International creationism

[CyberGnu]

Hmmm.... so you would refuse to give someone a PhD because of their religious beliefs?

That is very sad. I hope you never reach a position of authority.

Rogan, you might want to read my post again. You completely misunderstood everyhitng I wrote...

No one cares what religious beliefs a grad student has. But in order to recieve a PhD the student should develop a set of skills: critical thinking, analytical and creative skills, how to write scientific papers, etc etc, in addition to the purely factual skills such as solid state physics or organic synthesis.

Now, a creationist biology graduate student is lacking in the first two departments: critical and analytical thinking.

But this has nothing to do with creationism per se. If he believed that horses breathed ammonia, or whales spoke cantonese, or the citric acid cycle could only work via magic, he would not be suitable for a PhD either...

[Bosh]

Muslim creationism doesn't really amount to much, not because there's not many people who believe in it but muslim fundries think they have much bigger fish to fry then some annoying brit called Darwin so they're not much organizational structure behind muslim creationism and much of their "science" is just translated from christian creationists.

[CyberGnu]

SD,

No, you don't. You can form any conclusion you wish. It does mean that you are unlikely to have a correct conclusion if you don't understand it.

It doesn't make sense to split the sentence in the middle...

If I didn't believe in evolution because it didn't make sense to me it does not make me stupid.

Actually, yes it does. If it doesn't make sense to you, it is because you haven't taken the time to understand it. Electing to disbelieve an expert in a subject you know nothing about is stupid.

I'm not saying that you have to take the experts word as gospel. But if are going to actively disagree, you must have something more than "I just don't get it".

[CyberGnu]

Being doubtful is very different to being stupid!

Yep. However, being doubtful requires you to add a "because ..." after your assertion.

And "because I don't understand it" is not a valid argument.

However people are calling those who do not believe in evolution stupid, when in fact all they are being is critical.

The day I meet someone with an actual argument, fine. Until then, I'll stick to my assertion.

Would you blindly accept RJ's statement?

In and by itself? Unless I had a reason to doubt either the statement or Rogan, yes. If I had that reason, I would check the scientific literature. If the scientific literature (i.e. the experts) agree with Rogan, I'm forced to either accept his statement, or actually present a valid scientific reason as to why he is wrong.

Of course, if the scientific community doesn't agree on a subject, such as for example Molecular Orbital Theory vs. Valense Bond Theory, I do not have to take sides. I could state that since the scientific community does not agree, I can choose not to put my faith in either side.

But in cases where such a disagreement does not exist, such as evolution, that option is not open to me.

You see?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
SD,


Actually, yes it does. If it doesn't make sense to you, it is because you haven't taken the time to understand it. Electing to disbelieve an expert in a subject you know nothing about is stupid.

I'm not saying that you have to take the experts word as gospel. But if are going to actively disagree, you must have something more than "I just don't get it".

And you are an arrogant putz and rude to boot.

[CyberGnu]

And you are an arrogant putz and rude to boot.

Well, science is rude. Science doesn't care if you get your feelings hurt. Science is either right or wrong.

SD asked a question. This is the answer.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I personally see no disconnect between creationism and evolution. As Kepler points out so well posts past the question of who is behind life as we know it is one question answered by religion whilst how it was done is answered by evolution.

What disconcerts me is the how portion of the question. I personally take evolution as a given. That being said the almost barbaric nature of survival of the fittest and natural selection paints a rather dim view of our Creator as an almost capricious and callous Being. This I have a hard time believing or wanting to believe.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
If it doesn't make sense to you, it is because you haven't taken the time to understand it.

You can understand a theory and not see it correctly relating to the real world. If a theory is wrong then it doesn't make sense. If a theory is good, but not quite right, it may not make sense to some. i.e it leaves unanswered questions.

However, being doubtful requires you to add a "because ..." after your assertion.

If a theory is self consistent and viable, but lacks evidence, then being doubtful is an acceptable position, despite their being no contrary evidence.

And "because I don't understand it" is not a valid argument.

Because "I am yet to be convinced" would be acceptable I would have thought. (not convinced due to lack of understanding or knowledge, but not convinced of the conclusion drawn from the evidence).

The day I meet someone with an actual argument, fine. Until then, I'll stick to my assertion.

The onus of proof is on the proposer. If the naysayer has valid reservations about a conclusion, they should not be called stupid just because they have an unpopular opinion.

Of course, if the scientific community doesn't agree on a subject, such as for example Molecular Orbital Theory vs. Valense Bond Theory, I do not have to take sides. I could state that since the scientific community does not agree, I can choose not to put my faith in either side.

But in cases where such a disagreement does not exist, such as evolution, that option is not open to me.

The scientific community may agree on a theory, but that does not mean that the theory does not have flaws that require further explanation. Additionally, generally accepted truths have often been overturned, and a new sometimes radical theory adopted.

Well, science is rude. Science doesn't care if you get your feelings hurt. Science is either right or wrong

My feelings aren't hurt, but thanks for caring about them.

[CyberGnu]

SD

You can understand a theory and not see it correctly relating to the real world. If a theory is wrong then it doesn't make sense. If a theory is good, but not quite right, it may not make sense to some. i.e it leaves unanswered questions.

Not really. Science is sufficiently complicated that 'common sense' just doesn't work. If you believe that a scientifically accepted theory is in conflict with reality, it is more likely that your interpretation of reality is wrong than the scientific theory...

If a theory is self consistent and viable, but lacks evidence, then being doubtful is an acceptable position.

Well, the "..." following "because" would then be "it lacks evidence", right?

Because "I am yet to be convinced" would be acceptable I would have thought. (not convinced due to lack of understanding or knowledge, but not convinced of the conclusion drawn from the evidence

Yes, but then you must motivate why you are yet unconvinced. This is just referring the argument one step.

The onus of proof is on the proposer.

Evolution has gone from a hypothesis to a theory. In the world of scientific language, this is equivalent to evolution being proven. Thus, if you want to dispute evolution, you have to show something that actually disproves the evolution theory.

If the naysayer has valid reservations about a conclusion, they should not be called stupid just because they have an unpopular opinion.

But now you snuck in an extra word there: Valid. Obviously, a valid reservation would be OK. What we are debating, however, are people without valid reservations.

The scientific community may agree on a theory, but that does not mean that the theory does not have flaws that require further explanation.

Depends on what you mean with a flaw. If they actually invalidate the theory, it is not a theory anymore. (if, for example, an apple floated upwards every once in a while, Newtons theory of gravity would be invalidated). In some cases you will have to narrow down the theory to only a subset of what it was thought to cover.

But pray tell, how many scientific theories are there that have been conclusively overturned in the last 200 years? Not even Newtownian mechanics are disproven, just redefined to cover a statistical sample instead of individual molecules.

My feelings aren't hurt, but thanks for caring about them.

aaaaw, come on, I wasn't talking to you. I think you are perfectly aware that we have been using 'you' in the third person.

Jimmytricks little comment pissed me off though... Hence the blunt hammer of 'accept reality'.

[DanS]

"This overconfidence in current scientific thought is completely rife in today's society. I see it in almost every fireld. It is especially bad in the realm of high-energy/particle physics where the public believe anything they are told...."

Hear hear!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Is your only reposte to deflect the statement? I thought we were discussing the validity of evolution, not the belief system of a particular religion.

The point I am making is that for someone to claim those who do not believe in evolution are 'stupid' is rather rich when it comes from people who don't even understand what evolution is.

You missed my point. For any school of thought with a large following, you always see the normal distribution in terms of understanding. Just because somebody doesn't understand evolution at all well doesn't mean that person cannot hold it to be true.

So, why would anybody "believe in" something they don't understand. Perhaps there is overwhelming evidence for it. From multi-resistant microbes to new breeds of pets to strange new types of fruits and vegatables, it really is all around you.

Evolution is just like gravity. You don't need to know how it works to know that it exists.

[Seeker]

I was considering taking part in this, but then I noticed someone had mentioned the work of the oft-discredited Behe and Dembski in a non-joke context....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
If I didn't believe in evolution because it didn't make sense to me it does not make me stupid. Being doubtful is very different to being stupid!

What is the basis of your skepticism? If it is for the lack of evidence, hey, I'd with you in a second. This is not the case for evolution however.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
However people are calling those who do not believe in evolution stupid, when in fact all they are being is critical. Would you blindly accept RJ's statement?

Anti-evolutionists (people who reject evolution as a whole, not those who reject certain detail parts of it) do not base their objections in fact. They based them on religious dogma.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Seeker
I was considering taking part in this, but then I noticed someone had mentioned the work of the oft-discredited Behe and Dembski in a non-joke context....

I am glad they are not on my side

[monkspider]

In the words of Mohatma Gandhi

"First they will laugh at you
then they will ignore you
then they will fight you
then you will win."