To argue about whether this idea is part of a mystical belief system is to miss the point. The point is that it either is or is not an historic fact. What religionists do, say, or believe is totally irrelevent.
Funny, because you claim the opposite, that it is atheism that is the important factor. When you acknowledge my points for the opposite, you again repeat your claim and say religion doesn't matter.
The difference is that in one case there is a causal relationship, in the other a causal relationship is impossible because the supposed effect proceeds the cause chronologically. A particular scientist is an atheist. This causes him to reach the conclusion that Evolution explains the origin of specials. A religionist has irrational beliefs about the creator and the process of creation. This cannot cause Creation not to have occured millions of years before he was born.
It is not irrational to believe that superhumans created the world if there is evidence which tends to support such a view. It is not irrational to believe that these same superhumans communicated with man in the past if there are historical documents which attest to this.
And your evidence?
It seems to me that at this point reasonable persons can interpret the physical evidence either way. The historical documents are contained in the Bible. There have been numberous arguments advanced to discredit it, but I find them about as convincing as conspiracy theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center. They are structured along the same lines of "questioning the official story" and "I don't understand this, therefor something sneeky is going on".
If you cannot respect such a point of view, discussion is pointless.
"Little" evidence? The fossil record and DNA record show evolution, not an intelligent designer. There's a clear progression from the simplest forms like bacteria to the more complicated forms. The genetic and fossil record show branching, which is what you would expect from evolution, but not creationism. An intelligent designer wouldn't limit themselves to branching, and would instead mix and match features arbitrarily.
Again, this is a question about which reasonable persons can disagree. Is the branching really due to common descent, or is it the inevitable result of any attempt to classify a large body of work? After all, we can classify computers in much the same way, but they don't even reproduce.
Nor is the progression clear. First of all, there are aknowledged gaps. Entire careers are devoted to trying to figure out why the intermediate forms 'didn't find their way into the fossile record'. Second, trees derived from the fossile record often fail to match trees derived from genetic analysis.
With the tree in doubt, it is hard to assert that features were not mixed and matched. In fact, I seem to recall that there are seeming examples of mixing and matching. These are cases where identical or highly similiar features seem to have evolved more than once. (There are of course theories to explain this this away. But, there always are.)
They assert (likely truthfully) that they do not believe in creation and are certain that furthur research will clear up these little difficulties.
That's the way science operates. When the overwhelming evidence points in one way, "little difficulties" are acknowledged and worked on. Yet creationists focus on these little difficulties while accepting the huge flaws in their own theories. Mote, meet beam. Beam, meet mote.
It is the Evolutionists who are calling these questions "little difficulties". In reality we are talking here about holes you could drive a truck through. We are talking about the fact that new kinds appear in the fossil record suddenly and remain for millions of years virtual unchanged before becoming extinct. We are talking about the way
Religion has the advantage that, in general, children are raised to believe in it based on dogma.
This is unfortunately true. I believe that religion should be based upon reason.
Rational thinking and the scientific method dispels mysticism.
Very effectively. Many if not most religions are heavily polluted with mysticism. Rational thinking cleanses religion.
But the core question here is: did the species evolve or were they created in much their present form by one or more superhuman extraterestials of extrordinary skill and posessed of immense resources. To argue about whether this idea is part of a mystical belief system is to miss the point. The point is that it either is or is not an historic fact. What religionists do, say, or believe is totally irrelevent.
It is not irrational to believe that superhumans created the world if there is evidence which tends to support such a view. It is not irrational to believe that these same superhumans communicated with man in the past if there are historical documents which attest to this. This does not mean that everyone has to believe that these evidences are reliable, but to say that those who do are behaving irrationally is dishonest.
The evidence points to evolution not because scientists are atheist, but because scientists looked at the evidence.
That is what they assert. Now you have repeated this assertion. What is that worth to me?
I disbelieve them because when they are backed into a corner they make statements which sound like expresions of faith in Rationalism and argue on a philisophical rather than an evidentary basis. What little evidence they do cite is compatible with Evolutionary theory, but is also compatible with belief in a creator.
Then there is the fact that in incautious moments Evolutionists have frequently admitted that some line of evidence (frequently the fosile record) is more in accord with Creation than Evolution. They have lately taken to claiming that they have been misquoted. But, what they deny is not the substance of their remarks but their seeming lack of faith in Evolution. They assert (likely truthfully) that they do not believe in creation and are certain that furthur research will clear up these little difficulties.
So, I have to conclude that the evidence is against you. Their science is informed by their atheism.
I repect a well-thought-out answer which addresses the points raised. I agree with much of what you say here.
I am interested in the question of why each side in this debate sees the other as composed of arrogant fools blinded by prejudice. I suspect the answer is that many of the most vocal are.
The examples of observable evolution in nature which you cite certainly do exist. The question about which reasonable and well-informed persons disagreed is: what is their significance? The Evolutionist believes he is looking at a little piece of a process similiar to that described by Charles Darwin, a process which will in time produces truly radical changes. But, one who suspects the existence of an inteligent creator may see designed-in adaptive mechanisms and feedback loops. As far as I have been able to determine, there is not sufficient scientific evidence to answer this question.
Unfortunately, way the most vocal public advocates of Evolution understand the meaning of the evidence is so shaped by their atheism that they are unable to even parse expressions of doubt. They are so sure that a naturalistic creative mechanism much exist that that naturalistic theory which best fits the evidence is the best theory of all. When some demure, they become angry, make bombastic statements, and launch into wholly ineffective appeals to be rational. This is ineffective because rationality is not the problem, differing assumptions are.
Of course, Creationism has even worse nuts who play right into the hands of the Evolutionist demigogs. Could God have created the fossil record and the light from distant stars? No doubt, if it were absolutely necessary. But since it wasn't necessary, to assert that he did is silly. They should just admit that they misunderstood Genesis.
It seems that for you the word "believe" has some kind of baggage. I assume this is connected with Rationalist rhetoric which contrasts "belief based systems" with "evidence based systems". When I said that I "sincerly believe" I meant that I had come to a conclusion after giving the matter serious attention.
I agree that the real change that occured during the Enlightenment was not that most thinkers were no longer religious. Rather, thinkers began to understand that the world is a machine. This was contrary to the assumptions of many who had supposed that God commanded the flowers to bloom and the lightening to strike.
But, rationalist philosphers liked to tell a different story, suggesting that the universe-is-a-machine view is incompatible with the idea that God interacts with the natural world in any way at any time. I suppose on the background of that culture they may have seemed like opposits, but today, when even the uneducated know that the universe is a machine, such arguments simply puzzle the believer. It is amusing that these worn-out arguments keep getting brought up on Slashdot. ("Please, no devine intervention! I want my universe to stay rational!")
Your remarks on the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design are insightful. I would expand on them by calling Intelligent Design the bastard child of Rationalism. Rationalist thought places the idea of a creator into a compartment called "faith" or "belief" which exists alongside another compartment called "reason". It is frequently claimed that these compartments represent "different kinds of truth".
The problem with this kind of reasoning is that if the word really was created by an inteligent being, that is an historic fact which nothing can alter. It does not matter what we believe or do not believe about the identity and motivations of that being. It does not matter if we surround belief in this historical fact with the most absurd superstitions imaginable. It does not matter if we believe that it never happened. Our mental state cannot alter history.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to meet Evolutionists on terms which the Evolutionists have themselves chosen. All peripheral assertions which could possibly be superstition or kn
I am not sure what you mean when you describe such a universe as "irrational". Why does interfering in the operation of a machine violate the laws of physics? Surely when I press a key on the keyboard of my computer it does not cease to behave in a rational manner.
When you press that key, you expect a specific signal to be sent to the computer, and the computer to respond in a specific, predictable way. If God intervenes, then when you press "g" the computer may receive, by a miracle, the signal "England expects that every man shall do his duty," and the computer may respond by turning into a gallon of lamp oil.
I don't know if you are serious or not. Just in case you are, let me explain:
In my illustration, the computer is the universe. The person pressing the key is God. My point is that applying an outside force to some part of the universe does not cause it to suddenly cease to behave in a predictable way. If I thow a stone on Earth, the world remains rational. If God throws a stone on Earth, it still remains rational.
Modern science can certainly make a virgin pregnant and I am sure that with sufficent time and funding a weapon to turn someone into a pillar of salt could be built. If man can do these things without violating the laws of physics, then why not God?
I'm curious, but why on Earth would God ever artificially limit himself in such a manner?
Because for him to limit himself to things that make sense and which he could explain if he so chose is not a real limit. If we believe that God is real and the miracles described in the Bible are real, then they must fit into the framework of reality that God created. It is not reasonable to hold that God's will is a magic wand. Rather, he wills things and then takes appropriate steps to make them happen.
Take the example at Matthew 28:2. Did God suspend Newton's first law of motion so that a body at rest (the stone) would move? That would be silly. He had his angel apply "an outside force" to it just like you or I would if we wanted to move it.
Damn you, AC, I was going to post something similar and you had to go flaming. He's no idiot, but "creationists" are not necessarily anti-evolutionists. Every Christian believes that God created the universe, but all but a few morons accept that evolution is how he went about making different species. Even the Pope says so.
I wouldn't trust the Catholic Church's opinion on the plausibility of scientific theories. Look at the whole thing with Galileo. In fact I think the Church's support of Evolution says more about its enbarassement over that than about the compatibility of Evolution with belief in God.
The problem I have with the evolution-is-compatible-with-belief-in-God camp is that we have two extrodinary claims here. One is that a fantastically powerful and skilled superhuman created the world. The second is that complexity arises naturally. We pretty much have to believe in one of them. Two accept both (absent extrordinary proof) is unnecessary.
Teaching your children about God is not the problem, stupidly denying science is the problem. And I suspect that the antievolutionists are wolves in sheeps' clothing, not unlike that evil preacher from Florida who demonstrates at military funerals with "god hates fags" placards. That goes against every single thing Jesus taught; God loves gays, he just doesn't like what they do -- but he doesn't like my or your sins, either. Gays are forgiven like any other Christian, we all sin. How can that Florida asshat consider himself a Christian?
I suspect that many of these creationists are simply trying to make unbelievers out of believers. I'm convinced that Pat Robertson has converted far more Christians to atheism than Richard Dawkins ever dreamed of converting.
Though I don't find Evolution convincing, I do agree with you that most forms of Creationism could almost have been deliberately designed to make objections to Evolution seem irrational.
Note: evolution is a fact because it has so much evidence supporting it: the fossil record, selective breeding, genetic engineering, etc...
The problem is that highly inteligent and informed persons believe it is not a fact on the basis of the very same evidence. Even some Evolutionists admit that the fossil record, superficially at least, seems to support special creation. Selective breeding has limits which cast doubt on the idea that organisms can evolve indefinitely. Genetic engineering is not readily distringuishable from special creation, so citing it as support for the plausibility of Evolution seems perverse.
The Theory of Natural Selection is the best theory we have come up to explain the fact of evolution, just like Newton's "Laws" of gravity were the best theory explaining the fact of gravity until Einstein came along.
Some Evolutionists disagree with you and advance competing theories such as Punctuated Equilibrium, but OK, what if it does best explain the fact of Evolution. It still doesn't touch the question of whether Evolution (in the Origin of Species sense) is a historical fact. After all, we can erect highly convincing theories to explain the motivations of characters in Star Trek, but that does not remove it from the realm of fiction.
The theory of Evolution has the most evidence. It can be objectively tested and happens in laboratories constantly. If someone comes up with an explanation that is more accurate and can be objectively tested, then it will supplant Evolution.
I sincerely believe that this is an illusion. Evolutionists see these evidences as persuasive because they believe they offer our best clues as to how Evolution works. But if someone seriously doubts that Evolution explains life's origin, they have no persuasive value. The Evolutionist sees enlightenment in peppered moth studies, the doubter sees wishful thinking.
The gripe of the "Darwinists" is that people are losing the ability to reason in a scientific manner.
My gripe is that the Darwinists are trying to hitch their unprovable atheistic views to the wagon of science. This undermines the whole idea that science involves impartial reasoning. Respect for and interest in science can only suffer as a result.
It is this ability to reason that created the Cultural and Industrial revolutions that led people to invent the modern world. The number of people who do not believe in Evolution is a symptom of a culture that does not understand or embrace a scientific methodology.
The alternative is a faith based methodology. The last time a faith based methodology dominated, we now call it the "Dark Ages." These two go hand in hand. The Darwinists don't want to see us return to a state of ignorance.
I see you are a victim of Rationalist disinformation. The whole idea of an age old struggle between faith and reason is a fiction invented by Enlightenment writers who played fast and loose with the facts. In reality, many of the founders of entire branches of science, such as Newton and Priestly believed in God, in special creation, and in miracles and wrote extensively on these subjects.
The problem is that belief in God is consistent with anything. No matter what objections one may raise, one can counter them with "Well, God just arranged it to look that way."
True, but that would be totaly irrational. And yes, young Earth creationists are totaly irrational.
As a result, belief in God is not useful. It's also often extremely harmful... because it's consistent with anything, it can be (and is) used to justify all sorts of evil.
Most any philosophy can in the wrong hands, including Darwinism. Think of all the evil that has been justified on the basis of the survival of the fitest.
The problem I have is that these are philosophical objections. To argue about whether belief in God is useful or beneficial has nothing to do with whether or not he really exists.
Evolution is scientific. Belief in a creator is religious. Belief in evolution is rational. Each of these statements is true in a way.
False.
No one who understand what science is believes in evolution. Science is not a system of beliefs, it is a system of evidence based reasoning. It is not proper to say "I believe in evolution", but rather "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence". In science, nothing can be fact, or definitively proven. We rather conduct experiments to reduce uncertainty in a theory, or to disprove a theory. So, evolution is not scientific, nor is it religious. Evolution and creationism are ideas; two competing hypotheses describing a process. Evolution is supported by the scientific process, while creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. Creationism however is supported by a faith based belief system, and people such as yourself (im assuming) who only know belief systems in turn think that scientists believe in evolution. Perhaps it is not your fault that you are unfamiliar with evidence based reasoning, what skepticism really means, and the scientific method, but that is all the more reason for you to support better science education in our nation's schools.
Note that I said these statements are true only "in a way". That means that I consider them misleading.
Your are correct, I do believe that scientists who claim that "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence" are heavily influenced by their belief systems. They are atheists. According to their belief system, there is no creator, so the world must be of natural origin. Can I conclude differently when prominant evolutionists say things like 'evolution seems imposible, but we are here, so I have to believe it occured'? I am bemused and somewhat insulted by your assumption that I reach this conclusion only because I am not sufficiently informed.
I respect and value the scientific method. But I also understand it. I know that it is a tool for exploring natural processes. If the world is of artificial origin, then those who insist on studying its orgin as a natural process will inevitably reach incorrect conclusions.
I think people like Bill Nye are doing themselves a disservice when they assume that anyone who finds the arguments for evolution unconvincing must be ignorant or worse. It creates the impression that they are hopelessly blinded by predjudice./p.
I suppose you could be a creationist and believe in a deistic universe, where a god chose the laws of physics and then wound up his universe and let it go. But modern creationists do not believe this: they are overwhelmingly Christian, and believe in such things as a god that actively intervenes on this little planet by making virgins pregnant, people turn into pillars of salt -- in general, they believe in miracles, even small ones like altering the genetic makeup of a species. This is the very opposite of a rational ordered universe: all these things, all these miracles, are inherently disordered, since they entail violations of the laws of physics by an entity outside of them. "F=ma, except when god says otherwise" is not a sound basis for a rational theory of the universe.
I am not sure what you mean when you describe such a universe as "irrational". Why does interfering in the operation of a machine violate the laws of physics? Surely when I press a key on the keyboard of my computer it does not cease to behave in a rational manner.
The idea that a "miracle" violates a law of nature goes back at least to David Hume. It may have made more sense then. After all, society was just coming to terms with the idea of complex machines and that the universe might be one. He could position the idea of the universe-machine as an alternative to the idea that God makes the flowers bloom in spring. But nowadays the implication that if the universe is a machine we must assume that God does not touch it seems odd.
I suppose much of the objection is related to the idea that miracles are magic. It is assumed that divine will operated without mechanism. It simply altered the way things are. For some reason the idea that God applied a sufficient outside force is not considered.
Take your examples. Modern science can certainly make a virgin pregnant and I am sure that with sufficent time and funding a weapon to turn someone into a pillar of salt could be built. If man can do these things without violating the laws of physics, then why not God?
Young Earth creationists and Bill Nye represent the screwball ends of the spectrum.
Rants like Bill's only serve to strengthen my belief that Darwinists are in deep denial. The fact they can't face is that their ideas are speculative. Since they are speculative, intelligent, informed persons can disagree. In order to protect themselves from this uncomfortable fact, they erect elaborate sematic barriers.
Uhhhh... Evolution as a principle is not speculative. It's just the way things on this scale work.
No, I suppose it isn't. Gradual genetic change in a population certainly takes place. The speculation part is that all living things in all their variety were produced by long strings of such changes. (With the help of some selecting factors.)
This is what I meant when I said that evolutionists rely too heavily on semantic arguments. They call both the genetic changes and a bold theory about them "evolution". They then pretend that we must accept or reject them both together.
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driving by non-conformists who throw out widely accepted notions for absolutely no reason?
Never. But your's is a loaded question. The progress of science gets over humps when someone is willing to question the dogma, to ask if they assumtions are valid. When they make great discoveries, those who have an investment in the dogma invariably claim that it is being thrown out for absolutely no reason. We don't need a heliocentric universe. We don't need germ theory.
I see nothing wrong with teaching children that scientists do not all practice science impartially. They need to understand that a scientist's views on contraversial issues such as politics and religion or simply a desire to protect his position may influence his judgement about what the evidence means.
This does not mean we should teach our children wacky creation myths just to be different. But it does mean that it is appropriate to discuss with one's children whether evolution is an atheist creation myth.
Bill is a clueless idiot. Evolution is not in conflict creationism; only the "young earth theory" idiots.
Young Earth creationists and Bill Nye represent the screwball ends of the spectrum.
Rants like Bill's only serve to strengthen my belief that Darwinists are in deep denial. The fact they can't face is that their ideas are speculative. Since they are speculative, intelligent, informed persons can disagree. In order to protect themselves from this uncomfortable fact, they erect elaborate sematic barriers.
There are two possible origins of the Earth. Either it is the product of mindless natural processes or it was terraformed. (The Bible says it was terraformed by someone called "God".) They both sound pretty unlikely, but there don't seem to be any other possibilities. One of them must be true and the other false. The problem is that neither side can produce evidence which makes sense outside of their world view.
In their frustration with this situation, evolutionists plow ahead with ineffective philisophical and semantic arguments. Mostly they just attach labels to things. Evolution is scientific. Belief in a creator is religious. Belief in evolution is rational. Each of these statements is true in a way. But, scientific does not mean true. Religious does not mean false. Rationalism is a philosophical system which in some ways resembles a religion, so the rationalism of Evolution is not a strong argument in its favour.
Their opponents remain unimpressed by these specious arguments, so now they are resorting to hand wringing. If we don't shape up and start believing in Evolution right quick scientific and technical progress will halt as our minds are sapped by the illogic. We'll all have to go live in caves. Believe or the end is nigh!
The hand-ringing evolutionists say that it is illogical to reject evolution (a product of the scientific method) and reject modern medicine (another of its products). Just for fun and because turn-about is fair play I propose that evolutionists reject the work of scientists who held ideas contrary to evolutionary theory.
In otherwords, you're totally and completely incapable of understanding the concept that teaching children that it's a bad idea to teach children that any science is wrong? Doesn't matter if you're telling them that evolution or physics or geology is wrong. Teaching them that any science is wrong will screw up their ability to be engineers or scientists in the future.
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driven by conformists who are afraid to question widely accepted notions? Does the status of "a science" magically elevate ideas beyond the realm where mere mortals are allowed to question them? Do we have to believe in phrenology and phychoanalysis in order to preserve out ability to work as engineers?
Presumably James Hamblin is an older white male. He seems to be missing the point here. The problem with the statement isn't that it's factually / scientifically inaccurate. The problem is the term "legitimate rape." The senator's statements (if taken with any bit of truth) imply that if a women were to get pregnant in the case of rape it was not a "legitimate" or "real" rape.
The qualifier "legitimate" is necessary because the speaker is aware of evidence that his assertion is false. Adding an arbitrary qualifying circumstance the presense of which is difficult to establish is a standard rationalizing technique to allay one's own doubts.
When this kind of reasoning gets completely out of hand, it becomes circular. Then it becomes impossible to disprove the assertion because pregnancy is taken as sufficient evidence that the incident leading to it was not a rape. Presto! There are no contrary examples!
One can disagree with the decision all one wants, but it was his to make.
No, it's not. Nowhere in the law did it say it was a tax. During the discussion of creating the law, the word tax was not used.
Think of it this way: what if it really is a tax and the supporters of the law were trying to fool all of is into thinking that it isn't?
What if a politicial condidate promised "no new taxes" but then supported a law which required the owner of a newly-purchased car to pay a 2% "fee" (over and above the sales tax) when registering it for the first time? Would he have kept his campaign promise?
If the court perceives that to render a judgement would effectively be legislating, they are not permitted to do that,
Tell that to John Roberts because that's exactly what he did when he decided that forcing people to pay for other people's medical bills is a tax even though the word tax was not used in the legislation and the President himself has said the bill is not a tax.
Roberts legislated from the bench when he decided to make a political rather than legal decision, effectively handing the presidency to Romney.
Whether we agree or disagree with Roberts' decision, he wasn't legislating from the bench. He didn't change the way the law worked. He simply determined that it didn't have to be struck down. Calling it a tax doesn't make the law suddenly operate differently.
As for whether it is a tax or not, does it really matter whether the word appears in the law or what the president says about the question? Judges are supposed to be able to see through the P.R. spin and figure out what the real facts are. This judges says that if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it is a tax.
It is of course ironic that Roberts' rejected the not-a-tax claim of the law's supporters and then used this as a basis to uphold their law. But, this is a perfectly valid way for a court to solve a problem. One can disagree with the decision all one wants, but it was his to make.
I think the AC is taking offense at what appears to be a typo. You wrote "you think you are saying" (emphasis mine), when I guess you wanted to write "I think you are saying". If you actually meant "you think you are saying", then that is pretty rude.
I'm not the one trying to make that distinction, gender theorists do. I personally don't agree with much of what they say but they clearly distinguish gender and sex.
True, they do make that distinction. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, the terminological distinction has been made in certain fields starting in 1955.
Since gender theory is quite recent, it cannot be asserted "gender" now means "sex".
Again, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, it is becoming fairly common to use the work gender to refer to biological sex. I suspect this is because some people are embarassed to say sex.
Having thought about the above, you think you are saying that the problem is deciding who is female biologically as opposed to who can function as a female in society.
I don't think I am saying! It is extremely rude and dishonest to tell me I don't know what I am saying. I am saying that when it comes to decide which individuals can compete in the "women section", only their physiological sex matters. How they feel does not matter at all.
I never said you didn't know what you were saying. I said that I wasn't sure what you meant because the words "gender" and "sex" mean different things to people from different backgrounds and of different generations. How is that rude and dishonest?
It is quote obvious that you did not pay attention in college. Sex is what a person is biologically capable of. Gender is what a person identifies as.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, this way of using the terms is common in certain fields, but gender is also a euphamism for sex (in its original meaning).
What in the world kind of justice is this? "We're going to tell you to do something, and then, if you don't, we're going to tell you tell us why!"
The court has to take this step-by-step. The TSA was told to do it, but not given a date. I year has gone by and they still haven't done it. EPIC says that this is too long. The judge has asked the TSA to try to explain why it is taking so long and when they intend to comply. Since he didn't give them a hard deadline, this is only fair.
Are there really that many people in the world with 'both sets physical features in various strengths'? And- more importantly- are there really that many Olympic athletes like that, that we need special rules??
Penis- male Vagina- female Anything else- disqualified.
The number of persons born with noticably ambiguous genitals is between 0.1% and 0.2% of the population. The 10,970 atheletes competing in the London games in 2012 are 0.00015% of the population. So there is approximately 1000 such persons in the world for every Olympic athelete.
I have a stupid question: Can't you just strip them down? If they got family jewels, they;re a guy.
The fear is that the women's category of sports requiring strength would soon be dominated by men whose genitals did not develope properly in the womb. Of course, this would only be a problem if they also displayed male muscular development. I don't know how many persons fit in this category, but the Olympics is a word-wide competition to which are sent the best atheletes.Under these conditions, they could be found.
Slashdot Mirror
To argue about whether this idea is part of a mystical belief system is to miss the point. The point is that it either is or is not an historic fact. What religionists do, say, or believe is totally irrelevent.
Funny, because you claim the opposite, that it is atheism that is the important factor. When you acknowledge my points for the opposite, you again repeat your claim and say religion doesn't matter.
The difference is that in one case there is a causal relationship, in the other a causal relationship is impossible because the supposed effect proceeds the cause chronologically. A particular scientist is an atheist. This causes him to reach the conclusion that Evolution explains the origin of specials. A religionist has irrational beliefs about the creator and the process of creation. This cannot cause Creation not to have occured millions of years before he was born.
It is not irrational to believe that superhumans created the world if there is evidence which tends to support such a view. It is not irrational to believe that these same superhumans communicated with man in the past if there are historical documents which attest to this.
And your evidence?
It seems to me that at this point reasonable persons can interpret the physical evidence either way. The historical documents are contained in the Bible. There have been numberous arguments advanced to discredit it, but I find them about as convincing as conspiracy theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center. They are structured along the same lines of "questioning the official story" and "I don't understand this, therefor something sneeky is going on".
If you cannot respect such a point of view, discussion is pointless.
"Little" evidence? The fossil record and DNA record show evolution, not an intelligent designer. There's a clear progression from the simplest forms like bacteria to the more complicated forms. The genetic and fossil record show branching, which is what you would expect from evolution, but not creationism. An intelligent designer wouldn't limit themselves to branching, and would instead mix and match features arbitrarily.
Again, this is a question about which reasonable persons can disagree. Is the branching really due to common descent, or is it the inevitable result of any attempt to classify a large body of work? After all, we can classify computers in much the same way, but they don't even reproduce.
Nor is the progression clear. First of all, there are aknowledged gaps. Entire careers are devoted to trying to figure out why the intermediate forms 'didn't find their way into the fossile record'. Second, trees derived from the fossile record often fail to match trees derived from genetic analysis.
With the tree in doubt, it is hard to assert that features were not mixed and matched. In fact, I seem to recall that there are seeming examples of mixing and matching. These are cases where identical or highly similiar features seem to have evolved more than once. (There are of course theories to explain this this away. But, there always are.)
They assert (likely truthfully) that they do not believe in creation and are certain that furthur research will clear up these little difficulties.
That's the way science operates. When the overwhelming evidence points in one way, "little difficulties" are acknowledged and worked on. Yet creationists focus on these little difficulties while accepting the huge flaws in their own theories. Mote, meet beam. Beam, meet mote.
It is the Evolutionists who are calling these questions "little difficulties". In reality we are talking here about holes you could drive a truck through. We are talking about the fact that new kinds appear in the fossil record suddenly and remain for millions of years virtual unchanged before becoming extinct. We are talking about the way
Religion has the advantage that, in general, children are raised to believe in it based on dogma.
This is unfortunately true. I believe that religion should be based upon reason.
Rational thinking and the scientific method dispels mysticism.
Very effectively. Many if not most religions are heavily polluted with mysticism. Rational thinking cleanses religion.
But the core question here is: did the species evolve or were they created in much their present form by one or more superhuman extraterestials of extrordinary skill and posessed of immense resources. To argue about whether this idea is part of a mystical belief system is to miss the point. The point is that it either is or is not an historic fact. What religionists do, say, or believe is totally irrelevent.
It is not irrational to believe that superhumans created the world if there is evidence which tends to support such a view. It is not irrational to believe that these same superhumans communicated with man in the past if there are historical documents which attest to this. This does not mean that everyone has to believe that these evidences are reliable, but to say that those who do are behaving irrationally is dishonest.
The evidence points to evolution not because scientists are atheist, but because scientists looked at the evidence.
That is what they assert. Now you have repeated this assertion. What is that worth to me?
I disbelieve them because when they are backed into a corner they make statements which sound like expresions of faith in Rationalism and argue on a philisophical rather than an evidentary basis. What little evidence they do cite is compatible with Evolutionary theory, but is also compatible with belief in a creator.
Then there is the fact that in incautious moments Evolutionists have frequently admitted that some line of evidence (frequently the fosile record) is more in accord with Creation than Evolution. They have lately taken to claiming that they have been misquoted. But, what they deny is not the substance of their remarks but their seeming lack of faith in Evolution. They assert (likely truthfully) that they do not believe in creation and are certain that furthur research will clear up these little difficulties.
So, I have to conclude that the evidence is against you. Their science is informed by their atheism.
I repect a well-thought-out answer which addresses the points raised. I agree with much of what you say here.
I am interested in the question of why each side in this debate sees the other as composed of arrogant fools blinded by prejudice. I suspect the answer is that many of the most vocal are.
The examples of observable evolution in nature which you cite certainly do exist. The question about which reasonable and well-informed persons disagreed is: what is their significance? The Evolutionist believes he is looking at a little piece of a process similiar to that described by Charles Darwin, a process which will in time produces truly radical changes. But, one who suspects the existence of an inteligent creator may see designed-in adaptive mechanisms and feedback loops. As far as I have been able to determine, there is not sufficient scientific evidence to answer this question.
Unfortunately, way the most vocal public advocates of Evolution understand the meaning of the evidence is so shaped by their atheism that they are unable to even parse expressions of doubt. They are so sure that a naturalistic creative mechanism much exist that that naturalistic theory which best fits the evidence is the best theory of all. When some demure, they become angry, make bombastic statements, and launch into wholly ineffective appeals to be rational. This is ineffective because rationality is not the problem, differing assumptions are.
Of course, Creationism has even worse nuts who play right into the hands of the Evolutionist demigogs. Could God have created the fossil record and the light from distant stars? No doubt, if it were absolutely necessary. But since it wasn't necessary, to assert that he did is silly. They should just admit that they misunderstood Genesis.
It seems that for you the word "believe" has some kind of baggage. I assume this is connected with Rationalist rhetoric which contrasts "belief based systems" with "evidence based systems". When I said that I "sincerly believe" I meant that I had come to a conclusion after giving the matter serious attention.
I agree that the real change that occured during the Enlightenment was not that most thinkers were no longer religious. Rather, thinkers began to understand that the world is a machine. This was contrary to the assumptions of many who had supposed that God commanded the flowers to bloom and the lightening to strike.
But, rationalist philosphers liked to tell a different story, suggesting that the universe-is-a-machine view is incompatible with the idea that God interacts with the natural world in any way at any time. I suppose on the background of that culture they may have seemed like opposits, but today, when even the uneducated know that the universe is a machine, such arguments simply puzzle the believer. It is amusing that these worn-out arguments keep getting brought up on Slashdot. ("Please, no devine intervention! I want my universe to stay rational!")
Your remarks on the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design are insightful. I would expand on them by calling Intelligent Design the bastard child of Rationalism. Rationalist thought places the idea of a creator into a compartment called "faith" or "belief" which exists alongside another compartment called "reason". It is frequently claimed that these compartments represent "different kinds of truth".
The problem with this kind of reasoning is that if the word really was created by an inteligent being, that is an historic fact which nothing can alter. It does not matter what we believe or do not believe about the identity and motivations of that being. It does not matter if we surround belief in this historical fact with the most absurd superstitions imaginable. It does not matter if we believe that it never happened. Our mental state cannot alter history.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to meet Evolutionists on terms which the Evolutionists have themselves chosen. All peripheral assertions which could possibly be superstition or kn
I am not sure what you mean when you describe such a universe as "irrational". Why does interfering in the operation of a machine violate the laws of physics? Surely when I press a key on the keyboard of my computer it does not cease to behave in a rational manner.
When you press that key, you expect a specific signal to be sent to the computer, and the computer to respond in a specific, predictable way. If God intervenes, then when you press "g" the computer may receive, by a miracle, the signal "England expects that every man shall do his duty," and the computer may respond by turning into a gallon of lamp oil.
I don't know if you are serious or not. Just in case you are, let me explain:
In my illustration, the computer is the universe. The person pressing the key is God. My point is that applying an outside force to some part of the universe does not cause it to suddenly cease to behave in a predictable way. If I thow a stone on Earth, the world remains rational. If God throws a stone on Earth, it still remains rational.
Modern science can certainly make a virgin pregnant and I am sure that with sufficent time and funding a weapon to turn someone into a pillar of salt could be built. If man can do these things without violating the laws of physics, then why not God?
I'm curious, but why on Earth would God ever artificially limit himself in such a manner?
Because for him to limit himself to things that make sense and which he could explain if he so chose is not a real limit. If we believe that God is real and the miracles described in the Bible are real, then they must fit into the framework of reality that God created. It is not reasonable to hold that God's will is a magic wand. Rather, he wills things and then takes appropriate steps to make them happen.
Take the example at Matthew 28:2. Did God suspend Newton's first law of motion so that a body at rest (the stone) would move? That would be silly. He had his angel apply "an outside force" to it just like you or I would if we wanted to move it.
Damn you, AC, I was going to post something similar and you had to go flaming. He's no idiot, but "creationists" are not necessarily anti-evolutionists. Every Christian believes that God created the universe, but all but a few morons accept that evolution is how he went about making different species. Even the Pope says so.
I wouldn't trust the Catholic Church's opinion on the plausibility of scientific theories. Look at the whole thing with Galileo. In fact I think the Church's support of Evolution says more about its enbarassement over that than about the compatibility of Evolution with belief in God.
The problem I have with the evolution-is-compatible-with-belief-in-God camp is that we have two extrodinary claims here. One is that a fantastically powerful and skilled superhuman created the world. The second is that complexity arises naturally. We pretty much have to believe in one of them. Two accept both (absent extrordinary proof) is unnecessary.
Teaching your children about God is not the problem, stupidly denying science is the problem. And I suspect that the antievolutionists are wolves in sheeps' clothing, not unlike that evil preacher from Florida who demonstrates at military funerals with "god hates fags" placards. That goes against every single thing Jesus taught; God loves gays, he just doesn't like what they do -- but he doesn't like my or your sins, either. Gays are forgiven like any other Christian, we all sin. How can that Florida asshat consider himself a Christian?
I suspect that many of these creationists are simply trying to make unbelievers out of believers. I'm convinced that Pat Robertson has converted far more Christians to atheism than Richard Dawkins ever dreamed of converting.
Though I don't find Evolution convincing, I do agree with you that most forms of Creationism could almost have been deliberately designed to make objections to Evolution seem irrational.
Note: evolution is a fact because it has so much evidence supporting it: the fossil record, selective breeding, genetic engineering, etc...
The problem is that highly inteligent and informed persons believe it is not a fact on the basis of the very same evidence. Even some Evolutionists admit that the fossil record, superficially at least, seems to support special creation. Selective breeding has limits which cast doubt on the idea that organisms can evolve indefinitely. Genetic engineering is not readily distringuishable from special creation, so citing it as support for the plausibility of Evolution seems perverse.
The Theory of Natural Selection is the best theory we have come up to explain the fact of evolution, just like Newton's "Laws" of gravity were the best theory explaining the fact of gravity until Einstein came along.
Some Evolutionists disagree with you and advance competing theories such as Punctuated Equilibrium, but OK, what if it does best explain the fact of Evolution. It still doesn't touch the question of whether Evolution (in the Origin of Species sense) is a historical fact. After all, we can erect highly convincing theories to explain the motivations of characters in Star Trek, but that does not remove it from the realm of fiction.
The theory of Evolution has the most evidence. It can be objectively tested and happens in laboratories constantly. If someone comes up with an explanation that is more accurate and can be objectively tested, then it will supplant Evolution.
I sincerely believe that this is an illusion. Evolutionists see these evidences as persuasive because they believe they offer our best clues as to how Evolution works. But if someone seriously doubts that Evolution explains life's origin, they have no persuasive value. The Evolutionist sees enlightenment in peppered moth studies, the doubter sees wishful thinking.
The gripe of the "Darwinists" is that people are losing the ability to reason in a scientific manner.
My gripe is that the Darwinists are trying to hitch their unprovable atheistic views to the wagon of science. This undermines the whole idea that science involves impartial reasoning. Respect for and interest in science can only suffer as a result.
It is this ability to reason that created the Cultural and Industrial revolutions that led people to invent the modern world. The number of people who do not believe in Evolution is a symptom of a culture that does not understand or embrace a scientific methodology.
The alternative is a faith based methodology. The last time a faith based methodology dominated, we now call it the "Dark Ages." These two go hand in hand. The Darwinists don't want to see us return to a state of ignorance.
I see you are a victim of Rationalist disinformation. The whole idea of an age old struggle between faith and reason is a fiction invented by Enlightenment writers who played fast and loose with the facts. In reality, many of the founders of entire branches of science, such as Newton and Priestly believed in God, in special creation, and in miracles and wrote extensively on these subjects.
The problem is that belief in God is consistent with anything. No matter what objections one may raise, one can counter them with "Well, God just arranged it to look that way."
True, but that would be totaly irrational. And yes, young Earth creationists are totaly irrational.
As a result, belief in God is not useful. It's also often extremely harmful... because it's consistent with anything, it can be (and is) used to justify all sorts of evil.
Most any philosophy can in the wrong hands, including Darwinism. Think of all the evil that has been justified on the basis of the survival of the fitest.
The problem I have is that these are philosophical objections. To argue about whether belief in God is useful or beneficial has nothing to do with whether or not he really exists.
Evolution is scientific. Belief in a creator is religious. Belief in evolution is rational. Each of these statements is true in a way.
False.
No one who understand what science is believes in evolution. Science is not a system of beliefs, it is a system of evidence based reasoning. It is not proper to say "I believe in evolution", but rather "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence". In science, nothing can be fact, or definitively proven. We rather conduct experiments to reduce uncertainty in a theory, or to disprove a theory. So, evolution is not scientific, nor is it religious. Evolution and creationism are ideas; two competing hypotheses describing a process. Evolution is supported by the scientific process, while creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. Creationism however is supported by a faith based belief system, and people such as yourself (im assuming) who only know belief systems in turn think that scientists believe in evolution. Perhaps it is not your fault that you are unfamiliar with evidence based reasoning, what skepticism really means, and the scientific method, but that is all the more reason for you to support better science education in our nation's schools.
Note that I said these statements are true only "in a way". That means that I consider them misleading.
Your are correct, I do believe that scientists who claim that "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence" are heavily influenced by their belief systems. They are atheists. According to their belief system, there is no creator, so the world must be of natural origin. Can I conclude differently when prominant evolutionists say things like 'evolution seems imposible, but we are here, so I have to believe it occured'? I am bemused and somewhat insulted by your assumption that I reach this conclusion only because I am not sufficiently informed.
I respect and value the scientific method. But I also understand it. I know that it is a tool for exploring natural processes. If the world is of artificial origin, then those who insist on studying its orgin as a natural process will inevitably reach incorrect conclusions.
I think people like Bill Nye are doing themselves a disservice when they assume that anyone who finds the arguments for evolution unconvincing must be ignorant or worse. It creates the impression that they are hopelessly blinded by predjudice./p.
I suppose you could be a creationist and believe in a deistic universe, where a god chose the laws of physics and then wound up his universe and let it go. But modern creationists do not believe this: they are overwhelmingly Christian, and believe in such things as a god that actively intervenes on this little planet by making virgins pregnant, people turn into pillars of salt -- in general, they believe in miracles, even small ones like altering the genetic makeup of a species. This is the very opposite of a rational ordered universe: all these things, all these miracles, are inherently disordered, since they entail violations of the laws of physics by an entity outside of them. "F=ma, except when god says otherwise" is not a sound basis for a rational theory of the universe.
I am not sure what you mean when you describe such a universe as "irrational". Why does interfering in the operation of a machine violate the laws of physics? Surely when I press a key on the keyboard of my computer it does not cease to behave in a rational manner.
The idea that a "miracle" violates a law of nature goes back at least to David Hume. It may have made more sense then. After all, society was just coming to terms with the idea of complex machines and that the universe might be one. He could position the idea of the universe-machine as an alternative to the idea that God makes the flowers bloom in spring. But nowadays the implication that if the universe is a machine we must assume that God does not touch it seems odd.
I suppose much of the objection is related to the idea that miracles are magic. It is assumed that divine will operated without mechanism. It simply altered the way things are. For some reason the idea that God applied a sufficient outside force is not considered.
Take your examples. Modern science can certainly make a virgin pregnant and I am sure that with sufficent time and funding a weapon to turn someone into a pillar of salt could be built. If man can do these things without violating the laws of physics, then why not God?
Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Nice try.
Technically true, but evasive none-the-less.
Young Earth creationists and Bill Nye represent the screwball ends of the spectrum.
Rants like Bill's only serve to strengthen my belief that Darwinists are in deep denial. The fact they can't face is that their ideas are speculative. Since they are speculative, intelligent, informed persons can disagree. In order to protect themselves from this uncomfortable fact, they erect elaborate sematic barriers.
Uhhhh... Evolution as a principle is not speculative. It's just the way things on this scale work.
No, I suppose it isn't. Gradual genetic change in a population certainly takes place. The speculation part is that all living things in all their variety were produced by long strings of such changes. (With the help of some selecting factors.)
This is what I meant when I said that evolutionists rely too heavily on semantic arguments. They call both the genetic changes and a bold theory about them "evolution". They then pretend that we must accept or reject them both together.
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driving by non-conformists who throw out widely accepted notions for absolutely no reason?
Never. But your's is a loaded question. The progress of science gets over humps when someone is willing to question the dogma, to ask if they assumtions are valid. When they make great discoveries, those who have an investment in the dogma invariably claim that it is being thrown out for absolutely no reason. We don't need a heliocentric universe. We don't need germ theory.
I see nothing wrong with teaching children that scientists do not all practice science impartially. They need to understand that a scientist's views on contraversial issues such as politics and religion or simply a desire to protect his position may influence his judgement about what the evidence means.
This does not mean we should teach our children wacky creation myths just to be different. But it does mean that it is appropriate to discuss with one's children whether evolution is an atheist creation myth.
Bill is a clueless idiot. Evolution is not in conflict creationism; only the "young earth theory" idiots.
Young Earth creationists and Bill Nye represent the screwball ends of the spectrum.
Rants like Bill's only serve to strengthen my belief that Darwinists are in deep denial. The fact they can't face is that their ideas are speculative. Since they are speculative, intelligent, informed persons can disagree. In order to protect themselves from this uncomfortable fact, they erect elaborate sematic barriers.
There are two possible origins of the Earth. Either it is the product of mindless natural processes or it was terraformed. (The Bible says it was terraformed by someone called "God".) They both sound pretty unlikely, but there don't seem to be any other possibilities. One of them must be true and the other false. The problem is that neither side can produce evidence which makes sense outside of their world view.
In their frustration with this situation, evolutionists plow ahead with ineffective philisophical and semantic arguments. Mostly they just attach labels to things. Evolution is scientific. Belief in a creator is religious. Belief in evolution is rational. Each of these statements is true in a way. But, scientific does not mean true. Religious does not mean false. Rationalism is a philosophical system which in some ways resembles a religion, so the rationalism of Evolution is not a strong argument in its favour.
Their opponents remain unimpressed by these specious arguments, so now they are resorting to hand wringing. If we don't shape up and start believing in Evolution right quick scientific and technical progress will halt as our minds are sapped by the illogic. We'll all have to go live in caves. Believe or the end is nigh!
The hand-ringing evolutionists say that it is illogical to reject evolution (a product of the scientific method) and reject modern medicine (another of its products). Just for fun and because turn-about is fair play I propose that evolutionists reject the work of scientists who held ideas contrary to evolutionary theory.
In otherwords, you're totally and completely incapable of understanding the concept that teaching children that it's a bad idea to teach children that any science is wrong? Doesn't matter if you're telling them that evolution or physics or geology is wrong. Teaching them that any science is wrong will screw up their ability to be engineers or scientists in the future.
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driven by conformists who are afraid to question widely accepted notions? Does the status of "a science" magically elevate ideas beyond the realm where mere mortals are allowed to question them? Do we have to believe in phrenology and phychoanalysis in order to preserve out ability to work as engineers?
Presumably James Hamblin is an older white male. He seems to be missing the point here. The problem with the statement isn't that it's factually / scientifically inaccurate. The problem is the term "legitimate rape." The senator's statements (if taken with any bit of truth) imply that if a women were to get pregnant in the case of rape it was not a "legitimate" or "real" rape.
The qualifier "legitimate" is necessary because the speaker is aware of evidence that his assertion is false. Adding an arbitrary qualifying circumstance the presense of which is difficult to establish is a standard rationalizing technique to allay one's own doubts.
When this kind of reasoning gets completely out of hand, it becomes circular. Then it becomes impossible to disprove the assertion because pregnancy is taken as sufficient evidence that the incident leading to it was not a rape. Presto! There are no contrary examples!
One can disagree with the decision all one wants, but it was his to make.
No, it's not. Nowhere in the law did it say it was a tax. During the discussion of creating the law, the word tax was not used.
Think of it this way: what if it really is a tax and the supporters of the law were trying to fool all of is into thinking that it isn't?
What if a politicial condidate promised "no new taxes" but then supported a law which required the owner of a newly-purchased car to pay a 2% "fee" (over and above the sales tax) when registering it for the first time? Would he have kept his campaign promise?
If the court perceives that to render a judgement would effectively be legislating, they are not permitted to do that,
Tell that to John Roberts because that's exactly what he did when he decided that forcing people to pay for other people's medical bills is a tax even though the word tax was not used in the legislation and the President himself has said the bill is not a tax.
Roberts legislated from the bench when he decided to make a political rather than legal decision, effectively handing the presidency to Romney.
Whether we agree or disagree with Roberts' decision, he wasn't legislating from the bench. He didn't change the way the law worked. He simply determined that it didn't have to be struck down. Calling it a tax doesn't make the law suddenly operate differently.
As for whether it is a tax or not, does it really matter whether the word appears in the law or what the president says about the question? Judges are supposed to be able to see through the P.R. spin and figure out what the real facts are. This judges says that if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it is a tax.
It is of course ironic that Roberts' rejected the not-a-tax claim of the law's supporters and then used this as a basis to uphold their law. But, this is a perfectly valid way for a court to solve a problem. One can disagree with the decision all one wants, but it was his to make.
I think the AC is taking offense at what appears to be a typo. You wrote "you think you are saying" (emphasis mine), when I guess you wanted to write "I think you are saying". If you actually meant "you think you are saying", then that is pretty rude.
Oh. Yes, I see it now. It is a typo. Sorry, AC.
I'm not the one trying to make that distinction, gender theorists do. I personally don't agree with much of what they say but they clearly distinguish gender and sex.
True, they do make that distinction. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, the terminological distinction has been made in certain fields starting in 1955.
Since gender theory is quite recent, it cannot be asserted "gender" now means "sex".
Again, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, it is becoming fairly common to use the work gender to refer to biological sex. I suspect this is because some people are embarassed to say sex.
Having thought about the above, you think you are saying that the problem is deciding who is female biologically as opposed to who can function as a female in society.
I don't think I am saying! It is extremely rude and dishonest to tell me I don't know what I am saying. I am saying that when it comes to decide which individuals can compete in the "women section", only their physiological sex matters. How they feel does not matter at all.
I never said you didn't know what you were saying. I said that I wasn't sure what you meant because the words "gender" and "sex" mean different things to people from different backgrounds and of different generations. How is that rude and dishonest?
It is quote obvious that you did not pay attention in college.
Sex is what a person is biologically capable of.
Gender is what a person identifies as.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, this way of using the terms is common in certain fields, but gender is also a euphamism for sex (in its original meaning).
What in the world kind of justice is this? "We're going to tell you to do something, and then, if you don't, we're going to tell you tell us why!"
The court has to take this step-by-step. The TSA was told to do it, but not given a date. I year has gone by and they still haven't done it. EPIC says that this is too long. The judge has asked the TSA to try to explain why it is taking so long and when they intend to comply. Since he didn't give them a hard deadline, this is only fair.
Are there really that many people in the world with 'both sets physical features in various strengths'? And- more importantly- are there really that many Olympic athletes like that, that we need special rules??
Penis- male
Vagina- female
Anything else- disqualified.
The number of persons born with noticably ambiguous genitals is between 0.1% and 0.2% of the population. The 10,970 atheletes competing in the London games in 2012 are 0.00015% of the population. So there is approximately 1000 such persons in the world for every Olympic athelete.
I have a stupid question: Can't you just strip them down? If they got family jewels, they;re a guy.
The fear is that the women's category of sports requiring strength would soon be dominated by men whose genitals did not develope properly in the womb. Of course, this would only be a problem if they also displayed male muscular development. I don't know how many persons fit in this category, but the Olympics is a word-wide competition to which are sent the best atheletes.Under these conditions, they could be found.