This is so freaking wrong!

[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/...-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.

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.

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 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.