I'm posting this here, because I haven't figured out yet, how to get back to the appropriate spot.
I apologize. I shouldn't have made this comment. However frustrating it is to watch someone so smuggly bait the issue, that doesn't mean he or she is stupid. At least, it isn't my call, or polite, to say so.
You are right, for the most part, but this particular bunch of misanthropes has figured out that if they can teach this nonsense to our children, they'll win in the end. And they are right.
Actually, the Bible only mentions homosexuality in a couple places. The first was in a context where everything the people in question were doing was painted and tainted by their evil intent. The other can be interpretted as the (possibly faked, as I understand the discussion of scholars) personal opinion of one evangelical. And we know what that's worth.
In other words, the Bible is actually remarkably silent about homosexuality, for it being such a tremendous evil. Of course, little being said in the Bible, there is much room for a modern evangelical to elaborate on.
I think you made your point. It just wasn't sharper than the one at the top of his head.
That's the true shame of all this, as you (and others) have pointed out. You can't win. Evidence is only evidence to him if he says it is. And that won't happen; not because he's stupid (I don't think he really, quite, is), but because he....
Ah, hell. You're right. He's stupid. He knows not what evil he does.
But they are trying to do these things, aren't they.
All the emphasis on evolution has actually come from folks like you. And it has been negative. Teachers don't emphasize it, they present the facts. Providing that you can get a textbook into school that even mentions the word. If it is "de-emphasized" any further, we're going to have to dig up our hidden books from the back yard when you-all ain't looking.
And you aren't at all interested in teaching people to "decide for themselves". You're interested in converting a scientific investigation into a religious crusade that completely undermines the very concepts and precepts of science and critical thought. You want your religious beliefs put on the same footing as science, but without the accompanying peer review.
I'll agree to this, if you'll grant the same rights to every other religion. And I mean every other religion, from the Muslims through the Budhists to the Pacific island Cargo Cults and the Australian aboriginees.
Because that's the door you are opening, and denial of the same expression to those people is strictly illegal under the changes that you are proposing. So think hard about this. I'm pretty sure this isn't what you want, but I'm not sure you're capable of seeing the consequences.
What you really mean is that you want the right to ignore whatever details of reality disagree with your religious viewpoint, and to deny to anyone else the right to that same information.
I'm not telling you what church to attend, or what you have to think and believe. But that is exactly what you are trying to do to me and my children and grandchildren.
If your faith is so fragile that you can't afford to let other people look at the facts, the process by which those facts were arrived at, and to make up their own minds about what they mean, then you would simply be pitiful. The true pity is that you believe you have the right to restrict that information and choice from others, and this (unfortunately) means that you have to be opposed so that the rest of us can maintain our own rights and religious freedom.
Although you claim that your religious freedom is being oppressed, the truth is just the opposite.
It would still turn the scientific world on its ear. For one thing, it would raise the possibility that causality doesn't hold. There is more than one way to interpret that evidence, and time travel is actually more probable than a specific species evolving twice, separated by 60 million years.
Actually, ID is not falsifiable in this fashion. All the ID proponents would need to do is point to another example that science hasn't provided an explanation for, and go on from there. Where a single human skeleton in a T-Rex belly would certainly throw the scientific world on its ear (not just the biologists & evolution), there is no such yes/no test for ID.
Evolutionary theorists are not free to say 'well, evolution is true in every case but this one'. ID proponents can. They can even back up and say that evolution applies to all creatures but (say) homo-sapiens. That makes it religion, not science.
Is it? Look at chimp behavior in the wild (yes, they have murder, and murder serves a "social' purpose: it keeps other chimps in line and preserves the power (and thus breeding viability) of the dominant 'clique'.).
We've come up with a few alternative reasons and (mostly) jointly decided that it is a bad thing. But we still do it, and then we think of excuses for it (look at Rwanda, or Iraq, for that matter).
You are making a general statement that isn't true in the specific.
No. Color vision is certainly not a 'disease'. Neither is hair color or skin color or whether or not you can curl you tongue.
A mutation is simply a change. Whether or not it is a disease is determined by whether or not it i s harmful to the expressing creature/person.
The point is that ID does not require any such prediction. God (or whomever) didn't have to design life this way. In order for evolution to hold as a theory, the DNA fingerprints did have to exist.
This doesn't rule out that the designer might have done such a thing, only that the presence of DNA fingerprints is completely neutral in the argument for or against ID (but not for evolution).
Genetics, and in particular DNA, was predicted by evolutionary theorists . In order for the theory of evolution to be valid, DNA (or somthing like it, that did the same job) had to exist.
I'll give you an example. DNA (or something like it) had to exist for evolution to be a valid theory. This was a prediction derived from the theory of evolution. Guess what? DNA has been so completely validated that it is now used to prove guilt/innocense in a court of law, and for going back through old cases to verify (and overturn) prior verdicts. Pretty good for a 'theory'.
Another point: the purpose of a theory is to provide a jumping-off point for making new hypotheses that can be further tested. The longer the theory holds up against these tests, the more it is held to be valid, until and unless one and only one test proves it false, or at the very least incomplete.
So, in actuality the process is iterative, with theories leading to hypotheses, and those hypotheses leading to either a new, better understanding of the theory and its limits, or validating or replacing the theory, which leads to further hypotheses, ad-infinitum (I think its the latter that confuses people).
As for "proven". Prove to me that you understand what "prove" means.
In point of fact, it is probably improper to use the term 'proven' in regards to a theory. Facts can be proven. Theories can only be disproven. Laws of nature are theories that we haven't, even with extreme effort, found a way to disprove (for example, the 'laws' of thermodynamics).
In a sense, the theory of evolution has not been proven. In this regard, the theory is on the same footing as the Creationist 'theory of Six Days' (although the latter, including the actual creation of the universe, is more properly put up against the Big Bang theory -- for which we also have ample, and in many ways more convincing evidence).
What separates the theory of evolution from the 'theory' of Six Days is that the former can be tested, and the latter cannot. Unless you care to put God on the witness stand, under oath (an interesting problem all by itself), and providing verifiable video of the event. So, the theory of Six Days, lacking a means for testing, cannot be considered a theory by the rules within which science operates. A theory MUST be testable. It is part of the definition.
I apologize for the digression. The point is that after over a century and a half of investigation, often by very antagonistic and brilliant minds, the theory of evolution has been refined, and our knowledge of biology and its attendant principles has been expanded, but the central tenets of the theory have not been disproven. Further, since the theory basically describes the mechanism by which all biology operates, it is very unlikely to ever be disproven.
The theory of evolution is likely with us for the duration. It is too broad to ever be considered a law, but it is highly likely that, were biologists so inclined, various 'laws' of biological growth and inheretance could someday be derived from the (more general) theory.
Its very pervasiveness is what causes the friction with the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and the theory of evolution. For some reason, fundamentalists equate evolution with all of creation, and the act of creation, rather than as a description of how beings evolve. Evolution is not actually about "creation" at all, but about how the biological descendents of populations of living creatures change over ongoing generations. Although this is in principle the exact same science used by generations of humans for the purposes of animal husbandry, which has definitely changed the species upon which we practice it, for some reason Creationists have a problem with the idea that such changes can happen without our human intervention, and with the idea that it could have been going on before we came along or became sufficiently sentient to practice it ourselves.
I personally think that fundamentalist Christian preachers are entirely too conscious of how closely they resemble their ancestral kin. And the truth is, this battle over evolution vs. Creationism is entire
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize. I shouldn't have made this comment. However frustrating it is to watch someone so smuggly bait the issue, that doesn't mean he or she is stupid. At least, it isn't my call, or polite, to say so.
You are right, for the most part, but this particular bunch of misanthropes has figured out that if they can teach this nonsense to our children, they'll win in the end. And they are right.
The jury is still out on both, last I heard.
In other words, the Bible is actually remarkably silent about homosexuality, for it being such a tremendous evil. Of course, little being said in the Bible, there is much room for a modern evangelical to elaborate on.
That's the true shame of all this, as you (and others) have pointed out. You can't win. Evidence is only evidence to him if he says it is. And that won't happen; not because he's stupid (I don't think he really, quite, is), but because he....
Ah, hell. You're right. He's stupid. He knows not what evil he does.
All the emphasis on evolution has actually come from folks like you. And it has been negative. Teachers don't emphasize it, they present the facts. Providing that you can get a textbook into school that even mentions the word. If it is "de-emphasized" any further, we're going to have to dig up our hidden books from the back yard when you-all ain't looking.
And you aren't at all interested in teaching people to "decide for themselves". You're interested in converting a scientific investigation into a religious crusade that completely undermines the very concepts and precepts of science and critical thought. You want your religious beliefs put on the same footing as science, but without the accompanying peer review.
I'll agree to this, if you'll grant the same rights to every other religion. And I mean every other religion, from the Muslims through the Budhists to the Pacific island Cargo Cults and the Australian aboriginees.
Because that's the door you are opening, and denial of the same expression to those people is strictly illegal under the changes that you are proposing. So think hard about this. I'm pretty sure this isn't what you want, but I'm not sure you're capable of seeing the consequences.
If they truly understood your point, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm not telling you what church to attend, or what you have to think and believe. But that is exactly what you are trying to do to me and my children and grandchildren.
If your faith is so fragile that you can't afford to let other people look at the facts, the process by which those facts were arrived at, and to make up their own minds about what they mean, then you would simply be pitiful. The true pity is that you believe you have the right to restrict that information and choice from others, and this (unfortunately) means that you have to be opposed so that the rest of us can maintain our own rights and religious freedom.
Although you claim that your religious freedom is being oppressed, the truth is just the opposite.
Jesus didn't behave that way.
It would still turn the scientific world on its ear. For one thing, it would raise the possibility that causality doesn't hold. There is more than one way to interpret that evidence, and time travel is actually more probable than a specific species evolving twice, separated by 60 million years.
Evolutionary theorists are not free to say 'well, evolution is true in every case but this one'. ID proponents can. They can even back up and say that evolution applies to all creatures but (say) homo-sapiens. That makes it religion, not science.
Is it? Look at chimp behavior in the wild (yes, they have murder, and murder serves a "social' purpose: it keeps other chimps in line and preserves the power (and thus breeding viability) of the dominant 'clique'.). We've come up with a few alternative reasons and (mostly) jointly decided that it is a bad thing. But we still do it, and then we think of excuses for it (look at Rwanda, or Iraq, for that matter). You are making a general statement that isn't true in the specific.
No. Color vision is certainly not a 'disease'. Neither is hair color or skin color or whether or not you can curl you tongue. A mutation is simply a change. Whether or not it is a disease is determined by whether or not it i s harmful to the expressing creature/person.
The point is that ID does not require any such prediction. God (or whomever) didn't have to design life this way. In order for evolution to hold as a theory, the DNA fingerprints did have to exist. This doesn't rule out that the designer might have done such a thing, only that the presence of DNA fingerprints is completely neutral in the argument for or against ID (but not for evolution).
Genetics, and in particular DNA, was predicted by evolutionary theorists . In order for the theory of evolution to be valid, DNA (or somthing like it, that did the same job) had to exist.
Another point: the purpose of a theory is to provide a jumping-off point for making new hypotheses that can be further tested. The longer the theory holds up against these tests, the more it is held to be valid, until and unless one and only one test proves it false, or at the very least incomplete.
So, in actuality the process is iterative, with theories leading to hypotheses, and those hypotheses leading to either a new, better understanding of the theory and its limits, or validating or replacing the theory, which leads to further hypotheses, ad-infinitum (I think its the latter that confuses people).
As for "proven". Prove to me that you understand what "prove" means.
In point of fact, it is probably improper to use the term 'proven' in regards to a theory. Facts can be proven. Theories can only be disproven. Laws of nature are theories that we haven't, even with extreme effort, found a way to disprove (for example, the 'laws' of thermodynamics).
In a sense, the theory of evolution has not been proven. In this regard, the theory is on the same footing as the Creationist 'theory of Six Days' (although the latter, including the actual creation of the universe, is more properly put up against the Big Bang theory -- for which we also have ample, and in many ways more convincing evidence).
What separates the theory of evolution from the 'theory' of Six Days is that the former can be tested, and the latter cannot. Unless you care to put God on the witness stand, under oath (an interesting problem all by itself), and providing verifiable video of the event. So, the theory of Six Days, lacking a means for testing, cannot be considered a theory by the rules within which science operates. A theory MUST be testable. It is part of the definition.
I apologize for the digression. The point is that after over a century and a half of investigation, often by very antagonistic and brilliant minds, the theory of evolution has been refined, and our knowledge of biology and its attendant principles has been expanded, but the central tenets of the theory have not been disproven. Further, since the theory basically describes the mechanism by which all biology operates, it is very unlikely to ever be disproven.
The theory of evolution is likely with us for the duration. It is too broad to ever be considered a law, but it is highly likely that, were biologists so inclined, various 'laws' of biological growth and inheretance could someday be derived from the (more general) theory.
Its very pervasiveness is what causes the friction with the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and the theory of evolution. For some reason, fundamentalists equate evolution with all of creation, and the act of creation, rather than as a description of how beings evolve. Evolution is not actually about "creation" at all, but about how the biological descendents of populations of living creatures change over ongoing generations. Although this is in principle the exact same science used by generations of humans for the purposes of animal husbandry, which has definitely changed the species upon which we practice it, for some reason Creationists have a problem with the idea that such changes can happen without our human intervention, and with the idea that it could have been going on before we came along or became sufficiently sentient to practice it ourselves.
I personally think that fundamentalist Christian preachers are entirely too conscious of how closely they resemble their ancestral kin. And the truth is, this battle over evolution vs. Creationism is entire