Wow, just wow. Child services didn't help here. By the time Child services knows there's a problem like this, it's probably already too late. I am concerned with Christians doing this because it is obviously a fundamental belief of the Christian Scientists. The difference between these guys and the flower power hippies using "natural" remedies is that some natural cures have a chance at working, and could be proven or disproven through empirical study.
It isn't just that evolution is more logical than Creation, it's that it's backed up by empirical evidence, produces testable predictions, and *gasp* is actual science. I don't know what your definition of creation is, but it's generally accepted to mean that God created man, as opposed to man having evolved. If you think nothing that has been empirically proven is in dispute by creationists, you really need to get out more. A majority of the US population doesn't believe in evolution. 53% of the US population thinks the world is less than 6000 years old. I wouldn't call that a "dispute over small portions". Either you're completely ignorant about what this whole debate has been about or you're just being willfully dishonest.
Are you even aware of the history of the debate? Scopes trial, etc.? If you think that it's science that has been trying to infringe on religion and not the other way around, again you're either completely ignorant or willfully dishonest. It's far from just some fringe minority that is fighting against the science education of their children. If you think Dover, PA and Georgia are insignificant or that Kansas was the only state where people were lobbying for Intelligent Design in the science classroom, you're sorely mistaken. Read up on some history.
Yes, I'd place my trust in the mechanics of science over some claimed word of some imaginary god. The fact that you live in a civilized society and utilize the fruits of those mechanics of science every day shows that implicitly you do as well.p.
There's no arguing with someone like you. If you're irrational enough to believe the crap that you're trying to put forth, then no amount of rational argument or evidence is going to change your mind, especially since you obviously don't even understand the mechanics of science that you want to rail against, since you are looking for "conclusive proof" for a scientific theory.
As I said, there isn't anything stopping or prohibiting both truths to come out.
This assumes that different "truths" are equal. The "truth" that the Earth revolves around the Sun is not equal to the "truth" that the Sun revolves around the earth. One is just wrong. Not that somehow both are right, or the middle ground is the best solution, but simply that one is wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that, just don't try teaching it in science class or object to teaching it because your belief system doesn't agree. But what practical difference could it make, right? Well, if your kid wants to grow up to be an astronaut or astrophysicist, it probably makes all the world of difference.
As for parent's, well they should raise the kid however they feel is best and that would be a sign of good parents whether they told the kid about creation, evolution, or both.
And would it still be best to call them good parents if they were Christian Scientists who allow their kids to die of easily curable illness like measles or mumps because they only allow "healing prayer" and not proper modern medical attention? Or Muslims who teach their kids that American infidels should die because we are the Great Satan? When someone believes that their randomly made-up, make-believe bullshit about their particular version of the invisible man in the sky is the "truth" and this is what he says and wants me to do, you can pretty much justify anything.
Forcing it on them outside of an specific area in school that should be compartmentalized to that area is what got us into this problem.
The problem is the opposite: people are trying all across the country to force religion into science class with their cintelligent designism. I've never heard of an instance of scientists trying to get a spot on the pulpit to "preach" evolution in church. Why should evolution be compartmentalized into just a specific "evolution area" of science class when the ramifications of the science extend just beyond "new species created here"?
Every fossil is an "intermediate" state, because species is a continuum from one to the next. The word "species" is ill-suited to the purpose we try to ascribe to it: telling different types of organisms apart. The problem is that there's no hard dividing line where you can say this creature was this species, but it's offspring was that one. A dinosaur didn't just lay an egg and out popped a bird, and an ape didn't just one day shit out a human. Hence, the gradual change over time part.
You don't seem to understand or grasp the concept. And that's ok, ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance (aka stupidity) is a different story. Please don't be stupid. Learn what evolution actually posits before you dismiss it as the strawman you think it is.
I hate to trot it out over and over as eventually it will just get dismissed as "evolution rhetoric", but the Talkorigins.org website is a very comprehensive, well-citationed resource on the facts of evolutionary theory. The Index to Creationists' Claims is my favorite as it debunks all the usual arguments right there in a nice, organized manner, complete with citations. Here's a few examples, specific to the arguments you brought up:
Because millions of people around the world listen intently and determine how to live their lives based on those simple statements. Including people who make public policy for our country and think it should be based on their own beliefs.
Goebbels once said: "If a lie is bold enough, outrageous enough and repeated loud and often enough, then those who believe that lie will believe it to be the truth.
Hence, religion. Obviously you completely missed the point of the replacement. Just because we have the ability to comprehend, doesn't mean that some uber intelligence must've made things specifically so that we can comprehend them. If, as you say, "There is no way science can observe the existence or non-existence of this Mind," then said Mind by default, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. Yet, despite the fact that you just said that there's no way this supposed Mind can't possibly be detected even in principle, you somehow want to bullshit your way into saying that despite all this you can know what this Mind who doesn't exist wants. Special cause fallacy applies of course. God, whoops, I mean, Mind created the rules since rules need a rule maker. So who created the Mind? It doesn't need a creator? Then why do the rules/universe?
And call it evolution? If you want to expand your definition of God so widely that it can be equivalent to any arbitrary definition you want, you've rendered the word and concept meaningless. If God = evolution, then let's just call it evolution and be done with it. Why try to tack on some unnecessary supernatural bullshit for no reason except that it makes you feel good and gives you something to justify your own righteousness with?
There are only three "articles of faith" for a Believer. The first is that everything in the universe can be explained in terms of The Invisible Pink Unicorn, regardless of the extent to which we know and understand the Her. The second is that The Invisible Pink Unicorn controls without exception everything in the universe. The third is that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is unchangeable.
Still makes just as much sense, and is just as believable.
If you mean the definiton I found here, which is probably referring to you when it mentions the wrong translation, then while I find it interesting I don't find it particularly enlightening in this context, nor do I see what the relevance is of the definition a Latin word (since I don't and am not speaking in Latin), regardless of how it relates to an English word that has its own current definition today. If you have a better reference than that site, please provide one because that was all I could find with a quick search.
I'm not particularly interested in epistemology or its technical philosophical definitions of knowledge and belief. The plain old English definitions we're all used to serve well enough. I'll look into it anyway though, thanks.:)
If you really can't see the difference between coming to a logical conclusion about something based on history and evidence and taking something "on faith", then either your personal definition of "faith" is so wide as to be completely useless, or you truly are the obtuse idiot you're making yourself out to seem.
Wow, talk about putting the cart before the horse. Have you done any research into neurophysiology at all or are you just pretending to know what you're talking about? IANANP, but the basic concepts of neurophysiology aren't that difficult to come to grips with. How can you possibly separate neuron firing from these things you call thoughts? Do some basic research into how the brain works. I recommend "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins for a pretty understandable primer about how the brain does what it does. If we can manipulate the brain by sticking electrodes in there or poking it with a stick causing artificially generated thoughts (like the girl laughing for no reason at all and finding everything unexplainably funny when they poked her brain in a certain place [citation], or the experiments whereby artificial spiritual experiences or out-of-body sensations can be produced by stimulation directly or with magnetic fields applied to the brain) then what's the use of positing some extra layer of complexity that is not needed and is only trying to create a disconnect where none exists?
And why not be cranky about it? It's time that people get over bullshit like this and stop trying to fill their ever-shrinking gaps with their beloved imaginary friends/ghosts/souls.
Unfortunately, your whole essay was doing great right up until the very last sentence.
Much in the same way, religious types can just as easily point out that there is no possible scientific explanation for the human consciousness.
They can say that there is no possible scientific explanation for consciousness, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. First, you would have to define what consciousness is. Personally, when people are defining and discussing consciousness, I think they are trying to make overly complicated something that pretty easily explained. Consciousness is the process of your brain doing what it does. That's it. The key point is that consciousness is a process, not a thing or a property. Just because we haven't been able to decode the "software" mechanisms of our brain to a sufficient point where we can emulate it fully to the point where an artificial intelligence can be said to be conscious doesn't mean that we eventually won't, and there seems to be nothing in physics or chemistry that theoretically shows it to be impossible.
So let religious types point out their incorrect assumption. What will they say when artificial intelligence comes to bear? They'll probably say "Ha! It required intelligent design, therefore so must we have!"
The real question is: Why is there something, rather than nothing?
You're right, that's a really good question to ask. Physicist have been asking that for a while.
The generally accepted theory is that the universe had a beginning. And that before that was nothing. How did we get something from nothing?
Same thing. Good question, let's study it scientifically and see what we can find out. Or let's just say God did it. Just as useful, right?
Physics also tells us that due to entropy, if matter were eternal then the universe would have died from heat death an eternity ago. All usable energy would have been gone long ago. We can imagine other theories to explain the universe, but no "real scientist" has a viable alternative to the fact that at a particular moment in time the universe began.
[citation needed] Please define "an eternity ago" and "long ago". Then we can see exactly when our universe was supposed to end. I've never really read any physics books that said "Well, everything we know tells us the universe should have ended [insert timeframe here], but we're still here. There's no way our theory can be wrong; the universe just CAN'T exist now, must be God!
Actually, Darwin did suspect there was something like DNA. He obviously didn't and couldn't know about the chemistry that makes it happen, but he did know that there must be some mechanism whereby traits can be passed from generation to generation, as well as mutated.
I suppose we should start believing and taking at face value what all the crazy people locked up in the hospital psych wards say when they tell us they see dancing invisible pink elephants and all other manner of invisible things that we can't find. Afterall, we can't discount their subjective experiences! Not to mention all the other religions who all have similar but different "subjective experiences". I guess they're all correct!
Of course there is. There just isn't any directly objective empirical evidence of it that can be measured.
In other words, of course, the GP was exactly right, and you're just saying "Nah uh! There is 'cause I believe it!"
It's more than jumping to conclusions, it's ignorance. No one's ever located a thought? What do you think all those neuron firings going on inside your thick skull are? Thoughts are intangible the same way flying or any other action is intangible: it's a process, not a thing.
Nope. Instead, it's because there's nothing in physics that says it's impossible. The universe has shown us that intelligence is possible and there seems to be no theoretically reasons why we can't create it artificially. History has shown that we're pretty good at creating what we want when it's shown to be possible (birds can fly, so can we; the sun runs on nuclear power, we can create it also; etc.). Using past trends to make future predicitions, that's part of science too. Now, believing we could create artificial intelligence without all these good reasons that lead me to it, that would be faith. Fortunately, we do have all these good reasons to think it. We in science, we like to call that evidence that supports the theory.
Consciousness isn't a thing, it's a process; the process of all those neuronal connections doing what they do, and how they're connected anatomically. When you die, those processes stop. Hence, bye bye consciousness. You're right that nothing in modern physics sees anything special in us that other complex objects like computers don't have, save for scale and organization. Computers don't yet have the capacity for intelligence, or the organization (software). Stress on the yet. This is why artificial intelligence is inevitable.
How many Christian churches allow an atheist group to come in to their church on Sunday and say their mind, or allow a biology department head one Sunday out of the year to lead a mass and let everyone know how evolution works and tell them that their creationist views are bunk? Any Muslim temples lately that allow some Southern Baptists to come and hold a mass for their Muslim congregation every now and then? It would be interesting to see that statistic. How about Ted Haggard allowing Dawkins to lead one of his services for a change? That would be pretty funny to watch.:)
But why talk about anything "rational", when such an "irrational" reaction like yours is acceptable? After all, EVERY day is bash-a-christian day.
As long as they continue in their irrational beliefs so very publicly and especially attempting to make public policy based on them, then yes, bash-a-Christian day shall continue everyday as well it should. Why should Christians and their beliefs be exempt from criticism and public derision any more than anyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't just that evolution is more logical than Creation, it's that it's backed up by empirical evidence, produces testable predictions, and *gasp* is actual science. I don't know what your definition of creation is, but it's generally accepted to mean that God created man, as opposed to man having evolved. If you think nothing that has been empirically proven is in dispute by creationists, you really need to get out more. A majority of the US population doesn't believe in evolution. 53% of the US population thinks the world is less than 6000 years old. I wouldn't call that a "dispute over small portions". Either you're completely ignorant about what this whole debate has been about or you're just being willfully dishonest.
Are you even aware of the history of the debate? Scopes trial, etc.? If you think that it's science that has been trying to infringe on religion and not the other way around, again you're either completely ignorant or willfully dishonest. It's far from just some fringe minority that is fighting against the science education of their children. If you think Dover, PA and Georgia are insignificant or that Kansas was the only state where people were lobbying for Intelligent Design in the science classroom, you're sorely mistaken. Read up on some history.
Yes, I'd place my trust in the mechanics of science over some claimed word of some imaginary god. The fact that you live in a civilized society and utilize the fruits of those mechanics of science every day shows that implicitly you do as well.p. There's no arguing with someone like you. If you're irrational enough to believe the crap that you're trying to put forth, then no amount of rational argument or evidence is going to change your mind, especially since you obviously don't even understand the mechanics of science that you want to rail against, since you are looking for "conclusive proof" for a scientific theory.
This assumes that different "truths" are equal. The "truth" that the Earth revolves around the Sun is not equal to the "truth" that the Sun revolves around the earth. One is just wrong. Not that somehow both are right, or the middle ground is the best solution, but simply that one is wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that, just don't try teaching it in science class or object to teaching it because your belief system doesn't agree. But what practical difference could it make, right? Well, if your kid wants to grow up to be an astronaut or astrophysicist, it probably makes all the world of difference.
And would it still be best to call them good parents if they were Christian Scientists who allow their kids to die of easily curable illness like measles or mumps because they only allow "healing prayer" and not proper modern medical attention? Or Muslims who teach their kids that American infidels should die because we are the Great Satan? When someone believes that their randomly made-up, make-believe bullshit about their particular version of the invisible man in the sky is the "truth" and this is what he says and wants me to do, you can pretty much justify anything.
The problem is the opposite: people are trying all across the country to force religion into science class with their cintelligent designism. I've never heard of an instance of scientists trying to get a spot on the pulpit to "preach" evolution in church. Why should evolution be compartmentalized into just a specific "evolution area" of science class when the ramifications of the science extend just beyond "new species created here"?
You don't seem to understand or grasp the concept. And that's ok, ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance (aka stupidity) is a different story. Please don't be stupid. Learn what evolution actually posits before you dismiss it as the strawman you think it is.
I hate to trot it out over and over as eventually it will just get dismissed as "evolution rhetoric", but the Talkorigins.org website is a very comprehensive, well-citationed resource on the facts of evolutionary theory. The Index to Creationists' Claims is my favorite as it debunks all the usual arguments right there in a nice, organized manner, complete with citations. Here's a few examples, specific to the arguments you brought up:
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
Transitional fossils are lacking.
So is a bass boat. Get her that for your wedding anniversary and see how well that goes over.
Just what we need, rainbow colored sharks.
Because millions of people around the world listen intently and determine how to live their lives based on those simple statements. Including people who make public policy for our country and think it should be based on their own beliefs.
It would probably say "Feed me, Seymour!"
Just call it a feature!
Hence, religion. Obviously you completely missed the point of the replacement. Just because we have the ability to comprehend, doesn't mean that some uber intelligence must've made things specifically so that we can comprehend them. If, as you say, "There is no way science can observe the existence or non-existence of this Mind," then said Mind by default, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. Yet, despite the fact that you just said that there's no way this supposed Mind can't possibly be detected even in principle, you somehow want to bullshit your way into saying that despite all this you can know what this Mind who doesn't exist wants. Special cause fallacy applies of course. God, whoops, I mean, Mind created the rules since rules need a rule maker. So who created the Mind? It doesn't need a creator? Then why do the rules/universe?
And call it evolution? If you want to expand your definition of God so widely that it can be equivalent to any arbitrary definition you want, you've rendered the word and concept meaningless. If God = evolution, then let's just call it evolution and be done with it. Why try to tack on some unnecessary supernatural bullshit for no reason except that it makes you feel good and gives you something to justify your own righteousness with?
Still makes just as much sense, and is just as believable.
I'm not particularly interested in epistemology or its technical philosophical definitions of knowledge and belief. The plain old English definitions we're all used to serve well enough. I'll look into it anyway though, thanks. :)
If you really can't see the difference between coming to a logical conclusion about something based on history and evidence and taking something "on faith", then either your personal definition of "faith" is so wide as to be completely useless, or you truly are the obtuse idiot you're making yourself out to seem.
And why not be cranky about it? It's time that people get over bullshit like this and stop trying to fill their ever-shrinking gaps with their beloved imaginary friends/ghosts/souls.
They can say that there is no possible scientific explanation for consciousness, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. First, you would have to define what consciousness is. Personally, when people are defining and discussing consciousness, I think they are trying to make overly complicated something that pretty easily explained. Consciousness is the process of your brain doing what it does. That's it. The key point is that consciousness is a process, not a thing or a property. Just because we haven't been able to decode the "software" mechanisms of our brain to a sufficient point where we can emulate it fully to the point where an artificial intelligence can be said to be conscious doesn't mean that we eventually won't, and there seems to be nothing in physics or chemistry that theoretically shows it to be impossible.
So let religious types point out their incorrect assumption. What will they say when artificial intelligence comes to bear? They'll probably say "Ha! It required intelligent design, therefore so must we have!"
Actually, it's a logical conclusion based on the evidence and past experience. Did you not read anything I wrote?
You're right, that's a really good question to ask. Physicist have been asking that for a while.
Same thing. Good question, let's study it scientifically and see what we can find out. Or let's just say God did it. Just as useful, right?
[citation needed] Please define "an eternity ago" and "long ago". Then we can see exactly when our universe was supposed to end. I've never really read any physics books that said "Well, everything we know tells us the universe should have ended [insert timeframe here], but we're still here. There's no way our theory can be wrong; the universe just CAN'T exist now, must be God!
Actually, Darwin did suspect there was something like DNA. He obviously didn't and couldn't know about the chemistry that makes it happen, but he did know that there must be some mechanism whereby traits can be passed from generation to generation, as well as mutated.
In other words, of course, the GP was exactly right, and you're just saying "Nah uh! There is 'cause I believe it!"
It's more than jumping to conclusions, it's ignorance. No one's ever located a thought? What do you think all those neuron firings going on inside your thick skull are? Thoughts are intangible the same way flying or any other action is intangible: it's a process, not a thing.
That's a pretty stupid reason, care to expound upon that? I'm sure it's been debunked before as I can pretty much predict what it will be.
Nope. Instead, it's because there's nothing in physics that says it's impossible. The universe has shown us that intelligence is possible and there seems to be no theoretically reasons why we can't create it artificially. History has shown that we're pretty good at creating what we want when it's shown to be possible (birds can fly, so can we; the sun runs on nuclear power, we can create it also; etc.). Using past trends to make future predicitions, that's part of science too. Now, believing we could create artificial intelligence without all these good reasons that lead me to it, that would be faith. Fortunately, we do have all these good reasons to think it. We in science, we like to call that evidence that supports the theory.
Consciousness isn't a thing, it's a process; the process of all those neuronal connections doing what they do, and how they're connected anatomically. When you die, those processes stop. Hence, bye bye consciousness. You're right that nothing in modern physics sees anything special in us that other complex objects like computers don't have, save for scale and organization. Computers don't yet have the capacity for intelligence, or the organization (software). Stress on the yet. This is why artificial intelligence is inevitable.
Those electochemical activities (not just electrical) ARE your subjective experiences.
How many Christian churches allow an atheist group to come in to their church on Sunday and say their mind, or allow a biology department head one Sunday out of the year to lead a mass and let everyone know how evolution works and tell them that their creationist views are bunk? Any Muslim temples lately that allow some Southern Baptists to come and hold a mass for their Muslim congregation every now and then? It would be interesting to see that statistic. How about Ted Haggard allowing Dawkins to lead one of his services for a change? That would be pretty funny to watch. :)
As long as they continue in their irrational beliefs so very publicly and especially attempting to make public policy based on them, then yes, bash-a-Christian day shall continue everyday as well it should. Why should Christians and their beliefs be exempt from criticism and public derision any more than anyone else?