Look, the Bible is a big book. I think I addressed the Sodom and Gomorrah story, although not the reference to it by Peter and Jude; I confess that I can't, but as I understand it, there are experts who can. Similarly, as I understand it, Paul's references to homosexuality can be understood within the cultural tapestry in which he lived to not be referring to a "modern", monagomous homosexual relationship. As for Leviticus, it says lots of things, which as I understand it Jesus nullified. Eating pork and shellfish is the easiest example (I'm not sure if its in Leviticus, actually, but its in that area.) Consider these lines from Leviticus, near the statement on homosexuality:
exodus 21:17: And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:13: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27: A man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.
I'm not exactly sure what "curseth" means, but I have been pretty disrespectiful of my parents growing up. So have a lot of other people. Should they be put to death? Should we start burning witches again as well? Again, the Bible is a huge book. The question is what one focuses on. Jesus tells us that the most important commandments are to love God, and to love each other. I think that focusing so heavily, and with so much anger (perhaps you are not angry, but many are), on behavior between consenting adults when so many people are starving, or without medical care, well, misses the point. Why not pass a constitutional amendment that guarantees no one would starve? Why wasn't THAT a key issue in this past election?
What's more, so much of what I seem to hear (which is not everything) seems to focus heavily on how terrible people commiting homosexual acts are. I can understand parents being scared that their kids can "catch" homosexuality. I personally believe that homosexuality will turn out to be biological- I frankly think that my own heterosexual attraction is quite hard wired in my brain- and that this is nothing to fear, but I can understand the concern, and I don't think that in this case the term "homophobia" is appropriate.
But for example, this is not what you chose to focus on in your post, at least. You focused on how homosexuals should have to go back go being ashamed for the entire way that they live their lives! This was your first line. Text is a difficult medium, and perhaps in person I would hear the compassion in your voice, but no compassion comes through in your post.
Conservative Christians currently are in the drivers seat with regards to the country. I know that they are good, compassionate people. They could use their clout to help so many. But I think that the political leadership is distracting them with fear, fear of homosexuality and fear of evolution, because these don't cost any money, and don't mean any extra taxes. Jesus was not fearful. Jesus was compassionate. I just wish that conservative America would be the same.
I have to concede the point that if we are to infer God's intention from his design, then it seems reasonable to conclude that he wants heterosexuality. However, this is not Biblical, and research may still very well show that homosexuality is inherently biological as well. I'm not an expert on this, though, so I can't argue for it, and frankly even if there is no biological basis for homosexuality, I think the Bible is still the ultimate authority as far as protestant Christianity goes. As for your comment about the Bible, I'm not a Bilblical scholar, but:
1) As I understand it, the explicit law against lying (or is it laying, I'm never quite sure...) with another man is a matter of ritual, just like, say, not eating pork. After Jesus, it is probably no longer relevant.
2) And, yes, the men of Sodom tried to RAPE an angel. It has never been clear to me how this passage is about homosexual sex, and not about rape. Any psychologist will tell you rape is not about sex, its about power and hate.
3) Tell me, do you believe that when the eldest child disobeys his parents, he should be taken to the edge of the city and stoned? Because that is what the Bible says to do. It also says, as I recall, that women on their period should go to the edge of their city because they are unclean. Do you focus on that as well?
4) Frankly conservative Christian's attitudes on this entire issue, including your post, really disturb me. There is an anger that I find palatible. I know you say "hate the sin, love the sinner." But my grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister for for 60 years. He and my grandmother didn't drink, smoke, dance or play cards. They loved the sinner and hated the sin, so I know what that looks like, and I NEVER heard them say anything about anybody with the same kind of anger and fear that I see, for example, in you post. Hating the sin means hating the suffering that it causes. Tell me, what suffering does homosexuality cause to make you have so much hate and anger for it? (I can understand you simply thinking it wrong; after all, a naive reading of the Bible does support that view.)
I do, incidently, think that it is unfortunate that views unpopular on slashdot get so much negative karma. I think for example that your post very well sums up the view of many people, and since I think it is genuine, I would probably mod it up if I had points.
Yes, well, was that post about homosexuals? Or Jews? Mulsims? Quakers? Christians? Perhaps it was about bleached blonds. Or maybe about people who wear funny contact lenses. Because if it was about bleached blonds, well, then I whole-heartedly agree. I hate them so much... Otherwise, well, I think you should take a good, long, hard look at your post, because it could have been posted by a Nazi. Maybe it was just flame bait. I hope so.
> I believe that the problem here is based on old segregation issues between the sexes....
It must be more than that. I think it is impossible to understate how close our gender is to our identity. Personally, I think there must be something biological in it. What transsexuals are willing to go through in a sex change operation is, I think, proof of that. While I don't doubt that children of same-sex and single-parent families are just as well off as those of opposite-sex couples, from the little bit that I remember of the little bit that I have read, this is probably largely because they are able to pick up gender role-models from elsewhere in the community. For example, I know that my parents raised me in a "gender-neutral" way, ie getting me dolls as well as cars to play with as a child. All the same, after a certain age, I would not play with dolls. (No, He-Man was an "action-figure"...)
Perhaps acting against your built-in sexuality is really the destructive lifestyle. Then what if we all acted against our own sexuality. We would all be extremely unhappy, and I don't know, commit mutual suicide probably, and THIS would be very destructive for the world. Of course, I am assuming that we have a built-in sexuality, and that it can be homosexual. But I think you are really arguing that we do not have built-in sexuality, or that it must be heterosexual. That if everyone was homosexual might mean the end of the human race is irrelevant, I think.
I think the problem of course is that a naive reading of the Bible comes out pretty conclusively against homosexuality. My understanding is that a more sophisticated reading is quite neutral on homosexuality, but many people in the US at least seem to think that when possible, a naive reading is best (case in point: genesis and creationism, of course.) My hope is that studies will eventually conclusively show that there is no correlation between children seeing homosexuals and becoming homosexual themselves. Perhaps this would let people stop being so scared that they, or more importantly their children, will somehow "catch" homosexuality, because I think this is the major impetus against, say, secular gay marriage in this country.
This is also offtopic, but... It is not trivial to determine who "generates" wealth. I am no economics expert, but I know enough to know that this is a terribly complicated question. For example, as I understand it, Karl Marx argued that the workers generate wealth with their labor, and while Lenin's interpretation of Marx's communism has certainly been discredited, I think the observation that without labor there would be no wealth is impossible to argue with. But then, I'm sure any conservative would bring up that without an initial investment of capital, practically there is no way to generate wealth either. But both sides need each other. Here, politics enters. Really, the only thing something like a flat tax does for sure is change who has the power to keep the wealth. Maybe these are also the people who earned and deserve it, but it oversimplifies to say that they "generate it."
The irony of it all is that usually when science goes amok, it is in the form of new, terrible weapons. Chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, biological weapons. And funny, the only talk I remember from Bush about new weapons is how we need to make some new, "bunker-busting" bombs(which sound like the latest laughable WORMS weapon, hehe, but is of course actually just a way of saying "nuclear bombs that we will use".) And when science doesn't threaten our lives as new weapons, it does so as some kind of new, environmental hazzard/pollutant. Again, the only words I seem to hear from this President on THAT is "self-regulation" and "more study needed." At least that is one bit of science we are allowed to study, I guess.
You seem to have thought of this quite a bit, so I have a few questions about the "pro-life" perspective of things. 1) You call an embryo human life. I don't object to this. But what about when, say, sheets of human muscle fiber are grown for research purposes. I'm just curious, do you think these legitimately be called "human life" as well? 2) You claim that we don't know with certainty which "potential" people will become people. But it seems to me, and I'm not trying to be flippant here, but if we abort a fetus, or use it only for research purposes, then don't we in fact know with certainty that this will NOT turn into a person? I'm not even sure whether you can consider such fetuses to be "potential" people (it would depend on what you meant by potential.) But that we don't know which potential people will become people seems to be the crux of your argument. 3) Let us assume that we don't know whether a "potential person" will become a "person." Where do we draw the line? For example, many fertilized eggs (the number 50% pops up in my head, but I don't know if thats right or not) never implant themselves in the uterus wall. Are you suggesting that we should be spend as much medical care (ie money) in saving these fertilized eggs as we do fully "actualized" (versus potential, I guess) people? And what about if the mother's life or health were to be potentially risked for these fertilized egg? (I'm not an MD and don't know if this could actually happen, but we can consider it in theory.) Should the mother be encouraged to risk her health for this fertilized egg? Is it her duty to do so?
Not to mention that even if there was evidence that he was resurrected, it seems that in practice it would always be more plausible to assume that you were somehow fooled or swindled.
But God is more than all powerful. He is also the ultimate moral authority. In other words, it seems to me not enough to scientifically prove that Jesus was resurrected (which I suppose could in principle be possible to do.) It is the cosmic significance of Jesus's resurrection that is important, and this still cannot be scientifically investigated.
But if most scientists believe in an intelligent designer in the sense that they believe ID, why are there not scientific papers being published supporting ID instead of evolution? This is what I was trying to say.
As for science bringing bad things- I agree absolutely. The second half of the twentieth century was defined by the threat of nuclear anhilation. I'm not sure that I know the examples you refer to with the sicknesses, but with out a doubt the war machine we have used science to create are horrifying. Of course, that blame lies with all of us, not just with scientists. But these bad things don't really come from science; they come from people. Indeed, I think that regardless of whether you believe in God or not, the image of fallen Man is a powerful one that holds a lot of truth. I am not suggesting we completely trust the scientific community to tell us how to USE these scientific models. In fact, I think quite the opposite. Everyone must understand science to be able to insure that it is used ethically. For example, as I understand the history, as people learned how devastating a nuclear war would be, they became more determined that one would not occur. But the question in ID vs evolution is NOT which is more ethical. Perhaps you find this perverse, but the only questions one can ask when evaluating evolution are along the lines of: 1) does it make predictions that can be disproved, and 2) are those predictions disproved?
In the 21st century, biology in particular will present us with many ethical dilemma. I wish that the non-scientific community would focus on those concerns, and I think this evolution-vs-ID "debate" is distracting from that. For example, imagine if all this public energy were spent learning about genetically-modified crops, or the potential of stem cell research. Both of these are real ethical challenges in science that the public should be aware of. But to understand both of them, you have to speak the langue of biology, which is evolution.
First of all, nothing in science is really "proved". One does not look to prove the theory of natural selection. One conducts tests to disprove it. This is what scientists really mean by proof for natural selection. But this is not enough. Evolution (or any new theory) must add something to scientific thought, it must in essence make new predictions possible, and those predictions must not be disproved.
Second, I disagree with the notion that evolution is only still supported because Science is a conservative institution that does not allow new ideas, which seems what you want to show with the interview you quoted. Science is FULL of examples where individuals with revolutionary ideas shattered any preconceived ideas. Einstien's theory of light, Einstien's theory of gravity, the quantum mechanics of the 20th century, the experiments that disproved the idea that life of small things (eg maggots, bacteria, etc) spontanesouly appears with which Pastuer was involved, Darwin himself and evolution, Galileo/Newton and their theory of the solar system, the list goes on and on. These are just examples that I can think of off the top of my head.
Of course, Science is young. Mathematics has stories going back beyond that. The Greeks literally had an entire religion (the Pythagoreans, I believe) based upon the idea that a number can be represented as fractions of whole numbers. Then someone disproved this idea, and the religion was gone.
All of these revolutionary thinkers are remembered in history. If any scientists could disprove evolution, he or she too would go down in history as one of the great scientific geniuses who changed the face of biology. So history tells us that if indeed ID is the better scientific theory, any biologist has both the means (if he is smart enough) and the motivation to supplant evolution with ID. Since no one has, I can only conclude that ID is not the better theory. This may change. I am not a biology expert. But I trust the scientific journals to filter out the scientific theories that give me my antibiotics, my vaccinations, etc. How can you ask me to not trust them in the same way on evolution?
You say that you put do not put faith in science, but but I presume that you use vaccinations, antibiotics, MRI machines, etc. The people who are convinced by evolution are the same ones who create these things. Assuming you make use of modern medicine, I don't understand how you trust their judgment in these things, but think they are somehow wrong about natural selection. Not to mention computers, jets, cars, etc.
As for the school curriculum- the purpose of high school science classes is to teach what is accepted by mainstream scientists so that the students can communicate with that community in the future, and maybe even grow up and become part of it. The fact is, the community supports natural selection/evolution.
Finally, strictly speaking, one does not "prove" scientific theories. One only disproves them. In this sense, there is not proof for evolution, so you are correct. What scientists mean when they refer to lots of "evidence" for evolution is that many observations have been made that COULD have disproved evolution, but did not. I have never even heard of a single observation that could disprove ID or creationism- hence, it is given little credibility in scientific circles.
You joke, but Newton actually wondered whether the solar system might remain stable (ie, the planets kept their more or less constant orbits) only through the will of God.
I don't think its immediately clear whether Western software companies are more important to China, or vice versa. I would imagine that to grow its economy, China doesn't want to to reinvent the wheel, it wants to use proven companies. But I do not think that is the point. Rather, the point is whether Western software companies are important enough for China to use them even though they are not explicity "supporting" suppression of free speech.
I don't understand exactly what it means for China to be MFN, but I don't think it means our companies ought to be able to sell it, or ANY country, services to suppress its people's free thoughts. You seem to frame the issue as if it is one of wanting Microsoft, Google et al to sneak into China and start secretly breaking Chinese law. I don't think this is being suggested. The article does not talk of Microsoft and Google, eg, sponsoring anti-government web sites. The idea is for US companies to say "Our services don't include explicit suppression of free speech. If that isn't OK, you need to do business with someone else."
Where all this scares me is with respect to medical care. My understanding is that while there are guidelines on how many hours, eg, medical residents can work, at least in many cases it is cheaper for hospitals to pay the fine than to hire more residents. I have heard of studies comparing sleep deprivation to being drunk for a long time. Hopefully they are starting to add up, and we'll stop having to wonder whether the doctor looking at us in the emergency room hasn't slept in the last 24 hours.
It seems to me that it is men and women, not ideas, that are dangerous, though the latter can inspire the former. But when we are afraid to think, then we do not question authority, and it (and those who control it) becomes corrupt. This is why this article makes me shudder. Our government was founded on the principle of NOT being the thought police. Perhaps investigating and intimidating kids to study communism is a necessary evil, but there is no denying it is an evil all the same.
A little more about my comment 2: My point (which I clearly made poorly) was that it is the theology, the church, that puts evolution/natural selection before Genesis. When Copernicus published his model for the sun-centered earth, it did not cause problems for peoples faith. Then, around Galileo's time, it did, Now, it does not again. The scientific model of the sun-centered solar system has not changed. Rather, the culture of the church and of the society has. It is that culture which is placing the model of evolution and natural selection at odds with Genesis now.
Now I am sure that many scientists would personally love to disprove evolution. Whoever did it would doubtless win the nobel prize, and go down in history as, well, the person who reshaped biology. This has not happened, so evidently they believe that as a model, evolution is consistent. Why do you doubt their judgement so much? Presumably, you trust them on, say, antibiotics and TB vaccinations. You may not believe evolution to be "true" (whatever you think "true" means), and the scientific method can never prove anything true, but why would their models be consistent on so many things, and yet strangely inconsistent in evolution?
In any case, this doesn't mean people can't talk about, say, ID. There is no censorship. Scientists are simply not convinced of the scientific validity of ID, and don't want it replacing high school biology. And in any case, teachers can still teach ID if they want to. Scientists simply don't want it put in the curriculum that they are required to.
Finally, your miraculous survival of spinal menengitus (I don't know how to spell it either). Science has almost nothing interesting to say about this; the classification for this in the scientific language is to call you a "statistical anomoly." Clearly, this does not mean in the least that we cannot turn to other sources to try to say something interesting the fact that you are alive today. I for one think we should. But I at least fail to see what this has to do with evolution?
In what way do you think these biases come in? I am genuinely curious. I don't remember my high school biology class being taught with this bias. But then, you may consider me biased towards materialism (which is fine if you think that) so I would not notice it then, I suppose.
What do you mean by "causes" behind the changes? When I think about what "cause" means, I tend to define a "cause" such that if event B necessarily follows event A, we say that event A "causes" event B. While I suppose this assumes that events must have natural causes, I don't see how this makes a statement about materialism one way or the other. Would you? I'm not a professional philosopher of course.
In this sense, I would think that quite a bit IS said about what causes the changes in the fossil record, namely Darwin's natural selection. Natural selection does assume natural causes like any scientific theory, but again I don't see how this is inherently materialistic.
Why do you think evolution is a subset of materialism-based philosophy? I don't think it is. Scientific models don't make any assumptions about philosophical materialism.
With all due respect, there is no debate. There have been no articles in respectable scientific journals that support ID. If a biologist could convincingly argue agains evolution, he/she would win the nobel prize, and go down in the history books. None have.
"An evolutionist believes that the eye evolved over time through mutations even though it does not make any scientific sense nor is it observable." First of all, instead of "evolutionist" you might as well say "biologist." So yes, biologists believe they have a convincing argument for how the eye evolved in fact. If you don't believe them, fine, that is certainly your right, but don't make it out like there is a debate within the scientific community.
You also do not establish why evolution discounts a creator. I don't think it does. So even there is not even a debate in the sense that evolution says there is no creator. It simply doesn't explicity say there was a creator.
There is certainly (and has been since, well, I think Aristotle at least) an argument over philosophical materialism, or things like it. But this is a philosophy argument that only accidentally has something to do with evolution.
1) The scientific method assumes "natural" causes for observed phenomenon. No references to the supernatural allowed. You are free to disagree with this approace, but it is the one used by scientists since Newton. Philosophically, whether this assumption is "correct" is certainly a complex question, but its not one that science tries to answer, or, frankly, cares about.
2) "Evolution is a god as it puts its truth before that of Gods truth." When Copernicus released his Sun-centered model with the Church's blessing, there was little fanfare. It wasn't until Galileo that it was banned. All of a sudden, the Reformation and other political pressures caused PEOPLE to give Copernicus' MODEL of the universe theological weight as a threat to the authority of the church. This challenge did not come from the MODEL itself because all a MODEL seeks is consistency with the data and, in the case of a scientific MODEL, the hope that by some miracle it might be consistent with future data. Similarly, people are scared of evolution now. But evolution is just a MODEL that seeks consistency with the data. Why the fear? I think it must be because the achievements of modern biology threaten Genesis' relevancy by making it seem less useful. But this is again PEOPLE putting evolution before Genesis. THIS, the THEOLOGICAL ramifications of Genesis not being a good model for the modern biologist, must be addressed, and by ministers and priests. When scientists are concerned with more than whether evolution fits the observed data, they have become philosophers.
3) "If science were done properly and without the bias-ness against things like a god (or the God) creating, then science would get a lot farther." Science was originally called NATURAL philosophy. It studies only natural phenomenon. And how much farther would science be? How much more could it have accomplished over the last 300 years, to go from riding horses to landing on the moon, or from bleeding with leeches to antibiotics.
4) "Sometimes there is no justification but faith." Yes, we need faith to justify the value of the human soul, or that we can triump despite the fragility of the human condition. It is not at all clear that we need faith to measure the age of the earth any more than we need it to make a jet engine.
5) At the end of Contact, Jodie Foster's character didn't try to get high schools to teach the existence of ET's even though she had not published in any scientific journals...
Also, about your comment about a "deterministic" universe or a "random" one. I'm not sure what you mean by these terms. Natural selection assumes randomness in the sense that the genetic mutations that lead to changes in species are uncorrelated with their survival value. I think you mean determinism in this sense: the world is deterministic if knowledge of the state of the universe at its beginning combined with knowledge of all physical laws means that you have knowledge of the state of the universe throughout all time. This has been referred to as "Newtonian determinism", and was the way physicists at least, and I assume biologists as well, saw the universe until the 20th century, well after Darwin. Natural selection does not in any sense depend on this Newtonian determinism.
Incidentally, Newtonian was in some sense disproved by an experiment testing something called Bell's theorem in the 80's. However, what is meant by "determinism" here is very technical, and I would not read too much into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, the Bible is a big book. I think I addressed the Sodom and Gomorrah story, although not the reference to it by Peter and Jude; I confess that I can't, but as I understand it, there are experts who can. Similarly, as I understand it, Paul's references to homosexuality can be understood within the cultural tapestry in which he lived to not be referring to a "modern", monagomous homosexual relationship. As for Leviticus, it says lots of things, which as I understand it Jesus nullified. Eating pork and shellfish is the easiest example (I'm not sure if its in Leviticus, actually, but its in that area.) Consider these lines from Leviticus, near the statement on homosexuality:
exodus 21:17: And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Leviticus 20:13: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:27: A man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.
I'm not exactly sure what "curseth" means, but I have been pretty disrespectiful of my parents growing up. So have a lot of other people. Should they be put to death? Should we start burning witches again as well? Again, the Bible is a huge book. The question is what one focuses on. Jesus tells us that the most important commandments are to love God, and to love each other. I think that focusing so heavily, and with so much anger (perhaps you are not angry, but many are), on behavior between consenting adults when so many people are starving, or without medical care, well, misses the point. Why not pass a constitutional amendment that guarantees no one would starve? Why wasn't THAT a key issue in this past election?
What's more, so much of what I seem to hear (which is not everything) seems to focus heavily on how terrible people commiting homosexual acts are. I can understand parents being scared that their kids can "catch" homosexuality. I personally believe that homosexuality will turn out to be biological- I frankly think that my own heterosexual attraction is quite hard wired in my brain- and that this is nothing to fear, but I can understand the concern, and I don't think that in this case the term "homophobia" is appropriate.
But for example, this is not what you chose to focus on in your post, at least. You focused on how homosexuals should have to go back go being ashamed for the entire way that they live their lives! This was your first line. Text is a difficult medium, and perhaps in person I would hear the compassion in your voice, but no compassion comes through in your post.
Conservative Christians currently are in the drivers seat with regards to the country. I know that they are good, compassionate people. They could use their clout to help so many. But I think that the political leadership is distracting them with fear, fear of homosexuality and fear of evolution, because these don't cost any money, and don't mean any extra taxes. Jesus was not fearful. Jesus was compassionate. I just wish that conservative America would be the same.
I have to concede the point that if we are to infer God's intention from his design, then it seems reasonable to conclude that he wants heterosexuality. However, this is not Biblical, and research may still very well show that homosexuality is inherently biological as well. I'm not an expert on this, though, so I can't argue for it, and frankly even if there is no biological basis for homosexuality, I think the Bible is still the ultimate authority as far as protestant Christianity goes. As for your comment about the Bible, I'm not a Bilblical scholar, but:
1) As I understand it, the explicit law against lying (or is it laying, I'm never quite sure...) with another man is a matter of ritual, just like, say, not eating pork. After Jesus, it is probably no longer relevant.
2) And, yes, the men of Sodom tried to RAPE an angel. It has never been clear to me how this passage is about homosexual sex, and not about rape. Any psychologist will tell you rape is not about sex, its about power and hate.
3) Tell me, do you believe that when the eldest child disobeys his parents, he should be taken to the edge of the city and stoned? Because that is what the Bible says to do. It also says, as I recall, that women on their period should go to the edge of their city because they are unclean. Do you focus on that as well?
4) Frankly conservative Christian's attitudes on this entire issue, including your post, really disturb me. There is an anger that I find palatible. I know you say "hate the sin, love the sinner." But my grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister for for 60 years. He and my grandmother didn't drink, smoke, dance or play cards. They loved the sinner and hated the sin, so I know what that looks like, and I NEVER heard them say anything about anybody with the same kind of anger and fear that I see, for example, in you post. Hating the sin means hating the suffering that it causes. Tell me, what suffering does homosexuality cause to make you have so much hate and anger for it? (I can understand you simply thinking it wrong; after all, a naive reading of the Bible does support that view.)
I do, incidently, think that it is unfortunate that views unpopular on slashdot get so much negative karma. I think for example that your post very well sums up the view of many people, and since I think it is genuine, I would probably mod it up if I had points.
Now if only we had a seedless watermelon...
Yes, well, was that post about homosexuals? Or Jews? Mulsims? Quakers? Christians? Perhaps it was about bleached blonds. Or maybe about people who wear funny contact lenses. Because if it was about bleached blonds, well, then I whole-heartedly agree. I hate them so much... Otherwise, well, I think you should take a good, long, hard look at your post, because it could have been posted by a Nazi. Maybe it was just flame bait. I hope so.
> I believe that the problem here is based on old segregation issues between the sexes....
It must be more than that. I think it is impossible to understate how close our gender is to our identity. Personally, I think there must be something biological in it. What transsexuals are willing to go through in a sex change operation is, I think, proof of that. While I don't doubt that children of same-sex and single-parent families are just as well off as those of opposite-sex couples, from the little bit that I remember of the little bit that I have read, this is probably largely because they are able to pick up gender role-models from elsewhere in the community. For example, I know that my parents raised me in a "gender-neutral" way, ie getting me dolls as well as cars to play with as a child. All the same, after a certain age, I would not play with dolls. (No, He-Man was an "action-figure"...)
Perhaps acting against your built-in sexuality is really the destructive lifestyle. Then what if we all acted against our own sexuality. We would all be extremely unhappy, and I don't know, commit mutual suicide probably, and THIS would be very destructive for the world. Of course, I am assuming that we have a built-in sexuality, and that it can be homosexual. But I think you are really arguing that we do not have built-in sexuality, or that it must be heterosexual. That if everyone was homosexual might mean the end of the human race is irrelevant, I think.
I think the problem of course is that a naive reading of the Bible comes out pretty conclusively against homosexuality. My understanding is that a more sophisticated reading is quite neutral on homosexuality, but many people in the US at least seem to think that when possible, a naive reading is best (case in point: genesis and creationism, of course.) My hope is that studies will eventually conclusively show that there is no correlation between children seeing homosexuals and becoming homosexual themselves. Perhaps this would let people stop being so scared that they, or more importantly their children, will somehow "catch" homosexuality, because I think this is the major impetus against, say, secular gay marriage in this country.
This is also offtopic, but... It is not trivial to determine who "generates" wealth. I am no economics expert, but I know enough to know that this is a terribly complicated question. For example, as I understand it, Karl Marx argued that the workers generate wealth with their labor, and while Lenin's interpretation of Marx's communism has certainly been discredited, I think the observation that without labor there would be no wealth is impossible to argue with. But then, I'm sure any conservative would bring up that without an initial investment of capital, practically there is no way to generate wealth either. But both sides need each other. Here, politics enters. Really, the only thing something like a flat tax does for sure is change who has the power to keep the wealth. Maybe these are also the people who earned and deserve it, but it oversimplifies to say that they "generate it."
The irony of it all is that usually when science goes amok, it is in the form of new, terrible weapons. Chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, biological weapons. And funny, the only talk I remember from Bush about new weapons is how we need to make some new, "bunker-busting" bombs(which sound like the latest laughable WORMS weapon, hehe, but is of course actually just a way of saying "nuclear bombs that we will use".) And when science doesn't threaten our lives as new weapons, it does so as some kind of new, environmental hazzard/pollutant. Again, the only words I seem to hear from this President on THAT is "self-regulation" and "more study needed." At least that is one bit of science we are allowed to study, I guess.
You seem to have thought of this quite a bit, so I have a few questions about the "pro-life" perspective of things.
1) You call an embryo human life. I don't object to this. But what about when, say, sheets of human muscle fiber are grown for research purposes. I'm just curious, do you think these legitimately be called "human life" as well?
2) You claim that we don't know with certainty which "potential" people will become people. But it seems to me, and I'm not trying to be flippant here, but if we abort a fetus, or use it only for research purposes, then don't we in fact know with certainty that this will NOT turn into a person? I'm not even sure whether you can consider such fetuses to be "potential" people (it would depend on what you meant by potential.) But that we don't know which potential people will become people seems to be the crux of your argument.
3) Let us assume that we don't know whether a "potential person" will become a "person." Where do we draw the line? For example, many fertilized eggs (the number 50% pops up in my head, but I don't know if thats right or not) never implant themselves in the uterus wall. Are you suggesting that we should be spend as much medical care (ie money) in saving these fertilized eggs as we do fully "actualized" (versus potential, I guess) people? And what about if the mother's life or health were to be potentially risked for these fertilized egg? (I'm not an MD and don't know if this could actually happen, but we can consider it in theory.) Should the mother be encouraged to risk her health for this fertilized egg? Is it her duty to do so?
Not to mention that even if there was evidence that he was resurrected, it seems that in practice it would always be more plausible to assume that you were somehow fooled or swindled.
But God is more than all powerful. He is also the ultimate moral authority. In other words, it seems to me not enough to scientifically prove that Jesus was resurrected (which I suppose could in principle be possible to do.) It is the cosmic significance of Jesus's resurrection that is important, and this still cannot be scientifically investigated.
But if most scientists believe in an intelligent designer in the sense that they believe ID, why are there not scientific papers being published supporting ID instead of evolution? This is what I was trying to say.
As for science bringing bad things- I agree absolutely. The second half of the twentieth century was defined by the threat of nuclear anhilation. I'm not sure that I know the examples you refer to with the sicknesses, but with out a doubt the war machine we have used science to create are horrifying. Of course, that blame lies with all of us, not just with scientists. But these bad things don't really come from science; they come from people. Indeed, I think that regardless of whether you believe in God or not, the image of fallen Man is a powerful one that holds a lot of truth. I am not suggesting we completely trust the scientific community to tell us how to USE these scientific models. In fact, I think quite the opposite. Everyone must understand science to be able to insure that it is used ethically. For example, as I understand the history, as people learned how devastating a nuclear war would be, they became more determined that one would not occur. But the question in ID vs evolution is NOT which is more ethical. Perhaps you find this perverse, but the only questions one can ask when evaluating evolution are along the lines of: 1) does it make predictions that can be disproved, and 2) are those predictions disproved?
In the 21st century, biology in particular will present us with many ethical dilemma. I wish that the non-scientific community would focus on those concerns, and I think this evolution-vs-ID "debate" is distracting from that. For example, imagine if all this public energy were spent learning about genetically-modified crops, or the potential of stem cell research. Both of these are real ethical challenges in science that the public should be aware of. But to understand both of them, you have to speak the langue of biology, which is evolution.
First of all, nothing in science is really "proved". One does not look to prove the theory of natural selection. One conducts tests to disprove it. This is what scientists really mean by proof for natural selection. But this is not enough. Evolution (or any new theory) must add something to scientific thought, it must in essence make new predictions possible, and those predictions must not be disproved.
Second, I disagree with the notion that evolution is only still supported because Science is a conservative institution that does not allow new ideas, which seems what you want to show with the interview you quoted. Science is FULL of examples where individuals with revolutionary ideas shattered any preconceived ideas. Einstien's theory of light, Einstien's theory of gravity, the quantum mechanics of the 20th century, the experiments that disproved the idea that life of small things (eg maggots, bacteria, etc) spontanesouly appears with which Pastuer was involved, Darwin himself and evolution, Galileo/Newton and their theory of the solar system, the list goes on and on. These are just examples that I can think of off the top of my head.
Of course, Science is young. Mathematics has stories going back beyond that. The Greeks literally had an entire religion (the Pythagoreans, I believe) based upon the idea that a number can be represented as fractions of whole numbers. Then someone disproved this idea, and the religion was gone.
All of these revolutionary thinkers are remembered in history. If any scientists could disprove evolution, he or she too would go down in history as one of the great scientific geniuses who changed the face of biology. So history tells us that if indeed ID is the better scientific theory, any biologist has both the means (if he is smart enough) and the motivation to supplant evolution with ID. Since no one has, I can only conclude that ID is not the better theory. This may change. I am not a biology expert. But I trust the scientific journals to filter out the scientific theories that give me my antibiotics, my vaccinations, etc. How can you ask me to not trust them in the same way on evolution?
You say that you put do not put faith in science, but but I presume that you use vaccinations, antibiotics, MRI machines, etc. The people who are convinced by evolution are the same ones who create these things. Assuming you make use of modern medicine, I don't understand how you trust their judgment in these things, but think they are somehow wrong about natural selection. Not to mention computers, jets, cars, etc.
As for the school curriculum- the purpose of high school science classes is to teach what is accepted by mainstream scientists so that the students can communicate with that community in the future, and maybe even grow up and become part of it. The fact is, the community supports natural selection/evolution.
Finally, strictly speaking, one does not "prove" scientific theories. One only disproves them. In this sense, there is not proof for evolution, so you are correct. What scientists mean when they refer to lots of "evidence" for evolution is that many observations have been made that COULD have disproved evolution, but did not. I have never even heard of a single observation that could disprove ID or creationism- hence, it is given little credibility in scientific circles.
You joke, but Newton actually wondered whether the solar system might remain stable (ie, the planets kept their more or less constant orbits) only through the will of God.
I don't think its immediately clear whether Western software companies are more important to China, or vice versa. I would imagine that to grow its economy, China doesn't want to to reinvent the wheel, it wants to use proven companies. But I do not think that is the point. Rather, the point is whether Western software companies are important enough for China to use them even though they are not explicity "supporting" suppression of free speech.
I don't understand exactly what it means for China to be MFN, but I don't think it means our companies ought to be able to sell it, or ANY country, services to suppress its people's free thoughts. You seem to frame the issue as if it is one of wanting Microsoft, Google et al to sneak into China and start secretly breaking Chinese law. I don't think this is being suggested. The article does not talk of Microsoft and Google, eg, sponsoring anti-government web sites. The idea is for US companies to say "Our services don't include explicit suppression of free speech. If that isn't OK, you need to do business with someone else."
Where all this scares me is with respect to medical care. My understanding is that while there are guidelines on how many hours, eg, medical residents can work, at least in many cases it is cheaper for hospitals to pay the fine than to hire more residents. I have heard of studies comparing sleep deprivation to being drunk for a long time. Hopefully they are starting to add up, and we'll stop having to wonder whether the doctor looking at us in the emergency room hasn't slept in the last 24 hours.
It seems to me that it is men and women, not ideas, that are dangerous, though the latter can inspire the former. But when we are afraid to think, then we do not question authority, and it (and those who control it) becomes corrupt. This is why this article makes me shudder. Our government was founded on the principle of NOT being the thought police. Perhaps investigating and intimidating kids to study communism is a necessary evil, but there is no denying it is an evil all the same.
A little more about my comment 2: My point (which I clearly made poorly) was that it is the theology, the church, that puts evolution/natural selection before Genesis. When Copernicus published his model for the sun-centered earth, it did not cause problems for peoples faith. Then, around Galileo's time, it did, Now, it does not again. The scientific model of the sun-centered solar system has not changed. Rather, the culture of the church and of the society has. It is that culture which is placing the model of evolution and natural selection at odds with Genesis now.
Now I am sure that many scientists would personally love to disprove evolution. Whoever did it would doubtless win the nobel prize, and go down in history as, well, the person who reshaped biology. This has not happened, so evidently they believe that as a model, evolution is consistent. Why do you doubt their judgement so much? Presumably, you trust them on, say, antibiotics and TB vaccinations. You may not believe evolution to be "true" (whatever you think "true" means), and the scientific method can never prove anything true, but why would their models be consistent on so many things, and yet strangely inconsistent in evolution?
In any case, this doesn't mean people can't talk about, say, ID. There is no censorship. Scientists are simply not convinced of the scientific validity of ID, and don't want it replacing high school biology. And in any case, teachers can still teach ID if they want to. Scientists simply don't want it put in the curriculum that they are required to.
Finally, your miraculous survival of spinal menengitus (I don't know how to spell it either). Science has almost nothing interesting to say about this; the classification for this in the scientific language is to call you a "statistical anomoly." Clearly, this does not mean in the least that we cannot turn to other sources to try to say something interesting the fact that you are alive today. I for one think we should. But I at least fail to see what this has to do with evolution?
In what way do you think these biases come in? I am genuinely curious. I don't remember my high school biology class being taught with this bias. But then, you may consider me biased towards materialism (which is fine if you think that) so I would not notice it then, I suppose.
What do you mean by "causes" behind the changes? When I think about what "cause" means, I tend to define a "cause" such that if event B necessarily follows event A, we say that event A "causes" event B. While I suppose this assumes that events must have natural causes, I don't see how this makes a statement about materialism one way or the other. Would you? I'm not a professional philosopher of course.
In this sense, I would think that quite a bit IS said about what causes the changes in the fossil record, namely Darwin's natural selection. Natural selection does assume natural causes like any scientific theory, but again I don't see how this is inherently materialistic.
Why do you think evolution is a subset of materialism-based philosophy? I don't think it is. Scientific models don't make any assumptions about philosophical materialism.
With all due respect, there is no debate. There have been no articles in respectable scientific journals that support ID. If a biologist could convincingly argue agains evolution, he/she would win the nobel prize, and go down in the history books. None have.
"An evolutionist believes that the eye evolved over time through mutations even though it does not make any scientific sense nor is it observable." First of all, instead of "evolutionist" you might as well say "biologist." So yes, biologists believe they have a convincing argument for how the eye evolved in fact. If you don't believe them, fine, that is certainly your right, but don't make it out like there is a debate within the scientific community.
You also do not establish why evolution discounts a creator. I don't think it does. So even there is not even a debate in the sense that evolution says there is no creator. It simply doesn't explicity say there was a creator.
There is certainly (and has been since, well, I think Aristotle at least) an argument over philosophical materialism, or things like it. But this is a philosophy argument that only accidentally has something to do with evolution.
1) The scientific method assumes "natural" causes for observed phenomenon. No references to the supernatural allowed. You are free to disagree with this approace, but it is the one used by scientists since Newton. Philosophically, whether this assumption is "correct" is certainly a complex question, but its not one that science tries to answer, or, frankly, cares about.
2) "Evolution is a god as it puts its truth before that of Gods truth." When Copernicus released his Sun-centered model with the Church's blessing, there was little fanfare. It wasn't until Galileo that it was banned. All of a sudden, the Reformation and other political pressures caused PEOPLE to give Copernicus' MODEL of the universe theological weight as a threat to the authority of the church. This challenge did not come from the MODEL itself because all a MODEL seeks is consistency with the data and, in the case of a scientific MODEL, the hope that by some miracle it might be consistent with future data. Similarly, people are scared of evolution now. But evolution is just a MODEL that seeks consistency with the data. Why the fear? I think it must be because the achievements of modern biology threaten Genesis' relevancy by making it seem less useful. But this is again PEOPLE putting evolution before Genesis. THIS, the THEOLOGICAL ramifications of Genesis not being a good model for the modern biologist, must be addressed, and by ministers and priests. When scientists are concerned with more than whether evolution fits the observed data, they have become philosophers.
3) "If science were done properly and without the bias-ness against things like a god (or the God) creating, then science would get a lot farther." Science was originally called NATURAL philosophy. It studies only natural phenomenon. And how much farther would science be? How much more could it have accomplished over the last 300 years, to go from riding horses to landing on the moon, or from bleeding with leeches to antibiotics.
4) "Sometimes there is no justification but faith." Yes, we need faith to justify the value of the human soul, or that we can triump despite the fragility of the human condition. It is not at all clear that we need faith to measure the age of the earth any more than we need it to make a jet engine.
5) At the end of Contact, Jodie Foster's character didn't try to get high schools to teach the existence of ET's even though she had not published in any scientific journals...
Also, about your comment about a "deterministic" universe or a "random" one. I'm not sure what you mean by these terms. Natural selection assumes randomness in the sense that the genetic mutations that lead to changes in species are uncorrelated with their survival value. I think you mean determinism in this sense: the world is deterministic if knowledge of the state of the universe at its beginning combined with knowledge of all physical laws means that you have knowledge of the state of the universe throughout all time. This has been referred to as "Newtonian determinism", and was the way physicists at least, and I assume biologists as well, saw the universe until the 20th century, well after Darwin. Natural selection does not in any sense depend on this Newtonian determinism.
Incidentally, Newtonian was in some sense disproved by an experiment testing something called Bell's theorem in the 80's. However, what is meant by "determinism" here is very technical, and I would not read too much into it.