Equal Time For Creationism 3451
Brian Berns writes "Many news sources reported on
President Bush's recent semi-endorsement of 'intelligent
design', the politically correct version of
creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative
Christians in the U.S.. While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on
this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck. Most of those
same news sources, however, missed the
recent condemnation of Darwinian evolution by the Catholic cardinal
archbishop of Vienna. This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt
to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than
just a hypothesis'."
Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, dear God...the Intelligent Design debate rears its ugly head once again. I predict a thousand comments on this story...easy.
OK...let's get the ball rolling, shall we?
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
(Note: during these debates, the issue of my own faith is always raised, so let me address that now. I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ died so that we may be saved.)
HOWEVER , I do not believe that such matters of faith should be taught in schools. I know that my faith is inherently unprovable...that's pretty much the definition of 'faith'. Matters of unproven, unprovable faith belong in your chosen place of worship. Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's not just the media consumers, but the brains of media consumers, which were hardwired by evolution to prefer gossip, political posturing, and photos of pretty girls and cute babies eating ice cream over thoughtful, rational discourse.
So nobody believes in evolution because of evolution. Which to my mind pretty much proves that there's no intelligent designer involved in this process.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Funny)
Unless the designer's motives are not what you think...
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, since the evolutionary timeline runs for ~4.5 billion years and the ID timeline for ~6,000 years, that would mean giving it about one second per school year.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just label me agnokapathetic*. While taking Classical Greek in college I came up with that word, which best describes my beliefs in this area.
*I really oughta copyright that word.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm. I must have imagined this news report for the other day [isn.ethz.ch] where "The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) released a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism last week"
We Could But It's Not Easy... (Score:4, Interesting)
The most recent incident that comes to mind is Senator Frist's support of more federal funding for stem cell research. He has since been ripped up publicly by ultra-right groups such as James Dobson's (*shudder*) Focus on the Family.
I find it highly upsetting that not only must those kinds of fundamentalist Christians try to force their beliefs on the nation, but also that they must resort to attacking their fellow believers in public forums in order to further their cause. This, to me, is inherently non-Christian behavior, and it makes me sad to see my so-called brothers in Christ act this way. In the end, it only serves to hurt their agenda by making us all look like hypocrits.
Leave me the frig alone... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, narrowed perspective notwithstanding, people keep doing pesky things like... oh, I don't know... voting. Electing Creationists to the School Board. Stuff like that.
So it's inescapable. "They" will never "leave you the frig alone." That's the whole frigging problem.
Re:Wrong on both counts? (Score:5, Informative)
You're incorrect. The problem with ID is that the Intelligent Designer in question can potentially be omnipotent and omniscient. Indeed, most proponents of ID are Christians that believe that an all-powerful, all-seeing God created the Universe.
Now, a scientific theory must be falsifiable by observational evidence. With ID, because the Designer can be omnipotent and omniscient, any evidence can be faked, and therefore is no evidence at all. Indeed, with ID, the Universe could have been created a mere two seconds ago, and all of our memories mere fabrications.
Intelligent Design is, by definition, not scientific, because it places no limits on the capabilities of the Designer, and therefore cannot be proven false. Don't believe me? Then give me an example of evidence that would disprove ID.
Evolution, on the other hand, is falsifiable because, unlike ID, it is restricted by physical laws.
Re:Falsifying Intelligent Design (Score:5, Informative)
To the Junk filter:
Hey you! Yeah, you the fundie about to have a coniption fit. Science is a journey, not a destination. Nothing in this book is written in stone. I may well all be re-written tomorrow. It probably won't, but it CAN be.
So don't get your panties in a bunch just because a bunch of University professors have come up with ideas that happen to contradict some immutable truth you've been taught.
It's science. It could all change tomorrow.
If you want to find comfort in certainty and
appeals to authority, go to the religous
establishment of your choice. You will not
find it here.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just that you hear the others, because they're so loud and obnoxious. One of the things that makes us sensible "believers" is the fact that we don't feel the need to tell everyone how great our beliefs are, so you just don't hear from us very often. We're too busy living our own lives to waste time talking about how other people should l
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct. There are many Christians who believe in Creationism and ID, but do not want it taught in science classes.
The problem is that the people who are making the most noise out there advocating Creationism and trying to teach ID in science classes ARE extremists. So, right or not, Creationism and ID become linked with extremism in the minds of people who do not think they belong in the classroom.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist. A belief that you do not share does not automatically put someone into a fringe extremist group which is to be feared or summarily dismissed.
Believing in creationism is not extremist. You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care, but that is not extremist either.
What is extremist is insisting that a religious doctrine with no basis in scientific method (i.e., not based on direct observation, not testable, not predictive, and neither provable nor disprovable) should be held as valid science.
I am not opposed to the teaching of religion in schools -- without a knowledge of the Bible, it is diffucult to have a real understanding of the artistic, cultural and political histotry of Western civilization, let alone how and why it is different from other civilizations in history.
Our western-style democratic systems of government, after all, stem directly from the Book of Genesis -- that humans are created in the image of God, meaning endowed with metaphysical freedom. Without that notion of metaphysical freedom, there would be no freedom in the real world.
But that is philosophy, not engineering. The Bible is literature, not history. Religion is cutural, not factual. And whatever the euphamism of the day, creationism is doctrine, not science.
If it were up to me, comparative religion would be a required part of every secondary school curriculum, but certainly not part of the science curriculum.
If we teach creationism in biology lessons, does that mean that we should also teach in astronomy the Islamic doctrine that the phases of the moon cannot be predicted, but must be observed? Perhaps in physics we should also teach the perfectly valid theory that an object will fall to the ground because that is the nature of matter.
western governments NOT from Genesis (Score:5, Informative)
Re:western governments NOT from Genesis (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, I don't see how Athens was hardly democratic since it only allowed male citizens to vote, but the early US was democratic even though it only allowed non-indian, non-black, male, land-owning citizens to vote.
It looks like you may have rearranged the facts to fit your theory.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems then a gross misunderstanding to claim that this is one part that MUST be taken as literally true, espically given it is one of the parts that seems most clearly to not be. That all the stuff you don't like in the OT isn't meant to be taken literally and done today, but this one part is.
I think to try and take Genesis as literally true is to miss the point, and to miss the message.
Culture wars is right. (Score:3, Interesting)
If the trend continues, it will no doubt bring about the fall of reason in American culture, essentially the fall of Western(that's where it's derived from I guess, of course reason can be found in the cultures of various geographic locations, not just the West) culture in America. And then the fall of America itself, which is good
You stole my post! (Score:3, Interesting)
I will go a little farther. I have been to some lectures on Intelligent Design. I found them deeply disturbing. They where full of at best bad science if not out right lies. I found them deeply disturbing on religious grounds. Part of my faith is a belief that lies do not serve God.
Re:You stole my post! (Score:3, Interesting)
If we want to keep religion out of science then we have to stop teaching science as a religion.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a Christian with specific beliefs about the Bible based on study of the scriptures from the original languages as found in the oldest/most accurate possible manuscripts.
The things I believe and have read in the Bible are not accurately represented by the ID/creationist crowd.
I venture to say that just about every Christian denomination has a slightly different take on the whole Creationist idea. Even within each denomination there is variance.
Allowing someone in the public school system to teach my childern about non-secular matters is ludicrous. I have a church to learn all about God, from people who actually believe what they are teaching and have a reason to investigate it and understand it.
I could not hold these "Christians" that would allow the public school system to teach their childern a bastardized and generic form of their theology in lower regard. They would sacrifice the truth of what they believe (the variances in creationism's proponents beliefs) in order to have some sort of political advantage. In my opinion they are taking their faith and using it as a blunt instrument to beat the "unbelievers" with all the while neglecting the spiritual education of their own children.
Creationism and ID do have a place in the classroom, but it is in philosophy class. If Christian activists want to make a difference maybe they could use their considerable political clout (which they seem all too eager to use and abuse) to get philosophy classes introduced in earlier class levels. As it is most people have to wait until college to be able to take it as an elective.
Considering the benefits of the critical thinking skills developed when studying philosophy I would think that any self respecting Christian would love this to be available to their children.
Then again a self repsecting Christian stays out of politics, teaches their children about theology themselves, and realizes that privacy is important in spiritual matters.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Informative)
The first fallacy is its claim that evolution is a "random" process. Evolution is not random at all, as its progress is determined by natural selection (or the selection of God, if you prefer).
From that it moves to its second fallacy, the claim that living systems are too complex to arise from a random process. However, no mathematical evaluation of the level of complexity or the amount of intelligence required is ever made. As a matter of fact, the math was done decades ago, and it turns out that evolution works.
Intelligent Design does not belong in the classroom except as an example of poor scientific reasoning.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a firm believer in natural selection, you've probably got a bit more to worry about than I would.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Funny)
It wasn't 'created' at all - it evolved!
I'll get my coat.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is little of philosophical value in Intelligent Design. It may be of theological interest, and while the line between philosophy and theology can be indistinct
Actually, I think we've hit on the right class to teach Intelligent Design. A marketing class. Look kids, how do you find a way to rebrand an old idea to provide it with added legitimacy in the modern age?
Compare/contrast ID & Nietzsche (Score:5, Insightful)
ID is not science.
ID is not philosophy.
ID is an attempt by a religious organization to counter the scientific method's encroachment on their domain.
With every scientific advance, their concept of "God" becomes less effective and more nebulous and this scares them.
What falsifiable predictions does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, perhaps it could be included in a philosophy clasroom as an example of modern day sophistry [wikipedia.org]:
Re:What falsifiable predictions does it make? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hello again, spun.
I didn't say it was scientific. I didn't say it makes provable predictions. In fact, I said almost the exact opposite:
Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom.
But not the biology or science classrooms. I'd hope that we've evolved, no pun intended, to the point that we can agree that this might belong in, say, a philosophy classroom.
In my previous post [slashdot.org], I said:
"Intelligent design", not in a form that has been co-opted by anti-evolution Creationists and people who think
Re:What falsifiable predictions does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
But as for being taught seriously in Philosophy? You must be joking. The foundation of philosophy is logic, and true, provable argument, and the foundation of this "theory" is nothing more than wishful thinking and fantastical invention.
Re:What falsifiable predictions does it make? (Score:3, Informative)
Physics, Biology, Mathematics, Chemistry...All these sciences were once branches of philosophy.
A good number of theologians have tried over the years to prove the existence of God using philosophical methods. They all failed. The very idea of a falsifiable claim is direct from philosophy.
Just because your idea of philosophy is something to talk about while you're smoking pot, doesn't mean that's all there is to it.
Re:What falsifiable predictions does it make? (Score:3, Insightful)
The possibi
You are wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay. That's acceptable.
Really? And what are the differences? I mean, aside from the obvious ones of spelling "God" and "Designer" and not directly referencing the Bible.
No. The only place it has is in a clas
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Discounting for the moment that we don't actually require millions of years of sitting and watching, even if your outrageous statement was true, the fact would remain that evolution could eventully be proven or disproven...it would just be inordinately difficult.
Contrast that with the quasi-religious Intelligent Design, which postulates a Designer, the existence of which is fundamentally unprovable. Not just difficult, but intrinsically impossible to either prove or disprove.
By the very standards of scientific thought, ID cannot be considered a scientific discipline.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Informative)
Um, Intelligent Design and Creationism are two completely different ideas.
Creationism believes that the Christian God created the universe and life, as described in the Bible. Sometimes literally.
Intelligent Design believes there was SOME intelligence that we don't understand that had influence on creating the universe and life and our physical world, but doesn't speak to religion at all.
Not in a science class, it doesn't.
Perhaps that's why right after what you quoted...
Intelligent Design certainly
Re:Two thousand (Score:5, Funny)
We'll have none of your heretical polytheism here, son. There is but one Administrator, and His name is
Say, there's a good topic for a survey....
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Insightful)
The students need to know the difference between hypothesis, theory, and fact (something that creationists like to manipulate in the media). If the teacher says "evolution is a scientific theory that we have evidence of but can not prove enough to raise it to the level of scientific fact" then the teacher also needs to say "gravity is a scientific theory that we have evidence of but can not prove enough to raise it to the level of scientific fact".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this is that there is no opposing view. At least not one with any real support in the scientific community. To use some other examples, there are those who think the Earth is flat [http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flate arthsociety.htm [alaska.net]. ] There are those who deny the Holocaust. These are opposing views to what is commonly accepted as fact, but they are typically not presented in a classroom because they lack credibility.
The reality is that there is no debate over evolution in the scientific community. There is continuing work on the specifics, the mechanics, and the details, but the basic process is fact.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Interesting)
Prediction is part of build any solid theory (like Evolution) and it has been proven time and time again. And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "Missing Link".
Here is a nice, recent prediction based on evolutionary theory.
It has been generally understood that Chimapanzees, Gorillas, and humans share common ancestors (no, we did not evolve FROM gorillas, we evolved with them). How? Through HUGE AMOUNT of fossil and geological evidences that we have collected over last century or so (and the term "missing link" is properly used in this context where we have found many species of early hominids that share same traits with chimpanzee's ancestors).
HA! You say. How do you know if you can rely on that fossil evidence? You want some predictions. Well, science did. They predicted that if chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans share same ancestors, their DNA's should also be very similar. Not only that they should have the sort of changes you would only expect from recent diversion and the rate of change observed in DNA should be roughly corresponding to the rate of change we have seen in fossil evidences.
And guess what happened when they did the DNA analysis!!! IT MATCHED!!! It followed and verified the theory.
That is how scientific predictions are made and how theories are strengthened.
Thus ends the lesson...
Re:Un-intelligent Design is not just inherently... (Score:3, Insightful)
Film at 1100 A.D. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Film at 1100 A.D. (Score:5, Informative)
A nineteenth century pope (Leo the somethingth, I think) went so far as to lay out sensible boundaries for religion and science, essentially asserting that science has no business telling people what to believe about God, and the Church has no business entering into debates over empirical study.
Accordingly, the Church has never actually opposed most of Darwinism, and has tacitly accepted it, with the critical caveats that Catholics cannot believe in the process being 'random', as whatever happened has to be part of God's plan. (Also, Catholics have to believe that humans exclusively have souls.)
This position won't change any time soon, notwithstanding the odd vocal Archbishop.
Re:Film at 1100 A.D. (Score:5, Informative)
Intelligent debate (Score:4, Insightful)
"Intelligent design", not in a form that has been co-opted by anti-evolution Creationists and people who think pi should be equal to exactly 3, has a place in this debate.
Does it have a place in a biology class? No.
Does it have a place in a philosophy class? Absolutely.
I rather liked this sequence from Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which Patrick Stewart elegantly sums up my, and likely many others', thoughts on this matter.
DATA: I have a question, sir. What is death?
PICARD: Oh, is that all?
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.
It's unfortunate that rabid anti-science Creationists have bastardized this debate, so that we can't really have a frank discussion about the science and theory of evolution on a backdrop of philosophical questions about how and why we're here.
In my 7th grade biology class, I'll never forget a kid raising his hand during the section on evolution and asking, "What about the Bible?" After a pause, the teacher replied, quite simply, "Well, some might say the Bible tells what God did, and science explains how he did it." Whether or not you agree fundamentally with religion in any form, it was a concise, non-confrontational answer to an honest question.
I do find it interesting the links that the submitter chose. For instance, a link of a center attempting to discredit Darwinian evolution was picked for "Intelligent Design" (in an obvious attempt to elicit a certain reaction), while the Wikipedia link was picked for Creationism. Why not pick the Wikipedia link for Intelligent Design [wikipedia.org], too, which describes in a pretty unbiased fashion what it generally is? Intelligent Design might not be science, but it certainly has a place in philosophy. And further, Intelligent Design and Creationism are NOT the same thing. That some Creationists have co-opted the term is unfortunate, but still doesn't make Creationism equal to Intelligent Design.
And is it any surprise that an agent of the Catholic Church condemns evolution? I mean, come on, people...is this really news? Why don't we have a front page slashdot story about what the Muslim Brotherhood believes?
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it
Re:Intelligent debate (Score:4, Insightful)
It's unfortunate that the President of a developed country who is in direct charge of some of the most powerful and awesome technologies created by scientists continues to push an agenda that is anti-science.
Let's keep the Government's representatives' religious beliefs and traditions out of our personal lives please.
Re:Intelligent debate (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree.
But what does this have to do with anything I said?
I'm glad you're so righteously smug in your ethical beliefs regarding what can and can't be done with embryos, since that is almost certainly to what you're referring.
Personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as you'd paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we ask important questions that define our very humanity?
On this closely related topic: I am also not anti-abortion. But abortion is not only a "medical procedure", and not only about a "woman's choice". A life is ended. I am willing to concede that it ultimately be better, societally, for unwanted children to not be born. It does somewhat fly in the face of the concept that actions have consequences, but indeed, the action of forcing someone to have a baby they don't want itself has consequences. Consequences that will be manifestly negative. However, the assertion that abortion is only about "life" or "choice" are equally disingenuous. It's about both.
Re:Intelligent debate (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad you're always so righteously smug in your assumptions on what others are saying, but in this case you couldn't be more wrong.
What I was referring to was the fact that the President holds his religious beliefs above all else even when it might not be in the best interests of the country he presides over. The President of our country s
Re:Intelligent debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Balderdash. If you're such an amoral shill (and I don't know you; just going by your own words) that you need a
book of fairy tales to tell you that torturing is wrong, then heaven help us if you ever find your way into any
kind of political power. But do not assume that everyone else shares that handicap.
Morality and religion are NOT one and the same, and it's been my experience that those who get their morality
from a book are a lot mo
Not all opinions are of equal value (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not all opinions are of equal value (Score:3, Funny)
Give it time, give it time.
Re:Not all opinions are of equal value (Score:5, Informative)
Quote:
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
Re:Not all opinions are of equal value (Score:4, Funny)
In this modern era of anti-intellectualism in the US, many would dismiss this statement out-of-hand as an arrogant, godless, know-it-all liberal who mocks the very foundation of our Christian nation. Rational debate with these types of people is a wasted effort.
These are the same people who thought that, given some extra time, Jesus would come riding down on his magical unicorn to shit a new brain into Terry Shivo's head. People will believe what they want to believe and nothing will change that.
Equal Time (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution is obsolete- upgrade w/ 'new biology' (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Evolution is obsolete- upgrade w/ 'new biology' (Score:5, Funny)
Oh Joy... (Score:5, Insightful)
25%: Creationists are stupid idiots who are basically Luddite Talibans without the beards.
40%: Creationists are wrong for x y z reasons.
10%: Defending particular versions of creationism that are basically compatible with the non-metaphysical aspects of evolution.
15%: We went to Iraq for the oil. And people in Kansas are stupid.
So how about we just skip the posting on this article, and move on to the next? The repetitious was the Slashdot community deals with posts regarding evolution is boring.
Re:Oh Joy... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Arguement (Score:3, Insightful)
The universe does not appear to be infinite, nor does the time it has existing for. Evolution i
Counterargument (Score:3, Interesting)
a) The universe is infinite spacially...
This is just wrong and not worth discussing. You may get varying opinions about the rate of expansion/contraction of the universe from astronomers, but the scientific community
Re:The Arguement (Score:3, Interesting)
And I have to ask -- if ID is indeed true, then aren't single-cell organisms God's primary children? And who's to say we're the end product? It took such a long time to get humans from proto-humans -- maybe those proto-humans thought THEY were the end product. And then we came. So who's to say we're
God, science and the creation of man. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's put it like a question:
"If you should create mankind, and do it really smart. How would you do it?"
Answer:
"Snap you fingers! Make the big bang, set the fundamental laws in motion and wait a couple of billion years."
If you are God, time doesn't really matter, do it? Billions of years or some days would be the same.
In regards to the laws of energy, matter etc. everyone realize that the construction of the universe is brilliant. Today we even recognize physical laws by the way they look. If they are mathematically nice and simple, they are usually right.
But the one answer Science always fails is; What (or who) started it all? The creator is still a fully plausible explanation.
In my opinion, anyone who disregards the scientific laws, disregards the creation it self. If the laws that rules this world is brilliant, why settle for something less brilliant. Some ideas made by man. 7 days or whatever...
A lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken literal. I my opinion they could not be more wrong, for several reasons. It all comes down to the fact that the book I written by man! Some may argue that it was inspired by God (and I might even agree) but it's still a manmade text. The written language (in any form) will in my opinion always fail to explain the divine. The God I believe in is too big for letters and text. The creation he (or she?) made and the method he used to make it, is too big for any of us to fully understand, much less write down in text.
An other fundamental reason where the bible fails (still because it was written by man) is the fact that God, even if he dictated the words could not describe the fabric of space 2000 years ago. Humans simply could not understand it. We might have a better chance today (even thou some parts still eludes even the best scientists). Therefore God would describe only the parts that could be understood by man back then, and simplify the rest. Creation was simplified into a story about the 7 days. What else could God say to the poor human that should write it down? Should he start explaining about energies and matter? Even the words we use today are manmade. I bet God didn't call it a "proton" back when he made it. (Wonder what the divine word really is?)
So if God is brilliant, he made a brilliant world. Science shows us a brilliant world, the bible doesn't. The bible shows us a dictated world. A world that just is! Period! No arguing, no fanciness! But that is not the world I see. I see a world of possibilities... of brilliance. My God is a brilliant God.
Let's head off the most common arguments right now (Score:4, Insightful)
- Evolution is not "just a theory," because in scientific usage, "theory" does not mean "unproven guess" as it does in common usage; it means "hypothesis which has stood up to rigorous testing against the best available evidence." In this sense, evolution is "just a theory" the same way gravity is "just a theory."
- In a similar vein, "law" in a scientific sense means "theory which has stood up so well and so long that although it's possible to disprove it, that doesn't look likely to happen." Evolution in this sense is a "law" to the same degree as Newton's laws of motion (suitably modified by Einstein) or the laws of thermodynamics.
- Those who oppose teaching creationism in schools are not "afraid of teaching the controversy." There is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution happens, although there may well be controversy about the specific details, any more than there is controversy among historians over whether the Holocaust happened or controversy among geographers over whether the Earth is round or flat.
- If we are to include Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myths (both "young Earth" and "Intelligent Design" varieties) in science classes, why stop there? Let's throw in the Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Jainist, etc. creation myths too. "Teach the controversy," right?
- There is no inherent conflict between religious belief and the scientific method, unless believers make it so. Many scientists are religious. Scientists do not "hate religion" or "hate God." When religion makes specific, testable claims about the nature of reality, then it is putting itself into science's realm, and faces the same risks of disproof that any other set of demonstrably wrong ideas does. As long as it sticks to matters of morality and spirituality, it can go its merry way.
There you go, folks. Now, enjoy your regularly scheduled flamewar.Re:Let's head off the most common arguments right (Score:5, Interesting)
One more thing you forgot to mention. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that SOMETHING created all of this. Part of Intelligent Design is the possibility that we were all created by intelligent beings from another world. Fanatical Christians attempt to twist Intelligent Design to only include God as the possible creator, but that destroys it's standing as science. For it to be actual science and to even be able to compete with evolution, it HAS to take into account that aliens or some other type of intelligent being besides a Deity created earth and all of us. It does absolutely nothing to further their religious agenda, yet for some reason they cling to it like Jesus himself.
Re:Let's head off the most common arguments right (Score:3, Informative)
Actually we have an incorrect idea of what a "Law" is. It is not a theory that has stood up to rigorous testing.
Theory vs. Law [pa.sk.ca]
Essentially, a law describes what happens. Theories attempt to explain why.
Touched by His Noodly Appendage (Score:5, Funny)
In Kansas, we intelligently design all the time.
My favorite current theory is the Flying Spaghetti Monster [venganza.org]. Please note how it also explains global warming with the decline of the world's pirate population.
From the founder's open letter to the Kansas Board of Education, which is considering re-writing the state's science standards to have none: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
Humbug (Score:3, Insightful)
Very clever wording (Score:5, Interesting)
A blunt anology is to holocaust denial; should we teach students in schools the version of history espoused by ring-wing neo-nazi groups? After all, we should show them both sides of the debate.
(Note that I don't think this kind of attack need lead to bad science in schools: you can have great fun accepting that neo-Darwinistic evolution is 'just a theory', as you can then discuss testability, predictions etc, and how it's doing against the evidence and what changes had to be made. Now do the same with ID - no testability, no predictions etc. Now pick the theory you want to use. For bonus points, discuss why ID is simply a stupid idea using Gould's separation of magisteria, or Fowler's mythos vs logos viewpoints.)
Where's the funding for Intelligent Design? (Score:3, Interesting)
fuck em' (Score:3, Funny)
Fuck the Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
beause kicking there punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them whack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
Sounds OK by me (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the people I know that are whole heartedly against evolution, haven't got the faintest idea how it works. They were never exposed to it and won't take the time to read anything about it. However, when I was in grade school, my science teacher would occasionally interject that intelligent design is a possibility that can't really be ruled out. Then he'd go right back into evolutionary theory. I believe he was doing it to keep certain people off his back. But, it didn't turn me into a right wing ultra conservative bible banger. It just taught me to keep an open mind. I still believe what I believe, but I do admit that I might be wrong.
Of course, the real problem they are going to run into is which intelligent design [venganza.org] concepts they are going to teach. Even sticking within the Judeo-Christian dogma, there's quite a few different viewpoint on the subject. These are teachers after all, not theologians. But, that topic will only cause heated arguments amonst all the right wingers... which is always fun to watch.
THE DEBATE. (Score:3, Interesting)
CHRISTIANS: We should teach religion in schools.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: No, we should not teach religion in schools.
COURTS: Yeah, pretty much.
(Pause.)
1955.
CHRISTIANS: We should teach "creationism" in schools.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Um, that's the exact same thing as before. You're just calling it "creationism" instead of "religion". And you shouldn't teach religion in schools.
COURTS: Yeah, pretty much.
(Pause.)
2005.
CHRISTIANS: We should teach "intelligent design" in schools.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Um, that's still the exact same thing as before. You're just calling it "intelligent design" instead of "creationism". And you still shouldn't teach religion in schools.
COURTS: Yeah, pretty much.
(Pause.)
2055.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: We should teach science in schools.
COURTS: Citizen, you have committed an Error. Please stand by until an armed guard can escort you to a Free Speech Zone.
CHRISTIANS: Man, living in a hyperbolic hypothetical example rocks!
For those who don't want a flame war (Score:3, Interesting)
What may come as a surprise is that most Creationists and IDists agree that there is speciation and adaptation. It's evident that animals adapt. What is more the crux of conflict is whether species can adapt to become an entirely new and different specie.
What's more, Creationists and IDist don't like the fact that evolution doesn't have any real answer for the source for life. The "lightning zapped a glob of primordial ooze, thus forming the first proteins" idea is not only unnatural (life coming from non-life), but also unproven (why can't we reproduce this phenomena today?)
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it? Considering we can't even explain with certainty how life started in the first place, it's naive to think evolution is the answer to everything; evolution may be what's happening to species now and in the past, but that doesn't explain where the species originated. I read recently in National Geographic a scientist who was quoted as saying that evolution is right, but as far as how life got here to evolve in the first place, we'll just "leave that up to priests and poets". Priests and poets!
What we're going to see in this Slashdot thread is a lot of "Creationists are stupid rednecks. Evolution is triumphant once again!". Lots of gloating and lots of mockery will be going on. No doubt, several ACs will reply to this post with personal insults because I disagree with their view of the world. All I can say is, don't assume anyone has all the answers, because no one, evolutionists or creationists, has the answers. And if we don't have all the answers, then analyzation and presentation of conflicting theories is both scientific and beneficial.
Ahem - The Facts (Score:3, Informative)
- This is the first time that Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design as President, though he held the same position as governor of Texas.
- President Bush does not think that curriculum decision concerning Intelligent Design should be made at the federal level; they should be left up to local school districts.
- A quote from President Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."
- Another quote: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
So here are some conclusions: First, the president is not making any sort of federal policy shift to cause Intelligent Design to be taught in schools. Second, despite that, the President knows that a high-level endorsement of Intelligent Design will be the difference-maker for some local school districts. Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children on the subject of the origin of species.
Now I get it.... Bush is brilliant! (Score:4, Funny)
He is abusing his power as President in a clever ploy to show how ridiculous policies such as his are. When he says that contrasting ideas on the origin of species should be taught, what he is really advocating is that schools teach just how unscientific Creationism is.
Bush's ultimate goal is to finally expose Christianity and all other religions for the fraud they are! His entire Iraq War is meant to be an instructive lesson on the dangers of religious fanatacism.
Brilliant! Fucking brilliant!
wow, way to spin (Score:5, Informative)
The Washington Post, August 27, 1999:
Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said, "He believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught.... He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught."
The Kansas City Star, September 9, 1999:
"I think it's an interesting part of knowledge (to have) a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view. Should the people choose in my state (to adopt a rule similar to Kansas') I have no problem" with public schools teaching both creationism and evolution.
Reuters, November 4, 1999:
Bush supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Bush stated, "I have absolutely no problem with children learning different forms of how the world was formed." Bush believes decisions regarding curriculum should be made by local school districts.
Re:Ahem - The Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a little misleading. Bush is advocating teaching ID, he's only justifying it by saying that the purpose is to expose students to multiple theories. The problem is that, depending on your standards, there is either one valid theory--evolution, which is valid because it is supported by evidence and science--or many, many valid theories, such as Scientology, which would be valid because someone believes in it and would be offended to be taught facts that contradicted their beliefs.
It's very deceptive for someone in Bush's position to say, "Teach the controversy!" There is no controversy. None. ID has nothing to do with legitimate science, and whatever controversy exists is the result of an intentional effort to deceive laypeople.
Did Bush really endorse ID? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
I have to agree with this. Children have to be taught that there's a debate going on, that some people believe in intelligent design. If no mention is made of ID in schools, then kids will be at the mercy of people who will teach it to them as religious ideology and they won't have the tools to evaluate it properly.
ID should be taught in social studies, *not* in science class, but I don't see Bush saying anything about putting it in science class.
The article says: Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories. THAT, I disagree with. Is this really what Bush was saying, or did the article jump to conclusions? Where can I find the official transcript of the session?
Re:Did Bush really endorse ID? (Score:5, Insightful)
One one side you have Evolution: scientific studies, data, and observable fact, widely verified, and serving as the bedrock foundation for virtually all over biology, biochem, and supported by every other branch of science from geology to astrology.
On the other you have a group of people saying "Nuh-uh!" and sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "LA LA LA LA". In other words: ignorance and childish clinging to myths taught to them when they were young.
There simply aren't two sides. Evolution is a fact. It is science. ID is not science. It is not fact. It is not even theory. There is nothing put forth by ID that disproves Evolution or even calls evolution into question. ID is nothing more than religious dogma, part of an agenda to dress up Creationism and force secular public schools to indoctrinate children in a specific religion.
Philosophy is not science (Score:3, Informative)
Easy Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to Catholic school pretty much all my life. In high shcool, they had a class called "Theology" which you could take for 4 years. Freshman year was all old testament and you learned about creation.
We also had a class called "Biology" which only had 2 levels but in Biology, you learned about Evolution. Creation never came up in Biology. Why? Biology is a science class. In science class, you learn about science. In religion class, you learn about religion.
This was a pretty strict Catholic school for Calofornia. There were no uniforms but you had to dress nice. No jeans because they were believed to be a tool of satan.
Now it stands to reason that if the school dean thought Satan and Levis were involved in some kind of plot to ruin the education system, then you could pretty much call him a bible banging zealot. Even so, he obvisouly understood the value of keeping science in science class and religion in religion class where each topic can be explored to he full extent.
I believe public schools should have a theology elective where people interested in religion can go learn about all types of religion. This would give people the opportunity to really interpret and discuss old testament stories in a way thats not possible in science class. Then, just maybe, the children will learn that the old testament is not a history book.
I find this to be a much better solution since bringing up creation in science class lends it more credability than it deserves. Christians should face the fact that Genesis was written by a bunch of sheep herders who lived in the middle of the desert and had no other way to explain the creation of the universe.
The Great Green Arkleseizure Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
I think, President Bush should immediately endorse the teaching of the Great Green Arkleseizure [angelfire.com] Theory of the universe, as well as the Turtles-all-the-way-down [wikipedia.org]-theory of geology. Not to forget the Plutonium Atom Totality theory [wikipedia.org] of particle physics.
A concerned citizen of Old Europe.I honestly cannot undestand why American students are not exposed to these refreshing and original thoughts in the classroom nor why President Bush is not using his influence to set this important matter right!
Required read per Catholic teaching on evolution (Score:4, Informative)
Pope Benedict XVI [vatican.va] (current pope) has also made some indirect statements on the matter since his election too.
But to really undertand the beginnings of the modern Catholic "handling" of the issue, from the "top down" as it were, it is important for Catholics and non-Catholics/Christians alike to read Pope Pius XII's [vatican.va] encyclical, Humani Generis [vatican.va], promulgated on August 12, 1950.
It is really worth one's time to read the whole thing, but allow me to post the relevant quote that is still considered binding Catholic teaching on the matter:
separation of church and state (Score:4, Insightful)
The separtion of church and state demanded by the US constitution won't allow for it being any other way.
No public school where MY kids go to will even mention creationism, or I'll drag them into court.
If they hear about it in Sunday school, that's fine with me.
Re:I moderate this story -1 Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
That's scary.
Rest assured, for someone from Europe like me this whole debate looks really surreal and scary, but it's definately newsworthy.
Re:I moderate this story -1 Flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Newsworthy? Yes.
Should it be discussed somewhere? Yes.
Should that discussion take place on Slashdot? Hell no.
The submission is nothing but a troll...Everyone read this site knows it will amount to over 1,000 posters screaming at each other.
Good for you (Score:3, Interesting)
You shouldn't exactly be surprised if Americans could care less what european news agencies think about them from time to time.
You go ahead and be concerned. We'll keep working long hours.
Re:Good for you (Score:5, Funny)
More like 60 million years ago wasn't it
Re:Ahhh shit here we go (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ahhh shit here we go (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ahhh shit here we go (Score:4, Interesting)
Creationism is a belief system based on faith and traditional teachings which works in absense of evidence. They don't care for external evidence, in fact Intelligent Design is built upon the lack of evidence as proof.
They are fundamentally different in how they work. One is science based, one is faith based. One should be in a science class and the other in a philosophy class.
Re:Ahhh shit here we go (Score:4, Funny)
The earth was built by the mice to find the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything.
I really think that theory should be given equal class time!
It's because they have no faith. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can talk to a christian who has faith and have a perfectly normal conversation. It's like talking to a gay guy...if you're not comfortable with your sexuality, its weird, but if you are, it's not. A christian who has solid faith is perfectly okay with saying, "I don't know" because they don't have to know. They don't have anything to prove.
But take someone who has no faith, and try and have a logical, rational discussion, and watch how fast they lose it. Because they have no faith, they nee
Re:It's a current event (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Religion is mind rotting shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no reason for any sensible person to ever bother listening to a creationist argument, including intelligent design. There is simply no proof.
What's frustrating is people like Swamii who compares science with religion and declares that both require faith. There is no faith in science, only fact.
Re:Religion is mind rotting shit. (Score:5, Informative)
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Letter of 1946, Hoffman and Dukas]
"What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws." [The Private Albert Einstein]
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously." [New York Times Magazine November 9, 1930]
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events." [Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium]
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [Letter of 5 February 1921]
"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." [The World as I See It]
and finally
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being." [Einstein - The Human Side]
Re:Materialist dogma v.s. honest inquiry (Score:4, Insightful)
Good question. The speculation that God or Aliens created life on Earth is an unreasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence at this time.
I don't care what you believe, I only care what you can prove. So please, supply this theory of Intelligent Design, if you even know what a scientific theory is. HINT: Its not a guess. Or properly reclassify it as theology, not biology.
because we KNOW we arised spontaneously.
Who's we, Pocahontas? The Homo Sapiens I know evolved over many many centuries of.. you guessed it.. evolution.
Did God/Aliens also create?
Homo Habilis
Homo Erectus
Homo Sapiens
Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Homo Floresensis
Why so many mistakes? Cognitive dissonance getting to ya?
Listen, what most people are saying is ID isn't even a theory, its not in the realm of biology. Its simply religion wrapped up in scientific sounding rhetoric. Nothing more. It is a waste of time for real scientists and educated people.
Sure we can think about how the universe was created by some old guy with a beard saying a word, really loud and slow. But that's about a provable as the God I saw on my LSD trip last week. So please, just keep it to yourself until you do the research.. in short, stop wasting our time.
Time is a limited resource, far more valuable than your opinion.