The evidence for evolution is no more than my point 4. They just make it fit what they believe is true.
Like I said, if that were the case there's more than enough people with the will to present the evidence against - this case we're discussing shows that.
There is still no, nor will there ever be, proof for it, and thus it should be treated as the theory it is.
There can never be proof for any scientific theory. It's as solid and supported as any other scientific theory, if you believe in teaching kids any science they should be learning it.
Many can say the same for evidence leading to ID. Somewhere along the way theology got mixed with real science.
There never was any evidence leading to ID. It was theology right from the start.
Science is not examining evidence for something that can never be tested and excepting it as fact. It's as much based on faith as being a Christian.
Evolution can and is tested. Adaptation and natural selection are demonstrable in the lab and represent a plausible mechanism for speciation. That's far from all the evidence we have, but it's all that's necessary - until you find something that doesn't fit, we accept the explanation we have rather than introducing anything else.
You do realize that you are benefitting from knowledge which has been passed down to you over the generations, from your grand-parents to your parents and then to you. don't you?
Yes. By all means, teach them knowledge, you'd be neglegient not to. But leave beliefs out of it.
It is a parent's responsibility to teach the child values, beliefs etc.. anything that will help the kid have an advantage.
Beliefs don't give any kind of advantage, other than possibly by knowing what they are - which you can teach by teaching them that some people have certain beliefs, when they're old enough to understand the idea of others thinking things different from them, etc. If they affect life in a way that makes them useful, they've gone beyond being merely beliefs.
To illustrate - lets say it is my "point of view" that one needs to work hard and make a living for themselves and not rely on fortune tellers / Gurus / etc to get ahead in life. Am I allowed to share this "point of view" with my child who is only 10 years old or is that violating his fundamental right?
You have grounds for this belief, presumably. Tell your child them. Don't try and pretend a belief like that is on the same level as a religious one.
I want my child to have all the advantage he can get in this cruel world. Why would I cripple him by NOT teaching what I think could be of use to him? When he is older, he is free to change his mind/beliefs, but it is still my responsibility to teach him what I know NOW. It would be grave negligence on my part if I didn't do it.
You teach what you know. You don't teach what you believe without reason.
How, do you expect to raise a child without teaching them right or wrong? I'm not trying to get into a debate about what is right or wrong. Just asking a question.
Teach them what's legal. Teach them that others are basically the same as themselves and have thoughts, feelings etc. like theirs. Let them make their own decision in the end though.
So, you're saying we should only feed and cloth children, nothing else right? I mean otherwise we would be forcing our beliefs on them.
No, teach them skills - there's no values involved in knowing how to talk, tie your shoes, etc. - and teach them facts. That should be enough.
The mere concept of parenting requires you to instill proper beleifs into those (your children) who aren't old enough to decide on their own.
You teach them how to reason - by the time they're in a position to be making decisions they should be able to do that - and you teach them other skills. You teach them facts. There's no need to teach them what to believe.
If you do not, someone else will, which undermines the whole concept of parenting.
So you teach them how to hold their own beliefs and ignore others' attempts to convert them and just consider it rationally. None of that requires teaching them your own, or any, belief.
No. Teach them that there are laws against them - that's a fact - and teach them that other people are as far as we can tell basically the same of them, have the same sentience etc. - that's also a fact - and let them draw their own conclusions. Knowing what's legal will get them by until they can make up their own mind about what's moral.
Sorry for separate replies, forgot about the other paragraphs.
Here is what happens: people start with the assumption that the world has progressed and developed without God's intervention (Athiestic foundation). A Creationist believes the world progressed and developed as described in the 1st book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis. An Intelligent Design supporter believes God created the world but used evolution to do it, with some interventions here and there. It is possible to explain the creation of the world scientifically from a Creationist point of view. It is all about the initial assumptions.
A true scientist starts by assuming nothing. No gravity, no creator, heck, you don't even assume the existence of the world itself. You add assumptions as and when they are necessary because of the available evidence, and then you add the minimum possible assumption, and you always look for a way to reduce or eliminate your assumptions, thus for example Maxwell's work means we no longer have to assume two forces, gravity and electricity, but only need to make the single assumption of the electromagnetic field.
If one knows the world was created by God a few thousand years ago, they would be able to correctly interpret the scientific findings. If the dating methods yeild dates out of range, then there must be an error in the dating method.
That's a prime example of why this approach is not science. If it were science, you'd be questioning both the date and the assumption - and results are stronger than assumptions.
In order to be successful scientists, one must believe in the Creator of the world. If not, you will only be making incorrect assumptions and theories.
An approach based on belief in God is not science for two reasons - you're making an unwarranted assumption and then placing that assumption beyond question.
The problem I see here is the reason why so many people are confused. You are using the word evolution in two different ways in the same argument. Changes within a species are observable and testable within our world today. Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.
It's observable - speciation in bacteria is less clear since those from different species still exchange DNA, but given a few weeks in the lab I can show you populations diverging to the point that if we discovered the two in the wild we'd consider them separate species - it's happened, and it's certainly in the fossil record as much as anything is in the record - island populations that are now a different species but the fossil record shows the same species as the one on the mainland lived there.
Scientific method goes more like this. 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Experiment 4. Mold results to meet hypothesis 5. Publish paper
You're not supposed to do your 4. If you don't have such scruples, you'll be caught out sooner or later by someone who does. There are plenty of people with the motivation to find results that contradict evolution if they exist.
Too much science is considered fact. One week the t-rex is a predator and the next he's a scavenger.
Treating science as fact gives you more accurate information than anything else. Of course there is enormous doubt at the edges, and that's why new, contentious theories aren't taught in schools - just look at how long it took plate tectonics to make it into the typical science classroom. (or at least the textbooks, a good teacher would probably bring up unproven new developments if the class was interested), and occasionally the foundations shift, but rarely if ever in a way that completely contradicts anything well established. But evolution is not such edge science, it is accepted by everyone in mainstream science and for a good reason. There is more than enough evidence for it, if you open your mind and look.
Give me a test that can be done to show that the requirements of falsifiability in science can be falsified.
Take something unfalsifiable, such as ID. If it were science, that would falsify things. However, it isn't science, as is clear without resorting to whether it's falsifiable.
There's no irony here at all. What these individuals were doing is properly called "perjury". In pretending to a non-religious motive, they were simply lying.
The point is that their motivation is a religion which is against lying. It's very much irony because the effect of their religious belief - to cause them to lie - was incongruous with the expected effect.
Agreed on all points except that when the government mandates that a certain theology or theory be taught regarding science, or anything else, that is a direct rebuttal to religion,
Evolution is not a direct rebuttal to any serious religion. I personally know hundreds of genuine, serious Christians who genuinely, seriously believe in evolution. If you're going to say the government can't mandate teaching evolution because it's interfering with freedom of religion, then the government can't mandate teaching anything at all - can't teach that the world is round, people are free to have a religious belief that it is flat, etc.
Evolutionary convergence. The way completely different species have almost, but not exactly, the same solution to a given problem. Overused example: squid eyes are almost identical to ours, they even have the not-quite-a-fixed-radius-curve shape of the lens, but they don't have a blind spot because the nerve goes in a different way. Or the fish and insects who have almost exactly the same lifestyle. That's the evidence for macro-evolution.
We made sure our kids were capable of critical thought, judgement and self-determination in the area of beliefs.
Which mitigates it enormously. Many people don't.
They have their own (for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).
Yes, but can you honestly say you think they had an equal choice between all possibilities? I doubt it given you have two catholics but noone going for another religion that neither of you have.
If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?
No. We believe that freedom of thought and belief is a fundamental human right. Beliefs are a matter for the individual, like, say, sexual preference. Regardless of what you believe, it's not your place to tell anyone else what they should, but especially someone who isn't old enough to make their own decision.
That was different - terrible as it was, it didn't introduce any risk for americans. So they, by and large, don't care. But you can bet your ass they won't let untested drugs on the market in the US, not when their own citizens could start dying.
And for what it's worth, I don't knowingly buy anything made by Dow (who currently owns them).
Agreed. But if QCs ever become popular I'd bet on it being handled by bolt-on extensions to C (qint i = superposerange(0,1e6);) rather than a new way of programming.
AIUI you lost all the advantages of the machines (memory management etc.) by doing that, partly because you can't use such things in C, but also because of the fundamental differences between the two languages. So when you compared them at running C programs, the lisp machines weren't worth it.
No they don't. For a start, it's hard to do properly controlled drug trials if you can't give some people no treatment. We believe in ethics because we believe they are important in themselves, we believe doing good science is not the only objective. But if that's all you're aiming for, you'll do better by ignoring ethics.
But what if the company is overseas based, makes the drugs by way of parallel synthesis pathways, and sells them overseas as a generic, and it turns out to be effective and popular, and demands in the US wants the drugs to be sold in the US eventually ? (Re: the "morning-after" contraceptive pill).
You don't let them be sold in the US without trials that satisfy the FDA. No matter how much demand there is. That's basic public safety.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, if that were the case there's more than enough people with the will to present the evidence against - this case we're discussing shows that.
There is still no, nor will there ever be, proof for it, and thus it should be treated as the theory it is.
There can never be proof for any scientific theory. It's as solid and supported as any other scientific theory, if you believe in teaching kids any science they should be learning it.
Many can say the same for evidence leading to ID. Somewhere along the way theology got mixed with real science.
There never was any evidence leading to ID. It was theology right from the start.
Science is not examining evidence for something that can never be tested and excepting it as fact. It's as much based on faith as being a Christian.
Evolution can and is tested. Adaptation and natural selection are demonstrable in the lab and represent a plausible mechanism for speciation. That's far from all the evidence we have, but it's all that's necessary - until you find something that doesn't fit, we accept the explanation we have rather than introducing anything else.
I'd hope my kids would have more of a life than that :)
Sat at home in my dressing gown all day and played Civ. I wish I was joking.
Yes. By all means, teach them knowledge, you'd be neglegient not to. But leave beliefs out of it.
It is a parent's responsibility to teach the child values, beliefs etc.. anything that will help the kid have an advantage.
Beliefs don't give any kind of advantage, other than possibly by knowing what they are - which you can teach by teaching them that some people have certain beliefs, when they're old enough to understand the idea of others thinking things different from them, etc. If they affect life in a way that makes them useful, they've gone beyond being merely beliefs.
To illustrate - lets say it is my "point of view" that one needs to work hard and make a living for themselves and not rely on fortune tellers / Gurus / etc to get ahead in life. Am I allowed to share this "point of view" with my child who is only 10 years old or is that violating his fundamental right?
You have grounds for this belief, presumably. Tell your child them. Don't try and pretend a belief like that is on the same level as a religious one.
I want my child to have all the advantage he can get in this cruel world. Why would I cripple him by NOT teaching what I think could be of use to him? When he is older, he is free to change his mind/beliefs, but it is still my responsibility to teach him what I know NOW. It would be grave negligence on my part if I didn't do it.
You teach what you know. You don't teach what you believe without reason.
Teach them what's legal. Teach them that others are basically the same as themselves and have thoughts, feelings etc. like theirs. Let them make their own decision in the end though.
So, you're saying we should only feed and cloth children, nothing else right? I mean otherwise we would be forcing our beliefs on them.
No, teach them skills - there's no values involved in knowing how to talk, tie your shoes, etc. - and teach them facts. That should be enough.
You teach them how to reason - by the time they're in a position to be making decisions they should be able to do that - and you teach them other skills. You teach them facts. There's no need to teach them what to believe.
If you do not, someone else will, which undermines the whole concept of parenting.
So you teach them how to hold their own beliefs and ignore others' attempts to convert them and just consider it rationally. None of that requires teaching them your own, or any, belief.
No. Teach them that there are laws against them - that's a fact - and teach them that other people are as far as we can tell basically the same of them, have the same sentience etc. - that's also a fact - and let them draw their own conclusions. Knowing what's legal will get them by until they can make up their own mind about what's moral.
Here is what happens: people start with the assumption that the world has progressed and developed without God's intervention (Athiestic foundation). A Creationist believes the world progressed and developed as described in the 1st book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis. An Intelligent Design supporter believes God created the world but used evolution to do it, with some interventions here and there. It is possible to explain the creation of the world scientifically from a Creationist point of view. It is all about the initial assumptions.
A true scientist starts by assuming nothing. No gravity, no creator, heck, you don't even assume the existence of the world itself. You add assumptions as and when they are necessary because of the available evidence, and then you add the minimum possible assumption, and you always look for a way to reduce or eliminate your assumptions, thus for example Maxwell's work means we no longer have to assume two forces, gravity and electricity, but only need to make the single assumption of the electromagnetic field.
If one knows the world was created by God a few thousand years ago, they would be able to correctly interpret the scientific findings. If the dating methods yeild dates out of range, then there must be an error in the dating method.
That's a prime example of why this approach is not science. If it were science, you'd be questioning both the date and the assumption - and results are stronger than assumptions.
In order to be successful scientists, one must believe in the Creator of the world. If not, you will only be making incorrect assumptions and theories.
An approach based on belief in God is not science for two reasons - you're making an unwarranted assumption and then placing that assumption beyond question.
It's been established that "congress shall make no law" in the constitution applies to any government agency.
It's observable - speciation in bacteria is less clear since those from different species still exchange DNA, but given a few weeks in the lab I can show you populations diverging to the point that if we discovered the two in the wild we'd consider them separate species - it's happened, and it's certainly in the fossil record as much as anything is in the record - island populations that are now a different species but the fossil record shows the same species as the one on the mainland lived there.
You're not supposed to do your 4. If you don't have such scruples, you'll be caught out sooner or later by someone who does. There are plenty of people with the motivation to find results that contradict evolution if they exist.
Too much science is considered fact. One week the t-rex is a predator and the next he's a scavenger.
Treating science as fact gives you more accurate information than anything else. Of course there is enormous doubt at the edges, and that's why new, contentious theories aren't taught in schools - just look at how long it took plate tectonics to make it into the typical science classroom. (or at least the textbooks, a good teacher would probably bring up unproven new developments if the class was interested), and occasionally the foundations shift, but rarely if ever in a way that completely contradicts anything well established. But evolution is not such edge science, it is accepted by everyone in mainstream science and for a good reason. There is more than enough evidence for it, if you open your mind and look.
Take something unfalsifiable, such as ID. If it were science, that would falsify things. However, it isn't science, as is clear without resorting to whether it's falsifiable.
The point is that their motivation is a religion which is against lying. It's very much irony because the effect of their religious belief - to cause them to lie - was incongruous with the expected effect.
Evolution is not a direct rebuttal to any serious religion. I personally know hundreds of genuine, serious Christians who genuinely, seriously believe in evolution. If you're going to say the government can't mandate teaching evolution because it's interfering with freedom of religion, then the government can't mandate teaching anything at all - can't teach that the world is round, people are free to have a religious belief that it is flat, etc.
Evolutionary convergence. The way completely different species have almost, but not exactly, the same solution to a given problem. Overused example: squid eyes are almost identical to ours, they even have the not-quite-a-fixed-radius-curve shape of the lens, but they don't have a blind spot because the nerve goes in a different way. Or the fish and insects who have almost exactly the same lifestyle. That's the evidence for macro-evolution.
Occam's fucking razor. If you want me to prove to you there is no god, you prove to me that you're not being controlled by an invisible pink unicorn.
Which mitigates it enormously. Many people don't.
They have their own (for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).
Yes, but can you honestly say you think they had an equal choice between all possibilities? I doubt it given you have two catholics but noone going for another religion that neither of you have.
If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?
No. We believe that freedom of thought and belief is a fundamental human right. Beliefs are a matter for the individual, like, say, sexual preference. Regardless of what you believe, it's not your place to tell anyone else what they should, but especially someone who isn't old enough to make their own decision.
And for what it's worth, I don't knowingly buy anything made by Dow (who currently owns them).
Funny though, it only ever seems to be gnome's standards that become FDO standards, and it's always KDE that changes to meet them.
Then there is a perfectly good category for it called "troll".
Agreed. But if QCs ever become popular I'd bet on it being handled by bolt-on extensions to C (qint i = superposerange(0,1e6);) rather than a new way of programming.
AIUI you lost all the advantages of the machines (memory management etc.) by doing that, partly because you can't use such things in C, but also because of the fundamental differences between the two languages. So when you compared them at running C programs, the lisp machines weren't worth it.
No they don't. For a start, it's hard to do properly controlled drug trials if you can't give some people no treatment. We believe in ethics because we believe they are important in themselves, we believe doing good science is not the only objective. But if that's all you're aiming for, you'll do better by ignoring ethics.
You don't let them be sold in the US without trials that satisfy the FDA. No matter how much demand there is. That's basic public safety.
You could say the same about anything we employ them for.