Scientists: Creationist President Would Doom U.S.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh balls, now we've started an evolution/religion debate. Are you happy, Gatekeeper?

We need to get down on our knees and that this thread remains civil, and that no one at each other, or sets out to cause .

I'll be on my way now.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Will
Let me clearify, the mechanics of evolution should be taught, but never should it be taught that evolution is the reason for the many species that cover the earth. Evolution can easily fit in into creationist beleifs. Such as God could be causing evolution, or (for those who believe God plays a less active in the world today) God created evolution as a method for species to adapt to new environments. I don't think that will hold back medical cures.

That makes a good deal of sense, IMO. It allows the ID/creationist types and scientists to share the cake *and* the icing. Live and let live, I guess. As I said earlier, I enjoy and prize the scientific process ... but I also believe that there's more going on than meets the eye. We're supposed to find out what it is, preferably without losing our faith in what lies beyond the unknowable horizon.

Gatekeeper

[Blake]

The problem is that if you say "God created evolution" you are basically saying "God is nature". Or are some processes natural, and other processes supernatural? Sorry, but that looks like foolishness to me.

Of all the lame things to say, I think "God is nature" is right up there. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to revere nature, but God, is by definition supernatural, and nature is by definition... .

So... yeah. I'm fine with teaching/encouraging people to revere nature because benefit comes from that. But lets not obfuscate things.

[Whaleboy]

I already said I don't think anything regarding the creation of the world and its species should be taught in school.

Why not?

I agree with this statement. As both a religious person and a rational academic, I see no problem with the idea that God utilized the Big Bang, evolution, etc.

In fact, it is a doctrine of my faith that God created the Earth from pre-existing matter and that it took a very long period of time; the 7 "days" are not Earth-days at all. Earth was still being created. The days are undefined time periods, likely millions of years each.

Alexander I, with all due respect I feel that you're stretching things a little. I can understand the conflict a religious person feels when they see a theory which, prima facie, denies the existence of God in every way (except not quite covering the very beginning of the evolutionary process and the big bang), and feels the need to reconcile this with their faith.

The point is that if you're going to try to work out what caused the material existence of life, the universe and everything, you need to use scientific method. I think I've adequately explained why you cannot resort to God for that.

I know that people will not want to face a crisis of faith due to that but I do not consider a recourse to a creator God to be a viable logical position. It doesn't refute the idea of a transcendental God though which is likely to be more useful to you anyway.

However, I do not feel that anyone's religion should be taught as fact in any public school curriculum. That is simply not proper or fair. Moreover I do not think that "intelligent design" (defined as creation ex nihilo) has any place in schools either. It is not scientifically supported.

The schools should simply teach what science has to say on the matter. I don't see a problem with schools saying that some people believe that the earth was created by a higher being, but that this is not empirically verifiable, or saying that some people dispute the theory of evolution. That's very different from denying the science outright, which is simply foolhardy.

I would go further and say that as kids get older they should get to evaluate the evidence supporting competing theories. This is a pipe dream because it assumes that both teachers and students are trained in the critical evaluation of evidence which simply is not the case at the moment, at least in Britain .

Because if certian beliefs aren't taught and others are, someone is going to offended (and any belief about the creation of the world can be tied to some sort of religon and is therefore unconstitutional). So the option is either all or none and all would be waste of time.

You'd be suprised. And for lack of a better word, I'm considering Atheism a religion.

I'll come on to the second point in a minute. Firstly though I would say that one cannot go through life trying not to offend people. Education would become a very fickle thing if certain things couldn't be taught because they happen to be the political hot-potato at the time. If makes more sense to ignore religious sensibilities entirely in order to give each child a fair chance without being disadvantaged by ignorance of scientific consensus (read, scientific fact).

Secondly, atheism is not a religion. Any meaningful religion depends upon faith whereas atheism defines a naturalistic lack of faith. Your response will be that many atheists seem to have a religious fanaticism or evangelical fervour about them. I entirely agree and I think that's sad. However, one should never judge a philosophical position by the actions of those who adhere to it if those actions are unrelated to the position itself. It's a human fault that we staple our banners to "movements" without due consideration. Perhaps these people are understandably frustrated with the degree to which religion pervades life these days, or maybe they were scarred as kids by it.

Nevertheless, you risk tarring non-faith atheists with the same brush by saying that atheism is a religion. It is merely a philosophical position. Evolution does tend to atheism, yes, and atheism can become a component of a natural humanistic world view. It merely requires a rational mind to agree with it, faith is irrelevant. If you want to call that a religion then fine, but imo defining religion in the absence of faith is meaningless.

Being omniscient god would have much more knowledge about the universe than ttodays quantum mechancs and would be able know with absolute certaintiy things that are nowadays deemed to be imjpossible to measure with absolute certainty at the same time, such as location and impulse of all particles in the universe.

Therefore the universe would be predictable to him and he would be able to influence it to the results he wishes by inducing only smaal changes (which probably no scientist could detect, even if god introduced such changes evven now)

Ignoring such questions as to why, the mere fact that something is physically possible (I would argue for a number of reasons that it isn't but that's another story) does not mean that it is reasonable to recourse to it in argument. The universe, according to current theories, and life in particular, has no need of a God, a deus ex machina to make our observations make sense. Furthermore, to recourse to God in such a way requires more explanation.

I think your argument is a God in the Gaps argument - an attempt to reconcile religious belief with overwhelming scientific evidence by seeing gaps in current knowledge and slotting God in there. I believe that this is a path to disappointment as our scientific knowledge grows. If you posit God as the cause of the big bang or the cause of evolution, what do you do when science comes up with a better explanation? No, I think that there are far stronger arguments for the existence of God than that.

Good reason to keep a thesis (i.e. Creationism/ID) that is only written down in some religious scriptures and has no scientific data that support it out of science classes.

I 100% agree with that, but then why teach Creationism/ID as truth?

IMO. It allows the ID/creationist types and scientists to share the cake *and* the icing. Live and let live, I guess. As I said earlier, I enjoy and prize the scientific process ... but I also believe that there's more going on than meets the eye. We're supposed to find out what it is, preferably without losing our faith in what lies beyond the unknowable horizon.

I think you're being a bit of a sophist there. While your faith is fine, why should it impede and compete with your scientific mind? I think that the danger in this debate is that we entertain the idea of teaching both in order to keep both sides happy but that does a disservice to the vast body of evidence and the enormous amount of work by reputable scientists that can teach children how the world actually works. By ignoring that to pander to religious sensibilities, the only people you disservice are the kids themselves and the future scientific prospects of your country.

[Geronimo]

It *is* possible to respect and value and frequently use the scientific method without *always* using it for everything. You keep asking why people would complicate things with a God of the gaps approach that fits God in as a creator anywhere it does not conflict with science but there is in fact nothing wrong with doing so. Whatever floats their boat.

Believing in a God of the gaps is not somehow in conflict with the scientific method it just is not a part of the scientific method. It's like having beliefs about parallel universes. Sure the gaps can shift and disappear with new theories and knowledge but their belief system could be based on the notion that Gods acts of creation began wherever scientific investigation cannot penetrate. If it turns out that something we thought was impossible to investigate can be scientifically probed they'll simply tell themselves that they were mistaken about where exactly the hand of God played it's part in creation.

[yaroslav]

Guys, I do not really want to offend anyone, but I do not understand this discussion at all. Would you teach that the Earth is not flat? There are people who believe i an flat Earth. If you stop the progress of a class to say, for every theory, who does not believe in it, or that there are people who does not believe in it, you are going to lost a lot of "science time", of which the children does not have already too much.

There are people who does not believe in the second law of thermodynamics, there are people who believe that the Earth is flat, there are people who does not believe in the Relativity theory, there are people who ...

IMHO, science class is not about "believing" in anything. It is about science, and about the scientific consensus. I am very sorry, but this debate does not happen (at least, in the mainstream) outside North America: Evolution is the standard, central explanation of biology, and is the consensus among the biologist.

I am very sorry, but IMHO in scienceclass, there is no reason for teaching any alternative theory. If some people does not believe it, they can use church, TV and/or other methods, but not the science class to explain why they believe that the specialist in the field are wrong and they, many of them non-specialist and non-biologist, are right.

(Please understand that this is my position and that I am open to change it if I am shown that there are flaws in my reasoning. Please do no take offense, for that is no my intention).

[Whaleboy]

Geronimo, the problem with using a God in the Gaps is that you could propose "anything" to fit in. Say, for example, we have the problem of what caused the Big Bang. I could claim it was an act of God, you could claim it was a burst pimple on the face of the giant pixie. Both of us could make such a positive claim but in the absence of evidence it becomes totally meaningless as an explanation, not least because the God idea makes no testable predictions.

Furthermore, it contradicts scientific method because it wrong-foots the burden of proof; to include God with no explanation and no scientific evidence is crazy... rather a state of "no explanation yet" should motivate further scientific research. This is why recourse to a creator god is contrary to the scientific method.

To say "whatever floats their boat" seems to me like a bit of a relativistic cop-out.

As for your shifting God that worms his way out of gaps that close as our knowledge increases, I don't think that this is something in which people can truly believe. It seems to me like you're trying to put a "religion-friendly" placeholder to appease the faithful until such time as God is inevitably evicted by science.

More importantly, it still does not answer the fundamental question of why God is needed for creation, and why are you so keen to maintain your a priori conclusion that God must exist. That's not science .

IMHO, science class is not about "believing" in anything. It is about science, and about the scientific consensus. I am very sorry, but this debate does not happen (at least, in the mainstream) outside North America: Evolution is the standard, central explanation of biology, and is the consensus among the biologist.

I am very sorry, but IMHO in scienceclass, there is no reason for teaching any alternative theory. If some people does not believe it, they can use church, TV and/or other methods, but not the science class to explain why they believe that the specialist in the field are wrong and they, many of them non-specialist and non-biologist, are right.

Well put yaroslav . Why the gushing apologies in case you cause offence? You should be proud to be among a group of people who are capable of clarity on this issue, people who actually understand the nature of science and scientific method. That's not something to apologise for, imo if the religious get offended by scientific method then that says something about the poor ways in which they reach their conclusions.

[Provost Harrison]

Absolutely. I remember when I was being taught biology at school, and creationism and lamarckism occupied a fraction of the time to teach than Evolution because there is no science to teach behind them. I wish that non-biologists could appreciate the sheer amount of knowledge based around evolution, especially neodarwinian evolutionary theory. And contrary to what these fringe religious elements would try and have you believe, evolution is as well established as gravity, heliocentrism and the fact the Earth is round.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Geronimo, the problem with using a God in the Gaps is that you could propose "anything" to fit in. Say, for example, we have the problem of what caused the Big Bang. I could claim it was an act of God, you could claim it was a burst pimple on the face of the giant pixie. Both of us could make such a positive claim but in the absence of evidence it becomes totally meaningless as an explanation, not least because the God idea makes no testable predictions.

Furthermore, it contradicts scientific method because it wrong-foots the burden of proof; to include God with no explanation and no scientific evidence is crazy... rather a state of "no explanation yet" should motivate further scientific research. This is why recourse to a creator god is contrary to the scientific method.

To say "whatever floats their boat" seems to me like a bit of a relativistic cop-out.

As for your shifting God that worms his way out of gaps that close as our knowledge increases, I don't think that this is something in which people can truly believe. It seems to me like you're trying to put a "religion-friendly" placeholder to appease the faithful until such time as God is inevitably evicted by science.

More importantly, it still does not answer the fundamental question of why God is needed for creation, and why are you so keen to maintain your a priori conclusion that God must exist. That's not science .

If you wish to convince me that science does not in any way serve to suggest the existence of a God you needn't trouble yourself. You're preaching to the choir.

However I disagree that it's necessarily "meaningless" to hold unscientific beliefs. It may well be ill advised to hold beliefs contrary to our best scientific conclusions but to hold beliefs that have no scientific relevance at all is not only not harmful but it may even be useful or meaningful to individuals for various subjective reasons. I do not see any problem arising from such relativistic cop outs except when those holding them attempt to foist their personal vision on others who indicate their disinterest in sharing those beliefs. Bottom line is that I see such beliefs as subjective and fundamentally harmless, like having a favorite color or being moved by a fictional event.

I also need to nitpick your comparison of a depiction of the big bang as an act of God as being equivalent to a depiction of it as a burst pimple on the face of the giant pixie. An act of God is a much vaguer concept than bursting pimples. Pimples can be scientifically examined while God is always defined in ways that can't be scientifically examined. I would say rather that the big bang explained as a pimple bursting on the face of a giant pixie would be more equivalent to a belief that the big bang was a tiny God farting or sneezing or otherwise engaging in some definable physical activity which created the universe. A better comparison would be between the idea that the big bang was the act of a pixie and the idea that the big bang was the act of God. Even that comparison might fail given the usual definition of pixies.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Well put yaroslav . Why the gushing apologies in case you cause offence? You should be proud to be among a group of people who are capable of clarity on this issue, people who actually understand the nature of science and scientific method. That's not something to apologise for, imo if the religious get offended by scientific method then that says something about the poor ways in which they reach their conclusions.

Thanks a lot for your kind words. I am afraid that my mastery of English is very poor - in Spanish, I would know how to express my ideas without using any offensive word or saying. In English, I am always afraid that I would pick the wrong word, one that is loaded with connotations that I am not aware of.

That said, I am afraid that also is a character flaw of mine: I really dislike confrontation, and as such I am always afraid of boldly expressing my opinions: I prefer a subtle way of expressing it, that again, is very easy for me in Spanish but very difficult in English.

I have been told many times in my life that I apologize too much. I am sincerely working into fixing that

Thanks again.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Absolutely. I remember when I was being taught biology at school, and creationism and lamarckism occupied a fraction of the time to teach than Evolution because there is no science to teach behind them.

Lamarckism was also taught also in Spain when I went to the school and high school, but just as part of the "history that brought us to evolution", and was, as you say, a mere tiny fraction of time in Nature Science class.

BTW, just a curiosity, I have found that in the Spanish mainstream near everyone accept evolution, but a lot of them get lamarckism and darwin and wallece´s theory wrong, and they thing that evolution follow Lamarck´s rule. It looks like lamarckism is more "natural" for many people, even if clearly wrong according to all the facts that biologist have been able to collet.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And contrary to what these fringe religious elements would try and have you believe, evolution is as well established as gravity, heliocentrism and the fact the Earth is round.

They get thrown off by the differences in investigation of natural history and the investigation of static phenomena like the laws of physics and the shape of the earth. The same scientific method guides investigation in both cases but the manner of testing hypothesis is (to casual inspection) quite different. You can especially see this problem when they readily accept currently observable evolution (ie drug resistance) but reject efforts to examine evidence left from past events which confirms the theory in the past as well.

Furthermore, in general the public seems to more readily accept any result that they easily imagine as testable with a controlled experiment while they routinely fail to appreciate the quality of investigation possible with a natural experiment.

[Whaleboy]

However I disagree that it's necessarily "meaningless" to hold unscientific beliefs. It may well be ill advised to hold beliefs contrary to our best scientific conclusions but to hold beliefs that have no scientific relevance at all is not only not harmful but it may even be useful or meaningful to individuals for various subjective reasons. I do not see any problem arising from such relativistic cop outs except when those holding them attempt to foist their personal vision on others who indicate their disinterest in sharing those beliefs. Bottom line is that I see such beliefs as subjective and fundamentally harmless, like having a favorite color or being moved by a fictional event.

That's a good point . I would qualify my argument in that case by saying that God is meaningless when we're dealing with empirically observed phenomena and certainly it is proper science which must be taught in the classroom. If people choose to believe otherwise and it brings them happiness, well then so be it. If given the choice of a violent, drug running waste of skin, and a kind, helpful but religious person I know I'd go for the latter. Nevertheless, the debate is about what should be taught to society and imo, spiritual guidance should be entirely separate and left to the discretion of whatever religion school a parent chooses to foist on their child.

I would also make the distinction between the idea of a creator God which is essential to the doctrine of the main religions, and a transcendent God which, since he (by definition) doesn't touch the world of material fact, science will never touch back. Whether that kind of God is the spirit that people feel that makes them do good or perhaps the cause of the old polytheistic religions, who cares. It doesn't do any harm and it doesn't contradict scientific method.

I also need to nitpick your comparison of a depiction of the big bang as an act of God as being equivalent to a depiction of it as a burst pimple on the face of the giant pixie. An act of God is a much vaguer concept than bursting pimples. Pimples can be scientifically examined while God is always defined in ways that can't be scientifically examined. I would say rather that the big bang explained as a pimple bursting on the face of a giant pixie would be more equivalent to a belief that the big bang was a tiny God farting or sneezing or otherwise engaging in some definable physical activity which created the universe. A better comparison would be between the idea that the big bang was the act of a pixie and the idea that the big bang was the act of God. Even that comparison might fail given the usual definition of pixies.

Dammit! You stole my tiny god farting idea .

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Geronimo


They get thrown off by the differences in investigation of natural history and the investigation of static phenomena like the laws of physics and the shape of the earth. The same scientific method guides investigation in both cases but the manner of testing hypothesis is (to casual inspection) quite different. You can especially see this problem when they readily accept currently observable evolution (ie drug resistance) but reject efforts to examine evidence left from past events which confirms the theory in the past as well.

Furthermore, in general the public seems to more readily accept any result that they easily imagine as testable with a controlled experiment while they routinely fail to appreciate the quality of investigation possible with a natural experiment.

Yeah, the thing is that the creationists believe there is this raft of difference between bacteria and much more complicated organisms. The system is more complex but the underlying mechanisms are the same. And that fact also makes bacteria far easier to study too...

[Apocalypse]

These scientists are pretty retarded though.

Huckabee has pretty much been the most pro-environment of the Republicans. Since he is without being all kkkorporations, he could also be more effective in implementing change than the Democrats.