[b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]as an intelligent young person, I've usually ended up being friends with other intelligent young people. most of them have adopted the fashionable stance for the intelligentsia on matters such as religion, alternative therapies, astrology and the like. the hostility, the blind spots and the depth of emotional attachments can be frustrating, especially when they come from people who mock such things in others and often see themselves as superior. I grew up among fundamentalist christians. my parents were charismatic evangelicals for most of my youth. but when I learned about big bang theory and evolutionary theory when I was nine or ten, I had no trouble fitting in those ideas with the beliefs I already held. maybe I have a loose mind or something. the thing is, although many christians believe in both creation and evolution and can cheerfully reconcile the thinking of science with the religion of the church, there remain groups in both camps who vehemently oppose the other as untrue. there is also no word to denote those who are able to reconcile their scientific religious beliefs, unlike 'creationist' or 'materialist atheist' for example. to suggest 'intelligent people' would be unfair. it saddens me that those with creationist beliefs encounter such intolerance. I disagree with teaching creationism in schools as fact (although students should be made aware that there are people who believe in it), but I don't believe in turning on people when they confess their beliefs and having a go about it. mind you, I've provoked indignation on more than one occasion with different people by saying that children should be taught that evolution is a theory and not a fact. who would have thought that was so contentious? I've encountered intolerance among religious people and among non-religious people. the most all-round intolerant people I've met have been christians, while the most aggressively intolerant people I've met have been materialist atheists. I believe in discussion of ideas, and honesty about beliefs but not in attacking others for believing something different from you. I also think it is gravely out of line to dismiss someone as stupid just because their ideas don't match yours. I've seen that all too often among the urban intelligentsia set that I've belonged to. "we're intelligent, so if they disagree with us, they must be stupid." [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]*shrug* i'd say that the theory of gravity and the atomic theory carry a different definition of 'theory' than 'creationist theory'. evolutionary theory falls into the first camp, but it depends on who you talk to. materialist athiests who put their mental space for 'faith' into science rather than religion have told me that laboratory testing HAS shown all the proof needed for determination of evolution. we can witness, they say, intergenerational mutation take place without the need for artificial prompting, which is one of the big stumbling blocks i've seen put against it. on the other side, that same preacher who talked about 'lsd' told us that darwin recounted on his deathbed, which is, according to the non-creationists (even those who keep an open mind and dont take the 'evolutionary theory is cold hard fact' stance) utter bollocks. it's one of those issues like 'did jesus really exist' where a straight answer is easy to come across, but an accurate and honest answer isn't. doubters say there's no bona fide proof that he existed, not even amongst the roman records. grace was telling me the other day that there IS a roman record of a 'jesus of nazareth', but i dunno... who's right? at the end of the day, i've never seen any roman records, and i've got no background in latin to read them to tell what they might say anyway. i've never seen an atom, i've never seen a gene. for all i can really *know*, if i let go of a pencil and it falls to the ground it does so because its just lazy and contrary, rather than some mystical and invisible force you science magicians might call 'gravity' at the end of the day, no one knows anything, and we have to take WHATEVER we believe on faith. to quote pratchett, via Death, 'mere accumulation of observational evidence is not proof.' [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]evolutionary theory should be taught as such to demonstrate the nature of theory, evidence and faith as much as anything else. it's about teaching children to reason and plump for the most sensible option, or that with the best evidence. it shows how theories are built upon. most importantly, though, it stops us from being complacent. it teaches us not to take everything at face value. it also teaches us that we can't know everything, and to accept a best answer.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]Teaching evolution as theory, not as fact, is the way to go. The main issue in this case that bothers creationists is that evolution, which is a theory, is taught as a fact. No matter how likely the theory might be it's still a theory. Teaching a theory as a fact is a sure way to create intolerance, as people with theories who disagree with the 'factual' theory will be pushed aside for having 'absurt and unrealistic opinions and/or beliefs'. Tried and tested method, that, be it theological theory or scientific one.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]er. granted, bible belt again, and half the time the teacher would only skim the bits on evolution with heavy commentary and under protest (and once in a while they'd skip it outright), but it was NEVER taught as fact. only once did i ever hear it put forth that it was fact, that was by a university professor who said it is a fact as gravity is a fact. and, i suppose if a few key details are met (and, folks who support evolution say they are. folks who don't tend to refuse to conceed any points on the subject in the first place, so it's not really a productive issue to discuss between them if you're curious about an ACCURATE answer), that can be see as 'true'. the thing is, gravity theory can be disproven as soon as something that fits better comes along. that's why 'gravity' is a 'theory' and not a fact. evolution theory can be disproven when something that fits better comes along, and the creationists and intelligent designists have failed on every turn to replace it with something better. so, inprecisely, you could call evolution a 'fact' it occurs. maybe it occurs by intelligent design. the world could easily be 6000 years old and dinosaurs could have roamed the earth 40 million years ago. easily, if an omnipotent creator made it that way. it was built 6000 years ago, but it was built to be 6.2 billion years old at the time. why not? occam's razor has to step in at some point, but when and where is up to you and your faith. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]Never really liked Occam's Razor. As a rule, it has issues. And I've seriously considered the possibility that the world was made 6000 years ago 40 million years old, myself. Put it down to The Last Continent. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]technically, evolution is a theory, and that has to be said. how will children learn to understand scientific thinking if they are taught inaccurately? it is easy to say "oh well, it's as good as a fact" when one is not the person who believes in something different. but for the sake of being stringent with ourselves, we should not misrepresent our cases. also, evolution is taught as fact in many places. in the five schools I went to, two were careful to point out that it is theoretical, one engaged us in a debate over what constitutes fact and theory and showed us videos of rednecks declaring their belief in creationism, and two taught it as fact. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]The third one had an agenda, it would seem, in 'proving' the 'right' view. In a way, that's worse than teaching it flatly as fact.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]mmm, I'm not sure I agree. the video was not biased, but, to a class of english schoolkids, there is much more novelty and amusement factor in laughing at rednecks than in thinking about creationism. in our schools, we are supposed to learn the basics of evolutionary theory, and we are supposed to be told that some people disagree with it. that's all that's required. so that school went out of its way to give time to the other side. it was a catholic school, so, although catholics are allowed to accept evolutionary theory, I think they're more inclined to give credence to religious-based ideas.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]for the record, that professor i mentioned was not the best i ever had. i tried to get clarification on an essay project and he assumed i was gradegrubbing and tried to send me to talk to a TA about it. course, by that point, it was almost accepted that students would harass a teacher until the teacher gave in and raised their grade. i've never understood that. you fail to study, or even show up for class, and you think you deserve another chance? sheer insolence. but oh well. the value of a degree declines as the number of utterly unqualified people holding them rises, but the importance of a degree to 'prove' (as fact) the qualifications implied rises ever more... what is this, Moron's Law of Inflation? it'd explain middle management. most managers are a hinderance to the productive flow, and all you really need are a small handful of people to wander around Cubeville and make sure employees aren't downloading pr0n or playing quake on company time. but, a few incompetant people become managers, and they make more incompetant people middle managers to obfuscate things. over time, the nitwits and cleftbrains populate the eschelons of authority with drooling morons, and even a vibrant, cutting edge company with masses of liquid assets can be driven into the ground. then you make the people in charge vice president and start a war. and THAT'S why i don't have a degree, dammyit, cause i'm better than all that! [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]True, funny is good. It did looked like 'this is how people who believe in this look like' at first, though. Sort of Instant Bias, in a way.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]gotta agree with romano, but i still think that those of chromatically enhanced necks (Thank you so very much, ya'll yankee lovin eejits) typically base their arguements on absolute rubbish, so despite the humiliation to all southern gentlemen that is the lower southern classes, their claims typically sound kinda funny even if presented by someone with all his teeth.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]I remembered four things from that video: the sincerity of the schoolchildren who believed in creation the arrogance of the scientists interviewed towards creationists a man standing in the grand canyon, enthusing about noah's ark two southern scientists discussing creationism: one saying, "there are a lot of people who really believe this stuff is true", and the other replying, "yeah, but there are people in memphis who think elvis is alive." [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]if you believe they put a man on the moon ...[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]Hmmm, this gives me a better view of the video overall, yes. It sounds rather interesting, actually.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]furthermore, if you actually look into it, you'll find that evolutionary theory is a body of thought including several different theories. if there are different ideas, how can evidence apply to all of them. evolutionary theory is often misrepresented as coherent, comprehensive and complete when it is, in fact, evolving tangentially itself. the fact that it still changes is good reason to teach it as theory. if you teach it as fact and 'fact' changes, what does that teach children? [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]*Shrug* comes back to 'theory' being 'fact' until you know better. which, ultimately, makes it no different from anything else we know as 'fact'. 'apples are red' is a fact, and it holds perfectly true within your tollerance limits for 'red' until you encounter a granny smith. once you're done spitting and screaming 'that tastes AWFUL!!!', you might notice it was green. despite the fact that 'apples are red' and 'apples taste good', this is, never the less, an apple. so you amend your 'fact' to say 'most apples are red and taste good.' this goes back to occam's razor a bit. the more you know, the more accurate you can be. the more you overanalyze a problem, the more chance for error and incorrect assessment to fit in. it's a thorny problem, finding the balance between the two, and occam's razor requires a massive assumption that 'simplest' is a constant. if we redefine our facts about apples to say 'apples are the fruit of trees of the mallus genus', we've hit accuracy and precision, but it's hardly the simplest explaination. if you don't have a base of knowledge to tell you which trees are mallus, then you're fairly helpless really. and how do we define which trees are in that genus? it spirals out of control. look at it as an engineer. you know you're done NOT when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away. 'apples are fruits of the trees in the mallus genus, easily recognized by a squat round shape, sometimes tapering slightly at the 'base', usually red and sweet though green varieties exist that are much tarter.' we don't go through that sort of education process, though. someone just holds up a red thing and says 'apple' and we, the small child, kick and scream and refuse to eat it until someone's taken the peel off for us. thank the lord (jesus, moses, or science, as you see fit) that parents are patient with children. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]That there is no such thing as fact, and that most of their lives they are being lied to. ... Actually... [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]the distinction between fact and theory is one that can be debated, but it is still there. evolutionary theory is definitely still theoretical. to say it is a fact like gravity is misleading. gravity is a fact. what causes gravitational pull is a matter of theory. well-proven theory, but theory nevertheless. the differentiation between fact and theory is an important scientific principle. we don't get to ignore it just because it suits us. either it's dismissed outright and we allow people to use the word 'fact' in a different way, or we apply it stringently when it's convenient and when it's inconvenient. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]er. falls apart a bit, honey. as i said, proponents of evolution will claim that it is a fact. we can see that it happens. a child inherits traits that are not evident in either parent. as we complete the genotypes for more species, we'll be able to track it even better, but we can still work with the kareotype (however it's spelled) and observe if Fruitfly C has genes that are not found in mommy and daddy, fruitfly's A and B. now, i file that under the 'roman records show a jesus of nazareth', it's infomration that bolsters a claim, but opponents deny exists, and i've never seen any of it first hand, nor could i understand what i was seeing if i did. so it comes down to faith or trust or whatever. at the end of the day, i honestly don't care because right now it doesn't directly change the way i live my life. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]I know that stuff, and it is evidence for evolution. that doesn't make all the various evolutionary theories factual. I might have a theory that jesus of nazareth lived about 2000 years ago and was the son of god, but being able to show roman records that say a jesus of nazareth was crucified at about that time doesn't make my theory factual. that there are facts to support a theory does not make the theory a fact. there are many facts to support different parts of evolutionary theory (some schools of though have more credibility than others in this respect), and altogether there is a compelling body of evidence. but evolutionary theory as a whole is still theoretical, and it is wrong, in my opinion, to bully the other side down by misnaming your idea as a fact. this is important, given that the debate extends beyond the laboratory or the lecture theatre and ramifies into our religious beliefs and systems of ethics. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Saccharissa said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]I'll pick this thread to answer on the Creationism vs Evolution debate, since it's the one with the most responses. I wish I were Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, they were so eloquent in The Science of Discworld III But I digress There is one reason and one reason alone Creationism has no place in science class It's got nothing to do with science whatsoever There is no evidence of a Creator, aside from the fact that we are here. There is no way an experiment can be planned and executed that can prove or disprove the existance of God, aside from philosophical musings. But science has to do with hard evidence. And the evidence have proven hands down that evolution is a fact, time and time again. It's not just a matter of populations diversifying, like having dogs of all sizes, with the great danes unable to copulate with the chihuauhas. New species have arisen, both in plants and animals, in laboratories. This has happened because plants and flies and incects breed new generations very quickly, so, within a year we can have the same number of generations that the human race has in ten thousand years of existance as homini sapientes. Philosophical questions like "what happens to that bit of ours that can tell the dance of the molecules and the death of the stars after we are no more?" belong to the philosophy class. Theological questions like "who or what made us and what is our purpose?" belong to theology classes. Science classes are a different matter altogether. What is taught in there is what is observed and the best possible interpretation that does not involve either philosophy or theology! Light bends in gravitational fields and the theory of relativity is the best thing we have right now in terms of scientific explanations and this is the only one that has place in a science class. Because light bends whether the one who observes it is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, or a Pastafarian like me, and if any of us wants to put forth a different explanation we'd better put our evidence where our mouths are. Creationism is not philosophy. Creationism is not even theology. It is crackpot science because it pretends to be based on hard evidence while it cooks up the numbers to make it look like the universe is "objectively" 6000 years old and then pretends to be shocked at the fact that it coincides with the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. And Grace, I am disappointed in you for bringing up the earnesty of the children who believe in Creationism. Just because they have strong faith, that doesn't make Creationism fit for a science class, the same way that praying for good grades does not ensure academic achievement. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]oh dear.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]I second that.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]avgi, I think you've misread or misunderstood a lot of what I was saying. no wonder people blow up at me if they think 'evolution should be taught as theory not fact' means 'science classes should give equal credence to creationism because the people believe in it are very serious.' I have not been arguing that creationism should be taught as science. I have been saying that teachers should make a point of telling children that evolution is a theory, and talking about what constitutes theory, evidence and the like. this is part of learning about how to think scientifically. we should not sell evolutionary theory as fact when it is not. we can show the facts that support the theory, such as the experiments you've described which support an important element of most (if not all) theories of evolution. when there is a differing theory with as many followers as creationism has, it is worth mentioning it in a science class, in my opinion, in order to make it clear to children that: 1. opposing theories can exist 2. creationism has been roundly debunked 3. many people believing in something is not a good basis for a scientific theory. it only deserves a mention, though, in my opinion. the only one of my schools that went into it in any depth was the catholic school, and that was in a cross-curricular class covering science AND religion. I was discussing my experience when I talked about that. I don't know why you think I was saying creationism should be studied and given credence in science lessons. [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"And Grace, I am disappointed in you for bringing up the earnesty of the children who believe in Creationism. Just because they have strong faith, that doesn't make Creationism fit for a science class, the same way that praying for good grades does not ensure academic achievement." [/color:ddf9700938] ... all I did was say the things I remembered from the video. I was only commenting that the children were very earnest. why is that disappointing of me? I didn't say anything about that meaning creationism should be taught in science lessons, which is not what I have been suggesting at any point. I was only stating the things I remembered about the video. you are making an inference that is inaccurate and, I think, unfounded. you know how, before exams, teachers always tell you to make sure you answer the question asked, not the question you wanted to be asked? I feel a bit like you saw the word 'creationism' and gave me your 'why creationism should not be taught in class' essay without reading what I actually said. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938][color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"you know how, before exams, teachers always tell you to make sure you answer the question asked, not the question you wanted to be asked? I feel a bit like you saw the word 'creationism' and gave me your 'why creationism should not be taught in class' essay without reading what I actually said." [/color:ddf9700938]Exactly what I think, Grace. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]i think, barring the content that's irrelevant to avgi misreading something, there's a curious point here that we've danced around but not quite addressed fully. at what point does 'theory' become 'fact'? when is an explaination no longer a 'best guess' and the 'last word' on a subject? remember that bit where spikey said ba and i were using some oddball arguement methods? i'd said 'you cannot prove that something cannot be done, only that it has been done'? she cited the cockified rebuttal that requires you to misconstrue the arguement to work, but the arguement as stated DOES work. (if someone could dig up this thread, i'd appreciate it.) in a nut shell, the rebuttal she listed requires rephrasing the question to blatantly not apply anymore. that's sort of the opposite of proper scientific methodology... if the evidence does not agree with your assumptions, you change your assumptions. well, we're always learning new things. because we're always learning new things, we're always at the 'risk' (if it is a risk) of overturning old assumptions. they killed galileao for it, but that's kind of why the 'scientific method' is set up the way it is. "all available evidence supports a general theory of evolution" is it safe to call 'evolution' a fact? if not, why not? because there are varying specialized theories? but they rely on a common root, so why not call that root a fact? because it might be overturned by more research later? well, i remember reading some stuff in highschool physics that was talking about how some highschool kids had done a science fair project that unintentionally caused some major researchers to sit up and take notice as it brought some fundamental precepts of the laws of motion into question. not 'theories' of motion, but 'laws' of motion. at what point does a theory become a law? does it matter, because either way, as soon as we have evidence that doesn't fit, we need to change the theory or the law. the question is, can we demonstrate that 'biological changes over time' take place? yes, we can? so, it exists. is it theory? is it fact? what is it? [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]'Laws of Motion' is misleading. They start out with Newton at first, telling you it's cast in stone. *Then* you find out, a but later, that Newton's theories are barely a private case of a much larger picture, and that his Laws are in fact 'laws', and not that accurate, for that matter. Remeber that the folks whose 'laws' Galileo overturned had some factual backing, as well. Galileo just brought more facts, and showed that the way the former folks looked at their own facts was wrong. It's not safe to call evolution fact not only because of theory variants, but also because 'available facts' is a very misleading concept. It implies unavailable facts, or facts which folks *made* unavailable because they don't work with their theories. This happened more than once, though I'm not referring to evolution at the moment. Take the Big Bang, for example. There's a myriad of scientific theories regarding the beginning of the universe, how our galaxy was formed, and so on and so forth. Only after watching the science channel did I even find out that: A. The Big Bang is a theory. and B. That it's not the only theory. Like Grace said, an apple falling is fact. Explaining why it falls is theory. The universe forming is fact, because if it isn't then I'm not sure exactly where *here* is. How it formed is theory. Us being here is fact. How we got to be the way we are, is theory. Same with animals, really. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Saccharissa said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]I admit to misreading the bit about the video. I stand by the rest though. Evolution was a theory that fit empirical evidence back in Darwin's time, when DNA, the bearer of genetic information was not found yet. Now it is a fact. The only things still argued in evolution is how important each of the factors involved in transmitting hereditary traits is. Translating DNA into a protein is not as straightforward as you looking at the words I have typed and understanding their meaning. The process starting from the chemical signal to start production up to the folding of the protein and sticking the non-protein components took up half a semester in my first year in med school. Why? Because it is madly complicated and the DNA encoding is not by any stretch of the imagination the half of it. Then, the chromosomes just *have* to exchange DNA strands during the duplication of the cell, making things even madder. There was a book I was reading when I came over for Grace's birthday. It was Bill Bryson's "A Short History Of Nearly Everything". In there, it showed just how slow and painstaking the development of science as we know it really was. Everything we know now as a "fact", starting from gravity and going to the way pulsars work, was met with much proof-reading and, yes, a lot of resistance from other scientists throughout the ages. Evolution exists. Natural selection exists. The whole "oh, it's just a theory" thing is a smoke screen. I also stand by my belief that creationism has no place in a school, period. It is crackpot science, counterfeit theology and ravished philosophy, a wolf dressed as a mutton if I ever saw one. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]i remember some awful movie about a dog that had been 'genetically engineered' to be a super weapon. they gave it retractable claws, and chameleon something or other so it could turn invisible. after watching this horrible thing, Jay said how cool it would be if you could like, give yourself an elephant's trunk or something. jay honestly did seem to believe that's how genetic engineering worked. years later i'd see a quote in a computer game (alpha centuari), "You cannot take the gene for an elephant's trunk and put it in a mouse. This is because there is no gene for trunks. What genes do is code protiens." or something similar. and i thought to myself the equivalent of 'this is a fact. this is how the universe works, but i can explain this away to jay for months or years, and it will make no difference.' jay also believed that the new VW beetles got 80 miles to the gallon, despite the newer honda and toyota hybrid engines getting only 72 and 76 mpg, and setting records for it. finally one day i snapped at him and said it was impossible that the beetle got 80, it didn't even get 40 (which i made up as an assumed guess) and he said well how did i know then, and i just gave up and lied, "i asked about it at the dealership!" which he accepted completely. ah well. doesn't matter to some people what the evidence is. it just matters that the right person tell them. to jay, i could never know anything he didn't know, but any arbitrary authority or specialist could be presumed to be right if i had to appeal to them. quite insulting at the end of the day really, but it was just jay's way. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]I don't understand the application of the anecdote to the subject. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]tangental, honey, tangental. utterly irrelevant to everything other than 'genes code protiens' and 'jay was a stubborn cuss who'd had a mule's stubbornness spliced into him genetically' [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]It's a 'I want to say something without affecting the debade in any way' sort of thing, Grace. It lightens up the mood. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]:shrug: I can understand that, but it's not always possible to tell with clay. he might have had a point that he forgot about halfway through.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Garner said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]oh we don't bust heads like we used to... these days we just break up a strike by telling long stories that don't go anywhere. like the time back in 1920 when i went into town with an onion on my belt. of course, in THOSE days, we called em brass turnips, on account of the war. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]unfortunately, I'm too busy to give the full reply this deserves, but I'll just make a couple of points. the theory of natural selection is either only one part of evolutionary theory or a separate theory altogether. I'm not quite sure I understand how DNA fits into the argument except for in the theory of natural selection. natural selection is, as far as I'm aware, generally treated as proven. as I said before, gravity may be a fact, but gravitational theory is a theory. no matter how well documented or evidenced something is, that does NOT mean we get to be sloppy with our terms. it doesn't matter how many people support a theory, that does not make it fact - just as you pointed out about creationism! [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"The whole "oh, it's just a theory" thing is a smoke screen."[/color:ddf9700938] to say, accurately, that something is a theory and not fact is not to dismiss it or lessen it, only to accurately label it. you seem to be assuming that I am saying I don't believe in evolution. that is not the case. I do believe in evolution. however, I also believe in the importance of semantics and meta-ethics. the best use of language is critical to understanding. I don't agree that schools should ignore the existence of creationism, when a significant number of people might be given conflicting evidence about it. I don't believe it should be given coverage as valid science, but should be mentioned to further students' understanding of the scientific process. the use of language is an important part of science. we shouldn't let anger, frustration or contempt cloud our vision. in disproving another's argument, we should make sure we do not lower the standards we set ourselves. there are many facts that support evolutionary theory. these do not make evolutionary theory factual in itself. we do ourselves and our children a wrong if we fudge the issue with poor use of language. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Saccharissa said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938][color=darkblue:ddf9700938]the theory of natural selection is either only one part of evolutionary theory or a separate theory altogether. I'm not quite sure I understand how DNA fits into the argument except for in the theory of natural selection. natural selection is, as far as I'm aware, generally treated as proven. as I said before, gravity may be a fact, but gravitational theory is a theory. no matter how well documented or evidenced something is, that does NOT mean we get to be sloppy with our terms. it doesn't matter how many people support a theory, that does not make it fact - just as you pointed out about creationism![/color:ddf9700938] Grace, natural selection is the driving force of evolution. The equation is Reproduction+Natural Selection=Evolution. They are practically a tautology [color=red:ddf9700938]" The whole "oh, it's just a theory" thing is a smoke screen."[/color:ddf9700938] [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]to say, accurately, that something is a theory and not fact is not to dismiss it or lessen it, only to accurately label it. you seem to be assuming that I am saying I don't believe in evolution. that is not the case. I do believe in evolution. however, I also believe in the importance of semantics and meta-ethics. the best use of language is critical to understanding.[/color:ddf9700938] My bad, I ought to have written "is a smokescreen used by the Intelligent Design group to disqualify evolution" [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]I don't agree that schools should ignore the existence of creationism, when a significant number of people might be given conflicting evidence about it. I don't believe it should be given coverage as valid science, but should be mentioned to further students' understanding of the scientific process. the use of language is an important part of science. we shouldn't let anger, frustration or contempt cloud our vision. in disproving another's argument, we should make sure we do not lower the standards we set ourselves.[/color:ddf9700938] The only place creationism has in schools is in the context of how bad it blows. [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]there are many facts that support evolutionary theory. these do not make evolutionary theory factual in itself. we do ourselves and our children a wrong if we fudge the issue with poor use of language.[/color:ddf9700938] As Einstein said, "there are many experiments that can prove my theory, but it will only take one to disprove it" So far there is no evidence to disprove evolution, while the evidence that prove it continue to pile up, with the latest being the discovery that Galapagos finch populations change the shapes of their beaks in accordance with the food resources available [i:ddf9700938]within a year![/i:ddf9700938] [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]And thus it still remains a theory, Avgi, even with the many facts that support it. The best scientist is the one who doesn't treat his theory as holy writ. Einstein was such a scientist. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938] I'm afraid I haven't time to figure out how to structure this email correctly with quoting, so please bear with me! I disagree with you about natural selection and evolution being tautologous terms. they describe different phenomena. even if it really were as simply as 'reproduction + natural selection = evolution', then they would still be different! it is misleading and inaccurate to treat them as the same thing. confusing the two, deliberately or unintentionally, weakens the case being made. you seem to be applying "the whole 'oh, it's just a theory' thing" to what I was saying; namely that evolutionary theory should be taught as theory. to say that one group uses accurate terms to promote a dodgy theory is not a reason for being inaccurate ourselves. again, I think you are arguing against things that I did not say. [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"The only place creationism has in schools is in the context of how bad it blows."[/color:ddf9700938] that's more or less what I just said. am I not getting across? einstein's point was exactly the one I'm making. a theory is a theory. there is nothing wrong with it being called a theory when that is what it is. calling it a fact is a mistake, even when there are facts to support the theory. einstein was not saying, "if there's loads of evidence to support a theory, we should call it a fact". he was saying, "even a theory with a large body of evidence can be disproven by one simple piece of evidence, and thus we should not be complacent". I am arguing against complacency and inaccuracy. I am arguing for proper, rigorous scientific thinking and for objectivity. I am not arguing for creationism or against evolution. if the scientists working in the field readily state that evolutionary theory is, as the name suggests, theoretical, and the nature of the word theory as used in science is the appropriate one to describe the school, then there is no reason to get angry about someone wishing to call it a theory. calling evolution a theory does NOT say it is untrue, it does NOT doubt it, it does NOT promote creationism, it does NOT ignore the body of evidence to support it, it does NOT denote any kind of axe to grind or religious beliefs to force upon the issue. it is merely accurate. and what the hell is wrong with that? [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Saccharissa said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]Natural Selection and Evolution are joined at the hip. You can't have the one without the other. This is why I said "practically" a tautology. They are not tautologous. But they cannot be seperated. About the whole "just a theory" thing. What I mean by bringing it up is that the fact that is is called a scientific theory by the ID fans has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with trying to disqualify it. Let me put it this way. Women, as a group, due to hormonal reasons, cannot grow muscles as easily as men. This is statistically proven but also obvious in everyday life, where female body builders cannot get as deformed, sorry, muscular, as men. How would you feel if this was used as a basis for discriminations in the job market for jobs completely unrelated to physical strength? It is the same with Evolution, heliocentricism (sp?), theory of relativity, blood circulation etc. Theories are maps we use to navigate ourselves in our lives. Some are pretty accurate, like gravity, and need a bit of tweaking (see relativity) to be completely so but are still good. Some are utter rubbish, like Pastafarianism. In order to tell them apart, we call the undisproven ones "facts". It is the tangibility of the evidence that tells the gold from the grime apart. Relativity explained the curious orbit of Mercury. Geocentricism did not. Blood circulation explained the way the arterial and venous systems and the way they are connected. Chymopathology did not. Evolution explained the beaks of the Galapagos finches. intelligent Design does not [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]you are saying that to use the word 'theory' is the sole prerogative of intelligent design supporters, and that if I use the word 'theory' I must be using it in the same way and for the same purposes as they do. you draw an analogy with women and men's strengths. let's examine the application of that: women and men develop muscles differently, and the strongest man will therefore always be stronger than the average woman. our parallel is that there is a proposed theory of evolution with good evidence to support it. you state that some people use this in a wrong and unfair way, based on faulty logic. our parallel is that people pick on the word 'theory' to try and discredit evolution. your conclusion, apparently, is that schools should not teach that the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman, because people misuse and misapply the fact. the parallel is that schools should not teach that evolution is a theory, because people misuse and misapply the fact. I disagree with your conclusion. no matter how I feel about the way people use the information, the school should still teach it. no matter how I feel about people misusing the term 'theory', the school should still teach it. [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"In order to tell them apart, we call the undisproven ones "facts"."[/color:ddf9700938] this is simply not true. we only do this if we do not understand what a theory is and what a fact is. a theory is a theory. one that has been disproven is a disproven theory. the rest remain as theories. in some cases, theories can be proven. for example, william whatshisname's theory of circulation was proven once we were able to examine and understand human anatomy. circulation is now known to be a fact. when a theory cannot be proven, we can never call it a fact, even when most evidence points towards its veracity. this is the nature of science and of language. scientific thinking is based upon this. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Saccharissa said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]Grace, you and me and the scientific community know the context in which the word "theory" is used. Sadly, this is not the case with the general public. In Science of Discworld III, Stewart, Cohen and Pratchett spent a lot of time and energy trying to get through to the reader that using the word "theory" when talking about evolution does not mean that it has not been proven. They expressed a lot of frustration regarding the stubborness of the general public in this matter by using very strong language when it comes to ID. They even quoted a radio show where a caller was telling the host "if this Darwin guy is so hot, how come he hasn't won the Nobel Prize?" and the host was wholeheartedly agreeing. Never underestimate how labels can be misused. My best friend Lili was a rural doctor along with a boy. Do you have any idea how many times she was called "the girl" whereas her colleague was always "the doctor"? How many times patients were walking in the surgery and said "oh the doctor isn't here?" and the ones already in the waiting line answered "nope, just the girl"? Yes, Lili is a girl and such a good one that it is curious why she hangs out with me. But however accurate the description is, in the context of her being able to do her job properly it is her being a doctor that must be put forth. Same with evolution. If science is to be taught porperly, it is the tangible facts that must be put forth and, occationally, rubbed in faces. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938][color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"Same with evolution. If science is to be taught porperly, it is the tangible facts that must be put forth and, occationally, rubbed in faces."[/color:ddf9700938] Wrong. Your example was faulty, and had little to do with the matter at hand, if anything at all. Labelling something as fact (See: Holy Writ) will create a situation in which it will be treated as such. It will make disputing it difficult, if not impossible. Going to an extreme to fight an extreme is *not* the way to go. Explaining a theory, and pointing out the facts that point to the theory being correct, is the way to go. Saying that it's iron-clad is not. This is what we call lying, Avgi. Misuse of a label by fools doesn't justify misuse of a label by smart people. Or, to sum it up, the end [i:ddf9700938]doesn't justify the means.[/i:ddf9700938] ------------- [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"Evolution explained the beaks of the Galapagos finches. intelligent Design does not"[/color:ddf9700938] You mean that an omnipotent being creating the world and controlling it to the tiniest details doesn't explain a few beaks, not to mention evolution in its' entirety? Pheh. Avgi, consider what you're saying for a moment, please. Intelligent Design is a theory that tries to prove that man was designed by a higher intelligence, divine or not. Even DNA is easily explained away as a blueprint. Don't put two theories against each other if they don't really contradict each other. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Saccharissa said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]Roman, do you know what Intelligent Design propagates? It propagates that species are constant, dinosaurs were contemporaries of the prehistoric humans and that humans are the end result of "micro"evolution. The existence of an Old Testament Creator isn't the half of it. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Brad the Wonder Llama said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]You'll find many creationists that make a distinction between micro and macro evolution.[/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Saccharissa, differentiate between the theory and the Neo-Creationalist movement, please. Keep to facts. ------- As a belief, it works seamlessly. As a scientific theory, it fails miserably. That's because Science and Faith are two different things. In a way, you could say that they are different approaches at interpeting what basically amounts to the same thing, but mixing the two just doesn't work. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Saccharissa said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/hunch/hunch.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html#court http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/ http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235_print.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Roman said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]*slaps forehead* Saccharissa... I told you to put the theory on one side, and the movement of fucktards on the other. Now, kindly put a thirty foot tall wall between the two. Done? Good. Showing me how stupid the group is proves that you didn't get my point, and don't see the difference between the theory and a group of people using it for preaching purposes. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Redneck said:[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]My apologies for going back so far in the conversation. I just wanted to comment on that part before I forgot what I was going to say. As for the evolutionary theory/fact, I agree with Grace and Roman about the semantics of it. Also, natural selection can stand alone without evolution. I have read several creationistic books that also agree with natural selection. What gives many creationists bad names is the ones that disagree with anyone that believes in evolution. Just because Darwin might have believed differently than them about the origin of species or the universe doesn't mean that everything he had to say was bunk. Nor does it mean that if someone believes in creation is bunk on all of their ideas as well. [/quote:ddf9700938] [b:ddf9700938]Buzzfloyd said;[/b:ddf9700938] [quote:ddf9700938]I say that it's important to educate children about what a theory is. how stupid are we if we propagate misunderstanding by misusing terms? as I have repeatedly suggested, evolution should be taught in schools *alongside* an explanation of how we use terms like 'theory', 'evidence' and 'fact' in science. your suggestion that we call it fact when it is not is akin either to saying that lili and her colleague should be referred to as 'the boy' and 'the girl', and neither of them be called doctor; *or* to object to anyone using the word 'girl' to describe lili in any context, because of the way it's used by certain people. [color=darkblue:ddf9700938]"If science is to be taught porperly, it is the tangible facts that must be put forth and, occationally, rubbed in faces"[/color:ddf9700938] if science is to be taught properly, it is to be taught accurately. to take a simplistic example, you don't teach children that there are six, eight or 'about seven' colours in the spectrum of visible light. you teach them that there are seven, because there are. likewise, you don't teach that evolutionary theory is 'as good as a fact' when that is a blatant misuse of scientific terms. you are objecting to using the correct nomenclature because of the way it is used by certain groups. creationists also misapply the word 'science' to their arguments. perhaps we should also stop using the word science, since the exact same reasoning can be applied here. [/quote:ddf9700938]
[b:e7931d7361]Garner said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Saccharissa is talking out of her assy. This is such a rare occurance that it needs to be said point blank, lest we think we're imagining it. The fundamentalists and fanatics that argue against all reason or sensibility should never be allowed to reduce a rational person to their irrational level, and yet once it happens, no outside force can restore order. Saccharissa, let us change the terminology. Teach evolution as 'science'. Don't call it factual, don't call it theoretical, teach it as the 'science' of evolution. What does that term mean? To rational and irrational people alike, the term should be "This is the current working model, tried and tested, found satisfactory, and remaining under test until anything better comes along. All other existing models have been applied, and found incomplete or innacurate. This is the light and the way, the key to our intellectual salvation." It says beyond doubt that we are confident in our conclusions and will treat them as given, but it says beyond doubt (to those who understand, anyway) that we will update our conclusions and rebuild the entire body of understanding should new and groundbreaking data be discovered. EG, it says "This is how things are, until we learn different." Now, to me personally, *ANY* 'fact' works in precisely the same way. It's fact up until the moment you learn better. How many 'scientists' rejected pasteur's germ theory? How many rejected einstein's theory of relativity? Cloudy thinking, letting faith - faith in the science you hold as fact, in this case - bolster your understanding is abhorent when it comes from fundie fanatics, but it's all the more abhorent when it comes from a 'man of science' who bloody well knows better but does it anyway. Should new evidence come to light that radically restructures the theory of natural selection in a way that we wouldn't recognize the new end product as a descendant of the thing we know today, scientists who call the current model 'a fact NOT a theory' will have to eat a huge serving of humble pie, or be drummed out of the scientific establishment in humiliation if they refuse to march with progress. That's all Buzzfloyd has really been getting at. Saccharissa's spoken out of her assy on several counts, letting an emotional response (justified, in my opinion, but counterproductive in this discussion) to the fundie fanatics cloud her ability to reason imperically, scientificly, and accurately. The illustrations she's brought forth (arguing by analogy is, supposedly, inherently illogical, though i find even people who say that use it as an educational tool so oh well) stem from other issues avgi has strong emotional attachments to. the connecting bond between avgi's impassioned crusade for women's rights and female equality and avgi's impassioned rage against fundie fanatics is stronger, FAR stronger, than the connecting bond between her arguement that evolution should be taught as fact and her arguement (actually, it's not even a proper arguement, but rather a complaint) that women get treated unfairly. at the end of the day, if avgi will not answer the questions asked, rather than answer the questions she wants to, then the conversation cannot proceed and should be tabled or moved to other related points where things can be more productive. and on one of those related points, Buzzfloyd's errors in the evolution arguement... this is a minor one, possibly non-existant, really, but let us assume that saccharissa's evidence is correct simply for the sake of this brief arguement: in previous conversations with grace about evolution, one of her points against calling it factual that doesn't hold water (keep in mind, in terms of discussing the linguistics of it, she's right on the money, if a bit anal. though, this anal militant adherance to literal definitions of terms is absolutely the proper 'scientific' approach) was that there was no proof or evidence of new species emerging. well, i'm sure this takes place in the plant kingdom all the time, and i'm pretty sure it takes place in insects. Saccharissa's said it's a common scientific experiment and well proven. it's something that fundie fanatics deny is possible, yet we see as plain as day. only a flat-earther could be more pathetic in this sort of debate. Buzzfloyd, when told of this yesterday, took it on board, nodded, agreed it offered a great deal of support for elements of natural selection and macro evolution (or was it micro?) and then pointed out that evidence itself is not proof, and we still didn't have evidence of it working in humans, or something... honestly, as i write this, i have to say again that it's NOT a flaw in her arguement. it's jsut the extreme, fundamental, fanatical adherance to proper use of terms and the refusal to draw a connection as 'fact' when there isn't direct evidence to support it. it's counter-intuitive and requires that one think concretely rather than abstractly, but it's probably closer to proper scientific thinking that way, and it becomes an absolutely necessary counter-balance when people who should bloody well know better say "Given that A is proven, B is supported, and C follows logically, C *is* beyond doubt, factual" sadly, that's wrong. A is proven, B is supported, and C is supported by arguement rather than evidence. i'd say 'evolution', whatever the heck that may be this week, is in position 'B' at the moment. but anyway, my tea's getting cold. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]some mild disagreement. calling a theory a theory is not counter-intuitive in my opinion, and it actually requires more abstract thinking than concrete, the reverse of what you said. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]This is me in my most laconic because I cannot muster the ability to make longer replies. To begin with, here's a link to a thread in the old board about evolution vs creationism. http://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/cgi-bin//ultimatebb.cgi?ub b=get_topic;f=2;t=001790;p=5 I have said in there pretty much everything I need to say on this matter when it comes to how toothpaste creationism is. So, let's move on to why am I so violent towards proper semantics. In "A Hat Full Of Sky", Tiffany was in favour of telling the villagers not to dig the middens close to the wells because of the invisible beasts in the water. Granny Weatherwax told villagers that they mustn't dig the midden close to the well because the smell attracts ogres or something and they foul the well. In her defence, she told Tiffany that she can make a new world while herself would make sure everyone gets there. I want to make sure that the future citizens of the world's most powerful country do not make it into adulthood with heads full of hay. Creationism and intelligent design is bad science, bad theology and bad philosophy and I do not want bad things like that in schools. If it means sacrificing the semantics, then so be it. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Garner said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]i believe grace's point is that you're suggesting to replace one type of wooly thinking with another. she's suggesting we get rid of wooly thinking all together.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]I share that belief. Replacing an extreme with an extreme to get rid of the first extreme won't get us anywhere. The end doesn't justify the means, and the end result won't be all that desirable.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Later, maybe. right now there are voters walking around who believe that dinosaurs were humans' contemporaries[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]you do not treat woolly thinking with more woolly thinking. you do not convince someone of your case when you present it inaccurately and untruthfully. is is not necessary and it doesn't work. ---------- just two things for now. why did you start telling me that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught in schools when no one suggested that at any point? calling evolutionary theory a theory does not involve teaching it as false or even introducing the concepts of creationism or intelligent design. it is a totally different issue. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SACRIFICE SEMANTICS TO TEACH CHILDREN THE RIGHT THING. you do not have to teach children something wrong in order to prevent them learning something else wrong. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]There was a mention to the alternatives of evolution being taught in schools There is no alternative to evolution that holds any scientific credibility at all. Therefore, only evolution ought to be taught [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Garner said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]hello wall, how's the mortar holding up to day? i love what you've done with the bricks.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]nobody here was saying that alternatives to evolution should be taught in schools. I certainly wasn't (although I did at one point say that creationists should not be attacked for their beliefs, as I believe no one should). you read that into my statements yourself, when I was only talking about my experience and about religious intolerance.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Saccharissa... As someone who is usually the wall in these situations, I must say that you're worse than me at the moment. This. Is. Not. The. Issue. The issue is calling Evolutionary THEORY a THEORY, and not a FACT. Don't turn a SIDE COMMENT into the WHOLE ISSUE. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]But Evolution Happens![/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Yes. And there's a multitude of theories within the big block titled 'Evolution Theory' that try to say exactly what 'evolution' is. What you call evolution is a theory on how things are. Likely as the theory may be, supported by a myriad of facts and a shitload of essays, it's still a theory. It's not fact like 'things fall' is a fact. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke or an argument. either way, no one here debates whether or not evolution happens. this thread started with me asking roman about the reconciliation of jewish notions of racial purity with the nazi heritage and jewish status no longer being that of victim. it moved on to a discussion of whether or not people with different religious beliefs can be happily married, with clay and I drawing from our own experience. I discussed my own world-view and background, with mention to my thoughts on creationism, but, more importantly, to religious intolerance. I talked about the way I've found people on both sides of debate explode in outrage at me when I say something so innocuous as 'evolutionary theory (which is a theory) should be taught as theory (which it is) in schools'. we then discussed how it had been taught to us, with me mentioning a video about creationism I'd been shown at school, going into further detail when roman asked about it. we then moved on to discussion of how much evidence there is for evolution, and how we use the words 'fact' and 'theory'. we reached consensus (I think) about why evolution is a theory supposrted by facts rather than a fact itself. a little while later, Saccharissa, you arrived and sent an email telling me off for supporting the idea of creationism being taught in schools. you will notice that I did this at no point and that the discussion wasn't even *about* creationism and its merits. yet every time I point this out, you continue to tell me why creationism shouldn't be taught! you have then gone on to suggest that crap science must be countered with crap science - which, although it argues on the 'right' side of the debate, is still crap! according to you, it is necessary to feed kids crap in order to prevent them being fed other crap. well, I say that's all bullshit. and, furthermore, it's bullshit irrelevant to the subject that was being discussed, and told to people who didn't need to be told. ------------- ie 'things fall' is a fact 'why things fall' is a theory 'things are like this' is a fact 'why things are like this' is a theory in science lessons, you don't teach students to call molecules 'bobbly things'. you don't teach them to call atoms 'lego bricks'. you don't even let them get away with calling the moon a planet, because it isn't one. in physics, you teach the distinction between 'force', 'power' and 'energy', even though you can use those words as synonyms in everyday conversations. in a biology exam, you hope the students will label the kidney as a kidney and not as a kidney bean (my mother's best friend at school was a disappointing scientist), even though they look almost the same on paper and have very similar names. if we don't want to teach our kids bad science, then we must make sure we're teaching them good science. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]The fact is that the species evolve through natural selection. Changes happen either on the genetic code or the way it is translated. That leads to differences between populations. The differences pile up and the tow populations cannot produce fertile offspring any more This is the long and the short of it. Evolution is the "things fall bit" [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]No. This is a theory derived from observation. We see facts, and try to explain the how and the why. The explanation is not a fact. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]we've already had this argument, earlier in the thread. it's to do with elements of a theory not comprising a whole theory, the nature of fact and theory as distinct from each other, and the fact that evolutionary theory is a school of thought comprising different theories. for now, I'll just say that I'm: 1. pissed off at being talked to like an idiot and repeatedly accused of supporting creationism when I do not, never suggested it, and don't think it should be an accusation anyway. 2. amused in a sad way that the exact thing I described earlier has happened yet again, and with someone I like and respect very much and don't wish to argue with. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Same feeling here, but with far less emphasis on 1, as I wasn't the one Saccharissa was 'disappointed of'.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]It was my misread and I did apologise for it and I am stil regretting making it --------- ...the misread that is This is not my week ----------- [quote:e7931d7361][b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] it saddens me that those with creationist beliefs encounter such intolerance. I disagree with teaching creationism in schools as fact (although students should be made aware that there are people who believe in it), but I don't believe in turning on people when they confess their beliefs and having a go about it. mind you, I've provoked indignation on more than one occasion with different people by saying that children should be taught that evolution is a theory and not a fact. who would have thought that was so contentious? I've encountered intolerance among religious people and among non-religious people. the most all-round intolerant people I've met have been christians, while the most aggressively intolerant people I've met have been materialist atheists. I believe in discussion of ideas, and honesty about beliefs but not in attacking others for believing something different from you. I also think it is gravely out of line to dismiss someone as stupid just because their ideas don't match yours. I've seen that all too often among the urban intelligentsia set that I've belonged to. "we're intelligent, so if they disagree with us, they must be stupid." [/quote:e7931d7361] This is what got me going. Evolution is not a belief. Creationists get told off because they try to pass beliefs off as science. This has nothing to do with intolerance and everything to do with what is science and what is not. And I can never say this passionately enough. Evolution is what happens. Just like Gravity is what happens. Species are not static. We are not the end result. We keep evolving. There is such a thing as natural selection, as strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics emerge every day. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]tell me where in those two paragraphs I said that evolution is a belief. I don't see it anywhere. I have to say, it looks like what got you going was the word 'creationism', and that context had nothing to do with it. I said that creationism is a belief, which you agree with. I said that I don't believe in having a go at people about their beliefs. I still don't. that doesn't mean I don't believe in debate and in pointing out flaws where I see them, but no one should feel afraid to voice their beliefs because of the reaction they'll get. I've had people jump down my throat like you did earlier and far worse when I've said what I believe in (which I rarely do unless asked or someone else brings the subject up). I object to hatred and intolerance. asking questions is fine, pointing out problems is fine, stating disagreements and objections is fine; attacking people is not fine. (I'm not saying that you attacked me, exactly, Saccharissa, but you certainly responded vehemently to something you assumed I believe.) "creationists get told off... this has nothing to do with intolerance..." I beg to differ. telling someone off has everything to do with intolerance. telling someone off is qualitatively different with disagreeing with them and even with objecting to their practises. furthermore, I was not talking in that email about creationists trying to pass of their beliefs as science. I used creationists as an example (stating that I did not agree with teaching creationism as fact, which you later apparently misread as 'I agree with teaching creationism as fact', judging from what you felt it necessary to tell me) of people who get attacked simply for stating that they believe in creationism. this goes for all the people who call themselves creationists, not only the pseudo-scientists who make up the majority. I have seen normally pleasant people shouting till they were red in the face at a girl who said she believed in intelligent design (which is utterly different from creationism and has more than one movement adopting that name). never mind that she believed in evolutionary theory too; because she believed it was an invention of god, these people were prepared to scream at her. *that* is what I was objecting to. I still object to it. mind you, I was also the minority for a long time in objecting to flaming on the boards, so I can see I might not garner (ho ho) many supporters for my point of view. I said that I believed in the use of the correct terms when teaching evolution in school. you have at times agreed that evolutionary theory is a theory, but said it should not be taught as such, and at times said evolution is a fact and should not be taught as theory. you're now disagreeing with what you said earlier. either way, there is nothing in what I said that supports your apparent supposition that I think evolution doesn't happen, or that I use the word 'theory' to mean 'untrue', 'doubtful' or 'suspicious'. there is nothing I see in these two paragraphs to prompt the response you gave, unless it was a response only to the word 'creationism'. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Like Clay said, it looked like that one word got the rest of the email to be ignored, or read only with a *very* specific opinion in mind before the rest of it was read. ---------- Why do they emerge? What is evolution? What, for that matter, is natural selection? A theory based on observation. No matter how concrete a theory based on observation is, IT'S STILL A BLOODY THEORY. Strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics emerging is a fact. Explaining WHY this happens is a theory. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics emerging is a fact. Explaining WHY this happens is a theory. Some bacteria are killed by antibiotics and some are not. If antibiotics are used too often, then the population consists largely of bacteria that do not die from antibiotics and in that case you are up the creek without a paddle [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Results which support the theory. No matter how concrete it is, it's still a theory. Saccharissa, you claim that evolution is a fact with religious zeal, if you haven't noticed. Wake *up*. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] The broblem is creationists see intelligent design as science and not as a belief. They even spend a lot of money to make it sound scientifically credible. moreover, they want it taught in schools as an alternative to evolution [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Garner said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]The First Boardanian International Annual Dragonmother Debate Awards Trophy Cup! This prestigious prize is awarded to the person who shows the most disappointing lack of higher reasoning in a debate or discussion. Judges will give special consideration to relative idiocies, where the smarter you are to start with has a tremendous impact on how your emerging stupidity is viewed. High scorers in the past have mastered time honored techniques of not reading before replying, refusing to admit they've dug in to an entrenched position when their arguement is already six feet under, and achieving a sort of berserk frenzy on the keyboards like some sort of secreterial viking stenographer, minuting the latest raid upon the saxons circa 800CE*. Current nominees for the First Boardanian International Annual Dragonmother Debate Awards Trophy Cup include: Saccharissa - for her cunning display of the "Brick Wall Defense" as part of an over all strategy of "Yelling at people for things she only imagined they said" Roman - for being a Jew Tephlon - because I don't know how his name should be prounounced, and he and Roman are the only ones debating a point in the last dozen emails or so I saw Brad - for making bad jokes CJ's school's IT's administrator - for blocking any aspect of the divinity that is google. If you would like to demonstrate your support for a favorite candidate, please inclose along with a Self Addressed Stamped Envelop one cheque for five pounds made out to "Boardanian International Annual Dragonmother Debate Awards Trophy Cup Administration Fee", and a six hundred sixty-six word essay explaining why you believe your favorite nominee truely has been talking out of their assy. And, for the record folks, the Boardanian International Annual Dragonmother Debate Awards Trophy Cup has been masterfully designed to be a perfectly life size replica of a crack-pipe, cast in pure 24kt gold plate by award winning crack pipe designer, 'Twitchy'! 'Twitchy' commented on his crowning achievement in Trophy Cup Award design with "We goin' ghetto bougie with this mutha." You don't get much more class than that, folks! So good luck, nominees, and stay irrational! *There is only one surviving example of the minutes from a viking raid. They cast an amazing insight on viking clan office politics and are used by many as evidence of the earliest rites of gifting a huscarl with doughnuts as tribute. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]intelligent design theory is not the same as creationism, just so we're clear on that, although those who believe in the latter often believe in the former. I agree that creationism should not be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution, because it isn't one. I said that in the email you quoted. that was not debated at any point, and still isn't. in other words, it *is* a problem, but is not relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory should be given its proper name. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]See, Saccharissa? I'm not the only one who thinks Intelligent Design Theory and Creationism are two different things. You hurling evidence on how the latter was bad when using the former only strengthened my point. Now get some caffiene pills or something. ---------- Again, differentiate between the movement and the theory. The movement is bad. The theory is based on belief, or possibly on aliens, which is also problematic, but it's still a theory, bad as it is. 'It just happened' is a theory. 'Someone else made it happen' is also a theory. We analyze the facts to see what fits where to decide what the better supported theory is. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Intelligent Design is Creationism's Troyan Horse. I have no caffeine pills so i cannot dig up the evidence[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_concept Check your facts, Saccharissa! Intelligent Design is a theory which tries to explain, basically, How It All Began. How others use it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I could use Martin Luther King's speeches to spread racism, and then say they're evil because I can. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Rincewind said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] this is what dictionary.com has to say. Heed him. the•o•ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th -r , thîr ) n. pl. the•o•ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f kt) n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts. 3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact. 4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] I think one of the main problems Saccharissa has (as do I) with Creationism/Intelligent Design (And, like Saccharissa, I feel that ID is just a new name for Creationism) is that they try to discredit Evolution theory by calling it "Just a theory". And then they state that, because they call ID/Creationism a theory, it has the same merits as Evolution theory. The problem lies in the word theory and its ambiguous use. For a scientist evolution is a * scientific theory* because it is not 100% proven. But it is considered almost a fact, because until now there has been no conclusive evidence as to the contrary. (Contrary to ID/Creationism, where, so far, no repeatable evidence has been found to support the theory. It is all about belief.) ----------- From that Wikipedia article: [color=darkblue:e7931d7361]The Intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neo-creationist campaign to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. The movement claims Intelligent Design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent Design proponents allege that science, by relying upon naturalism, demands an adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause. Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design movement and its unofficial spokesman, stated that the goal of Intelligent Design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept Nearly all Intelligent Design concepts and the associated movement are the products of Fellows of the the Discovery Institute , and its Center for Science and Culture, who continue to guide the movement. The Institute follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign. The conflicting statements of leading Intelligent Design proponents, that Intelligent Design is not religious, and that Intelligent Design has its foundation in the Bible, the former being directed at the public while the latter at their conservative Christian supporters, is described by Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, as being due to the Discovery Institute obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only Intelligent Design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." [/color:e7931d7361] ----- Roman, you should read the whole article before trying to prove your point with it. Tephlon/Tephlon [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] I did read it, Tephlon. Your point? What you just qouted proves my point just as the rest of the article does. Intelligent Design Theory and Intelligent Design Movement are two different things. The latter just uses the former for rather sad purposes. Note that I haven't stated any support of either one, just the facts as they are. Judge the theory as it is, not according to the people who use it, and twist it for rather nasty ends. Also, I state again that Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Evolution. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]More on the ambigious use of the word "Theory": [color=darkblue:e7931d7361](From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ---- In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming", for example, there is no implication that global warming is not occurring; world temperatures have been measured and are increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that explains how and why this has been happening.[/color:e7931d7361] --- and: --- [color=darkblue:e7931d7361]Theory has almost the opposite meaning in common use than its definition in the sciences, and this change can be seen in modern dictionaries which now list theory as a "guess or hunch" in preference to the former scientific definition that used to be the dominant one. [/color:e7931d7361] ---- ID and Creationism use this muddling of terms to place doubt upon "Darwinism". They reason for trying to get ID classified as a science is to twist around the "Seperation of Church and State" (Hah) which excludes creationism to be taught in public schools in the US. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Brad The Wonder Llama said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law [color=darkblue:e7931d7361]" Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is strictly empirical. It is a summary observation of things as they are. A theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens. " [/color:e7931d7361] Also, you'll note that the wiki article on theory stated that 'In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact.' It does not say that theory=fact. And most definitley that theory=law. And, incidentally, fact more equals 'datum' than anything else. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Tephlon, one of the things Intelligent Design theory asks is 'how DNA?' How does it exist? Why does it exist? How did it first appear? As philosophy and faith, Intelligent Design works. As scientific theory, it doesn't, because it's flawed as one. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Brad The Wonder Llama said: [quote:e7931d7361]Baaaaning of sheep philosophy isn't the most open minded thing to do.[/quote:e7931d7361] Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Exactly. It creates close-mindedness, prevents the questioning of current theories, and is a direct cause of stagnation. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Brad The Wonder Llama said: [quote:e7931d7361] Well, er, actually, that was just a joke on the whole 'wooly' thinking. Wooly thinking is generaly bad for science [/quote:e7931d7361] Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]The army is having strange effects on you. You're making valid arguments into horrible jokes. You were just barely saved by the argument this time, so beware. ;-) [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Erm... By that reasoning it would be okay to walk into Jerusalem wearing a swastika because it's actually a hindu symbol of life and reincarnation... Nothing you can take offense at, really... (And The point is that the name "Intelligent Design" is NOW used mask a religious agenda. And the modern ID does contradict Evolution thery in numerous ways. -------- Oops, I wanted to say "Nothing you can take offense at, really... (And yes, I know better than that, just driving a point home)" Curse my short attentionspan [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] None taken in any case. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]there is no modern ID, there is only a modern movement. neo-pagans don't make paganism a modern thing, even when they twist paganism into something completely different.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] No. True Intelligent Design theory is still very much around. According to *your* logic we should judge Islam by the loud radicals. Think about it. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]No, According to my logic we should be informed about the fact that "islam" and "loud radicals that are doing nasty stuff in te name of islam" are two different things. See my most recent e-mail before this one. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Read your previous email. Replied to it. You still disqualify the whole based on the belief that the loud group of idiots are now the new fella's in town. The old fella's are still here, and you disqualify them as irrelevant because you hear about the new idjits more than about the oldies. Newsflash. Radicals get press coverage. Moderates don't. This is due to the press being a collection of money grubbers. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]No I am not. I agreed with you that the True Intelligent Design is different from the new ID. Philosophy vs Pseudo Science with a hidden agenda. I don't think "Old" Intelligent Design is bad, it's philosophy. This also means they are open to discussions. And no, they do not disqualify Evolution, and yes, they wonder how everything started and try to come up with good explanations. Nothing wrong with that. And I am aware of what constitutes news in the press. No need for the "newsflash". Thanks. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]I argue that there is no 'new ID'. just as radical muslims take a *pre-existing* faith system and use it for their own ends in a way it doesn't really fit consistently, so neo-creationists (I took that word from wikipedia, I don't know enough about the movement to understand the 'neo', though) take a *pre-existing* philosophy and use it for their own ends in a way it doesn't really fit consistently. in neither case is a new version of the thing created, the thing is simply used badly. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Then what was the point in quoting from the article I linked to, when I this was just another email in a long series of emails that said that ID theory and ID movement are two different things? Tephlon, read the whole discussion next time, especially before you imply disagreement with my opinion and my not reading the articles I myself bring. And you were using generalizations. Labelling the movement plain ID discredits the theory along with the movement, and plain insults it. Labels are important. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said;[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] actually, I think your logic did suggest what roman said. that we should be informed that they are two different things is what roman and I have been arguing. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]I apologize for thinking up something called "New ID". Obviously such a thing does not exist. I took a shortcut there. (I prefer typing "New ID" instead of "Creationism under the pseudoscience guise of Intelligent Design.") I *WAS* confusing the philosophy with the movement, and will never do so again. However, What was being argued here was not the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism under the pseudoscience guise of Intelligent Design. What was being argued is that unfortunately there is a movement that abuses the name Intelligent Design in order to push a religious agenda. And unfortunately that movement is what dominates news and thus is what most people see as intelligent design. And yes, I reacted emotionally against that. Roman quoting that article didn't help. It's not the point that he knew that Intelligent Design and Creationism under the pseudoscience guise of Intelligent Design are not the same thing. The point is that unfortunately most people don't. Just like most people think islam is bad because of those radicals. It's not that I believe all Intelligent Design followers are "bad", because I don't, it's a philosophy, but the term Intelligent Design unfortunately now has become almost similar to Creationism. So yes, naming is important. ---------- When you quoted the article you had not given a clear distinction between ID Theory and ID movement. Not as far as I had read. I admit I mistook "True ID" for "New ID". That's why I quoted from that article. And Yes, Roman, I *had* read the whole discussion. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Then you should have noticed that both Buzzfloyd and I mentioned the distinction many, many times. I was just chanting the same thing over, and over, and over... [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]I misread. Mea Culpa.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] The Theory of Relativity versus Newton's Laws. Some of the weird shit Hawking and a few dozen people understand versus The Theory of Relativity. No longer in scientific dispute? There's no such thing. Such thought patterns encourage stagnation of thought. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Well, I quoted from Wikipedia on that one. Should have been a bit more careful with the quote there. Anyway, basically we're now talking semantics again: Can we agree on this?: Intelligent Design in it's original incarnation is philosophical and in no way tries to be a science. Intelligent Design as the world is aware of now, is creationism under a new name disguised as "science" in an attempt to work around the (United States) laws that are in place and prevent the teaching of religion in public schools. I, personally, have no problem with the former, and lots of problems with the latter. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]I don't think it's fair or true to say "ID as the world is aware of now". there are plenty of people in the world who are aware of ID in its proper form and unaware of the american movement. I was one of them until the other day. you're assuming everyone has the same knowledge and access to knowledge as you. this is not a question simply of semantics. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Semantics are important, as they define thought. And as I said, 'current incarnation' is an awfully wrong. Intelligent Design does not count as science because current scientific tools are inadequate to conduct neccecary experimentation to prove or disprove the claim. It could be counted as science fiction for now, in the same way collective intelligence is. If you read Asimov's short stories then you should know why I mentioned it. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Tephlon said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Though I've read Asimov's short stories, it has been a while. Refresh my memory if you don't mind?[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Roman said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Look up The Last Question. If it's not available I'll type it in tomorrow.[/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Brad The Wonder Llama said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] ID being a Trojan horse was displayed in personal correspondence stating something to the effect of Once ID is accepted into the classroom, we can argue evolution out. Unfortunately, Net queries aren't helping me out here. I remember reading about it in a Stars and Stripes regarding the Dover, Pa case. Just on a side note Saccharissa, I'd like for you to pose an example of macroevolution. And Roman, regarding your taking a theory with as much faith as religion, there's an interestsing Sidney Harris cartoon about that. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Saccharissa said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Brad, you asked for examples on speciazation (or what the Creationists call macroevolution) Plants first - they're a bit different than animals as far as speciation possibilities... The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage. -- Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris. (This researcher showed that existing species of Brassica were originally created by hybridization of other species, and how to recreate those original crosses) -- Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972). Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292 (The lab strain could crossbreed with wild relatives in 1958. It could NOT crossbreed successfully with wild relatives in 1963 - it could only breed with other lab strain flies) -- Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection. (they hadn't speciated here, but are starting that direction - hybrid sterility creeping into the most separate populations. Assortive mating means that the flies are only wanting to bread within their 'group' and not outside it.) -- Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in inter- preting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated: Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations. (another area that appears to be heading towards speciation - there are genetic differences, behavioral differences, and development differences) -- Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41 -- "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved." The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Cynical Youth said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361]Maybe it's my naivete (imagine a ' here, stupid comp), but what's wrong with teaching evolution in schools and ID in church? As long as we're all open-minded about it and take care not to exclude the other in teaching at schools. Evolution is part of the current scientific paradigm and as such belongs in the curriculum. In essence, everything is a theory. Hope I don't tread on anyone's toes. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] that's more or less exactly what I suggested, Cynical Youth. unfortunately, it was misread, provoking a debate about whether or not creationism is valid and should be taught in schools and whether or not evolutionary theory is a fact. [/quote:e7931d7361] [b:e7931d7361]Garner said:[/b:e7931d7361] [quote:e7931d7361] Cynical Youth, i dunno how familiar you are with the claptrap in the states, but basicly there is a very vocal minority of the population who have the support of an effective majority that would see evolution removed from schools and creationism (rather than ID) put in its place. this is despite the fact that america is formally founded upon a separation of church and state, and the schools are state run. See, about 375 years ago, england kicked out some superstitious wanktopian socialists who decided they could float about abit before moving to america without any food or jobs. typical immigrants, lemme tell you, but anyway, these wankjobs established a psychic vein of nastiness that spread throughout the country. ironicly, the 'new england' area where the puritans once settled is now the seat of american liberalism for most intents and purposes. the american south east has always been more conservative in their politics (the puritans were radicals, in their fanaticism), and devout in their faiths. it's worth pointing out that a state govenor who was an episcopalean (the top of the american social class-as-religious-faith) was politically forced to convert to baptism as the voting public saw him as 'too liberal' based on what church he belonged to. before america really started to acknowledge the outside world (1920's), your church was your social hub. high church episcopals like myself were the upper crust. methodists and presbyterians and some baptists were the bulk of the middle classes, catholics, jews, and 'heathen' religions were in many cases/places persecuted in one way or another (there are notable exceptions where catholocism is the dominate faith in an area. lousiana is the notable exception in the south, but many major northern cities, particularly those with large irish or italian immigrant populations, also had strong catholic centers then as well as now). the lower social orders were the various pentacostals and seven day adventists, or other fringe charismatic or apocolyptic churches. it's these guys that are the bedrock for a militant layer of the current generation of faithful. the lower-middle class tier of old, the baptists, manage to comprise the key ranks, and the southern and rural northern methodists would fill the remaining constituants of the religious power blocs. we are one nation, under god. if you saw any of the debate about removing 'under god' from our 'pledge of alegience', you can understand how the passions run in this. there was a judge in alabama who had a monument of the ten commandments put up in his court house. this was ordered removed as it's a religious statue in a public government office, and the judge refused, because god has a place in american government he said. even the bloody Klu Klux Klan was out there supporting this guy, right along side black southern ministers... first time we ever saw those guys on the same team! that's how weird it can get. there's people who think that religion should be brought to everyone, whether they want it or not. and the only religion being considered is christianity. and the only brand of christianity on offer is the personal variation that each powerbloc spokesman is there to represent. usually southern charismatic, always conservative if not reactionary, and frequently hatefilled and biggotted. it's an ugly, ugly scene. [/quote:e7931d7361]
[b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said;[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] again, haven't seen later emails, so apologies for any repetition. as roman said before, don't confuse the movement with the philosophy. the intelligent design movement did not invent the theory of intelligent design, they just nicked it. intelligent design is not, and should not be, just another name for creationism, because it is a separate thing. supporters of one might support the other, but that doesn't make them the same. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said"[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] the problem with intelligent design is that it's ultimately a cheat in a debate. if the universe were consciously designed, it could be designed for ANYTHING. built 6000 years ago to be 6.2 billion years old? sure, we can do that. sun orbits the planets? sure, we can do that. all the air is acid? hey, why not? it'd be easier than faffy around with this free will business, let me tell you. speaking of, would you like your universe predestined or undetermined? we can do it either way! i prefer unintelligent design... where they had a good idea, but didn't think it through all the way so most things about it are crap. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Roman said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5]The experiment that could prove or disprove the theory is currently impossible, hence me referring. For example, if the Creator left, oh, a signature of some sort, then if we could find it the theory would be proven, correct? I don't think we currently have the language to even begin conceiving such things. Hawking and Company are sort of getting there, but I think that Hawking is the only one who understands most of it. His mind is an evolutionary leap, in a way, but the rest of us are not there yet. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] the experiment that could SUPPORT the theory, you mean. once you start thinking in terms of intelligent design as a plausibility, then everything's out the window. fifty foot tall flaming letters only visible when you use a telescope with the correct maginfication factor derrived from some neumerological hogwash based on lies about the torah, from the side of the arc of the covenant's site in the original first temple (eg, burried under teh dome at this point) that proclaim "I am the Lord Thy God. I built this City. I built this City on Rock And Roll" becomes a technical possibility. once we've found the divine creator's signature, how do we know that we found it? what if DNA is just evidence of god's sloppy handwriting? ATAGCTAGTCTAGATCGATCGAARGH could just be 'godtalk' for 'let's give this one a BIGGGGGG bald spot' and we just haven't figured out how to translate the language yet. we don't know. we can never know. it's an untestable theory. like the thought that the language you first learn shapes the way your mind works. you can't test it. even studies with people who don't have "language" aren't completely able to fill the gap. it's impossible to teach someone a language for the first time twice, so it's impossible to measure the differences. you cannot control the experiment, thus it's untestable. with anything involving god, there's no limit to the undefined variables and thus there's no experiment that could work [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] where are those memes when you need them, eh? [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5]you mean 'creator creator creator' to the tune of 'badger badger badger'? Creator creator creator creator ID ID! creator creator creator creator A GOD! A GOD! ohhhhh it's a god! it's a creator creator creator... --------- one of the issues is that not every church would even presume to teach ID beyond 'genesis', but the ones that demand ID/creationism be taught are also demanding that evolution NOT be taught. Saccharissa's the mirror of these lot, utterly unwilling to compromise or even slow down to listen to the suggestion. 'but, if we just compromise a little-' "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" it makes for an ugly debate. we could lock Saccharissa in a room with the creationists and see which one explodes first, but then who'd we award the Biddy to? ----------- but, in this instance roman, the creationists have not even been involved in the debate at all. it's just Saccharissa inventinga phantom menance... revenge of the scientist as it were... hmm. quick, how can i fit 'attack of the clones' into this in some way shape or form? [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Saccharissa said[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] Seems like I am the sole serious contender for the Dragonbiddy award. So be it. I will keep on disagreeing with the Creationism=/= Intelligent Design, mostly because a huge chunk of the Science of Discworld III deals exactly with the fact that Intelligent Design is Creationism in disguise. The TalkOrigins site is made and updated by scientists who see their disciples raided by the Creationists. The introduction of Intelligent Design in school is called by its pros "the wedge strategy" (I'm sure I have copied the bit from TSOD III in the old board links I have posted) and Brad has spoken from personal experiences. "Intelligent Design" is already in religions. God/Yahweh/Allah/Vishnu/Amaterasu made the world with a plan in mind and pine trees sigh when the northern wind blows because Pitys, the numph, was chased by Boreas, fell off a cliff and she is still afraid of him. What we are dealing with is cooking up of numbers, something Pepster had already shown in that debate with Danfel. The ID proponents scare me. Not only because they are messing up with scientific thinking, but because this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their agendas. Check out the news article. Tell me I have nothing to fear. [color=indigo:1bb008b8f5]Posted on Fri, Nov. 11, 2005 Robertson to Dover voters: 'You just voted God out of your city' The Associated Press VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday not to be surprised if disaster strikes there because "you just voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching "intelligent design." "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said Thursday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" -- the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power -- as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Eight families had sued the district, claiming the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The federal trial concluded days before Tuesday's election, but no ruling has been issued. Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences." "God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in His eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin, maybe he can help them." Robertson made headlines this summer when he called on his daily show for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." [/color:1bb008b8f5] [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] pat robertson is someone I've only heard of when he's being quoted as an example of a nutcase. again, remember to distinguish between the intelligent design MOVEMENT and the PHILOSOPHY of intelligent design. but that's not even the main point here. [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]"I will keep on disagreeing with the Creationism=/= Intelligent Design"[/color:1bb008b8f5] as will we all. your agreement or disagreement with the teaching of creationism in schools has no bearing on the status of evolutionary theory and whether or not it should be taught accurately. you are continuing to state an argument that *none of us has disagreed with* as though it were the counter-argument to the thing we were discussing. stop telling us that creationism is unscientific. stop telling us that creationism should not be taught in schools. stop telling us that some people want it taught in schools. none of us, at any point, has disagreed with these or said they were false. none of us is arguing on those grounds. the argument was about accurate use of language when teaching about evolution. this is not the same as supporting creationism. it is not the opposite of teaching evolution as science. you are arguing things that do not ned to be argued in this context. this is not a creationism v. evolution debate. this is an accuracy and good science v. inaccuracy and bad science debate. when you've entered that actual subject, you've argued the case for inaccuracy and bad science simply because you can't let go of fears about creationism. that is the only place where creationism enters this debate - where the debaters can't let it go. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] STOP! You are afraid? You have an emotional response that has thus far completely blinded you to what the rest of us are talking about. You have wandered into a conversation and preempted it, fighting tooth and nail to make sure your viewpoint overcomes the opposition. Your view point (evolution) in this context may be algebraicly replaced with variable 'Green'. the oposite of 'Green' will be 'Red' where 'Red', in this case = (creationism and/or ID exclusively proposing creationism) Saccharissa wishes to correct and convince the other conversationlists that 'Green' is the way and the light, and people arguing 'Red' are wrong. The other conversationalists were, amongst themselves, discussing the merits of 'Zero' and 'One'. 'Zero' = 'strict adherence to proper lexicography and absolute definition of terms' and 'One' = 'acceptible wide margins of error for convenience sake' Now, here's how it plays out: Conversationalist 1: Zero Conversationalist 2: One Conversationalist 1: Zero Conversationalist 2: One Conversationalist 1: Zero Conversationalist 2: One Saccharissa: GREEN!!! YOU'RE ALL MAD FOOLS! GREEN!!!! Conversationalist 1: um... .... zero? Saccharissa: GREEN! Conversationalist 2: er... ah... one? Saccharissa: GREEN YOU BLOODY FOOLS! Conversationalist 3, the smell, ratbearded one: Spoon? Saccharissa: GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'LL KILL YOU ALL!!!!! Conversationalists 1-4: Green green green? Zero green one red green one one zero green one red taupe 3.1415 Saccharissa: OH MIGHTY BEASTS OF A THOUSAND YOUNG! GREEN IS THE PATH AND WAY! GREEN IS THE LIGHT AND TRUTH! Conversationalists 1-8: Gible norp? Saccharissa: Green, goddammy you... Greeeeeeeeeeeeeeen! the others were comparing apples and oranges, and Saccharissa came in telling them how motorbikes were the answer. THIS is where Saccharissa goes wrong, THIS is what people are arguing about... that SACCHARISSA is NOT arguging what everyone ELSE was arguing and FAILS to realize that Congratulations, Greeky. You won a Biddy. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Saccharissa said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] Still, Roman's last e-mail last night before I logged off was a Wikipedia entry on how Intelligent Design is a theory on how the world was made. For me, it's a matter of simplifying. Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen called this "lies to children", so that they would later understand what the world was really like and they gave the example of the rainbow; if every raindrop is a prism, then why don't the rainbows from every single raindrop create a fudged up image? Since this is schools we are talking about, if explaining the facts of evolution first and why it is a theory later works, it is fine by me. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] Conversationalist 1: We should be as specific as possible in our terms (Zero) Conversationalist 2: We can afford to fudge things a bit to be more understandable (One) Conversationalist 1: How is inaccuracy and unclear definition of terms going to make things more clear or understandable? (Zero) Saccharissa: Creationism is WRONG! (Green) Conversationlist 1: Yes... but we're talking about defining terms exactly. (Zero) Saccharissa: Creationism is WRONG! (Green) much shouting later Saccharissa: Creationism is WRONG so we should fudge things to keep kids from knowing it! (Green and One) Conversationlist 1: We should be as specific as possible in our terms so that we are above reproach. (Zero) Saccharissa: But Creationism is WRONG!!!! (Green) Now, go through this and subtract green from every arguement, and you'll be left with exactly those things of value and relevance to the original discussion. For the hard of thinking: Saccharissa has supported the use of innacuracy and, as she put it, 'lies to children' to further the cause of science. The sum totality of everything she's said, less that point, is irrelevant and had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Roman said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] It's a theory. How good or how bad it is as a theory has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] The relative worth and merit of a theory is measured on the 'hypothesis-theory-law' axis. the more support for a theory, the closer it gets to 'law' if, at any point, evidence casts significant doubt on the assumptions contained within a 'law', the law gets knocked back down to 'theory'. at no point is there ever a 'fact' in any of this, the best we ever have is 'this is what we know NOW' that applies to a 'scientific theory' and to a 'scientific fact' that's all we've got people. it doesn't get any more concrete than that. 'right now, we understand that water molecules have one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, arranged in an infringement of Walt Disney Corporation copyrights' that's a 'fact' if pepster goes and discovers something that changes our understanding, then the 'fact' is called into question. if Saccharissa, a scientist, discounts pepster's discovery, for her the 'fact' is unchanged. for an open minded scientist, the 'fact' has ALWAYS been disputable, and now there's actual evidence to dispute with. likewise, a flat earther can discount the space program, phsyics, and anything else you care to name and tell us that the arth being flat is a 'fact' facts can be wrong. so can a scientific theory. how well can you suport and substantiate your facts? how well can you support and substantiate your theory? where is there room for doubt? worry about YOUR position. if you cannot prove to us that your 'explaination' covers teh sum totality of a situation, it is not, to us, a 'law' or 'fact'. now, creationism, to us, doesn't even come close. it requires such hefty denials of evidence that it's mindaching. but evolution, while it comes close, isn't complete. it's a natural law, but not a scientific one until we can explain it beter. so it's a fucking theory. bitchu. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Saccharissa said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] Without wishing to contest my being awarded the Dragonbiddy Prize for Being Entrenched and Reading Things Never Said, I would like to post my side of the story, fully recognising that reading posts out of sequence when finally logged in is not an excuse. Conversationalist: I don't like people persecuted for their beliefs and I don't like it when people who believe in Intelligent Design are ridiculed Conversationalist: Alternatives to Evolution ought to be taught in schools Me: Intelligent design isn't a belief according to the ones who propagate it, it is bad science that wants to make the world look as old as the Bible claims it to be and that species are static. Dissing them is not persecution because ID is BAAAAAD. There are no alternatives to Evolution so there are no alternatives to be taught. Conversationalist: We must teach things accurately in schools and evolution is a theory, unlike gravity which is a fact Me: Evolution is a fact too, speciasation is what happens (trying to track down the examples of speciasation in modern times) and the word theory is used by IDers as a derogatory term to weaken true science and that is BAAAAAD Conversationalist: There is nothing wrong with calling evolution a theory, it is proper according to dictionaries. And it is bad to replace bad thinking with another kind of bad thinking Me: You know what 'theory' in the context of science is, I know what 'theory' in the context of science is, unfortunately this is not true for the general public in the world's only superpower and rather than making the next generation ignorami, it's better to teach evolution as a fact in schools and elaborate on what causes the evolving of the species later. Clay: This is not what we are talking about, you are going to be nominated for the Dragonbiddy award Me: I'm trying to fortify proper scientific thinking in the face of nutjobs like Pat Robertson. If ID is science, how not teaching it is 'voting God out?' Clay: You are making emotional responses. here is your Dragonbiddy Award Me: I would like to thank my producer, my agent, and everyone nominated with me [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] i can respect that.... the issue is that you're wrong. WRONG YOU FOOL! line by line: Buzzfloyd doesn't like people persecuted for their beliefs. full stop. but, even that isn't quite accurate. Buzzfloyd doesn't like it when people are PERSECUTED. full stop. she doesn't happen to like creationism much either, but you read the exact oposite of that into her statements, appearantly. the fact that there are alternatives to evolution ought to be addressed in school. not 'taught'. what you were hearing was 'creationism should be taught as science' this was NEVER suggested at ANY point in ANY way. what WAS suggested was that to completely cover evolution PROPERLY, one must say 'and here's the alternative. look at it, crawling around on those feeble little legs, trying to stand up and be taken serriously...' this means calling a theory a theory. this means showing people why one theory is stronger than another. this means, because the theory of evolution is stronger than the alternatives, the scientific community and anyone with a brain stem believes evolution over creationism. because you misunderstood what was being said, your arguement was inappropriate and unresponsive to the discussion at hand. also, you have shown distinct tendancies towards persecuting creationists for their beliefs, but that's a side point. gravity - things fall down - is a fact. the theory of gravity is a theory. this was a key point. evolution - new species emerge, biological changes take place over time - is a fact. the theory of evolution is a theory. this was a key point. we must indeed teach things accurately. this was a key point. you argued against the third, misconstrued the first, and deliberately perverted the second. at THIS point, you were arguing the opposite side of Buzzfloyd, but not until then were you remotely relevant. here you were off base. yes, creationists and IDers who deliberately misconstrue 'theory' to equate to 'best guess/we don't really know' is a bad thing. but no one here was talking about that but you. like plaid when she was new to the boards, you walked in and started trying to change the subject to your key issue, and you were... what's the equivalent of bible thumping here... biology text book thumping and shouting at us like an egg-head fundamentalist. at this point, it just kind of repeats itself: accuracy! Fight the creationists! Accuracy! fight the creationists! at which point i Electric Mant you over my knee and gave you a good spanking. you are welcome to thank me and ask for many more in the years to come. take your gold plated crack pipe and consider yourself pwned. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]"Conversationalist: I don't like people persecuted for their beliefs and I don't like it when people who believe in Intelligent Design are ridiculed Conversationalist: Alternatives to Evolution ought to be taught in schools"[/color:1bb008b8f5] I said creationism, not ID. they are two different things. NO ONE said alternatives to evolution should be taught in schools. NO ONE has said that at any point. [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]"Conversationalist: We must teach things accurately in schools and evolution is a theory, unlike gravity which is a fact"[/color:1bb008b8f5] NO ONE said this. clay, who was asking why evolutionary theory should not be called a fact, likened it to gravity. roman and I explained the difference between a theory and the facts that support it. gravity and evolution are both things that can be observed ie facts. gravitational theory and evolutionary theory are ways of explaining what causes those things ie theories. what you just summarised there was NEVER SAID. [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]"Clay: This is not what we are talking about, you are going to be nominated for the Dragonbiddy award Me: I'm trying to fortify proper scientific thinking in the face of nutjobs like Pat Robertson. If ID is science, how not teaching it is 'voting God out?'"[/color:1bb008b8f5] creationism is, indeed, not what we were talking about until you made it so. I was also trying to fortify proper scientific thinking in the face of nutjobs who start frothing at the mouth about anyone daring to suggest that evolutionary theory should not be made holy writ and called fact, despite this being incorrect terminology. 'voting god out' and intelligent design are topics you brought to the table. you have been arguing a point that is not in dispute to counter a point that it does not counter. it's like the emails I've written and the emails you've read have been completely different things, filtered through the mindset of "CREATIONISM ALERT: SEARCH AND DESTROY!" [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Saccharissa said[/b:1bb008b8f5][quote:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5][b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] that's all we've got people. it doesn't get any more concrete than that. 'right now, we understand that water molecules have one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, arranged in an infringement of Walt Disney Corporation copyrights' that's a 'fact' [/quote:1bb008b8f5] Actually, this image of a water molecule is a 'lie to children'. And I must add, the introduction of this term by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen in TSOD II was ingenius. The only 'fact' about water is that it is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Because of the molecules bouncing on each other, we get every possible combination of oxygen and hydrogen atoms. And the atoms themselves are not near the planet system image that looks so nice on the cover of textbooks. But this is what we work with in schools because if we break it to kids in highschool that the orbits of electrons are not orbits as such but planes on which electrons *may* be detected (blame the quanta) and they are not spherical but each orbit has a subplane that is a spherical shell, one that looks like a tridimentional 8 and so on but the tridimentional 8 subplane has 'higher energy' than the spherical shell of the orbit immediately after that, and electrons are not spheres, they are both a wave and a particle depending on how you look at it, and it has a half spin that is either positive or negative... ...you would have lost them at "not orbits as such". At least in my school. So, you start with the simple things. "This is a particle. You can accelerate it in a magnetic field. You smash it on nuclei.You get new molecules, particles flying around and released energy" Then, you move on to why the results of smashing particles with nuclei have given us a much different view on how the molecules and atoms are constructed. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5]yes. absolutely. but at no point do you say 'this is how the world works, it's fact' you say 'this is the atomic theory, which has more evidence to support it than you could ever hope to understand you horrible lot of buggers and mr. higgins i will thank you to put that submachine gun DOWN in my class. now, as i was saying, the atomic theory-' and you teach them as soon as they're able what 'theory' MEANS. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Saccharissa said:[/b:1bb008b8f5][quote:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5][b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]"Conversationalist: I don't like people persecuted for their beliefs and I don't like it when people who believe in Intelligent Design are ridiculed Conversationalist: Alternatives to Evolution ought to be taught in schools"[/color:1bb008b8f5] I said creationism, not ID. they are two different things. NO ONE said alternatives to evolution should be taught in schools. NO ONE has said that at any point. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] That was one of the things I was contesting, that ID and Creationism are two different things. [quote:1bb008b8f5][b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]" Conversationalist: We must teach things accurately in schools and evolution is a theory, unlike gravity which is a fact"[/color:1bb008b8f5] NO ONE said this. clay, who was asking why evolutionary theory should not be called a fact, likened it to gravity. roman and I explained the difference between a theory and the facts that support it. gravity and evolution are both things that can be observed ie facts. gravitational theory and evolutionary theory are ways of explaining what causes those things ie theories. what you just summarised there was NEVER SAID.[/quote:1bb008b8f5] Pwned [quote:1bb008b8f5][b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]" Clay: This is not what we are talking about, you are going to be nominated for the Dragonbiddy award Me: I'm trying to fortify proper scientific thinking in the face of nutjobs like Pat Robertson. If ID is science, how not teaching it is 'voting God out?'" [/color:1bb008b8f5] creationism is, indeed, not what we were talking about until you made it so. I was also trying to fortify proper scientific thinking in the face of nutjobs who start frothing at the mouth about anyone daring to suggest that evolutionary theory should not be made holy writ and called fact, despite this being incorrect terminology. 'voting god out' and intelligent design are topics you brought to the table. you have been arguing a point that is not in dispute to counter a point that it does not counter. it's like the emails I've written and the emails you've read have been completely different things, filtered through the mindset of "CREATIONISM ALERT: SEARCH AND DESTROY!" [/quote:1bb008b8f5] Still Pwned [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] on the ID versus creationism as different things... they can be. most creationists are automatically supporters of ID, yes? but not every ID philosophiser needs to be in favor of creationism. basicly, if you're a religious person, the thought of an intelligent design HAS to enter into it somewhere. god could hardly be called 'a bit fick in da head' but not every religious person is a creationist or a literalist or anything of the sort. Buzzfloyd is a religious person. she accepts the evidence for new ideas as and when she sees em. she doesn't say, upon seeing a giraffe, "why there aint no such thing as that!" flat earthers, creationists, literalists of all sort can go through whatever hoops they want, but eventually they all degenerate to the sort of madman who goes on national television to insist that tinky-winkie is gay. there's plenty of people who fear homosexuality and think that children shouldn't be exposed to it. most of THOSE biggots wouldn't go so far as to say that the teletubbies are a bad influence. that's left to the robertsons and the falwells. "I believe that the universe was created by god, and it works according to the principles that physicists, biologists, chemists, and mathematicions have discovered over the years. I eagerly await each month's copy of the New England Journal of Medicine to learn more about how our bodies, created in god's own image, function and work, that i might marvel at the scope of his design. I find evolution fascinating and a truely magical way for life to be ever fresh, ever new, and without end, just like god's love for his creation. I enjoy what little of astronomy and physics i can fathom, and take delight in photos from the Hubbel telescope, showing even more of god's handiwork in it's majesty - unfettered by city lights or atmospheric refraction. I also find astrology entertaining, and think that it's got some value as another approach to psychology, but i think the notion that the stars' position controls our destiny is quite silly and not what 'astrology' is really all about at all. god gave us brains capable of figuring out how HIS mind must work, and that's possibly the greatest miracle of all." now, i'm putting words into people's mouths, but i'm pretty sure that my parents could fit most of that, i'm pretty sure that Buzzfloyd could fit most of that. i'm pretty sure that ANY level headed, well read, intelligent person who has faith in god could fit most of that. and most of them would feel nothing but amusement, or possibly pity, when confronted by a creationist point of view. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Electric Man said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] Which is another point they made in the science of discworld books: It might all change tomorrow. Atoms were once thought to be like currant buns, all the protons, electrons and neutrons in one big ball (they knew the electrons were smaller, so they were the currants). Then they did experiments that proved the atom was mostly space with a heavy nucleus - so the solar system was born. Now they've found other experiments that's proved it different (can't remember exactly at the mo). After a few more experiments, it could easily be replaced by some other model. Maybe they'll find atoms actually are composed like lasagne. We just don't know what is going to be discovered that could turn it all on it's head. That is why evolution is only a theory. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] which is why ANYTHING is only a theory.[/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Roman said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] [color=darkblue:1bb008b8f5]That was one of the things I was contesting, that ID and Creationism are two different things. [/color:1bb008b8f5] No, you weren't. You were contesting that as Creationism uses ID for bad purposes, then all mention of ID should be omitted. It's like Tephlon's argument, really. You were ignoring the original meaning, and replacing it with that of a radical group that *perverted* the meaning. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Tephlon said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] Correction, up to that point I was unaware of the fact that were discussing the differences between original meaning and the perverted meaning. Basically we've wasted several pages on the fact that we agree. I stil think that *most* people will equate ID with creationism. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Garner said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] possibly, if not probably. and *most* people will equate 'theory' with 'hypothesis', but that doesn't make it right. we're bright people. roman may do a good job of confusing that point from time to time, but we're bright people. some people aren't so blessed. they believe that pro-wrestling is real. they believe that rush limbaugh is always factual because he uses statistics (note for foreigners: limbaugh is a fatarseyed radio and tv show host who espouses vitrolic anti-liberal, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigrant and often anti-minority politics backed up with admitedly falsified statistics because his show is provided for 'entertainment, rather than educational purposes' a couple of years ago he was exposed to have an addiction to perscription painkillers that he'd been obtaining illegally, and resumed broadcasting normally once he got out of rehab despite years of protesting that drug addicts should never be given any sympathy or compassion or anything). They believe that the end of the world will be a good thing, and that the government is controlled by UFOs. they're people, they're fellow human beings and deserve every bit of love, compassion, legal equality and protection, and opportunity for self improvement that the rest of us do, but they also deserve a bit of pitty because they'll always be afraid of what they don't understand, and they don't understand intelligence. they understand that they HAVE to birth a red heffer so the third temple can get started. they HAVE to bring jesus back, never mind that their own theology says this will end the world. they HAVE to make sure that their boy's got a starting position on the football team and that his team beats the stuffin' out of the other team. they have small lives, petty lives, and think that an SUV is a better choice than riding the bus. pitty them. but realize that without them, no one would clean our toilets for us. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Roman said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] Indeed we have, Tephlon, indeed we have. Emotional issues played a *bad* part in this. As for 'most people', that still doesn't work. The US, even if most people there equate ID with Creationism, is not the whole population of the world. And Tephlon... the majority can be wrong. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] definitely agree with most of that. that the philosophy of intelligent design and creationism are two different things should not even be contestible; that they apparently are betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the positions adopted by people other than those insisting they are the same thing. anti-capitalist is not the same as anti-globalisation or environmental - yet, since large groups of people adopt all three as labels, many see them as a homogenous whole. that doesn't make them so. false perception does not change reality. if I only ever see purple, that doesn't mean blue and red don't exist. ----------- haven't seen any later emails yet, so I apologise if this is a point someone's already made. never mind what you feel, intelligent design and creationism are two separate theories (one philosophical and one 'scientific'), and ID is certainly *not* a new name for creationism. the initial concepts of the philosophy of intelligent design began with the ancient greeks, several hundred years BC, I believe. there are plenty of people who combine ID and creationism in their world view, but that *doesn't* mean they are the same thing. I could combine buddhism and hindu in my world view, but that doesn't make them the same thing, no matter what similarities they may have. evolutionary theory is a theory (thanks, damien, for the definitions). it is not almost a fact. there are plenty of facts giving credibility to evolutionary theory, but that doesn't change its being a theory. if people use the word in a different way, dismissing it as 'just a theory', then they are being thoughtless and emotionally biased in the way they use language. that doesn't mean we have to be. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Electric Man said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] I was never taught anything that said 'this is creationism', but in RE we were told that the Bible says that God built the earth in seven days, so I guess that's creationism without the title. (as a side-note, one teacher told us not to take each day as a literal day, one day could've actually been some arbitrary longer time - which neatly allows the earth to be much older than the 6000 years quoted) As far as I recall, Intelligent Design even without the name never cropped up. Evolution did, but in science lessons. [/quote:1bb008b8f5] [b:1bb008b8f5]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:1bb008b8f5] [quote:1bb008b8f5] there's where the issue gets confused. to the scientific community, 'creationism' is solely the pseudoscience pertaining to the origins of the world and evolution of species. by rights, that's what it ought to be, since that's the movement the name was coined for (as far as I know). however, there are shityloads of christians (and probably those of other faiths too) who call themselves creationists without really knowing what that means, because they believe god created the world. many of them call themselves creationists but, if asked, will say they believe in evolution and have no trouble reconciling their beliefs. also, the majority of christians in europe do not take the creation story literally by any means. it saddens me when people are taught "all christians believe this" without the qualifier "but most of them have brains and are able to recognise a story about religion for what it is and reconcile it with scientific theories about the world". as far as measurements go in the old testament, many people simply ignore them or try to work out comparitives. (so the bible says he lived to about 990 years old? so what were they calling a year?) many people don't recall being taught intelligent design because it's covered so briefly when they're 11 years old and couldn't care less, but I'm pretty sure it's in the syllabus for some of the most common secondary ed RE courses. it tends to get treated as "and some people think you can tell the world was created by god because it works so well. imagine an eye and a camera. write about the similarities and differences. this man wrote this pithy quote about thumbs. we call this intelligent design" and ten minutes later you've moved on to the interesting stuff. with luck, you'll get to make cool posters about different cultures' creation myths, and that means two whole lessons of drawing and colouring in! --------- "lots of people do it, but that doesn't make it right." this should be a principle etched on the heart and mind of any thinking person with even the most limited understanding of ethics. lots of people murder, but that doesn't make it right. lots of people rape, but that doesn't make it right. lots of people spank their children so hard they leave bruises and emotional damage that will stay with them forever, but that doesn't make it right. lots of people drink-drive, but that doesn't make it right. lots of people steal stationery from the office, but that doesn't make it right (you didn't see me do it, and you can't prove anything). lots of people support the continuation of unfair trade and penal market policies on the poorest of countries, but that doesn't make it right. lots of people think it's ok to call a white man a racist but ignore racism in a black man, but that doesn't make it right. and so on and so on. lots of people think it's acceptable to lie to children, teach them bad science in school and indoctrinate them with the beliefs they hold dear, but that doesn't make it right. it happened to me, and I was lucky enough to be one of the bright ones with parents who taught me to trust my own intelligence. it doesn't matter if you think you're a goodie or a baddie, and it doesn't matter if the majority thinks you're a goodie or a baddie. if you do something wrong, then it's wrong, even if you do it for the furtherance of a good cause. weighing up the odds, you might think it was worth it - but it was still wrong. yes, even if you happen to be a small, green alien with big ears who talks in a funny way and sounds like miss piggy. [/quote:1bb008b8f5]
[b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] Okay, okay, I am pwned... ...but I'd like to put two things on the table. One, can anyone tell me why is everything arriving out of order? Two, an extract from TSOD III [color=darkblue:b819ca4e1b] Chapter 2 Paley's Watch Pages 15-17 quote: Religions, cults, and pseudoscientific movements have a different agenda from science. Science, at its best, keeps lines of enquiry open. It is always seeking new ways to test old theories, even when they seem well established. It doesn't just look at the geology of the Grand Canyon and settle on the belief that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old, or older. It cross-checks by taking new discoveries into account. After radioactivity was discovered, it became possible to obtain more accurate dates for geological events, and to compare those with the apparent record of sedimentation in the rocks. Many dates were then revised. When continental drift came in from left field, entirely new ways to find those dates arrived, and were quickly used. More dates when then revised. Scientists-collectively-want to find their mistakes, so that they get rid of them. Religions, cults, and pseudoscientific movements want to close down lines of enquiry. They want their followers to stop asking questions and accept the belief system. The difference is glaring. Suppose, for instance, that scientists became convinced that there was something worth taking seriously in the theories of Erich von Daniken, that ancient ruins and structures must have been the work of visiting aliens. They would then start asking questions. Where did the aliens come from? Why did they come here? Do ancient inscriptions suggest one kind of alien or many? What is the pattern to these visitations? Whereas believers in von Daniken's theories are satisfied with generic aliens, and ask no more. Aliens explain the ruins and structures-that's cracked it, problem solved. Similarly, to early proponents of divine design and their modern reincarnations creationism and 'intelligent design', the latest quasi-religious fad, once we know that living creatures were created (either by God, an alien, or an unspecified intelligent designer) then the problem is solved and we need to look no further. We are not encouraged to look for evidence that might disprove our beliefs. Just things that confirm them. Accept what we tell you, don't ask questions. Ah, yes, but science discourages questions too, say the cults and religions. You don't take our views seriously, you don't allow that sort of question. You try to stop us putting our ideas into school science lessons as alternatives to your world view. To some extent, that's true-especially the bit about science lessons. But they are science lessons, so they should be teaching science. Whereas the claims of the cults and the creationists, and the closet theists who espouse intelligent design, are not science. Creationism is simply a theistic belief system and offers no credible scientific evidence whatsoever for its beliefs. Evidence for alien visitations is weak, incoherent, and most of it is readily explained by entirely ordinary aspects of ancient human culture. Intelligent design claims evidence for its views, but those claims fall apart under even casual scientific scrutiny, as documented in the 2004 books Why Intelligent Design Fails, edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis, and Debating Design, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. And when people (none of the above, we hasten to point out) claim that the Grand Canyon is evidence for Noah's flood-a notorious recent incident- it's not terribly hard to prove them wrong. The principle of free speech implies that these views should not be suppressed, but it does not imply that they should be imported into science lessons, any more than scientific alternatives to God should be imported into the vicar's Sunday sermon. If you want to get your world view into the science lesson, you've got to establish its scientific credentials. But because cults, religions and alternative belief systems stop people asking awkward questions, there's no way they can ever get that kind of evidence. It's not only chance that is blind. Chapter 2 Paley's Watch Pages 20-22 quote: Even today there are diehards-not a majority, despite the noise they make, but a significant minority- who deny that evolution has ever occurred. Most of them are American, because of a quirk of history (coupled with some idiosyncratic tax laws) has made evolution into a major educational issue in the United States. There, the battle between Darwin's followers and his opponent's is not just about the intellectual high ground. It is about dollars and cents, and it is about who influences the hearts and minds of the next generation. The struggle masquerades as a religious and a scientific one, but its essence is political. In the 1920s four American states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee) made it illegal to teach children about evolution in public schools. This law remained in place for nearly half a century: it was finally banned by the Supreme Court in 1968. This has not stopped advocates of 'creation science' from trying to find ways round that decision, or even to get it reversed. Largely, however, they have failed, and one reason is that creation 'science' is not science; it lack intellectual rigour, it fails objective tests, and at times it is plain nutty. It is possible to maintain that God created the earth, and no one can prove you wrong. In that sense it is a defensible thing to believe. Scientists may feel that this 'explanation' doesn't really help us understand anything, but that's their problem; for all anyone can prove, it could have happened that way. But it is not sensible to follow the Anglo-Irish prelate James Ussher's biblical chronology and maintain that the act of creation happened in 4004 BC, because there is overwhelming evidence that our planet is far older than that-4.5 billion years rather than 6000. Either God is deliberately trying to mislead us (which is conceivable, but does not fit well with the usual religious messages, and may well be heretical) or we are standing on a very old lump of rock. Allegedly, 50 per cent of Americans believe that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, which if true says something rather sad about the most expensive education system in the world. America is fighting, all over again, a battle that was fought to a finish in Europe a century ago. The European outcome was a compromise. Pope Pius XII did accept the truth of evolution in an encyclical of 1950, but that wasn't a total victory for science*. In 1981 a successor, John Paul II, gently pointed out that "The Bible …does not wish to teach how the heavens were made, but how one goes to heaven'. Science was vindicated, in that the theory of evolution was generally accepted, but religious people were free to interpret that process as God's way of making living creatures. And it's a very good way, as Darwin realized, so everyone can be happy and stop arguing. Creationists, in contrast, seem not to have appreciated that if they pin their religious beliefs to a 6000-year-old planet, they are doing themselves no favours and leaving themselves no real way out. *According to Isaac Asimov, the most practical and dramatic victory of science over religion occurred in the seventeenth century, when churches began to put up lightning conductors. Chapter Four Paley Ontology Pages 48-49 quote: There are several excellent books that debate intelligent design: we've mentioned two earlier in a footnote. It's fair to say that the antis are winning the debate hands down-even in the books edited by the pros, such as Debating Design. Perhaps the biggest problem for the pros is that Behe's fundamental concept of 'irreducible complexity' has fatal flaws. With his definition. The deduction that an irreducibly complex system cannot evolve is valid only if evolution consists of adding new parts. If that were the case, then the logic is clear. Suppose we have an irreducibly complex system, and suppose there is an evolutionary route leading to it. Focus on the final step, where the last part is added. The whatever came before must have been a failure, so it couldn't have existed. This is absurd: end of story. However, evolution need not merely add identifiable components, like a factory-worker assembling a machine. It can also remove them- like a builder using scaffolding and then taking it down once it's done its job. Or the entire structure can evolve in parallel. Either possibility allows an irreducibly complex system to evolve, because the next to last step no longer has to start from a system that lacks that final, vital piece. Instead, is can start from a system with an extra piece, and remove it. Or add two vital pieces simultaneously. Nothing in Behe's definition of irreducible complexity prohibits either of these. Moreover, 'fail' is a slippery concept: a watch that lacks hands is a failure at telling the time, but you can still use it to detonate a time-bomb, or hang it on a string to make a plumb-line. Organs and biochemical systems often change their functions as they evolve, as we've seen in the context of the eye. No satisfactory definition of 'irreducible complexity'-one that really does constitute a barrier to evolution- has yet been suggested. According to Kenneth Miller in Debating Design: 'the great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of the anti-evolutionist movement is the fact that research has demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed'. Removing parts from the flagellum do not cause it to 'fail'. The base of the bacterial motor is remarkably similar to a system that bacteria use to attack other bacteria, the 'type III secretory system'. So here we have the basis of an entirely sensible and plausible evolutionary route to the flagellum, in which protein components do get added on. When you remove them again, you don't get a working flagellum-but you do get a working secretory system. The bacterial method of propulsion may well have evolved from an attack mechanism. To their credit, proponents of intelligent design are encouraging this kind of debate, but they have not conceded defeat, even though their entire programme rests on shaky foundations and is collapsing in ruins. Creationists, desperate to snatch at any straw of scientific respectability for their political programme to lever religion into the American state school system*, have not yet noticed that what they are currently taking as scientific support is falling apart at the seams. The theory of intelligent design itself is not overtly theist-indeed its proponents try very hard not to draw religious conclusions. They want the scientific arguments to be considered as science. Of course that's not going to happen, because the theist implications are a little too obvious-even to atheists. *They themselves refer to this programme as the 'wedge strategy'. [/color:b819ca4e1b] [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Garner said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] 1) lag 2) you had a valid point, it was just in the wrong conversation is all. now thank Buzzfloyd and i for your spankings. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]And I agree, you had a valid point, you just had it in the wrong conversation. -------- [color=darkblue:b819ca4e1b]Similarly, to early proponents of divine design and their modern reincarnations creationism and 'intelligent design', the latest quasi-religious fad, once we know that living creatures were created (either by God, an alien, or an unspecified intelligent designer) then the problem is solved and we need to look no further. We are not encouraged to look for evidence that might disprove our beliefs. Just things that confirm them. Accept what we tell you, don't ask questions. [/color:b819ca4e1b] Wha'? And then in several other places in the part you quoted, they sort of take some parts of what they just said back, but *very* grudgingly... I know that from a scientific point of view, Intelligent Design theory is not a valid theory, and I agree that it's more philosophy or possibly science fiction than anything else, but this one part equates Intelligent Design with Creationism. And the few respectable Cohen and Company have to say about Intelligent Design are very far away from the main nastiness, so as to not be noticed all to well. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]thanks for the extract, it was interesting (although it pertained to a completely different debate, as clay said). it saddens me that, as with pretty much all scientific writing I've come across, there is a distinct anti-religious bias in this piece, even though they have done their best to tone it down. religion does not attempt to stifle questioning. if it did, not only would there be no room for scientists or scientific understanding in religion, but we would not have philosophy or theology. I find it staggering that anyone would suggest there is no room for questioning in religion when we have thousands of years' worth of doubt and debate before us to contest this claim. tell aristotle or plato there's no room for questioning. tell thomas aquinas. tell sartre or descartes. tell kant. tell wittgenstein. the ignorance and the arrogance saddens me but does not surprise me. areas of theology and areas of philosophy take certain religious ideas as given, just as certain scientific hypotheses will take certain scientific ideas as given. ("given that there is a god...", "given that einstein's theory of relativity works...") but you will find these very assumptions questioned in other areas of their respective fields. ("is there a god, and how can we test or prove this?" "does quantum theory contradict or disprove the theory of relativity, and how can we test or prove this?") some religions, or denominations of religions, such as my own, actively encourage questioning and rigorous thought. it is an insult to hundreds of generations of theologists and philosophers to suggest that this is not the case. if stewart and jackson are going to comment on areas outside of their expertise, they need to get out of their field a bit more and start opening their eyes and minds. also, something that regularly p*sses me off: the pope is not representative of all christians, no matter what he tells you! there are central tenets of the catholic church that are directly contrary to the beliefs of all other christians in the world. to take the pope as representative of the whole is misguided and misleading. it may have taken the catholics until 1981 to say it was ok to believe in evolution, but there were plenty of others who'd accepted it long before then. also, I'd like to point out that they differentiate between creationism and the philosophy of intelligent design in this extract. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] The point of quoting TSOD III was why I am insisting ID=Creationism. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]not sure who you're replying to here, but they make it clear in that excerpt that they are two different things, and that's even when talking about creationism alongside the intelligent design movement as opposed to the philosophy.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Tephlon said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] I haven't yet read TSOD 3, but I did read a WIRED article about the same thing. They stated that ID was the new guise of Creationism. (I will try and dig up the article in question)[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] the *name* maybe. :sigh: islam may be the new guise of terrorism, but that doesn't mean islam was invented by terrorists, has become one with terrorism or has no identity aside from terrorism. you can use something as a guise, perverting it to your own ends without, I hope, totally usurping its nature and meaning. if it is a *guise* for what you really are (in this case, a creationist) then that thing itself, by definition, is not what you really are. it means you're pretending. I'm pretending to be a proponent of intelligent design but really I'm a creationist. how could you pretend if they were already the same? some people may, of course, really be both. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] Not quite, Buzzfloyd. They specifically don't make it clear at first, and then they say the few good things they have on the theory in the very end. Until then their resentment for one is mixed with their resentment to the other, which leads to major confusion.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] that's true, although I think it's still clear enough if one is reading without the blinkers of self-righteousness to see that the two are evidently different groups. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Tephlon said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]I know, Buzzfloyd. *sigh* I'm just explaining where I got the idea that ID = Creationism. Article in question: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]True, but this article is *not* what one should read if one is not familiar with either one, for example. That, or being only familiar with the movement, which is very likely with the press coverage it gets. Saccharissa, were you familiar with either the theory or the movement before you read the book? [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]Yes. I have debated heavily on this in the past. I even translated an article in a greek science magazine into english http://tinyurl.com/8hgft http://tinyurl.com/c9gnp http://tinyurl.com/cm8wb http://tinyurl.com/exy9t The last link is the translation of the article [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]Then you already had a set opinion on the matter when you came to SOD III. The bias they had when they wrote that bit wasn't improving matters.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]No, it means I have been knowing both sides of the debate for more than two years and I know where and why I stand.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] As I said, a set opinion on the matter before you even reached SOD III. Your opinion was already defined and justified, as far as you were concerned. A set opinion doesn't mean an unjustified one.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]Tell that to the Discovery Institute, they think ID and Creationism is the same thing and who am I to argue.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]Well, *you* have some advantages they sadly lack. You know how to use your external-stimuli developed, deity-given, or both-given brain. Start talking bollocks like you did again and I may have to reconsider that statement, though. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Garner said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]you're a militant bitchu who doesn't take crap or sloppy thinking in anyone else, disappointed most of us by displaying it yourself for the past 48 hours, but then reminded us of why we love you by being able to admit your mistake. now, go unto the discovery institute and help them discover a boot up the assy. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]And were *you* familiar with either movement or theory before reading this text, Tephlon?[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Tephlon said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]Movement. Vaguely.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]Then you confusing the terms was only to be expected.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Tephlon said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]gosh, thanks.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]On the other hand, doing some of your own research when you see people discuss something you're unfamiliar with is a good idea. Also, noting that everyone said they're two seperate things is a must. Being snipy won't change the facts. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Tephlon said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]I felt I had enough information when I stepped into the discussion. I had read the original discussions on the old boards and the Article I just linked. I also read most of the e-mail is the discussion. Getting those e-mails out of order didn't help. I apologize for the Snipeyness. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]No problem, and yeah, the bad order of emails didn't improve matters. I think gmail still needs to do some major work on their group mailing protocol. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Garner said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]people always feel they've enough information until they learn something new on the subject and realize they didn't know it all already. the first step to wisdom is admitting you have a problem. that, or realizing how little you know... i can never remember which. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]I looked over the thread in the old board and found the link you posted about Hawking as a cyborg It still makes me laugh [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Tephlon said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]That was one of my early posts, I think. I posted it to show the quality of the site that was boasting the evidence of a footprint crushing a trilobyte, if I remember correctly.. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]If someone finds a way to transfer a human brain into an artificial body, that man will be the first to sign up, in may opinion. And he already *is* a cyborg. ;-) [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]It was a fossil of a sandal. With a heel. Supposedly dating back to Noah's flood. When sandals didn't even have heels. And in spite of the fact that Noah landed on Ararat right after the flood. Gawd, what a moron Danfel was. Every time we pwned him, he told us we should argue from his side, take a look at both sides of a debate. And his idea of an argument was "the world looks like 6000 years old to me" [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Redneck said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]Ok, now that it has been thoroughly, plainly, completely established that Creationism is NOT a science, I was wondering about it from a religious or scientific standpoint. I noticed that it was referred to as bad science, bad something, and bad religion several times. I spent years as a Procreationist (that's a fun word to misunderstand). I found that ID and Creationistic ideology were very well suited for Christianity. I was just wondering how they would not be good from a religious standpoint. I've seen it from a protestant/evangelical point of view, but what about others? [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Garner said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]did ANYONE read what I said about Intelligent Design being pretty much a component of any religion with a creation myth? i mean, i realize that i mostly just stand here and shout to myself, but you guys can hear each other, so i assume you can hear me too. maybe i should just stab you all the the genitals with broken glass instead of trying to make intelligent contributions anymore. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]we all get ignored at times, clay, and a lot of your points were addressed. it's true that the philosophy of intelligent design is an inherent part of any religion with a creation myth. the movement is a completely different thing. that's one of the reasons it's so important to distinguish between them. Saccharissa, you're a christian, aren't you? if you believe in a god who is responsible for the world coming into being, then it's extremely unlikely that you don't believe in intelligent design.[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Roman said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b] Judaism has no problem whatsoever with ID. Creationism, on the other hand, imposes a very particular and literal interpetaion on both the creation of the world and of how it operates, and closes off any other possibility. Judaism is not a religion as much as it is an argument. Keeping an open mind is a must. -------- I read it, too. I agree. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]I think it was Saccharissa who said bad religion? if so, she can hopefully give us the point of view of greek orthodoxy (sorry if that's already happened and I haven't seen it yet). I think creationism fits in nicely with the kind of christianity that takes a literal understanding of the bible - but for all other kinds, it's pointless to accept bad science for the sake of belief if it doesn't match what you believe anyway. does that make sense? the main thing I would say is that I believe god's revelation is expressed through the whole universe, including through the discoveries of our enquiring minds (the minds he gave us or allowed us to develop, you might say). if we choose to ignore that revelation, and pick and choose only the bits that suit us, we are ignoring and second-guessing god and his revelation. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Saccharissa said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]I said it was bad religion. I have to go through a lot of jumbled email threads and I did a lot of prescription writing this morning, plus, I have lunch to cook so i cannot elaborate much The gist is that I said Intelligent Design and Creationism, as pushed forth by the Discovery Institute crowd, are doing religion a lot of harm because what they do is cook the numbers in order to fit the literal interpretation of the Bible, pretent it is science and not religion, and then go "*nudgenudge* see? the Earth is 6000 years old" and personally I would have nothing to do with a religion that resorts to fraud. [/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]damny straight. what is your religion worth if you feel you have to tell lies to preserve it?[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Garner said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]course... not to lead a dead horse to water, but what is your science worth if you feel you have to tell lies to preserve it?[/quote:b819ca4e1b] [b:b819ca4e1b]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b819ca4e1b] [quote:b819ca4e1b]absolutely![/quote:b819ca4e1b][color=darkblue:b819ca4e1b][/color:b819ca4e1b]
Theory v fact Read Author Chalmers, A. F. (Alan Francis), 1939- Title What is this thing called science? / A.F. Chalmers Edition 3rd ed Published St Lucia, Qld. : University of Queensland Press, 1999 ISBN 0702230936 Then we should all reconvene with the existing knowledge of the basis for considering truth, fact and theory. Creationism and Evolution or 2 grand theories for the same thing but are at odds with each other. Under the premise of both the other can't possibly be true. These also coalesce to form paradigms: scientist have a paradigm that supports evolution, and creationsits have a paradigm to support the creationist theory... Never the two shall meet until the paradigms change because until the paradigm in which the two groups see the world they are not going to see the value in the opposing grand theory's view of the world... And the reason there is such a strong reaction against creationists is that most of the world who aren't bought up in heavily christian influenced schooling systems (ie most of the worlds population) actually have a very scientific paradigm of the way the world works rather than a religious paradigm... Oh I wish someone else would read Chalmers so what I'm saying would make more sense to you...
