Want a Science Degree In Creationism? 848
The Bad Astronomer writes "In Texas, a state legislator wants the ironically-named Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant a Masters degree in science. In fact, the bill submitted to the Texas congress would make it legal for any private group calling themselves educational to be able to grant advanced degrees in science. So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer."
The Institute for Creation Research made a similar request to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year, but were shot down.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Deists and creationists have relatively little in common.
Science can only be done by following the scientific method, creationism is the opposite of that, it is dogma warmed over.
The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.
So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.
Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.
I can see money! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll make a fortune off the gullible who believe in every kind of pseudo-reality!
I'll have leprechaun pots full of gold fast!
*insert evil laugh here*
You guys are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The study of Creationism (or anything that is not science) cannot be logically classed as a Science program. Just like one can study ballet, it doesn't make sense to give a science degree in ballet since ballet is not a science. Whether the belief in ballet is logical and consistent with reality is irrelevant.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, religion cannot be science.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.
Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
Serious study and research into the evolution of man and origin of our planet and the cosmos is already being done. Getting creationism in line with "current scientific thought" would pretty much destroy the fundamentals behind it. The idea that the universe is 6000 years old does not fit and can not be made to fit without a leap of faith that usually discounts any research and knowledge gained as lies or Satanic propaganda.
In short, if you "cleared away all the religious baggage" from creationism you leave nothing. Creationism is by definition religious baggage.
Re:The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not looking at it through their eyes, and thus you're misrepresenting their motivations.
They're not trying to prove God. They are trying to disprove Atheism. They are as grossly offended by the teaching of Evolution to their children as they would be about condom use, sex education, condoning sex outside of marriage, promotion of interracial relations, public support of planned parenthood, etc.
These are honest points of disagreement (some being more laughable than others).
Thus, teaching Evolution exclusively is essentially forcing their children to admin that the 7-day universe is false - they come home to the parents and pose difficult questions.
By promoting at least one other distinct alternative to evolution, then the parents can successfully say, see, it's only one of several possible theories, so don't worry about it.
It's the exact same process I use to disprove Christianity. If you have 2 or more mutually exclusive descriptions of God's will, then at least one is guaranteed to be at least partialy wrong (and thus not worthy of mindless acceptance), and in the absence of any credible proof of one verses the other, then in all likelihood they are both wrong.. Continue this trend until you've reach every single man made religion, and you've welcomed the world of Agnosticism.
Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to.
Only under the loosest of terms. But there are no "mysteries" of Creationism, at least not ones that are intended to be knowable by Man. God created the world in six days (according to one version of events). We don't care how and have only a passing interest in why.
The "advanced levels of things" in science terms is more like "Why is the weak nuclear force so strong compared to gravity?" What the hell happened during nucleosynthesis?
Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.
Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)
I just loved learning about His Noodly Appendage in high school and I want to pursue a higher education with a focus on Him.
Re:The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something"
Congratulations on totally misunderstanding Dawekins and (most) atheists.
Religions can be dismissed based on the fact that they are flawed, contradictory of each other and themselves, can be shown to take ideas from other religions and long-dead cults and are basically patently ridiculous.
As for the possible existence of some sort of creator god? No proof of absence is offered, it is simply that there is no evidence or even credible suggestion to the positive, so for now I'll operate under the assumption there isn't one. Most atheists are agnostic too. They are without evidence (agnostic) so they don't believe in a god (atheist).
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.
This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three problems with this idea.
First, whatever your opinion of "poppycock" degrees, they are drastically different from this degree in creationism. A few examples:
Degree in Religion: You have studied and become an expert on the social phenomenon known as religion. You have studied a number of different religions. This degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of history, philosophy, and anthropology.
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
Creationism: Creationism 'science' is essentially a list of poorly constructed arguments that attempt to refute evolution. The main requirement for any argument on this list is that they are 'convincing' rather than being accurate. There is no academic rigor to this field.
Creationism does not compare to other religious degrees.
Second, Creationism is currently operating under the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They don't actually want to be 'accepted', they just want to grab as many headlines as possible. They want big, showy, and silly public debates with well-respected scientists. They don't want to sit down in a lab and prove anything. i.e. Creationists frequently argue that if you place an organism in observation and wait thousands of generations, that organism will not evolve new features. However, no creationist has even attempted to demonstrate this fact. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to attempt. However, actual scientists have done this experiment and dedicated a massive amount of time to the work. They were rewarded with the exact opposite of the creationists predictions. If you want to know more about this research, please visit :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
The third, and biggest problem with Creationism is that it is a concept, not a field of study. You don't grant degrees in 'ideas'. We don't have a degree for perpetual motion machines, proving Goldbach's conjecture, or any other crackpottery you can imagine. A degree is rewarded for a field of study. What exactly are Creationists going to study?
I am not opposed to this "Degree in Creationism" in the same way I am opposed to Creationism. I want to admit that I think Creationism is absurd. However, I am even more opposed to a degree in creationism for the reasons stated above. I would be equally opposed to a degree is Deism, Skepticism, or any other idea I believe in.
Re:The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.
Atheism just means the absence of belief in god, not the absolute denial of the possibility of existence in god. This is a common misconception. What you are referring to is "hard atheism" which is, more or less, impossible to prove and not really subscribed to.
Self-proclaimed agnostics are either, in reality, "soft atheists" or people pleasers who feel the need to assert their special individuality in such a way that offends the least amount of people.
Basically, if you're not a theist then you're an atheist... because you're without theism. It's not like sexuality where you can swing both ways.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
can we disprove creationism
We can disprove some parts of the story as being inconsistent with the evidence we see, but the whole point is that it isn't really testable because it doesn't directly make predictions of how the world would be if it was true.
It's like trying to disprove 'Romeo and Juliet.' You might be able to say "There is no evidence of a prominent Capulet family in Verona in the 13th or 14th century," but there is nothing you can look at in today's world that would be different if the play was just fiction. That's what makes it a story instead of a theory.
PROFIT!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Come off it - the people demanding the ability to grant degrees in "Creation Science" are the ones trolling the rest of the country, and trying to ruin the educatio system.
I have a better idea - if they get this "right" - get the degree, then publish about how creationism is total bullshit, and point to your "credentials" as someone with an "advanced degree in creation science." Make $$$ selling books, appearances on the idiot box/faux news, etc.
I have an even better idea - let them move to Jebus-land [thepatriotaxe.com]. What the rising waters don't get, global warming-driven hurricanes and droughts will. Problem solved.
Big difference (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Because in order to perform an experiment, you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis.
Creationism cannot form a falsifiable hypothesis because EVERY outcome could be "proven" by the words "God wanted it that way".
That is why it is not science.
That would depend upon what you mean by "religions".
I think you're confusing historical evidence with science. In order for it to be science, It must be able to be stated in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis that can be test by different scientists.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
There are certainly scientific facts. But facts are always measured, never proven. Facts are the raw stuff from which science is built, much like taking money from credible suckers is the raw stuff from which religion is built.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
One of my old professors had a very poignant saying:
Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen. Every time either side has tried to cross this line, they were wrong.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?
That's true, except that the few predictions it does make are wrong. (The age of the earth is clearly greater than 6,000 years, and the creation theory contains no explanation for why all the evidence should consistently point to a much older age. Species do not always reproduce after their kind. And so on.)
The theory can be pushed and prodded to make it not actually inconsistent ("See, by 'day', we mean a couple of billion years...") But it doesn't predict those things; these explanations are formed after the fact.
That's the real problem: there is no one Creationism Theory. It continually shifts to avoid being proven wrong. Which wouldn't be so bad; every science does this. But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes, it doesn't seem a particularly fruitful avenue of research.
Re:Creationism... (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion is the antithesis of science, logically.
That's a myth put about by the scientists and religionists who want a conflict (after all, it sells books), that I believe can only be sustained by taking an unusual definition of religion (or science). What do you think science is? What do think religion is? Why do you think one is the antithesis of the other? Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.
By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?
One good thing about Creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
The one good thing about Creationism is that it forces teachers to present the scientific method to the students at a much earlier age. Often the nuts and volts of the skepticism that is the core process of science is skipped over in schools.
Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.
Children will say that the earth was created in six days, 4000 years ago. Well we weren't there to witness this. But we can show records and artifacts (ones that weren't stolen from the Baghdad museum) that are over 4000 years old.
Creationism forces teachers to instill a spirit of skepticism in students. "I don't believe you, prove it" mentality that is more important that the facts themselves.
Re:The proof is in the...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hard atheism is not subscribed to? Bull.
Every time someone invokes the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they're implicitly saying that the idea of a God is ridiculous. That is equivalent to the denial of the possibility of God, not a mere lack of belief.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
There is another way to filter on this than just schools in Texas since I would bet states like Arkansas are going to join in if it flies in Texas.
Filter on the year the degree was granted.
This might not be a bad idea anyway with all the stories of recent graduates needing to be constantly recognized for their "achievements" which is really nothing more than doing the minimum, their lack of attention to any task, little concern for quality, etc.
I know it's a sweeping generalization, but it would be the deciding factor all other things being equal. Just too many stories on how poor the recent graduates are to ignore. Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we disprove creationism?
No. We can't even *try*. And for precisely this reason, creationism is not science.
Strip away everything else and science comes down to these steps.
1. Posit a falsifiable hypothesis.
2. Design an experiment to test it.
3. If you fail to disprove it, it might be true.
Any argument that can be boiled down to '$DIVINITY did it!' fails at step one. By definition, God, miracles, etc. fall outside the bounds of science. You can't disprove them. You can *try* to reason about them logically. Everyone who has ever tried has ended up caught in a circular argument. This includes all statements made for *or against* the existence of a higher power.
This is why talking about science and religion in the same breath is utter nonsense. The two have no overlap, unless there is a God, and he is deceiving us at every turn just to be an asshole (the true believers will tell you he is testing your faith).
This 'grand deceiver' is the fallout of following Descartes' "Je pense donc je suis" [wikipedia.org] to its logical conclusion, and the foundation for all of western philosophy until Sartre hit reset by deliberately ignoring everything that came before him. (See sig for more).
Religion comes down to one question. Do you believe? No logic, no science, no reasoning it out. So, do you believe?
Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org] helps to explain part of the enduring popularity of believing in God, despite a lack of empirical evidence. If you believe, and there is no God, nothing happens to you - this is the existential viewpoint. If you disbelieve, and there is a God, you are screwed - this is the religious viewpoint.
Me? I think Marcus Aurelius had it right. Worry about this life. The next will take care of itself, one way or another.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
Re:Creationism... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a significant problem with that: falsifying (aka finding possible problems with) evolution or the big bang is hardly proving Creationism. I've never seen a valid defense of Creationism other than "evolution isn't true". The problem is, it's not a binary system. They are not logical opposites. Disproving evolution isn't proving Creation, not by a long-shot. If you want to get a degree in "anti-Evolution" by all means do. But don't pretend that "disproving" some small part of the dominant theory in biological and/or cosmological science negates and renders useless the entire theory, and also somehow provides evidence for an empirically random minor theory.
A good theory has to add value. This means it has to explain everything the old theory explained, and add additional, optimally risky, predictions that the old one didn't, to explain things the old one didn't. That's a pretty daunting task for a theory as big as evolution. If you want to try to counter a specific part of evolution, by all means go at it. But trying to disprove all of evolution by, say, questioning carbon-14 dating, is not the way to do it.
Einstein's theory of gravity won out over the dominant Newtonian theory not because it had Einstein's name on it, or because some religion had nonsimultaneity written in their books. It's because Einstein explained everything Newton did, explained things he didn't, and made very risky predictions as to how things would happen under his theory as opposed to Newton. Many of these have since proved true.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:2, Insightful)
What schools give degrees in pottery and basket weaving?
And I would not hire a pottery specialist either, sorry.
What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.
I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.
Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.
It's one of those few situations where the old "I'm philosophically right because I'm still alive after the duel" argument is actually valid.
These solipsism arguments could also be called "argument from pretentious stupidity", and have no place in a discussion about the real world.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:3, Insightful)
What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.
I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.
Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.
For one thing, I believe almost every word of the Old Testament, I see very little contradiction with science. However, the point I was making is that these schools are trying to pass off one thing as another. I cannot trust them.
If you think I'm harsh, then write to the Texas legislators and let them know that us harshies will be harsh on their graduates. It's them that will suffer.
Re:Creationism... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One good thing about Creationism (Score:4, Insightful)
Each creative day is about 1,000 years totaling up to about 6,000 years.
[bible citation needed]
It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
At least not in the King James version.
For some reason people go on the assumption that a creative day is a literal 24-hours
Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?
despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.
Good Lord! They had no days when Genesis was written?
They could write and everything, but hadn't noticed the sun is the highest in the sky on a reliably repeatable period?
With all do respect sir, please learn a little more about the Bible before making a critical review of it.
With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.
What I don't understand about this (Score:5, Insightful)
How on earth do you get a PhD in creationism? The whole point of creationism is that it is grounded in biblical literalism. To get a PhD you are supposed to make a substantial contribution to the field, which seems to be at odds with the idea of creationism.
Now, I think one should be able to get a PhD in other (existing, humanities and sciences) fields by providing an authoritative study of mythological patterns in Genesis 1-3 as well as textual constructions, philology, structural anthropology, etc. But that is hardly the same thing as a PhD in creationism. Even if you could get a PhD equivalent in creation theology, the proper venue is as a doctor of divinity.
I say this having made substantial contributions [google.com] to the field of practical rune-magic.
Although I think Robert Zoller certainly does deserve an honorary PhD for his work on topics related to astrology (whether it is through the philosophy department or the history department is a question for others). However his contributions, discussing the Renaissance significance of the Arabic Parts, their roots in Neo-Platonism and the relationship between neo-Platonism in the Middle-East and that in the West, etc. is groundbreaking both from a historical and a practical perspective. Similarly his work looking at Scandinavian sky lore is extremely interesting.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:1, Insightful)
Or Slashdot.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
In the "bible belt" you will be ostracized from your community if you mock religion (though it's acceptable to insult atheists). In other countries you can actually get killed for mocking religion.
Really, mocking religion on the internet is the only safe outlet a lot of people have.
Re:Mail Order (Score:3, Insightful)
...I turn rocks into gold!!...
A good friend of mine has a machine into which she puts rocks which then go round and round and round and round and they've become very pretty rocks which she sells, well not for gold, but for dollars, which were made of gold at one time.
Re:Creationism... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. I am working on a paper on theories of magic (in traditional cultures) at the moment and would suggest that scientific and mytho-magical are the result of very different ways of organizing knowledge. Scientific thought is the product of an analytical, objectively distanced worldview which is fundamentally the product of writing, while magic is fundamentally the product of an aggregative, participatory worldview conditioned by the constraints of oral tradition.
Most of the patterns that James Frazer showed in The Golden Bough are better understood as products of this aggregative, participatory world view than they are some sort of parallel to science. I think that Mircea Eliade's approach is much closer to the mark of how magic is seen in traditional cultures though.
Unfortunately the synthesis between the processes of science and religion ends up being theology (which is really the worst of both worlds, IMO). The other synthesis can be the sciences relating to anthropology of religion.
Reminds me of a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
A man wonders whether sex is permitted on the sabbath. So he goes and asks the priest whether sex is work and thus prohibited on the Sabbath. The priest consults the Bible and concludes that it is. The man is not entirely satisfied by this because he is unsure whether a celebate man is the right person to give him this advice, so he asks a protestent minister. The minister consults the Bible and concludes that it is work and is thus prohibited on the Sabbath. Just to get one final opinion, the man goes and asks a rabbi.
The rabbi sits and thinks about the matter for a moment and says "Of course it is is not work!"
The man asks the rabbi how he can be so sure given the views from two other learned religious men, and he answers "If sex were work, my wife would have the maid do it."
Moral of the story is that arguments from authority aren't really all that great. If your belief in creationism is because of what is written in the Bible, that is fundamentally different from an argument based on experiments and tests concerning available data. While it is quite possible to believe that God created the world and used evolution as a means to create humanity, this is different from trying to choose bible vs science.
Re:Easiest Degree Ever (Score:2, Insightful)
I think he was making fun of the concept of a creationism science degree... not a degree in religion. The two are very different.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easiest Degree Ever (Score:3, Insightful)
look at what you are 'majoring' in. you think its serious?
all men have the same amount of 'special info' about god and religion. therefore there is no more secret knowledge that one has that the others also don't have (religious guys disagree but that's their problem).
why do you need to 'study' the ravings of just regular old people? that's not science or even worthy of study any more than watching some random tv program is.
it amazes me that people believe that some guys in 'funny hats' have some special insider info. I hate to break it to you, but all their secret internal-only books will MOST LIKELY say 'we know we made this shiat up'. every major religion has a secret 'head of hat-dom eyes only' book. scientology is one that we have exposed and know about, but the other more 'respected' religions also have this too.
does that make you re-think, any? that the top guys all know this is made-up shiat just invented to control and scare primitive man?
that's all it is. why bother giving fables 'serious study'?
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that the creationists look at the data, throw it out completely and then make up shit. That's not the scientific method leading to different conclusions, that's a conclusion looking for a way to reach it.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:3, Insightful)
The creationists and evolutionists BELIEVE a different set of witnesses.
The funny thing is, the creationsts' "witnesses" were a bunch of humans who wrote a book a few hundred years ago.
The evolutionists' "witnesses" are extrapolation from known scientific principles.
Put another way: Is it possible to know experimentally or observationally that a black hole exists? You can't see it, you can only see the way it affects the space around it. And you clearly can't experiment on it. Yet most of us agree that they exist.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "observation", then, right? I can clearly observe what appears to be a black hole, or a quasar, or a supernova. I can also observe what appears to be an accurate carbon-dating. In both cases, I'm looking at some particles being detected well after the fact -- and I'm not even looking at those directly, I'm looking at what my instruments tell me they are.
It's also worth mentioning: Evolution actually does conform to basic laws of physics, at least as far back as the Big Bang, and we're starting to understand that, too.
Creation really doesn't, unless we assume that the universe suddenly popped into being with everything set up just so, just to tempt the faith of scientists in the future by making it appear that there was evolution, and that the universe is billions of years old. But we actually have no evidence except some really questionable testimony that there is a being capable of doing that -- whereas we have all the evidence in the world (so to speak) that evolution did happen.
Re:Creationism... (Score:2, Insightful)
So because it is not happening right in front of your eyes, within your lifetime, it must not have ever happened, nor will it ever happen? Pretty much every single doctor you will go to will understand and accept the theory of evolution. If you don't agree with them, then you should stop seeing doctors or accepting medicine; after all, if all of them can be so horribly wrong about evolution, how can you trust them with your health? Don't worry, God will protect you from MRSA.
Medical research depends on the fact that animal models are closely related to us; that is why we test future treatments on animals first. You don't see us testing new antibiotics on insects, right? Right, because they aren't as closely related as mammals. And why are mammals closely related? Because at some point in our history, we had a common ancestor; the difference is that the common mammalian ancestor is much more recent than the one we share with other less related organisms. You think it's too far of a stretch for one species to progress into a very different species? Then look at the fossil record. Though I suppose you must think that the fossil record is one big conspiracy, right? "Carbon dating?! hmph! The earth is 5000 years old! Physicists/chemists are also wrong, they are colluding with those Darwinian freaks!"
For those of you who can hear over the bible thumping, a speciation event occurs when a species branches (becomes significantly different) so that the gametes of one species cannot produce sexually viable offspring with the gametes of the other species. In fact, on the Gallapagos Islands, the birds outlined by Darwin are different species. You are saying that because they are all finches, they are all the same species. That is exactly like saying that primates are all the same species. Have you been producing offspring with monkeys? Or perhaps you are the offspring of a monkey and a human? Clearly you can understand the difference there.
The differences between creationism and intelligent design are irrelevant to this discussion. Neither of them constitutes science. If we were talking about a degree in theology, then yes fine, tell me the differences until you are blue in the face. But we're not. Nobody here is asking for a bachelor of evolution from a faculty/department of theology. Why the hell would you want a bachelor of creationism from a faculty of science?
If you want more of an explanation on evolution, then go get a degree in the sciences. This is exactly why we say that a degree in creationism is a redflag for, "I can't grasp straight-forward concepts that are spelled out for me." The point is, you don't want to learn, you want to stick with your own personal beliefs that you were taught in bible school. That is exactly what a degree in creationism will tell your prospective employers. So go ahead, go get your degree in creationism. See what good it will do you.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:3, Insightful)
How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. My theory is that a blue car or truck struck it and drove away.
How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. Last week crazy Carl told me there is a giant, invisible whale that flies through the air. Further it can tell the future. He says it whispered to him and said the "smurfiness was smithereens". How could he have known a week ago? See the smurfiness is the blue color and smithereens means little pieces, but usually refers to things being broken or destroyed, like the sign is destroyed (though not in pieces). My theory is that a giant invisible, flying whale destroyed the sign.
Since no one saw the sign be damaged there is no proof. We don't know. Does that mean we should regard both theories equally? What about after we take samples of the leftover blue material and it exactly matches the color from stock GM vehicle paint in 2001? Are they both still equal? After all we can't prove the invisible flying whale didn't leave paint identical to the color on automobiles, although it did not make that prediction either.
My point is, just because we're not 100% sure does not matter. The scientific method isn't about finding absolutes but about applying a formal method for determining the most likely truth. It works and if you don't like it fine, but don't call not applying it science or expect rational people to "just believe" something that doesn't match up with what science determines is the likely answer.
Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.
I didn't state a belief on scientists being religious or not. I agree with you that people need to understand the difference between an unfounded *belief* and scientific *proof*.
Math has proofs, not science. Science has hypothesis and experiments and theories and peer review. A rational scientist believes the most supported theory is the most likely truth and performs predictive experiments to add or remove support from theories. Evolution is a theory with a lot of correct predictions from experiments. There are several abiogenesis theories each with some level of correct predictions from experiments. Creationism refers to a vague belief held in different ways by different religions. It does not refer to a scientific theory supported by experimentation. Believing it is not rational. That's fine with me you can hold irrational beliefs, just don't try to convince others they are rational or scientific or should be taught in schools as science.
Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen[sic].
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. Science is not proving things. It is determining the most likely truth rather than trying to defend a belief by finding facts to support it after you've already made up your mind. Science is a rational process. It isn't infallible and is constantly refined, but the process works a whole lot better than anything else we've tried which is why it is held in such high regard and why people are so eager to try to convince others some belief they have is scientific when it is not.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:3, Insightful)
There. Fixed that for you. Generalising like that never does an argument any good.;)
Same as mainstream science really. A couple of bad roses in every bunch.
It's not a generalisation. Look at creationism, and it can be seen that, by definition, creationism is throwing out the evidence and inserting Biblical dogma instead.
Re:PROFIT!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war.
What's to mention of note? He just happened to be there at the time, like Peter Sellers in that movie. Russia was done in by corrupt government and satellite TV, not satellite "defense". The people with the "Obama" complex don't even compare to this bizarre hero worship for a senile old man who had good writers.
I wish my life was a non-stop hollywood movie show,
A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes,
Because celluloid heroes never feel any pain
And celluloid heroes never really die
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's the hardest part of falsifying any prediction.
When do you say "We've searched long enough, the prediction is most probably wrong"?
For instance, when do we stop looking for the Higgs boson if LHC can't find it?
Do we say the prediction of the particle is wrong or do we build a more powerful accelerator?
The most important prediction made by evolution is that we should see genetic differences between different generations of a species, that a species or race should be able to change over time and that we, with long enough observation (a small detail religious people often fail to comprehend), should be able to witness the appearance of totally new species.
I fail to see how evolution would be falsified by having dinosaurs found alongside humans or by having fossils older than we previously thought possible anyway.
That would mainly give problems to some theories regarding geology, decay of radioactive isotopes, archeology and such.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:3, Insightful)
perfect chance meeting of various bits of 'life goo'
Without actually researching it, this seems plausible. Consider that the oceans -- that is, most of the planet's surface -- were literally teeming with the basic building blocks of life. All it takes is one single-celled organism, no matter how crude, and suddenly, you have tons of life, seemingly out of nowhere.
Describing this as a "puddle of slime" is kind of like claiming that a single drop of water can cover the world [youtube.com].
What created the earth? Ok, what created the universe? Ok, what created the big bang
It is actually quite possible that the big bang had no cause, at least not in our own kind of time. Hawking had a cool model of the Universe as a perfect space-time sphere, meaning time had a beginning and end, at opposite sides of the sphere. He actually disproved it later, but it gives you an idea.
As to how that sphere came into existence? "I don't know" is the acceptable scientific answer; "God did it" is an alright religious theory, just don't be too disappointed if it's disproven. In fact, Hawking did later disprove that whole sphere idea.
Ultimately, I don't really mind the thought of God creating the big bang [mypartypost.com]. At least that is actually compatible with science, even if it's not itself science. If that's what you're teaching your children, at least they'll pay attention in science class, instead of asking stupid questions about Intelligent Design.
Eventually, it boils down to "We're not sure".
Fundamentally, yes. But there's a lot of certainty before that, and these are things we can eventually understand.
For instance, quantum theory gives us a better understanding of subatomic dynamics -- but before that, we pretty much knew an atom is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and how many were in each. I'm not even sure we knew about quarks before we used that basic knowledge of the atom to build bombs and nuclear reactors.
That in no way leads to your claim of:
In other words, there's no proof of how it happened.
However, up to a few very tiny fractions of a second before the Big Bang, there's quite a lot of evidence for how it happened.
In light of the history of how science tends to refine its understanding of the universe, it seems somewhat unlikely that we will find the pieces we don't know filled in with "God did it", and it seems ludicrous to think that we would be so entirely wrong as to find out that the world is actually six thousand years old.
Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen.
I wasn't. I actually spent most of my life believing that science was so often wrong, that there might be this one thing I was more knowledgeable about than them. It would vary, of course, what I assumed that one thing to be...
So I did my homework, and came to the conclusion that they tend to know what they're talking about. In general, when you have a group of people who have each dedicated their life to thinking critical about a particular problem, and they overwhelmingly arrive at the same conclusion, they're probably right, or at least close to right.
Take gravity. You might say that newton was wrong -- in fact, he was merely not as accurate as he could've been.
And when creationists attack evolution, the statements that don't immediately get them laughed out of the discussion are vagaries like "There's debate about evolution! People disagree on some of the finer details!" Well, yes, they do -- in the hopes that they can refine the theory. There seems little chance anyone will be able to wholly disprove it -- just as Mercury doesn't disprove Newton gravity, it just requires Relativity to refine it a bit.
It's also worth mentioning that we're talking abo
Re:Creationism is satanic. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree totally.
Maybe it's more about transcendence of the body rather than rejection of it. While we live we are sensual, and Christians influenced by Tao might realize that our natural desires only need tempering, not abolishment, and that there are skills involved in keeping them within bounds.
I'm not sure all Christians follow the premise that Jesus is THE son of God. Scholarly Christians may have learned that in the original languages Jesus is only referred to - or refers to himself - as "a son of God" in the regional vernacular, and therefore they may understand him not to be a supernatural being, but simply an enlightened teacher explaining how to let go. They might practice his teachings with faith in their general soundness and venerate his example, rather than pedestalize and worship him. Those who follow his advice could be called the best kind of Christians because their intent and their willingness to investigate further allow them to take the psychological guidance of Jesus to heart and go learn yoga and mindfulness meditation from other traditions in order to deepen their practice and get to the heart of the matter.
Maybe they'd stop calling themselves Christians, but that's just part of leaving the vessel behind.
As to whether Jesus cared if his followers were curious, I think it's compatible with his prophetic vision that we must and will use our senses and reason to learn about the universe and survive in it. Jesus might or might not have himself wondered about the age of the earth on a given day, depending on his mood. We'll never know how much he studied the kosmos. Maybe he took literally the Talmud's account of the origin of the world. My guess is he understood reality a little better than that, as he meditated regularly. So he's a super-high inspired guru. His job - or the job of his character in the story - is to inspire a spirit of creativity, curiosity, and life-affirming intentionality to produce better conditions for life overall, especially as inevitable hardship arises. His PR people had at heart the overall resilience and viability of life itself.
If only people took his basic advice - love others, get your selfishness under control, meditate on this here prayer, don't get hung up on custom and the world, and don't get pious and controlling with me, all you authoritarian bastards... ah, the world would be much more pleasant. And we could all investigate the origins of life and its evolution in peace together.