Printable View
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
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.
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.
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.
But it does make it unscientific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
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
Psh, so you want censorship? Yeah, that's a great idea (sarcastic voice).
Yeah, and hard cold science has a great history. Remember this?Quote:
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.
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/...-god-go-xii-2/
And you know it.
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
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
:)
The problem with eugenics always stems from the politicising of it, the practice itself is not inherently bad.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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
Glover you are such a lad.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
(sad voice) Oh, Istvan, I'm starting to think that you actually have very little regard for me at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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
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.
It seems that Ray Comfort, the creationist crybaby who edited this version of Origin, is ethically as well as intellectually challenged. This blog notes the striking similarities between Comfort's introduction and a book on Darwin by Dr. Stan Guffey:
Quote:
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.
A testament to the amount of originality and creativity creationists demonstrate.Quote:
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.
Regards,
Istvan
Bravo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
What a classic, a plagiarist as well as an idiot.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Increased secularism actually seems to promote more progressive policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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
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.
I think our dads would get along great. It's uncanny how similar their perspectives are. A play date might be in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Hahahaha, you've said it. :reddevil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Babelfish