Creationism on the rise in Kans... the Netherlands?!

[Bereta_Eder]

what i mean is i imagine they discard the evolution of man.
ok so what are they saying? that adam ate the apple and then he was discharged on earth. so i imagine they must claim that man existed as a separate species.
ok since when was he a separate species?
do they claim before the dinosaurs?
do they claim after the dinosaurs?


because that way we can locate in time exactly when adam and eve screwed up!

[Bereta_Eder]

and how do they reply to the multiplication of humans just from two people?! come on
that would either mean that heaven had other residences but they were hidden behind the leaves. and they were all evicted but that means there's a guilt by association. that goes against the free will dogma thing. it's a dead end. unless there were dna-compatible animals on earth and they did the wild thing with them. which would explain why in that sanscrit book the "angels" which were in fact aliens in spaceships told the men/women to "stop doing it in the doggy stance!" because that was the animal way. whereas they should be missionaries. like the advanced angels who fornicated with the hot females.
actually that's much more exciting than the boring evolution theory. i think i'll become a creationsit

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Winston
You can't deny they have a mutual interest in explaining the origins of life. You make it seem like religious people are always out to distort "the truth", whereas it's my impression they are eagerly searching for answers to many of the same questions that scientists are researching.

But the issue is what should be taught in science courses. Religious philosophy shouldn't, only science should. To date, there is no religious scientific theory on the origin of life--it's purely a metaphysical one. That's not what science is about. Bring it up in a philosophy or religions course. But don't give it credeence as "science" when it clearly isn't.

[Winston]

I think the issue is the Dutch government wants to hold a hearing. I saw no mention of proposed changes to what should be taught in science courses.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Winston
I think the issue is the Dutch government wants to hold a hearing. I saw no mention of proposed changes to what should be taught in science courses.

Why else would the Minister of Education and Science be making an issue of it?

[Winston]

But I also think Oerdin might have a point about the Muslims. The use of the wording "inter-cultural discussion" could mean between the cultures of science and religion, but it's a bit ambiguous.

[Winston]

Beacuse pursuing explanations for the origin of life is a scientific problem?

And cut out the rolleyes. It only serves to antagonize the person you're talking to.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Winston
Beacuse it's a scientific problem?

No, because it's opening the door to a debate about what should be in school curriculum.

How is religious philosophy remotely a scientific problem?

[Bereta_Eder]

According to Plasterk, Van der Hoeven has shown an interest in the idea of Intelligent Design in the past, an American philosophy which beliefs that there is an 'intelligent design' behind life on earth.

that brought to my mind an interesting thing indeed. so some scientists were searching for ways were luck or God would be able to "decide". because of course as we know everything follows the rules of science right?
so if one has enough information he can see the evolution of all things in the future based on the science rules.
but not so fast. these scientists dwelled deep into the molecular structure of things to see what could actually be "on chance" or "on God's hands". So they found that in the molecular level some atom or something has the exact 50% chance of collapsing or maintaining its integrity on a given situation. that's exactly half half. so if one could "decide" that would be his chance. then again this is yet another law of science but at least that's a part where even if you'd have unlimited information beforehand about things you could still not know an outcome.

[Winston]

Now you're just speculating.

And launching strawman arguments to boot. I never said religious philosophy is a scientific problem.

[Hueij]

Update: even her own party, the Christian Democrats, thinks she is out of line on this one

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Winston
Now you're just speculating.

And launching strawman arguments to boot. I never said religious philosophy is a scientific problem.

You edited your post and accuse me of strawmanism? You're so dishonest it's painful.

First, evolution isn't about the origin of life, it's about the common descent of life.

Second, scientific problems are already debated in scientific journals, seminars, etc. Evolution was debated 100+ years ago and won, hands down. It is no longer debated in science, despite ludicrous claims of creationists to the contrary.

Third, my "speculation" makes a lot more sense than yours. Government panels don't take up scientific issues unless it's in order to address some policies. The only relevant policies here that she would be considering would be educational ones. Considering she is involved with ID, as the article states, it's pretty damned obvious she's bringing it up as a precursor to a curriculum debate. Otherwise, there's no reason for the government to get involved in a scientific issue that otherwise has no bearing on government policy. And there's also the fact that we've seen this exact thing arising in the U.S. for many years. So precedent has been established.

If she's just doing it for curiosity's sake, then she's wasting both taxpayers' time and money in addressing a nonexistant controversy that science settled on a century ago and should be sacked.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Hueij
Update: even her own party, the Christian Democrats, thinks she is out of line on this one

But locutus already said they're evil and should be outlawed, so they don't count.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Winston
You'd think the world is about to come to an end because someone wants to hold a HEARING. omgomg.

This person is the Minister of Science and Education (and as such my highest boss) and she wants the Dutch scientific commmunity (which includes me) to find a way to "find a way to give a place to" religious 'theories'. That *is* a big deal.

I'm just about the most tolerant person you'll ever find when it comes to religion, but religion and science are two completely seperate and mutually exclusive things -- they by definition do not mix. If what is effectively the highest power in the scientific community in this country thinks otherwise, she should IMO resign immediately. She should definitely NOT hold a hearing on the matter to push her evangelist ways through the throats of serious scientists.

I say dialogue on topics of mutual interest between people from different fields of a democratic society never hurt anyone.

But there is no mutual interest. Scientists want to find the closest approximation to the objective truth about the origin of life. Religious leaders claim to already know this truth and only want to legitimize their claims.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You edited your post and accuse me of strawmanism? You're so dishonest it's painful.

Thanks a lot. I edited in the "explanations for the origin of life" bit within 30 seconds or so, but that was what I meant the post to say. I did not intend to backtrack or be dishonest in any way. I'd have thought you wouldn't stoop to such low accusations.

Quite frankly, I think you're so full of yourself it's laughable.