Kansas Challenges Definition of Science 2759
nysus writes "Anti-evolutionists have made classrooms in Kansas a key battleground in America's culture war. Again. The New York Times reports they are proposing to change the definition of science in Kansas: 'instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."'" From the article: "In the first of three daylong hearings being referred to here as a direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator."
What Science Really is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Science: The overcomplication of human perception.
Effective Treatment: Unknown
Suggested reading: Carlos Castaneda [wikipedia.org], because he's a total nut!
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Funny)
56??? Geez grandpa, instead of debating the meaning of science, why don't you just tell us whether Evolution or Creationism is the right answer, you must have been around back then.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Interesting)
I posted separately as well, but I feel strongly enough to do so again...The loophole is in
the "logical argument" part of the definition.
The way it is worded, it doesn't explicitly state that you have to do all these things for it to be science. Someone could [as ID proponents do] take existing "pure" scienctific research, use it to posit that there is order to the universe and use inductive reasoning [logical argument] to "prove" that a supreme being exists.
This will move science into the realm of philosophy, and IMO, muddle the heads of schoolchildren in Kansas for years to come.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude from the pro-evolution side so far has been "we don't want to discuss it, and we can't believe you want to hold a debate about it"
There is a reason that scientists take that stance, it's because there is overwhelming evidence all around us that evolution happens and that it is one of the dominant forces in nature. Go read Darwin, Dawkins, or any of the other brilliant men who have described evolution and debunked the various attempts to claim that it is somehow inadequate to explain our universe.
It is a shame that so many people want to belittle the wonder of the universe. Though I am an athiest, I don't see how an understanding and acknowledgement of evolution in any way conflicts with the idea that there is some supreme being. All it does is call into question the Bible as a historically accurate document that carries the authority of God.
This kind of foolishness is not harmless. It teaches our children to accept things, not on the basis of their own critical thinking, but simply on the word of someone in authority. Theocracies and Kingdoms work well when people never question, just obey. Democracies don't. If we want a good government that works for all of us, instead of just those who have power and money, we have to constantly question the motives of those we have put in positions of authority.
The first place to start, as George Orwell would tell you, is by questioning people who want to change the definition of words in the language for political purposes. (I recommend the novel 1984 by George Orwell, to anyone who doesn't understand that comment.)
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is notable about creation "scientists" is that they never seem to accomplish anything of note in biology. Hardly any of them have publications in major scientific peer-reviewed journals. None have won any of the major scientific awards. While scientists who use evolution as a research tool are making discoveries not merely in evolution, but in fields as far afield as biochemistry, genetics, pharmacology, and molecular biology, creation "scientists" don't seem to do anything but creation science. The ultimate test of a theory is how useful it is in providing a basis for discovery. Many scientists don't even care about evolutionary issues per se, any more than they care about number theory. They use evolutionary theory for the same reason that they use mathematics--because their experience has shown them that it is an indispensable tool in their own area of study.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Old
"seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us,"
"Seeking explanations" says nothing about how probably or sensible they have to be, or how you go about the seeking. "I threw yarrow stalks ito the air, and they indicated the universe was sneezed into being by the Great Green Arkleseizure" is covered under this definition. Hey, I'm seeking, and "natural" is a terribly wishy-washy cop-out word.
New
"continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena"
This more or less explicitely lays out the Scientific Method (thus neatly ruling out faith-based beliefs). Note also that it specifies "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building..." - to my mind, this means that any approach which excludes one of more of these isn't Science. Were this not the case, it would be "... logical argument or theory building".
In addition, the new definition of science contains the word "hypothesis". To be a hypothesis an idea must be falsifiable - otherwise it's "just" a theory.
Creationism and Intelligent design moves ultimate responsibility for the creation of the universe completely outside of human ken, and as such is impossible to falsify (just like you can't prove the door behind you exists without directly or indirectly observing it. Given this, ID or creationism can't ever advance hypotheses, and so are unavoidably excluded from "Science", by this definition.
Of course, this definition will doubtless be abused by creationist fuckwits who don't understand the precise meaning of "hypothesis", but for anyone who properly understands the language they're speaking, it's pretty cut-and-dried, no?
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Being a liberal, non-Christian Oklahoman I must agree, for the most part. However, we need to remember that even in "ignorant societies" there are many exceptions. Also, just because most people who are "ignorant" believe in Jesus, we shouldn't dismiss Jesus as a valid spiritual figure altogether (atheists and agnostics, just ignore this, because I'm not trying to convince you, only those who have spiritual inklings but have been put off of Christianity by the ridiculous fundamentalism and dogma that it has come to represent).
Here's a book [amazon.com] that will radically change your view of Jesus and his teachings, and will be a welcome relief for the many disillusioned Christians out there. Disclaimer: the author is my father.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible is just a book and it was written by human beings. It was written by people capable of making mistakes. It was written by people who may have witnessed events that they were incapable of comprehending. It was changed over time and translated. In other words- the Bible should be treated as a guide and not as the word of God because it isn't (maybe it was a long time ago but it isn't today).
Another thing that really ticks me off is that these people claim that the universe was created by an all powerful omniscient being- and then they claim to know what he/she/it is thinking. The arrogance is mind boggling. Folks- stop it. God wouldn't like- trust me I know what he is thinking
-sirket (an agnostic atheist)
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no problem with the majority of Christians in this country. The majority of them are nice folks, and while they beleive some things I think are kooky, they're not too pushy about it.
The problem is with the vocal minority of Christians who think they speak for a lot more people than they do, just because they call themselves Christian.
Quick test for whether they are the problematic kind: Do they insist on refering to themselves only as "Christian" even in contexts where refering to a particular denomination would make more sense? To pick a random example, Lutherans generally have no problem with the fact that what they beleive is slightly different that what Presbyterians (sp?) beleive, even though they are both Christian. Watch out for the ones who know that there own beleifs are the true Christianity.
Anyway, the problem with the problematic kind is the same as the problem with all religious extremists. It's the arrogance. They beleive whatever they want to, but they refuse to admit that. Rather they posit that what they beleive is not what they wish, but what GOD wishes. If they just thought I disagreed with them, that would be one thing. But if I disagree with GOD, that's a different matter! No point in considering what I have to say in that case, heck it would probably be wrong to even listen. And the actions that might be justifiable in forcing ones own opinion on others are rather limited; at least compared to what's reasonable when enacting the will of GOD.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Old Testament, in a few parts, maybe. Moses got the ten commandments directly from God. The [hi]story of that event, along with the words from those commandments, then got passed down by the Jews as the book of Exodus. God didn't write the book, it's not his direct words. His words may be quoted in parts but most of it is just the Jews retelling the [hi]stories of the events.
The book of Psalms isn't even that. It's basically songs made up by various religious folk in honor of their God.
So, for the Old Testament, the Jews themselves see it as true stories about people's interactions with God. As far as I'm aware, no one seriously claims God sat there and directed it to be written, word for word, according to his wishes - they're the words of individuals used to describe the [hi]stories of those who did interact with God.
It seems kind of ironic that [some - you don't get to speak for all] Christians would take a book that even those who wrote it don't claim is the direct word of God (simply a recounting of the interactions with God) and then somehow, magically, make it become God's word after the event. That, to me, sounds a lot like narrow minded people trying to make something up to self-justify. And that's not what true Christianity's supposed to be about.
OK, on to the New Testament. A series of gospels written by the people who experienced God's son. Again, they're [hi]stories written by people who were there (if you disregard the evidence that suggests they were retold orally for about three hundred years before actually getting written down) and not the direct word of God.
So, as we have people writing accounts, not God directly writing through them, quite where do they become the direct word of God anymore than a blogger recounting an audience with the Pope is writting the direct word of the Pope? We'd laugh at the blogger making such claims, yet somehow it's OK to make them about the bible?
Then there's the fairly strong evidence that suggests the gospels were fairly selectively edited around 300 A.D. to suit political will at the time. So even if they were God's word, they likely stopped being a direct version at that point anyway.
And all of this is before the translations and retranslations that have happened for the last fifteen hundred years or so. Each and every one of those translations shows the bias of the author. I've got an old bible that belonged to my great grandmother that says, "And I shall call you wo-man because you come from man and you are here to serve man" Strangely that passage isn't in most versions - it's something that got interpretted in as it was translated.
So... Even if you believe the stories the bible is about were real events and not allegories that, over time, people came to believe to be real events... You're taking a book which the original authors never claimed to be the direct word of God and then choosing to believe it is in order to justify, in many cases, petty prejudices that some tiny justification can be found for by interpretting and interpretation of an interpretation in one way.
If you can understand where someone is coming from, maybe we can get past the hate and learn to agree to disagree.
I completely agree. Unfortunately, those who do rabidly believe the bible is the direct word of God use their own belief (which most others don't share) to attempt to justify why their beliefs should become laws, be taught to children etc. Unfortunately, those people have a tendency to then believe, "Well, as [my chosen interpretation] is the direct word of God, it can't be argued. Thus I'm right, you're wrong, there can be no debate." That creates just as big a problem.
When the bible is used to justify people being healthy members of society, doing good etc., I'm all for stepping back and letting them believe it just as thoroughly as they want.
When the bib
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Buddha's philosophy does not see treating other people kindly "in a negative light". Buddha would not condone seeing this in a "negative" or a "positive" light. Buddhism would not condone doing kind deeds while thinking in terms of a "negative" or "positive" light. Let me explain: Buddhism is concerned with seeing things *as they are* and seeing how the mind creates our many "life's problems"--i.e. to see how humanity's problems are not metaphysical (some ancient curse from some supernatural being because of eating some ancient fruit, etc.) but personal (are you being greedy? impatient? ignorant? letting desire overcome you? etc.). With this comes the realization that we are, despite all our differences, the same. We were all born young and innocent, and have a core that remains so despite the experiences and struggles of later years. Compassion arises naturally then, for you see the same person in every stranger as well as in the mirror. Everyone is close to you like a family.
Christianity was like this once. That is probably why they tried to preserve it by using family titles: "Father" John, "Sister" Mary, "Brother" Joe. Unfortunately, the introduction of a god into all of this puts one thing above everything else in status: an unknowable being. That is all right, because younger or "weaker" people need something to hold onto before they can start making realizations and spiritually maturing on their own. The trouble is, what was a tool along the way became a fixation. Now you don't do good because you FEEL compassion for all sentient beings, but because if you don't some powerful being will punish you and make you suffer eternally.
Note: I am only 25, and this is merely what I've learned and realized so far. I'm still maturing and growing spiritually, and know there are literally millions of you
If you want to learn more, I would recommend "365 Tao" by Deng Ming-Dao. Don't worry, Taoism and Buddhism are, ultimately, the same thing: mere names and aspects for the same universal truth (barring cults and perversions... they pervade the world).
I'd talk about Confucius too (he was greatly misunderstood to be a strict disciplinarian who emphasized conventions, which is too bad), but I'm late for my tutorial! This is especially bad, since I am the TA!
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time you microwave something, or wear clothing with synthetic fibers, or use TV or radio, ask yourself: "Would a slavish devotion to the literal interpretation of the bible have eventually resulted in the creation of the products I'm using? If anyone with new/different/progressive ideas and ideals were burned at the stake, would society grow and improve?" Then consider the answer you give yourself in light of the fact that fundamentalists posit that the ONLY valid point of view is the one that elevates the allegorical parable of the bible to absolutely infallible fact, and any/all other views as worthy of persecution and destruction.
If religion were allowed to run wild we'd be a world of zealots disconnected from our physical reality. At least when science has no agenda other than discovery of truth. Whereas religion *should* be about the discovery of truth but instead has devolved into an organization bent on the dissemination of faith, over and above the meaning or truth of the object of that faith. It's ceased to be about the truth and has come to be about group think and suppression of dissent. The church(es) have placed the wielding of political influence over and above the spiritual well being of their believers, and over and above the total well being of humanity as a whole.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Round about 1200, Arab civilization was leading Europe in practically *every* category of art and science.
Then, for various reasons, Europe went through the Renaissance, where pre-Christian achievements were admired again, the Reformation, where the grip of the Catholic church over secular power was broken, and the Enlightenment, where rational inquiry was finally lifted above theology and scripture. The culmination for all of this was the devleopment of modern science, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.
The result of which is that you, sitting in Kansas, as the heir to all of this SECULAR ACHIEVEMENT, can type on a cheap computer and communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, in one of the richest countries on Earth, in the most prosperous society the world has ever known. In the achievement of which, religion sought to obstruct EVERY step along the way.
While, back in the Middle East, they've still got their dominant religion, and even got the chance in Iran and Afghanistan to have true rule by religious principles. The result of which is that the *entire* region http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/tab1_1
of the Middle East and North Africa, with 290 million people, has an economy about the size of SPAIN, with 39 million people.
Yeah, I'd say that secularism is a good thing.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you would, once again, be wrong. All interesting math involves unknowns and solving for them. X+Y=2 is most certainly math. Algebra to be specific.
You admit yourself that evolution could be dead wrong, yet we still want to base all our scientific research on it?
No, I don't admit it could be dead wrong. Evolution does happen. That's a fact. It's directly observable in a number of instances, such as when bacteria evolve resistence to novel anti-biotics. There is a lot to learn, and some particular details of our theories are almost certainly wrong, but there isn't any doubt about the basic nature of genetics.
Then ask what would be different in our research if base it on a creator?
It would be intentionally ignoring part of the problem. ID is logically equivalent to simply saying that we were put here by aliens and then refusing to study the origin of the aliens. Or are you proposing that we will engage in a scientific search for God? Attempt to observe and quantify his fundamental nature? Pray tell, how are the ID supporters doing in their scientific study of the nature of God?
The nature of the fundamentalist movement and the neo-cons is exploitation by the powerful of those who accept things on faith without evidence. You are being used for your votes because you can be easily suckered into believeing lies. Because you can be suckered into believing warmongers and capital punishment supporters believe in a "culture of life". Because you can be suckered into believing that claiming part of a scientific theory should be considered beyond investigation somehow makes that theory more scientific.
The fact that people like you have somehow convinced yourselves that you are doing the work of Jesus when you believe the lies of thieves and death-dealers disgusts me. How you believe that God is smiling upon a gluttunous rape of natural resources is beyond me. To believe that corporations (a creation of the State) somehow deserve rights and moral standing equivalent to human beings (a creation of your God, right?) is beyond me.
The parable YOU quoted is quite appropriate. For it is YOU who sees without seeing. You see the sprawl in Olathe. The paving over of nature. The destruction of God's work by man's work. And yet you smile on it. You don't truely see it. A pathetic sheep who believes what he is told no matter how unbelievable it is.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, I could say "All objects fall." I drop rocks, a computer, my girlfriend, and a 1982 Dodge Dart off of a cliff: they all fall.
Then I drop a duck, and it flies off. So I revise my guess: "All inert objects fall."
I drop pencils, a bow-tie, and a plate of lasagna off the cliff; they all fall. Then I try a bag full of helium; it doesn't fall. Oops, need a new theory...
This is how science progresses: make assumptions, assume that they're right until something shows otherwise, and then methodically try to prove them wrong. Some of our assumptions last a very long time, and we call those "laws": conservation of energy is a good example.
However, there's another unspoken law of science that's emerged: "All things have natural explanations." Whenever scientists encounter a new phenomenon, they assume that it has a natural explanation (i.e. one susceptible to analysis) and then go about finding it.
It turns out that every phenomenon we've looked at has a natural explanation. There are of course some things that don't have explanations yet, but those things that we do have explanations for are *all* natural.
People have said "It's ghosts!" about many things in nature, and the scientists have said "Huh. We don't know what causes this."
Then fifty years later we say "Oh, look, someone showed that it's an electrical discharge in the ionosphere!"
This has been repeated time and time again, and it's never been ghosts.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Funny)
Then I drop a duck, and it flies off. So I revise my guess: "All inert objects fall."
Your girlfriend is inert?
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Funny)
He doesn't actually have a girlfriend. This is theoretical physics.
Re:What Science Really is... (Score:5, Funny)
The rest of the educated world will carry on learning evolution and other current best scientific theories. Our society and culture will advance, our technology will progress and we and our children will prosper in an atmosphere of rationality and freedom.
Kansas will devolve into a state where new ideas are banned, technology regresses and anything that contradicts the "Big Beard In The Sky" theory is first repressed, then outlawed. The people will grow up stupid and ignorant, to raise even more stupid and ignorant kids. Eventually the vicious cycle will spiral on down, until the populace is exclusively composed of barely-intelligent hominids, eventually losing the powers of speech and fire.
At this point we'll stop recognising them as human, and we can hunt and kill them for food. Eventually Homo Kansasians will effectively die out in the wild, out-competed by more intellectual wild animals or hunted into extinction by Homo Sapiens. Oh, alright, some small bedraggled breeding colonies might survive in zoos, and may eventually be Uplifted to normal human cognition again, but as a wild species they'll be extinct.
Voilá. Evolution in action.
Bumper Sticker (Score:5, Funny)
Only Outlaws Will Evolve
"logical argument" (Score:5, Insightful)
this is properly called philosophy.
sum.zero
Re:"logical argument" (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the things I hate about a lot of sci-fi is that so many writers of the genre misunderstand the role of logic in science.
Spock was supposed to be this super scientist, but he really wasn't. Though he was the ship's "science officer" you almost never saw him testing or experimenting. Instead, you heard him pull out his catch phrase "it's the most logical explanation," to solve just about everything.
Sam Malone from Cheers was billed as a non-scientist, but you always saw him experimenting with new lines to pick up women. He constantly re-used lines that evidence showed actually worked.
Spock was smart, but not a scientist at all. Sam wasn't too bright and didn't realize he was using science, but he easily beats Spock in his intuitive understanding of scientific principles.
Logic can be very powerful and it's an extremely important part of science, but without the testing and experimenting it can be very conterproductive. Real scientists propose many brilliant, logical ideas every year that testing proves to be flat out wrong.
If misguided lawmakers actually manage to confuse logic and science in our law books, it will be a sad day indead for our country.
TW
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know much about evolution, do you? Before you dismiss the entire field you should study it little more.
For example, evolution nicely explains the following:
If you want to see evolution in action, read up on the evolution of the AIDS virus. Just be cause you can't understand it, it does not mean it is wrong.
You know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many years ago, a student in my 7th grade biology class asked specifically about creationism during our section on evolution. My biology teacher gave a very short, thoughtful, and diplomatic answer. His answer, after quite a long pause:
"Well, some might say that the Bible tells what God did, and science explains how he did it."
Now, looking back as an engineer and scientist by education, I have always found the simplicity of that statement compelling, and have never had any trouble reconciling whatever beliefs I have in notions that could be described as "supernatural" with scientific fact and sound scientific theory.
I think the problem you have is with the people who literally believe that a white-bearded man in a robe literally created the Universe and Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago, and then created the life to go on on it, and who discount valid science wholesale. Even though "creationists", and people who believe my last statement, may use "intelligent design" as a tool to further their agendas, that's not my interpretation of "intelligent design".
Personally, I rather liked Picard's response in "Where Silence Has Lease":
DATA:
I have a question, sir. What is death?
PICARD:
You've picked probably the most difficult of all questions, Data.
There is the beginning of a twinkle in Picard's eyes again. It is the sort of question that his mind loves.
Some explain it by inventing gods wearing their own form... and argue that the purpose of the entire universe is to maintain themselves in their present form in an Earth-like garden which will give them pleasure through all eternity. And at the other extreme, assuming that is an "extreme," are those who prefer the idea of our blinking into nothingness with all our experiences, hopes and dreams only an illusion.
DATA:
Which do you believe?
PICARD:
Considering the marvelous complexity of our universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that... matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension, pattern, I believe our existence must mean more than a meaningless illusion. I prefer to believe that my and your existence goes beyond Euclidian and other "practical" measuring systems... and that, in ways we cannot yet fathom, our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.
Really: what's wrong with seeing the Universe and the wonderful complexity of everything from the scale of galaxies to the scale of atoms - or smaller - and our very lives as something more than the sum of its parts?
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science.
It is perfectly acceptable for people to believe God uses evolution as a tool. But it is not science.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Interesting)
What really gets my goat is when creationists go after the Big Bang theory... The big bang theory was proposed by a Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre. He was an early expert on General Relativity who saw in the equations a way to find the moment of creation as described in Genesis.
Before the Big Bang theory, most astrophysicists thought the universe had no beginning... it just always was. But Lemaitre was able to prove there was a beginning to all of existence. Which was a profound result that should have been embraced by the so-called creationists.
AND, if you sit down and read Genesis it pretty closely matches the big bang theory... the universe starts out as pure light. What doesn't match Genesis is the current ideas on how planets form... Genesis says that the Earth formed first, and then the Sun, moon, and stars formed.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore: god exists
QED!
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to pose questions that don't make sense and can't be answered in any rational way, then yes that's what you would say. It's a meaningless question though - you may as well ask what comes after the end of time, or what lies beyond the bounds of the universe. Reducing down to the sort of paradox we're dealing with here: does the set of all sets that don't contain themselves contain itself?
If I say "Unicorns don't exist" I could, if I want to get trapped in the language game, dig myself a hole: by naming unicorns I'm referring to a concept with a name and that concept must then exist - that contradicts the rest of my statement that the thing I names doesn't exist. Either I can wallow in the internal contradictions, or I can admit that language has quirks and move on.
As best our understanding runs, time is not some independent quantity, it is part of spacetime, part of the universe. Time was created when the universe began. Asking what came before that is just a quirk of our language. How can anything come before the existence of time when the concept of "before" requires time to make sense?
You're just getting trapped in a language game, and rather than suggesting you simply don't want to play you're trying to answer a question that makes no sense.
Jedidiah.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, a nice example from bash.org:
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I can agree with that first part. We don't know. We can look at the evidence we have and see where it points us. Which immediately discounts 95% of the responses to this article thus far, because they all start out with the presupposition that they know exactly what happened, and proceed to ridicule those who espouse an alternative explanation.
The second... well, the two sentences have a disconnect. Religion isn't bad. In fact, a true religion has a lot in common with science - it's a continual proofing to make sure the belief holds. A follower of a religion should also be able to explain to others not only what they believe, but why they believe it - a study called "apologetics."
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion will continue to lose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a shame.
There are things that science will never be able to teach us, that desperately need to be taught. Things religion could, if it chose to stop wasting time arguing over whether speciation will occur given no outside (read: supernatural) influences.
Science will never present us with a peer-reviewed study proving once and for all that you should be good to your fellow man, and treat him like a brother. Particle accelerator runs will never hint that we all have it within us to put an end to petty bickering, violence, and even earth-shattering wars.
Will the next economic theory show once and for all, that there is so much more to be gained if every child went to bed without hunger? That great things could happen if we ignored greed and lived lives unblinded by mindless pursuit of wealth?
Every time a biblethumper gets pissy about "larnin' evomoluzhun in ar skools" they've missed their mark so completely, I don't know whether to chuckle or cry.
Re:Religion will continue to lose... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I really don't see any reason why not.
It's a simple enough experiment. Get three sufficiently large groups of people all equal in as many regards as possible.
Group 1 are all shitty to each other for a year.
Group 2 just behave like they do normally.
Group 3 are all nice to each other.
At the end of the year, see which group has been most productive, has the highest standards of living, has the happiest people, or whatever other yardstick you choose to measure by.
I realise your point wasn't this specifically, and more that there are things that science can't answer for, but if you think carefully you might be surprised at how little actually cannot be answered by science (mostly philosophical issues, IMO)
Re:Religion will continue to lose... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Cathloic Church alone is a hell of a lot bigger than these people could ever hope to be.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the most absolute sense, nothing is proveable and everything relies on faith. How do I know that birds can fly? Because I see them flying? How can I believe what I am seeing is real? (Brains-in-the-jar, optical illusions, effects of various recreational drugs)
I talked to an ex-science teacher and his whole argument came down to "Occam's Razor". But how is this different from having your whole argument coming down to believing that "A God exists"? They both something that you are guiding your life on, either of which you really can't prove is correct/true/THE TRUTH.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's metaphysics, and is thus unprovable. You can't prove your axioms (by definition), but you can test them to see if they are reliably useful.
How do I know that birds can fly? Because I see them flying?
Yes, and the fact that every well-reasoned test you can come up with shows that birds do, in fact, fly. That's science.
I talked to an ex-science teacher and his whole argument came down to "Occam's Razor". But how is this different from having your whole argument coming down to believing that "A God exists"? They both something that you are guiding your life on, either of which you really can't prove is correct/true/THE TRUTH.
One of them (science) reliably describes and predicts the real world. The other (faith) does not. *That's* the difference, and it's a very crucial one. If you're sick, do you want a hospital, or a priest? If you are hungry, do you pray for manna, or do you seek food? If you want to fly to the Moon, do you start the Apollo program, or do you give up because scriptures say you can't get there?
It all comes down to your axioms. Which axiom is more reliable for describing the universe: a holy book, voices in your head, mere speculation, or science?
Who Is This God Person, Anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
These include the fact that those who argue for the existence of a deity mix science and faith together (often unintentionally). And it partly comes down to the definition of "believe" (and of "God"; see later)
I believe (ha!) that this word has at least three distinct meanings; that of faith, that of believing something based on observable fact (*), and that of opinion.
Belief in the third sense often surreptitiously invokes the first sense to add weight to something that, when it comes down to it, is never more than a matter of opinion or personal morality.
However, the first and second senses, although they use the same words, are oil and water. If you want to take something on faith, fine. But (except for (*) below), you cannot use this as the basis for scientific argument. Ever.
Now; assuming we are arguing for an actual deity, as opposed to 'intelligent design' (a vague concept; even if it were true, the argument is often subtley used to imply that intelligence --> God), here is my problem:-
Who, or what, is God?
People ask "Do you believe in God?" or "a god?" or something similar, but neglect to define what this would be.
Do they mean aliens with a higher level of intelligence than us? Are we arguing about intelligent aliens (science) or 'God' (faith)? Because, for me, this non-concrete "definition" of God, rooted in faith, is used in a scientific context, and yet I fail to see how we can do reputable science when we don't even know what we're discussing.
The problem seems to be that, as soon as you pin God down, he is no longer God, he is an intelligent alien. Or something else altogether.
(No; this isn't a reference to the HHGG "puff of logic" passage referenced in the title. It's my genuine opinion that, in making people pin down the meaning God like that, He/She/It would cease to be the God that they were originally discussing)
(*) Of course, there are some things that we must ultimately accept without proof; such as our perception of reality- if reality even exists, and is not an illusion. You can reject this, of course; but in rejecting it, you must reject *everything* around you as unproven, including your own thoughts.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I hate it when people read texts as being what it probably what it wasn't indended to be. Religious texts were probably never intended to be the final word on science, and science texts should not be used as a final word on religion.
It bothers me when people try to reconcile them, or assume that both are contradictory. I see them as very likely being orthogonal. I don't believe that the creation accounts should be taken as literal fact.
In fact, the Hebrew/Christian story of Genesis has TWO (or more?) accounts of creation, if you took both literally, then they contradict, so I figure at least one must be non-literal. I don't see how either of them necessarily has to be literal accounts of physical reality. There are many other places where statements can't be taken literally, only meant to show parallels in aiding understanding the spiritual world.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is no proof that a higher power
Absolutely correct.
Likewise, there is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or that there aren't teapots orbiting Mars ("but we'd see them!".. "Not if they're invisible teapots", etc)
What we can do, however, is assess the liklihood of these things being true based on the best evidence we have avaliable - and on that basis, it seems extremely unlikely there is a Santa or a God or Mars-orbiting teapots.
Note that this does not involve or require faith - a common point of confusion with believers. I do not have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, for example. I simply know that there's a high enough probability that it will, based on past experience that I'd be extremely surprised if it didn't.
Faith, on the other hand, makes assertions such as "there are teapots floating around Mars" without any prior evidence to suggest that is the case.
Wow, that was unnecessarily long winded...
Re:If it does exist, its an asshole. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Douglas Adams' take makes more sense to me:
"Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting `Gotcha'. It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it."
"Why not?"
"Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end."
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond that, several elements of the human design simply don't support the hypothesis that a conscious entity engineered us. Evolutionary theory explains several useless features left over from our human ancestors (like the appendix and tailbone) and several glaring weaknesses in our anatomy. Tell me, what intelligent designer would design us so that we used the same tube for both respiration and eating, thus creating a potential choking hazard? That's pure idiocy, not intelligence. Humans like to think we're the cock of the walk and that our bodies are oh-so-perfect, but from an engineering perspective, that viewpoint doesn't hold water. Yes, Kristen Kreuk is a marvelous specimen of beauty, but she can still choke to death because of traits inherited from her evolutionary ancestors.
That's the flaw of intelligent design. It seeks to combine poetic (and frankly egotistical) views of the human body with a scientific view of the universe. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Science is based on observed facts and natural mechanisms to explain those facts. To introduce supernatural or undefined mechanisms into an explanation is blatantly unscientific.
Intelligent designer ? (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, and who put a sewer line in a recreational area!?
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:4, Interesting)
Can't agree with you more! I've got two degrees in astronomy, I'm a 'relapsed' Catholic, and I wish I had a buck for every time I've been asked "How can you believe when you know science says there is no god?"
Yeah, yeah yeah. I know where the questions are supposed to lead, quetions from both sides of this issue. But why is it that they never really contradict each other?
Newton told us that a ball dropped in a (fictional and impossible, BTW) frictionless environment falls in a constant gravitational field in such a way that it follows an inverse square law. Great. We can measure where it will be after we throw it. Works for the moon and for cannon balls too. Then Einstein came along and said "but that doesn't explain why light bends around a star. Think of it as space warping." I just don't see how either is a 'final' answer about anything, since they attempt to answer a very limited question about where something with mass or without mass will be at any given time. Nothing about God there at all. That question isn't addressed.
But look at the beauty of a distant spiral galaxy. Who ordered that? Who ordered the galaxy, and the beauty, for that matter? Scientists shouldn't even presume that they are capable of understanding that question if they are going to approach it quantitatively, the way they do physics.
(Before someone sputters "but the Bible says 6000 years! 6000 years!" my answer to that is, whose calendar are you using? God's or Man's?)
The fight between science and religion seems to me to be an ego driven argument between very fallable and limited human beings.
And one more thing - for those who just labeled me a radical on one side of this issue, you may want to note that I carefully chose my phrasing to antagonize both. For the sake of arguement, try assuming I'm agreeing with *you* and see if it doesn't fit.
Dave, great post.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm as atheistic and completely non-religious as the next slashdotter, but it's attitudes like this that help destroy any hope of rational discourse between the two sides of this argument.
Comparing religious Americans to the Afghan Taliban just doesn't fly. Get back to me when mainstream American christians applaud murder in their god's name.
Yeah, I know there have been American christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, but they're hardly accepted by mainstream christians. When Ashcroft was AG he wanted Rudolph put to death for killing gays and abortionists, hardly the attitude he'd have if he believed Rudolph was doing god's work.
Seriously, if you're going to compare religious people to the Taliban, you might as well go all the way and compare them to Nazis so we can invoke Godwin's law on your ass..
From Bloody Kansas to Backward Kansas (Score:5, Insightful)
New Kansas Method:
Intelligent Navel Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Intelligent Navel Theory (Score:5, Funny)
You know, this explains a lot of things...
Re:Intelligent Navel Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
First of all, the strength of a theory depends entirely on its predictive power, not just its descriptive ability. You can fit all the known facts about anything to an arbitrarily complex description, and have that description 100% accurate for all known data. Only by predicting never-before-seen data points can a "theory" have any validity whatsoever.
One aspect of evolution predicts that, if I take a culture of a bacteria killed off by a particular antibiotic, and grow it in the presence of that same antibiotic, after a few generations the entire culture will have immunity to that antibiotic. We did this in my freshman college micro class, and what do you know, it works! Do you know of any testable predictions of creationism?
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors and gaps in logic. Darwin knew this.
Unlike creationism, evolution doesn't depend on a supreme source of authority for its accuracy. You could prove Darwin as a raving lunatic who liked to bugger goats, and it would not affect the theory of evolution one whit.
As for those "gaps"... Evolution, as a theory, has a few missing data points. Not gaps in logic, gaps in the fossil record. BIG difference. And as for those problematic gaps in the fossil record, people tend to overstate them to an extreme. We only really lack a very few examples that would make some aspects of evolution more solid, such as the "missing link" - Guess what? as important as we humans consider ourselves, the absence of one particular stopping point in our ancestry has very little bearing on evolution as a whole.
We have, quite literally, evidence (either historical or laboratory reproduceable) of every major step in the development of life on this planet, from the creation of organic molecules from the ingredients of young Earth's atmosphere (the classic Miller-Urey experiment)), to the formation of cell walls via self-organizing lipid membranes produced by the action of the tides, to the gradual accumulation of functional components inside a cell (via endosymbiosis, of which Lynn Margulis has written extensively), to the formation of simple multicellular colonies (sea sponge has only slightly more organization than a simple colony), to the formation of differentiated tissues such as organs (jellyfish), to the adaptation of entire species to radically new environments (fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals), and sometimes back, ie, whales).
What do we lack in that? A few specific examples in various lineages (including the human "missing link"), the specific mechanism by which DNA arose. A tricky problem with chromosome counts (which, incidentally, the recent birth of a "zonkey" all but cinches). And that about covers the "gaps" in evolution, aside from very minor points of contention, the resolution of which would not affect the overall validity of the theory one bit.
It bothers me that people seriouslly do not understand how complete of a theory we have in evolution. These people read a book, translated from the original language, patched together and "remixed" several times over the centuries, and not allowed to the general public for much of its history, kept "safe" by those who stood to gain the most by manipulating its contents - And people call that a complete, inviolable, sacred work. Then they look at the modern world, see the current political layout of the UK, and read hundreds of basically agreeing third-party accounts of the history thereof - but because the Bayeux tapestry has a few worm-holes in it, they refuse to believe the battle of Hastings ever occured.
*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
"We're all afraid to change, and willing to fight against it. We don't want to have to admit that there are things we don't or can't understand. We need to be able to say 'This is absolutely true' if we're going to sleep at night."
I don't see the problem here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many of them were atheists... or biologists for that matter.
Re:Read between the lines! (Score:5, Insightful)
If creationism can be accurately described as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena" then it is science.
If creationism doesn't meet that definition (hint: it doesn't) then that definition can't be used to claim that creationism is science.
Personally, I think that's a pretty good definition to use, although I'd replace "adequate" with "accurate".
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a little confused. I don't see anything wrong with the definition above ! I beleive its more complete and doesn't seem to be pushing any creationism around !
Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
I have yet to see arguments against the new wording as compared to the old. It seems that if you mention religion some people just fly off the handle and rational thought goes out the window, from otherwise logical folk.
Judge the wording on the merits and don't dismiss it out of hand.
Re:Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
But you leave out the real answer to "why". Kansas is mostly rural. Science class is one of the only places a young mind is exposed to scientific, i.e. logical, thinking. If they can teach ID instead of science, the chance for the student's thinking to evolve along rational lines is removed.
Why is this good? Conservative ideology, especially of the Christian Right, is hard to swallow completely if you're a rational person (same goes for any ideology to some extent). Rational people typically question authority more than those who swallow simple sound bites and go back to watching the Country Music Channel.
So this tempest is REALLY ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE STUPID AND EASILY MANIPULATED.
There. That's how I see it.
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
This is instead of natural explanation. How do you define "adequate"? Evolution by natural selection will be deemed "inadequate" and ID will take it's place.
Fundamental Fundamentalist question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fundamental Fundamentalist question... (Score:4, Insightful)
The movement is strongest only in these two countries. Check out Harun Yahya's website [harunyahya.com] and for a more balanced view, check him out in wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. His real name is Adnan Oktar, and the man writes a lot of books trashing evolution and other religions as well. He claims to have written all his books, but I doubt it.
One the stupidest arguments I've heard against creationism is that "Hitler used natural selection and darwinism to justify the holocaust, therefore anyone who believes in Evolution is a Nazi" or something stupid to that effect. Evolution is not a moral doctrine and doesn't profess to be so. Anyone who tries to make it so, is boneheaded. People have done some awful things in the name of Christianity. So is it ok to go ahead and label all Christians as Bad People?
Also, creationists always talk about these wonderful books that they have that disprove evolution. Right. That's because Creationists write books for creationists. None of these books will ever pass a scientific peer review, because they're all trash.
I consider myself a somewhat religious person, and I do believe in God. But I also believe that religion has NO PLACE in the school system. We need to come down on morons who try to force religion and that too THEIR religion down the throats of others, and who also have the gall to proclaim it as science.
Re:Fundamental Fundamentalist question... (Score:5, Insightful)
One word: Fanatism.
Fanatics brainwash their followers, but telling them lies isn't enough. They have to change their whole MINDSET. "Believe or be damned". This, with its implications: "Teach what I told you or be damned". In the end, they're just sputtering the lies that their human leaders have invented.
What does that have to do with the Bible? NOTHING! They're just using the bible as an excuse to justify their twisted beliefs. They've forgotten that the Bible was written by MEN (inspired or not, that's beyond our scope), and must remember that. And more important, non-scientist men.
We've reached an era where superstition and fanatism have surpassed science and reason. To put it simply, fanatics can't accept science because that would mean their entire belief system is WRONG (cognitive dissonance anyone?).
Ironically, a passage of Bible speaks about people shutting their eyes and covering their ears so they wouldn't listen to God's Truth. Yes, pretty ironic.
Re:Fundamental Fundamentalist question... (Score:4, Insightful)
You think I'm kidding?
Re:Fundamental Fundamentalist question... (Score:5, Interesting)
During my undergraduate years I was in an honors program at a certain college in the middle of Arkansas. This honors program, by its very design, was intended to challenge the fundamental belief system of its students. It exposed students to a variety of new religious philosophies, explored the abortion debate, and took on a variety of other issues that most of the students had never been exposed to before.
The results where.. shocking. About 80% of the incoming freshman in my class had some attachment to religion (more often than not 'fundamentalist' in nature). I remember my first week there we tore into the evolution debate. I had spent the first 18 years of my life assuming that everyone had simply moved past creationism, and to my shock a large group of honors students where arguing for the 'science' of creationism. I came to realize just how blind I had been to the problem.
Over the next two years the fundamentalists went in one two directions. Some simply refused to accept what they heard, and went into a sort of isolationist denial. For the most part these kids didn't finish the program.
For the rest (most?) the classes challenged their belief system. They began to realize that the reality of the world they live in was far different from the one their preacher had laid out for them. While very few turned on their religion completely, they did begin to abandon the literal bible ideas that they had began with. Most became some sort of 'liberal' christians.
The most interesting part was the backlash from the parents of these newly enlightened students. As the change really took effect the parents literally paraded in and yelled and screamed at the programs director. For these people, simply exposing new ideas to their kids (and thus challenging their belief systems) was more or less the same as turning their kids into satanists.
I finally came to realize that these parents FEARED knowledge. Religion, to them, is a form of security. Having a convienent belief system that takes all of the complexity out of the world is so comforting and so comfortable that operating outside of that scares the living hell out of them. When you have something like that, you become almost irrational in defending it. That means that secular ideas must be avoided at all costs.. because it is those IDEAS that break down their religous beliefs. That's why there are so many Christian book stores, music stores, craft stores, restuarants, and everything else. These people NEED to be immersed in a mono-culture because without it they may find out that life isn't as convienently explained as they NEED to beleive it is.
Ignorance is truly bliss.
Re:Fundamental Fundamentalist question... (Score:4, Insightful)
They are free to teach their religious interpretation at their religious institutions or in classes on comparitive religion not in science class.
Personally I like the turtles all the way down theory.
If you want the views to coexist do you also argue for the Catholic pre-Copernicus view of the universe to be taught? That is equally valid in view of the scientific evidence as the intelligent designer.
And the problem with that is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I need to check my eyes, but what about that definition even suggests a "supreme being"?
Re:And the problem with that is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I need to check my eyes, but what about that definition even suggests a "supreme being"?
The problem is that they have injected many words certainly with ulterior motives. I'm a lawyer and "trust me", the longer you make a sentence, the more things you can make it mean. It provides no help in defining what "lead to more adequate explanations of natural phonomena" means. And in the context, it is pretty clear that this phrase at least will be used to posit explanations that fit with certain individuals' religious views. I'm sure "logical argument" means questioning scientists along the lines of "prove to me god doesn't exist, and if you can't, he must" type questions. The previous article on creationists' 10 questions for biologists is a good example. "Theory building" will certainly be used in the non-scientific meaning of the word, i.e., theory=definitely false.
The problem with the definition is that it's wiggley -- it can easily be molded to fit any number of views. Beware the lawmaker's use of language.
Tell me this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell me this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Either way, I don't see a problem with the definition of science as presented in the article. It sounds a lot like what I was taught in public school in New Mexico - a state not known for its conservative education policies.
Creationism is Faith (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to teach creationism, do it in religious studies class, not science. Creationism or whatever euphemism you want to use (Intelligent Design) has no scientific basis at all. So by all means, if you want to teach it go ahead, but please don't do it in a science class. If you are willing to consider it as science, then I propose we should teach creation myths of every single culture in science class. I mean seriously... in this day and age it surprises me that people try to push creationism as a science.
Anyway, here is a good site that includes rebuttals to a lot of creationist arguments:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cefac.htm [lhup.edu]
Only in Kansas... (Score:4, Funny)
In Kansas, you can watch your dog run away for ten days.
They are doing it for the babes (Score:4, Funny)
I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, the astronomers of yore tried to explain the planet movements with natural answers that were not based on good scientific methods. Same with the people who wrote the Bible. The new definition actually outlines the methods that are essential to science, such as experimentation and theories.
Re:I like it (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they teaching science, or are they teaching philosophy? Quite frankly, I'd love to see philosophy of science taught in every high school in the country, but it's never going to happen. We're talking about a country where "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is considered a bad title because no one wants to hear about philosophers.
Yes, we should teach kids how science works and how to critically evaluate scientific theories. But not without background, as a way to say that evolution is "just" a theory, and that therefore any other theory has equal status. If you suggested that the theory of phlogiston had equal standing with the theory that oxygen is involved in combustion, no one would take you seriously.
government monopoly on education (Score:5, Insightful)
The big issue in U.S. science education is not evolution anyway, it's the lack of competent science teachers. K-12 teaching is simply not an attractive career to most people who have good math and science training, partly because of the low pay.
Breaking Point. (Score:4, Funny)
I work less than a block from the "hearings" (Score:5, Informative)
One of the irritating things about this is that while I believe in evolution, I also believe that it's God's method for our developement. So, in a since, I believe in an intelligent design type of concept; but I can't say that now without being associated with those who say they are for intelligent design but are in fact proponents of creationism.
Anyhow, the hearings are being conducted and "judged" by the proponents of ID. The scientists and evolutionists have boycotted the operation as being a farce. I have to agree with them. The witnesses will all be from the ID side, and the 3 school board members who are running the hearings are all ID proponents also.
It's an embarrassing joke.
God's evolution and the evolution of God... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an inescapable law of nature. Everything from our software and computer designs (meme's) to music, language and DNA based life is affected by evolution.
Not only that, it's impossible to create something not effected by it.
Even our views of God and our religions evolve. (what blasphemy)
After studying evolution for some time, I became a believer in GOD! Because only god could have created something as powerful as evolution.
My argument goes like this. If we are made in Gods image, and we make machines and tools to build more complex things. Then shouldn't God also? If God were to what would that tool look like. EVOLUTION....
So all this arguing over GOD vs. Evolution is totally stupid. No Evil.
I see science as the study of God's creation. It's sort of our responsibility to understand is and in doing this we can come to know God better
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
My question to the ID guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet for some reason we fall back to this "theory" because we don't understand what's going on? Ridiculous...
Just because we don't fully understand an aspect of nature yet doesn't mean that a natural process is so complex and impossible that a higher power had to make it... it only means that we are flawed and must wait until we fully grasp what is going on.
I'm sick of people filling in the blanks with "god did it!" without thinking "well... maybe we just need to study it more." Before you call me atheist, realize that I am a roman catholic, yet I can easily conceive how our life came to be after the big bang (let's not debate that right now) without any nudge from a higher power.
You are quick to argue that life could not have been created in nature, but forget the fact that God created nature itself.
A Word to the Wise (Score:5, Insightful)
Undoubtedly someone will notice that this comment might equally well apply to those who "worship" Darwinism. That would be true. The key difference is, of course, that Darwinism can be understood and is continually being updated to reflect what we observe. Therein lies the key difference: we can update Darwinism to make it more correct. It's awful hard to update received wisdom.
Thankfully, Kansas and Ohio are leading the charge against the atheistic forces of E-Ville that seek to make critical thinkers out of our population. I'm sure that they will also "balance" their curricula to include classes that critically analyze received wisdom.
sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard an excellent talk about the strategies of anti-evolutionists from the director of the center for science education recently. Two of her major points were that: (1)creationists seek to circumvent the usual curriculum review process and insert themselves directly into school board decisions politically, because they have come to realize that on careful examination, their ideas are untenable; and (2) the fundamental misunderstanding about the words behind the debate.
More specifically, in order for an idea to become incorporated in to a scientific education curriculum, it first must be proposed, examined by scientists, published, reviewed, tested for flaws and counterexamples, and then it becomes accepted as a theory (which by the way, means an idea that ties together consistently all aspects of the evidence, NOT just a "theory", or guess). Creationists, or intelligent design advocates, simply come up with an idea, and go right to the school board. Where are the checks and balances? The testing? The oversight?
And secondly, about the language. Normal people commonly feel that at the top of the hierarchy of importance are Facts. To them, facts are facts, immutable. You can't debate fact, as in "evolution is not a fact, so it doesn't occur." Observations are next, things that you see with your own eyes. And Theories? Theories are at the bottom of the scale, almost comparable to hopeful guesses. This is in part the fault of the language, that "theory" has come to mean "I, crackpot, have a theory about that."
But in fact, in science, Theory is at the top of the scale -- an idea that has consistently shown to uphold all the observations, and has been tested. At the bottom is just the opposite from what is commonly believed -- facts. Facts are things that you see every day, and carry no unifying meaning in themselves.
If we are to succeed in educating the population about the process of science, and *especially* why it is valuable to us a country, we need to get involved in the debate about the language and politics. Other countries, who don't have the luxury to squander valuable resources, are beginning to capture and exploit the wonders of science much more than we are -- and it is showing.
Call me a conspiracy nut... (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting, relevant discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
It's wonderful to read, a great story of rationality and science triumphing over ignorance and propaganda. The text doesn't seem to be available online, but you should be able to track down the essay. I found it in the collection Science and Creationism, edited by Ashley Montagu, which has a number of other essays -- including a particularly scathing denunciation and call to arms [stephenjaygould.org] by Isaac Asimov. Great stuff.
(Note: when googling for specific text, I just learned, sometimes the "omitted results" are precisely what you want; the Asimov article only showed up there.)
The haves and have nots (Score:4, Insightful)
Adults from different regions will be separated by a giant chasm between their intellect as most are taught by a progressive, science-friendly system (or as much as the education system can be) while the remainder are led to believe in nonscience "theories" that do much more to please religious leaders and believers than to satisfy an iota of truth.
The knowledge divide will be noticable in geographic quantities as large swarms of the populace have been completely left behind. People from Kansas will have no hope of competing in any meaningful way with people from California, for instance. There will be a third vs. first world mentality and it will be what tears us apart.
HHGttG Reference (Score:5, Funny)
The Intelligent Design proponents had better be careful, or they might end up proving God out of existence.
The Blind Watchmaker -- great book on this subject (Score:5, Interesting)
The subtitle of the book is "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design". It explains in great detail and clarity how in the long run natural selection allows only the mutations that are beneficial to continue to exist, leading to lifeforms that might *APPEAR* to have been designed, even though they were not.
One of the cases he looks at is the eye, with all of its complexity. Someone naively looking at it might easily assume that it is a clear example of something that must have been designed by a creator in advance. Dawkins shows how, over millions of years, tiny incremental advances could allow the eye to develop without any creator.
The only things required are 1) that whatever mutation that started as the eye, as simple as it may have been (perhaps a cell with the ability to detect light, for which brain cells have been shown to have the potential), gave at least a slight competitive advantage to the lifeform and 2) each additional mutation that took place over millions of years gave some slight advantage to the lifeform. Over a long time, in an environment with light, development of the eye becomes almost assured.
Complex biological systems work not because someone designed them to work, but because any deviation that does not work DIES. This naturally and inevitably leads to greater and greater complexity.
Re:The Blind Watchmaker -- great book on this subj (Score:5, Insightful)
So much, in fact, that the idea was hit upon several times during evolution - we don't have one type of eyes on this planet, but well over a dozen. That's a crazy designer if you ask me ("now the insects, I think I'll give them completely different eyes, just for fun").
Re:The Blind Watchmaker -- great book on this subj (Score:5, Interesting)
I always hated biology / life science in school because most of it was name memorization, but at the molecular biology level, it all starts looking digital...
John Carmack
David Attenborough (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a fan of Sir David Attenborough, whose documentaries for the BBC are simply fantastic. In my community, you can borrow most of them from the local library.
The following is a section from wikipedia [wikipedia.org], showing his rather sharp response to questions about creationism. It is quite possibly the best answer I have seen regarding the relationship between evolution & creationism.
From Wikipedia:
Speaking as a Christian, I don't see the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who is afraid of *anything* that science may discover has no faith, to start with. Science and technology are, themselves, gifts from God that should be used to their fullest.
Re:Laughingstock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Laughingstock (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Idiots. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not how it works. You don't prove a negative, you present evidence for a positive. You say there's a god or gods making all this cool stuff, present your case.
In the meantime, here's The God FAQ [400monkeys.com]
Re:Philosophy (Score:4, Interesting)
Philosophy is not a pseudo science. Science is a branch of philosophy-- specifically, science is a type of epistomology, the study of "how we know things."
Philosophy itself has a great and noble history, and we have learned many things through philosophy that science cannot teach us-- morality, justness, what it emotionally means to be human. Science cannot tell us this, because it is beyond the scope of prediction. (Psychology tries to figure out some aspects, but psychology itself barely flirts with science.)
Just thought I'd clarify.
Re:This is more than a culture war, ummm,who? (Score:5, Informative)
Margaret Atwood was born in Ottawa, Ontario, on November 18, 1939. She published her first book of poetry in 1961 while attending the University of Toronto. She later received degrees from both Radcliffe College and Harvard University, and pursued a career in teaching at the university level.
Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale in West Berlin and Alabama in the mid-1980s. The novel, published in 1986, quickly became a best-seller. The Handmaid's Tale falls squarely within the twentieth-century tradition of anti-utopian, or "dystopian" novels, exemplified by classics like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984.
Yes I agree that the US seems to be trying to develop a theocracy in recent years. Of course the nice thing about democracy is that the madness comes in waves. At some point the pendulum should oscillate back and the US will calm down.
Re:This is more than a culture war, now. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Kansas isn't in the south, or even in the South.
2) The South isn't landlocked.
3) Bush is from Texas. That's more West than South.
4) There are idiots and conservatives everywhere.
5) As others have pointed out, you got both the title and the author of The Handmaid's Tale wrong.
Painting all Southerners with the "ignorant, theocratic redneck" brush is as accurate and useful as painting all Northerners with the "rude asshole" brush or painting all West Coasties with the "flaky New Age neo-mystic" brush. It's just not that simple.
If you continue to perpetuate the myth that living in the South automatically and without significant exception indicates that that person is uneducated, superstitious/religious, or inherently unintelligent, then you are showing even less capability for logical, rational thought than those dipshits in Kansas about whom this story was written.
Your comment isn't being modded insightful (as of this writing) for the simple reason that it ISN'T insightful. It's wrong-headed, factually incorrect, and blames the wrong people for the wrong things.
The people you're mad at are the religiously conservative, and they're everywhere. We in the South simply have a larger infestation of them than you appear to, wherever it is you live.
Re:Evolution contradicted by fossil evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
The theory of evolution is not "contradicted" by the fossil record, the theory does not predict a rate of evolution, it simply defines a general mechanism by which the characteristics of a species of organism can change in each generation through natural selection. The actual mechanisms by which this occurs are not all understood in detail.
It is certainly likely that the rate of evolution is determined by the environment and the interaction of the local flora and fauna. In steady-state evolution does not really occur as there is no drive to change. When the environment is dynamic or changed through events such as ice-ages, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, new species evolving or moving in to area etc. stronger selection occurs (evolve or die) and therefore more rapid evolution occurs. One would guess that the bigger the change, the more rapidly evolution may occur as the selection environment is more harsh than usual.
The theories can only tell you so much, what you really need is experimental evidence. Given that we cant do long experiments we can only rely on the fossil record. And the transient events you refer to provide some evidence for punctuated evolution. Rather than contradicting the theory, the data helps to flesh it out.
Some say logic, you say irrationality (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for providing us with a poignant example of excessive, irrational, statements. Speculating that there is any significant faction of people on this planet who, in any way, "worship Darwin as God" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
If there's one thing that really annoys me, it's an intellectually deficient side's desperate attempt to compare the end of a cigarette to the surface of the sun and claim they both put out the same amount of heat and therefore negate each others' significance or severity. Intelligence insulting hogwash!
However, another group who I think desperately need to get lives are those who are frantically seeking life on Mars, purely/primarily because they hope they can use such proof to discredit creationism altogether.
Huh? Are you kidding me? Are you wearing tin-foil underwear?
I believe the best way that evolutionary advocates can win this particular battle is simply by not fighting it.
Unbelievable. You advocate not standing up for what you believe in, and this will somehow make everything rosy? Have you not studied even a sliver of history of any civilization in the world?