"Darwin Day" Topic

Evolutionists say that you have nothing to lose when you die; there is nothing after death; you simply cease to exist. So, I ask: Why don't they just go out and jump off a cliff right now? Game over… Would you hurt those left behind? Certainly… but so what! In the course of time they won't exist either, so why care?

These kind of arguements are very strange. Yes, we cease to exist when we die. Therefore, I want to live as long as possible, I want to be with my family as long as possible, I want to make a good impression on my kid because that legacy is probably all I'll have, etc etc.

First to Doug's 'slur' on Atheists.

As one of those non-believers, actually the religious "none" in the US population is the fastest growing in the US:

link

Yes I'm one of those scary Atheists. I came from a non-religious family, well they were Unitarians actually. K through 12 of compulsory religious education of a 'predominately Christian nature' gave me lots of exposure and the the Christian cult. End result it stuck me "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin," the whole thing did not make sense and those that did I didn't like. The god of the Old Testament truly is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. I'll not let the LDS Church off the hook, the Book of Mormon takes the craziness of the Christian scriptures and takes the superstition to whole new depths of stupidity.
So having weighed the evidence I rejected the whole lot.

So what am I on Doug two choices?

TJ – thought you'd get round to the "Evolutionists have no morals.

Well let's look at this, sorry we have to speak slowly and use simple words for his benefit.

Evolution is an established fact of science.
Science explains how and why things work.
Science is does not explain how what it discovers should be used.
The role of ethics is to determine who the discoveries of science of are used.
Ethics come from a number of sources, including philosophy, religion and current social values.

So as an atheist I can draw my ethics from sources other than religion. Humanism actually is a good source, but I do have a weakness for the Stoics of the Greco-Roman period.

Actually, if you believe in only one life you tend to value life more highly because we haven't drunk the religious kool aid.

You dont admit the possibliity of a think-and-conclude atheist, and treat lack of belief as a shortcoming.

Not at all: the "I can't believe" is the thinking/caring part of atheism: those who have thought it all out, and are willing to continue to do so if something comes along to spark their questioning side anew. The "I won't believe" part are often those who don't care to consider the possibility, or have reasoned themselves to that conclusion: they are rarely if ever open to opening the discussion again: they merely trot out their array of denials and rhetorical parries and withdraw, usually behind a smoke screen of personal attacks thrown in.

Lack of belief is only a shortcoming IF the truth is what is not believed.

I realise that you feel strongly that there must be a first cause of some sort, but surely you can realise that most readers of this thread view this as a "pure" belief untainted by reason.

What is unreasonable about expecting all of THIS to be caused? That is scientfic.

What is unreasonable is to expect a wheat grain to sprout into Gotham City. First of all you have to explain why there even is a wheat grain in the first place; then you have to scientifically demonstrate how a wheat grain possesses the latent chemistry to grow/evolve into Gotham City.

Whatever the cause behind our existence in the first place, it MUST possess the natural processes to explain our sapience: our thinking is not merely the random accident of evolution: it is "seeded" by intellect, or else we would not posses intellect.

I have thought about these matters, but mainly concluded that I dont have the mental equipment to work with "before" time or "outside" space as concepts. Perhaps somebody else does, or perhaps someone will later. Or maybe not – theres no rule that says our species will eventually achieve complete understanding.

When I hear you, and Rocky, et al. those who articulate an incapacity to devote attention to the question of why we exist at all, I become suspicious that I am onto something. Because, to me, there is no other question or contemplation or study that

I dwell constantly on the "connection" between me and "God"; trying to peer beyond this universe, beyond the multiverse, to get some measure of comprehension of what "God" is. My intellect will not be content here: it carries me beyond the paltry bonds of space-time, where I can simultaneously type here on this keyboard, and hold the entire universe on my palm, unmoving, a mere "grain" of scintilating light in the Void. I can imagine doing that AS "God", and removing it all and sitting in the Void in the Darkness with Nothing "forever". But as space-time only exists when I will it, and since Existence in the first place is eternally varied/complex and expansive as well, "all things are before my face continually". Should I choose to annihilate myself, Existence in the first place resumes instantly: it is without cause, the only thing that answers that definition….

@Doug, er I mean Dr. Doug PhD

LOL! Really.

…Tell us, what did you get your PhD in again?

I am working on it. Some of us get 'em when we die. Some of us get a reup, another "dip in the soup"….

What the hell is a necessary cause? Were you not listening when I brought up that complexity does not infer a cause with intent? What godless expectations have I pursued in this lecture? I was discussing the intellectual and scientific shortcomings of the ID movement.

In your opinion, from your perspective, the ID movement has these shortcomings. What virtually all IDers have leaped to the conclusion of, which you seem intent on not addressing, is WHY Existence at all instead of nothing? IDers want to point out the unscientific claim of existence without cause. Your focus upon complexity out of simplicity (no intent), without addressing a cause for existence in the first place, is the very definition of wilfull godlessness.

Everything that we see is accounted for by the simple laws of physics. While there are many unknowns yet to be discovered, is there a reason to believe that that trend will not continue?

Everything that we see? We SEE the evidence of what is popularly called the BB. But peering beyond (before) the BB is denied to us. Is there any reason to believe that that barrier will not continue? We are left to wonder what caused the BB; what the BB means; what it may be part of, i.e. a bigger multiverse or similar: and ultimately, what CAUSED (or causes) the multiverse.

Well, unfortunately we are "stuck" in THIS one universe. That is the only universe that I, as a biologist can describe. Anything else is speculation.

Are you using the word "speculation" like ""? Or are you reserving "speculation" for your special list of worthy, skilled, savvy, educated club? Is it not speculation to declare that there is no God? And to write entire books to that end seems like the most over-done speculation of all. I grant that the reverse is also true: anyone writing to prove "God" (always their particular type of God), is equally over-done speculation. I just want to know why you prefer "no God" to "maybe God".

This lecture deals with contrasting evolution and ID. Have you not been listening?

You were gently, politely mocking the intellectual shortcomings of the Creationists: I just wanted to point out that they have a question not addressed by you, at, all: the transcendant origin or cause of Existence in the first place. You seem to feel the question is like mental , and I wanted to know why you take that dismissive point of view.

That work for you, Doug? I think that is a lot closer to the actual response you would get from Dr. Myers

You're probably right….

The god of the Old Testament truly is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

I agree with you there.

I'll not let the LDS Church off the hook, the Book of Mormon takes the craziness of the Christian scriptures and takes the superstition to whole new depths of stupidity.
So having weighed the evidence I rejected the whole lot.

As do I. You've evidently been at this longer than I have.

You (we) are "I can't believe" vis-a-vis the fictitious "God" of scripture: having studied and thought it out the Jewish nature of such a deity is inconceivable. And you have extended that "I can't believe" to any contemplation of the Necessary Cause of existence in the first place (actually you can think further on it, so it becomes "I won't"). This concept is required/necessary to account for the existence of the universe/multiverse: because we cannot conceive of any concept greater than "God", that is the most likely and reasonable concept to pursue. I repeat, this owes nothing to the Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic deity.

Actually, if you believe in only one life you tend to value life more highly because we haven't drunk the religious kool aid.

One life is all any of us have. But in reality, one MOMENT is all any of us have. Life is made up of living in the moment. If eternity is made up of endless moments, then it only makes sense to momentarily be as joyful as possible. Anything less is masochism, not to mention irritating and negative to those around us….

WHY Existence at all instead of nothing?

Why not existence instead of nothing?

Nothing requires no cause. Existence implies a cause….

What caused your cause? Despite your protests, you've got a turtle problem.

And I'm pretty sure this conversation is getting repetitive.

The thread itself is now turtles all the way down.

(Crap, I chopped myself off and missed it: here's the full thought: "When I hear you, and Rocky, et al. those who articulate an incapacity to devote attention to the question of why we exist at all, I become suspicious that I am onto something. Because, to me, there is no other question or contemplation or study that compares to the question of why we have Existence at all; every other question is subsumed in that primary question.")

Lack of belief is only a shortcoming IF the truth is what is not believed.

And that is the basis of the kulturkampf isn't it? The problem with the three desert religions, is that there are predicated on the fallacy that their superstition is the truth.

I make a point to study and learn every day, that makes me question my weltanschauung. I therefore change. That is hard, it means saying ever so often, "I was wrong." Don't break out the kool aid just yet TJ, the one thing that is consistent is there have been no good evidence present to make me want to believe in a deity and most specifically ol' Jehovah. Which leads us to answer the fallacy of TJ's attempts to make me take Pascal's wager – What is I'm wrong?

Pascal's wager: If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one's bets; and so on.

Why do we exist?

It's a happy accident.

Case closed.

And I'm pretty sure this conversation is getting repetitive.

The thread itself is now turtles all the way down.

That's true.

But Existence doesn't have a top or bottom, no beginning or end. It is in fact "defying science" by being uncaused itself. "God" is the only big enough concept to explain it.

I don't then embark on defining what "God" is and isn't: but I will say that nothing finite can ever comprehend the infinite, beyond the concept of its existence, that is: we can say "infinity", and we can define it as that which has no end or beginning: but we have no empirical machinery capable of taking infinite Existence in….

You're not addressing your turtle problem. It may very well be that existence has no top or bottom, beginning or end. It may be uncaused, and it may have caused itself. But we know it exists, and we don't know that your prime mover does. So I cut it off with what we know. We know the Elephant is here. There's no turtles under him.

Doug, which existence do you want us to answer? How we came about as a species? The emergence of life? Or the emergence of the universe is the first place?

Now, this tread should have been about how the works of Charles Darwin contributed to our understanding on the emergence of species. Remember that during the last 150 years that the details of how evolution have been amended, but the basic principle remains the same.

The other questions are valid, but they are not addressed by the writings of Charles Darwin, despite those who wish that either a) they want Darwin to say something that he didn't b) or that can not accept the idea that they could be wrong.

That is the essential different between the people of faith and the scientist/atheist. The former takes the universe as having been circumscribed by some book – either from the Bronze Age or the post classical period. The later is constantly asking that question that, I am told, drives parents to distraction – "WHY?"

It isn't a turtle problem, that's the point. Turtles are finite creatures and as I said don't possess the "machinery" to empirically comprehend the infinite. Existence does "cause itself" (except when it "chooses" not to): the only thing that does or can.

What's the point of believing in such a "God"? What's the advantage? Well, for me it means that an infinitely greater intelligence "came up" with little ol' me. That's rather stunning on the face of it. Why bother? I have NO idea. But I guess I do, in some way, beat sitting in the Darkness with Nothing, after all. So I may as well be about living the most that I can. No time like the MOMENT to get with it. And, NO anxiety about dying. It's all gone. (The methodology naturally has me a bit bothered: I hate, Hate, HATE PAIN: but dying itself, meh, no trouble.)

Pascal's Wager is fallacious for another reason: you have to believe that "God" is rewarding and damning souls based on judgment: i.e. that there is some risk involved in your existence here. There isn't any risk. The only failure is to be joyful. That's quite a big enough challenge for an immortal being such as I. It is tricky, even ellusive. Believing that "God" intended me to be about learning what Joy is makes my believing in "God" far better than flailing about in the fly specks wondering when it is all going to end for me….

If the battling 'Youtube' clips are getting you down then try these documentaries from the BBC

link

Several address the topics that are discussed here.

The format is always the same, an intelligent interviewer who does not try to shout down those whom he disagrees with and three academics.

Since we are writing on this board we also have an interest in history so also there may be some programs here of interest:

link

Finally, to show that I have no personal animosity towards the faith-heads, these are also interesting:

link

Hi

Doug, you like TJ seem to believe the basic syllogism that evolution is incompatible with a belief in god or "NC". This is similar to saying that the "belief" in the physics that describe nuclear fusion somehow disputes God because it isn't "let there be light".

You offer a bi-polar dichotomy in this with the following"

Atheists fall into TWO groups: those that can't believe, and those that won't believe. and assigning ME to one of the categories.

I don't address my beliefs because they are irrelevant to the discussion. There is a difference between the demonstrable science of evolution and genetics and things that rely on personal "feelings" and "testimony". Someone above addressed this with the "atheist" attitudes of Catholicism.

I was just at a collector event in northern utah where someone heard me holding on about a collection of 15th century matchlocks, including observing bits that were "real" and fake from my archology background. This guy wanted me to examine some indian artifacts he had. I suggested two things, the belief that any of the good bits he had that were supposedly Aztec were probably fake…especially the crystal skull, but my SCIENCE was that this wasn't an area I knew scientifically. Thus, I said, no.

The mormons value personal testimony as an expression of faith and reality. Catholics don't. That is the simple difference here. Yup, I do believe in God and NC and such. I will never talk about it because it is pure speculation. I don't do felt opinions!

Out of humility, I observe that, to me, probability is "obvious". We have had that discussion, I can walk through a game room and KNOW the odds in everygame. In the long run, I can demonstrate the math. And I observe that most gamers have zero idea of statistics and probability. I have no doubt that your thinking about NC is "obvious" to you. But unlike high energy physics, fractals and EVOLUTION which are demonstrable, I hold forth nothing on ideas "above my pay grade".

Thus, I have argued with Dawkins on his leaping from a believer to atheist based on his idea that Genesis got it wrong, and I argue with TJ based on his leaping from being a atheist to believer based on evolution.

Both are taking science and reasoning to nonsense.

Both of us see a potential tyranny involved by athiests suppressing the religious by requiring some sort of silence in public. However, history is also replete with the religious using their beliefs to do horrible things with "other".

So, I thought about suggesting that as your NC thing should be its own discussion, and perhaps you would be served by giving it its own thread…..i also realized that I wouldn't even look!

Rocky

So we atheists just wander around being being miserable? I think not we take joy in the world the same as the rest of humanity.

We're probably less guilt ridden because we don't have to worry about the great secret policeman who is supposedly watching up all the time.

Doug, which existence do you want us to answer? How we came about as a species? The emergence of life? Or the emergence of the universe is the first place?

None of them. How we came about as a species is being answered daily; we will one day know ALL there is to know about it, including how the earth came from the BB and all about cosmic evolution: THE LOT. What we may never know is what caused the multiverse, other than to know that something is necessarily causing it to exist. I just want people to think about that, not reject it.

The other questions are valid, but they are not addressed by the writings of Charles Darwin, despite those who wish that either a) they want Darwin to say something that he didn't b) or that can not accept the idea that they could be wrong.

That is the essential different between the people of faith and the scientist/atheist.

Wasn't Darwin a believer in God? Just not the Judeo-Christian (dogmatic/orthodox) God: his mind was much more open to what/who God really is: I get the impression from the incidental quotations of Darwin that have crossed my plate over the years that he was intensely believing in God but not in a way that was permissible in "polite society".

The only reason why I got into this thread in the first place was because I perceived a prevalent attitude among the posts of science being advanced to show that there is no "God". That will always torque my chain….

Thus, I have argued with Dawkins on his leaping from a believer to atheist based on his idea that Genesis got it wrong, and I argue with TJ based on his leaping from being a atheist to believer based on evolution.

Rocky, Richard Dawkins became an atheist not simply upon the basis of evolution. Like myself he was the subject of the English education system and became an atheist in his early teens based upon being exposed to the inconsistency in the Bible. For example Books 1 & 2 of Genesis can not agree on the creation story.

I do have a degree of understanding for the medieval church and there position that the Bible was so complicated it should only be allowed into the hands trained theologians. They realised as soon as the book is available in the vernacular the game was up. The church would spit as everyone one became their own theologian (or sheep following a different preachers) or join the ranks of those who point out the Emperor has no cloths.

Doug, you like TJ seem to believe the basic syllogism that evolution is incompatible with a belief in god or "NC". This is similar to saying that the "belief" in the physics that describe nuclear fusion somehow disputes God because it isn't "let there be light".

Not at all: evolution is compatible because it is a FACT. How can something that is a fact not be compatible with "God?" Like you, to me the OT is a Bronze Age response to the mystery of existence; it doesn't apply to modern knowledge.

You offer a bi-polar dichotomy in this with the following"

Atheists fall into TWO groups: those that can't believe, and those that won't believe. and assigning ME to one of the categories.

I have talked with you a lot about this over the years. You are definitely not a "I won't believe" type. You are a "doubting Thomas" to the core (self described as such in fact). By nature I am trusting of those who "know". My adult life has focused on learning to question why I believe the things I do. You do that by nature, as far as I can tell.

I don't address my beliefs because they are irrelevant to the discussion.

That's how we differ. But the only "belief" I harp contstantly back to is "Existence in the first place". It needs addressing, not dismissing, because it "predates" all evolution, even the universe itself.

Yup, I do believe in God and NC and such.

You've never said that to me before: always, "I don't know", never "I believe". Or, I just missed it? :)

So, I thought about suggesting that as your NC thing should be its own discussion, and perhaps you would be served by giving it its own thread…..i also realized that I wouldn't even look!

For sure. I go where the talking is. And I have been an egregious thread hijacker from the beginning….

So we atheists just wander around being being miserable?

No more than any other group of people. But then I haven't seen religious people being particularly joyful either; often quite the opposite, and guilty of the "dear God end it now, please, so that I can get to heaven forthwith" attitude that yous all have criticized accurately.

But expecting to continue beyond "death" is surely better than expecting it all to end. It is also a much larger concept of our reason for being: and I am all for pursuing the biggest concepts for Existence that I can….

Doug,

You argument doesn't really hold up.

During the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union adopted a policy of deterring nuclear war through mutually assured destruction.

As atheists the Soviets were much less likely to start a war that would end in destruction of the world than some 'born again' 'Merkin who believed that the elect would live with their special friend.

We actually have 'born again' Christians who are actually working to fulfill their interpretation of some millennialist prophecy.

So, on a lighter note, I'm with Marcus Brigstocke:

YouTube link

Well Doug,

Dr. Myers gave a very good lecture on the scientific merits of Evolution and the contrasting scientific weakness of ID. I'm sorry that you thought that he should have given a totally different talk. Care to comment on the actual lecture now? So 2 questions for you:

1) Did he say anything specific that you found incorrect?

2) If not, then why attack a biologist, who is giving an evolutionary biology lecture, for not being a cosmologist?

Ralph

1) Did he say anything specific that you found incorrect?

Not about Creationists; although he did the broad brush thing that both sides do, he did allow that there are "some" who actually involve themselves in thinking (I think he left off the word "critical" though).

I already mentioned that I found his examples of unintentional complexity (e.g. drift wood "walls") non applicable to the quextion of Existence in the first place necessarily possessing intelligence/design.

2) If not, then why attack a biologist, who is giving an evolutionary biology lecture, for not being a cosmologist?

Would a cosmologist pursue the question of Existence in the first place to a "God conclusion"? I don't think so.

Evolution should not even address the question of cause and origins that evolutionist then say points to "no God". Yet far too many evolutionists do just that. Even cosmologists admit the barrier posed by "what came before the BB?" Yet scientists generally, being 90%+ irreligious/atheist, are pleased to claim "No God". On what basis? That was all I am asking. And pointing to evidence from this universe as some kind of "causeless" phenomenon begs the question, since nobody can point to what caused the BB, which got cosmic and subsequently biological evolution going….

Doug makes some interesting points, but I would point out the context.

Prof. Myers is literally on the front line of the kulturkampf – he's getting death threats for his views on a regular basis.

The continued attempts of Creationists to change the nature of US science education by introducing a supernatural element – so what's next a definition of science that means astrology is on a par with astronomy. That causes the other side to respond and point out where the rot starts – with biblical literalism. Biblical literalism says in answer to any question – "Well god did it!" and then twists the facts to fit that answer. Evidence that the world is billions of years old? Dismiss that the world is about 6,000 years. Scientific dating gets dismissed as circular reasoning. Point out that there can't have been a world wide floor about 2,400BCE – dismiss the dating that it didn't happen (ancient near eastern records)or ignore it (ancient China). Yes, not all creationists believe in a Young Earth, but the most vocal of them do.

This background leads Prof. Myers and other US biologists to come out of there field and state there is no god.

Prof. Dawkins states his reason for becoming an outspoken atheist was the attacks on 9/11 and the responses thereto.

Actually let me state my personal position a little more clearly.

Is there a NC – I don't know. I have insufficient data and lack of training in cosmology and physics to form a judgment. So I am on that issue an agnostic.

I was brought up on a number of authors all of whom are now unpopular, one of those was Kipling; this does a good job of summing up my to how I try to live life:

link

[sulk] I posted that Marcus Brigstock video on my blog months ago, and occasionally link to it. Don't steal my thunder.[/sulk]

However YouTube link

Hmmm {Looks around table} I say crhkrebs, Do you know the Bishop of Norwich.
link

Thanks Last Hussar!

To make TJ's job easier here are some more of his arguemnts:

YouTube link

Reminder from the Moderator

Religious discussion is not permitted on the TMP forums. If you wish to discuss such topics as the existence of God, the role of religion, the politics of modern religions, etc., you must adjourn to The Blue Fez: thebluefez.com

Getting back to topic…

link

Fascinating!

Pete

Dear Moderator,

Bill, how come Doug never gets snipped? Especially when he is the number one cause of veering this thread into the BF wastelands. (Sorry Doug, just calling it like I see it).

Ralph

Back to the topics:

Would a cosmologist pursue the question of Existence in the first place to a "God conclusion"? I don't think so.

They can draw what conclusions they want based on the data available. Either way, the BB is their realm, not the biologists.

I already mentioned that I found his examples of unintentional complexity (e.g. drift wood "walls") non applicable to the quextion of Existence in the first place necessarily possessing intelligence/design.

That's what happens when you sleep through the actual point made.

Ralph

Bill- it wasn't the pro-science posters who started arguing for something that patently isn't science. If someone posits 'godidit' as an alternative to evolution, because they have a book that tells them so, then they are subjecting 'god' and the 'bible' to scientific evaluation. It people want to play science's games, then they play science's rules.

Hi

Actually, this is a little backwards:The continued attempts of Creationists to change the nature of US science education by introducing a supernatural element

That would be "reintroduce" as both the US and the UK educational systems started with religion and THEN became secular.

And while I know that TJ is wrong, I still will defend his right to promote his agenda!

It is a little bootless for Dawkins to attack the bible for getting it wrong or contradictory, then accept that it is not also true about the other side. "Gaps" isn't an argument it is a dismissal to discussion.

Or as pointed out above, that if the IDers get their way, so does astrolgy and turtles! We often get discouraged in these things without realizing that like evolution, changing minds takes time. The views of 1824 have changed to 2009 because of time and persistance, not by shouting people down.

Rocky

Actually, this is a little backwards:The continued attempts of Creationists to change the nature of US science education by introducing a supernatural element

That would be "reintroduce" as both the US and the UK educational systems started with religion and THEN became secular.

I'm going to disagree in part. The earliest European Universities (Bologna, Paris, etc.) were religious schools too, and the only degree handed out was a Doctorate of Divinity. I would not want to go back to that state of affairs. If religious fundamentalists today wished to go back to that type or style of University, I would fight that trend too.

And while I know that TJ is wrong, I still will defend his right to promote his agenda!

I'm not sure he has an agenda. He has an opinion and he is free to express it. On the other hand, I think it is good old fashioned common sense to fight the anti-science agenda of the Discovery Institute and the "Wedge" tactic of the IDiots. I'm all for free speech, EXCEPT when it comes to science and mathematics. Science is not a democracy. (I think GunFreak has pointed that out about 4 times during this thread).

It is a little bootless for Dawkins to attack the bible for getting it wrong or contradictory, then accept that it is not also true about the other side.

I can't follow your criticism of Dawkins, but I do see that you don't like him. I have actually seen him lecture at the University of Toronto. Contrary to some of the ways you have chosen to portray him, I found him to be a quite, calm and even handed speaker. He does not shout down opposing views and behaves far more civil than his detractors do. Don't take my word for this, there are plenty of examples on YouTube.

"Gaps" isn't an argument it is a dismissal to Bleeped text discussion.

"Gaps" IS an argument, your buddy Dr Doug resorts to that with the conjuring up of his "Necessary Cause". It is the deified manifestation of what we don't know of the BB and what we don't know about the intent of the universe. And he is in "good" company.

Ralph

As I've said, teach the "controversy" has nothing to do with free speach, after all you might as well teach the "controversy" over wether black people are inferiour to whites.

Stuff like that has no place in a class romms, neither elementry schools or highschools.
Scientific "contorveries" are resolved by scientist by testing and field research.
Kids are not educated enough and lower tier school teachers aren't trained to teach stuff like that.

You only make Id seem more legit by having it in a class room, making it seem like this has anything to do with opinion

I hear you Gunfreak, and correct you are. Good to hear from somebody as there has been a slight purging of our ranks. Some of us are enjoying an unscheduled break from TMP.

Ralph

Science is not about wishfull thinking.

As Richard Feynman said.
It dosn't mater how beutifull or poetic your hypthesis, it might be revolutionary it might seem perfect, but if it dosn't hold up to testing and field research, you have to disgard it.

On the origen of species is a wonderfully writen book, with poetry and language you don't get today, but if his theory had been wrong it wouldn't have held up to testing and research for 150 years

Hi

I have also done Dawkins lectures and I have not characterized him as you assign me. Never said anything about his being impolite or shouting down.

I just disagree with his logic, his "personal testimony" is very religious. He saw gaps in Genesis which lead to a crisis in faith and his becoming an athiest. As I think we all, except TJ, agree, evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existance of god. It is a basic mechanism observed in biology.

Thus, I am not presuaded by the gaps in genesis means I must be an anthiest, any more than the asserted(but inaccurate) gaps in evolution means being a believer in god(which god?).

Similarly, I have no truck with ID being taught as anything but religion. That isn't the issue. I really do believe that, long term, you rationally discuss things, you don't ideas. Such has too many bad implications.

Thus, I have no problem with, say, the IDers cheering for their nonsense in schools, because it is, as Obama calls it, a "learning opportunity".

Do you guys see the distinction here? With time, bad ideas go away, suppression doesn't work.

Rocky

I agree Rocky, and accept my mea culpas if I misrepresented you.

With time, bad ideas go away, suppression doesn't work.

Suppression certainly doesn't work. Marginalization has worked the best, at least in my country.

In a course I recently took on Science and Religion, the Professor indicated that fundamentalist opposition to Darwinism and Evolution is peaking now. There was little organized opposition to Darwinism even at the time of the Scopes "Monkey trial". This bad idea is gaining momentum among the general public and doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.

Ralph

With time, bad ideas go away

I see what you mean but I think you're altogether relaxed about the spread of pernicious feeble-minded nonsense in society – by which I dont mean religion as such, but the attempts to apply unsupported beliefs and feelings where thought-and-evidence are more appropriate.

In the UK this isnt just, or even mostly, about creationists or IDiots – the alternative health lot, wacky educational theories and fake lifestyle therapies have all got their hooks into society and are lying their way into assumed respectability whatever the cost to others.

suppression doesn't work.

Depends where it is being suppressed from.

Absolutely surpress it in science classes. What you do in your own house is up to you.

"In the UK this isnt just, or even mostly, about creationists or IDiots – the alternative health lot, wacky educational theories and fake lifestyle therapies have all got their hooks into society and are lying their way into assumed respectability whatever the cost to others"

Same here, while fanatical religious are linda looked at at funny weired people and they have no power(I think the christian party got 4% in last months general election, and most of them are actualy quite moderate(they just don't like sex(sepecaly gay sex) and alcohol)

BUT we do have lots and lots of new agey, mother earth, faith healers ect. Hell our princes clames to talk to angles.
And my mom tried to use healers on our dog(my mom dosn't belive in prayer, but for some reason she belives "some energy bull crap) can heal.
They have some how maniged to take the "faith" out of the faith healing, it's become a new age thing. Most of theise people don't take money, but it's still detrimental to real medicin.
It's not the level of stupidity that you see in Penn & teller but still stupid.

I think this whole discussion about evolution and religion (Christian & Jewish) is a bit silly. Wait ……. I just looked up the rules and I can say that because I'm not directing it at anyone in particular. I'm addressing the argument.

Speaking of the rules, I think that those who write "IDiots" should cease. This is a direct violation of TMP rules. You may not call individuals or groups idiots. If this continues, I will call down the wrath of god (Bill).

Evolution is a materialistic theory for an explanation of the development of the life on the world we live in. It is not a proof against the existence of God. The Genesis story is not an explanation of the development of our materialistic world. And therefore should not be placed in opposition to evolution. To understand the creation story or myth (a story meant to convey knowledge to succeeding semi- or non-literate generations – see Preface to Plato) one must understand the cultural circumstance around such writings.

The Hebrews had just left the land of the Egyptians. While in Egypt, they had been exposed to the Egyptian Gods. It was to correct these doctrines that the Genesis story was developed. It was designed to instruct the Hebrews as to who actually created the world and to whom they were obligated. It was never meant as a lecture on how life on this world was created. Evolution, on the other hand, is a thesis as to how life developed. The two address different issue and therefore are not incompatible.

[A Historical note: atheists in Colonial America were considered worse than the town drunk. ] My personal belief is that atheism, the assertion that God does not exist, is indefensible. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist. You may not have any reason to believe God exists but that is an agnostic predilection. I think if you look hard at Dawkins you'll find that he is really an agnostic.

I don't know if this has already been discussed but Darwin's theory of natural selection is only part of the evolutionary story. You cannot have life evolving into elephants in the Precambrian period. [Not to be confused with the Pre-Columbian period. ] For life to evolve to where it is now required the earth to have gone through the changes it has gone through. Look at it in terms of valleys. In any particular valley or geological period, life can only changes within a certain range. Open a new valley or geological period and other changes are allowed to happen.

As a man of faith, I believe that natural selection within a given geological period is the best story we have now to explain the development of life on earth. I also believe the Genesis story that it was God who created the heavens and the earth and all life on the earth. And, as it looks now He used natural selection within a given geological period.

As to the two creation stories inn Genesis, it doesn't matter. The purpose was to show that it was God (I am) was the creator and both stories do this. Also, remember that this information had to be given in a form that a semi-literate people could easily understand. The order of things was not as important as the fact God created the heavens and the earth. The purpose of creation stories is to instruct man in his relation to the cosmos. It is not the first course leading to a Ph.D. in the life sciences.

Rich

I can mostly agree with that, but I think you miss the point on atheism. True, no-one can disprove the existence of God(s), but if one believes that the universe is explicable without introducing one or more Gods, atheism is the logical position.

Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

Woodrow Wilson, 1922

LLC aka Ron

Rich. I.D. isn't religeon. They keep telling the U.S. courts that. They claim it is a valid scientific theory. This is the science board of TMP, they want to argue against the science of evolution. Fine, but if that is your approach you don't get to complain if you get spanked.

It was TJ who introduced religeon. He entered a thread on Darwin and stated

The human brain has been described as probably the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe.

To believe that such a thing could have evolved via the the unguided and random proceses of time and chance is simply irrational.

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

(p1, 14 Feb) After being repeatedly challenged to put forward evidence of an alternative to evolution/proof of creatoin of an 'as is' universe (he repeatedly, and in my view, deliberately muddled abiogenesis and evolution) he appeared to drift through a fundimentalist biblical view, before stating a straight forward view according to Genesis – p14, 9 Oct. If you want to claim Genesis trumps science, again you get spanked.

No, evolution does not disprove any particular deity. It does disprove Genesis. If you do not want scientific attacks on the Bible, don't use it in a discussion about science. If you do use it, damn well have some science to back it up, not 'interpretation' by theistic thinkers. Using the bible in a science argument should not get 'respect religeon' free pass.