This is so freaking wrong!

[glover7]

I'm sorry if that title is juvenile. I don't really care, but I figure that apologies sort of formalize this whole topic, which is about my complete indignation at something that happened on campus today. UGA campus.

There were some people handing out copies of Darwin's The Origin of Species around our student center. I thought this was absolutely brilliant, another perspective provided to counter the Gideons who, although they are nice, don't really offer any other sort of views on religion.

When the woman handed me my copy, I asked what group she was doing this for, and she answered that she was "providing a different viewpoint" and that I should read the introduction.

Because I'm unfamiliar with Christian evangelicals, I was unaware of the connotation of Ray Comfort's name on the front of the book. He's the author of the introduction, you know.

So I started reading the preface, which detailed exactly why Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong (supposedly, evolution is as random as a book coming together and writing itself, editing itself, and cutting its own pages) and furthermore why atheism is bad ("God" imbues humans with a sense of morality, so atheists disregard all morals, attributing behavior instead to natural instincts).

Now, barring the sheer idiocy of comparing evolution to a book, due to the nature of living matter and nonliving matter and -- oh, I don't know -- the fact that selective adaptation isn't random but is an extremely logical pattern, one can see that this attached preface is a barbarous piece of propagandizing media.

Personally, I tore out the introduction and gave it back to the group that was handing out the pamphlets. I don't want some intelligent design idiocy tainting my pristine copy of Origin.

I just wanted to rant, but feel free to give your views on the situation, of course. This is a forum, after all.

[Babbalanja]

I remember hearing about this version of the Origin, with the creationist preface. It's a perverse stunt.

But let's stop pretending that this has anything whatsoever to do with scientific inquiry. This entire matter simply reminds us that religious belief, even in the 21st century, is based on denying reality. Any old heathen can affirm the validity of species evolution just because the evidence is copious. But what better way to demonstrate the depth of your faith than to deny the validity of such a robust scientific construct?

This is the weird irrationalism that passes for piety in our day. And people should be ashamed of it.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

Yeah, I heard about that. . . . . .

It is quite apaulling. Though Origin of Species is in the public domain, and thus anyone can do what they want with it, this is just pure disrespect for the author. What if a group of atheists got together and released a new edition of the Bible, with an introduction in it, making arguments against the very contents of the book!

If Darwin is so wrong, then why not write something useful and publish it in your own book! It might then give the ID movement some credibility instead of them hiding around in other people's books. But what am I saying? The reason they do that is because they don't have anything to offer and they know it. "Offering a different percpective"? Bull****. They're not offering anything except outdated creationist nonsense.

How about this; next time, get at least half-a-scientist to write your introduction. Any reasonable person with half-a-brain (and a familiarity with the name of course) will know that Ray Comfort's introduction is no more a scientific refutation than Ben Stein's nonsense documentary was.

Arrghh is just annoys me how the ID movement try to present themselves as "going against the standard convention in the tradition of Galileo and Copernicus" or "offering an alternative percpective" and whatnot. Rebellion against convention is not an end-in-itself, and it's not the reason why Galileo developed his theories. You see, the reason why real scientists dismiss ID, is not because it opposes the leading biological theory, but because it has proven itself in the first years of its existence to be a purely reactionary political movement with absolutely nothing scientific to offer to humanity. It's not that the scientific community is opposed to opposition to evolution or something like that, but they certainly are opposed to political propiganda disguised as science.

Okay, seems like my rant was even longer than the thread starters :lol:

[Lokasenna]

How... odd...

It seems rather strange to encounter a copy of Origin with a creationist preface... I really don't see how that helps their cause.

Speaking as someone who is both a committed Christian and an ardent believer in evolution (the two are not mutually exclusive!), I think its all a bit daft really. I find over-zealous evangelicals and militant aetheists equally distasteful, though that is only my opinion.

Their argument about creation resembling a book is rather telling: if they applied it logically to the Bible, they would see that as a text it has had numerous authors, revisions, cuts, changes, edits and reinterpretations; it did not just come together. If the theory of evolution is fallible by that logic, then so is the Bible. I believe the Bible is a holy book written by people who were inspired by God, but ultimately it is still written by flawed, imperfect human beings who as often as not got things wrong. Attempting to censor any view of our world, either spiritually or scientifically, limits us intellectually as a species.

[Babbalanja]

Attempting to censor any view of our world, either spiritually or scientifically, limits us intellectually as a species.
Oh, please.

Would we be 'censoring' the poor creationists by forbidding them to teach such rot to children? How tolerant would we be expected to be if the pseudoscience du jour were the racial superiority of whites?

Pseudoscience isn't just harmless wacky fun. Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures. Look up the name Lysenko: this guy sold the Soviets an anti-Darwinian biological hoax that deep sixed their agricultural program and starved millions.

This is about religion getting out of control, plain and simple. They have every right to expect censorship of their pseudoscientific ideas, because they're wrong.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

Oh, please.

Would we be 'censoring' the poor creationists by forbidding them to teach such rot to children? How tolerant would we be expected to be if the pseudoscience du jour were the racial superiority of whites?

Pseudoscience isn't just harmless wacky fun. Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures. Look up the name Lysenko: this guy sold the Soviets an anti-Darwinian biological hoax that deep sixed their agricultural program and starved millions.

This is about religion getting out of control, plain and simple. They have every right to expect censorship of their pseudoscientific ideas, because they're wrong.

Regards,

Istvan

Whoaa whoa whoa, now I was certainly p'oed about all this ID nonsense, but saying that it should be censored is going wayyyy too far.

It doens't matter if they're wrong or not, there are so many "wrong" ideas floating around out there, that to censor every single one of them would be to turn the government into an ideological state.

I don't care if they're calling magical ponies science, they shouldn't be censored. Yes it is nonsense and virtually useless to our society, and a step-back if people begin to accept it, but once you start giving the government an authority in what is true and objective, then you don't know where it'll go.

It is society's responsibility to retaliate against nonsense like this and not the governments. That is why we have public figures such as Richard Dawkins out there refuting this stuff. Believe me, government censorship will only lead people to feel more inclined to support it.

To censor anyone's ideas is an all out infringment on their rights. What if it turned out a particular scientific theory was dead wrong? Should we get the government to 'punish' those induviduals for spreading false ideas?

This kind of talk of censorship of religion is just as extreme and irrational as when fundimentalists talk about censorship of evolution. We have two conflicting world-views, both of them utterly convinced that theirs is right, so what do you do? Use political force for one side to get its way? Or use reason and logic to convince the general population that it is right. No idea ever got anywhere or became any more valid when the government censored its opposers. I would prefer a hundred times over an ignorant society, over one in which certain ideas are forbidden.


That said, I do think there is some kind of great injustice in them publishing a purely biased introduction to Origin of Species. Believe me, I'm fine with them publishing a whole entire book of their nonsense, but it's just not right when you infringe your nonsense into somebody else's work, no matter how long they've been dead. This public domain buisness is complex, but we need somehow for original works to be protected.

[glover7]

Anybody know why this was removed from the religion forum??

[JBI]

Still, in a sense you get enough introductions by scholars bashing the authors of several works, as well as the works themselves (Harold Bloom, for instance, in an intro to 'Anatomy of Criticism' decided he needed to take a few smacks at Frye in order to push himself forward) and really this is nothing new.

Then again, it is annoying - luckily though, I'm not American - from my experiences in university, though this perhaps is limited to my university specifically, or I am just blind, here the university doesn't seem to function as such a political entity as say it does in the States, where universities are intensely political, or in Europe where they are even more so. The closest thing I've seen was 4 days ago, a bunch of people were sitting in front of the major library shouting out about pro-choice while most people just walked by without caring.

Somehow though, a stint like this doesn't surprise me - I find it kind of comical though how any person who writes could take themselves seriously in arguing that Darwin is merely a constructed lie, whereas in contrast, stare at the Bible as the word of God.

Then again, you are in (on?) the Bible Belt.


Anybody know why this was removed from the religion forum??

Because it isn't particularly discussing religion or religious texts.

[DanielBenoit]

Somehow though, a stint like this doesn't surprise me - I find it kind of comical though how any person who writes could take themselves seriously in arguing that Darwin is merely a constructed lie, whereas in contrast, stare at the Bible as the word of God.


Yeah I know! Having had tons of experience and familliarity with fundimentalism (my dad thinks that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, that the apocolaypse is coming that the antichrist will most likely be Obama, and that this will all occur "Left Behind" style [:brickwall]), I have seen its hypocracies up and down.

What really annoys me is how fundimentalists can be such skeptics when it comes to evolution, but then be absolute adherers to faith when it comes to their religion. They just pick and choose.

[Babbalanja]

I don't care if they're calling magical ponies science, they shouldn't be censored. Yes it is nonsense and virtually useless to our society, and a step-back if people begin to accept it, but once you start giving the government an authority in what is true and objective, then you don't know where it'll go.But Daniel, the government already does have the authority to say what you can and can't teach in public schools. If the Discovery Institute wants to hawk its screeds to the unwary, that's swell. But hijacking the educational system isn't part of anyone's first-amendment rights.


This kind of talk of censorship of religion is just as extreme and irrational as when fundimentalists (sic) talk about censorship of evolution. Daniel, amigo, I'm not talking about book-burning here. I'm talking about keeping religious ideas out of public school.

But since you mentioned, I think there's a big difference between religious people trying to suppress a well-supported scientific construct and rational people trying to get society at large to give up delusions and magical thinking.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

But Daniel, the government already does have the authority to say what you can and can't teach in public schools. If the Discovery Institute wants to hawk its screeds to the unwary, that's swell. But hijacking the educational system isn't part of anyone's first-amendment rights.

Daniel, amigo, I'm not talking about book-burning here. I'm talking about keeping religious ideas out of public school.

But since you mentioned, I think there's a big difference between religious people trying to suppress a well-supported scientific construct and rational people trying to get society at large to give up delusions and magical thinking.

Regards,

Istvan


Ooooh, don't I look like a foolish political sign-waver :redface:

Well then I'm totally on par with you.

[JBI]

Yeah I know! Having had tons of experience and familliarity with fundimentalism (my dad thinks that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, that the apocolaypse is coming that the antichrist will most likely be Obama, and that this will all occur "Left Behind" style [:brickwall]), I have seen its hypocracies up and down.

What really annoys me is how fundimentalists can be such skeptics when it comes to evolution, but then be absolute adherers to faith when it comes to their religion. They just pick and choose.

That's not what I am saying - I don't care what people believe in to be honest - it's just, I am concerned with the fact that people can actually take this seriously as a work of textual criticism.

[Lokasenna]

Oh, please.

Would we be 'censoring' the poor creationists by forbidding them to teach such rot to children? How tolerant would we be expected to be if the pseudoscience du jour were the racial superiority of whites?

Pseudoscience isn't just harmless wacky fun. Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures. Look up the name Lysenko: this guy sold the Soviets an anti-Darwinian biological hoax that deep sixed their agricultural program and starved millions.

This is about religion getting out of control, plain and simple. They have every right to expect censorship of their pseudoscientific ideas, because they're wrong.

Regards,

Istvan

Can you really justify saying that creationists are wrong in absolute terms? You are a human being, and thus your subjective, highly limited perception is your only means of deciphering something as complex as creation itself. If one can accept the hypothetical idea of a divine being, then the rules of reality have to go out of the metaphorical window; essentially, I'm saying that while science may suggest one course, why does a god have to be bound by that? That's why its so hard to win an argument that strays onto theological - the whole thing rests its credibility on being entirely unprovable.

Frankly, I find censorship rather sinister. Yes, Darwin should be taught in schools: the theory of evolution has had a major impact on mankind, and is of seminal importance to us if we are to comprehend both ourselves and the world around us. However, religion has also had a major impact on our world, and thus deserves to be studied. The best way to defeat any ridiculous idea is to give it a platform - censorship only makes it more attractive. I was taught both the evolution and creation theories, and I decided (along with the majority of people, I'm sure) that evolution was by far and away more likely. People should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Anthropologically speaking, creation myths, and the extent to which people involve themselves with them, are absolutely fascinating - indeed, I've studied and written about them before now. The power of belief (be it in something or nothing) is so fundamentally tied up in being human, that to deny and supress it does limit our understanding of ourselves, and that is why, as I said, it limits us intellectually.

[Annamariah]

Speaking as someone who is both a committed Christian and an ardent believer in evolution (the two are not mutually exclusive!), I think its all a bit daft really. I find over-zealous evangelicals and militant aetheists equally distasteful, though that is only my opinion.

I agree with your statement about over-zealous evangelicals and militant atheist being equally distasteful.

About the creation versus evolution argument, I really can't understand what's the big deal. I mean it is one of those things that cause a lot of arguments even among committed Christians, some of whom believe that the world was created in six days and others believing in evolution controlled by God. It's not like we could ever find out for sure, so why do people think they know the truth about the origin of everything? Some believers are ready to send each other to hell for having a wrong opinion on the matter, but why? As if how everything began was the most important thing about Christianity...

[Babbalanja]

The best way to defeat any ridiculous idea is to give it a platform - censorship only makes it more attractive. I was taught both the evolution and creation theories, and I decided (along with the majority of people, I'm sure) that evolution was by far and away more likely. People should be allowed to decide for themselves.You're so magnanimous when it comes to pseudoscience of the creationist sort. But like I said before in those words I typed above, should we just allow schools to teach whatever they want about the racial inferiority of blacks? Should students be allowed to make up their own minds whether the Holocaust actually happened or is just Jewish propaganda? Do we really have to teach "both sides" of every issue, even if one is bolstered by copious evidence and the other is utter garbage?


Anthropologically speaking, creation myths, and the extent to which people involve themselves with them, are absolutely fascinating - indeed, I've studied and written about them before now. The power of belief (be it in something or nothing) is so fundamentally tied up in being human, that to deny and supress it does limit our understanding of ourselves, and that is why, as I said, it limits us intellectually.I too find ancient mythology fascinating, because of what it says about the way our ancestors related to the universe. Though they're more informed by the scientific method, the Big Bang and evolution by natural selection are 'myth' in the sense that they show the way we relate to knowledge, our conception of our place in the universe, and our sense of shared history.

But I think it's fine to suppress the credulity and obscurantism that feed fundamentalism, because these are dangerous mindsets whether they're applied to religious or secular subjects. Society has a responsibility to teach people critical thinking skills and a skeptical approach to claims.

Regards,

Istvan

[skib]

They have every right to expect censorship of their pseudoscientific ideas, because they're wrong.


(Before I contribute, allow me to clarify that I think I am understanding everything happening in this conversation. I may not be. :D)

I'm feeling the itch to play devil's advocate here. Who gets to decide what definition of 'wrong' we go by? By our definition (though I am in agreement with you Babbalanja,) they are wrong. But are they wrong in their own sense? Essentially, do they think they are preaching a load of BS or do they believe in what they are saying?

[Babbalanja]

Essentially, do they think they are preaching a load of BS or do they believe in what they are saying?As with cold readers and conspiracy theorists, I don't think the question ever occurs to believers in creationism. They don't arrive at such a belief through rational inquiry. They feel they should believe it, so they profess belief in it. How would we know whether they actually believe species don't evolve, or any of the other bizarre things religion teaches?

The more they profess belief in the belief, the easier it gets to deny reality.

Regards,

Istvan

[kiki1982]

How... odd...

It seems rather strange to encounter a copy of Origin with a creationist preface... I really don't see how that helps their cause.

Speaking as someone who is both a committed Christian and an ardent believer in evolution (the two are not mutually exclusive!), I think its all a bit daft really. I find over-zealous evangelicals and militant aetheists equally distasteful, though that is only my opinion.

Their argument about creation resembling a book is rather telling: if they applied it logically to the Bible, they would see that as a text it has had numerous authors, revisions, cuts, changes, edits and reinterpretations; it did not just come together. If the theory of evolution is fallible by that logic, then so is the Bible. I believe the Bible is a holy book written by people who were inspired by God, but ultimately it is still written by flawed, imperfect human beings who as often as not got things wrong. Attempting to censor any view of our world, either spiritually or scientifically, limits us intellectually as a species.

I so agree with this. I was raised in a Catholic family and went to a Catholic school and neither of them ever even brought up the idea of creationism. Apart from the older familymembers of course... Either way, they never tried to make others believe it. They just never spoke about it and if the topic came up everyone seemed rather happier to believe Darwin than the 6 days...

Creationism was something for RE, not for the biology or geography class...

Sadly, there seem to be people who seem to think that it's either the one or the other, as if there is nothing in between. Even the pope came to terms with the theory some time ago... but then again, evangelicals are protestants aren't they.

I don't think it should be taught in schools. It is bad enough if children get fed it at home that teachers (a position of academic authority) should not have the same opinion. Though maybe Darwin's theory should not be handed to students as a fact, but rather as a scientific theory that is not yet totally proven but which there is more than adequate proof to believe that it is right. Although still a lot should be found to factually prove it. Without hypothesis no research/experiment.

Not that of course creationists will ever accept Darwin's theory, even when it is proven. I still remember the baffling disappointment and disbelief of my brother-in-law, a raging Jehova's Witness elder: 'oh, no, you are not Darwinists are you!' when he was trying to convert my husband and me (something which he has tried several time ruining our evening). It is the same as the Titanic that never sank. It is true, the Titanic sank, but it is not true, although there is clear scientific proof how it sank and factual proof (the ship is on the seabed).

Censûre is rather impossible of course. You can never control the thoughts of people, but you can at least beware that children do not get fully indoctrinated from the start. It is utterly dangerous to have that in a society. Essentially it would be going back to the days before Darwin...

[Babbalanja]

You can never control the thoughts of people, but you can at least beware that children do not get fully indoctrinated from the start. It is utterly dangerous to have that in a society. Essentially it would be going back to the days before Darwin...
You said it.

Darwin's theory is crucial to efforts in the 21st century to battle disease in both humans and their food sources, as well as preserving biodiversity. The fact that people are trying to scrap the evolutionary construct and the notion of shared ancestry of all life on Earth on religious grounds should be an outrage to believers and nonbelievers alike.

I keep saying pseudoscience is a very dangerous thing. I shudder to think what could happen before we wise up and stop this nonsense.

Regards,

Istvan

[OrphanPip]

I don't think it should be taught in schools. It is bad enough if children get fed it at home that teachers (a position of academic authority) should not have the same opinion. Though maybe Darwin's theory should not be handed to students as a fact, but rather as a scientific theory that is not yet totally proven but which there is more than adequate proof to believe that it is right. Although still a lot should be found to factually prove it. Without hypothesis no research/experiment.


Technically this is impossible, the way the scientific method works is that a theory is never proven. The theory of gravity is unproven, in fact we don't even really know why or how gravity exists, we just notice that it exists. Yet, it is incredibly rare for anyone to doubt the existence of gravity.

I've always been mindboggled by the focus of creationist on Origins, this text is groundbreaking but incredibly outdated. Darwin was wrong about the majority of what is in that book, but he was right about natural selection and he provided some good standard examples. Darwin was wrong about his theory of abiogenesis, the primordial soup one, and he wasn't aware of genetics. Today the evolutionary theory has incorporated Mendelian genetics, population genetics, Darwinian natural selection (including sexual selection), later theories of selection (Kin-selection), theories of "macroevolution" by people like Gould (punctuated equilibrium), molecular biology (provided the proof that DNA does change!), and finally bioinformatics (phylogenetics, comparison of structural homology). The modern evolutionary theory is so much more than Darwin, yet creationist never seem to be able to move beyond that.

[Katharinestar]

Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures. Look up the name Lysenko: this guy sold the Soviets an anti-Darwinian biological hoax that deep sixed their agricultural program and starved millions.
Istvan

I've got a few questions after I read your post. Is lobotomy completely banned around the world? Are Darwin's theories based on science, or on some of his conjectures made by doing some experiments that imitated nature?
Lobotomy damages a brain right and there in the surgery. It does not take time to have harmful effects.

[Lynne50]

Even the pope came to terms with the theory some time ago... but then again, evangelicals are protestants aren't they.



...

I don't think you have to be an evangelical to be a protestant or vice versa. According to Webster's dictionary, a protestant is a person who does not believe in the universal authority of the Pope. I am a Christian, but I would not call myself an evangelical. Again, according to Webster's, an evangelical is one who is marked by militant or crusading zeal. I think it is in that context that I disagree with evangelicals.
I do agree with you when you say that creationism should be taught in religion class and NOT in biology. We can't take steps back in our education.
I am a Christian and have no trouble believing in Darwin's 'theories'.

[kiki1982]

I don't think you have to be an evangelical to be a protestant or vice versa. According to Webster's dictionary, a protestant is a person who does not believe in the universal authority of the Pope. I am a Christian, but I would not call myself an evangelical. Again, according to Webster's, an evangelical is one who is marked by militant or crusading zeal. I think it is in that context that I disagree with evangelicals.
I do agree with you when you say that creationism should be taught in religion class and NOT in biology. We can't take steps back in our education.
I am a Christian and have no trouble believing in Darwin's 'theories'.

I understand you, but I think you misunderstood me... I meant to say that even the pope (suposedly a rampant and raging traditionalist) came to terms with Darwin and his spin-offs. But, evangelical Christians have no connection to the pope... Nothing against protestants. At any rate, there are Catholics who keep believing in creationism too.

@OrphanPip:

The gravity-theory is proven in the sense that the weight of something on Mars is not the same as the the weight of the same thing on Earth. How else can this be if there is no gravity? It all depends on the ability of a planet to attract something to its surface and how much. Less means that something is less heavy, more means that it will be heavier. How is that then not proven?

Darwin was the base for all those other approaches that (partly) proved Darwin wrong or combining them, gave proof to both. The significance of Mendel was not noticed until the 20ieth century, but still, combining those two papers, it disproved in part Darwin's somewhat naive 'survival of the fittest' (recessive genes are not in existence here), but proved evolution it itself to be realistic.

[OrphanPip]

@OrphanPip:

The gravity-theory is proven in the sense that the weight of something on Mars is not the same as the the weight of the same thing on Earth. How else can this be if there is no gravity? It all depends on the ability of a planet to attract something to its surface and how much. Less means that something is less heavy, more means that it will be heavier. How is that then not proven?

Darwin was the base for all those other approaches that (partly) proved Darwin wrong or combining them, gave proof to both. The significance of Mendel was not noticed until the 20ieth century, but still, combining those two papers, it disproved in part Darwin's somewhat naive 'survival of the fittest' (recessive genes are not in existence here), but proved evolution it itself to be realistic.

It is how the scientific method functions, nothing is ever proven. The best theory is the one that explains the most, while remaining falsifiable and not disproved. The use of the word theory in science is not the same as the colloquial sense of the word:



A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

The theory of gravity doesn't mean that gravity exist, it is evident that both evolution and gravity exist to anyone with eyes, but is the framework by which we explain and make predictions about gravity. As to gravity, the current theory of gravity is inadequate for predicting gravitational forces at the quantum level, so it is hardly even a complete theory.

In science nothing is ever proven, nothing is ever known completely. Your theory is either supported or disproved, never proven.

[kiki1982]

Still, is it because we as humans have still too much to research, that we hve to leave our children in the dark and attribue everything to God? I think that's highly dangerous.

The most important things is that children know that soe of this might not be totally right, as it isn't proven, yet some of it clear. Refuting all because somethings are not explained yet is just opportunistic.

[loki456]

ok I like this post, indeed interesting.
I was raised in a christian home, attended medical school and now have a view on the two together.

I hate the science vs religion debate, it makes no sense to me. if science is the study of the natural world, how can it possible prove the existence of a god/s. also, if there is a God how can he/she/it/them be expected to be proven to exist be science? if you think about it, if god exists, science just shows god's logical nature.

now the theory of 'survival of the fittest' being one of Darwin's more brilliant postulations is not absurd, the religious fanatics who won't listen to reason cause they hear the word 'darwin' and automatically go into a fit of illogical ranting, astounds me. I was schooled in a christian school. OH NO!! don't listen to Loki, he's been tainted. the truth is, I had a teacher who taught me the value of free thinking. why couldn't the world have been created out of a big bang? why is natural selection wrong - considering we see it everywhere, the examples are undeniable? why does every thought man have considering the creation of the world, make religious fanatics go into a tail spin?

my mother having been on this free thinking train herself and a devout christian, not only made me read the bible over and over, but fed me Aristotle, plato, bosanquet, kant, and at med school, galen, hippocratese, harvey and the list goes on. I'm not just some stupid piece of trailer trash who decided a god existed because, 'well what the hell, my speech impediment must be supernatural, so there has to be a god right?' (i don't have a speech impediment by the way - just my australian look at the stereotypical trailer trash).

I think there are fanatics on each side, that won't take the time to listen, evaluate and act accordingly. they are so wrapped up in what they believe, they don't want to even consider there is something different. why do you think they destroy the preface of 'origins', why do you think they come out and publicly announce 'without a doubt' that religion is wrong, without having the proof to back it up - see my intro.

science has much to offer, and has much to learn (i have to believe this, i'm doctor after all). but I also believe religion has its place, it also has much to offer and whether you believe it has more or less to offer is a determinant of your ignorance.

[The Comedian]

Seriously -- this is not a religion/science issue (yawn). It's a free speech issue. If this group wants to put their little preface to The Origin of Species, fine. Just fine. And if anyone else wants to write a little diatribe about great social dangers of believing in God (gods) in a preface to the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita. . .fine. . .. and then pass it around to unsuspecting college students who are trained to wield their critical thinking skills in a world full of competing ideas, then, well, super. Write that little thing of yours. Give it to those kids. Create a little danger. Cause a stir. Make people post about it on internet forums.

Yee haw!

[loki456]

Seriously -- this is not a religion/science issue (yawn). It's a free speech issue. If this group wants to put their little preface to The Origin of Species, fine. Just fine. And if anyone else wants to write a little diatribe about great social dangers of believing in God (gods) in a preface to the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita. . .fine. . .. and then pass it around to unsuspecting college students who are trained to wield their critical thinking skills in a world full of competing ideas, then, well, super. Write that little thing of yours. Give it to those kids. Create a little danger. Cause a stir. Make people post about it on internet forums.

Yee haw!

hahaha.... you have definitely made a wise point, oh yoda-san.

[DanielBenoit]

Give it to those kids. Create a little danger. Cause a stir. Make people post about it on internet forums.

Yee haw!

Yeah exactly, the world would be too boring if there was no controversy.

[Virgil]

Seriously -- this is not a religion/science issue (yawn). It's a free speech issue. If this group wants to put their little preface to The Origin of Species, fine. Just fine. And if anyone else wants to write a little diatribe about great social dangers of believing in God (gods) in a preface to the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita. . .fine. . .. and then pass it around to unsuspecting college students who are trained to wield their critical thinking skills in a world full of competing ideas, then, well, super. Write that little thing of yours. Give it to those kids. Create a little danger. Cause a stir. Make people post about it on internet forums.

Yee haw!

I agree. It's their money that they're spending. You can take it and throw it away. :thumbs_up

I love your last bit there. :lol:

[Virgil]

ok I like this post, indeed interesting.
I was raised in a christian home, attended medical school and now have a view on the two together.

I hate the science vs religion debate, it makes no sense to me. if science is the study of the natural world, how can it possible prove the existence of a god/s. also, if there is a God how can he/she/it/them be expected to be proven to exist be science? if you think about it, if god exists, science just shows god's logical nature.

now the theory of 'survival of the fittest' being one of Darwin's more brilliant postulations is not absurd, the religious fanatics who won't listen to reason cause they hear the word 'darwin' and automatically go into a fit of illogical ranting, astounds me. I was schooled in a christian school. OH NO!! don't listen to Loki, he's been tainted. the truth is, I had a teacher who taught me the value of free thinking. why couldn't the world have been created out of a big bang? why is natural selection wrong - considering we see it everywhere, the examples are undeniable? why does every thought man have considering the creation of the world, make religious fanatics go into a tail spin?

my mother having been on this free thinking train herself and a devout christian, not only made me read the bible over and over, but fed me Aristotle, plato, bosanquet, kant, and at med school, galen, hippocratese, harvey and the list goes on. I'm not just some stupid piece of trailer trash who decided a god existed because, 'well what the hell, my speech impediment must be supernatural, so there has to be a god right?' (i don't have a speech impediment by the way - just my australian look at the stereotypical trailer trash).

I think there are fanatics on each side, that won't take the time to listen, evaluate and act accordingly. they are so wrapped up in what they believe, they don't want to even consider there is something different. why do you think they destroy the preface of 'origins', why do you think they come out and publicly announce 'without a doubt' that religion is wrong, without having the proof to back it up - see my intro.

science has much to offer, and has much to learn (i have to believe this, i'm doctor after all). but I also believe religion has its place, it also has much to offer and whether you believe it has more or less to offer is a determinant of your ignorance.

Wonderful post!! I feel the same, and I'm an mechanical engineer after all. Four stars for that!

http://rlv.zcache.com/christmas_four_stars_poster-p228490689591374898qzz0_400.jpg

[JBI]

It makes no difference - all the evangelicals are just shooting themselves, and their children for that matter, in the feet.

All my friends who study the sciences, for instance, make it clear that no matter what personal background you have, in order to actually study biology, at least on some level, you need to know, and understand Evolution, which starts with Darwin.

It's the same thing with The Bible and studying English literature - if you do not know it, good luck understanding anything.

If one cannot entertain the other, that is, if one cannot read the other within a context beyond "This is utter trash", then one really cannot get anywhere.

As it is, I know far more about the Old Testament than most, being privy to the original, but even so, I do not believe it, and quite simply, Jewish scholarship doesn't literally interpret everything either (though I have long since ceased to be Jewish in any religious sense, as I do not believe in a God).

It would seem that only a certain few people, most of which being Evangelicals from the United States, have a real problem with Evolution - in Canada, it really doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, and in Europe I don't think it is much of a problem either, even in such traditionally conservative countries as Italy.

In truth, the Roman Catholic Church itself has accepted Darwinism, and most older European churches have as well (as well as many Muslim denominations and the majority of Jewish affiliations). There to me has never been much of a problem, and the problem seems isolated pretty much to the influence of American religion.


Alright, perhaps there are some resonances elsewhere, but in most places outside of the US, it seems to me to not even be a serious debate. There are morons everywhere, but, in general, most people are accepting.

I can't see why then, we even need to deal with whether it is "Christian" or not to believe in evolution. In truth, it makes no difference one's background. The question one should ask rather is whether it is scientifically proven or not, and, quite simply, from what I understand, it more or less is. I don't see the problem.

[Virgil]

I can't see why then, we even need to deal with whether it is "Christian" or not to believe in evolution. In truth, it makes no difference one's background. The question one should ask rather is whether it is scientifically proven or not, and, quite simply, from what I understand, it more or less is. I don't see the problem.

I completely agree. The whole controversey rests how one reads several verses in Genesis. Basically that's it.

By the way, how does orthodox judaism interpret Geneisis? Because that's not just a Christian issue.

[JBI]

I completely agree. The whole controversey rests how one reads several verses in Genesis. Basically that's it.

By the way, how does orthodox judaism interpret Geneisis? Because that's not just a Christian issue.

There hasn't been a Sanhadrin in nearly two thousand years - there is no "one" Orthodox Judaism. In that sense, some variants still believe that rain is directly caused by God, and have no real understanding of science, whereas others have fully embraced Evolution.

That being said, you wouldn't catch an Orthodox Jew, unless they were some sort of radical, going around preaching - conversion, and the spreading of the religion have never been part of the Jewish tradition, and, therefore, on a political level you are probably not likely to see Jews amongst Darwin burners, regardless of what sect they belong to. As it is, the vast majority of Jews, secular to Orthodox accept evolution, from what I can gather. Though, that being said, the Torah as a text itself has constantly been interpreted and reinterpreted to containing different, often conflicting meanings over the past 2000 years - in that sense, what is actually meant by the text is debatable, and therefore there is room, and has been argued to be room, for evolution even within the lines of Genesis without conflicting, as anyone with sense knows that the order of creation defies logic.

The text, I think, has never required a fundamental belief, in the sense that evangelicals see - it is merely a large metaphor, and metaphorical/allegorical readings have been extremely popular, even more so than in Medieval Christendom, which in itself, in scholastic thought, argues against literal readings as well.

[OrphanPip]

Still, is it because we as humans have still too much to research, that we hve to leave our children in the dark and attribue everything to God? I think that's highly dangerous.

The most important things is that children know that soe of this might not be totally right, as it isn't proven, yet some of it clear. Refuting all because somethings are not explained yet is just opportunistic.

I would say teach your children to believe what is best supported by the evidence, which would be evolution. I'm not refuting it because it is not all explained, I'm just saying that the scientific method holds that nothing is ever empirically provable.

I'm just confused by people who think evolution can't happen, even for Biblical literalist there is no mention in the Bible of multiple instances of creation, which just leaves the "fossils are fake" and "big scientific conspiracy" alternatives.

I'm also confused by the tactics they employ. How are ad hominem attacks against a 150 year dead naturalist relevant?

[Babbalanja]

I don't see the problem.
The problem, comme d'habitude, is faith.

The dynamic of belief coerces devout believers into cultish behavior like praying several times a day or professing belief in things that can't be rationally understood. Since no one can really know whether these people believe or not, the religious behavior becomes all-important in displaying one's faith to his religious community and the society at large.

Any heathen can affirm the validity of a robustly supported scientific construct like evolution. But it takes a strong faith, one would imagine, to deny such copious evidence in favor of the ancient myths in Genesis. Darwinism is a scientific construct that gains strength from being questioned and tested. And on the other hand there's religious faith, that resents being questioned and demands uncritical acceptance.

If you're a believer and have no problem with evolution by natural selection, well then, this doesn't apply to you. But let's be honest. The opposition to Darwin's theory is religiously motivated. People have done worse things in human history to demonstrate the strength of their faith. However, that doesn't mean that anti-evolution is just a harmless little quirk. Believers and nonbelievers alike have a responsibility to condemn this folly.

Regards,

Istvan

[JBI]

No, the problem isn't faith - people with faith believe in evolution - most religions see no problem with it, including most branches of Christianity, the biggest being Roman Catholicism. The problem is with American religion, notably evangelical sects on the Bible Belt, whose influence has spread. If you think about that though, that is merely a small fraction of the world population.



Anyone who knows anything about biology at least entertains the idea of evolution, and would need to regard it, if not as "truth", than as the closest thing to truth, in order that they could even begin to understand biology - the subject assumes that you aren't some idiot who denies evolution because of religion, as, to be honest, "god created the world" means you get an F. Nobody cares how you think the world is created, they only care that you understand evolution. One's faith doesn't matter in application, only one's understanding of what is provable. Thereby, anybody who denies evolution, automatically denies themselves a scientific education. That's where the problems start, because some sects of American religion can't handle the fact that they may need to read a little deeper into their bibles, so, in consequence, decide to dumb down everything, including their children.


There is no real incompatibility between the two, and the only ones who really seem to have a problem (that is, a problem that has even come close to making an influence) are American evangelicals, and their influence, which to an extent has spread.

[loki456]

I agree with JBI. The bible is NOT a scientific book, therefore how can it shed light on science. faith is only evident when there can be no evidence brought forward. for eg. god created the world vs it was a series of consequences.

In this age of evidence based medicine and well evidence based anything, the bible just doesn't hold its own against the provable. and in my opinion it's not meant to, it was never meant as a scientific journal. Athough I don't think that all charasmatic christians are to blame for the fanaticism of a few. my mother's pastor, I know for a fact listens to reason, but I understand that he could be in the minority.

i don't disagree that in order to understand biology, and I know a hell of a lot of biology, physiology and anatomy, that evolution plays a part in its understanding. but I also think that there is so much more that needs to be discovered. The more you learn about these fields, the more you realise just how much we don't know.

as i've said before, you can't blame the whole of religion for the fanatics rantings and ravings at science, claiming blasphemy. and you can't blame the whole of science for the fanatics who publicly deny all of relgious beliefs. as JBI has said, there is no real incompatibility between the two, the incompatibility is between the people of these fields.

[JBI]

And there we have it - Clarence Darrow being reused almost 80 years later coming to the same conclusion.

But, what do you expect anyway - you are dealing with a bunch of third-rate minds preaching mistranslations, and limited translations of a text that is at best difficult to translate, and in parts impossible to translate - even working within the original language there is an almost limitless debate on what certain passages mean - the very creation itself is written in quite ambiguous language, and loaded with much difficulty in interpretation - narrow that down to "and God said" and you get some morons thinking they know more than what is provable by science.

[baddad]

....... poor is an author deigning an attack hidden within pretext of legitimacy gained from another's fame......

This sentiment of mine applies to any author wallowing in such a sneak.

[The Atheist]

Because I'm unfamiliar with Christian evangelicals, I was unaware of the connotation of Ray Comfort's name on the front of the book. He's the author of the introduction, you know.

:lol:

I'd missed this, but I feel your pain.

However, you should look at it as a good thing.

Comfort's a first-class idiot and this is just the type of action to turn people off his idiotic brand of creationism.

He's worth 10 of Dawkins to anti-creationism any day.

Enormous fail.

[Mathor]

I mean, I dunno. Allowing people to read the views of evolution for themselves and come to their own conclusion based on reading the Origin seems like a pretty open-minded thing to do. Most religious groups instruct you to avoid reading such things. The introduction simply states why Christianity disagrees with the book, and then allows the reader to read the book and see if they come to the same conclusion or a different one. I just simply do not see how this is offensive. I am a big fan of Darwin and evolution, but the religious group is not in the wrong by hoping to promote their own opinions and beliefs in a moreso non-partisan way that they are doing it.

Someone made a point about an atheist releasing the Bible, and how that would be such an abomination, and I again do not see how even that is offensive. If someone is an Atheist and wants to show others why they disagree with the Bible, the best thing to do is to GIVE these people the Bible and see for themselves why they should disagree with it.

Though evolution is backed up by science and is the more logical way of explaining creation, that does not make it wrong to promote other viewpoints.

[OrphanPip]

The only problem is that attacking Darwin is a disingenuous way of criticizing evolution. Origins is a groundbreaking text, but it is hardly even an accurate layman's description of evolutionary theory. It would be like criticizing quantum mechanics by pointing out that Newtonian mechanics was wrong on many levels.

[Babbalanja]

Though evolution is backed up by science and is the more logical way of explaining creation, that does not make it wrong to promote other viewpoints.
But it does make it unscientific.

This past summer, a church in Boston hosted a talk on creationism. I have no problem with religious people talking about their Bible. But this was advertised with signs bearing the slogan:

EVOLUTION: BANKRUPT SCIENCE
CREATION: SCIENCE YOU CAN BANK ON

A few of us went to Longwood to see the talk, delivered by a former Harvard cell biologist currently working in Texas for Answers In Genesis. It was a slipshod presentation even as these things go, designed to be accepted by its religious audience without question. However, the worst thing about it was its insistence that creationism constitutes science.

Oh, I know, I'm so dogmatic and closed-minded and all. But it really infuriates me that we have to abide religious people pushing religion and calling it science. They point to their scripture and call it fact. And if anyone stands up and calls them on this nonsense, even people who should know better stand up and defend the religious people.

Regards,

Istvan

[Mathor]

Oh, I know, I'm so dogmatic and closed-minded and all. But it really infuriates me that we have to abide religious people pushing religion and calling it science. They point to their scripture and call it fact. And if anyone stands up and calls them on this nonsense, even people who should know better stand up and defend the religious people.


I just think everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think creationism is a big load of crap on many levels, but it is not in any way immoral or wrong for someone to try to encourage people to support either evolution or to support creationism. It might seem to many so simple to discount creationism, and very obvious that evolution is much more scientifically accurate than creationism, but not everyone thinks the same way we do.

[Babbalanja]

I just think everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think creationism is a big load of crap on many levels, but it is not in any way immoral or wrong for someone to try to encourage people to support either evolution or to support creationism. It might seem to many so simple to discount creationism, and very obvious that evolution is much more scientifically accurate than creationism, but not everyone thinks the same way we do.I think everyone's entitled to his opinion. But that's a lot different than advocating teaching falsehoods to children and expecting society to accept religious beliefs as science.

The religious have a vested interest in appealing to people's tolerance of free speech and pandering to their notions of fairness. That doesn't change the fact that creationism isn't scientific, and it doesn't excuse religion trying to pass itself off as something it isn't. Things would be different if this truly were a scientific debate, but it's not.

I don't consider creationism the harmless fun that you seem to. The concept of common ancestry and evolution by natural selection has repercussions throughout science: the future of biodiversity, the search for new food sources, and the fight against diseases are all linked to evolution. We delegitimize evolutionary theory quite literally at our peril.

Regards,

Istvan

[JuniperWoolf]

Psh, so you want censorship? Yeah, that's a great idea (sarcastic voice).


Pseudoscience isn't just harmless wacky fun. Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures.

Yeah, and hard cold science has a great history. Remember this?

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

People are people. They're going to do awful things with or without religion. Why is it that some atheists take their beliefs so seriously, like if we abolish religion suddenly the world will be some violence-free paradise where knowledge and reason reign supreme? That's bull. It'd probably be something closer to this:

http://www.watchsouthparkonline.net/season-10/episode-13-go-god-go-xii-2/

And you know it.

[Babbalanja]

I don't want to interrupt JuniperWoolf's straw-man party. Like I've said before, your habit of accusing people of advocating EUGENICS is the best way to demonstrate that you're unwilling or unable to listen to what's really being said by people on the subject at hand.

Whenever you're willing to have a mature discussion about the issue, hey, let me know.

Regards,

Istvan

[JuniperWoolf]

And when you're willing to grow up and stop ignoring my point, you can let me know. Seriously, you're like the Jehovah’s Witness of atheism. Stop being such a nag and trying to tell people what to think. Maybe you could grow a sense of humor too, and stop treating religion like a heart attack. People have done awful, disgusting things because of religion. They've also done awful, disgusting things because someone stole their cheeseburger. People just do awful, disgusting things. It's a species thing, not a religion thing. If there were no religion, we would find something else to bicker about and murder for. Religion, like pretty much everything else, is both good and bad. It's also not going away. Deal with it.

Also, could you stop with the whole "straw man" thing? I'm pretty sure that you're insinuating that I'm a christian, or some other type of theist. That doesn't work, because I'm telling you that I'm not. It's not that I think that "christian" is a dirty word, I'm just not one of them. End of story. If you paid attention to what I'm saying, that would be obvious.

*edit* I'm also not accusing anyone of advocating eugenics. You're putting words into my mouth. Religion can be dangerous. So can unregulated scientific idealism (FOR EXAMPLE: EUGENICS). So can any idea that people feel passionately about. I thought that I made that point pretty clearly in the numerous posts that I've thrown in your direction, but apperently I have to spell everything out or you're going to manipulate my intention.

[The Atheist]

So can unregulated scientific idealism (FOR EXAMPLE: EUGENICS).

Complete tangent to where you were, but I find it interesting that the one point you've managed to agree on is that eugenics is BAD!

To me, eugenics seems quite sensible, rational and scientifically and morally justifiable. I might start a thread on it. Someone's bound to want to play!

:)

The problem with eugenics always stems from the politicising of it, the practice itself is not inherently bad.

[JuniperWoolf]

To me, eugenics seems quite sensible, rational and scientifically and morally justifiable. I might start a thread on it. Someone's bound to want to play!

:)


Oh man, you should. That'll be great, I hope there's a good scrap. I'm not going to say anything about it now; I want to save it all for the soon-to-be-born thread.

[Babbalanja]

And when you're willing to grow up and stop ignoring my point, you can let me know. Seriously, you're like the Jehovah’s Witness of atheism. Stop being such a nag and trying to tell people what to think. Maybe you could grow a sense of humor too, and stop treating religion like a heart attack. People have done awful, disgusting things because of religion. They've also done awful, disgusting things because someone stole their cheeseburger. People just do awful, disgusting things. It's a species thing, not a religion thing. If there were no religion, we would find something else to bicker about and murder for. Religion, like pretty much everything else, is both good and bad. It's also not going away. Deal with it.
Maybe I'm humorless, but I got a real kick out of your incoherent assertions about human nature! Religion's not a problem, because humans always find something to murder for, according to you. It's a species thang, huh? Priceless. :rolleyes:

And the crux of the issue is, because you seem to miss it regardless of how many times I reiterate it, that whatever my personal opinions about religion, it ain't science. That's what my post responding to Mathor said explicitly. You must have missed where I said I think everyone's entitled to his opinion. But that's a lot different than advocating teaching falsehoods to children and expecting society to accept religious beliefs as science. Do you understand what that means? It means that people can believe whatever weird thing they want, but if they want it taught to children in the guise of science, it should actually be scientific.

So, since you seem to have such a keen understanding of human nature, what exactly should we think about attempts to delegitimize scientific endeavor on religious grounds? Would it be censorship to prohibit teaching a religious fantasy like creationism in public schools instead of evolution?

Regards,

Istvan

[Lads of E3]

Glover you are such a lad.

[JuniperWoolf]

Maybe I'm humorless, but I got a real kick out of your incoherent assertions about human nature! Religion's not a problem, because humans always find something to murder for, according to you. It's a species thang, huh? Priceless. :rolleyes:

And you disagree? You really think that if we abandoned religion, the problems would go away. That's foolish, we'd still bicker like children. I've read studies where a large group of random people who don't even know each other have been divided into two groups by random draw, and the indeviduals still feel some stupid hostility towards members of the opposite group and preference for their own. No, religion is not a problem. It's just one more division, and getting rid of it won't solve anything. We'll just fight over one of the other thousand stupid issues. At least religion tends to provide comfort and meaning to some people. And how is my assertion "incoherant?" I have pretty darn good sentence structure, if I do say so myself.


And the crux of the issue is, because you seem to miss it regardless of how many times I reiterate it, that whatever my personal opinions about religion, it ain't science. That's what my post responding to Mathor said explicitly. You must have missed where I said I think everyone's entitled to his opinion. But that's a lot different than advocating teaching falsehoods to children and expecting society to accept religious beliefs as science. Do you understand what that means? It means that people can believe whatever weird thing they want, but if they want it taught to children in the guise of science, it should actually be scientific.

I didn't miss your point, you just didn't register my reply (again). We've already talked about the whole "religion isn't science" thing, so I thought that I didn't have to go over it again, but I guess I do. Both science and religion attempt to explain things that we have absolutely no answers for (how did life begin?). They're both wrong, in my opinion (but lets not open that stupid can of worms again). What's the harm in teaching both theories and letting kids come to their own conclusions? Kids aren't stupid, they love asking questions and figuring stuff out. If no reading material is forbidden, people are open to read whatever they want and decide for themselves. That's much better then manipulating what information they recieve.



So, since you seem to have such a keen understanding of human nature, what exactly should we think about attempts to delegitimize scientific endeavor on religious grounds? Would it be censorship to prohibit teaching a religious fantasy like creationism in public schools instead of evolution?

Let them try. That doesn't mean that we have to behave the same way. An eye for an eye is a christian philosophy. Fight their censorship, but don't try to sneak in some of your own. Education on this topic shouldn't be either or, it should be both, side by side. I'd like it if people were allowed to hear all of the information before they decide what to believe for themselves.



Regards,

Istvan

(sad voice) Oh, Istvan, I'm starting to think that you actually have very little regard for me at all.
;)

[Babbalanja]

And you disagree? You really think that if we abandoned religion, the problems would go away. I've never said that. This is what I meant by "straw man" before: you're refuting claims I never made in the first place. I actually agree with you when you say religion isn't the only problem in the world, and that we would still have problems if we didn't have religion. However, you seem to be saying that because religion isn't the only problem in the world, it isn't a problem. And that's like saying that because cancer isn't the only disease in the world, we shouldn't make efforts to combat its spread.

I said in a previous post in this thread that the credulity and the disregard for critical thinking that fuels religion are a problem whether they are applied to religious or secular subjects. I think conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are manifestations of the same delusional thinking as religion.


What's the harm in teaching both theories and letting kids come to their own conclusions? Kids aren't stupid, they love asking questions and figuring stuff out. If no reading material is forbidden, people are open to read whatever they want and decide for themselves. That's much better then manipulating what information they recieve.But again, should we be obligated to teach both sides of every issue, regardless of how little real evidence one side of the perceived "debate" has? Are we obligated to allow students to decide for themselves whether the Holocaust happened or is a Jewish conspiracy? Whether the Earth is round or flat? Whether blacks are an inferior race or not?

Creationism and pseudoscience have a place in the classroom, if it's a class on the philosophy of science or critical thinking. I think it's important to know the basis of empirical evidential inquiry: in this thread and others, it seems clear to me that not enough people understand what science is and isn't. It's important to know why we believe what we do about our universe, and not just to parrot facts without understanding their basis.

The problem with creationism is that it's not a scientific theory in the first place. This is an ideological debate between a well-supported scientific construct and misguided religious people. If the obscurantists want to publish their nonsense and there are people credulous enough to buy it, that's just swell for them. But I don't think we're under any obligation to pretend it has scientific value.

Regards,

Istvan

[Gladys]

Science, philosophy, religion and astrology express views about the physics of our world, of our universe. Each can provide limited evidence, very limited evidence, in support. It is true that science generally provides more bountiful and compelling evidence, not to mention a wealth of innovation.

Nevertheless, the prime question is essentially political, not scientific. How much political power should the four be permitted to wield? I tend to distrust scientists - Maggie Thatcher, for instance. And scientist organisations form something of a priesthood, a coven of conservative dogmatism.

[Babbalanja]

It seems that Ray Comfort, the creationist crybaby who edited this version of Origin, is ethically as well as intellectually challenged. This blog (http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/11/ray-comfort-plagiarist.html) notes the striking similarities between Comfort's introduction and a book on Darwin by Dr. Stan Guffey:


Ray Comfort: On returning to England in 1836, Darwin set to work examining and disseminating the extensive collection of specimens he acquired during the voyage. He quickly established a reputation as an accomplished naturalist on the London scene. In 1839 he married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood. That same year he published his journal of the voyage of the Beagle, which brought him immediate celebrity among London’s intellectuals. In 1842 he and Emma moved to Down House in Kent. It was there that she bore ten children and she and Charles spent the rest of their lives.

Stan Guffey: On returning to England in 1836, Darwin set to work examining and disseminating the extensive collection of natural history specimens acquired during the voyage. He quickly established a reputation as an accomplished naturalist on the London scene. In 1839 he married Emma Wedgwood, and saw his journal of the voyage of the Beagle published. In 1842 he and Emma moved to Downe house, Kent where Emma would bear 10 children and she and he would live for the rest of their lives.

Ray Comfort: During his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist, Darwin had studied certain aspects of the morphology and biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he had observed. He eventually concluded that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they were to varying degrees related.

Stan Guffey: On his great adventure as the Beagleʼs naturalist Darwin had noted and begun to ponder certain aspects of the morphology and biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he had observed. In particular, he had begun to explore the possibility, and eventually concluded, that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they are to varying degrees related.

A testament to the amount of originality and creativity creationists demonstrate.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

A testament to the amount of originality and creativity creationists demonstrate.

Regards,

Istvan

Bravo!

What a classic, a plagiarist as well as an idiot.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've never said that. This is what I meant by "straw man" before: you're refuting claims I never made in the first place. I actually agree with you when you say religion isn't the only problem in the world, and that we would still have problems if we didn't have religion. However, you seem to be saying that because religion isn't the only problem in the world, it isn't a problem. And that's like saying that because cancer isn't the only disease in the world, we shouldn't make efforts to combat its spread.

Hmm, well I don't think that I would equate the problems associated with religion to cancer. Religion does a lot of good for people. I really dislike Christianity and Islam (and I believe that these religions, and others like them, are actually starting to fall from grace), but look at hinduism for example, or Bhuddism. I love those religions, I think that they're beautiful. No problem there, at least none that I can see.


But again, should we be obligated to teach both sides of every issue, regardless of how little real evidence one side of the perceived "debate" has? Are we obligated to allow students to decide for themselves whether the Holocaust happened or is a Jewish conspiracy? Whether the Earth is round or flat? Whether blacks are an inferior race or not?

Yes, I think that they should at least be made aware of both sides of the issue, and provided with some really solid facts to use as tools in their rationalization. I think that as long as they're informed of the truth, most kids will come to the conclusion (all on their own, which makes it more meaningful) that the Halocaust happened and that evolution is real. We'll deal with those who don't when the time comes through debate and reason (if they are capable of being reasoned with) but anyone who believes that blacks are an inferior race when they're provided with solid evidence that proves the contrary likely get this from their parents and were obviously bound to be a problem anyway. As for questions such as "How life begin?" when I was a kid, I was simply told "abiogenisis started life, you'll learn the details when you get to University" like it was a fact. When I learned how stupid abiogenisis theories were, I was ticked off. When it comes to that, we should be told "No one knows, but here are some theories." Both scientific and religious theories should be discussed (along with some niiice solid facts) and the kids should be allowed to come to their own conclusions. That's called honesty.

[OrphanPip]

Science, philosophy, religion and astrology express views about the physics of our world, of our universe. Each can provide limited evidence, very limited evidence, in support. It is true that science generally provides more bountiful and compelling evidence, not to mention a wealth of innovation.

Nevertheless, the prime question is essentially political, not scientific. How much political power should the four be permitted to wield? I tend to distrust scientists - Maggie Thatcher, for instance. And scientist organisations form something of a priesthood, a coven of conservative dogmatism.

Increased secularism actually seems to promote more progressive policies.

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf

Moreover, you are presenting these philosophies as mutually exclusive. As if no scientist ever reads philosophy or the Bible. I don't see how you can have any basis for claiming that science promotes conservative dogmatism. I've seen equal number of my former professors rail against the cost of pharmaceuticals and the copy right enforcement in the developing world. Likewise, I've seen numerous professors emphasizing that all research should be privatized and that a free market will produce the best results.

The head of the microbiology department at McGill spends his summers in the mountains of Peru attempting to treat leishmaniasis amongst rural populations. He's dedicated his life to researching treatments to a disease completely ignored by private industry, because it only affects people in the developing world. I don't see this man as a beacon of conservative dogmatism.

[Babbalanja]

Both scientific and religious theories should be discussed (along with some niiice solid facts) and the kids should be allowed to come to their own conclusions. That's called honesty.
As I said before, I have no reason why creationism shouldn't be discussed in the context of the philosophy of science. I think it would be helpful to show that creationism has all the hallmarks of what a scientific theory isn't. Creationism uses religious scripture as evidence, makes claims about the abilities and motives of magic beings that can never be verified, and it focuses on perceived anomalies in conventional biology instead of presenting an alternative scenario to explain the available evidence.

If both theories were scientific, I'd agree with you. But they're not. There's no reason religion should be passed off as science. That's called dishonesty.

Regards,

Istvan

[JuniperWoolf]

I think that we're pretty much in agreement on that point. There doesn't seem to be much more to say on this subject. We've both been a teensy bit snarky, but I liked hearing your thoughts. This has been a good discussion all in all.

[Babelfish]

Yeah I know! Having had tons of experience and familliarity with fundimentalism (my dad thinks that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, that the apocolaypse is coming that the antichrist will most likely be Obama, and that this will all occur "Left Behind" style [:brickwall]), I have seen its hypocracies up and down.

I think our dads would get along great. It's uncanny how similar their perspectives are. A play date might be in order.

[DanielBenoit]

I think our dads would get along great. It's uncanny how similar their perspectives are. A play date might be in order.

Hahahaha, you've said it. :reddevil: