|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2004 : 14:58:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
“Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory" -- OK I thought any science class would point out any hole, short comings, problems in any theory.
Rubicon, the issue is that evolution (the current understanding of it anyway) is solidly supported by multiple and independent branches of inquiry that it's an extremely well evidenced theory. Wanting to teach "alternatives" to evolution is akin to wanting to teach "alternative gravity theory".
Nope, whether or not evolution is taught with alternatives or not is a side note.
The real issue is the who has final say in what gets taught at schools.
The real issue is control. 
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2004 : 18:17:28 [Permalink]
|
Cüneiformist wrote:quote:
The article goes on (you need to subscribe, I think, to read the thing in full on-line), but one of the points is that there's loads of information in just small pieces of matter, which seems to go against Jerry's notion (following Dembsky?) that there's only a finite and not very large amount of information in the universe. I don't know if the SciAm article is relevant for the discussion of information in regards to ID, but I thought I'd throw it out for those more scientifically inclined...
Not only is there "loads" of information, but it is - according to the article - constantly being "processed." One of the examples of the information-carrying capabilities of subatomic particles cited by the authors is that the spin states of electrons, protons, etc. can be thought of as quantum bits. Every time two particles interact, the spin states can change (and spin is conserved, too, like momentum).
The authors leave little question that this is the kind of information which is tied to thermodynamic entropy, which lets us (here in this thread) state in no uncertain terms that such information isn't applicable to the macroscopic scale of a genome, since quantum interactions happen constantly between the electrons within the atoms which make up the nucleotides of even a single DNA base pair. Such interactions play a negligible role in determining the sequence of bases which will go into a particular sperm or egg. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2004 : 01:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
It is not the school that did it. It's the school board.
That was my point. - Schools that preaches religion when they should teach science should be and have been sued by students.
- Adding ID to the science curriculum will cause lawsuits against the school, which will hurt the school.
- Misusing a position of trust to further your own agenda might be illegal.
Is there any legal possibilities to hold school boards accountable?
If a school board decides that a school should commit a crime, who is responsible?
quote:
Growing up I went to a Catholic High School. We were taught evolution in science and theology in religious studies. They weren't combined. We were left to make our own decisions.
Having read Jack Chick, I cant say I'm surprised  |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 11/12/2004 01:47:34 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2004 : 07:17:21 [Permalink]
|
| This forum is odd (but enjoyable) and threads like this make it so. Dave W - I'd like to compliment you on your tenacious attention to detail. Where do you find the time??? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2004 : 08:45:23 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
Dave W - I'd like to compliment you on your tenacious attention to detail. Where do you find the time???
Thanks. The time I get for this stuff is made possible through a benign neglect of both my family and my household chores. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2004 : 16:06:04 [Permalink]
|
| This is the longest thread in the Creation/Evolution forum for at least a year. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2004 : 21:08:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
This is the longest thread in the Creation/Evolution forum for at least a year.
But it still has a ways to go if you combine the two huge verlch threads started some time ago. Remember-- he started with "Things get Fugly" that went for 19 pages. Dave locked it when the discussion became utterly stupid, and opened a new one called "Velrch's asstertions" that went for another 19 pages. Over the course of those 38 (!) pages, verlch became more and more delusional, convinced that he was being censored thanks to a vast Mason-led plot.
At least, that's what I recall... |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2004 : 02:23:48 [Permalink]
|
Well, here are some more thoughts on this matter as I contemplate the state of the nation after the election fiasco.
If we took religion out of the picture, would ID or Creationism even be considered? Of course not.
While the religious folks don't like their beliefs being challenged, they have no evidence the scientific community has any reason to exclude religious beliefs. Are certain theists saying there is some kind of conspiracy against religious beliefs? Well, they do say that, but where is their evidence?
Such a premise is easily debunked. Why would the scientific community be against legitimate conclusions that supported the Bible any more than they would be for conclusions that debunked the Bible? Scientists are not inherently atheists. I think they should be but if one did a survey, I'd bet there were as many scientists that were theist as in the rest of the population. Maybe a few more atheists, but by no means a complete disproportion.
So the underlying premise that somehow science purposely ignores evidence supporting Bible claims is not supportable.
And the problem in allowing unsupported scientific evidence that leaves the Bible version of reality still on the table? Such an approach to science destroys scientific integrity. We really do need to object.
I know this is nothing new to most of you on this board. But every time I read about another ignorant school board decision to interfere with science, I get on my soapbox.
I also had a thought about why evolution was such an issue when other things in the Bible are written off as 'stories' rather than factual descriptions. Nobody is still arguing the Moon is a light that rules the night sky as opposed to having reflected light. Not many are still hung up on a flat Earth that the Sun orbits. I guess those are just easier concepts to grasp than evolution and geology.
So it seems arbitrary to me what folks decide they want to be literal in the Bible and what they decide must just be metaphorical stories.
I wonder if approaching the evolution debate from these angles rather than just the evolution evidence would be helpful. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/13/2004 02:27:14 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2004 : 06:17:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beskeptigal:
I also had a thought about why evolution was such an issue when other things in the Bible are written off as 'stories' rather than factual descriptions. Nobody is still arguing the Moon is a light that rules the night sky as opposed to having reflected light. Not many are still hung up on a flat Earth that the Sun orbits. I guess those are just easier concepts to grasp than evolution and geology.
So it seems arbitrary to me what folks decide they want to be literal in the Bible and what they decide must just be metaphorical stories.
I think the fear of evolution is that it forces one to ask some questions which have some difficult answers. If we evolved from simpler organisms influenced by the environment and by chance, then we were not created in the image of a god. If we and all other life evolved over millions of years, then obviously the genesis story is a complete fabrication. If that story is nothing but a fable, then the rest of the supernatural occurences described in the bible are also called into question. In fact, when one examines the evidence regarding the formation of the universe and the earth, one can either conclude that there is no evidence of a diety behind it all, or if there is, it is vastly different than the jealous, petty, vindictive, meddling, very human-like god of the bible (in my opinion such a being would be much cooler than the mythical one we've been told of). Such a concept, that we are not "special", and there is no god who takes a personal interest in our lives is very difficult for many people to internalize. Nobody to keep you on the straight and narrow and punish your enemies with eternal paradise or eternal torture. Nobody to magically cure your child's disease. Nobody to make decisions for you. This means you actually have to think for yourself, do the right thing because its good for the society as a whole, learn to accept the often seemingly cruel happenings in your life, and do it all without knowing what, if anything, becomes of your conciousness when you die. This kind of emotional and intellectual maturity is difficult. So difficult, it seems, that many would prefer to retreat into a world where it all works out in the end, thanks to the big guy up there. And anything that challenges that security blanket is fiercely resisted. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2004 : 16:13:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I think the fear of evolution is that it forces one to ask some questions which have some difficult answers. If we evolved from simpler organisms influenced by the environment and by chance, then we were not created in the image of a god. If we and all other life evolved over millions of years, then obviously the genesis story is a complete fabrication. If that story is nothing but a fable, then the rest of the supernatural occurences described in the bible are also called into question. In fact, when one examines the evidence regarding the formation of the universe and the earth, one can either conclude that there is no evidence of a diety behind it all, or if there is, it is vastly different than the jealous, petty, vindictive, meddling, very human-like god of the bible (in my opinion such a being would be much cooler than the mythical one we've been told of). Such a concept, that we are not "special", and there is no god who takes a personal interest in our lives is very difficult for many people to internalize. Nobody to keep you on the straight and narrow and punish your enemies with eternal paradise or eternal torture. Nobody to magically cure your child's disease. Nobody to make decisions for you. This means you actually have to think for yourself, do the right thing because its good for the society as a whole, learn to accept the often seemingly cruel happenings in your life, and do it all without knowing what, if anything, becomes of your conciousness when you die. This kind of emotional and intellectual maturity is difficult. So difficult, it seems, that many would prefer to retreat into a world where it all works out in the end, thanks to the big guy up there. And anything that challenges that security blanket is fiercely resisted.
Very well-written and very true. I always burn up when some religious person tries to inform me that I "deny god" because because I'm "choosing the easy way out" and that faith in god is actually far more challenging, if less unsettling. If they mean it is hard to maintain an irrational belief in the face of contrary evidence, then I would agree with them. I don't think they do, though. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2004 : 18:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I think the fear of evolution is that it forces one to ask some questions which have some difficult answers. If we evolved from simpler organisms influenced by the environment and by chance, then we were not created in the image of a god. If we and all other life evolved over millions of years, then obviously the genesis story is a complete fabrication. If that story is nothing but a fable, then the rest of the supernatural occurences described in the bible are also called into question.
Specifically called into question are the Biblical promises that Jesus died "for our sins," and that by following Jesus' teachings, we'll be "saved." If those two "truths" are possibly false, then the "security blanket" is utterly and completely absent. After all, if Jesus did not die and get resurrected, all bets are off for Christianity - Jesus' death is the lynchpin of the entire faith. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 00:09:14 [Permalink]
|
The "Jesus died for us" concept always gets me.
God sends his 'son'. But aren't the rest of us 'his children'?
God has this son by implanting a fertilized egg, or just a sperm. How is this supposed to create the bond a parent has with a child that makes sacrificing your child so meaningful? Or was this child in existence and merely transported via an egg? Well that doesn't quite fit now either, does it?
And, the most ridiculous of all, God forgives us all our sins after we torture his son. Huh? Let me get this straight, who is doing the forgiving? So who sets up the required criteria for that forgiveness? I can see it now.
Jesus: "Gee Dad, you really ought to let those poor saps off the hook."
God: "Well, Son, someone's got to pay for the damage they've caused."
Jesus: "How about I pay?"
God: "OK, go down there and let them beat you up and kill you. That will do it."
Then what? It gets written as, "For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son."
Does that even make any sense?
Then there's the big boo boo everyone leaves out of the story. God forgot to forgive women until pain meds and anethesia were developed. You see, women were to be punished by suffering the pain of childbirth.
For men, it was to toil on the land or something like that. So not all of them were forgiven either.
Somehow all the original proclamations of punishment for eating some mystery fruit were changed to needing to be forgiven to get into heaven. But then that is another story.
That's interesting about the creation concept being a more central belief so it would be harder to deal with when it becomes clear evolution is the mechanism for our existence. I guess at some point you can't just keep adjusting your beliefs to fit with the evidence. At some point your beliefs hit the breaking point.
Yet there are many evolution believers who have managed to hold on to religion by mere cognitive dissonance. It hasn't necessarily shaken the beliefs of every Bible follower.
How do they do it? It's a miracle!
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/15/2004 00:21:49 |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 13:16:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I think the fear of evolution is that it forces one to ask some questions which have some difficult answers. If we evolved from simpler organisms influenced by the environment and by chance, then we were not created in the image of a god. If we and all other life evolved over millions of years, then obviously the genesis story is a complete fabrication. If that story is nothing but a fable, then the rest of the supernatural occurences described in the bible are also called into question.
Specifically called into question are the Biblical promises that Jesus died "for our sins," and that by following Jesus' teachings, we'll be "saved." If those two "truths" are possibly false, then the "security blanket" is utterly and completely absent. After all, if Jesus did not die and get resurrected, all bets are off for Christianity - Jesus' death is the lynchpin of the entire faith.
All I have to do is look at the calendar and find the exact year Jesus was born! Exactly 2004 years ago! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 15:27:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Specifically called into question are the Biblical promises that Jesus died "for our sins," and that by following Jesus' teachings, we'll be "saved." If those two "truths" are possibly false, then the "security blanket" is utterly and completely absent. After all, if Jesus did not die and get resurrected, all bets are off for Christianity - Jesus' death is the lynchpin of the entire faith.
Actually, Jesus' resurrection is the lynchpin of the faith. The resurrection indicates the sacrifice was acceptable. If someone finds his tomb and his remains in it. Then the premise of the faith falters. Particularly since he said he would rise from the dead. Oddly enough this would also effect Islam. In Islam, they too believe Christ will return. They don't believe he was crucified rather someone took his place (All ways look on the bright side of life--whistles)
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 15:39:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I think the fear of evolution is that it forces one to ask some questions which have some difficult answers. If we evolved from simpler organisms influenced by the environment and by chance, then we were not created in the image of a god. If we and all other life evolved over millions of years, then obviously the genesis story is a complete fabrication. If that story is nothing but a fable, then the rest of the supernatural occurences described in the bible are also called into question.
Specifically called into question are the Biblical promises that Jesus died "for our sins," and that by following Jesus' teachings, we'll be "saved." If those two "truths" are possibly false, then the "security blanket" is utterly and completely absent. After all, if Jesus did not die and get resurrected, all bets are off for Christianity - Jesus' death is the lynchpin of the entire faith.
All I have to do is look at the calendar and find the exact year Jesus was born! Exactly 2004 years ago!
Was he? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
