A wasteful thread indeed, what wonders we participants in it could have worked if only we had devoted our mental energies, computer time and bandwidth otherwise!
I'll agree that colonization seems unlikely, if not impossible for the reasons Stross describes, but I personally am not really all that interested in colonization. So we'll never be able to trade material stuff between solar systems... fine, that's no problem really. There is so much energy and matter in our own solar system that it'd be a long time before we'd even want to, even if it were economically/scientifically feasible. The challenge for the foreseeable future will be harnessing, controlling and manipulating the resources we have right in front of us, and engineering better, smarter, happier and more durable/long-lived "human beings."
If and when we do advance sufficiently far along in that regard, we will have the means to seed humanity throughout the cosmos, if we're so inclined. At that point, human beings probably won't much resemble what we call human beings today, so many of the problems Stross describes become irrelevant. Maybe before we reach that point we will go extinct, either from some natural catastrophe or one brought on ourselves... or maybe our hyper-advanced descendants (or "creations" if the intelligent machines wipe out all of the human biomass) experience a terminal indifferent malaise about existence and what we call "living," and will perish in a futuristic emo funk.
If none of that happens, however, I expect that "we" will eventually "colonize" space, not to trade in diamonds, or dilithium crystals or spice (from Arrakis or Kessel) but to share in the knowledge that can be obtained from a closer inspection of far-off worlds, even if it takes what are (from our point of view) ponderous lengths of time to share such information. Would there really be anything better to do?
So human space colonization is impossible, but transhuman colonization may very well be in the cards, so far as I can tell.
I would grant you that we've maybe plateaued in some areas, but sliding downhill? Technological progress shouldn't be measured by milestones of human achievement. Instead you should ask the question, "What is technically practical today that wasn't X years ago? What was technically practical X years ago that isn't today?"
Bureaucracy aside, if we wanted to go to the moon, do you not think we could do it more safely, more cheaply, and more efficiently than we did back in the 60's? The problem is there just hasn't been enough of a perceived benefit in doing so (let alone in visiting Mars and the challenges that would ago along with that), and we've become rather risk averse as a society where such things are concerned. We continue to explore space, with new telescopes and new unmanned craft. It's not as robust an exploration nor as exciting as having an astronaut collect samples to bring back to Earth, or seeing them plant a flag, but it's still progress.
I see, well put. I'd say conception was a milestone in the ultimate formation of your children's identities, though "existence" is fuzzy and hard to define for the reasons you point out. So I can understand why you value the process that lead to the formation and birth of your beloved children, and why you'd treat the moment of conception with a measure of special personal meaning (since you love your children as they are) but I don't it's anything that should give us pause in our use of human blastocysts in medical research.
It's true that a tiny clump of cells with no nervous system doesn't seem much like a person, but I have two young children who not very long ago were very similar tiny clumps of cells. Now, they eat and sleep and play and smile at their Dad, and the older one walks and talks and has all kinds of opinions about things. It seems sad to think that someone would do away with them at an early stage just because they weren't yet able to do all the things they can do now. Just my opinion of course.
Sure, if you go back far enough, you can trace your kid's origin back to an embryo. You could also trace them back to the individual sex cells that combined to create the embryo. You (and your mate) can further trace things back to the proteins that compose those cells, which were formed from food you consumed, water you drank and air you breathed and you. You can do this ad nauseum back to the Big Bang.
What makes one stage or state of your children's existence more important than the others? If you can't draw a meaningful, qualitative distinction between one state and another based on what we know about existence, then I see no rational basis for assigning higher value to one or the other. I understand the intuitive and emotional appeal to such thinking and I suppose that's fine, but we shouldn't erect ethical barriers to embryonic stem cell research on that basis, when it has the potential to improve the lives of conscious human beings, like yourself and your children (note that I don't know how you feel about stem cell research itself, I'm just noting that the sort of observation you made is often closely followed by an argument against such research).
Of course, I was just being facetious -- parodying the extreme and ludicrous characterization of embryonic stem cell research/therapy as involving "dead babies." Except that my description of the procedure is actually technically accurate (at least so far as I can tell, if it went beyond the animal testing stage). Of course, if you have to explain the joke, you've already failed as comedian. I apologize for my inept attempt at humor.:)
I have no problem with this technology or research, but then I also think there is no ethical dilemma with the use of embryonic stem cells for medical purposes/research either. I think it's ridiculous to say we have a moral obligation to a tiny clump of cells with no nervous system... about the only way that you can raise such concerns is to assume some sort of empirically unsupported vitalist superstition.
Yep! Peeling the flesh off of living humans is a huge improvement.
Re:Does anyone have an actual video of the demo?
on
Photosynth Demo
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, I figured there was content after the stupid intro, but seeing how much production value was in the intro, I can't trust the content, there's probably as much production value in it's presentation as there was in it's introduction.
The people responsible for creating the intro (TED) are just the people responsible for giving the presenter a forum to share their ideas/technologies, don't let it color your impression of the rest presentation or the technology itself too much. The same brief advertisement is used across all the videos hosted on the TED web site, for all speakers, some of whom include Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Richard Dawkins, Bono, Peter Gabriel, Jane Goodall, Ray Kurzweil, Sir Martin Rees, Michael Shermer and Craig Venter and in that context the intro isn't as over the top as it may at first seem, if you think TED is just all about showcasing new technological toys.
Also, the video on the TED site can be enlarged and I believe is higher resolution.
TED is definitely a site worth visiting away, as this presentation is probably among the less interesting ones you can watch there. More people should check it out.
The article says that quantum entanglement is one of the scientific principles invoked by Star Trek to explain how transporters function, and that may be true as I don't own all of the tech manuals, but my understanding is that the main principle behind transporter operation is the idea that matter-energy conversion is possible (and practical). Same goes for holodecks and replicators.
What this would seem (at least on the surface) to bring us closer to is the ansible communications technology employed most famously in the Ender's Game series. That is, by utilizing the properties of quantum entanglement, it may be possible to achieve faster-than-light communication. This also has its problems though... I've read some bits by physicists who claim that such technology is impossible or unlikely to ever be achieved, but I'll admit that I didn't really understand the first thing about their arguments.
The sensor also controls the pain-relieving effect of cool temperatures, but does not seem to play an important role in the response to painfully cold temperatures below 10 C.
Pain relief, then, perhaps.
The common cold doesn't really have much to do with the temperature or how cold people feel, except indirectly (see wikipedia).
There are a couple clips of Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation rom the Beyond Belief 2006 conference on YouTube that highlights the danger that adopting a philosophy of ignorance like "intelligent design" rather than continuing a robust scientific inquiry, even for highly intelligent individuals.
They're beautifully insightful and worth watching, in my opinion, and relevant to the direction our conservation has taken, so I'll link them here: Part 1 & Part 2.
Don't go on the defensive by playing the "victim" card. (Newsflash: No one cares.)
They actually tried this in the last scandal, which actually ended up having some truth behind the allegations, to solicit sympathy from the player community and, I guess, to mitigate the any harsh feelings directed at the devs and CCP in general. In an announcement that the company's investigation was complete, the game's community manager mentioned how the whistleblower who was responsible in large part for bringing the whole controversy to light outed the player character identities of a few developers. He stated that, as per company policy, these developers had those characters removed from the game, and, boo-hoo, were forced to end their long-standing relationships with friends and corp-mates in game.
I was flabbergasted by the ineptitude of their PR.
It didn't help that some of the specific allegations of wrongdoing that were made by the whistleblower went unaddressed until a later post, some of which turned out to be on the mark. One of the developers admitted to supplying items to his corp-mates using by abusing his dev tools. For the record, he wasn't fired (I don't recall what disciplinary action they took, if any, beyond removing his player characters and possibly compelling him to make a public apology.)
But it is not pure science. You reach a point where science simply cannot explain how something happened, so you fill in the gaps with guesses and assumptions. I fill it in with a supernatural explanation. Which is why I will agree with you that Intelligent Design doesn't belong in the science lab. How would you do experiments on "God spoke and it was"? But a privately funded museum? Come on now. Not every museum has to be about science. Ever been to a Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not museum? There are plenty of other museums showing (only) the other side of the argument as well.
It is "pure science." Science sometimes makes "assumptions" as well, when it is sensible and useful to do so. However, the assumptions tend to be based on strong, supporting empirical evidence. This is what a "theory" is. Nothing about science says "this is absolutely, positively, for certain how things are." Science is a model of the universe assembled by a certain set of methodologies. Science has given us a model (evolution by natural selection and similar processes) that is a predictive, falsifiable explanation as for how life has developed into all of the living forms observed today. It is backed by heaps of good evidence, has made many possible many successful predictions and as yet, has not been disproven. Specific details are still being worked out, or are in dispute, but this does not evidence against the theory (for example, you can "assume" gravity exists from the evidence without knowing exactly how strong gravity is -- not knowing the precise strength of gravity is not evidence against its existence) but in broad terms, common descent is accepted as scientific fact within the pertinent fields with a fairly high degree of confidence.
Because of the time scales that evolution operates on to produce large scale morphological and physiological changes, and the limited amount of time that modern science has existed, and the short lifespans of humans, it has not been possible for us to observe the living evolution of something like a species of bacteria to something like a trilobite, for to follow the evolution of a "lower" ape to something like a chimp or human. However, that's not the only valid method of observation. Science has provided us with "proofs" of the mechanisms that show how changes like this can occur, and by indirect observation (referring mainly here to the fossil record) and logical extrapolation, we can reach a logical conclusion that such large scale morphological and physiological changes have occurred by the specified mechanisms (natural selection, etc.)
This "assumption" that we are commonly descended is based in science -- it is science (and I will remind you that science is the the only logical, well-established method we have available to us for figuring out the natural world) and thus, is quite reasonable.
Invoking the supernatural is not reasonable, because there is no evidence to support the specific supernatural claims being made.
On the issue of the Creation Museum being a museum, I am of the opinion that museums should strive to provide information that is as accurate as possible. This goes for the Ripley's Believe it or Not museum, as well as the Coca-Cola museum, museums of history, natural history, art, or anything else. Their primary focus does not have to be scientific, but when the claims made by the museum broach the domain of science -- that is, when they have presentations that make claims about the natural world (such as whether or not dinosaurs or humans side by side) and present them as fact, they should have the intellectual integrity make sure the picture they present is consistent with our best scientific understanding, and not depict scenes that have been thoroughly discredited by science.
For example, I have no problem with Ripley's Belief it or Not museum, assuming they have presentations that educate people on a fact such as, "this man have 12 fingers" and that if they giv
I think your point depends entirely on the reason and rationality of a group of people, a significant portion of which refer to the ball of rock we're on as "mother earth".
Well, my main point was to try and illustrate why Overly Critical Guy's contribution to the discussion was not much of one. After citing a study (which he failed to link to, and which I could not find reference to in a cursory Google search), he then characterized a person who was calling out a potential fault in his argument as some sort of irrational, emotionally motivated loon, driven by his "religion" of environmentalism for disagreeing with him. This was, in my opinion, out of line.
He could have made a rational argument in defense of his original comment, perhaps explaining that in a casual discussion forum such as this one, it is not always understood to be necessary to provide a complete and explicit bibliography of sources cited, or that his general confidence in the integrity of Paul Harvey was not intended to be an iron-clad assertion of the validity of his claims, or returned with a link to the source that was asked for, or conceded the point. Instead, he proceeded to use a stereotype about environmentalists to execute an ad hominem attack against his critic.
Now, I will grant that some people in the environmental movement believe in something like a strong view of the "Gaia hypothesis," treating the Earth as a living organism worthy of reverence, with something bordering on a consciousness or a "soul," -- not a view I share, but then I also don't see why how this lends credence to the argument that even these people just want wealthy people/countries to be unhappy and guilty about their success. They may have a silly, evidentially unsupported motivation for their activism, and they may make irrational arguments about why the need for environmentalism is great, and why it is "critical" that greatest polluters curb their carbon emissions, etc. but it lends no concrete support to the supposition that they're just expressing some desire to "bring down" the successful.
So, sure, it is true that "many" environmentalists are woo-worshiping conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment that the environmental movement is overpopulated with wackos -- this may be true of some specific environmental organizations, but I'd say the environmental movement has a broad enough base that what you say is a meaningless statement, a generalization with little factual support, unless you more specifically define your assertion. In any event, I respect that in some context what you say is true, but I don't think it bears much relevance to what I was specifically commenting on.
I'm late in responding to you because of the way you ended up "quoting" yourself, I didn't realize you had posted something new. Anyway.
So you have a problem with my opionion of leaving them along and believe in what ever they wanted to believe instead of shoving your conviction in science down their throat? Because that's what your reply sounds like to me.
If being uncompromising about identifying creationism nonsense for what it is constitutes "shoving my conviction in science down their throat", then yes. I think I'm being pretty mild in my expression of my opinion, to be honest though. I'm not calling for a jihad against creationists, or that the government outlaw the dissemination of their lies, or that they be in any other way have their liberties suppressed. I think that a peaceful protest of the museum that seeks to raise public consciousness about the factual errancy of the museum and the problems that go along with promulgating scientific illiteracy is a perfectly respectable, appropriate, measured response to its existence.
we got enough debate topic in this country already. Frankly I think both camp need to lay off their attack off each other and start learning how to "repectably disagree" the other's opionion. Let them open their Museum in their own right, and you can open your museum dedicated to scientific theories behind Darwinism and how it had positively advance science and improve our lives.
You see, from my point of view, I am respectfully disagreeing with the creationist position, their actions and policies -- that is, I am affording them all the respect they deserve. I also must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the country has exceeded its "debate quota" and that issues such as this should be quietly ignored. Civil discourse, non-violent protest and rational argument are some of the ways in which society can make progress.
We still have not bagged all the polygamist and other more extremism and racists in this country yet. Can't we focus on them first before we can have a candid, yet gentlemen like discussion on the subject? If you truely believe in Science, then you should also believe that the truth in science will prove itself over time. Blasting different opionion will be the last thing that will persuade others to listen to you anyway. That's just human nature that even physical science cannot give you a straight mathematical formula on.
As human beings, we are capable of sustaining a discussion on multiple subjects. Personally I am not opposed to polygamy in principle, the some of the anecdotes of polygamy that have reached me are certainly objectionable -- but yes, there are polygamists who exploit women and young girls, there are racists committing hate crimes, etc. -- but there will always be these sorts of people. Since you're saying we should "wait" to have this debate, maybe you can tell me exactly what criteria will need to be fulfilled before it is appropriate to have this discussion. I personally see no point in waiting -- the creation museum is up now, the anti-science religious agenda is in swing now -- the time to oppose it, is now.
Besides that, we all "waste" time and resources on a variety of trivial amusements. One statistical I recently overheard stated that Americans spend about 4 hours per day, on average, watching TV. In light of that, how is a day spent protesting the creation museum, and several hours spent blogging and discussing any kind of woefully disproportionate response that we should feel bad about?
One problem, as I see it, is that people like me are often accused as belonging some extreme fringe, the "militant, zealous advocate of atheism and science" reverse image of the "fundamentalist Biblical literalist," with the suggestion that our sometimes strident, combative tone is somehow wrong, irresponsible. I know that some of what I say may be offensive, but it's only because in our culture, religion is such a fixture and "faith"/piety is regarded
Well, if Creation is so provably wrong whats the harm in setting creation and evolution side by side in a science class? Shouldn't you always present what the other group believes and then give a counterargument? If you want a fair comparision I'd say a science class would be the best place. Technically though, both should be taught in a history class because both happened in the past.
Well, my basic position is, that since intelligent design and creationism are not valid scientific theories, they shouldn't be taught as a part of the science curriculum. The "harm" that may be done is to confound students' notion of what science is by introducing non-scientific concepts in the wrong context. I think that one of the major failings of our education system presently, even without creationism or ID in the classroom, is that we just don't do a good enough a job of teaching exactly what science is.
In my opinion, before we start teaching students in an in depth manner about things such as physics, chemistry and biology (including evolution), the primary focus on science education should first be to build up the scientific literacy of students, and it should be a recurring, oft-reviewed theme/focus throughout their entire science education. A lot of time and energy should be devoted to making sure they understand the scientific method, empiricism, the meaning of words like "theory," "hypothesis and "falsifiability," in the scientific context. I also think we should give the students a very basic primer on the academics of science and science publishing -- about peer-reviewed journals, science ethics panels, some basics on how universities and other institutions.
An introduction to science and the "culture" of science, in other words. Part of educating about science could possibility include an explicit education about what science is not. In this context it may be acceptable to engage the students of examples of science and non-science -- give (or solicit from students) examples of pseudoscience, unfettered non-scientific speculation about the natural world, and religious claims that all may superficially resemble scientific theories, but don't live up to those standards and must be classified merely as unsupported or discredited hypotheses/ideas.
I do not expect that such an education would be viewed with welcoming good feelings by creationism or intelligent design advocates, but it is the only way I can think of to get creationism in science-related classes that does justice to the education of the students, otherwise the only proper place for it in school would be in social studies classes, as I've already mentioned. It is not appropriate to give evolution and creationism something resembling "equal time" and respect in science class because they are not anything close to being equally credible or scientific, and suggesting that they are would present a distorted, misleading view to students.
In all reallity we all believe in creation it's just a debate over the creator. Yours is astronomical chance; mine is an omniscient God.
If we're still talking about evolution here, I don't believe the origin of species and species diversity was created by "astronomical chance" -- I believe it arose as a result of the operation of non-chance mechanisms -- namely selection pressures (natural selection, sexual selection) and that these processes themselves arose through other mechanistic physical processes that can be observed and understood.
I'm probably wasting time responding to an AC post, but...
Saying that God doesn't exist is just as ridiculous as ignoring scientific facts.
Not really. Saying God doesn't exist is like saying unicorns and ghosts don't exist. I'm a simple expression of rational skepticism given the lack of supporting evidence for things such as gods, fairies and Santa Claus. There is a remote possibility that something like God does exist, but the most logical assumption should be that there is not.
Many of the most famous scientists and brilliant minds responsible for much of the body of scientific knowledge believed in God. Newton and Galileo all the way down to Einstein believed in God. So, what, you are smarter than them now? Gimme a break.
The argument you are basically making here -- that these smart people believed in God, so God probably exists -- is a textbook example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Sometimes smart people believe silly things. There have been brilliant people of many different religious persuasions throughout history, as well as brilliant naturalists/atheists -- including Einstein.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God and explicitly said as much in life on multiple occasions. Confusion is understandable, but what Einstein referred to as "God" could just as accurately be called "the universe" or "nature." See the philosophy of Spinoza, natura naturata, etc.
I hope this helps to illuminate the atheist/agnostic position for you a little.
Many environmentalists simply want everyone to feel guilty for their own successful existence. Notice that they never criticize the smaller, poorer countries that are polluting. It's always the advanced, successful nations.
Maybe environmentalists voice the most concern about the practices of the more wealthy countries because they are the ones who are doing the majority of the polluting? And maybe because they are in a better position to make some sacrifices for the long term welfare of the planet, their own future citizenry and humanity in general?
Why assume a petty motivation on the part of environmentalists for their position when perfectly reasonable explanations for their stance exists? That's putting aside for the moment the question of whether they are ultimately right or wrong about the human impact on climate change, and if anything can be done -- if you believe, as many environmentalists do, that humans are probably contributing to climate change and that we may be able to do something about it, then it seems obvious that plans for action would be most heavily focused on where most of the man-made pollution/carbon emissions are coming from.
Characterizing environmentalists as you have doesn't do anything to bolster the strength of your argument, any more than calling them "poopie-heads" would, at least not unless you're willing to offer some kind of evidence to back your claims.
Sure creationism runs against scientific evidances we have today, but so are some of the concepts in sci-fi/fantacy fictions (e.g. time travel).
Yes, but the context makes all the difference. Fictional works tell you outright that they are, you know, fictional. There's a not-so-fine line between telling a story and making it clear that it is a work of pure imagination or speculation, and opening a museum that teaches religious ideas as something resembling scientific fact, when in truth, there is nothing scientific about them, when many of the ideas being presented have, in fact, have long been debunked and discredited by those who actually practice science.
After all there's something call freedom of speach in this country. They can open up whatever kinf of museum they like, so long as they are not infringing on someone else's freedom.
I've never said otherwise. Freedom of speech, however, also means having the freedom to protest things you find disagreeable, not just about government, but about the way private organizations conduct themselves. There is a public interest at stake here, as pointedly noted in my original comment.
Simply stating Darwin's theory is wrong inside the Museum simply cannot count as attacking the scientific opionion. They are just respectably presenting their different opionion, whether it seems logical, or even downright silly to you.
So taking evidence out of context, making completely evidentially unsupported claims, using unsound methodology, and a lot of jargon-filled hand-waving to make a polished, professional presentation that directly contradicts the consensus view held by virtually all scientists in the pertinent fields (biology and geology, most notably)... and putting it all in a "museum" (not a church, not a temple, not an amusement park -- but a museum) with a suggestion of academic scientific credibility -- does not represent an attack on scientific opinion or science generally, in your view? If so, we're going to have to simply agree to disagree.
I'm just calling this like I see it. It's a blatant attack on science in the same vein as the Catholic church's attempted suppression of Galileo's discoveries about the solar system. Religious organizations today cannot prevent scientists for publishing findings that contradict their beliefs (in part, because of that free speech thing and also because of their waning influence in the academic community, especially certain fields), so they do everything they can short of that. Some tell their flock not to read certain books. Some try to get themselves placed on school boards so they can excise any reference that's made to evolution -- or to force the teaching of an alternative point of view, as if there is one with any credibility... there is not, so some have devoted a lot of time and money to creating a facsimile of science that roughly corroborates their religious claims, but is actually more focused on casting ill-founded doubt on good science (this is "creation science" and "intelligent design" in a nutshell).
Darwin and most evolutionary biologists didn't develop the theory of evolution to specifically discredit Judeo-Christian beliefs (even if it does have the side effect of sometimes eroding one's belief in religion sometimes), but some people of faith feel sufficiently threatened by the theory and thus see a need to attack "in kind." They can't produce good evidence that supports their beliefs, however, so what they do instead is try to prevent the science from reaching the public in any way they can, or failing that, they try to discredit the science itself -- which is almost always done in a logically fallacious, intellectually dishonest manner.
If you only bother to look, the behavior of those who created this museum creates a pattern that is plainly indicative of a direct assault on science/evolution, and not just a friendly espousing of their own beliefs in a good faith effort to educate.
I think evolution and science in general have their limits. Science can't explain everything. But guess what, neither does the Bible.
* There are a lot of subjects not discussed in the Bible where we need science to shed some light.
* There are even some subjects in the Bible that science complements rather nicely.
* There are areas where science is lacking that the Bible (and religion in general) helps to enlighten.
It doesn't have to be "There can be only one!"
Science has its limits. Science is just our provisional understanding of the universe and a set of methods for achieving that understanding... it's a human invention and so long as its being practiced by humans, it will be subject to human limitations. That said, I think it's fair to say that it's established itself as far and away the best way we have available to us to gain understanding about the world. The alternatives -- religion, superstition, haphazard guesswork -- occasionally bear fruit, but have not amassed anything close to the mountain of seemingly accurate knowledge about existence as science.
Seeing as how that's the case, I've been able to rationally work out how it is useful to rely on those inferior methods, or credit them with any serious consideration, while science is available to us.
The most logical argument I've heard for what you posit, that it doesn't have to be one or the other (religion or science) is the non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) argument. That is, that the proper domain of science is to address how things are and how they work, in the physical universe... that it's not really the place of the religion to make claims like "men do not share a common ancestor with other animals" or "the Earth is at the center of the universe" or "the seasons change because Persephone must periodically visit her husband in the underworld for stretches of time, which upsets Demeter." The facts and workings of the universe are the domain of empirical observation and the scientific method. However, the argument goes, religion can still exist, to concern itself with the meaning of what we learn from science, or perhaps provide moral insight.
Personally I think there are some problems with that argument, in part because I think we could be better served by pursuing the social sciences and philosophy to fill the void that the natural sciences leave, but in any event the NOMA argument doesn't seem to be the one you're making, as you seem to subscribe to the notion that we should have a "God of the gaps" that supplies answers to questions that science cannot definitively provide, that supernatural/religious speculations and explanations are fair game and even to be encouraged. I (surprise) don't agree with this. I think it's preferable to admit ignorance or uncertainty about something than it is to make something up, or to rely on personal revelation to get such answers, or to trust some ancient "authority" like the Bible.
There are a couple reasons I believe that, one of which I've already pointed out -- that science just has the better track record where such things are concerned. Another reason would be that to me, the scientific approach just seems a whole lot more sensible. Yet another would be because having such beliefs can be an impediment to gaining scientific understanding -- if you think you've already got the answer, you may stop looking (link is Neil de Grasse Tyson at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference talking about some of science's greatest thinkers invoking gods and "intelligent design").
Attacks on religion, religious thought, and religious people are, of course, perfectly acceptable. It doesn't matter if we offend Christians as long as no atheist feelings are hurt.
I'm not concerned with feelings, Christians, atheists or otherwise where public understanding and scientific literacy is concerned. If someone's presentation of scientific theories, or logical statements of fact are offensive to some Christians, that is just too bad for the Christians, just as it is just too bad for atheists that we (at least those of us who live in the United States) have to endure the incessant, grating displays of piety that religious people are so enamored with (though that's something I'm more annoyed at than I am personally distressed about).
I am a Christian, although honestly I think exhibits of dinosaurs and humans living together are just as laughable as you. Do I think the Earth and everything on it was created in a literal 7 revolutions of our planet? Not even close. 4.5 billion years sounds good to me. Does that mean I need to go protest/attack those who think otherwise? Nope! They can believe what they want to on this subject because I don't think this is an issue of salvation.
As I said in another post, what really gets me riled up is the presentation of ideas that you describe as "laughable" as being somehow scientifically or academically credible, when they are anything but. It's deceptive and is, as I've said, it seeks to actively undermine and degrade science by employing a scientific facade to fool the ignorant and gullible. It's just bad for Kentucky residents' scientific literacy and in my opinion, the lack of critical thought and scientific literacy in the public at large is a serious problem.
Do I think humans and monkeys share a common ancestor? Once again, no. Can I prove that I'm right? No. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No. We each have our own belief in this case. You can try to build your side up as the side of reason and science, but it's based on just as much assumption as you say mine is. Neither of us has proof, so we fill in the blanks with what we've each reasoned as the most logical answer.
I can say that my side is built on the side of reason and science, simply because it is. Of course, you could say your own position is more reasonable (and from your point of view it may be, if you rate the Bible as being a very credible source of knowledge about the nature of the universe) but it certainly isn't as scientifically well-supported. That doesn't prove outright that I'm right and you're wrong about whether or not humans and other animals share a common ancestor, but logically one would have to conclude that I am at very least, more likely to be correct on this point.
So just listen: This museum is not an attack on your beliefs in science any more than it's an attack on my beliefs. It's a presentation, albeit rather extravagant and fancy, of their beliefs. Your beliefs still get plenty of attention, whether in schools, TV, movies, magazines, etc. Get over yourself, you arrogant jerk. You and I both disagree with them, yet somehow I can continue to live my daily life without the need to feel offended that someone somewhere may disagree with me. And lay off this crap about wanting to save the children. If it were up to you, they would be spoon-fed evolution from day 1, nothing else. How's that any different or better? At least with religion in the home and evolution in school they get more than just one viewpoint.
Where to begin?
Although I find the Creation Museum offensive in that it is an affront to what I think museums should generally be about -- presenting accurate information about the subject matter and that they should strive for some degree of scientific legitimacy when treating that concern science, like biology (origin of species, the history of the world's ecology), geology (age of Earth) and cosmology/physics (age and origins of the universe)... I do not find a
Evolutionism and Creationislm (bad spelling) are two opossite ends of the spectrum. One is Judeo/Christian at its fineist (once again, horrible spelling), the other pretty much directly attacks it.
The theory of evolution and creationism are on opposite ends of a spectrum, if the spectrum you are talking about is one of scientific credibility and reason. I wouldn't call creationism Judeo-Christian belief at its finest, unless by "finest" you mean "most demonstrably incorrect."
You cannot just teach one or the other and expect to make everyone happy. There are only two possible solutions to this.
The "solution" is that you accept the fact that you can never make everyone happy and, after accepting that, accept the fact that the science education of children should not be compromised by anyone's religious beliefs. Anything else would be a ridiculous expression of excessive political correctness. The same sort of argument you're making here could be made against teaching about a heliocentric solar system, or a spherical Earth, if only you can find a parent who has a strong religious conviction that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe and that contradicting theories/ideologies are the devil's work.
2) Teach both. Unfortunately, this has issues as well, in that you are limiting yourself to Judeo/Christian and Science. You must include all religions. Actually, my public high school is doing this as an elective, they cover Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, native-American views, so forth and so on. Present the kids with all the information from different religions and theories in science, let them make up their own mind. I support this, but only in the teenage years, when the student's mind have evolved to the point where they can make an informed decision. Some will probably choose to go with views different than what their parents believe, most will go with how they have been raised, but at least the information has been presented in a non-biased manner.,
Evolution should be taught in science class, for the reasons I've already outlined. Creationism has no place in science class.
In my opinion, comparative religion should be taught as social studies. Creationism could be touched on here, as a part of a larger study of the beliefs of the Abrahamic faiths. Evolution would probably be outside the scope of this particular set of classes, except to possibly mention that it (or science generally) is where naturalists and non-religious people tend look to find answers to some of the questions that religions try to answer.
Personally I think such classes should be taught as a fairly young age, for a similar reason that you suggest it should be taught later. Teaching comparative religion later rather than sooner does relatively little good, if your goal is to open minds and really, truly educate. At a young age, children are hardwired to believe virtually anything a parent or other authority figure tells them. It's not the school's place to tell children what religion they should believe, but I think it would be great if they were simply made aware of the fact that other religions exist, with an education of some of their more salient, defining features.
This idea is objectionable to religious people of many stripes because I think deep down they realize that kids are smart enough to realize that looking at all of these different faiths side by side, that they can't all be true, and some of them will wonder if there is a good reason to believe one set of religious beliefs over another. The truth is, there really isn't, but there's no need to explicitly tell the children that... they can come to that conclusion on their own -- or not.
But why should schools take it upon themselves to potentially plant such a seed of doubt in the child's religious faith? To me, it comes down to trying to cultivate healthy critical thinking skills in students and allowing them some chance of making a personal
Disney has several theme parks around the world that feature furries and princesses. Do you feel that those threaten science as well?
Of course not, for the reason you mention; "A theme park, IMO, at least puts this set of beliefs into a suitable context - One of fantasy and humor...". Granted, a very young child may not clearly see a distinction between fantasy and reality, but that's something most of them grow out of fairly quickly, as long as the proper context is there. In my mind, that's the primary distinction between a book like the Bible and one such as the Silmarillion. One literary work is presented with the proper context and respect (as a work of fantasy and the product of an active imagination) while the other is not.
Don't take this the wrong way - I completely agree with you. But don't take the cause as the effect. The real threat here involves the idiots poisoning their children with this particular set of ignorant and dangerous misinformation, not the means by which they do it.
I agree, but if they didn't utilize any "means" to achieve their mind-warping abuse of children's minds (as well as the minds of anybody else whose bullshit filter isn't working properly) then it would sort of be a moot point. This "museum" just adds insult to injury, by attempting to adopt a somewhat academic/scientific/educational veneer, just like the whole ridiculous "Intelligent Design" movement. To me, it's bad enough if a child is taught that, according to the Bible, the world was created and populated directly by God, with a literalist spin, and is told to "have faith" in that story. At least then it's being taught in something resembling its proper context as a religious belief. In my opinion, it's still "wrong," but whatever. What's even worse, however, is when the fundamentalists put on lab coats and pose as respectable researchers, and masquerade their faith-derived nonsense as scientifically well-supported fact.
That's why I say it represents it as an attack on science (and this museum is by no means the only representation -- how I wish it was), which makes it that much more offensive and infuriating to me as someone who respects real science and reason.
Right... it seems to me that you can sometimes expect people to produce and disseminate good content for free if it's something that is actually someone's passion. If it's a genuine art, or something that's derivative of something fun like a sport of a game, you can get some great stuff for free... just take a look at some of the better stuff on YouTube, or deviant art, or video game mods. A ketchup commercial, however? Come on.
I can understand the amount of time and energy put into the game, but whether a player invests 20 minutes or 3 years, it's still just a game.
So what if EVE is just a game? It's a meaningless statement, tautology. After all, money is only money. Water is only water. Blood is only blood. You'd have a hard time proving that anything in this world has any intrinsic value. Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The time a person invests in the game is relevant to estimations of value, however, because time is something virtually everyone values rather highly, since we only have so much of it. Beyond that though, I feel compelled to point out that EVE is not just a game. It's a community. It's an economy. It's a business. All in a very real sense (or as real as any of these abstract concepts can be.)
Given that, I know it's quite understandable why someone would be angry upon discovering that employees or representatives of the company (CCP) either promote cheating or treat it as a zero priority problem, because the player paid a subscription fee for a service that is supposed to be regulated by fair, consistent, and logical rules. However, I think there's a difference between getting angry and demanding a refund versus getting angry and becoming swept into the drama over a fantasy world, which (to me) is an unproportional response.
I can understand exaggerated responses because I've been guilty of having them. To me it's a signal that there's an addiction going on with the player. A serious one.
There's a fine line between passion and addiction and without knowing the details of a someone's personal life, it's virtually impossible to tell them apart. As long as these games have a social component and an interacting community, and on top of that a competitive economy, you should expect people to sometimes to be rather dramatic in their reaction to perceived (and real) wrongs committed against them. Add to that, the fact that people are more prone to theatrics and other outrageous behaviors when anonymous (or semi-anonymous). In that context I don't think the response is necessarily disproportionate for someone who really enjoys the game, cares a lot about it, and values the significant amount of time and money they've devoted to the game. Addiction does not necessarily have to enter into it, though I would grant that realistically, it often does.
What I think is most sad about MMOs is that often it seems to get to the point with people where they no longer play because they really, genuinely, truly love to play the game, but they do so merely out of habit or because they are chasing some unattainable goal (because by the time they achieve any goal, they are so fixated on a new goal, their joy may be diminished), almost like a crack addict chasing that pure, perfect high. Gaming addiction generally isn't as destructive or dangerous as many other addictions, of course, but I completely understand the point that for some people, it really can get out of hand. However, I don't really think it's relevant to this particular topic and I think people are, in general, a little too ready to dismiss gamers as being addicts with no lives whenever they express any great amount of enthusiasm (positive or negative) about their hobby.
Slashdot Mirror
A wasteful thread indeed, what wonders we participants in it could have worked if only we had devoted our mental energies, computer time and bandwidth otherwise!
... fine, that's no problem really. There is so much energy and matter in our own solar system that it'd be a long time before we'd even want to, even if it were economically/scientifically feasible. The challenge for the foreseeable future will be harnessing, controlling and manipulating the resources we have right in front of us, and engineering better, smarter, happier and more durable/long-lived "human beings."
... or maybe our hyper-advanced descendants (or "creations" if the intelligent machines wipe out all of the human biomass) experience a terminal indifferent malaise about existence and what we call "living," and will perish in a futuristic emo funk.
I'll agree that colonization seems unlikely, if not impossible for the reasons Stross describes, but I personally am not really all that interested in colonization. So we'll never be able to trade material stuff between solar systems
If and when we do advance sufficiently far along in that regard, we will have the means to seed humanity throughout the cosmos, if we're so inclined. At that point, human beings probably won't much resemble what we call human beings today, so many of the problems Stross describes become irrelevant. Maybe before we reach that point we will go extinct, either from some natural catastrophe or one brought on ourselves
If none of that happens, however, I expect that "we" will eventually "colonize" space, not to trade in diamonds, or dilithium crystals or spice (from Arrakis or Kessel) but to share in the knowledge that can be obtained from a closer inspection of far-off worlds, even if it takes what are (from our point of view) ponderous lengths of time to share such information. Would there really be anything better to do?
So human space colonization is impossible, but transhuman colonization may very well be in the cards, so far as I can tell.
I would grant you that we've maybe plateaued in some areas, but sliding downhill? Technological progress shouldn't be measured by milestones of human achievement. Instead you should ask the question, "What is technically practical today that wasn't X years ago? What was technically practical X years ago that isn't today?"
Bureaucracy aside, if we wanted to go to the moon, do you not think we could do it more safely, more cheaply, and more efficiently than we did back in the 60's? The problem is there just hasn't been enough of a perceived benefit in doing so (let alone in visiting Mars and the challenges that would ago along with that), and we've become rather risk averse as a society where such things are concerned. We continue to explore space, with new telescopes and new unmanned craft. It's not as robust an exploration nor as exciting as having an astronaut collect samples to bring back to Earth, or seeing them plant a flag, but it's still progress.
I see, well put. I'd say conception was a milestone in the ultimate formation of your children's identities, though "existence" is fuzzy and hard to define for the reasons you point out. So I can understand why you value the process that lead to the formation and birth of your beloved children, and why you'd treat the moment of conception with a measure of special personal meaning (since you love your children as they are) but I don't it's anything that should give us pause in our use of human blastocysts in medical research.
What makes one stage or state of your children's existence more important than the others? If you can't draw a meaningful, qualitative distinction between one state and another based on what we know about existence, then I see no rational basis for assigning higher value to one or the other. I understand the intuitive and emotional appeal to such thinking and I suppose that's fine, but we shouldn't erect ethical barriers to embryonic stem cell research on that basis, when it has the potential to improve the lives of conscious human beings, like yourself and your children (note that I don't know how you feel about stem cell research itself, I'm just noting that the sort of observation you made is often closely followed by an argument against such research).
Of course, I was just being facetious -- parodying the extreme and ludicrous characterization of embryonic stem cell research/therapy as involving "dead babies." Except that my description of the procedure is actually technically accurate (at least so far as I can tell, if it went beyond the animal testing stage). Of course, if you have to explain the joke, you've already failed as comedian. I apologize for my inept attempt at humor. :)
... about the only way that you can raise such concerns is to assume some sort of empirically unsupported vitalist superstition.
I have no problem with this technology or research, but then I also think there is no ethical dilemma with the use of embryonic stem cells for medical purposes/research either. I think it's ridiculous to say we have a moral obligation to a tiny clump of cells with no nervous system
Yep! Peeling the flesh off of living humans is a huge improvement.
The people responsible for creating the intro (TED) are just the people responsible for giving the presenter a forum to share their ideas/technologies, don't let it color your impression of the rest presentation or the technology itself too much. The same brief advertisement is used across all the videos hosted on the TED web site, for all speakers, some of whom include Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Richard Dawkins, Bono, Peter Gabriel, Jane Goodall, Ray Kurzweil, Sir Martin Rees, Michael Shermer and Craig Venter and in that context the intro isn't as over the top as it may at first seem, if you think TED is just all about showcasing new technological toys.
TED is definitely a site worth visiting away, as this presentation is probably among the less interesting ones you can watch there. More people should check it out.
The article says that quantum entanglement is one of the scientific principles invoked by Star Trek to explain how transporters function, and that may be true as I don't own all of the tech manuals, but my understanding is that the main principle behind transporter operation is the idea that matter-energy conversion is possible (and practical). Same goes for holodecks and replicators.
... I've read some bits by physicists who claim that such technology is impossible or unlikely to ever be achieved, but I'll admit that I didn't really understand the first thing about their arguments.
What this would seem (at least on the surface) to bring us closer to is the ansible communications technology employed most famously in the Ender's Game series. That is, by utilizing the properties of quantum entanglement, it may be possible to achieve faster-than-light communication. This also has its problems though
The common cold doesn't really have much to do with the temperature or how cold people feel, except indirectly (see wikipedia).
There are a couple clips of Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation rom the Beyond Belief 2006 conference on YouTube that highlights the danger that adopting a philosophy of ignorance like "intelligent design" rather than continuing a robust scientific inquiry, even for highly intelligent individuals.
They're beautifully insightful and worth watching, in my opinion, and relevant to the direction our conservation has taken, so I'll link them here: Part 1 & Part 2.
They actually tried this in the last scandal, which actually ended up having some truth behind the allegations, to solicit sympathy from the player community and, I guess, to mitigate the any harsh feelings directed at the devs and CCP in general. In an announcement that the company's investigation was complete, the game's community manager mentioned how the whistleblower who was responsible in large part for bringing the whole controversy to light outed the player character identities of a few developers. He stated that, as per company policy, these developers had those characters removed from the game, and, boo-hoo, were forced to end their long-standing relationships with friends and corp-mates in game.
I was flabbergasted by the ineptitude of their PR.
It didn't help that some of the specific allegations of wrongdoing that were made by the whistleblower went unaddressed until a later post, some of which turned out to be on the mark. One of the developers admitted to supplying items to his corp-mates using by abusing his dev tools. For the record, he wasn't fired (I don't recall what disciplinary action they took, if any, beyond removing his player characters and possibly compelling him to make a public apology.)
It is "pure science." Science sometimes makes "assumptions" as well, when it is sensible and useful to do so. However, the assumptions tend to be based on strong, supporting empirical evidence. This is what a "theory" is. Nothing about science says "this is absolutely, positively, for certain how things are." Science is a model of the universe assembled by a certain set of methodologies. Science has given us a model (evolution by natural selection and similar processes) that is a predictive, falsifiable explanation as for how life has developed into all of the living forms observed today. It is backed by heaps of good evidence, has made many possible many successful predictions and as yet, has not been disproven. Specific details are still being worked out, or are in dispute, but this does not evidence against the theory (for example, you can "assume" gravity exists from the evidence without knowing exactly how strong gravity is -- not knowing the precise strength of gravity is not evidence against its existence) but in broad terms, common descent is accepted as scientific fact within the pertinent fields with a fairly high degree of confidence.
Because of the time scales that evolution operates on to produce large scale morphological and physiological changes, and the limited amount of time that modern science has existed, and the short lifespans of humans, it has not been possible for us to observe the living evolution of something like a species of bacteria to something like a trilobite, for to follow the evolution of a "lower" ape to something like a chimp or human. However, that's not the only valid method of observation. Science has provided us with "proofs" of the mechanisms that show how changes like this can occur, and by indirect observation (referring mainly here to the fossil record) and logical extrapolation, we can reach a logical conclusion that such large scale morphological and physiological changes have occurred by the specified mechanisms (natural selection, etc.)
This "assumption" that we are commonly descended is based in science -- it is science (and I will remind you that science is the the only logical, well-established method we have available to us for figuring out the natural world) and thus, is quite reasonable.
Invoking the supernatural is not reasonable, because there is no evidence to support the specific supernatural claims being made.
On the issue of the Creation Museum being a museum, I am of the opinion that museums should strive to provide information that is as accurate as possible. This goes for the Ripley's Believe it or Not museum, as well as the Coca-Cola museum, museums of history, natural history, art, or anything else. Their primary focus does not have to be scientific, but when the claims made by the museum broach the domain of science -- that is, when they have presentations that make claims about the natural world (such as whether or not dinosaurs or humans side by side) and present them as fact, they should have the intellectual integrity make sure the picture they present is consistent with our best scientific understanding, and not depict scenes that have been thoroughly discredited by science.
For example, I have no problem with Ripley's Belief it or Not museum, assuming they have presentations that educate people on a fact such as, "this man have 12 fingers" and that if they giv
I think your point depends entirely on the reason and rationality of a group of people, a significant portion of which refer to the ball of rock we're on as "mother earth".
Well, my main point was to try and illustrate why Overly Critical Guy's contribution to the discussion was not much of one. After citing a study (which he failed to link to, and which I could not find reference to in a cursory Google search), he then characterized a person who was calling out a potential fault in his argument as some sort of irrational, emotionally motivated loon, driven by his "religion" of environmentalism for disagreeing with him. This was, in my opinion, out of line.
He could have made a rational argument in defense of his original comment, perhaps explaining that in a casual discussion forum such as this one, it is not always understood to be necessary to provide a complete and explicit bibliography of sources cited, or that his general confidence in the integrity of Paul Harvey was not intended to be an iron-clad assertion of the validity of his claims, or returned with a link to the source that was asked for, or conceded the point. Instead, he proceeded to use a stereotype about environmentalists to execute an ad hominem attack against his critic.
Now, I will grant that some people in the environmental movement believe in something like a strong view of the "Gaia hypothesis," treating the Earth as a living organism worthy of reverence, with something bordering on a consciousness or a "soul," -- not a view I share, but then I also don't see why how this lends credence to the argument that even these people just want wealthy people/countries to be unhappy and guilty about their success. They may have a silly, evidentially unsupported motivation for their activism, and they may make irrational arguments about why the need for environmentalism is great, and why it is "critical" that greatest polluters curb their carbon emissions, etc. but it lends no concrete support to the supposition that they're just expressing some desire to "bring down" the successful.
So, sure, it is true that "many" environmentalists are woo-worshiping conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment that the environmental movement is overpopulated with wackos -- this may be true of some specific environmental organizations, but I'd say the environmental movement has a broad enough base that what you say is a meaningless statement, a generalization with little factual support, unless you more specifically define your assertion. In any event, I respect that in some context what you say is true, but I don't think it bears much relevance to what I was specifically commenting on.
I'm late in responding to you because of the way you ended up "quoting" yourself, I didn't realize you had posted something new. Anyway.
So you have a problem with my opionion of leaving them along and believe in what ever they wanted to believe instead of shoving your conviction in science down their throat? Because that's what your reply sounds like to me.
If being uncompromising about identifying creationism nonsense for what it is constitutes "shoving my conviction in science down their throat", then yes. I think I'm being pretty mild in my expression of my opinion, to be honest though. I'm not calling for a jihad against creationists, or that the government outlaw the dissemination of their lies, or that they be in any other way have their liberties suppressed. I think that a peaceful protest of the museum that seeks to raise public consciousness about the factual errancy of the museum and the problems that go along with promulgating scientific illiteracy is a perfectly respectable, appropriate, measured response to its existence.
we got enough debate topic in this country already. Frankly I think both camp need to lay off their attack off each other and start learning how to "repectably disagree" the other's opionion. Let them open their Museum in their own right, and you can open your museum dedicated to scientific theories behind Darwinism and how it had positively advance science and improve our lives.
You see, from my point of view, I am respectfully disagreeing with the creationist position, their actions and policies -- that is, I am affording them all the respect they deserve. I also must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the country has exceeded its "debate quota" and that issues such as this should be quietly ignored. Civil discourse, non-violent protest and rational argument are some of the ways in which society can make progress.
We still have not bagged all the polygamist and other more extremism and racists in this country yet. Can't we focus on them first before we can have a candid, yet gentlemen like discussion on the subject? If you truely believe in Science, then you should also believe that the truth in science will prove itself over time. Blasting different opionion will be the last thing that will persuade others to listen to you anyway. That's just human nature that even physical science cannot give you a straight mathematical formula on.
As human beings, we are capable of sustaining a discussion on multiple subjects. Personally I am not opposed to polygamy in principle, the some of the anecdotes of polygamy that have reached me are certainly objectionable -- but yes, there are polygamists who exploit women and young girls, there are racists committing hate crimes, etc. -- but there will always be these sorts of people. Since you're saying we should "wait" to have this debate, maybe you can tell me exactly what criteria will need to be fulfilled before it is appropriate to have this discussion. I personally see no point in waiting -- the creation museum is up now, the anti-science religious agenda is in swing now -- the time to oppose it, is now.
Besides that, we all "waste" time and resources on a variety of trivial amusements. One statistical I recently overheard stated that Americans spend about 4 hours per day, on average, watching TV. In light of that, how is a day spent protesting the creation museum, and several hours spent blogging and discussing any kind of woefully disproportionate response that we should feel bad about?
One problem, as I see it, is that people like me are often accused as belonging some extreme fringe, the "militant, zealous advocate of atheism and science" reverse image of the "fundamentalist Biblical literalist," with the suggestion that our sometimes strident, combative tone is somehow wrong, irresponsible. I know that some of what I say may be offensive, but it's only because in our culture, religion is such a fixture and "faith"/piety is regarded
Well, if Creation is so provably wrong whats the harm in setting creation and evolution side by side in a science class? Shouldn't you always present what the other group believes and then give a counterargument? If you want a fair comparision I'd say a science class would be the best place. Technically though, both should be taught in a history class because both happened in the past.
Well, my basic position is, that since intelligent design and creationism are not valid scientific theories, they shouldn't be taught as a part of the science curriculum. The "harm" that may be done is to confound students' notion of what science is by introducing non-scientific concepts in the wrong context. I think that one of the major failings of our education system presently, even without creationism or ID in the classroom, is that we just don't do a good enough a job of teaching exactly what science is.
In my opinion, before we start teaching students in an in depth manner about things such as physics, chemistry and biology (including evolution), the primary focus on science education should first be to build up the scientific literacy of students, and it should be a recurring, oft-reviewed theme/focus throughout their entire science education. A lot of time and energy should be devoted to making sure they understand the scientific method, empiricism, the meaning of words like "theory," "hypothesis and "falsifiability," in the scientific context. I also think we should give the students a very basic primer on the academics of science and science publishing -- about peer-reviewed journals, science ethics panels, some basics on how universities and other institutions.
An introduction to science and the "culture" of science, in other words. Part of educating about science could possibility include an explicit education about what science is not. In this context it may be acceptable to engage the students of examples of science and non-science -- give (or solicit from students) examples of pseudoscience, unfettered non-scientific speculation about the natural world, and religious claims that all may superficially resemble scientific theories, but don't live up to those standards and must be classified merely as unsupported or discredited hypotheses/ideas.
I do not expect that such an education would be viewed with welcoming good feelings by creationism or intelligent design advocates, but it is the only way I can think of to get creationism in science-related classes that does justice to the education of the students, otherwise the only proper place for it in school would be in social studies classes, as I've already mentioned. It is not appropriate to give evolution and creationism something resembling "equal time" and respect in science class because they are not anything close to being equally credible or scientific, and suggesting that they are would present a distorted, misleading view to students.
In all reallity we all believe in creation it's just a debate over the creator. Yours is astronomical chance; mine is an omniscient God.
If we're still talking about evolution here, I don't believe the origin of species and species diversity was created by "astronomical chance" -- I believe it arose as a result of the operation of non-chance mechanisms -- namely selection pressures (natural selection, sexual selection) and that these processes themselves arose through other mechanistic physical processes that can be observed and understood.
I'm probably wasting time responding to an AC post, but ...
Saying that God doesn't exist is just as ridiculous as ignoring scientific facts.
Not really. Saying God doesn't exist is like saying unicorns and ghosts don't exist. I'm a simple expression of rational skepticism given the lack of supporting evidence for things such as gods, fairies and Santa Claus. There is a remote possibility that something like God does exist, but the most logical assumption should be that there is not.
Many of the most famous scientists and brilliant minds responsible for much of the body of scientific knowledge believed in God. Newton and Galileo all the way down to Einstein believed in God. So, what, you are smarter than them now? Gimme a break.
The argument you are basically making here -- that these smart people believed in God, so God probably exists -- is a textbook example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Sometimes smart people believe silly things. There have been brilliant people of many different religious persuasions throughout history, as well as brilliant naturalists/atheists -- including Einstein.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God and explicitly said as much in life on multiple occasions. Confusion is understandable, but what Einstein referred to as "God" could just as accurately be called "the universe" or "nature." See the philosophy of Spinoza, natura naturata, etc.
I hope this helps to illuminate the atheist/agnostic position for you a little.
Many environmentalists simply want everyone to feel guilty for their own successful existence. Notice that they never criticize the smaller, poorer countries that are polluting. It's always the advanced, successful nations.
Maybe environmentalists voice the most concern about the practices of the more wealthy countries because they are the ones who are doing the majority of the polluting? And maybe because they are in a better position to make some sacrifices for the long term welfare of the planet, their own future citizenry and humanity in general?
Why assume a petty motivation on the part of environmentalists for their position when perfectly reasonable explanations for their stance exists? That's putting aside for the moment the question of whether they are ultimately right or wrong about the human impact on climate change, and if anything can be done -- if you believe, as many environmentalists do, that humans are probably contributing to climate change and that we may be able to do something about it, then it seems obvious that plans for action would be most heavily focused on where most of the man-made pollution/carbon emissions are coming from.
Characterizing environmentalists as you have doesn't do anything to bolster the strength of your argument, any more than calling them "poopie-heads" would, at least not unless you're willing to offer some kind of evidence to back your claims.
Sure creationism runs against scientific evidances we have today, but so are some of the concepts in sci-fi/fantacy fictions (e.g. time travel).
... and putting it all in a "museum" (not a church, not a temple, not an amusement park -- but a museum) with a suggestion of academic scientific credibility -- does not represent an attack on scientific opinion or science generally, in your view? If so, we're going to have to simply agree to disagree.
... there is not, so some have devoted a lot of time and money to creating a facsimile of science that roughly corroborates their religious claims, but is actually more focused on casting ill-founded doubt on good science (this is "creation science" and "intelligent design" in a nutshell).
Yes, but the context makes all the difference. Fictional works tell you outright that they are, you know, fictional. There's a not-so-fine line between telling a story and making it clear that it is a work of pure imagination or speculation, and opening a museum that teaches religious ideas as something resembling scientific fact, when in truth, there is nothing scientific about them, when many of the ideas being presented have, in fact, have long been debunked and discredited by those who actually practice science.
After all there's something call freedom of speach in this country. They can open up whatever kinf of museum they like, so long as they are not infringing on someone else's freedom.
I've never said otherwise. Freedom of speech, however, also means having the freedom to protest things you find disagreeable, not just about government, but about the way private organizations conduct themselves. There is a public interest at stake here, as pointedly noted in my original comment.
Simply stating Darwin's theory is wrong inside the Museum simply cannot count as attacking the scientific opionion. They are just respectably presenting their different opionion, whether it seems logical, or even downright silly to you.
So taking evidence out of context, making completely evidentially unsupported claims, using unsound methodology, and a lot of jargon-filled hand-waving to make a polished, professional presentation that directly contradicts the consensus view held by virtually all scientists in the pertinent fields (biology and geology, most notably)
I'm just calling this like I see it. It's a blatant attack on science in the same vein as the Catholic church's attempted suppression of Galileo's discoveries about the solar system. Religious organizations today cannot prevent scientists for publishing findings that contradict their beliefs (in part, because of that free speech thing and also because of their waning influence in the academic community, especially certain fields), so they do everything they can short of that. Some tell their flock not to read certain books. Some try to get themselves placed on school boards so they can excise any reference that's made to evolution -- or to force the teaching of an alternative point of view, as if there is one with any credibility
Darwin and most evolutionary biologists didn't develop the theory of evolution to specifically discredit Judeo-Christian beliefs (even if it does have the side effect of sometimes eroding one's belief in religion sometimes), but some people of faith feel sufficiently threatened by the theory and thus see a need to attack "in kind." They can't produce good evidence that supports their beliefs, however, so what they do instead is try to prevent the science from reaching the public in any way they can, or failing that, they try to discredit the science itself -- which is almost always done in a logically fallacious, intellectually dishonest manner.
If you only bother to look, the behavior of those who created this museum creates a pattern that is plainly indicative of a direct assault on science/evolution, and not just a friendly espousing of their own beliefs in a good faith effort to educate.
Forgot to address this bit in my last post:
... it's a human invention and so long as its being practiced by humans, it will be subject to human limitations. That said, I think it's fair to say that it's established itself as far and away the best way we have available to us to gain understanding about the world. The alternatives -- religion, superstition, haphazard guesswork -- occasionally bear fruit, but have not amassed anything close to the mountain of seemingly accurate knowledge about existence as science.
... that it's not really the place of the religion to make claims like "men do not share a common ancestor with other animals" or "the Earth is at the center of the universe" or "the seasons change because Persephone must periodically visit her husband in the underworld for stretches of time, which upsets Demeter." The facts and workings of the universe are the domain of empirical observation and the scientific method. However, the argument goes, religion can still exist, to concern itself with the meaning of what we learn from science, or perhaps provide moral insight.
I think evolution and science in general have their limits. Science can't explain everything. But guess what, neither does the Bible.
* There are a lot of subjects not discussed in the Bible where we need science to shed some light.
* There are even some subjects in the Bible that science complements rather nicely.
* There are areas where science is lacking that the Bible (and religion in general) helps to enlighten.
It doesn't have to be "There can be only one!"
Science has its limits. Science is just our provisional understanding of the universe and a set of methods for achieving that understanding
Seeing as how that's the case, I've been able to rationally work out how it is useful to rely on those inferior methods, or credit them with any serious consideration, while science is available to us.
The most logical argument I've heard for what you posit, that it doesn't have to be one or the other (religion or science) is the non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) argument. That is, that the proper domain of science is to address how things are and how they work, in the physical universe
Personally I think there are some problems with that argument, in part because I think we could be better served by pursuing the social sciences and philosophy to fill the void that the natural sciences leave, but in any event the NOMA argument doesn't seem to be the one you're making, as you seem to subscribe to the notion that we should have a "God of the gaps" that supplies answers to questions that science cannot definitively provide, that supernatural/religious speculations and explanations are fair game and even to be encouraged. I (surprise) don't agree with this. I think it's preferable to admit ignorance or uncertainty about something than it is to make something up, or to rely on personal revelation to get such answers, or to trust some ancient "authority" like the Bible.
There are a couple reasons I believe that, one of which I've already pointed out -- that science just has the better track record where such things are concerned. Another reason would be that to me, the scientific approach just seems a whole lot more sensible. Yet another would be because having such beliefs can be an impediment to gaining scientific understanding -- if you think you've already got the answer, you may stop looking (link is Neil de Grasse Tyson at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference talking about some of science's greatest thinkers invoking gods and "intelligent design").
I think I'm done for now.
Attacks on religion, religious thought, and religious people are, of course, perfectly acceptable. It doesn't matter if we offend Christians as long as no atheist feelings are hurt.
... I do not find a
I'm not concerned with feelings, Christians, atheists or otherwise where public understanding and scientific literacy is concerned. If someone's presentation of scientific theories, or logical statements of fact are offensive to some Christians, that is just too bad for the Christians, just as it is just too bad for atheists that we (at least those of us who live in the United States) have to endure the incessant, grating displays of piety that religious people are so enamored with (though that's something I'm more annoyed at than I am personally distressed about).
I am a Christian, although honestly I think exhibits of dinosaurs and humans living together are just as laughable as you. Do I think the Earth and everything on it was created in a literal 7 revolutions of our planet? Not even close. 4.5 billion years sounds good to me. Does that mean I need to go protest/attack those who think otherwise? Nope! They can believe what they want to on this subject because I don't think this is an issue of salvation.
As I said in another post, what really gets me riled up is the presentation of ideas that you describe as "laughable" as being somehow scientifically or academically credible, when they are anything but. It's deceptive and is, as I've said, it seeks to actively undermine and degrade science by employing a scientific facade to fool the ignorant and gullible. It's just bad for Kentucky residents' scientific literacy and in my opinion, the lack of critical thought and scientific literacy in the public at large is a serious problem.
Do I think humans and monkeys share a common ancestor? Once again, no. Can I prove that I'm right? No. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No. We each have our own belief in this case. You can try to build your side up as the side of reason and science, but it's based on just as much assumption as you say mine is. Neither of us has proof, so we fill in the blanks with what we've each reasoned as the most logical answer.
I can say that my side is built on the side of reason and science, simply because it is. Of course, you could say your own position is more reasonable (and from your point of view it may be, if you rate the Bible as being a very credible source of knowledge about the nature of the universe) but it certainly isn't as scientifically well-supported. That doesn't prove outright that I'm right and you're wrong about whether or not humans and other animals share a common ancestor, but logically one would have to conclude that I am at very least, more likely to be correct on this point.
So just listen: This museum is not an attack on your beliefs in science any more than it's an attack on my beliefs. It's a presentation, albeit rather extravagant and fancy, of their beliefs. Your beliefs still get plenty of attention, whether in schools, TV, movies, magazines, etc. Get over yourself, you arrogant jerk. You and I both disagree with them, yet somehow I can continue to live my daily life without the need to feel offended that someone somewhere may disagree with me. And lay off this crap about wanting to save the children. If it were up to you, they would be spoon-fed evolution from day 1, nothing else. How's that any different or better? At least with religion in the home and evolution in school they get more than just one viewpoint.
Where to begin?
Although I find the Creation Museum offensive in that it is an affront to what I think museums should generally be about -- presenting accurate information about the subject matter and that they should strive for some degree of scientific legitimacy when treating that concern science, like biology (origin of species, the history of the world's ecology), geology (age of Earth) and cosmology/physics (age and origins of the universe)
Evolutionism and Creationislm (bad spelling) are two opossite ends of the spectrum. One is Judeo/Christian at its fineist (once again, horrible spelling), the other pretty much directly attacks it.
... they can come to that conclusion on their own -- or not.
The theory of evolution and creationism are on opposite ends of a spectrum, if the spectrum you are talking about is one of scientific credibility and reason. I wouldn't call creationism Judeo-Christian belief at its finest, unless by "finest" you mean "most demonstrably incorrect."
You cannot just teach one or the other and expect to make everyone happy. There are only two possible solutions to this.
The "solution" is that you accept the fact that you can never make everyone happy and, after accepting that, accept the fact that the science education of children should not be compromised by anyone's religious beliefs. Anything else would be a ridiculous expression of excessive political correctness. The same sort of argument you're making here could be made against teaching about a heliocentric solar system, or a spherical Earth, if only you can find a parent who has a strong religious conviction that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe and that contradicting theories/ideologies are the devil's work.
2) Teach both. Unfortunately, this has issues as well, in that you are limiting yourself to Judeo/Christian and Science. You must include all religions. Actually, my public high school is doing this as an elective, they cover Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, native-American views, so forth and so on. Present the kids with all the information from different religions and theories in science, let them make up their own mind. I support this, but only in the teenage years, when the student's mind have evolved to the point where they can make an informed decision. Some will probably choose to go with views different than what their parents believe, most will go with how they have been raised, but at least the information has been presented in a non-biased manner.,
Evolution should be taught in science class, for the reasons I've already outlined. Creationism has no place in science class.
In my opinion, comparative religion should be taught as social studies. Creationism could be touched on here, as a part of a larger study of the beliefs of the Abrahamic faiths. Evolution would probably be outside the scope of this particular set of classes, except to possibly mention that it (or science generally) is where naturalists and non-religious people tend look to find answers to some of the questions that religions try to answer.
Personally I think such classes should be taught as a fairly young age, for a similar reason that you suggest it should be taught later. Teaching comparative religion later rather than sooner does relatively little good, if your goal is to open minds and really, truly educate. At a young age, children are hardwired to believe virtually anything a parent or other authority figure tells them. It's not the school's place to tell children what religion they should believe, but I think it would be great if they were simply made aware of the fact that other religions exist, with an education of some of their more salient, defining features.
This idea is objectionable to religious people of many stripes because I think deep down they realize that kids are smart enough to realize that looking at all of these different faiths side by side, that they can't all be true, and some of them will wonder if there is a good reason to believe one set of religious beliefs over another. The truth is, there really isn't, but there's no need to explicitly tell the children that
But why should schools take it upon themselves to potentially plant such a seed of doubt in the child's religious faith? To me, it comes down to trying to cultivate healthy critical thinking skills in students and allowing them some chance of making a personal
Disney has several theme parks around the world that feature furries and princesses. Do you feel that those threaten science as well?
Of course not, for the reason you mention; "A theme park, IMO, at least puts this set of beliefs into a suitable context - One of fantasy and humor...". Granted, a very young child may not clearly see a distinction between fantasy and reality, but that's something most of them grow out of fairly quickly, as long as the proper context is there. In my mind, that's the primary distinction between a book like the Bible and one such as the Silmarillion. One literary work is presented with the proper context and respect (as a work of fantasy and the product of an active imagination) while the other is not.
Don't take this the wrong way - I completely agree with you. But don't take the cause as the effect. The real threat here involves the idiots poisoning their children with this particular set of ignorant and dangerous misinformation, not the means by which they do it.
I agree, but if they didn't utilize any "means" to achieve their mind-warping abuse of children's minds (as well as the minds of anybody else whose bullshit filter isn't working properly) then it would sort of be a moot point. This "museum" just adds insult to injury, by attempting to adopt a somewhat academic/scientific/educational veneer, just like the whole ridiculous "Intelligent Design" movement. To me, it's bad enough if a child is taught that, according to the Bible, the world was created and populated directly by God, with a literalist spin, and is told to "have faith" in that story. At least then it's being taught in something resembling its proper context as a religious belief. In my opinion, it's still "wrong," but whatever. What's even worse, however, is when the fundamentalists put on lab coats and pose as respectable researchers, and masquerade their faith-derived nonsense as scientifically well-supported fact.
That's why I say it represents it as an attack on science (and this museum is by no means the only representation -- how I wish it was), which makes it that much more offensive and infuriating to me as someone who respects real science and reason.
Right ... it seems to me that you can sometimes expect people to produce and disseminate good content for free if it's something that is actually someone's passion. If it's a genuine art, or something that's derivative of something fun like a sport of a game, you can get some great stuff for free ... just take a look at some of the better stuff on YouTube, or deviant art, or video game mods. A ketchup commercial, however? Come on.
I can understand the amount of time and energy put into the game, but whether a player invests 20 minutes or 3 years, it's still just a game.
So what if EVE is just a game? It's a meaningless statement, tautology. After all, money is only money. Water is only water. Blood is only blood. You'd have a hard time proving that anything in this world has any intrinsic value. Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The time a person invests in the game is relevant to estimations of value, however, because time is something virtually everyone values rather highly, since we only have so much of it. Beyond that though, I feel compelled to point out that EVE is not just a game. It's a community. It's an economy. It's a business. All in a very real sense (or as real as any of these abstract concepts can be.)
Given that, I know it's quite understandable why someone would be angry upon discovering that employees or representatives of the company (CCP) either promote cheating or treat it as a zero priority problem, because the player paid a subscription fee for a service that is supposed to be regulated by fair, consistent, and logical rules. However, I think there's a difference between getting angry and demanding a refund versus getting angry and becoming swept into the drama over a fantasy world, which (to me) is an unproportional response.
I can understand exaggerated responses because I've been guilty of having them. To me it's a signal that there's an addiction going on with the player. A serious one.
There's a fine line between passion and addiction and without knowing the details of a someone's personal life, it's virtually impossible to tell them apart. As long as these games have a social component and an interacting community, and on top of that a competitive economy, you should expect people to sometimes to be rather dramatic in their reaction to perceived (and real) wrongs committed against them. Add to that, the fact that people are more prone to theatrics and other outrageous behaviors when anonymous (or semi-anonymous). In that context I don't think the response is necessarily disproportionate for someone who really enjoys the game, cares a lot about it, and values the significant amount of time and money they've devoted to the game. Addiction does not necessarily have to enter into it, though I would grant that realistically, it often does.
What I think is most sad about MMOs is that often it seems to get to the point with people where they no longer play because they really, genuinely, truly love to play the game, but they do so merely out of habit or because they are chasing some unattainable goal (because by the time they achieve any goal, they are so fixated on a new goal, their joy may be diminished), almost like a crack addict chasing that pure, perfect high. Gaming addiction generally isn't as destructive or dangerous as many other addictions, of course, but I completely understand the point that for some people, it really can get out of hand. However, I don't really think it's relevant to this particular topic and I think people are, in general, a little too ready to dismiss gamers as being addicts with no lives whenever they express any great amount of enthusiasm (positive or negative) about their hobby.