Creationists need to just go away or get hit by buses, whichever comes first...

[BizarroCub]

US school in eye of creationist storm

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday January 13, 2005
The Guardian

The battle over attempts to introduce a version of creationism into the curriculum of American schools has become focused on a small town in Pennsylvania.
Biology teachers at a high school in Dover have rejected the instructions of local officials to read a statement in class today questioning the theory of evolution.

They had been ordered by the town's elected school board to preface their usual class on evolution with a statement, saying "Darwin's Theory is a theory ... not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence."

As an alternative, the statement mentions "intelligent design", an updated form of creationism which argues that life on earth is too complex to have developed at random.

The teachers asked to opt out of making the statement, and it will be read instead by a school administrator before a biology class early next week.

The Dover school board's actions make the town the first in the US to promote "intelligent design" in competition to evolution. It has become the subject of a lawsuit by a group of parents that has pitted the Christian right against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The case is due to be heard in the next few months.

"Intelligent design is more than an attack on evolution. What these folks are proposing is to allow faith and miracles and supernatural creators to be considered as science," the ACLU's legal director in Pennsylvania, Witold Walczak, said.

A supreme court decision in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it would violate the separation of church and state.

The Dover school board decision is one of a series of signs that the movement is making a comeback. Mr Walczak predicted that it would gather steam as Christian conservatives drew inspiration from President Bush's re-election.

A CBS/New York Times poll at the time of the election found 55% of Americans believed God created humans in their present form, 27% believed in evolution guided by God and only 13% believed God was not involved in human evolution. And 65% backed teaching creationism alongside evolution.

The Dover school board and its supporters argue that "intelligent design" is not covered by the 1987 supreme court decision because it is not inherently religious, but a scientific challenge to Darwinism.

"Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design," said Carl Jarboe, a former chemistry professor and school board supporter. "I am alleging there is not one piece of scientific evidence that supports evolution."

[BizarroCub]

I mean...come on now...

A CBS/New York Times poll at the time of the election found 55% of Americans believed God created humans in their present form, 27% believed in evolution guided by God and only 13% believed God was not involved in human evolution. And 65% backed teaching creationism alongside evolution.

I mean...you folks wanna practice your stupid little religions, that's fine. More power to yah. You got your way, I've got mine, but please do not have the gall to try and pass off your supersistions as some sort of scientific fact and that many people think it should be taught, jesus, what a bunch of retards. *shakes head*

"Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design," said Carl Jarboe, a former chemistry professor and school board supporter. "I am alleging there is not one piece of scientific evidence that supports evolution."

A former chemistry professor? You sir...are a dumb ass.

[elad]

thats america for ya. but i dont think this whole god thing is as bad as it seems... relatively speaking.

[Pseudo Society]

"Stop praying in my schools and i'll stop thinking in your church" - My former bumper sticker.

This shit is getting out of hand. This violates seperation of church and state big time. It does not directly use the word God so I suppose that's why there doesnt seem to be such a big rush to suppress it. I need more coffee now...

[BizarroCub]

That's the thing...they're trying to get sneaky to circumvent the supreme courts rulings on creationism in schools.

Change the name, revamp it a bit and BAM. No longer legally blocked.

If people want to teach children that bullshit voodoo science, they can do it at home.

[uberclkgtr]

A CBS/New York Times poll at the time of the election found 55% of Americans believed God created humans in their present form, 27% believed in evolution guided by God and only 13% believed God was not involved in human evolution. And 65% backed teaching creationism alongside evolution.

Wow, science education in this country is seriously wack. The ignorant claiming we should remain ignorant. :rolleyes:

[Pseudo Society]

I have no problem with religion. If they are so hard set on getting the thought of evolution (which has much more evidence to support it)out of schools, then what in the sam fucking hell gives them the right to replace it with "creationism" or "intelligent design." Which has significantly less...but of course NO EVIDENCE to support it.

[BizarroCub]

Wow, science education in this country is seriously wack. The ignorant claiming we should remain ignorant. :rolleyes:

However, most science educators are fighting this tooth and nail. It's mainly the lobbiests, school boards, and other equally retarded scientists actually arguing for this bullshit.

[Muramasa]

Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design...

INTELLIGENT
in·tel·li·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jnt)
adj.

1. Having intelligence.
2. Having a high degree of intelligence; mentally acute.
3. Showing sound judgment and rationality: an intelligent decision; an intelligent solution to the problem.
4. Appealing to the intellect; intellectual: a film with witty and intelligent dialogue.


DESIGN
de·sign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zn)
v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs
v. tr.

1.
1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.



What a fucking joke. Do they really think that they're fooling anyone? I mean, seriously? I hate the effect that this joke of an election is having on some of the people in this country. I mean, I was under the impression that as a whole, people were becoming more intelligent than they were in the fucking 1950's. I suppose I could be wrong, though.
:sillyme:

[BizarroCub]

What a fucking joke. Do they really think that they're fooling anyone? I mean, seriously? I hate the effect that this joke of an election is having on some of the people in this country. I mean, I was under the impression that as a whole, people were becoming more intelligent than they were in the fucking 1950's. I suppose I could be wrong, though.:sillyme:

Yeah...a lot of us predicting that the monkey and chiefs second reign would bring a new wave of religious zealotry were just doom mongering...riiiiiiiiiight...

[LitainCognita]

I mean...come on now...



I mean...you folks wanna practice your stupid little religions, that's fine. More power to yah. You got your way, I've got mine, but please do not have the gall to try and pass off your supersistions as some sort of scientific fact and that many people think it should be taught, jesus, what a bunch of retards. *shakes head*



A former chemistry professor? You sir...are a dumb ass.


:werd:


Why can't they just let kids figure out faith themselves. I think its retarded to think that they would have a concept,....or even care for that matter. I think its just another way to force students to all think the same.

[Liftedtrance]

right with ya grizz. looks like they just thought this idea up to get religion in schools, and that it wasnt an idea that was considered outside of meeting that agenda.

right on to the biology teachers that refused to read that stupid statement.

ppl are certainly free to believe what they want, but trying to pass off religion as science is disrespectful to everyone's intelligence regardless of their religous beliefs.

[LibertyinmyLife]

One day when I become a professor, I'm going to "reteach" my students math. We're going to teach disciple counting right next to calculus. That way, even if you can't handle calculus, you can still learn the valuable skill of counting to 12 over and over again. In our "modern" world we probably won't need to count any higher than that, anyway.

[BizarroCub]

One day when I become a professor, I'm going to "reteach" my students math. We're going to teach disciple counting right next to calculus. That way, even if you can't handle calculus, you can still learn the valuable skill of counting to 12 over and over again. In our "modern" world we probably won't need to count any higher than that, anyway.

:haha:

Anything higher than twelve will simply be determined to be "More than Twelve" and thus irrelevant.

[NYGblue]

I find Intelligent Design to be one of the stupidest ideas to come from the religious right. Not only does it completely discount creationism. It also makes the evolution theory stronger by the sheer stupidity of ID. I am extremely tired of this crap. Will SOMEONE just go on TV and explain how utterly nonsensical ID is?

[Pseudo Society]

Come to think of it...I am about half way through Brave New World and this is eerily reminding me of that book. It seems that since the second election of Bush the bible thumpers are trying like hell to impose this sort of religious conditioning on the students.

Jeebus this is sick...

[bboyneko]

That's the sad thing..if you are educated..REALLY educated you understand that evolution is essentially fact..and that there is no support for intelligent design in any field of science. Vestigual traits such as in whales (they have tiny, underdeveloped legs buried in their body..and if you study their ontogeny you'll see the fetus develops legs..then the legs recede as the fetus develops more) are heavy evidence AGAINST intelligent design..since an intelligent designer would not intentionally place redunant useless appendeges and features in an organism. Anymore than we'd design a car with a useless airplane wing.

And as I point out time and time and time again..intelligent design answers nothing. If we say life is SO complex it could not have evolved by chance..how is it logical to then say..an EVEN MORE complex life created current life? Well where the fuck did THAT super intelligent lifeform come from? Isn't IT also too complex to have formed by chance? You place yourself in an infinite logical moebus strip.

Intelligent design is simply put, not a science anymore than astrology.

[Pseudo Society]

That's the sad thing..if you are educated..REALLY educated you understand that evolution is essentially fact..and that there is no support for intelligent design in any field of science. Vestigual traits such as in whales (they have tiny, underdeveloped legs buried in their body..and if you study their ontogeny you'll see the fetus develops legs..then the legs recede as the fetus develops more) are heavy evidence AGAINST intelligent design..since an intelligent designer would not intentionally place redunant useless appendeges and features in an organism. Anymore than we'd design a car with a useless airplane wing.

And as I point out time and time and time again..intelligent design answers nothing. If we say life is SO complex it could not have evolved by chance..how is it logical to then say..an EVEN MORE complex life created current life? Well where the fuck did THAT super intelligent lifeform come from? Isn't IT also too complex to have formed by chance? You place yourself in an infinite logical moebus strip.

Intelligent design is simply put, not a science anymore than astrology.

You sir have provided a most excellent explanation.

:hifive:

[blazinkikgurl]

seperation of church & state means......ALL IDEAS CAN BE DISCUSSED....america is fuckin stupid & close-minded....there is no proof to any of this stuff so let people explore all the options!

[Light Touch]

"Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design," said Carl Jarboe, a former chemistry professor and school board supporter. "I am alleging there is not one piece of scientific evidence that supports evolution."

Dumbest...statement...ever.

[bboyneko]

seperation of church & state means......ALL IDEAS CAN BE DISCUSSED....america is fuckin stupid & close-minded....there is no proof to any of this stuff so let people explore all the options!

So would you support our history teachers teaching, besides ancient history and whatnot, the alternative idea that the egyptians got their know-how from space aliens?

Wopuld you support Science teachers..besides teaching the current concept that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, the alternate view that the earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe and everything else revolves around it?

How about in health? Besides teaching that germs cause disease, teach the alternate view that demons cause illness.

No one is saying people can't beleive whatever they want to, it's about teaching SCIENCE in school, not religion as science. Religion , faith, can never be a science.

[Light Touch]

:haha:

Anything higher than twelve will simply be determined to be "More than Twelve" and thus irrelevant.

There is nothing more than twelve. There certainly aren't more than twelve coherent school board officials left in this cursed shell of nation.

[Light Touch]

seperation of church & state means......ALL IDEAS CAN BE DISCUSSED....america is fuckin stupid & close-minded....there is no proof to any of this stuff so let people explore all the options!

There's no proof, but there's a shitload of evidence, and it all points to evolution.

[lovedumplingx]

Religion , faith, can never be a science.But there are many people in this country who think it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution...because there's not a good explanation of why life started in the first place.

[Light Touch]

But there are many people in this country who think it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution...because there's not a good explanation of why life started in the first place.

Sure there is. Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.

[Light Touch]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html

Judge: Evolution stickers must be removed from textbooks
Thursday, January 13, 2005 Posted: 11:42 AM EST (1642 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that a school district in suburban Atlanta, Georgia, must remove an evolution disclaimer inside textbooks.

The stickers inside the Cobb County School District's science books said "Evolution is a theory not a fact."

The ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said the stickers violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Parents in Cobb County, a politically conservative area northwest of Atlanta, and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the stickers in court, arguing they violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

[mattb]

anyone read this today? it's sorta related to the topic at hand, An early mammal fossil was found from the Mesozoic era, with baby dinosaurs in it's belly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5439-2005Jan12.html


Creation makes sense to humans because they have a hard time wraping their heads around the fact that we are animals, just a little smarter, more clever whathaveyou, then pack mules and goats. The idea of creationism and some benevolent magical being makes them feel special, loved almost, lends purpose and meaning to an otherwise difficult to explain existence.

[bboyneko]

But there are many people in this country who think it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution...because there's not a good explanation of why life started in the first place.

There are also many people who believe that Lizard people control all affairs in the modern world.

If you believe there is no evidence for evolution, and that it takes just as much faith, you are sorely and sadly uneducated in evolutionary biology. As I pointed out earlier, the Whale is an amazing example of evolution.

There is an enormous amount of evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/) from many varied and indipendent fields of science that the modern whale evolved for millions of years from a quadraped ungulate..an ancient hoofed carniviorus ancestor that slowly developed it's body through natural selection to be a water-dwelling animal.

That is spectacular evidence of macro evolution, the idea that one species can become another species entirely by evolutionary forces alone.

There is a plethora of evidence that all points to the same conclusion: Modern life evolved from non-living matter ( Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) ) and then, over time became more and more complex to develop into the amazing variety of life we see today.

Also remember that earth has suffered at least 5 huge, catastrophic mass extinctions, probably caused by massive bombardement from space ( death star / nemesis theory of mass extinction (http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~swanson/) ) where at least 90% of all life then around went kaput forever. Each time, life managed to evolve again and thrive..until the next mass extinction. Again good evidence for macro evolution.

[Liftedtrance]

But there are many people in this country who think it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution...because there's not a good explanation of why life started in the first place.

even if you believe that evolution doesnt provide an explanation for how life started, to say that believing in the evolution that has ocurred since life began takes faith, is to ignore boatloads of scientific evidence, and just generally be blinding yourself.

[uberclkgtr]

"Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design," said Carl Jarboe, a former chemistry professor and school board supporter. "I am alleging there is not one piece of scientific evidence that supports evolution."

Wow, he should put down his chemistry textbooks and pick up a biology textbook. :rolleyes:

People need to wrap their minds around the fact that it's very possible to be both religious, believing in God and creation, and also be scientific and realize that evolution is a fact. Leave religion to the parents, preachers and rabbi, and leave science to, well, the science classes. Science is about things that can be investigated scientifically via the scientific method. You cannot investigate religious doctrine or even "intelligent design" scientifically. It is simply not science.

Scientists who study origins - whether it be evolutionary biologists who study the origin of man and of life on earth, or cosmologists who study the origin of the universe - know what sorts of questions can be answered by science and what the limits of science are. Many cosmologists are religious and believe in God. But they are sure not to pass of their religious beliefs as science, because, well, it's not science.

[LibertyinmyLife]

Perhaps we should put "____ is just a theory, not a fact" sticker on all of our textbooks. I for one would love to be reminded that gravity might be overcome if I just pray hard enough. And the Pythagorean Theorem, I'd love it if the school board insisted that we all know that that was just a theory and could be disproven at any time (math haters unite?) by an act of God.

There are many things that are only theories, but they have a sound scientific base. Students are already informed that a theory does not mean that it is 100% proven. It's foolish to single out evolution as the only thing we teach our children that isn't 100% proven.

Maybe instead of starting the school day with the pledge of alleigance, we should start with the motto "Many things we learn are theories, which means that they are not fully proven, and other options could still exist." This way we get rid of the pledge (to please the athiests) and please the Christians by insisting that evolution (along with everything else we teach) is just a theory!

(Religion? It's just a theory.)

[mattb]

Everything is just a theory. Since there's no absolute truth from which to seek validation of theories. no one no place will ever have any answer for anything. sucks, huh?

[Pseudo Society]

Perhaps we should put "____ is just a theory, not a fact" sticker on all of our textbooks. I for one would love to be reminded that gravity might be overcome if I just pray hard enough. And the Pythagorean Theorem, I'd love it if the school board insisted that we all know that that was just a theory and could be disproven at any time (math haters unite?) by an act of God.

There are many things that are only theories, but they have a sound scientific base. Students are already informed that a theory does not mean that it is 100% proven. It's foolish to single out evolution as the only thing we teach our children that isn't 100% proven.

Maybe instead of starting the school day with the pledge of alleigance, we should start with the motto "Many things we learn are theories, which means that they are not fully proven, and other options could still exist." This way we get rid of the pledge (to please the athiests) and please the Christians by insisting that evolution (along with everything else we teach) is just a theory!

(Religion? It's just a theory.)

:affection:

[ravermania]

Maybe in all places of worship, we should have " *insert your religion here* is just a theory, not fact!" stickers on the front door!

[BizarroCub]

LOL...get it stickered on all bibles.

Specially any bibles in the religion or philosophy sections of schools.

[: ORI :]

42

[LibertyinmyLife]

Guys...actually, existance is just a theory, not a fact. I mean, really, none of us could exist and this messageboard could be a vast sociological experiment on one poor Joe Schmo.

[bboyneko]

that would explain that brain floating in a jar feeling I get sometimes.

http://www.sha.u-net.com/brainjar.gif

[zartan]

Carl Jarboe was a "chemistry professor" at a fundamentalist christian college. i've heard of him before.

[Light Touch]

LOL...get it stickered on all bibles.

Specially any bibles in the religion or philosophy sections of schools.

Oh yes...

I'd love to see the science professors say, "Okay, you can put it on our books if you put it on the Bible."

Priceless.

[Light Touch]

Perhaps we should put "____ is just a theory, not a fact" sticker on all of our textbooks. I for one would love to be reminded that gravity might be overcome if I just pray hard enough. And the Pythagorean Theorem, I'd love it if the school board insisted that we all know that that was just a theory and could be disproven at any time (math haters unite?) by an act of God.

There are many things that are only theories, but they have a sound scientific base. Students are already informed that a theory does not mean that it is 100% proven. It's foolish to single out evolution as the only thing we teach our children that isn't 100% proven.

Maybe instead of starting the school day with the pledge of alleigance, we should start with the motto "Many things we learn are theories, which means that they are not fully proven, and other options could still exist." This way we get rid of the pledge (to please the athiests) and please the Christians by insisting that evolution (along with everything else we teach) is just a theory!

(Religion? It's just a theory.)

Oh, and by the way:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LibertyinmyLife again.

[Zimma]

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

This is a site for Americans United, an organization dedicated to legally enforcing the Constitution's separation of church and state. I might add that its Executive Director is a Christian Reverend. See, we're not all stupid.

What I don't get is why nobody sees the middle ground. On one hand you have your fundamentalists that won't even recognize that there is a fossil record that almost proves evolution.
PS - I do not take 6 day creation to be literal.

And on the other hand, you have know-it-all scientists that say the other side's beliefs are completely unfounded and have no backing, and that their theories are the only ones that hold water.

You can argue logic and perception till you die and you will not make one iota of progress in either direction.

I think they're both wrong. I think life on this planet is constantly evolving. Ever grow pot? But I also don't buy for one second that we evolved from apes. Apes might evolve on their own level and even have similar behaviors to ours, but we did not come from apes. If you look hard enough, you can find human characteristics in any animal or even plant (like their cycle of life) across the kingdom. It's empathy, and we're good at it. If we weren't we wouldn't be so manipulative.

If we only taught "fact", we would have nothing to teach. Instead, what we do (at least what we SHOULD be doing) is giving kids and all students as many feasible points of view as possible so they can make their own deductions and choices and perceive things with their own senses instead of strictly with what someone has told them the truth is.

The origin of the species is just a small part of creationist theory. But I'm not a creationist as many people would define it. I'd be more of an intelligent design theorist.

Here's the point. Science is just as inadequate to explain the origin of anything. Yes, anything. This can be proven simply and in layman's terms if you understand the laws of conservation of mass and energy, the laws upon which almost ALL science is built.

If mass has to come from somewhere, where, or a better way to put it - WHAT, is that somewhere? The origin of the first particle? Of the first rock? Planet? And from there, where did life come from? According to the fundamental laws of science, NOTHING should exist. It's a mind-blowing question in its simplicity but it's one that to current and future human knowledge CANNOT be answered. And I would bet my existence on it.

You think that it's ridiculous to believe in some unseen force that holds everything together? It's cause you can't see it with your eyes. You can't see it with ANY of your 5 senses. But when you put all those senses together you can't deny that you know there is something more to existence that can't be seen, heard, tasted, or touched.

That is part of what life is. You use your senses as sampling devices like the mars lander (can't remember its name) and shit, to gather samples and data and put it to the test in your life, to discover what that unseen force under the surface is.

You touch it when you dance or make music, and I'd imagine when you create any great work of art, you are fueling that creativity with that primal force. Maybe you've touched it and aren't even aware of it.

But I've done enough rambling, and this is a question within a question. It will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction by religious theorists or scientists. Believe that.

[Zimma]

oh yeah... Creationism is a philosophy that says mathematics is the universal language upon which the universe is built. It says from there that mathematics implies intelligent design. This doesn't undermine scientific theory, it just means that science can't explain everything.

But even those who believe in intelligent design would disagree with me, I'm sure. That's just my take on it

wow. I really like to rant I guess.

[Idrankmylavalite]

the losers call evolution a theory... which it is technically. Someone let them know that gravity is also a theory. It scares me, these religious nuts... things could get ugly if they don't simmer down.

[buzzboy]

I mean...come on now...



I mean...you folks wanna practice your stupid little religions, that's fine. More power to yah. You got your way, I've got mine, but please do not have the gall to try and pass off your supersistions as some sort of scientific fact and that many people think it should be taught, jesus, what a bunch of retards. *shakes head*



A former chemistry professor? You sir...are a dumb ass.
at one time alchemy was a widely acceptaded concept. but now we all know you cant make gold from lead.

[Liftedtrance]

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

This is a site for Americans United, an organization dedicated to legally enforcing the Constitution's separation of church and state. I might add that its Executive Director is a Christian Reverend. See, we're not all stupid.

What I don't get is why nobody sees the middle ground. On one hand you have your fundamentalists that won't even recognize that there is a fossil record that almost proves evolution.
PS - I do not take 6 day creation to be literal.

And on the other hand, you have know-it-all scientists that say the other side's beliefs are completely unfounded and have no backing, and that their theories are the only ones that hold water.

You can argue logic and perception till you die and you will not make one iota of progress in either direction.

I think they're both wrong. I think life on this planet is constantly evolving. Ever grow pot? But I also don't buy for one second that we evolved from apes. Apes might evolve on their own level and even have similar behaviors to ours, but we did not come from apes. If you look hard enough, you can find human characteristics in any animal or even plant (like their cycle of life) across the kingdom. It's empathy, and we're good at it. If we weren't we wouldn't be so manipulative.

If we only taught "fact", we would have nothing to teach. Instead, what we do (at least what we SHOULD be doing) is giving kids and all students as many feasible points of view as possible so they can make their own deductions and choices and perceive things with their own senses instead of strictly with what someone has told them the truth is.

The origin of the species is just a small part of creationist theory. But I'm not a creationist as many people would define it. I'd be more of an intelligent design theorist.

Here's the point. Science is just as inadequate to explain the origin of anything. Yes, anything. This can be proven simply and in layman's terms if you understand the laws of conservation of mass and energy, the laws upon which almost ALL science is built.

If mass has to come from somewhere, where, or a better way to put it - WHAT, is that somewhere? The origin of the first particle? Of the first rock? Planet? And from there, where did life come from? According to the fundamental laws of science, NOTHING should exist. It's a mind-blowing question in its simplicity but it's one that to current and future human knowledge CANNOT be answered. And I would bet my existence on it.

You think that it's ridiculous to believe in some unseen force that holds everything together? It's cause you can't see it with your eyes. You can't see it with ANY of your 5 senses. But when you put all those senses together you can't deny that you know there is something more to existence that can't be seen, heard, tasted, or touched.

That is part of what life is. You use your senses as sampling devices like the mars lander (can't remember its name) and shit, to gather samples and data and put it to the test in your life, to discover what that unseen force under the surface is.

You touch it when you dance or make music, and I'd imagine when you create any great work of art, you are fueling that creativity with that primal force. Maybe you've touched it and aren't even aware of it.

But I've done enough rambling, and this is a question within a question. It will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction by religious theorists or scientists. Believe that.

you weredoing pretty good until you got to the part where you say we didnt evolve from apes (we actually did). then it went downhill from there :(

[buzzboy]

you weredoing pretty good until you got to the part where you say we didnt evolve from apes (we actually did). then it went downhill from there :( not apes as in the common term, but primative humans. we didn't come from apes because apes evolved into what they are from something else, and are co-evolving along side humans. humans are from some thing more ancient.

i took anthropology in college i dont need proof.

[Zimma]

I'm sorry you think/feel that way. Got any proof? I'd love to hear it.

[Liftedtrance]

not apes as in the common term, but primative humans. we didn't come from apes because apes evolved into what they are from somethingels and are co-evolving along side humans. humans are from some thing more ancient.

yes exactly a common ancestor

[Liftedtrance]

I'm sorry you think/feel that way. Got any proof? I'd love to hear it.

why would you be sorry?

have you done any research on evolution? it's all right there for ya.

check out the DNA relationship between cimpanzees and humans for example.

you can deny evidence if you want, but that's all you are doing. denying the evidence.

[Zimma]

Every living thing on this planet evolves. By your logic all marsupials would come from one root animal. By that logic, every living thing would come from a single source.

Say this was true. From an amoeba perhaps?

Elements don't evolve. They stay the same, they are a constant. Hydrogen is the same on this planet as it is on any other in our solar system, and is the same as it would be found across the galaxy.

Where did this first living thing come from?

[Liftedtrance]

Every living thing on this planet evolves. By your logic all marsupials would come from one root animal. By that logic, every living thing would come from a single source.

Say this was true. From an amoeba perhaps?

Elements don't evolve. They stay the same, they are a constant. Hydrogen is the same on this planet as it is on any other in our solar system, and is the same as it would be found across the galaxy.

Where did this first living thing come from?
have you read this entire thread? try that first, then ask questions.

i believe post 28 by bboyneko should help you out.

[buzzboy]

Every living thing on this planet evolves. By your logic all marsupials would come from one root animal. By that logic, every living thing would come from a single source.

Say this was true. From an amoeba perhaps?

Elements don't evolve. They stay the same, they are a constant. Hydrogen is the same on this planet as it is on any other in our solar system, and is the same as it would be found across the galaxy.

Where did this first living thing come from?
that is propsteropus to say that anything made of an element is unchanging...elements are always the same but the things they make up are like complex machines made of bio-parts.

the first living thing came from a chemical or elemental reaction happening in nothingness..or the lack of something: anti space. then life started ..but that wasnt the begining the end is infinite then so is the beginnning ...time is irrelavent in arguments like this. for example your brain is made up of complex action and reaction centers (in laymens terms) everything you experience or perceive is filltered through your perceptions and then is a chemical or elevtrical impulse or reaction in your brain. when you die your reations and impulses stop. thus your soul stops exsisting...you cant "feel" if you arent alive. you will simply cease to be. if the fairy tail of god helps you get out of bed in the morning ...then fine.

but i do it cause i enjoy life and have a limited time to interact and do things with other people.

[Zimma]

why would you be sorry?

have you done any research on evolution? it's all right there for ya.

check out the DNA relationship between cimpanzees and humans for example.

you can deny evidence if you want, but that's all you are doing. denying the evidence.

I'm sorry because someone has so turned you off to the theory of intelligent design that you won't listen to logic and reason. Science implodes in the case of evolution. Did you finish reading my post or did you stop when I said that apes did not evolve into humans?

I have read about dna between chimps and humans. It's inconclusive, at best. At worst, it's pure scientific rhetoric.

How am I denying evidence? Buddy, just because you read a report in a scientific journal linking human and chimp dna, doesn't make it valid. Can you actually interpret DNA?

If you believe everything that science and your high school biology teacher tell you, you're just as bad as the fundamentalists.

Go ahead and flame me and tell me I'm wrong, blind, etc etc if you want. I'm sure I'm the only person on this site who doesn't subscribe fully to evolutionist theory, so you should have plenty of support. I'm used to it, I get it from both sides of the fence. But it's something I've given years of thought to, and as far as this subject goes, I am as correct as can be with current evidence considered.

[bboyneko]

Where did this first living thing come from?

I already posted this in my earlier post regarding whale phloygeny and whale Ontogeny in regards to macro-evolution, but here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

also

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Wether you beleive in God or Evolution, you either have to

1) Believe the first life, wether it be God or a simple clump of organic matter, had no predessessor and therefore either ALWAYS EXISTED or

2) Arose By chance

Either way, life would not need a creator or designer, at least not the first life.

[buzzboy]

There are also many people who believe that Lizard people control all affairs in the modern world.

If you believe there is no evidence for evolution, and that it takes just as much faith, you are sorely and sadly uneducated in evolutionary biology. As I pointed out earlier, the Whale is an amazing example of evolution.

There is an enormous amount of evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/) from many varied and indipendent fields of science that the modern whale evolved for millions of years from a quadraped ungulate..an ancient hoofed carniviorus ancestor that slowly developed it's body through natural selection to be a water-dwelling animal.

That is spectacular evidence of macro evolution, the idea that one species can become another species entirely by evolutionary forces alone.

There is a plethora of evidence that all points to the same conclusion: Modern life evolved from non-living matter ( Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) ) and then, over time became more and more complex to develop into the amazing variety of life we see today.

Also remember that earth has suffered at least 5 huge, catastrophic mass extinctions, probably caused by massive bombardement from space ( death star / nemesis theory of mass extinction (http://www.bol.ucla.edu/%7Eswanson/) ) where at least 90% of all life then around went kaput forever. Each time, life managed to evolve again and thrive..until the next mass extinction. Again good evidence for macro evolution.
dan,

its posts like this that make me never wanna put you on ignor no matter how irratating you can be. good one bruvva.

werd to the mummy fukka.

[Liftedtrance]

I'm sorry because someone has so turned you off to the theory of intelligent design that you won't listen to logic and reason.


yep. you hit the nail on the head I'M not listening to logic and reason.

teheheeehe

[mattb]

I think that's exactly what they are saying, that every living thing evolved from what was at one time one unique living thing. one single organism of some sort. I think the part that confuses many people and is perhaps for some humans the most difficult piece of this evolutionary puzzle to wrap their heads around is the, I don't feel as though I can possibly stress this enough, INCONCEIVABLY MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF TIME INVOLVED.



Every living thing on this planet evolves. By your logic all marsupials would come from one root animal. By that logic, every living thing would come from a single source.

Say this was true. From an amoeba perhaps?

Elements don't evolve. They stay the same, they are a constant. Hydrogen is the same on this planet as it is on any other in our solar system, and is the same as it would be found across the galaxy.

Where did this first living thing come from?

[Liftedtrance]

oh and zimma i try to read all of your posts but you are so uninformed about what you are trying to talk about its ridiculous. seriously, go read up on this and come back and see if you are still singing the same tune.

btw, i'm not trying to make this personal. i respect what you believe in, and am trying to respect you, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

[Liftedtrance]

I think that's exactly what they are saying, that every living thing evolved from what was at one time one unique living thing. one single organism of some sort. I think the part that confuses many people and is perhaps for some humans the most difficult piece of this evolutionary puzzle to wrap their heads around is the, I don't feel as though I can possibly stress this enough, INCONCEIVABLY MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF TIME INVOLVED.

very right. the amount of time is key to understanding. very key.

[BizarroCub]

I'm sorry because someone has so turned you off to the theory of intelligent design that you won't listen to logic and reason. Science implodes in the case of evolution. Did you finish reading my post or did you stop when I said that apes did not evolve into humans?

Science most certainly does NOT implode in the case of evolution. I can go out into my garden, grab some plants, take a week and show you evolution in action. Period. You can try and argue about HOW evolution happens, but to try and deny that it doens't happen is the highest of intellectual fallacy.

I have read about dna between chimps and humans. It's inconclusive, at best. At worst, it's pure scientific rhetoric.

I would like to see some documentation on this. Inconclusive? Hmmmm...considering we can outright look at the two stands and put them next to each other and compare, I'd be interested in hearing some evidence for this claim.

How am I denying evidence? Buddy, just because you read a report in a scientific journal linking human and chimp dna, doesn't make it valid. Can you actually interpret DNA?

Again, do you have an actual factual basis for this assumption or is it based on something your pastor told yah?

If you believe everything that science and your high school biology teacher tell you, you're just as bad as the fundamentalists.

Go ahead and flame me and tell me I'm wrong, blind, etc etc if you want. I'm sure I'm the only person on this site who doesn't subscribe fully to evolutionist theory, so you should have plenty of support. I'm used to it, I get it from both sides of the fence. But it's something I've given years of thought to, and as far as this subject goes, I am as correct as can be with current evidence considered.

Well...if you're as correct as can be, I'd certainly like to see how the prevailing scientific model researched by people a lot smarter than all of us with PhD's and the like, I'd certainly like to see the documentation of such. Do you have a paper on the topic or is it simply a matter of "faith"?

[Light Touch]

Science is incomplete. It cannot explain everything.

However, the rules are determinable. Elements do not evolve, but aggregates of elements do evolve, through simple chemical reactions, up to amino acids which replicate, viruses, cells, organs, and organisms. Will we be able to explain these things? Probably. Through evolution? More than likely.

Can we explain why the universe exists? No. We can only explain what's within the system, not the system. See the related thread from a week or so ago.

[BizarroCub]

Seems I need to bring this one back...again thanks for sharing this James...

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

[bboyneko]

http://www.litemind.com/weblog/arquivo/evolution.jpg

[Zimma]

Bizarro, if I went to church or had a pastor, he probably would douse me in holy water for bringing a discussion about evolution up. And for the record, I said it's obvious that evolution is real. I just don't believe that we evolved from apes.


I think they're both wrong. I think life on this planet is constantly evolving. Ever grow pot?

Why do I believe in intelligent design? Because the entire universe seems to me to be built around mathematics. Maybe I should write a paper on it.

And bboyneko, that's interesting. I've never heard about this before. This'll give me something to read on my smoke breaks.

I'm done now.

[BizarroCub]

I just don't believe that we evolved from apes.

Well...is this based on any factual evidence?

Why do I believe in intelligent design? Because the entire universe seems to me to be built around mathematics. Maybe I should write a paper on it.

That still explains nothing. What does mathematics have to do with intelligence? All mathematics is, is a representative language we use to represent occurances in our environment. How does that in any way denote some sort of intelligent creation?

[uberclkgtr]

And bboyneko, that's interesting. I've never heard about this before. This'll give me something to read on my smoke breaks.

You've never heard about whale evolution before? I find that odd. That's pretty standard for an intro evolutionary biology class. There's all sorts of cool, interesting cases like this in the fossil record. I loved reading me some Stephen Jay Gould columns in Natural History when I was younger. :yes:

[Phoenix]

Every living thing on this planet evolves. By your logic all marsupials would come from one root animal. By that logic, every living thing would come from a single source.

Say this was true. From an amoeba perhaps?

Elements don't evolve. They stay the same, they are a constant. Hydrogen is the same on this planet as it is on any other in our solar system, and is the same as it would be found across the galaxy.

Where did this first living thing come from?

Amino acids that linked together and formed a chain over time. Depending on what was in them some acids stayed linked better than others. Eventually, they formed a simple celled organism which then evolved into more complex organisms. They show a little movie on how this happened at one of the museums in Washington off the Park but I can't remember which one. And all life didn't evolve one thing, it evolved from different organisms that evolved together.

Thousands of years ago people thought the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe, etc. etc., but after scientific study these things were proven not to be true. Just because evolution hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it won't ever be. I'm not saying to completely rule out intelligent design, but before we do, let's give science a full chance to explain things first.

[buzzboy]

id like to point out that orgasm and organism are similar words....there fore evolution is a sham. :afterbuzz:

[elad]

the power of x-ist cumpells you.

[buzzboy]

i'd also like to point out that in my previous post (post #69)...huh uh huh huh huh i said 69= i was not supporting creationism. i am pro-we evolved. if any thing created anyone....it would be the puritanical people that ruled during the old days that sought some form of contol over the populace. man is not detered by the threats of man, but the idea of eternal suffering sure is a scary enough motivato for most. personally i live every day like it is my last, this includes the time i didnt waste in college or the money im not saving for when life stops.... if i work my whole life and live to be 165 that is fine i enjoyed my time here and saw lots of movies along the way.

if i die at 48 and spent the first half of it preparing for when i turned 165 , well my life would have been a wasted investment.

my philosphy has always been this:
reflect on the past, deam of the future, but live for today.

[Agent Sunshine]

at one time alchemy was a widely acceptaded concept. but now we all know you cant make gold from lead.

Actually, it is possible, but the gold would be radioactive and not very useful.

[Shinin*Sta]

i'm sorry, but the statement about science imploding when it comes to evolution just strikes me in the wrong kind of way. when it comes to proof, i think that more evidence lies in molecular structure than in a book and an invisible force. like i said, sorry, i just got struck by one of those "huh?" moments.

[buzzboy]

i'm sorry, but the statement about science imploding when it comes to evolution just strikes me in the wrong kind of way. when it comes to proof, i think that more evidence lies in molecular structure than in a book and an invisible force. like i said, sorry, i just got struck by one of those "huh?" moments.
thank you that is basically what i was saying but with simalies.

[elad]

sima what?

simmah down nah? :shrug::confused:

[zartan]

If mass has to come from somewhere, where, or a better way to put it - WHAT, is that somewhere? The origin of the first particle? Of the first rock? Planet? And from there, where did life come from? According to the fundamental laws of science, NOTHING should exist. It's a mind-blowing question in its simplicity but it's one that to current and future human knowledge CANNOT be answered. And I would bet my existence on it.

zimma i previously held a similar position to yours until some discussions on this board helped me understand the distinction.

i, like you, believe there is some sort of higher power responsible for the creation of the universe, in some unknowable way. i look at this from a sort of buddhist perspective, but its analogous to the christian God in many ways (at least in the context of creation). because i believe that, I naturally extended this belief to fold in all of evolution - in other words, because clearly there is an unexplainable source for the universe as a whole, there must be some thread of unexplainable supernatural force running through the rest of evolution.

I realized after much discussion that I wasn't thinking about the question properly (as is so often the case in religious or philosophical disagreements). The thing I realized is that evolution and my belief in an intelligent creator of some kind were perfectly compatible. There is much evidence that evolution is responsible for the current form of humans. There is simply overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution correctly describes the growth and development of life as we know it on earth.

Now, here is the part that I hope you will ponder: to deny evolution as a legitimate scientific theory is to deny one of the most beautiful parts of the universe, whoever created it. Clearly if you believe in God you believe that God is responsible for all physical matter manifested in the universe, at least at some level. Now, some Christians believe that God is actively involved, on a person-by-person basis, in creating a sort of massive play involving all creation. I find that to be too far-fetched to believe - and besides, this vision of God's role in the universe blinds you to the unbelievable majestic beauty of what God did create: an amazing system of matter, from atoms through complex thinking beings, stars stretching millions of miles through space, unimaginably beautiful forms of gas and matter in the sky, beings able to replicate and change and modify themselves, all in accordance with some set of God's laws that we call science. If you believe in God, you should look at science as a somewhat theological pursuit, because by understanding the mechanisms that have arisen to structure matter and life in this universe, you get a window into the "mind" of God (to slightly misuse both terms).

If you honestly review the scientific evidence for evolution, you will see that it is quite clear that we evolved from apes. I will agree with you that it seems unlikely, and if you look at it the wrong way (the way, unfortunately, propagated by many Christians who in my opinion are doing a great disservice to their God and religion) you take this fact as somehow incompatible with the idea that we are a special species of people created in God's image.

However, unless you literally believe the 7 days/adam's rib/etc reading of creation from the bible (which you state that you do not), I suggest you consider another option: that there may well be some higher power out there, that intended for you to be created, and built this system in complete anticipation that beings such as ourselves would arise from the millions and millions of years of interaction of physical laws. I don't know that this is the case, but I certainly can't prove it wrong - and, this is fully compatible with believing in a creator and evolution. Certainly, I think we would agree that there is something out there which is responsible for this amazing universe and the amazing creatures we live with and are descended from. No one can tell you what this something is, and I find it perfectly legitimate to call it "God" or, in the case of some others in this thread, to deny that it is anything at all, at least in human terms.

Hope that is helpful in framing this issue...

[Zimma]

:doh: so if I admit my I was wrong do i get a prize? cuz if not, I'm just gonna keep pretending like what i said made some kinda sense if you look at it from some other angle. :beaker:

[zartan]

IMO its not that you're "wrong" or "right," its how you look at the various questions involved.

Personally i think the cause of the clash between religion and science is because both sides have a tendency to view the other side as encroaching on their own terrain, rather than as disciplines that can - should - coexist. As I said, I think science should be enshrined by Christians as a companion to the Bible - another way to look at a different aspect of what they believe was created by God, and not contradictory at all.

[uberclkgtr]

Personally i think the cause of the clash between religion and science is because both sides have a tendency to view the other side as encroaching on their own terrain, rather than as disciplines that can - should - coexist. As I said, I think science should be enshrined by Christians as a companion to the Bible - another way to look at a different aspect of what they believe was created by God, and not contradictory at all.

And if it seems contradictory, it's because one is not understanding God's word correctly or because science has yet to come to a consensus on theories that are the source of contradiction. The earth being the center of the universe, the star/planets orbiting around the earth in circular motion, etc - all that was dogma held by the church that eventually turned out to be nothing but that - dogma due to a misunderstanding or misreading of the Bible. And the universe existing forever like clockwork with no beginning and no end - something that 18th century scientist and Christians such as Newton believed - came crashing down in the early 20th century when it was found that the universe was expanding and that it had a definite "beginning". So it goes both ways.

Evolution is similar to the former I think - there's just way too much evidence to plausibly deny it. There's really no other explanation.

And well-said Eric.

[NYGblue]

I would also like to point out that the old testament was transcribed from ancient hebrew to greek and latin, then to french and german, then to english (I think thats the way it worked.) The new testament was partially written in aramaic and other languages. To assume that the english bible was even transcribed correctly is to assume a lot IMO. So creationism isn't some static belief in 7 days. First off the concept of a DAY was completely different in ancient israel. Second, a lot of the old testament is supposedly a history. However, it contains metaphorical writing (which might not have been transcribed correctly) that can't be taken as pure truth. Frankly considering that the contents of the bible aren't even from the original writings but from ancient languages no one can even speak perfectly today I would have to say the uber-religious are completely delirious.

I don't know if some of you speak more than one language and/or have or know someone who translates. Even the best translators/scribers make mistakes/gaffs... Hell when I read a translated book in Spanish, watch TV or even hear translations of politicians, nuances, language gaps constantly occur. Who is to say they even really wrote 7 days or that they even wrote half the things we read and know as being part of the old testament... I am not calling into question whether the overall message was missed, but I somehow have trouble really believing that the message in the bible's we know today were even those of a 1,000 years ago.

[Light Touch]

Personally i think the cause of the clash between religion and science is because both sides have a tendency to view the other side as encroaching on their own terrain, rather than as disciplines that can - should - coexist.

http://www.bahai.org/

[Bioteknik]

I'm sorry because someone has so turned you off to the theory of intelligent design that you won't listen to logic and reason. Science implodes in the case of evolution. Did you finish reading my post or did you stop when I said that apes did not evolve into humans?

I have read about dna between chimps and humans. It's inconclusive, at best. At worst, it's pure scientific rhetoric.

How am I denying evidence? Buddy, just because you read a report in a scientific journal linking human and chimp dna, doesn't make it valid. Can you actually interpret DNA?

If you believe everything that science and your high school biology teacher tell you, you're just as bad as the fundamentalists.

Go ahead and flame me and tell me I'm wrong, blind, etc etc if you want. I'm sure I'm the only person on this site who doesn't subscribe fully to evolutionist theory, so you should have plenty of support. I'm used to it, I get it from both sides of the fence. But it's something I've given years of thought to, and as far as this subject goes, I am as correct as can be with current evidence considered.
do actually know what intelligent design is? I don't think bboyneko does either. All it says is that evolution is so complex that it couldn't have happened through random mutations in DNA. if you believe in Intelligent Design, EVOLUTION STILL HAPPENED, it's the cause of evolution that is in debate.

[uberclkgtr]

do actually know what intelligent design is? I don't think bboyneko does either. All it says is that evolution is so complex that it couldn't have happened through random mutations in DNA. if you believe in Intelligent Design, EVOLUTION STILL HAPPENED, it's the cause of evolution that is in debate.

:werd:

i.e. it's not evolution vs intelligent design that frames the debate, but evolution via natural selection vs evolution via intelligent design. the fact of evolution is not in question, it's the mechanism by which evolution occurs that's the issue.

of course mechanisms are just as easily investigated by scientists, so there's plenty of mechanisms - natural selection, punctuated equilibria, etc. - that fit the bill, each with supporting evidence, and they are still debated today in science journals. but they are scientific explanations - i.e., the explanations make predictions about what one should find in the fossil record, what one should find when looking at similarities in DNA between species, and anyone one can go out and test these predictions - have a look for themselves, see the same results, and come to the same conclusions.

intelligent design on the other hand is a lack of an explanation. it is not science. it's premise is that we don't know how an organism evolved, what caused it to morphologically change, and therefore it must be because of a divine direction. well, that's not science. it's not testable. it makes no predictions that can be tested in a scientific manner. no experiement could confirm, "yup, it was god," or "nope, it wasn't god."

so ID is fine for teaching at home, teaching in the church, and people are welcome to believe it. but it ought not to be taught as science, as it's not science.

[uberclkgtr]

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4103

[BizarroCub]

"Maybe now a judge will press Georgia schools to remove the 'Mr. Yuk' stickers from books by black authors."

:haha:

[Bavarias_Finest]

I believe in evolution

......technically though it is a very well supported theory .... noone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it absolutely occurred or did not occur, the same goes with god or whatever you call him, noone can say beyond a reasonable doubt they know if their is a god or not ... we don't know ...

thats where faith comes in .... and science does help alot ....

[uberclkgtr]

faith is believing in something for which there is no proof.

science is the opposite of faith. for something to be scientific, it must be easily shown via experiment or observation, and that experiment or observation must be repeatable, i.e. other scientist must come to the same result. that's what science journals are - a bunch of scientists in a field of study coming to a consensus on the merits of a particular theory or area of research.

so the method of "knowing" about scientific facts and theories is very different from the method for knowing about the christian god. knowing god requires reading the bible, praying and having faith.

[buzzboy]

what i wanna know is if god is so powerful and awesome...how come he had a mortal for a son?

and is jesus really is the son of god, then that guy the virgin mary was shakin up with better hope god doesnt smite him for knockin up his girl and callin it "Emaculate conception" it was prolly more like "premature ejaculation"

[Light Touch]

faith is believing in something for which there is no proof.

science is the opposite of faith.

Well...

Technically...

Science is a form of faith. Some people "believe" in God, others believe in the reproducibility of results. There's no knowledge of direct truth -- it's all a matter of what you want to put your faith in, be it religion or science.

That said, science is a bit more intuitive, IMHO. For some, however, the power of science to explain does not supersede their personal discomfort with explaining the universe. Hence the introduction of the "God" figure into the cosmological system.

[/epistemology rant]

[Light Touch]

and is jesus really is the son of god, then that guy the virgin mary was shakin up with better hope god doesnt smite him for knockin up his girl and callin it "Emaculate conception" it was prolly more like "premature ejaculation"

:haha:

Raggin' on the Bible is too fun.

I think conservatives are against abortion merely because they know that Jesus would have been sucked out of Mary as an unwanted pregnancy...

[uberclkgtr]

Well...

Technically...

Science is a form of faith. Some people "believe" in God, others believe in the reproducibility of results. There's no knowledge of direct truth -- it's all a matter of what you want to put your faith in, be it religion or science.

That said, science is a bit more intuitive, IMHO. For some, however, the power of science to explain does not supersede their personal discomfort with explaining the universe. Hence the introduction of the "God" figure into the cosmological system.

[/epistemology rant]

good point, but there's a bigger difference than that i think. you say, "Some people 'believe' in God, others believe in the reproducibility of results. There's no knowledge of direct truth -- it's all a matter of what you want to put your faith in, be it religion or science." but i would say nobody doesn't believe in the reproducibility of results. we step out the door everyday because we believe that our daily experiment with gravity will work yet again, and that we won't all of a sudden float off into space. reproducibility of result is a fundamental reason to believe something, though i hate saying it that way. it is fundamental to "knowing." so while some people may or may not believe in god, nobody disbelieves the reproducibility of results. only crazy people do not. and they live in the crazy house.

[uberclkgtr]

people who disbelieve science do so because they are ignorant of it, and since it clashes with their religious or cultural world view, it's easy to reject something of which one is ignorant. to an evolutionary biologist, evolution is just as real and reproducible as gravity. to the lay person, gravity is all they know, so that's all they believe in.

try coming up with an interpretation of the bible that requires people not to believe in gravity or electricity and see how popular that is. :wink:

[buzzboy]

there is one, they call it the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

/and yay! for cowardly negative rep. on the religion thread!

[Light Touch]

good point, but there's a bigger difference than that i think. you say, "Some people 'believe' in God, others believe in the reproducibility of results. There's no knowledge of direct truth -- it's all a matter of what you want to put your faith in, be it religion or science." but i would say nobody doesn't believe in the reproducibility of results. we step out the door everyday because we believe that our daily experiment with gravity will work yet again, and that we won't all of a sudden float off into space. reproducibility of result is a fundamental reason to believe something, though i hate saying it that way. it is fundamental to "knowing." so while some people may or may not believe in god, nobody disbelieves the reproducibility of results. only crazy people do not. and they live in the crazy house.

Granted, but there are a lot of people who, if put in the "which one is a more basic truth" dilemma, would choose the Bible over "science". In other words, when reaching subject matter that they cannot directly ascertain themselves, they are more inclined to use the "teachings of God" than some esoteric manifestation of scientific method.

[uberclkgtr]

Granted, but there are a lot of people who, if put in the "which one is a more basic truth" dilemma, would choose the Bible over "science". In other words, when reaching subject matter that they cannot directly ascertain themselves, they are more inclined to use the "teachings of God" than some esoteric manifestation of scientific method.

yes, and it's unfortunate. :sadblue:

i think scientists need to be more proactive making their discoveries and work accessible and understandable to the general public. afterall, the general public is the source of much of the funding in basic science research, directly or indirectly.

[elad]

sadly, the general public is retarded.

[Light Touch]

yes, and it's unfortunate. :sadblue:

i think scientists need to be more proactive making their discoveries and work accessible and understandable to the general public. afterall, the general public is the source of much of the funding in basic science research, directly or indirectly.

:werd:

[Agent Sunshine]

There is sometimes a dearth of access to lay-person friendly information, but c'mon, it's not like scientists having been hiding the theory of evolution under a big rock. I'm sure that most people are far more interested in the latest happenings between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie than the latest discoveries in the workings of the human brain. While the scientists may bear some responsibility for lack of salesmenship or dissemination of their ideas, I'm sure the majority of the problem lies with the public.

Unfortunately, many people simply don't seem to have the capacity to understand current concepts in science and mathematics. Either we must take action to increase these people's intellectual capacity, or their opinions on the matter will become increasingly irrelevant (and they will be more likely to take up violent fundamentalist positions).

[Zimma]

There is sometimes a dearth of access to lay-person friendly information, but c'mon, it's not like scientists having been hiding the theory of evolution under a big rock. I'm sure that most people are far more interested in the latest happenings between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie than the latest discoveries in the workings of the human brain. While the scientists may bear some responsibility for lack of salesmenship or dissemination of their ideas, I'm sure the majority of the problem lies with the public.

Unfortunately, many people simply don't seem to have the capacity to understand current concepts in science and mathematics. Either we must take action to increase these people's intellectual capacity, or their opinions on the matter will become increasingly irrelevant (and they will be more likely to take up violent fundamentalist positions).


Yepp, I agree. There's a general mob mentality taking over in America and taking root in fundamentalism. I think Americans see taking the Christian Fundamentalists' side as being in opposition to Islamic Fundamentalism (and therefore being "pro-American"), instead of seeing it for what it is: a breeding ground for intolerance, hatred, and irrational behavior (among other things). The fundamentalists as a whole are doing a good job of spreading around the world the hatred that their religions speak against.

I blame it on a general lack of quality education. Does anyone else see a correlation between lack of education and general intolerance? It's a sad thing to see happen to this country that I love.

[Agent Sunshine]

It's also because people with money see fundamentalism as a way to entrench their power base. It's ludicrous the way that fiscal conservatives in this country have aligned themselves with fundamentalists in a grab for power. I guess they didn't learn anything about the consequences of that sort of behavior from 9-11.

I'm confident that science and rational thought will win out in the end. Or we'll all die in an environmental disaster. One or the other...

[zartan]

zimma and agent sunshine - you said it for me. nice.