I'm pretty sure she wasn't talking about the phrase not being in the constitution, but rather expressed blissful ignorance about America's pretty forward-thinking and liberally-minded forefathers.
Strange that it can be said that conservatives 200 years ago were more backward than today, eh?
The big blow up I heard on the Conservative talk radio stations (Hannity, Limbaugh, Big Meanie a.k.a. Levine) was the spin the Separation of Church and State was a "modern misconception" (I think that is Hannity's own term).
Well, let's take a look now:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Given the document's intent, which was to establish freedoms that American citizen were entitled to, the law essentially looks like it means "We will not make a law that makes one religion above another in terms of power or preference and we won't tell you to not to practice your religion or impede it in anyway."
So it means that the Federal government cannot make a law that causes a religion to become restricted in some way shape or form. A law could be made to benefit all religions or to punish discrimination against people of religious affiliation, but dunno.
There can be lots of grey area about anything when people of opposite political spectrums collide.
Well, from the summary you've provided, I don't see how it supports the teaching of creationism unless it was taught alongside every single other religion's creation theory
Henners91 wrote:Well, from the summary you've provided, I don't see how it supports the teaching of creationism unless it was taught alongside every single other religion's creation theory
And that is the grey area. It's also interpretation as well. What gets defined as religion?
And in this case, creationism is a "science." It does not follow that because of the First Amendment that it should be taught in school because creationism is not a religion.
Now as for restricting religion and religious education from public schools is another issue altogether (but supported by precedence in law as a big no-no, but tell that to a fundamentalist Chrisitian).
How about asking scientists if they think it is a science or a religious concept.
Good point. Scientists will say it is not a science and will say is a religious concept. Even better- those scientists who don't believe in religion would say creationism doesn't even exist because religion isn't real.
Don't believe in God is probably a better turn of phrase.
And a good scientist would have to say something like "it COULD be true,but there is not much testable evidence for the idea."
Da Boss wrote:Don't believe in God is probably a better turn of phrase.
And a good scientist would have to say something like "it COULD be true,but there is not much testable evidence for the idea."
With respect to religion and belief in it, scientists originally melded the ideas of science with religion, attempting to prove that religion and science were together, harmoniously.
When scientists found over and over again that science was separate from religion, then you see the big break in terms of religion and science where scientists bascially say religion (miracles/divine events of religion- not religion itself) are phenomenons that have no quantifiable or observable data to interpret. It's not exactly science speech saying God(s) don't exist, but essentially casts heavy doubt as to it actually existing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
WarOne wrote:It's all make believe.
I love the idea of a dinosaur pretending that the earth is 5,000 years old.
WarOne, are you serious or indulging in high level irony? Kudos to your comedy genius either way.
I leave that to your interpretation, good sir.
Ask Dr. Who- who is a man of scientific repute as he has a Dr. prefix to his name.
Frazzled wrote:She's an idiot and her opponent is a former Marxist. Delaware deserves what it gets getting into an election where these two are the candidates.
I can't back this up at all but I heard there were former-Marxists in Bush's cabinet
Okay, unlikely hearsay aside, I don't think it's exactly rare for former-Marxists to be found in politics: Those who choose to enter that field will likely express an interest early in life and when are we more susceptible to radicalism than when we are young? It's a relatively well-established norm that people mellow out as they get older... I'm assuming (though I haven't read up on him) that this guy attended some meetings and demos in his adolescent years/early 20s? I wouldn't hold that against someone...
And yeah, that argument is intended to cover my own tracks should I ever run for Office
Not as if that will happen though... I'm not at Oxbridge studying PPE :(
How about asking scientists if they think it is a science or a religious concept.
There are plenty of Scientists that believe in creationism. And would call Creationism "Creation Science".
These are scientists who have PhD's from first rate Research Universities and hold professorships at said Universities. Like Ivy League schools for example.
The problem is that the field is fairly young and historically has been constantly having to play catchup. Now in the last few years (20 or so). Many Creation Scientists are starting to bring forth some really interesting insights into creation and really challenging some of the presuppositions that have been predominate for the last 50 to 100 years.
Kilkrazy wrote:I hope you will not take it amiss if I ask for some references.
Second.
But at the same time, I would say that "creationism" has nothing to do with religion. Or rather, it has just as much to do with religion as evolutionary theory (which, as I see it for the purposes of this discussion, is none)--at least in terms of Christianity. (I suppose either could be turned into religions or tenents of new religions.) For my own part, I think what is generally referred to as creationism or intelligent design is rather close to a repudiation of authentic Christian faith. In any case, the question becomes not one of whether a religious doctrine should be taught in school but whether or not a widely discredited, incoherent scientific theory/political ideology should be taught in school. And I think the answer is definitively "no."
The people who don't want a seperation between church and state like to play a rhetorical game, where they point out that the constitution never mentions a seperation of church and state. This is technically true, as that phrase itself is never used, instead the constitution says ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Which uses different language to mean exactly the same thing.
It's likely O'Donnell heard the argument at one time or another, it appealed to her and lacking any kind of intellectual curiousity took it at face value, hence her surprise at hearing what was actually in the 1st amendment.
Meanwhile, here's a quote from James Madison, fourth president and founding father. He was a smart man. O'Donnell is an idiot.
"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity"
generalgrog wrote:There are plenty of Scientists that believe in creationism. And would call Creationism "Creation Science".
These are scientists who have PhD's from first rate Research Universities and hold professorships at said Universities. Like Ivy League schools for example.
The problem is that the field is fairly young and historically has been constantly having to play catchup. Now in the last few years (20 or so). Many Creation Scientists are starting to bring forth some really interesting insights into creation and really challenging some of the presuppositions that have been predominate for the last 50 to 100 years.
Like several others have said, this really need a cite - all I've ever seen of Creation "Science" is some guys with a degree from a religious university sitting around poking at evolution.
Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.
Except for those you approve of I'm guessing
OT, I think the tea party would be well served to find a candidate who can at least debate at a 4th grade level (the 4th grade me did a presentation on the constitution, and subsequently the 4th grade me knew more about our country’s founding than university me does... I blame alcohol and chicks for my mental demise ).
Also wasn’t she the person who the Republican Party said couldn’t be elected dog catcher?
You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.
To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.
Belief in Christianity does not require belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible.
If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.
This is fully consistent with mainstream Christian faith as propounded by the Roman Catholic and C of E churches, and is consistent with scientific theories.
Frazzled wrote:There are plenty of scientists who believe in a form of creationism. To think all scientists are atheists is..misplaced.
Yeah, contrary to what a lot of people like to imagine, the majority of scientists are not atheist, including those in fields like geology and biology. Hell in astronomy there's probably a positive correlation towards faith - those are some spiritual dudes.
But are we really going to have this conversation again. I mean, there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the seemingly very high number of completely insane candidates running in this election that we could have. But the religious debate... again?
*and there are both religious people and atheists who like to play up the supposed conflict between science and faith.
Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.
To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.
You're not taking the full breath of creationism into play. Anyone who is religious believes in a form of creationism. Its the scope, timeline, and process that people disagree on.
If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.
EXACTLY! And that would be a form of creationism.
Thats why I was noting there's a big difference between creationism and "creationism science" which is a very small subset issue, and may or may not have a term peculiar to the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:How is this moron a politician?
Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.
Except for those you approve of I'm guessing
Frazzled? Approve of a politician? You must be thinking of someone else.
Indeed, and I am sure I am not the only person who walks into the election booth shouting "Death to Clan McLeod!"
Frazzled, looking at the current list of candidates:
Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.
To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.
Belief in Christianity does not require belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible.
If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.
This is fully consistent with mainstream Christian faith as propounded by the Roman Catholic and C of E churches, and is consistent with scientific theories.
Not all scientists make fun of people of faith. People do get frustrated with ideologues who use faith as part of their explanation of how things work. If a Christian talk radio host invokes God as part of a reason something happens, do you think not a few eyes get rolled?
Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.
To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.
You're not taking the full breath of creationism into play. Anyone who is religious believes in a form of creationism. Its the scope, timeline, and process that people disagree on.
If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.
EXACTLY! And that would be a form of creationism.
Thats why I was noting there's a big difference between creationism and "creationism science" which is a very small subset issue, and may or may not have a term peculiar to the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:How is this moron a politician?
Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.
Except for those you approve of I'm guessing
Frazzled? Approve of a politician? You must be thinking of someone else.
Indeed, and I am sure I am not the only person who walks into the election booth shouting "Death to Clan McLeod!"
Frazzled, looking at the current list of candidates:
First, that is religion and as such it would seem to violate the First Amendment by implementing it in public schools.
Second, it isn't true. Some religions view the universe to have been formed spontaneously, and the gods grew within it, who later created men and beasts. Or the Earth pre-existed and gods and men emerged spontaneously. You can of course view these as religious perspectives on the current scientific theories of the origin of the universe. They are very different visions to the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic version, in which God created everything out of chaos.
Anyway, right wing evangelical US politicians don't talk about creationism, they talk about Creationism Science, or Intelligent Design, by which they mean the hand of the Christian God constantly fiddling with the world and making changes, and that is what controls Evolution. That is what they want to be taught in schools, alongside the theory of Evolution.
Anyway, right wing evangelical US politicians don't talk about creationism, they talk about Creationism Science, or Intelligent Design, by which they mean the hand of the Christian God constantly fiddling with the world and making changes, and that is what controls Evolution. That is what they want to be taught in schools, alongside the theory of Evolution.
And do you think that some scientists find the idea absurd, or that scientists find it acceptable as an answer for how things work?
Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.
To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.
Belief in Christianity does not require belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible.
If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.
This is fully consistent with mainstream Christian faith as propounded by the Roman Catholic and C of E churches, and is consistent with scientific theories.
I don't get it, if Christians can deny certain parts of the Holy Book penned by their creator, why not the whole lot?
I mean, lots of people ditched Catholicism to justify money-lending and the hoarding of capital anyway...
And now it's devolved to paying lip-service to a deity and then continuing to live our exploitative immoral lives, there's just no point in keeping up the facáde anymore....
I may not be a fan; but real Christians should be Catholic fundamentalists that take the entire Bible literally ;P
Frazzled wrote:There are plenty of scientists who believe in a form of creationism. To think all scientists are atheists is..misplaced.
Creationism generally refers to the belief that the Earth was created relatively recently (~6000 BC is the typical time) and that humans were created directly as humans and did not evolve from any other form of life. Essentially no scientists who work in hard science believe in that. Plenty of people who are not atheists do not believe that. If you're using creationism to describe a belief that the world was created by God at some point in the past without the specific 'no human evolution' and 'short time ago', then there are plenty of scientists who believe that, but it's not what is usually referred to as creationism.
Frazzled wrote:There are plenty of scientists who believe in a form of creationism. To think all scientists are atheists is..misplaced.
Creationism generally refers to the belief that the Earth was created relatively recently (~6000 BC is the typical time) and that humans were created directly as humans and did not evolve from any other form of life. Essentially no scientists who work in hard science believe in that. Plenty of people who are not atheists do not believe that. If you're using creationism to describe a belief that the world was created by God at some point in the past without the specific 'no human evolution' and 'short time ago', then there are plenty of scientists who believe that, but it's not what is usually referred to as creationism.
Thats your view, not everyone's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henners91 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.
To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.
Belief in Christianity does not require belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible.
If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.
This is fully consistent with mainstream Christian faith as propounded by the Roman Catholic and C of E churches, and is consistent with scientific theories.
I don't get it, if Christians can deny certain parts of the Holy Book penned by their creator, why not the whole lot?
I mean, lots of people ditched Catholicism to justify money-lending and the hoarding of capital anyway...
And now it's devolved to paying lip-service to a deity and then continuing to live our exploitative immoral lives, there's just no point in keeping up the facáde anymore....
I may not be a fan; but real Christians should be Catholic fundamentalists that take the entire Bible literally ;P
Since this is to be taught in schools, I think it is reasonable for the curriculum to be laid out in advance, rather than simply brought in as a fait accompli.
Kilkrazy wrote:Since this is to be taught in schools, I think it is reasonable for the curriculum to be laid out in advance, rather than simply brought in as a fait accompli.
(I know you're not a teacher.)
Who are you referring to?
If its me, I wouldn't waste time on this nonsense.
"Here's the theory of evolution. You will now be bored with the same stupid ass commentary and graph from the monk from centuries ago and pea pods. Its lame. You know it. I know it. We could actually do this is in a much more cool manner but that would be interesting and frankly, this is how I had to learn it so you little bastards have go through this mind numbingly boring lesson too. I hate you all but the law won't allow me to give you the thrashing you all so righteously deserve. I need a drink. "
Ah, so we have this Senator, from the 'Tea Party', proving what a total idiot she is and within a couple of posts the thread is diverted away from what a bunch of blithering idiots the Tea Party are sending out as potential members of Government and onto religion... AGAIN.
End result, folks argue for a bit, then folks take offence, then thread gets locked down, over something it was never about in the first place.
OPEN A NEW THREAD to have your argument about religion and then enjoy it getting locked down (by mods other than those doing the 'discussion' presumably?) by about page 2-3.
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
I thought the point was that the silly (Manchu notes a word filter bug here) didn't even know the bloody constitution and yet is being put forwards as the nominee for the tea party, raising the fairly obvious point of WTF are these numbnuts serious or is that entire 'political movement' a joke in poor taste.
It's like pointing out Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country and then going on to have a discussion about the politics of Africa, knowing that half the folks doing the discussing have a viewpoint that will end up in them taking offence at the other half doing the discussing and therefore locking the thread.
Shouting, naked screaming, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I thought the point was that the silly (Manchu notes a word filter bug here) didn't even know the bloody constitution and yet is being put forwards as the nominee for the tea party, ...
...
Surely that was self evident from the start. No-one disagreed, and we moved on to the constitutional matters.
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.
We have a different view on creation then Killkrazy. I'm using creation to describe all concepts to define the beginning of the universe not involving its origin as spontaneous generation-hence the denotation of "creation science" to be a very distinct subset.
Kilkrazy wrote:Is shouting going to help?
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
Wait I thought it was making fun of here because she didn't know the section was in the First Amendment.
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.
How is this actually a question?
Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.
I quite enjoyed my highschool biology classes, particularly regarding evolutionary theories. Before I ever heard of Richard Dawkins as a fussy atheistic crank, I read him as an evolutionary biologist back in those days. Didn't agree with him then, either, actually--thanks to Stephen J. Gould, another atheist. The point is that this stuff is not inherently boring but will actually stimulate the intellectually curious. I suppose "Intelligent Design" could be taught in a lesson on what science is not. And that would certainly be intellectually stimulating for some of the students. It might also be traumatic for others (at least from their parents' point of view).
O'Connell says it doesn't matter what she believes (bit convenient that, as she also trots out her "catholicism" at every corner): she believes the Constitution says creationism (the specific body of "science" now, not a general idea that the universe was created by some being) ought to be taught in schools. And in that regard, I would say that she is absolutely incorrect.
Much of the work done by creation scientists was taught to me in science class in order to illustrate two concepts:
1) False deduction of the sort that treats refutation of one hypothesis as confirmation of another.
2) Poor hypothesis construction due to a lean on concepts that are impossible to operationalize.
For all its attempts to be viewed as science, the only scientific component of creation science is the one that has absolutely no significance to proving the existence of God. So, in that respect, 'creation science' could be taught in schools, but the overarching concept that holds it all together, the part that cannot be operationally tested on even a small scale, cannot be.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Like several others have said, this really need a cite - all I've ever seen of Creation "Science" is some guys with a degree from a religious university sitting around poking at evolution.
A few off the top of my head...
Kurt P.Wise PhD in Geology from Harvard. He studied under the noted evolutionist Stephen J Gould, inventer of the evolutionary "punctuated equilibrium" theory.
His most famous book "Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe" Mr. Wise is noted for his work on "Baraminism" or created kinds which is to say that dogs all come form a common dog kind ancestor and cows come from a common cow as opposed to cows turning into whales or reptiles turning into birds. (here is link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind)
Michael Behe, introduced "ireducibile complexity" He is a professor of Bio chemistry at lehigh University. He wrote "Darwins Black Box"
Well, it's all rather a sham in any case. How we could ever pass off the message of people like O'Donnell as anything but latent attempts to sacralize government or institutionalize some concept of religion is the real puzzler.
I took these from Wikipedia but feel free to point out if they are incorrectly quoted (in spirit).
"Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... ...We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference. - Richard Dawkins
"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Kurt Wise
In other words, If he came across evidence that contradicted his position he would ignore it. It's also worth noting that he hasn't studied biology (of any kind) since high school.
Sorry, Kurt Wise' opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.
How is this actually a question?
Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.
Come now, teaching evolution doesn't have to be boring:
@Orkeosaurus: How many different fruits are there in the world? One of them is a bit hand shaped? Well that's conclusive! I'm just going to stop reading science books right now!
I do have a worst nightmare but it isn't bananas. Maybe I'm not atheist enough.
George Spiggott wrote:I took these from Wikipedia but feel free to point out if they are incorrectly quoted (in spirit).
"Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... ...We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference. - Richard Dawkins
"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Kurt Wise
In other words, If he came across evidence that contradicted his position he would ignore it. It's also worth noting that he hasn't studied biology (of any kind) since high school.
Sorry, Kurt Wise' opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Everyone pay close attention...George Spiggot from the Internets has spoken!!
He is a representative from the church of Richard Dawkins..and I think I heard him say "Can I get an amen?"
generalgrog wrote:Everyone pay close attention...George Spiggot from the Internets has spoken!!
He is a representative from the church of Richard Dawkins..and I think I heard him say "Can I get an amen?"
GG
I'm from the internet and the church of Richard Dawkins? Well I am highly manoeuvrable after all. I'm glad we agree, arguing this man's (Wise) credentials further would have wasted us both time and effort.
I'm sending you this piece of cheese as a token of our new found friendship and agreement.
Orkeosaurus wrote:If we all came from monkeys, how come we still got monkeys?
Riddle me that, atheists.
We didn’t come from monkeys, we share ancestors with monkeys. We evolved one way, they evolved another.
Or maybe the monkeys are our creators, intelligently designing us to be a "what-if" scenario wherein they get to observe the effects of what would happen in primates were to destroy the environment and pillage precious, limited resources in a roundabout way of self destruction, proving it was better to live with nature rather than against it.
Whoah...gonna lie down after that heavy realization.
WarOne wrote:Or maybe the monkeys are our creators, intelligently designing us to be a "what-if" scenario wherein they get to observe the effects of what would happen in primates were to destroy the environment and pillage precious, limited resources in a roundabout way of self destruction, proving it was better to live with nature rather than against it.
Whoah...gonna lie down after that heavy realization.
Get yourself a science degree in a completely unrelated field*, produce a list of 'problems' with evolution (a combination of things science doesn't entirely understand at this point in time** and wildly misunderstood scientific principles***), and then start speculating wildly about the creator monkeys. Launch an expedition to find the creator monkeys, but don't bother publishing the unsuccessful results.
You will then have exactly as much science as creationist science.
*I recommend Agricultural Science, because it's close enough to like animals and stuff that people will assume you know what you're talking about, but you don't ever have to really bother with learning about evolution and stuff.
**Actually, this can also include things that science didn't understand ten or twenty years ago but has since figured, just keep pretending.
***The second law of thermodynamics is always a good one.
WarOne wrote:Or maybe the monkeys are our creators, intelligently designing us to be a "what-if" scenario wherein they get to observe the effects of what would happen in primates were to destroy the environment and pillage precious, limited resources in a roundabout way of self destruction, proving it was better to live with nature rather than against it.
Whoah...gonna lie down after that heavy realization.
Get yourself a science degree in a completely unrelated field*, produce a list of 'problems' with evolution (a combination of things science doesn't entirely understand at this point in time** and wildly misunderstood scientific principles***), and then start speculating wildly about the creator monkeys. Launch an expedition to find the creator monkeys, but don't bother publishing the unsuccessful results.
You will then have exactly as much science as creationist science.
*I recommend Agricultural Science, because it's close enough to like animals and stuff that people will assume you know what you're talking about, but you don't ever have to really bother with learning about evolution and stuff. **Actually, this can also include things that science didn't understand ten or twenty years ago but has since figured, just keep pretending. ***The second law of thermodynamics is always a good one.
Sounds like you have done this before?
I assume you found not monkeys, but intelligent rocks that created us.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Dude, most great apes don't need guns. Have you seen the size of the average gorilla? It's like 400lb of overdeveloped muscle.
Which is awesome, until the ape is confronted by a guy with a .416 Remington Mag rifle more than ten feet away. Then he's just 400lb of dead weight for the hunter to carry.
generalgrog wrote:Everyone pay close attention...George Spiggot from the Internets has spoken!!
He is a representative from the church of Richard Dawkins..and I think I heard him say "Can I get an amen?"
GG
I'm from the internet and the church of Richard Dawkins? Well I am highly manoeuvrable after all. I'm glad we agree, arguing this man's (Wise) credentials further would have wasted us both time and effort.
I'm sending you this piece of cheese as a token of our new found friendship and agreement.
Of course the point of my post was to show that there were PhD scientists that think creationism is a science and not necessarily a religious concept.(Which is what I think killkrazy was trying to say) I pointed out that there are scientists that would call it science.( I have some time now so I will get more). The point of the post wasn't to try and prove baranism or irreducible complexity.
I think it's pretty poor form of you to quote Richard Dawkins emotional nonscientific plea from wikipedia to make some point attacking Wises credibility. But of course, that what people who don't have a leg to stand on do..they attack emotionally instead of factually. Welcome to the church of Richard Dawkins.
Kilkrazy wrote:I hope you will not take it amiss if I ask for some references.
Here are some more
Dr Raymond V. Damadian--invented the MRI. M.D from Albert Einstein college of medicine. Winner of the National medal of technology, Lemelson MIT prize,and inducted into the national Inventors Hall of fame.
Dr. John R. Baumgardner--Geophysicist---Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory.
Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research.
Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.
Dr. Hugh Norman Ross
He earned a BSc in physics from the University of British Columbia and an MSc and PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto; and he was a postdoctoral research fellow at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies. Ross was the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society.
GG
edit...Ross and Gentry are two of my favorites. Ross is an old earth creationist and Gentry is a young earth creationist.
sebster wrote:*I recommend Agricultural Science, because it's close enough to like animals and stuff that people will assume you know what you're talking about, but you don't ever have to really bother with learning about evolution and stuff.
I think Library and Information Science is the best degree you can have. Because, you know, it's about libraries. So they should know...everything.
Back on topic, O'Donnell is an idiot and a politician. As evidenced by her somehow being Catholic AND a biblical fundamentalist, she's just pandering and talking out of both sides of her mouth, and stupidly at that.
It also proves once again (not that it was ever in doubt) what a complete dope Sarah and Todd Palin are for backing some of the candidates they did. If you have real aspirations, you don't attach your name to lightweights like O'Donnell.
Alexander Arndt
* Ph.D.
* Professor of Analytical Chemistry of Heidelberg University, Germany
* Former vice-president of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences Institute for Ecology Research.
Thomas G. Barnes
* Physicist
* D.Sc. from Hardin-Simmons University (1950)
* Professor emeritus of Physics and Director Schellenger Research Laboratories of Texas Western College of the University of Texas at El Paso
* Former consultant to Globe Universal Sciences, Inc. in El Paso
* Former research physicist at Duke University (1942-45)
* M.S. degree from Brown University (1936) while studying under the famous physicist R.B. Lindsay
* Director of many important research projects on terrestrial magnetism and atmospheric physics
* Published various scientific papers and textbooks
* Member of the Editorial Board of the Creation Research Society Quarterly
Steven A. Austin
* Geologist
* Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University, doctoral dissertation on coal formation
* M.S. in geology from San Jose State University
* B.S. in geology from the University of Washington
* Consulting geologist for government and industry
* Member: Geological Society of America
* Member: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
* Member: the Society for Sedimentary Geology
* Member: the International Association of Sedimentologists
* Author of numerous papers including publication in the peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review (1999)
*Chairman of the Geology Department, Institute for Creation Research Graduate School
Donald B. DeYoung
* Physicist, specializing in solid-state and nuclear science, as well as astronomy
* Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University
* M.S. in physics from Michigan Technical University
* B.S. in physics from Michigan Technological University
* Member: Indiana Academy of Science
* Published articles in The Journal of Chemistry and Physics of Solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics, and Creation Research Society Quarterly
*Editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (March 1989 - March 1994)
* Author of various books, including:
o Weather and the Bible
o In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
o Astronomy and the Bible
o The Moon: Its Creation, Form and Significance
o Voyage to the Planets
*Chairman, Physical Science, Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana
Danny R. Faulkner
* Astronomer
* Ph.D. and M.A. in Astronomy, Indiana University
* M.S. in Physics from Clemson University
* B.S. in Math from Bob Jones University
* Professor at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster (physics and astronomy)
* Associate Professor of Astronomy at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School
* Published more than two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals
Duane T. Gish
* Biochemist
* Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley (1953)
* B.S. in chemistry from U.C.L.A. (1949)
* Research Associate, Research Division, The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan (1960-1971)
* Assistant Research Associate in Biochemistry, University of California (Berkeley), Virus Laboratory (1956-1960)
* Assistant Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University Medical College (NYC) (1955-1956)
* Lilly Postdoctoral Fellow, Cornell University Medical College (1953-1955)
* Phi Beta Kappa, University of California, Los Angeles
* Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research
* Lecturer and most well-known debater on Creation-Evolution
John Grebe
* Chemist
* D.Sc. from Case Institute of Technology (1935) (Case is now part of Western Reserve University)
* Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Hillsdale College (1967)
* M.S. from Case Institute of Technology
* Former researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reactor School and Engineering Team (1946-1947)
* Former Director of the Dow Chemical Company Physical Chemistry Research Laboratories in Midland, Michigan
* Served as Chief Scientist to the Army Chemical Corps at Edgewood Arsenal New Baltimore (1948-1949)
* In 1943 became the youngest recipient ever to receive the Chemical Industry Medal
* Certificate of Merit from The Franklin Institute (1942)
* A founder of the Creation Research Society
George F. Howe
* Botanist and biologist
* Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Botany from Ohio State University (1959, 1956)
* Charles F. Kettering fellow while at Ohio State
* B.S. in Botany from Wheaton College
* Post-doctoral studies in radiation biology, Cornell University (1965-66)
* Post-doctoral studies in botany, Washington State University (1961)
* Post-doctoral studies in desert biology, Arizona State University (1963)
* Post-doctoral studies in radiation biology, Cornell University
* Former Assistant Professor of biology and botany at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California
* Professor and Chairman of the Division of Natural Sciences, The Master's College, Newhall, California
* Published papers in scientific journals including: Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, Ohio Journal of Science, and Creation Research Society Quarterly
* Twice voted Teacher of the Year by students at The Master's College
* Charter member and former President of the Creation Research Society (1977-1983)
* Editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (1969-1973)
* Director of CRS Grand Canyon Experimental Station
John W. Klotz
* Biologist and Geneticist
* Ph.D in Biology from the University of Pittsburgh
* Former Professor of Biology and Chairman of the Division of Natural Science, Concordia
* Senior College, Fort Wayne, Indiana
* Chief Academic Officer, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis
* Member of the Editorial Board of the Creation Research Society Quarterly
Leonid Korochkin
* Professor of Genetics at Yale University
* Head of the molecular biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Lane P. Lester
* Geneticist and Biologist
* Ph.D. in Genetics from Purdue University, 1971
* Professor of Biology, Emmanuel College, Franklin Springs, Georgia
* Director, Museum of Earth and Life History, Liberty University
* Member, Board of Directors, Creation Research Society
* Managing Editor, Creation Research Society Quarterly
* 15 publications, including: Designs in the Living World and The History of Life
Charles B. Thaxton
* Chemist
* Ph.D. in Chemistry from Iowa State University
* Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University (2 years), history and philosophy of science
* Postdoctoral appointment in molecular biology laboratory at Brandeis University (3 years)
* Director of Curriculum Research of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Dallas
* Staff member of the Julian Center in Julian, California.
A.J. (Monty) White
* Chemist
* Ph.D. in physical chemistry, specialty: gas kinetics, from University College of Wales
* B.S. (with honors) from University College of Wales
* Post-doctoral studies at University College of Wales
* Research fellow at the Edward Davies Chemical Laboratories, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom
* Previous university administrator at various schools
* Frequent writer on such topics as Creation-Evolution & science and the Bible
* Guest appearances on British TV and radio programs
* Student advisor, dean of students office, University of Cardiff, United Kingdom
You will see in the above list professors from Ivy league schools just like I said.
generalgrog wrote:Of course the point of my post was to show that there were PhD scientists that think creationism is a science and not necessarily a religious concept.(Which is what I think killkrazy was trying to say) I pointed out that there are scientists that would call it science.( I have some time now so I will get more). The point of the post wasn't to try and prove baranism or irreducible complexity.
Sure Wise has a PhD, but it's in the wrong subject. Wise himself admits that his theory is not scientific.
generalgrog wrote:I think it's pretty poor form of you to quote Richard Dawkins emotional nonscientific plea from wikipedia to make some point attacking Wises credibility. But of course, that what people who don't have a leg to stand on do..they attack emotionally instead of factually. Welcome to the church of Richard Dawkins.
If the quotes from Wikipedia are misquoted or out of context please let me know, otherwise they stand. Dawkins quote attacks Wise' scientific method. Wise' quote confirms Dawkins accusation. It's an open and shut case.
BTW:
generalsgrog's emotional nonscientific plea from the internet(s) to make some point attacking Richard Dawkins' credibility. But of course, that what people who don't have a leg to stand on do..they attack emotionally instead of factually. Welcome to the church of generalsgrog's.
He is a scientist no matter how much you would like to smear him. Now.. go back and look at all those other guys I posted and pick them apart as well. You may be able to pick a few but you won't be able to smear all of them.
@generalgrog: I have no horse in this particular race, but you have to admit your list shrinks quite a bit once you remove all the geologists, chemists, astronomers, engineers, physicists and agricultural types.
You could be the most brilliant individual on the planet in any one of those fields and it wouldn't qualify you to speak about evolution or even biology in general. Same as how a biology degree doesn't qualify you to speak about geology, chemistry, astronomy, electrical engineering, physics, etc. Not saying there aren't biologists in your list, just that they're the only ones who really matter and that looks to be a short list.
generalgrog wrote:@ George...strawman arguments for the win!!
He is a scientist no matter how much you would like to smear him. Now.. go back and look at all those other guys I posted and pick them apart as well. You may be able to pick a few but you won't be able to smear all of them.
What straw man? What smear? I have a quote from his own lips saying he doesn't apply scientific rigour to his theory.
There's very little information about some of these people. I really don't have the time to go through them all, you don't even supply the nature of their theories for most of them, it's jut a list of people. I'm not going to provide both sides of the argument for these people.
gorgon wrote:@generalgrog: I have no horse in this particular race, but you have to admit your list shrinks quite a bit once you remove all the geologists, chemists, astronomers, engineers, physicists and agricultural types.
You could be the most brilliant individual on the planet in any one of those fields and it wouldn't qualify you to speak about evolution or even biology in general. Same as how a biology degree doesn't qualify you to speak about geology, chemistry, astronomy, electrical engineering, physics, etc. Not saying there aren't biologists in your list, just that they're the only ones who really matter and that looks to be a short list.
Creationism is more than "just evolution".
It's age of the earth(geology,physics,chemistry). Age of the universe(Astronomy, astrophysics,physics)
The point is that biology is just a small part of the puzzle.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
generalgrog wrote:@ George...strawman arguments for the win!!
He is a scientist no matter how much you would like to smear him. Now.. go back and look at all those other guys I posted and pick them apart as well. You may be able to pick a few but you won't be able to smear all of them.
What straw man? What smear? I have a quote from his own lips saying he doesn't apply scientific rigour to his theory.
There's very little information about some of these people. I really don't have the time to go through them all, you don't even supply the nature of their theories for most of them, it's jut a list of people. I'm not going to provide both sides of the argument for these people.
Only communists think quantity = quality.
The straw man you present, is "Kurt wise isn't a scientists because of his personal beliefs about issue X and Issue Y" the argument I presented is that Kurt wise is a scientist because of his educational credentials..that being a PhD in geology from Harvard.
You can't deny that he is an expert in the feild of geology because you can't deny his PhD from Harvard..so you attack him via the back door by attacking something he said. By the way it isn't even you attacking him..but Dawkins..you are just a parrot of Dawkins.
And of course you won't look at the other creationists because you don't have anything from Dawkins to Parrot about them. :-)
Ok let me get this straight, your actually LISTING individually people who are creationists and have doctorates, and the pool is from "the entire world"
Seriously, let's stop this farce.
To be a creationist, you have to be either ignorant of the facts, brainwashed or a liar. Why is it you guys get away with lying to children, but when we attempt to stop this disgraceful behavior the religious groups cry "I'm offended" and we have to sit back and let you?
I'm extremely offended when you and your ilk try to baffle people with (clearly incorrect) "science" in order to further your own religious agenda. Kids read this site, so telling lies about science should be as bannable an offence as linking hard core pornography.
You have lost. You lose in court. You always do, check the facts.
99% of the worlds leading biologist agree on this, and most Christians are evolutionists, you represent a tiny majority of wacky people.
The slight issues we have with some small areas of evolutionary biology does not mean you can thrust an untested alternative hypothesis on children, it will never happen as long as a modicum of sense remains amongst the powers that be.
I know you get offended when I inform you of the facts, but I get offended that a young kid might see your walls of misinformation and actually believe it, so you keep your untestable alternative hypothesis to yourself, and ill stop having to reply. Fairs fair!
Modqusiition on. if we are going to have this argument, AGAIN, then lets keep it polite. No direct attacks or snide remarks. Argue the issue and its merits ONLY. Blanket attacks on other posters, their faith, faiths in general, or lack of faith, will not be tolerated, as in I feel the need the need to suspend people level not tolerated.
While it is true that 'creationism' in and of itself covers a wide range of fields, when it comes down to facing evolution, your degree in another field qualifies you just as much as me with my high school education in Biology. As was said earlier, they could be Mathematical geniuses, but when it comes to evolution, that grasp is worthless in most senses. While I have to agree with Kilkrazy on kudos for doing a great research job and digging out various scientists who support creationism, we're going to have to move past that to actual debate.
Assuming we're debating YEC, I would like to direct you here. A long refutation of a letter which seems to cover most of the tenets of YEC. The biggest argument against YEC in my opinion is that all the evidence is against it. The erosion of natural features simply can't have occurred in a shorter period of time. Moreover, we know that the universe itself MUST be billions of years old thanks to astronomy. The primary way to get heavier elements is for them to be formed through fusion in a star. For the Earth to exist in the way it does now, entire generations of stars must have lived and died before the formation of our solar system.
Also, by adopting YEC and assuming the Bible is 100% accurate we run into even MORE problems when we look at flood geology. Flood geology quite simply doesn't work. If there really was a massive flood that killed all life except for a few individuals that were saved on the Ark then: a) The fossils from the fossil record should be arranged in order of how fast they sink in water, not via a chronological posession. b) Traces of human civilization (and animal life for that matter) should start in one point on Earth and spread out from there, instead we see human civilization spreading out from many different points throughout history.
All this, of course, ignored the fact that 6000 years ago, when the Bible claims Earth was created, there were already civilizations with primitive writing. You might think these people would have noted down that the universe was created, wouldn't you?
Browsing her website, I can't find anything where she says exactly what she wants taught in ID. However, from my experience (especially spending my freshmen year of high school in a very Evangelical Christian environment) I'd wager that the primary thing when it comes to ID in schools is teaching that evolution is not the only acceptable theory out there for the origins of life, and that intelligent design is a valid opposing view.
As to my long retort...I was more attacking YEC in general instead of discussing whether or not it should be taught in schools. I'll drop that path of argument if that's not where this debate is going.
On a topic much more related to the OP, here's a quote from her website.
Christine O'Donnel Website wrote: Naturally, the liberal media are misrepresenting the [see forum posting rules]-O'Donnell debate at Widener Law School earlier today. Christine O'Donnell asked Chris [see forum posting rules], "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"
The liberal media are apparently both too dumb and too biased to understand that was not a reference request, but a challenge to a presumption.
Edit: ...And apparently the dakka word filter is not letting me refer to the last name of O'Donnell's opponent as it is potentially a racial slur for those of African descent.....Is it possible to let that slide here?
The filter is automatic, and would require reprogramming.
If Intelligent Design is to be a credible alternative to evolution it ought to be susceptible of a reasonable proof.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It seems to me that at the moment it is a circular argument, more properly, it suffers from the fallacy of false cause.
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.
How is this actually a question?
Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.
Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .
Guys...I wasn't trying to "prove" this or that. I was merely answering killkrazies concern about wanting me to back my statement about scientists that are creationists. You see there is this myth that atheists push, that you can't be a "legitimate" scientist unless you believe in macro evolution or subscribe to the party line of a 4.something billion year old earth. You know they believe that people that are creationists are nothing more than guys that live in trailer parks and watch the bug zapper all day.
The FACT is.... that not all scientists agree. Even creation scientists differ on certain aspects of this field of study. It's a relatively young field, and yes there have been some real bad eggs doing BAD science. That doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water.
I was particularly surprised that some heavy hitters in the field are from Australia. I bet that makes Sebby angry. :-)
And to go back to gorgon..there were some major guys in the biochemistry field in those lists I posted.
The reason why creationism encompasses more than just biochemistry and biology is that if you can show that the earth really isn't 4.something billion years old(for example say... 6 thousand years that a YEC would subscribe to) than the theory of macro evolution falls apart even more.
Time is a very important aspect of the argument and a biology guy can't help you very much when your looking at the complicated aspects of physics. That's why there are scientists from many aspects in the field of study.
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.
How is this actually a question?
Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.
Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .
Not at all. Teach the scientific theory of evolution in science class. But they have to suffer just like I did with the craptacularly boring presentation starting with the monk and his stupid plant experiments, which lead to both the concepts of evolution and dominant/recessive genes. It needs to be as spectacularly lame as the lobotomy class I had to sit through. Chemistry was way more interesting.
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.
How is this actually a question?
Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.
Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .
Not at all. Teach the scientific theory of evolution in science class. But they have to suffer just like I did with the craptacularly boring presentation starting with the monk and his stupid plant experiments, which lead to both the concepts of evolution and dominant/recessive genes. It needs to be as spectacularly lame as the lobotomy class I had to sit through. Chemistry was way more interesting.
Ah. Gotcha. I thought it was interesting, but that's just me. I don't have a legion of wiener dog warriors at my beck and call though, so my opinion is probably nowhere near as valuable as yours
The issue of creationism and religion is the core point in the whole thread, since the argument over the First Amendment is whether it applies to religion in schools and whether creationism is religion.
1) Schools are run by the government so DUH yes it applies.
2) Unless you intend to teach the creation story of every single religion in existence then yes, teaching only judeo-chrisitian literal 6 days 8,000 years ago creationism is a violation of the amendment.
How is this actually a question?
Again...teach evolution. Teach in the same dull manner I was taught. No one will care or even pay attention. Just bring an alarm clock to wake people up.
Are you saying that creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution because it's more exciting? Not sure what exactly it is that you're getting at. . .
Not at all. Teach the scientific theory of evolution in science class. But they have to suffer just like I did with the craptacularly boring presentation starting with the monk and his stupid plant experiments, which lead to both the concepts of evolution and dominant/recessive genes. It needs to be as spectacularly lame as the lobotomy class I had to sit through. Chemistry was way more interesting.
Ah. Gotcha. I thought it was interesting, but that's just me. I don't have a legion of wiener dog warriors at my beck and call though, so my opinion is probably nowhere near as valuable as yours
generalgrog wrote:
The FACT is.... that not all scientists agree. Even creation scientists differ on certain aspects of this field of study. It's a relatively young field, and yes there have been some real bad eggs doing BAD science. That doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water.
Actually, according to the paradigmatic approach to the scientific method, it almost always does.
That said, at least to the extent that any attempt at offering scientific proof of God is confined to wasting the time of the scientist in question, "creation science" (in quotes because the idea that there is creation science and regular science is nonsense, its either science or it isn't) isn't really harmful. The issue comes when we want to teach it high school classrooms as though it were widely accepted, or logically valid when compared to evolutionary theory.
generalgrog wrote:
The reason why creationism encompasses more than just biochemistry and biology is that if you can show that the earth really isn't 4.something billion years old(for example say... 6 thousand years that a YEC would subscribe to) than the theory of macro evolution falls apart even more.
However, as I've said dozens of times now, the fact that one theory is wrong does not mean that another theory is correct. In order for a creationist to develop scientific proof for his position he would have to develop a testable hypothesis regarding not only the age of the Earth (ie. the Earth can be shown to be X number of years old, not just that the Earth can be shown to not be 4 billion years old) , but also develop a testable hypothesis which, if proven, would indicate that God created the world.
generalgrog wrote:
He is a scientist no matter how much you would like to smear him.
Whether or not someone is a scientist isn't relevant. One person can be a scientist, perfectly adhering to the scientific method in one aspect of his inquiry, and then abandon all of this scientific rigor in another aspect of his inquiry. Such a person would still be a scientist, but simply being a scientist does not mean that everything someone does is scientific.
generalgrog wrote:
Now.. go back and look at all those other guys I posted and pick them apart as well. You may be able to pick a few but you won't be able to smear all of them.
Well, there's actually a pretty clear way of doing it. One would go look at the body of work created by each person, and then critically examine it for scientific rigor; particularly focusing on the extent to which their findings confirm their espoused creationist position, as opposed to merely pointing out weaknesses in established research and theory. That's a lot of work for a message board, but to say that there is no way to "smear" (in quotes because what I'm actually describing is just the academic process) these people is just wrong.
You're saying that these people do good science which helps to prove a sort creationist hypothesis, and that anyone who says that they don't is smearing them. We're saying that they don't do good science, and that saying something like that about a particular scientist is part of science.
If you want something to be regarded as science, then you need to be willing to let it stand scientific scrutiny, not talk about how people are being 'smeared' when their results are attacked.
Also, for its worth, Wise is a good scientist. He believes in a literalist creationism, but he also openly acknowledges that the work he does has no scientific value with respect to proving that sort of thing.
And back to disagreeing.....I never said that all of them do good science. How can I say that, without researching everything they do. I merely pointed out that these are scientists that back creationism in one way or another.
Well Dogma seems to have covered everything I could have said. Is there anything else? Apart from the 'he quoted Dawkins therefore he's just a zealot' non answer.
How is 'creation science' a new field? All the answers are in one book that's thousands of years old. The only new part is the change of title from theology to 'creation science'.
Just out of interest are there any non Christian 'creation scientists', like Hindu ones or something? Now those would be some interesting results to compare. How old do Hindus think the earth and the universe is?
I found biology fascinating, because I was learning how bits of me work.
In chemistry you can blow stuff up, of course, and I enjoyed that too.
I'm still not getting why Christine O'Donnell wants Creationism to be taught in schools, because it is unconstitutional that it isn't, when the leading Intelligent Design Science foundation in the country does not want Intelligent Design taught in schools, because it would be unconstitutional.
generalgrog wrote:And back to disagreeing.....I never said that all of them do good science. How can I say that, without researching everything they do. I merely pointed out that these are scientists that back creationism in one way or another.
GG
Sure, and I never said that all the science scientists do has to be good. I assumed that you're offering these people up as examples of individuals that do good science, because otherwise the fact that they have PhDs and have worked at major research universities isn't relevant.
I'm just saying that being a scientist doesn't indicate that everything someone does is scientific, so offering up the fact that some scientists are Young Earth Creationists doesn't support the idea that the Creationist theory is valid, testable, or supported by empirical, freely accessible evidence.
Remember, you can be a scientist and a nut job in the same way you can be a country yokel watching bugs die flying into a zapper, and a genius.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
Just out of interest are there any non Christian 'creation scientists', like Hindu ones or something? Now those would be some interesting results to compare. How old do Hindus think the earth and the universe is?
I think you'd most likely find them in Judaism or Islam, as Hinduism and Buddhism don't have the same sort of problems caused by a temporally defined creation story that the Abrahamic faiths do.
dogma wrote:Sure, and I never said that all the science scientists do has to be good. I assumed that you're offering these people up as examples of individuals that do good science, because otherwise the fact that they have PhDs and have worked at major research universities isn't relevant.
Again(for the third time?).... I was asked to provide examples of scientists that back creationism(including those from Ivy League schools)...that is all I was doing. There are only a few people on those list's that I have done any reading or study on. Gentry,Ross,Behe,Wise to name some.
And to be honest there are many many many more scientists that back creation out there, but the dozen or so I posted were the major ones I could quickly get references about where they work and their education credentials.
Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.
Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.
It makes little sense when you have presupposed attitudes and follow uniformitarianism. Also I think what you describe as "creationism AND evolution both being right" would be something a theistic evolutionist believes. I.E. they believe in macro evolution but believe that God started the process.
Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.
Actually, it does in a round-about sort of way. Leviticus gives a genealogy of David from Adam, including how long each person lived. If you add them up, the oldest the earth can be is about 6000 years.
Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.
The Bible itself does not give a specific date, however it does give the life spans of a lot of people starting from Adam, and going up to Jesus(?) or at least someone who we have a historical record of. From that, we're able to guess when the Bible said God created the universe. The date of creation at approximately 4000 B.C. comes from one James Ussher , an Irish Archbishopn in the English Civil War era.
For you non-Americans, it might be useful to understand that the political debate on teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools is part of a longer story concerning the separation of church and state. The older and now mostly defunct issue was prayer in public schools, an argument which proponents of prayer in public schools so unequivocally lost that it can no longer muster the vote-generating political controversy that it once did. Conservative politicians have therefore replaced it with the teaching creationism/intelligent design issue. This is not to say that there aren't folks out there who are really concerned about teaching this stuff in public schools--it's just that the politicians that they vote into office to do it are almost never actually on board after winning (wisely so). It's kind of a sideshow issue, really, given the utter failure of its predecessor. The real religio-political rainmaker is of course anti-abortion. And the story there is exactly the same, except its inception came from a major loss, Roe v. Wade, whereas the prayer in school issue died in the Supreme Court. Anti-abortion politicians have at several times in thirty years since Roe been in control of all three branches of the American federal government and still accomplished no significant reversal of that regime. And this i much more the case with the "little cousin" issue of teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools. In this country, creationism/intelligent design is not much debated as science. It is almost only a part of the national public life as a political issue. In those cases, its proponents--like Christine O'Donnell in this particular instance--explicitly rule out talking about it on its own merits.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also:
/b/ face?
Has 4chan picked up on this yet? I haven't been there for ages and ages.
Oh, I understand perfectly. I'm only listed as British thanks to my Uni....I was born and raised in California, and I am a registered Republican.
I have to agree with you completely, Manchu. The issue religious right politicians have always had is not whether or not Creationism/ID/whatever they're calling it today, is good science, and more an attempt to want to install their religious/moral viewpoints upon the populace. This is why I think the gaffe by Ms. O'Donnell is particularly bad. She does not even realize that the Constitution she allegedly espoused prohibits the barrier between Church and State, and the fact that she is running as a Consitutionalist yet does not even understand the basic tenets of the document she wants to uphold is enough for me to want to NOT vote for her. I like the idealistic view of libertarianism, but in order for it to have the slightest chance at all of working the politicians need to understand the document, instead of just using it as a shield for their own political/religous/moral viewpoints.
I say religious right because as far as my experience stretches, not all conservatives or Republicans count themselves as SOCIAL conservatives which is the issue at hand. I personally feel that the social conservative side of the Republican party is part of why we have a bit of a bad rap, especially amongst liberals. As I recall, when I was supporting McCain in '08, most of the questions directed at me were about the social issues, and how I could support opposition to gay marriage and abortion. (Which I don't, just fyi.) Fiscal conservatism is honestly still what I view as the central tenet of the GOP, and I really really wish the party leadership would focus more on that strength instead of wasting their energy and resources on socially conservative issues that, as Manchu said, have been proven time and time again to be a lost cause.
Edit: I'm not sure if they have....I'm too scared to go and look.
Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.
That's how I always felt about it. I'm an athiest, but from a consistency standpoint, I never understood why people assume that God will use magical effects to do things. I mean, he created everything. The world we see around us is how he likes to do things. For example, if he wants a tree, he makes it out of an acorn, some dirt, water, and sunlight.
So, why would he make humans with magic handwave?
He'd make them the way everything gets made.
Regardless, teaching creationism in schools can and should be done in an intelligent way. A lot of people believe in it. Even some scientists. So you teach it like "another major belief, held my about x% of Americans, is creationism, which...."
I realize that some people think it's SO stupid that it shouldn't even be shown to children, but I would make two points in retort to that:
1) If you're going to go around forcing people to be educated as you see fit, you're a couple strange election cycles, or a couple SCOTUS appointments away from ONLY creationism being taught. So don't be a dick.
2) The same people who think creationism is foolish nonsense are so often the same people who think that eastern religions are fascinating. If the way that people explain their world in theological terms is interesting and important to know, it doesn't matter if it's a familliar variation, it's still important to know.
LASTLY, since nobody is really touching on it, I think it's annoying that they're labelling this a "gaffe." She didn't misspeak, she made a "preaching to the choir" point that all conservatives are aware of, because it's part of their dialog.
The secular left likes to suggest that one can't use one's faith in making political decisions because "separation of church and state is in the Constitution."
This is flawed in two ways:
1) As she says, the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, it's actually in the personal writings of one of the FFs (Jefferson I think). The 1st Amendment is closely related to this, but all it REALLY says is that there will be no State Religion.
2) Even if the church and state are kept separate, and are not integrated entities, people are still allowed to use their faith to make decisions. They can explain why they reach the conclusion they do, and then people can vote for that idea/person, or not. If you disagree with abortion because flying spaghetti monster hates it, and you say so, and everyone agrees and votes for you, THAT'S FINE. Just don't try to make FSM the state religion when you're elected.
It's endlessly annoying to me how little awareness the left has of the conservative dialog. Because the left's dialog dominates the media, Hollywood, etc. everyone is aware how the left sees things, how they iinterpret history, how it all fits together for a liberal.
For the right, there's a dialog, and it's going on every day with the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. but when any part of it comes into the headlines and is divergant from the left's version of reality, the left is horribly confused, and thinks it's all a big mistake, or "gaffe."
It's not a gaffe. It's what half the country is talking about, while the other half is patting itself on the back for being so moral and open minded, and also totally ignoring the opinions of the other half.
Or, I guess I should say, it IS a gaffe, insofar as a conservative candidate has to understand what the liberal dominated media will allow them to say. There is a whole section of debate that's not allowed, and if you let any of it out in front of liberals, they're going to freak out and screech about it like you're a crazy person. Doesn't matter if ALL your friends talk that way, liberals don't, and they are totally intolerant of dissent that they haven't adopted as one of their "pet classes."
Oh, and lastly, yes, Christine O'Donnell is a complete idiot. She's a tactless mouthpiece for conservative ideology that she only dimly understands. But, whatever. She's still being (deliberately) misrepresented.
The same distortion, oversimplification, and just plain ignorance of the other side's views happens on both major sides of the political divide. Fox News is not a better or more honest source of journalism than MSNBC just because you agree with them. And vice versa. It's terribly ironic for you to portray the Liberal perspective as monolithic, when you consider the contradictory mass of opinions making it up, which are sufficiently disparate to prevent the Democratic party from getting serious changes made even when they've got clear majories in both houses of Congress, and hold the White House.
Plenty of liberals are religious as well, or respectful of religious people's natural inclination to include their religious values in their decision-making process. That being said, there is a legimate concern that laws should be make on the basis of secular reasoning for the common good, as binding another citizen by the principles of your religion is contrary to the principles of freedom central to the Constitution and its amendments.
Separation of church and state is the design and intention of the 1st amendment. The idea being that keeping the ink out of the drinking water is better for both, even if you agree that both are useful and good things within their own spheres.
The phrase "wall of separation" between church and state specifically originates from Thomas Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he politely explains to them why he would not declare a national day of prayer.
Phryxis wrote:
Regardless, teaching creationism in schools can and should be done in an intelligent way. A lot of people believe in it. Even some scientists. So you teach it like "another major belief, held my about x% of Americans, is creationism, which...."
I realize that some people think it's SO stupid that it shouldn't even be shown to children, but I would make two points in retort to that:
Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with creationism being taught in schools insofar as it isn't taught as science. When major proponents of the theory acknowledge that there is no scientific support for it, then it has no business being mentioned in high school science classrooms. This ties back to what I mentioned earlier regarding hypothesis creation and testing, and the absence of evidence supporting core creationist assertions. We don't teach string theory in high school either, for largely similar reasons (plus complexity).
I mean, we can talk about the preference granted to uniformitarianism all we want, but its simply the default position regarding any instance in which immediate observation is the foundation of inquiry. Even creationists would have to presuppose such a system if they want science, any science, to have any sort of use at all.
There's not much use in uncovering the physical laws of the universe if they can change at random.
Phryxis wrote:
1) As she says, the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, it's actually in the personal writings of one of the FFs (Jefferson I think). The 1st Amendment is closely related to this, but all it REALLY says is that there will be no State Religion.
Well, there's also the bit about laws that grant preference to a particular religion, but in general I think the specific language of that section is pretty much meaningless. The separation of Church and State is what follows from the absence of a State Religion.
Phryxis wrote:
2) Even if the church and state are kept separate, and are not integrated entities, people are still allowed to use their faith to make decisions. They can explain why they reach the conclusion they do, and then people can vote for that idea/person, or not. If you disagree with abortion because flying spaghetti monster hates it, and you say so, and everyone agrees and votes for you, THAT'S FINE. Just don't try to make FSM the state religion when you're elected.
Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.
Bishop Ussher worked it out from information given in the Bible correlated with other historical sources.
Kilkrazy wrote:I found biology fascinating, because I was learning how bits of me work.
***I liked marine biology. PLus my team were a bunch of stoners and heads, wait, what did that make me???
In chemistry you can blow stuff up, of course, and I enjoyed that too.
****Yea that was seriously fun. Flicking toothpicks soaked in low concentration nitro BANG!
I'm still not getting why Christine O'Donnell wants Creationism to be taught in schools, because it is unconstitutional that it isn't, when the leading Intelligent Design Science foundation in the country does not want Intelligent Design taught in schools, because it would be unconstitutional.
***Who cares? She said she's not a witch. I'm no longer interested. I wanted to see a Senator flying into the main chamber on a broom shouting "I'll get you my pretties!!!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike Noble wrote:Wait, why exactly can't both creationism AND evolution both be right. Obviously the earth being 6000 years makes little sense, but I didn't think the bible actually gave an exact date on when the earth was created.
***Who cares? She said she's not a witch. I'm no longer interested. I wanted to see a Senator flying into the main chamber on a broom shouting "I'll get you my pretties!!!"
A. It would be fun to watch.
B. I totally thought that was the swear fiter kicking in there for a moment.
Fox News is not a better or more honest source of journalism than MSNBC just because you agree with them.
I agree 100%.
What you're saying is exactly how I view things. You've got lying talking heads at Fox, you've got lying talking heads at MSNBC. The same liars an NBC also dominate Hollywood. The liars at Fox dominate AM radio. Etc. etc. etc.
My problem is the air of "legitimacy" that the MSNBC style liars have by virtue of their dominance of the more "popular" media, such as most of cable TV, Hollywood, etc. Put simply they're "winning" the propaganda war that both left and right are fighting. The average American is CONSTANTLY exposed to a left-center view of things, what I'd describe as a 'Clinton Democrat' worldview. Favorable towards capitalism and big business, but also liberal on most social issues, and contemptuous of common right-of-center viewpoints.
Put simply, popular media seeks (among many other motivations) to make mainstream conservative views appear extreme and foolish. Not a primary motivation, but one they certainly make sure to touch on regularly.
And don't get me wrong, I'm quite sure that the right would be just as happy to win that war, to squash and marginalize dissent. The right isn't "better" they're just "the other side of the coin." And yes, I happen to prefer the looks of that side of the coin, but not by much.
Separation of church and state is the design and intention of the 1st amendment.
I don't think so. I think "separation of church and state" has become such a loaded, politicized phrase, that it no longer means anything of use, certainly nothing relative to the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment bans the establishment of a state religion. Certainly that's a form of "separating church from state," so the words certainly can apply, and if that's what it means to you, then we're in agreement.
But then again, if you say somebody isn't allowed to base their political decisions on ideals they hold as a result of their religion, that could also be described as "separating church and state." But it's also ridiculous, unenforceable, and really more a violation of the 1st Amendment than respecting it.
Phryxis wrote:I think "separation of church and state" has become such a loaded, politicized phrase, that it no longer means anything of use, certainly nothing relative to the 1st Amendment.
I just mean that those five words in conjunction have started to take on baggage to the point that using them just gets people arguing, and nothing positive comes of it.
Secular leftists think those five words mean that religious people have to shut up and stay quietly in their house.
The Christian right thinks those five words mean that secular leftists are going to turn the country into one huge homosexual and Mexican themed amusement park.
Phryxis wrote:The Christian right thinks those five words mean that secular leftists are going to turn the country into one huge homosexual and Mexican themed amusement park.
It's all ridiculous.
Which if religion loses more and more to the apathetic and atheists, yes...that may become the future of the country.
Which is not a problem with me as we all know what a "huge homosexual and Mexican themed amusement park" could become:
P.S. I would not be bothered because it means I have all the time in the world to read the Harry Potter series without condemnation.
I just mean that those five words in conjunction have started to take on baggage to the point that using them just gets people arguing, and nothing positive comes of it.
Secular leftists think those five words mean that religious people have to shut up and stay quietly in their house.
The Christian right thinks those five words mean that secular leftists are going to turn the country into one huge homosexual and Mexican themed amusement park.
It's all ridiculous.
If that is true, it is a problem with people, not the words. Changing the words wouldn't have any point, because the factions would seize upon some other pretext to attack each other.
Surely that's the place for teaching creationism/ID as an alternate theory to evolution? I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught in schools, but it should be placed in its appropriate context. It's not science, it's religious education, and should be presented as such.
Albatross wrote:Do American schools have RE lessons?
Surely that's the place for teaching creationism/ID as an alternate theory to evolution? I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught in schools, but it should be placed in its appropriate context. It's not science, it's religious education, and should be presented as such.
Not in public schools where it's an issue. Most public schools teach religion purely in a historical context, and maybe the basic tenets of that religion. There isn't really a class offered in American schools that covers the teaching of creationism....
Albatross wrote:Do American schools have RE lessons?
Surely that's the place for teaching creationism/ID as an alternate theory to evolution? I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught in schools, but it should be placed in its appropriate context. It's not science, it's religious education, and should be presented as such.
Not in public schools where it's an issue. Most public schools teach religion purely in a historical context, and maybe the basic tenets of that religion. There isn't really a class offered in American schools that covers the teaching of creationism....
Depends on where you go. There are states and local municipalities which promote/turn a blind eye towards teaching creationism and/or ID. Textbooks shoveling mud in the direction of evolution made by the Discovery Institute are but one of the vehicles used to take the creationism/ID teaching to a classroom.
That is true. GIven that most of my experience comes from Californian schools, I'm guessing we get off pretty easy when it comes to evolution, especially compared to schools in more religiously conservative areas.
ChrisWWII wrote:That is true. GIven that most of my experience comes from Californian schools, I'm guessing we get off pretty easy when it comes to evolution, especially compared to schools in more religiously conservative areas.
So long as Flying Sphaghetti Monster does not become a public school taught course in the theory of where things come from, I think we have some latitude to accept Creationism in some respect, especially if we can prove that scientists can actually create life using just the building blocks of living carbon based life forms.
WarOne wrote:
So long as Flying Sphaghetti Monster does not become a public school taught course in the theory of where things come from, I think we have some latitude to accept Creationism in some respect, especially if we can prove that scientists can actually create life using just the building blocks of living carbon based life forms.
Now we get to face another issue, why do we only teach Abrahamic creationism? Why not the belief systems of other cultures and religions? Why not the creation myth of any other major religion in the world? As the old joke goes: "What's the difference between a cult and a religion?" "2000 years." Creationism needs to stay within the confines of a religion class, and that's it. You have to accept that creationism is just inherently unscientific. Creationism starts off with a conclusion (God created the world) and looks for evidence to support it. That's not the way it works.
More importantly why do we have to give it any SCIENTIFIC respect at all? There's a difference between saying that scientist know though the application of technology x and technique y, can create basic organic compounds and saying that God did everything, through some kind of mystical unexplained process. Going back to the claim that creationism is highly unscientific, I do have to point out that the fact that both ID and creationism make no attempt to explain the mechanism behind the action also adds to the unscientificism (..that is so not a word) of Creationism.
WarOne wrote:
So long as Flying Sphaghetti Monster does not become a public school taught course in the theory of where things come from, I think we have some latitude to accept Creationism in some respect, especially if we can prove that scientists can actually create life using just the building blocks of living carbon based life forms.
Now we get to face another issue, why do we only teach Abrahamic creationism? Why not the belief systems of other cultures and religions? Why not the creation myth of any other major religion in the world? As the old joke goes: "What's the difference between a cult and a religion?" "2000 years." Creationism needs to stay within the confines of a religion class, and that's it. You have to accept that creationism is just inherently unscientific. Creationism starts off with a conclusion (God created the world) and looks for evidence to support it. That's not the way it works.
More importantly why do we have to give it any SCIENTIFIC respect at all? There's a difference between saying that scientist know though the application of technology x and technique y, can create basic organic compounds and saying that God did everything, through some kind of mystical unexplained process. Going back to the claim that creationism is highly unscientific, I do have to point out that the fact that both ID and creationism make no attempt to explain the mechanism behind the action also adds to the unscientificism (..that is so not a word) of Creationism.
There is a difference between ID and creationism.
ID hinges on the fact that something/one with intelligence created life. As of now, scientists can form some of the proto-material that was assumed to be the building blocks of life.
If by some chance scientists can create the conditions and the ability to repeat an experiment wherein life can be created with human creators, that opens the door to accepting that perhaps there is some truth behind ID, that something could of created human life.
Outside of that though, there is little harder science that could prove ID.
ChrisWWII wrote:... scientist know though the application of technology x and technique y, can create basic organic compounds and saying that God did everything, through some kind of mystical unexplained process. Going back to the claim that creationism is highly unscientific...
If you are referring to the "primordial soup" experiments, those experiements leave a lot to be desired, and it is/was creartion scientists that have showed how flawed those experiemts were. In fact some modern text books circa 2004 incclude the following line..from Principles of evolution,Holt, Rinehart and Winston it says..
"
Recent discoveries have caused scientists to reevaluate [the experiment]. We now know that the mixture of gases used in [the experiment] could not have existed on early Earth. ... Some scientists argue that the chemicals were produced within ocean bubbles. Others say that the chemicals arose in deep sea vents. The correct answer has not been determined yet." (emphasis mine)
Here is another link expressing concerns about the primordial soup.
Now they are saying that life came from hydrothermal vents..which has it's own problems. NO doubt in 50 years they will come up with yet another theory.
ChrisWWII wrote:... scientist know though the application of technology x and technique y, can create basic organic compounds and saying that God did everything, through some kind of mystical unexplained process. Going back to the claim that creationism is highly unscientific...
If you are referring to the "primordial soup" experiments, those experiements leave a lot to be desired, and it is/was creartion scientists that have showed how flawed those experiemts were. In fact some modern text books circa 2004 incclude the following line..from Principles of evolution,Holt, Rinehart and Winston it says..
"
Recent discoveries have caused scientists to reevaluate [the experiment]. We now know that the mixture of gases used in [the experiment] could not have existed on early Earth. ... Some scientists argue that the chemicals were produced within ocean bubbles. Others say that the chemicals arose in deep sea vents. The correct answer has not been determined yet." (emphasis mine)
Here is another link expressing concerns about the primordial soup.
Now they are saying that life came from hydrothermal vents..which has it's own problems. NO doubt in 50 years they will come up with yet another theory.
GG
One theory will eventually lead to a conclusive answer. If scientists can create life, good for them.
They unfortunately won't be the ones telling classrooms who or what is the creator of Bob, the first human and Spanky, the first thing Bob decided to eat for breakfast.
How is putting something that is not factually provable into a theory make it science? We are running back into the Babel Fish dilemma again.
If we make 'proto-material' wouldn't that be just as much an argument for no god as it is for the existence of god? Or as Hannibal Lector said, "And if one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is".
WarOne wrote:..One theory will eventually lead to a conclusive answer....
That is a faith statement.
The problem I see is that this stuff is foisted as though it were fact when it is only theory. Someone has an idea.. then it gets passed on as though it were true and they don't tell kids what assumptions were used in promulgating these theories...how unscientific.
WarOne wrote:..One theory will eventually lead to a conclusive answer....
That is a faith statement.
The problem I see is that this stuff is foisted as though it were fact when it is only theory. Someone has an idea.. then it gets passed on as though it were true and they don't tell kids what assumptions were used in promulgating these theories...how unscientific.
GG
Well, assuming the society does not disintegrate and we fall into a dark ages, at some point we will get an answer as how life could of been created. Don't know when, but of the multitude of theories out there, one will eventually find the answer. Even if the theory is "no theory will be able to accurately conclude how life was created," it will be an answer nonetheless.
WarOne wrote:
There is a difference between ID and creationism.
ID hinges on the fact that something/one with intelligence created life. As of now, scientists can form some of the proto-material that was assumed to be the building blocks of life.
If by some chance scientists can create the conditions and the ability to repeat an experiment wherein life can be created with human creators, that opens the door to accepting that perhaps there is some truth behind ID, that something could of created human life.
Outside of that though, there is little harder science that could prove ID.
Not necessarily true. Intelligent Design does not hold that a superior intelligence created life, but rather that said superior intelligence guided the creation, and gave helping hands when necessary to produce certain functions that could not have evolved naturally. That is, of course, what the irreducible complexity argument is all about. That there are certain parts of organisms that could not have evolved naturally, as the constituent parts would not have been preserved, thus they must have been placed by an intelligent designer. Until humans can do that, the door isn't truly opened. I'll concede that the fact that we can create basic organic compounds is a stepping stone...but that's less opening the door, and more putting your hand on the doorknob.
GeneralGrog: I'm not referring to those experiments at all. I'm referring to WarOne's point that humans being able to produce organic compounds opens the door to a proper consideration of ID. Whether or not those specific experiments succeeded is irrelevant.
WarOne wrote:..One theory will eventually lead to a conclusive answer....
That is a faith statement.
The problem I see is that this stuff is foisted as though it were fact when it is only theory. Someone has an idea.. then it gets passed on as though it were true and they don't tell kids what assumptions were used in promulgating these theories...how unscientific.
GG
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
Would you say that heliocentric theory shouldn't be taught in schools because it is only a theory? Or that biology classes shouldn't teach students because cell theory is only a theory?
The theory of evolution is supported by as vast bodies of evidence as any of these other theories.
This is a perfect example of people misunderstanding the definition of what a theory really is.
WarOne wrote:..One theory will eventually lead to a conclusive answer....
That is a faith statement.
The problem I see is that this stuff is foisted as though it were fact when it is only theory. Someone has an idea.. then it gets passed on as though it were true and they don't tell kids what assumptions were used in promulgating these theories...how unscientific.
GG
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
Would you say that heliocentric theory shouldn't be taught in schools because it is only a theory? Or that biology classes shouldn't teach students because cell theory is only a theory?
The theory of evolution is supported by as vast bodies of evidence as any of these other theories.
This is a perfect example of people misunderstanding the definition of what a theory really is.
Mate, dont encourage him, evolution is as well proven as it is possible to prove something, and for this reason most people dont waste their time arguing with brainwashed Religious zealots, well, except for me because im bad tempered.
Nothing you will say or show them can change a dyed in the wool Creationists mind, so dont even bother talking about it. They want God to exist so he does, and nothing you or anybody else will say to them can change that.
WarOne wrote:..One theory will eventually lead to a conclusive answer....
That is a faith statement.
The problem I see is that this stuff is foisted as though it were fact when it is only theory. Someone has an idea.. then it gets passed on as though it were true and they don't tell kids what assumptions were used in promulgating these theories...how unscientific.
GG
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
Would you say that heliocentric theory shouldn't be taught in schools because it is only a theory? Or that biology classes shouldn't teach students because cell theory is only a theory?
The theory of evolution is supported by as vast bodies of evidence as any of these other theories.
This is a perfect example of people misunderstanding the definition of what a theory really is.
NO I understand perfectly what a theory is. The problem is, as I have stated many times, is that a theory needs to be taught that it hasn't been totally proven to be true. The "supported by a vast body of evidence" doesn't = proof. I can just as easily say that there is a "vast body of evidence" for the existence of God, but that doesn't = proof either.
Also it would be nice if they showed the "vast body of assumptions" needed to make these "vast bodies of evidence" fit the origin models they have come up with.
Teaching evolution theory is fine, as long as they explain the flaws in the theory and why it is still a theory and not a law. But they don't do a very good job of that. It's much easier to assume it's true, and move on.
Now if someone can find a new version of Intelligent Design to profess without the religious connotations and actually uses science to try and prove it...we'll be in business.
generalgrog wrote:
NO I understand perfectly what a theory is. The problem is, as I have stated many times, is that a theory needs to be taught that it hasn't been totally proven to be true. The "supported by a vast body of evidence" doesn't = proof. I can just as easily say that there is a "vast body of evidence" for the existence of God, but that doesn't = proof either.
Also it would be nice if they showed the "vast body of assumptions" needed to make these "vast bodies of evidence" fit the origin models they have come up with.
Teaching evolution theory is fine, as long as they explain the flaws in the theory and why it is still a theory and not a law. But they don't do a very good job of that. It's much easier to assume it's true, and move on.
GG
Your vocabulary here betrays you. In scientific terms the name 'theory' and 'law' don't mean anything. Everything is a theory, even the Earth rotating around the sun is a 'theory', and as was said many times before, many things we accept as constants are in fact still theories. Even GRAVITY is still a theory, and not a 'law'. There are almost no scientific 'laws' in existence. The point remains that the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the probably explanation for the current state of life on planet Earth.
And what 'vast body of assumptions' are you referring to? The assumption that radioactive matter decays at a certain rate? The assumption that mutations that provide an advantage will be selected for by nature? Please explain more.
Another point that you simply have to take note of is what evolution had to go through to be accepted as a theory already. Evolution was published, and left open to the criticism and debate of the scientific community, and was eventually accepted through such trials. Most modern scientific theories go through the same process, being released to peer review so any complaint and gaps can be hammered out. If you notice, creationists tend to avoid that. They tend to release their materials directly to the public and to the politicians, and that's where they enjoy success. I defy you to name one time a scientific article seriously supporting creationism was released into a peer reviewed journal, and not rejected. Do that and we can talk about maybe making a mention of it in an academic setting.
Part of the issue with your argument, General Grog, is that the supposedly flawed assumptions that underpin evolution are flawed in the sense that they do not agree with the assumption of the literal truth of the Bible. They are not flawed in a scientific sense.
If you assume that Bishop Ussher was correct, then obviously the physical and geological evidence for the age of the universe and the Earth must be flawed.
There is nothing to show that Bishop Ussher was right, though, except for the assumption that the Bible is literally true. This is a circular argument.
I know you do believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I assume you accept it as a religious text. This surely should show you that Creationism or Intelligent Design based on the Bible teachings is religious, therefore it deals with theology and the supernatural, and should not be taught in science classes, because it isn't science.
Albatross wrote:Do American schools have RE lessons?
Surely that's the place for teaching creationism/ID as an alternate theory to evolution? I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught in schools, but it should be placed in its appropriate context. It's not science, it's religious education, and should be presented as such.
They have generic social studies courses, and these generally cover, in a very ephemeral sense, the various religions of the world. Though in my experience the instruction is uneven. Very little attention will be paid to Christianity, but you'll get quite a bit about Hinduism and Buddhism, and slightly less about Islam and Judaism. No theology of course, just mention of their existence and some discussion of the key figures in their history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
NO I understand perfectly what a theory is. The problem is, as I have stated many times, is that a theory needs to be taught that it hasn't been totally proven to be true.
Then you don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense. A theory is true insofar as it is both useful, and has been proven to correspond with all other relevant knowledge. The standard of truth you're demanding here would require absolutely perfect information with respect to the whole of the universe.
generalgrog wrote:
The "supported by a vast body of evidence" doesn't = proof.
Yes, it does. The definition of proof is a preponderance of evidence.
generalgrog wrote:
I can just as easily say that there is a "vast body of evidence" for the existence of God, but that doesn't = proof either.
There is scientific evidence for the existence of God?
generalgrog wrote:
Also it would be nice if they showed the "vast body of assumptions" needed to make these "vast bodies of evidence" fit the origin models they have come up with.
GG
When you come up with evidence which indicates that the physical laws of the universe have changed in aribtrary ways that can not be attributed to another, as yet undiscovered, physical law, then you can talk about how uniformitarianism is an assumption equivalent to assuming God. Until then, you're wasting time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
And what 'vast body of assumptions' are you referring to? The assumption that radioactive matter decays at a certain rate? The assumption that mutations that provide an advantage will be selected for by nature? Please explain more.
He's most likely referring to uniformitarianism, or the assumption that the physical laws of the universe have always been the same. The problem is that, even if the physical laws could be shown to have been different at one time, it still isn't evidence of God because there is an equal probability that the difference could be attributed to an as yet undiscovered law. In fact, there are theoretical physicists who will tell you that the physical laws which we commonly interact with vary a great deal in extreme, ambient conditions, but that's not proof of God.
This will always be the ultimate dilemma for creation scientists: How do you create a test for God himself?
Kilkrazy wrote:Part of the issue with your argument, General Grog, is that the supposedly flawed assumptions that underpin evolution are flawed in the sense that they do not agree with the assumption of the literal truth of the Bible. They are not flawed in a scientific sense.
If you assume that Bishop Ussher was correct, then obviously the physical and geological evidence for the age of the universe and the Earth must be flawed.
There is nothing to show that Bishop Ussher was right, though, except for the assumption that the Bible is literally true. This is a circular argument.
I know you do believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I assume you accept it as a religious text. This surely should show you that Creationism or Intelligent Design based on the Bible teachings is religious, therefore it deals with theology and the supernatural, and should not be taught in science classes, because it isn't science.
The underlining assumptions are based on uniformitarianism. You can't prove that decay rates have always been what they are now, you can't prove that the speed of light has always been what it is now, you can't prove that universe expansion has always been what it it now, you can't even prove that electricity and magnetism have always worked the same. You have to assume it has always been what it is now, to make macroevolution and an old earth work.
Of course the opposite is true in that you can't prove that it hasn't always been the same either.
GG
GeneralGrog, if you assume that those constants of the universe can change, you have to provide evidence that they even CAN change. There is absolutely zero evidence that even remotely suggests uniformitarianism is false. You must furnish us with the evidence that shows even the slightest change in the decay rates is even remotely possible.
I swear, if you can provide the slightest shred of evidence that uniformitarianism is false, that fundamental forces like gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism can weaken or decay as time goes on, I will eat a Reaver Titan.
generalgrog wrote:The underlining assumptions are based on uniformitarianism. You can't prove that decay rates have always been what they are now, you can't prove that the speed of light has always been what it is now, you can't prove that universe expansion has always been what it it now, you can't even prove that electricity and magnetism have always worked the same. You have to assume it has always been what it is now, to make macroevolution and an old earth work.
Of course the opposite is true in that you can't prove that it hasn't always been the same either.
GG
I can't prove that the human race wasn't murdered by aliens and replaced by communist pod people for the sole purpose of tainting my Precious Bodily Fluids, but you don't see me up a bell tower with a hunting rifle, now do you?
generalgrog wrote: NO I understand perfectly what a theory is.
Really? It doesn't seem like it. . .
generalgrog wrote: The "supported by a vast body of evidence" doesn't = proof.
You do realize that that is the exact definition of proof, don't you?
Dictionary.com Proof- noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
I think a "vast body" would be sufficient, don't you? It's far more evidence than there is for anything proposed by creationism.
generalgrog wrote: Also it would be nice if they showed the "vast body of assumptions" needed to make these "vast bodies of evidence" fit the origin models they have come up with.
Well, if the theory of evolution contains "vast bodies of assumptions" (it doesn't), then creationism contains "bodies of assumptions" that are far vaster, and thus should not be taught in place of, or alongside, evolution.
generalgrog wrote: It's much easier to assume it's true, and move on.
Yeah, sort of like it's easy to assume that everything in the Bible is true.
ChrisWWII wrote:GeneralGrog, if you assume that those constants of the universe can change, you have to provide evidence that they even CAN change. There is absolutely zero evidence that even remotely suggests uniformitarianism is false. You must furnish us with the evidence that shows even the slightest change in the decay rates is even remotely possible.
Basing your evidence off of well-grounded assumptions is perfectly acceptable, so yeah, that's another area Grog falls on his face. I and just about every sane person on this planet assume that the sun will rise as expected in the morning. It's possible that god is going to go and make the sun stand still one night and it won't rise in the morning, but anyone actually freaking out over the possibility is going to be written off as a complete nutter because they can't provide any sort of supporting evidence that something about the sun has changed to cast the existing assumptions into doubt.
Well, if the theory of evolution contains "vast bodies of assumptions" (it doesn't),
Go back and look at what I said about uniformitarianism...uniformitarianism = "vast bodies of assumptions"
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:I swear, if you can provide the slightest shred of evidence that uniformitarianism is false, that fundamental forces like gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism can weaken or decay as time goes on, I will eat a Reaver Titan.
There has been some interesting research such as the R.A.T.E.(radioisotopes and the age of the earth) project. And also Robert Gentry radio halos which was published in nationally recognized scientific journals. His work is unrefuted by the way.
The RATE project goes into some detail on hoe radioisotope decay could have been sped up and explain some experiments. the major problem they found with their model is the amount of energy created by speeding up decay rates is HUGE. And the question is what happened to all of that energy. They plan on doing a follow up project to investigate further.
Gentry also challenges the astrophysics community.... if your into high level math and physics he has written several white pages about the issue.
http://www.orionfdn.org/
Well, i dont know about you guys, but that last post convinced me, we should start teaching the (non existent)controversy.
Im fully behind this, so i am writing to my local university and demanding that medical students get taught the black bile/yellow bile theory, and lets not forget to teach them to smash holes in peoples skulls to get the ghosts out if they suffer headaches.
Oh and storks deliver babies in biology class, and voodoo causes aids.
As a believer myself, I think it's folly to try to link Religion and Science in the first place. Genesis is pretty vague, so it's probably best to try to not use it to prove anything scientific.
Young earth Creationism isn't the only way people think about this issue either.
Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to convert based on this, but reading the same arguments over and over again get pretty tiring. In closing, refuting Science probably isn't the best way to spread the Gospel. Better to stick with the more spiritual, philosophical aspects IMHO.
mattyrm wrote:Well, i dont know about you guys, but that last post convinced me, we should start teaching the (non existent)controversy.
Im fully behind this, so i am writing to my local university and demanding that medical students get taught the black bile/yellow bile theory, and lets not forget to teach them to smash holes in peoples skulls to get the ghosts out if they suffer headaches.
Oh and storks deliver babies in biology class, and voodoo causes aids.
Don't forget the Wolvernine theory:
Even if incinerated to the bone, you still regenerate everything. The only way to die is to open his adamantium skull and murder the brain.
And even if he does die, if he beats the angel of death in a fight, he gets to come back again.
Lol. I actually have that comic, i remember reading it a few years back, it was Logan going after the guy who killed everyone as a precursor to the Marvel Civil War wasnt it?
Wolverine has always been a cool character, but its hard to nail down his powers, i remember an old comic where he got burnt and his hair grew back to his normal classic hairdo in about 20 seconds, but in a later one his hair didnt grow back.
mattyrm wrote:Lol. I actually have that comic, i remember reading it a few years back, it was Logan going after the guy who killed everyone as a precursor to the Marvel Civil War wasnt it?
Wolverine has always been a cool character, but its hard to nail down his powers, i remember an old comic where he got burnt and his hair grew back to his normal classic hairdo in about 20 seconds, but in a later one his hair didnt grow back.
I think id just drown the fether.
But then the Theory of Wolverine kicks in.
Crack open his skull and destroy the brain? At the very least sever the head from the body to deny bodily regeneration?
but feel free to point out if they are incorrectly quoted (in spirit).
as a token of our new found friendship and agreement.
