of biologists accept evolution.
If you had the impression biologists were split over evolution, they lied to you.
Rounded to the nearest full percent point, yes it is 100%.
Rounded to the nearest TENTH of a percent, it's 99.9%.
Out of about a half million scientists across all of the earth and life sciences, there are about 700 denialists, that is 0.1%, and those handful are considered crackpots by the other 99.9%.
-
So, where do you suppose the "Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water" came from?
There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter.
Notice that the field of science you are fundamentally attacking there is chemistry, not biology.
Most people accept God and science.
This anti-evolution nonsense is fundamentally anti-science. It's impossible to "just" deny evolution and/or the age of the earth. Virtually every field of science from geology to chemistry to radioactivity to physics to genetics and on and on, it all ties in and they all confirm that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is accurate. They "just" want to deny evolution, and oh by the way they have to deny carbon dating, and deny all radioactive dating, and oh by the way ALL of geology is completely wrong, and oh gee erosion is all wrong, and oh yeah lets toss chemistry on the trash heap too because chemical weathering and other slow chemistry doesn't work either, and the global record of billions of years of meteor impacts, and the geomagnetic record, and hell all of astronomy is wrong too because there's all sorts of 10,000+ year and 100,000+ year astronomical cycles recorded in the earth, just throw out Relativity and Quantum Mechanics when they too show a billions-year old earth and they confirm the sequence and timeline of biological evolution.
It's really simple. The activists on one side is deceiving people with misinformation.
The National Academy of Science for virtually every major nation on earth has a public position statement affirming evolution and that there is indeed overwhelming evidence conclusively supporting it. Every national or international science body with a public statement on evolution says the same thing. Out of about a half million degreed biologists, 100% agree evolution is established by the evidence. If you want to go to decimal points, it's 99.9%. Out of a half million biologists, there are about 700 denialists. 99.9% vs 0.1%. In absolutely any field, you can find at least 0.1% who are just plain crackpots.
Most people accept God and accept science.
This whole thing is just a replay of the Church-vs-Galileo fiasco. Some people decided they knew how God did things, and they had the dogmatic hubris to tell God how He was and was not permitted to run His universe. Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, and more all say "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" and more, and in their presumption of self-perfection in religion and in their understanding of the Bible and their knowledge of God, they forbid God to have made a moving earth. They declared Galileo equal to atheism. They declared Darwin equal to atheism.
Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
The heavens and the earth uttereth speech and sheweth knowledge. All the earth is writ old, and all the evidence testifies to evolution. Galileo was right, the earth moves. Darwin was right, life evolved.
A spinning moving earth is the "how" for creating day and night and the seasons. The science of optics is the "how" for creating rainbows. And evolution is the how" for the diversity of life. God does not need to manually insert rainbows, He does not need to hand-craft each snowflake.
-
What, no executions?
-
Obviously you missed the point.
As I read it, your point seems to be presenting an argument for the existence of god.
I never mentioned god.
You said "but deep down you also believe that god started it all.
That kinda looks to me like you mentioned god, and as your concluding statement it sure seems to me to confirm my reading that the point of everything above it was to present an argument for the existence of god.
I didn't say that god created the big bang.
You said "But where did all this come from? you said it yourself, it's all too beautiful to be a coincindence.... deep down you also believe that god started it all."
You imply there must be some bigger explanation "where did all this come from?", and you project that he must secretly believe your answer that "god started it all.".
So yes, you directly asserted god started it all, and you directly equated the Big Bang with "started it all". So yes, again I think you did say exactly what you claim you didn't say.
Maybe you're thinking of some other post you made somewhere else :D
You also missed the point of the big bang. Not just a bang. The best science has it that nothing existed before the bang. Nothing, not matter, not space, not time. Nothing.
I understand that. However I also understand that that "best science" is far from accepted solid science, and that it is at the outer most fringes where all of our current understanding breaks down. Right now it appears that time-as-we-know-it breaks down. It's possible that it is only our mathematical/theoretical grasp on time that is breaking down there, or if time-as-we-know-it does indeed cease to exist, it would merely mean we do not yet have the language to explore the "before" or "origin" of the big bang. I would say our grasp of that general era is still very slippery.
I am insulted by pop scientist posing as real scientists and trying to "prove" that, not only is there no god
I see that general accusation a lot, but I have exactly once seen someone claim science disproving god, and I personally smacked them down for it, and they immediately replied profusely apologizing for his careless language.
Zeus and all of the other gods are human creations, but science cannot disprove Zeus.
Anyone claiming to "disprove" god is wrong. But unless I am seriously missing something, there really isn't anyone out there claiming a disproof of god. People like Richard Dawkins (the most commonly icon of anti-theism) publish books and speak on why people have a habit of inventing gods and on why the arguments for god are wrong and why god is unnecessary or even silly, but even Dawkins has explicitly stated that there is no proof and cannot be any proof of non-existence of gods. Dawkins says "We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."
Either I am seriously missing something, or your "insulting" blight of scientists-trying-to-"prove"-there-is-no-god don't actually exist. Maybe you are insulted by people who think god is "very very improbable", or maybe you are insulted by people who think god is silly, but I don't think you can fairly complain about some blight of people claiming to "prove" there is no god. By interpreting them as claiming "proof" of no god, you are turning them into straw men that are obviously wrong and irrational. People who don't believe in any of the various gods are generally fully ready to agree it is obviously impossible to prove Zeus doesn't exist.
if one thinks that there is[god], then one must be a snake handling rube stump jumper.
I certainly didn't say that, and I think that sort of egregious over generalization is generally confined to wild internet flamefests where the theists get just as ill behaved against atheist
Jesus Christ... basic literacy
Another damn religious fundie trying to cram god into yet another high school classroom :)
-
if we came from apes....why are there still apes?
Maybe you can help me with something.
I'm a major science geek, and I've learned about evolution in crazy detail, and I've literally done my own amature experiments implementing evolution of "digital DNA" on a computer and witnessing the fact that the evolution process can and does create new useful complex information.... and I think I've studied it in so much depth for so long that I just assume too many things about evolution are "obvious".
I don't mean this to be insulting, but I'm having trouble understanding how so many people ask that question. I don't understand the I don't understand what (if anything) you were taught about evolution in school, and I'm finding it hard to imagine where you are coming from.... hard to figure out your idea of what evolution means and how you think evolution works.
To me, when I hear that question from so many people, this is what I hear:
If my brother and I both came from our parents, why does my brother still exist?
The question seems that odd to me. It seems that obvious to me.
Brothers came from the same parent, of course the brother still exists.
Humans and chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas are all "brothers" and "cousins", and we call came from the same great-great-great-great grandparents. The gorilla-brother built his home in the mountains, and the orangutan brother built his home atop forest trees, the chimpanzee brother built his home on the jungle floor, and the human brother built his home in the grasslands. And the human brother stood up when walking to see over the tall grass, and to run down animals on the open plains. The other brothers simply built their homes somewhere else, and they generally kept climbing trees a lot more than the brother who took up jogging around the plains.
About the only explanation for confusion I can see in in your question is the unfortunate arrangement of language. The problem that "ape" appears twice, the first time referring to the dead grandparents as "apes" and the second time referring to the living brothers chimps-orangutans-gorillas as "apes", and the essentially incorrect common language usage that "apes" does not include humans.
The currently living brothers chimps-orangutans-gorillas are as different from the grandparent as we are. Todays "apes" are as different from the grandparent "apes" as we are.
Other than our more sophisticated intelligence, it is surprisingly hard to identify any real significant distinction to separate humans from "apes". Genetically and biochemically we are almost identical to chimps. Anatomically we are virtually identical to any other ape, slightly shorter arms and slightly longer legs, our pelvis is slightly adjusted for walking upright, but bone for bone and organ for organ, it is astounding how little real difference there is. If an alien came to earth and all he had to go by was naked dead-body anatomy, he would call us apes. It's just that we are highly attuned to recognize other humans. Minor details like facial curves scream out as us shouting "other human!" in our brain. And of course we place a huge focus on our intelligence as separating us from any other "animal". People talk, people think, other people look just like me, people aren't "animals", people aren't "apes". But physically, we are no more different from gorillas than chimps are. The number and sizes of differences between humans and gorillas is no bigger than the number and sizes of differences between chimps and gorillas.
Cheetahs are children in the cat family that specialized in super-duper fast running.
Humans are children in the ape family that specialized in super-duper thinking, with a minor by-the-way that we also developed the habit of walking upright.
Orangutans have super-duper muscles and can rip us limb from limb like rag dolls.
If orangutans and we came from the same grandparents, why do *we* still exist?
Cheetahs are the super-duper runners of the cat-brothers, but of course the lion and tiger and panther and house-cat brothers are still alive. Different brothers live in different places and specialized in different things.
-
Clearly the Bush Presidency was divine punishment for our sinful ways.
Damn. I thought God outgrew his cruel "wrath-of-god" fucktard phase a few thousand years ago.
Except for the Death of Firstborn and probably the Plague of Boils, I'd rather he smote us with the Plagues of Egypt.
-
If we're willing to poke holes in long standing theories like gravity why can't we have a class discuss the possible flaws in evolution.
But that's not what we're actually facing here.
In the Dover Pennsylvania trial, an extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge BLASTED the Intelligent Design side for lying under oath about what it was they were trying to do. He BLASTED them that their proposed class curriculum failed to be science for a multitude of reasons. He listened to the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, and he blasted the anti-evolution side that all of the "possible flaws" that they wanted to present in class had already been refuted.
There are two sides fighting this battle over evolution, and one side is wrong.
There are two sides fighting this battle over evolution, and one side is being unreasonable.
There are two sides fighting this battle over evolution, and one side is presenting gross misinformation.
Yes, all science is indeed open to challenge. If you come up with some new evidence that atoms don't really exist and that element theory is all wrong, if you have some new better alternate to atom theory and element theory, if your new theory is even better at explaining all of the evidence and experiments of chemistry, GREAT!
However our children are not the proper battleground to fight that battle.
Our high schools are not the proper battle ground to fight that battle.
A public relations campaign in not the the proper battle ground to fight that battle.
The court room is not the the proper battle ground to fight that battle.
Politics and legislation is not the the proper battle ground to fight that battle.
The proper place to fight that battle is in scientific expert peer review.
Grade school children are not equipped to evaluate the validity or abuse of statistics.
Grade school children are not equipped to judge the validity of scientific arguments.
Grade school children are not equipped to judge the validity or flaws in definition of terms.
Grade school children are not equipped to properly interpret the scientific meaning of results.
Grade school children are not equipped to evaluate standards of evidence and scientific procedures.
Grade school children are not equipped to check for errors or abused in complex math.
Grade school children are not familiar with what evidence exists to support or refute a claim.
Grade school children are not familiar with what experiments have been done and what they mean.
And on and on and on.
Not only are grade school children ill equipped to identify the million possible errors or flaws that might innocently invalidate a scientific claim, they are completely unprepared to root out and chase down dishonesty or outright deception in a (pseudo)scientific argument.
The scientific peer review process does bring the expert skills needed to properly evaluate the quality (or lack of quality) of a scientific claim or argument. They have the scientific knowledge of the multitude of innocent errors and flaws that can so easily invalidate attempts in science. They have the depth of experience to know many arguments that have been raised and properly refuted before. And they have the expertise and capability to deal with dishonesty and outright deception.
The anti-evolution side is waging a public relations campaign, and they are grossly misleading the general public about the facts and the situation. They claim that there is scientific doubt over evolution, and it's just not true. To the nearest full percentage point, 100% of professional biologists consider there to be no scientific controversy over evolution. If you want a decimal point, it's 99.9% of biologists who consider evolution conclusively established by the evidence. And that 99.9% consider the other 0.1% to be badly unscientific crackpots-who-managed-to-get-a-degree.
All the stuff they want to shovel to our kids in high school science class, it's all been checked and all been scie
Again show me where we can make a definite prediction about the results of future observations.
Evolution has and does make endless such predictions, and the success of those predictions is largely why scientists consider evolution "Proven beyond all reasonable doubt".
Just to cite a single example, every once in a while when a cell is infected by a virus, a random bit of virus DNA accidentally gets inserted at a random location into the cell's DNA. Every once in a rare while, that happens in a cell destine to become a sperm or egg cell that produces a child. That child will carry that random chunk of virus DNA inserted at that particular random location in the DNA of every cell in his body, and he will pass that random insertion down to his children. This is called an Endogenous Retro Virus. ERV.
Human DNA and other animals' DNA are in fact loaded with thousands and thousands of ERVs. In fact in most cases multiple species carry the same random chunk of viral DNA at the exact same location in their DNA. Forget the chance of to separate ERV events randomly inserting the same chunk of viral DNA - just the location alone is about a 1-in-4-billion random factor. The chance of two ERVs independently being the same chunk of DNA and being at the identical location is nearly zero. The chance of multiple ERVs matching up is virtually impossible... much less the fact that thousands of ERVs match up across species.
Evolution's central aspect is common descent. The evolutionary tree of common descent. According to evolution a particular ERV was inserted in a particular individual at some particular time in history, it happened at some particular point on the tree of common descent, and that ERV will *only* appear in species that branching under that particular point in the tree.
Evolution predicts an extremely strict tree pattern in which species will and will not carry a particular ERV in their DNA. For example there are ERVs that appear in humans and in chimps, but which are found in no other species on earth. There are older ERVS found in humans and chimps and all primates, which are found in no other species on earth. There are even older ERVs that are found in humans and primates and all mammals (including whales) but which are found in no other species on earth. And there are ERVS that are found in all felines (lions tigers panthers cougars house-cats) and found in no other species on earth. And ERVs that appear in all of the carnivore branch (the dog family and feline family and bear family) and found in no other species on earth.
If you examine the DNA of several species, you can look at which species do and no-not carry each ERV, and you can use evolution's tree of common descent to PREDICT what ERVs will or will not appear when you do the DNA analysis of some other untested species. And this has been done many times, and evolution passes this and other predictions with flying colors.
Some people try to say that matching DNA across different species is merely evidence of copying by a common author. But we are absolutely NOT merely talking about copying here. We are talking about an extremely strict PATTERN of copying. We are talking about an extremely strict TREE STRUCTURE of copying, a strict family tree of inheritance structure of copying. We are talking about an extremely strict pattern of copying-and-not-copying that specifically matches the evolution's claimed tree of common descent. Merely dismissing the copying as done by a "common author" in no way explains the strict patterns and rules of that copying. If there was a "common author", then the pattern an rules of that copying are detailed evidence into the rules and process that author used in doing his work and doing his copying. If there is a "common author", then the evidence and testable PREDICTIONS demonstrate conclusively that that author either used evolution as his method of operating, or he did so in some other method that was functionally identical to evolution and and effectively indistinguishabl
>the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution
Why would you even spell that out? I bet the NCSE also promotes teaching of water being wet and the sun being a hot thing we orbit.
A bet you'd pretty much lose.
I'm a huge fan of the NCSE, but yeah, the NCSE has the very particular purpose of defending evolution-education and fighting back against the antievolution forces. I'm sure the NCSE approves of "teaching of water being wet and the sun being a hot thing we orbit", but those things are not under attack. The NCSE doesn't do anything to "promote" those things.
-
this is the best of contemporary science
Yes. The best of contemporary science. However one would be foolish to think that "the best of contemporary science" it the end-all be-all of science. It wasn't so long ago that we were unable to peer inside the atom, not so long ago that we were ignorant beyond the stars of our own galaxy.
One of the greatest lessons of science is to learn the humility and awe of "I don't know", and to learn that "We don't know" is almost always properly completed as "We don't know, yet".
What was the Big Bang? How did it happen? Why did it happen? We don't know. Yet.
What came before? We don't know. Yet. We don't yet know how to look there, just as we once did not know how to look inside the atom.
The Big Bang is indeed "the best of contemporary science". "The best of contemporary science" is eternally nothing but the limit of our vision, it is the farthest closed curtain in an endless line of formerly closed curtains. "The best of contemporary science" is but the next curtain to be brushed aside to peer beyond. The Big Bang is but the next curtain for us to thrust aside.
I do not have an answer to "before the Big Bang", and I feel no shame, no inadequacy, no failing, in humbly answering "I don't know." "Yet.".
But where did all this come from?
Where did God come from?
You can certainly say "God always existed", but if that is a rational acceptable answer, then one could equally say "this", the Universe, whatever, that it always existed in some form. That is at least as rational and at least as acceptable as the notion that God aways existed.
I find it comical that some people think they have such a "gotchya" proof of God in the question of where did the universe come from, and that they are so utterly blind to the absurdity of shifting the unexplained "always existed" onto God instead and thinking that is somehow any better or different. If "always existed" is a problem or is absurd, then it is equally a problem and equally absurd to slap it onto God.
-
I like how there are some Young Earth Creationists who try to explain light from a distant star having travelled billions of years as having been created by god as 'already en route'!
An even better philosophical point... the universe is supposedly only ~6000 years old and The End times are supposedly coming some time soon meaning only ~6000 years worth of would need to be Created un-route to arrive at the earth during this pre-End existence. Which leads to the question, for things billions of light years away did God just Create the necessary ~6000 years worth of light en-route or did he Create all of the billions of unneccessary unused light years worth of light between there and here? And if God didn't actually need to bother Creating anything more than ~6000 years of light from those distant stars, well then he didn't actually have any need to Create those distant stars at all. If God created the light already en-route, then anything we see more than 6000 light years away may never have been Created at all, anything more than 6000 light years away may only exist as Created light showing an image of an entire non-existent fictional universe.
In fact that doesn't just go for things more than 6000 light years away. The closest star is ~4 light years away. Did God even bother to Create THAT star? Or did God just Create ~6000 years worth of light-en-route showing that star? The star LOOKS to us like it's 4 light years away, but what we see today might just be light Created en-route, that started out 6000 light years distant from here, light-en-route that was stretching out 6000 years more distant than where we think that star exists.
Heck, even most of the other planets might not ever have been Created, just ~6000 years worth of light-en-route might have been created. God might not have bothered Creating Pluto, he might have just Created the light-en-route image of Pluto that we see today, and originally placed it ~6000 light years away do it arrives and we see it today.
And better yet, what about the light that no one happens to see? If at some particular moment no one is looking up at the sky, if there's no one to see the light-Created-en-route of some particular galaxy a billion light years from here, did God bother Creating that unnecessary light-en-route that no one would ever see? If a tree falls in the forest and there's no on there to hear it, did it make a sound? Hell, if there's no one there to see it, did the tree ever even exist? Did God bother creating it? When you close your refrigerator door, does the light inside actually go out? When you close your refrigerator door, does the light bulb inside even exist? When you close your refrigerator door, does your food inside even exist? When you're lying in bed and you close your eyes, is the ceiling still there? When your mother walks out the door and you don't see her, does she still exist? Does anyone still exist when you're not looking at them? Is everything I think I see and hear and feel, is everything just light and signals "Created en-route" by God? Am I just a brain in a jar? Does the Jar even exist if I have no eyes to see it? Does my brain even exist when I'm asleep? Am I ever even asleep, or do I just think I'm sometimes asleep? Do I still have to tip the delivery guy if this pizza doesn't exist except as signals Created en-route by God? If two wrongs don't make a right, how come three lefts do?
-
Evolution is probably true
"Probably" - only in the most technical sense of "probably". As in "Chemistry is probably true". There is an enormous body of evidence that proves evolution true - "proof" in the courtroom style "proof beyond all reasonable doubt". 99.9% of professional biologists agree that there does exist overwhelming and conclusive evidence establishing evolution. The other 0.1% are scientific-crackpots. Every field has a handful of crackpots. There are a comparable number of astronomers who reject stellar fusion, claiming instead that the sun is powered by electricity.
However that's not really the point I wanted to address...
it's not above criticism - nothing is.
Correct. But there is reasonable criticism, and there is unreasonable criticism.
And then there's just plain lies and misinformation.
All science is open to rational criticism and challenge. Even atom theory and element theory are open to challenge and revision. If someone were to present evidence that atoms don't exist and that the whole "elements" idea is wrong, and they present some better new theory to explain chemistry, some non-atom theory that explains all of the stuff atom theory explains, great! Scientists will subject that new theory to peer review searching it for possible flaws or errors. If and when experts find that atom theory really is flawed, f and when experts find that the new non-atom theory is solid and better, then-and-only-then does that new theory become standard accepted science and then-and-only-then should that new theory be taught as basic science in public school science classes.
The purpose of high school science class is to provide an overview of standard mainstream science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In biology, that means evolution.
High school science classes are not an appropriate place for battles over science to be fought. Grade school kids are not equipped to scientifically judge competing claims. Grade school kids are not equipped to identify scientific flaws in arguments. Grade school kids are not equipped to identify flawed or bogus definitions. Grade school kids are not equipped to spot abuse of statistics or sophisticated mathematical errors. Grade school kids are not familiar with proper scientific standards of evidence and experimentation. Grade school kids are not familiar with what evidence does exist and what experiments have been preformed, and are ill equipped to challenge or refute erroneous or outright fraudulent "scientific" claims.
The scientific peer review process is the proper place for rigorous scientific criticism to take place. The peer review process, where actual experts *are* well equipped to spot flawed arguments and flawed definitions and math errors and misuse of statistics and are well familiar with the evidence that exists, and where they are well equipped to run down and refute fraudulent or mistaken claims.
The anti-evolution camp has abandoned the battlefield of the scientific peer review process, because for a hundred years and more they have perpetually lost on that battlefield. They always lose on the evidence, their claims and arguments are always shot down in scientific peer review because they are riddled with specific identifiable errors and false claims.
They abandoned the battlefield of scientific peer review, and they moved on to the courtroom battlefield. They have consistently lost there as well. In 16 Federal court cases since 1968 the courts have consistently struck down their anti-evolution efforts. The courts have consistently ruled that the anti-evolution position is fundamentally theological in nature, and that the "Teach the Controversy" curriculum to "critique" evolution is fundamentally theological, that their "criticism of evolution" program is neither based in legitimate science nor is it based on legitimate educational concerns. The Dover ruling was a particularly sharp defeat for
Questioning a theory is far from wrong
Correct. Scientists constantly question everything from gravity to quantum mechanics.
However some highschool teacher "questioning" chemistry by teaching scientifically-refuted garbage and propaganda to children is very very wrong.
until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students.
Your terms are acceptable.
One of the sides in this battle obviously must be wrong.
One of the sides in this battle obviously must be being unreasonable.
One of the sides in this battle obviously must be spreading gross misinformation.
The issue is which side is telling the truth, and which side is spreading gross misinformation, which side is misleading people.
The only conflict here is that you were never taught in school the extensive proof of evolution that does exist, and you have the mistaken impression that it doesn't exist. Just because you never saw it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Evolution is also in the core "standard accepted science" by any remotely reasonable definition. DNA analysis proves the family tree relationships between people in a court of law - proves it true in courtroom-style Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt. And in almost the identical manner, DNA analysis proves the evolutionary family tree relationships between species with the same Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt certainty. Not only does the "gappy" fossil record establish evolution Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt, but there are parts of the fossil tree that are in fact continuous and complete. For example the fossil record for Foraminifera is absolutely continuous, a perfect complete record not merely thousands of of transitional species, but a continuous record of transitional forms ALONG individual speciation events. A record not merely that parent species can and did split into new child species, but a detailed of exactly how it happened. A perfect complete record tracing diverse modern living species back to their common ancestor a hundred million years ago. Mathematicians have proven exactly how evolution can and does create new complex information. Computer scientists (and in fact *I personally*) have done computer implementations of evolution on "digital DNA" and experimentally proven the fact that the evolution process can and does create new useful complex information. In fact computer-implemented-evolution is an applied science. It is in fact used somewhere in their business by more than half of all Fortune 500 companies to create valuable new information and to solve problems, in many cases creating new information and solving problems above and beyond the "intelligently design" capabilities of the best human experts.
Every national or international scientific body with a public statement on evolution has stated that evolution is in fact overwhelmingly established by the evidence.
Rounded to the nearest full percent, 100% of professional biologists agree that evolution is overwhelmingly established by the evidence. If you want to get picky about it and go for decimal percents, 99.9% of professionals biologists agree that evolution is overwhelmingly established by the evidence. Out of about a half million degreed experts in all of the earth and life sciences, only a few hundred consider the "Creation Science" to have any credibility whatsoever. The number of "experts" disputing evolution is effectively zero. Zero percent. The handful that do exist are crackpots. Every field has a handful of crackpots. The number of "biologists" that dispute evolution is comparable to the number of "astronomers" who dispute stellar fusion and instead argue the sun is powered by electricity. Some people try to claim a "lot" of scientists question evolution by calling a few hundred a "lot", however it is ZERO percent. It is ZERO POINT ONE percent if you want the decimal fraction of a single percent.
One side is wrong.
One side being unreasonable.
Isn't that what science uses the word "law" for?
No. The use of 'law' comes mostly from the dawn of formal science. It basically meant "the world works like this, but we don't completely understand why". It basically refers to "fortune cookie" style equations or observations. Things like Newton's equation for gravity (F=G * m1 *m2 / r^2), or for Chemistry's law of Conservation of Mass (Mass is not created nor destroyed).
While a "law" is a useful Fortune Cookie style rule of thumb for doing engineering or scientific work, it is a lesser achievement than a full theory. It's an observation that appears to be true, without necessarily any understanding of why it appears to be true. The very earliest Chemists made the observation that contained burning and other reactions seemed to preserve total weight, speculated that it was a general rule, an unexplained "Law of Nature", and called it the Law of Conservation of Mass when explaining it to other proto-chemists of the day. Many many such "laws" were proposed, and most of them quickly proven wrong by others and have been forgotten on the trashheap of history. "Laws" that worked for a hundred years and more, like the Law of Conservation of Mass, became famous rules of tum. Fortune Cookie science. Famous one-sentence observations.
The fact is that almost all historical "laws" have been proven wrong. The first law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy) is just plain wrong, the "law" of Conservation of Mass is just plain wrong (mass can be converted to energy and vice versa), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only "true" at random with high statistical likelyhood. The "law" of Gravity equation is known to be wrong in one direction by Relativity and in the opposite direction it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.
Scientists do not consider "Law" to have any real or special meaning. "Laws" often fall short of even the status "a theory" providing no explanation at all, and they are often just plain wrong.
When you get technical about it, the modern view of science is that everything is theory and that everything is open to constant testing and refutation and replacement by newer and more accurate understanding. Even atom theory. It would be insane to doubt the theory of atoms, but if some day someone comes up with some experiments invalidating the theory that stuff is made of atoms, and they come up with a better theory better explaining the vast body of evidence in Chemistry, then great. Then atoms would be disprove and we'd have some new and better theory. However until someone actually comes up with some evidence to disprove atoms, it would be insanely perverse to deny or atom theory. It would be insanely perverse to assert even an active doubt in atom theory. Chemistry and the theory of atoms are "provisionally true", in the most anal-retentive sense of "provisionally true".
The phrase "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" pretty well applies to the entire core of "standard accepted science". Scientific theories only become part of the core "standard accepted science" after they have been exhaustively challenged and tested and no meaningful scientific dispute remains. It is a process where theories earn their way up in accepted status, and there absolutely is a gray zone as evidence accumulates and the last serious doubts are answered, but by any reasonable standard the age of the earth is in the core science of "true beyond any reasonable doubt". You can go to the north pole and dig in the snow and see visible yearly layers, you can see and count a hundred thousand plus years. And all examination and all evidence shows that there is no remotely plausible alternative explanation other than them in fact being an accurate record of more than a hundred thousand years. It is "provisionally true" that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, in the most anal-retentive sense of "provisionally true".
Evolution is also in the core "standard accepted science" by any remotely reasona
Then I will write "annoying pedant" on your face in magic marker while you're knocked out.
Wait, you mean you guys didn't already get that free with with you Slashdot account?
-
I have yet to see proof that Evolution explains how life began. Sure, it explains how life can change/advance, but not how it started. I think it is disingenuous to suggest people are closed minded for pointing out this fundamental limitation of the theory.
I have yet to see proof that Chemistry explains how life began. Sure, it explains how life can function, but not how it started. I think it is disingenuous to suggest people are closed minded for pointing out this fundamental limitation of the theory.
Just to be perfectly clear, the above was intended to be a comical illustration of exactly how and why your comment was wrong.
Chemistry does NOT explain how life began.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that Chemistry doesn't explain how life began.
Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Chemistry is obviously wrong.
Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Chemistry is obviously silly.
Evolution does NOT explain how life began.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that Evolution doesn't explain how life began.
Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Evolution is obviously wrong.
Trying to use that as an argument to discredit or undermine Evolution is obviously silly.
If you want to see really ignorant closed minded people, look at socialist or communist ideologues
It's hard to top the fundies and their anti science crusade. People who miss the subtle and complex reasons ideologies may fail have absolutely nothing on these fanatical delusional nutcases who ignore the most blatant physical proof they are wrong, and who actively battle not-to-understand simple concepts and simple physical facts.
About only people in the same league here are the moon-landing-was-faked and other conspiracy theorists. The arguments against evolution, and particularly the 6000 year Young Earth arguments, are as atrociously bad as the Moon Landing Hoax arguments. In fact if you actually look at some of the better Moon Landing Hoax arguments and evidence, some of them are rather impressive. Much better than the crap the Young Earthers and antievolution propagandists are spewing.
-
Yep, one way to resolve the gay marriage issue would indeed be if all reference to marriage were dropped from the law. That also would also have resolved the interracial marriage issue. I have no objection to doing that. I don't advocate it, but I don't oppose it either. It would be a huge and very messy change to implement. I think it exceedingly unlikely that it will happen in the foreseeable future.
Current law does address marriage, and so long as it does, it can no more discriminate between applicants on the basis of gender than on the basis of race or religion.
-
a big-brother like system in order to track usage so as to fairly apportion the proceeds to the artists
For what it's worth, I think that could be done without becoming a big-brother problem.
One possible arrangement: Artists can submit their files to the government to be hashed, the government randomly selected people offering some modest payment to be sampled, people who agree to be sampled have their files scanned and the hashes anonymously aggregated. Then you use that to apportion payments. That way even artists who've already released stuff under Creative Commons could get paid.
-
Score +5 Informative, because there's no score -HolyFuck GougeMyEyesOutWithASpoon.
4chan Random image boards. Daily flood of random crap.
GNAA Internet Troll headquarters. Obnoxious text, but I'm not aware of any eye-gouging image content.
kids-in-the-sandbox Some men might scream in pain at the thought of a dildo being shoved INTO their penis.
2girls1cup.mpg The most famous video you really really don't want to see, unless you have a fetish for watching girls eat soft shit then vomit it into each other's mouths.
efukt Tag line "Porn you wish you never saw". Assorted video collection: Anorexic sex, a donkey giving itself a blowjob, gay anal fisting nearly to the shoulder, etc etc etc.
Goatse The original mammoth asshole you wish you never saw.
And how can we not include TubGirl Another image you really wish you never saw, unless of course you think getting blasted in your face with your own fountain of enema spray is really really HOT.
-
>>atheists are quite significantly UNDER-represented in the prison population
(3) Atheists are, as a group, more highly educated, have better jobs, etc... Do you have any data that controls for these factors?
My "explanation" (2) that atheists might be criminal masterminds not-getting-caught was purely my sense of humor :) Your (3) alternative is basically that atheists might correlate with more socially successful socially well adjusted non-criminal traits is interesting, but I think in any case it still paints atheists with an at-least-neutral light.
I don't cite the prison statistics to claim any sort of superiority, nor do I claim any certain knowledge or explanation for it. Like many things about people, it is a very messy question and any attempt to explain it is going to be at least partially creative speculation. One thing that is clear though, is that any attempt to interpret it to cast a negative light upon atheists would be pretty obviously a biased manipulative dreamed-up rationalization.
Any reasonable interpretation of it casts atheists in at least a neutral and equal light.
I have seen people assert that any atheist is inherently going to be some sort of rampaging monster of evil (you didn't go there, chuckle). That statistic is an extremely powerful point in establishing that, by an extremely reasonable and extremely objective measure, atheists can and do manage to behave at least as well as theists. Atheists don't go around raping robbing or harming people any more than theists do, if anything there's pretty strong indication they do it less. It can still leave the question - as you ask - of how and why atheists behave as well as theists, but I think it strongly shows that they do. I think it establishes that even if you don't understand it, that some valid explanation must exist, and that somehow it does work.
I find that if people actively believe something to be false, if they believe there is no valid explanation for something, they can be reluctant to believe that explanation when they see it. You said "The way I see it, this is a question atheists have no good answer for, period." That sounds to me like at least a partial active dis-belief that an answer exists. I was just hoping that the prison factoid would lead to increased openness to explanations, that some explanation must exist, so therefore possible explanations should not be viewed with an overcritical expectation of failure.
(1)Why should I consider anything "evil" when done to me, to start with?
Whether you call it "evil" or "bad" or "not good" or "undesirable" or whatever, it is sufficient to get things started that you simply don't like it when the other children hit you or take your stuff away. You personally find it physically and emotionally painful when other children do criminal/immoral things to you. Your physical or emotional pain is "bad".
And once you start categorizing things into "good" and "bad", you quickly learn that it just plain Doesn't Work in society if you attempt to ignore the principle of symmetry. You consider getting kicked to be "bad", and if you ignore symmetry and think kicking others is ok, you go and kick another kid and discover that you often get kicked in response. There are many ways that social interactions teach and reinforce the symmetry principle and even actively punish disregard for symmetry.
(2) What about genuine disagreements between people as to what things they should judge to be "evil" when done to them?
There are disagreements.
Twin bothers of the same religion and faithfully attending the same church will have genuine disagreements.
Atheists don't have divine perfection of logic, they don't have identical experiences, they don't have identical temperaments and emotional reactions, they don't have identical priorities. Despite all that, atheists come up with nearly identical systems on the big picture points, and they come up with substantially equivalent s
women being generally smaller
here are plenty of women who are larger than plenty of men. I find it hard to think of a case where it would be appropriate to write a law naming "women" vs "men".
maternity leave
If I may, I don't think that is even appropriately legislated as "women" vs "men". I would say that is in fact a personal medical issue of childbirth. If you want the law to grant leave, or increased leave, for 'ternity, then you define childbirth as a medical cause for leave or for increased leave. If you have two married women, the one who gave birth is the proper target of the legislation. If at some point in the future a man is medically manipulated to have a uterus, and he carries a baby to term and gives birth, then he is the proper target of the legislation. Writing the legislation in terms of "men" and "women" often seems the obvious way to do it, but I think it simplistic and careless, and that it leads to errors when common assumptions fail. When legislating in reference to "men" vs "women", I believe that there is either an improper discrimination involved, or that you have overlooked the underlying issue that you intended to address (such as medical childbirth leave).
I would be interested if you or anyone else thinks they have counter examples where the law should be written or needs to be written in a gender specific manner. I would consider it an interesting game to see if I can (a) call it improper discrimination, or (b) re-write it in a gender neutral form, or (c) rewrite it in terms of the non-gender underlying issue that the law should more properly have addressed.
-
Our founding fathers would cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen from the path of justice and equality.
Anyone want to speculate on how many of them would "cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen" that a black man is president and a woman was runner-up(*) for the job?
(*) Just to clarify, I am implying Hillary would have beaten McCain.
Some of the Founding Fathers were brilliant and idealistic men, but so much has changed that their heads would spin trying to grasp it all. If they were alive today, it's hard to say to what extent their idealism would win out over their own prejudices of their day, and win out over some of the current popular prejudices of our day.
-