Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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 can't figure out what you mean by this.

I can't figure out what you mean by this.

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.

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.

Phryxis wrote:

I can't figure out what you mean by this.

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.

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.

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....

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

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

generalgrog wrote:

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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

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.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

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.

generalgrog wrote:

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.

rubiksnoob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

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.

Not cool, mattyrm.

You can't call someone a brainwashed religious zealot on DakkaDakka.

Go and have a quiet pint.

Mate, reason and logic dictates we accept the findings of the Scientific majority surely? If you refuse to do that, you are kind of...

Ok, ill go for a pint.

ChrisWWII wrote:That is, of course, what the irreducible complexity argument is all about.

It'd be a much better argument if any example anyone ever tried using with it actually turned out to be irreducibly complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

This was the case that confirmed the Discovery Institute's recommendation not to try to have ID taught in public schools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An interesting article about Irreducible Complexity in nature.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#howmight

rubiksnoob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

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.

GG

Kilkrazy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

This was the case that confirmed the Discovery Institute's recommendation not to try to have ID taught in public schools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An interesting article about Irreducible Complexity in nature.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#howmight

Separation of Church and State trumps all!

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