Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 356 (465693)
05-09-2008 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 5:27 AM


Re: Objective vs Subjective Reality
I am not trying to be difficult, but it is not as simple as some are trying to make it seem. It is like "groupthink." It appears that many scientists have went into this little room and agreed that this is the position and these are the answers to every question, no matter what the evidence.
And yet you know perfectly well that it is scientists who left their little room and looked at the evidence. It's what they do.
However, you are forgetting that 45% of scientists have looked at the overwhelming evidence, and come to the conclusion that God exists.
I'm not sure that they did so by looking at scietific evidence; you yourself have said that the question of the existence of God is not amenable to scientific study.
If my understanding is correct then all of them believe that God is behind man's creation. They differ in what means God used to achieve this feat. Over 10% of these scientists believe that God created man fully formed around 10,000 years ago.
Over 10%? Really?
If the evidence is so overwhelming then how can so many scientists, who should know the evidence, believe as they do.
Well, for example, if ones field of expertise was aerodynamics, then one need never look at the relevant evidence, which is in geology and the life sciences.
Are you including the 45% of scientists? Or, are you saying that those who believe in God can also think rationally and objectively?
I was thinking of Young Earth Creationists, whose overlap with scientists is tiny.
We can accept that both exist. We can accept that there is an existence and concepts that go beyond the physical world.
Yes, but my question was, what should we do when we have concepts that don't go beyond it, but conflict with it?
It is one think to think of God as the true light of day, and the material world mere shadows on the walls of Plato's cave, but what do we say to the man who denies the existence and forms of the shadows?
When you begin talking about primordial soup, and astronomical odds resulting in the origin of life ...
I do not talk about astronomical odds resulting in the origin of life. Creationists do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:27 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 6:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 197 of 356 (465696)
05-09-2008 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 5:50 AM


Re: What is Solid Evidence?
Is eyewitness testimony solid evidence? That seems to be a lot better evidence then we have for the origin of life and the origin of the universe.
Au contraire we know that life and the universe both had origins.
My point about solid evidence was simply to point out that certain circumstances are required before one can believe in a miracle; if you find the evidence solid enough for the events in the Gospels, then let's not derail the thread, eh?
Is that a hyperbole when you say that you "find no evidence for ... what-have-you?"
No, that was vagueness. Other things that seem problematic include the Tower of Babel, the suggestion of geocentrism, that the sky's a solid, that the stars are smaller than the Sun rather than just further away, the phrase: "The four corners of the Earth", and so forth.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:50 AM Wumpini has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 198 of 356 (465710)
05-09-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 7:43 AM


Re: Contrary Evidence
They are scientists, and probably educated people, therefore they would seem to need evidence to be convinced of anything.
Not a valid conclusion. It may seem that way, but human beings are not machines - irrationality runs rampant in even the most highly educated of our species.
But more specifically, ask the many Christian scientists on this very board whether they have objective evidence in support of their religious beliefs. Invariably, the answer will be "no." They may have any number of reasons for believing anyway, but those reasons are not related to objective evidence. If they had objective evidence in support of a deity, they would not only have presented it, but scientific research to determine the properties of this deity and its role in the Universe would have begun.
Remember, the only reason science doesn't deal with god is because there is no objective, testable evidence suggesting god exists. If there were, science would most certainly follow the evidence.
quote:
Thats a pretty huge assumption, for my own part I would assume most of that 40% probably believed in god before they became scientists, so they would already be convinced of his existence.
You seem to be making some pretty huge assumptions yourself. How would the question of whether these scientists' belief in God came about before or after becoming scientists have anything to do whether this belief is based upon evidence. Without any evidence how can you assume that most believed in God before they became scientists? How do we know when these scientists became convinced of the existence of God? Would the question of when their belief in evolution came about determine whether this belief was based upon evidence? If their belief in God or evolution is not based upon evidence, then what is it based upon?
It's a very reasonable assumption based on personal exerience, Wumpini. What percentage of Christians do you really think are converts vs. people who were raised as Christians from childhood? I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of Christians (in America at the very least) believed in god long before they entered a career field.
The evidence consists of every single Christian I have ever met, in my case. That would be thousands, by the way, and that's just my experience in various parts of the country. Even the converts I've met were typically converts from one flavor of Christianity to another, or to Mormonism, etc. All had believed in god since childhood.
But the reason we know that their belief is not based on evidence is becasue no evidence has so far been proposed suggesting the existence of a deity. You seem to believe that such evidence exists, but you have so far been unable or unwilling to present it.
Do you really beleive there is some vast conspiracy amongst god-believing scientists to not submit evidence if it suggests god exists?
quote:
Thats a pretty huge leap there, you just magically poofed some contrary evidence out of nowhere. Do you have anything to suggest that such evidence actually exists?
You are the one that brought up contrary evidence.
quote:
What makes you assume they have evidence? Have you never encountered people who hold on to beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary? They may be scientists who work in fields totally unrelated to evolution and therefore have had no exposure to the evidence.
I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something. I have only began to study some of this evidence, but we don't need to act like it does not exist. The only thing we can question is whether the evidence is strong enough to sway either one of us to believe in something different then we already believe.
"Believing evidence exists" and actually being able to show evidence are two very different things. It has been my experience that those people who believe in Creationism do so knowing that scientific evidence opposes their view - their belief is that the Bible consitutes a "higher authority" than objective evidence, and so the evidence is overruled.
This is very different from evidence to the contrary of evolution. You are saying now that such evidence exists. Put up or shut up, Wumpini - topple all of biology right now with this evidence you believe contradicts evolution, or admit that you have nothing.
Don't evade with more of your "I have just begun to look into this" BS. You're claiming the evidence exists, so produce it, right now. If you cannot, then your claim that evidence to the contrary of evolution exists is based on a fantasy.
Here are the facts, Wumpini:
1) personal opinion means absolutely nothing without evidence to support it, else all opinions are equally valid - a position only seriously considered by kindergarteners.
2) The Theory of Evolution is one of the most accurate models in all of science, resting on a mountain of supporting evidence from multiple independant fields of research that all somehow happen to agree without twisted "re-interpretations" of evidence.
3) The scientific method demands evidence at every step, and bases conclusions on evidence rather than interpreting evidence in light of a predetermined conclusion. That constitutes religious apologetics, and it has proven to be a very inaccurate method of reflecting reality.
4) personal beliefs are all well and good, but cannot enter into science where evidence carries weight and opinion does not.
5) sugar-coating scientific models so that religious people "feel better" is idiotic. Emotions are irrelevant. Facts care very little for how people "feel," and the way the Universe functions will not change simply because someone had their worldview turned upside down. If we agree that teaching facts in school is important, sugar-coating is not an option. If we disagree, then I'd like to know what, exactly, you think school is for.
6) the popularity of an opinion is irrelevant. Statistics regarding frequency of belief are irrelevant. All that matters is the argument, and the evidence supporting it. If an opinion is not supported by evidence, no matter how popular it is, the opinion is worthless as a reflection of reality. 40% of scientists, 10%, 90%, it doesn't matter. If there is no evidence supporting their belief that a deity is involved, then their opinions are worthless with regard to reality.
7) claiming there is evidence to the contrary of evolution means you had damned better produce such evidence.
If you want to make a legitimate investigation into evolution and what the scientific model is, stop paying attention to opinion surveys. They are meaningless. Concentrate on the theory and the evidence that supports it. Find out what the theory actually says, and look for some examples. See for yourself how the conclusion follows the evidence, rather than the conclusion coming first and the evidence being warped to fit. All of this "5% of scientists believe the Earth is 6000 years old, so there must be evidence to the contrary of evolution" nonsense is worthless for your stated purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:43 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 8:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 356 (465724)
05-09-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 7:43 AM


Re: Contrary Evidence
I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something.
Of course they base that belief on something. They base it on the belief that the Bible is inerrant and should be taken literally.
I have only began to study some of this evidence, but we don't need to act like it does not exist.
No, "acting" is not necessary.
If you have "only began to study some of this evidence", then I know twenty times more creationist arguments than you do. I also know why they're wrong, 'cos I looked that up too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:43 AM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 200 of 356 (465731)
05-09-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dr Adequate
05-09-2008 8:29 AM


Shadows and Reality
DA writes:
Over 10%? Really?
I was talking about 10% of the 45% (these scientists) which comes to 4.5% (The 5% YEC is greater than 4.5%). I am not trying to change any numbers. It is just the way you look at them.
DA writes:
then let's not derail the thread, eh?
It is not intentional. I guess I need to ignore posts that are getting totally off topic like who wrote the Gospels and when. I will try to move back in the right direction.
Believe it or not, somewhere along the line I was attempting to make a point that relates to teaching evolution in schools.
Wumpini writes:
However, you are forgetting that 45% of scientists have looked at the overwhelming evidence, and come to the conclusion that God exists.
DA writes:
I'm not sure that they did so by looking at scietific evidence; you yourself have said that the question of the existence of God is not amenable to scientific study.
I was talking about the scientific evidence related to the theories of origins, and evolution. They seemed to be able to look at this evidence, and it did not affect their belief in God (Assuming they believed in God before they looked at the evidence). It appears they were able to fit God into the scientific theories as the Creator without compromising their objectiveness. I have not determined exactly how they did this, but it may be that they believe that God willed the universe into existence, primed it for life, and then used evolution as a tool for the diversity that we see.
I wonder how this reconciliation of religion and science affected the scientists' view towards the written word of God. I would imagine that the evidence changed their view towards the Bible. It is possible they even had to compromise their beliefs.
If a significant portion of scientists believe that God was involved in creation, then why are we having this controversy. Can't they work out a theory that allows for the existence of God? I know that it is a variable that cannot be calculated. I know that because of parsimony that the theory works without God. I know I have been told that God does not belong in the science classroom. Well, I hate to tell you but God is in the people's homes, and in the people's hearts (and a lot of scientists' hearts too), so He comes into the classroom with them. Maybe you could tell the people that the theory does not include God, but they can put Him in whereever they want. I don't know.
DA writes:
Yes, but my question was, what should we do when we have concepts that don't go beyond it, but conflict with it?
I don't know the answer. What shall we do?
There must be a way to help those who are being alienated to understand that they cannot ignore the shadows in the cave, and at the same time help those who are trapped in the cave to realize that there is a lot more to reality than mere shadows.
DA writes:
I do not talk about astronomical odds resulting in the origin of life. Creationists do.
Don't scientists calculate probabilities of events such as abiogensis, or other unlikely events?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2008 8:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Taz, posted 05-09-2008 6:17 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2008 8:29 PM Wumpini has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 201 of 356 (465732)
05-09-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 6:10 PM


Re: Shadows and Reality
Wumpini writes:
Don't scientists calculate probabilities of events such as abiogensis, or other unlikely events?
Don't creationists calculate probabilities of events such as people come from dirt, or other unlikely events?

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 6:10 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 202 of 356 (465735)
05-09-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Rahvin
05-09-2008 12:29 PM


Evidence
Rahvin writes:
Remember, the only reason science doesn't deal with god is because there is no objective, testable evidence suggesting god exists. If there were, science would most certainly follow the evidence.
I really believe that science is too limited to give me the answers that I seek. Science is not able to find the truth. It is only able to make conclusions based upon evidence. The evidence may or may not be leading you to the right conclusion.
Rahvin writes:
But the reason we know that their belief is not based on evidence is becasue no evidence has so far been proposed suggesting the existence of a deity. You seem to believe that such evidence exists, but you have so far been unable or unwilling to present it.
It may be that our definition of evidence is not even the same. Here is a definition that I found on the internet:
quote:
Evidence - A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Are you saying that nothing has ever been proposed (evidence) that would be helpful in anyone forming a conclusion that there was a deity? I think what you are saying is that nothing has ever been proposed that you would say is good enough evidence for you to believe in a diety.
However there is evidence that people use to help them make the judgment that God exists. I would be happy to start a thread to discuss that evidence. I will be traveling the next few days, but when I return I will try to remember to do that.
Rahvin writes:
Do you really beleive there is some vast conspiracy amongst god-believing scientists to not submit evidence if it suggests god exists?
Do you really believe that almost half of scientists, and most Americans would believe in God if there was no evidence whatsoever?
Rahvin writes:
Don't evade with more of your "I have just begun to look into this" BS. You're claiming the evidence exists, so produce it, right now. If you cannot, then your claim that evidence to the contrary of evolution exists is based on a fantasy.
Well the truth is that I am looking at the evidence. As I said, I am not even sure that when we use the word evidence that we are talking about the same thing. I am not even sure we are talking about the same theories. I lump them all together in my head, but I know you have different theories for all the different aspects of creation. If you noticed in my definition above, it says that scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. It seems that you are saying that it is impossible for there to be evidence that contradicts your theories. That does not seem to be a very scientific attitude.
Rahvin writes:
You are saying now that such evidence exists.
Actually, this is what I said.
quote:
I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something. I have only began to study some of this evidence, but we don't need to act like it does not exist. The only thing we can question is whether the evidence is strong enough to sway either one of us to believe in something different then we already believe.
  —Wumpini
If scientists have formed a judgment or a conclusion that is contrary to yours, then it seems that they would only do this if there was evidence. Give me some time to look at the stuff. Why would I throw something out like moondust, when I don't even believe it is a good argument. However, to some it is evidence, because it has been used to form a conclusion. It may be poor evidence in your opinion (and mine also) but it is still evidence. When I look at Gentry's halos, I think the arguments get stronger. But, I need time to objectively evaluate the theories myself before you tell me they have been previously refuted a thousand times. If the earth has been here billions of years, as you suggest, then a few weeks is not going to make that much difference.
Rahvin writes:
If we disagree, then I'd like to know what, exactly, you think school is for.
I would hope that the objective of school is a lot more than filling their little heads with a bunch of facts. Is the objective to teach the children in such a way that in a few generations we will have an atheistic society? Should children feel that they have some purpose in life? Should children have hope? Does science want to attempt to deny the existence of anything beyond the physical realm? Why is it so important that you convert all of the people to this way of thinking? It seems like a religion that wants to deny the existence of anything beyond the empirical senses.
I think the objective of school should be to help young people to become well rounded, productive members of society. Its purpose should not be to see how many facts that we can stick into their little heads.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2008 12:29 PM Rahvin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 356 (465736)
05-09-2008 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 6:10 PM


Re: Shadows and Reality
It is not intentional. I guess I need to ignore posts that are getting totally off topic like who wrote the Gospels and when. I will try to move back in the right direction.
Believe it or not, somewhere along the line I was attempting to make a point that relates to teaching evolution in schools.
Yes. The only reason that the moderators on this forum have put up with this thread so far is that you're a courteous, intelligent, and sincere debater; so they're giving you a break. Normally, they'd be down on you like a ton of bricks 'cos of the way you shift from point to point. A word to the wise, eh?
If a significant portion of scientists believe that God was involved in creation, then why are we having this controversy.
Because the gist of this controversy is not about whether God exists and is the creator of the universe, but about whether evolution happened or whether the kinds of animals that we see today are the result of fiat creation as you would have to believe if you took the Book of Genesis literally.
I don't know the answer. What shall we do?
Abandon the concepts that conflict with the evidence.
Don't scientists calculate probabilities of events such as abiogensis ...
No. No, they don't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 6:10 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 9:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 204 of 356 (465737)
05-09-2008 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Adequate
05-09-2008 8:29 PM


Boiling down the Controversy
DA writes:
Because the gist of this controversy is not about whether God exists and is the creator of the universe, but about whether evolution happened or whether the kinds of animals that we see today are the result of fiat creation as recounted in the book of Genesis.
Would you say then that the entire argument rests upon the "age of the earth?"
DA writes:
Abandon the concepts that conflict with the evidence.
So, it seems you are saying that creationists need to abandon the Genesis creation account and the flood.
Does that mean that science does not have a problem with the other miracles in the Bible as long as they do not contradict the evidence that you see in nature?
Wumpini writes:
Don't scientists calculate probabilities of events such as abiogensis ...
DA writes:
No. No, they don't.
I did not know that. I have seen probabilities before but I did not know where they came from.
A little tidbit about where I live in Africa. A person can graduate from High School here, and have no idea that there is a scientific theory called the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. I know this because of my own little survey. You choose your direction in High School, and if it is not science then you are not taught these things. However, everyone is taught about creation in Religous and Moral Education Class. It seems as though we are doing exactly the opposite in our American schools.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2008 8:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Taz, posted 05-09-2008 9:14 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2008 9:39 PM Wumpini has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 205 of 356 (465738)
05-09-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 9:00 PM


Re: Boiling down the Controversy
Wumpini writes:
A little tidbit about where I live in Africa. A person can graduate from High School here, and have no idea that there is a scientific theory called the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. I know this because of my own little survey. You choose your direction in High School, and if it is not science then you are not taught these things. However, everyone is taught about creation in Religous and Moral Education Class. It seems as though we are doing exactly the opposite in our American schools.
And I'm sure Africa is in the forefront of scientific progress. I'm also sure that the probes that have been landing on Mars have "Made in Africa" written all over them.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 9:00 PM Wumpini has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 206 of 356 (465744)
05-09-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 9:00 PM


Re: Boiling down the Controversy
Would you say then that the entire argument rests upon the "age of the earth?"
No, 'cos that's not what I said.
So, it seems you are saying that creationists need to abandon the Genesis creation account and the flood.
Does that mean that science does not have a problem with the other miracles in the Bible as long as they do not contradict the evidence that you see in nature?
In my view, yes. I'm just one guy, and cannot speak for "science", but for myself, yes.
I did not know that. I have seen probabilities before but I did not know where they came from.
Most of the figures you've seen don't come from scientists, but I wasn't quibbling about where the figures came from. The reason that I said: "No", flatly, is that no-one is in any position to calculate those odds. With my hand on my heart, and hope to die if I lie, no-one can make that calculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 9:00 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 207 of 356 (465757)
05-10-2008 2:26 AM


Objective of School
Wumpini writes:
I would hope that the objective of school is a lot more than filling their little heads with a bunch of facts. Is the objective to teach the children in such a way that in a few generations we will have an atheistic society? ... Why is it so important that you convert all of the people to this way of thinking? It seems like a religion that wants to deny the existence of anything beyond the empirical senses.
I want to clarify this statement. My feeling would be the same if we were structuring our education in such a way to create a society of Muslims, or Catholics, or Buddhists, or Methodists, or Atheists. When a child completes their education they should be open to new ideas and willing to learn. They should be able to accept or reject the possibility of a spiritual realm on their own. They should understand that everything is not as black and white as the physical exists, and the spiritual does not exist.
It seems that if we create a population that has no understanding of how to go beyond the physical realm then the most important questions in life will go unanswered for them. Education needs to be structured in a way that opens doors, not closes them. Children need to have their horizons broadened, not narrowed. Science admits that their is a possibility of the existence of a realm that does not follow the laws of nature. Children need to be able to search out that realm. Maybe that instruction does not belong in the science classroom but it belongs somewhere in the education of a child. If we want the American people to have the ability to search out the truth, then we must not close this door either intentionally or inadvertently.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Taz, posted 05-10-2008 2:53 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2008 10:24 PM Wumpini has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 208 of 356 (465758)
05-10-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Wumpini
05-10-2008 2:26 AM


Re: Objective of School
Wumpini writes:
When a child completes their education they should be open to new ideas and willing to learn. They should be able to accept or reject the possibility of a spiritual realm on their own. They should understand that everything is not as black and white as the physical exists, and the spiritual does not exist.
But clearly this has been demonstrated over and over to not work. This exact same way of thinking plunged Europe into the dark ages for over 800 years. The parts of the world that have adopted this policy that you are proposing are the most backward, undemocratic societies today. So, clearly, having the state to endorse this spiritual realm of yours would impede progress.
It seems that if we create a population that has no understanding of how to go beyond the physical realm then the most important questions in life will go unanswered for them.ours have been demonstrated to impede progress.
Can you point to a few progresses (scientific or not) made by exploring the spiritual side that actually had any practical value? I'm talking about an example where god came down and gave a spiritual leader anti-biotics or told him how to create a better crop yield. So far, we've only had examples of scam artists (aka faith healers) that have scammed people out of millions of dollars. Just look up psychic surgery, Peter Popoff, and Uri Geller. Are these the kinds of messiahs you want us to follow?
Education needs to be structured in a way that opens doors, not closes them.
Exactly. And the way we do this is by making the children understand that wishful thinking isn't going to get them anywhere. Again, can you give us a few examples of spiritual progress that have saved millions of lives? If anything, spiritual persistence has done very well at subjugating people. All we have to do is look at the various fundamentalist islamic states and how people's private lives are controled by holy men.
If we want the American people to have the ability to search out the truth, then we must not close this door either intentionally or inadvertently.
If you didn't notice, people voted Bush (aka Jesus Christ II) into office for a second term in 2004. So, clearly the American people are already on the path that you would have us to be on.
By the way, if McCain gets voted in, I'm moving to Canada.
The point is if there is a god then the best way to find god is through skepticism and not blind faith or spirituality or what have you. The last thing we need is the school system telling students to pray to Bush.
Added by edit.
Just watch this short clip of James Randi debunking Peter Popoff, a popular faith healer. Can't you feel the spirituality of the scam? Look at all the faithfuls that believed in Popoff's bullshit. Is this the kind of "spiritual side" you want us to teach our children?
Added by edit again.
Here is a clip from 2007. I guess there are still people stupid enough to be scammed by this spiritual scam artist. Look at all the faithfuls. Is this what you want our children to be? Just sheeps for the spiritual wolves?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Wumpini, posted 05-10-2008 2:26 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 05-10-2008 7:46 AM Taz has replied
 Message 218 by BMG, posted 05-12-2008 3:22 AM Taz has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 209 of 356 (465767)
05-10-2008 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Taz
05-10-2008 2:53 AM


Re: Objective of School
Thank you for providing those videos. I assume many of us have the same reactions to them. One would be how sad it is that people can be taken in by such obvious frauds, but another would be, "Boy could I make a lot of money if I just didn't have a conscience!"
In other words, not only is this style of evangelizing fraudulent, the crime is committed upon the most sincere and unsuspecting among us by the worst kind of people. The deeply religious just don't realize what sitting ducks they are, and the fundamental reason is that a significant portion of their world view is not based upon reality.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Taz, posted 05-10-2008 2:53 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Taz, posted 05-10-2008 11:55 AM Percy has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 210 of 356 (465783)
05-10-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Percy
05-10-2008 7:46 AM


Re: Objective of School
I was sleepy last night so I didn't make clear what my main point is. My main point is, and this fits in perfectly with what we are discussing, is that we as a society has an obligation to equip our children through our public education the knowledge and the skills necessary to defend themselves against spiritual scam artists. And the best way to do this is by teaching them to be critical and skeptical of what they see and hear.
This is not to say that I am against spirituality. People can do whatever the hell they want. If they want to raise their kids to be spiritual lambs for the spiritual wolves to prey on, then I say it's fine by me. What I am against is using the public school system to systematically turn our kids into spiritual lambs to be preyed on.
Skepticism and science ARE the best tools to fight against spiritual wolves. Let me give you an example.
In one of James Randi's interviews I recently saw, an audience member asked him a question that made me hit my own head. The thing is you could see that this guy was frustrated with James Randi. He asked James "how do you explain people walking on rocks that are thousands of degrees high with their spirituality?"
James Randi gave an answer that ANY high school physics student ought to be able to answer. The rocks they walked on have very low specific heat! Just how many of our faithfuls know what specific heat is? I don't know about everyone else, but to me that guy that asked the question made an idiot out of himself. He demonstrated that he lacked both the most basic of basic science knowledge and the most basic of basic skeptic attitude to deal with reality. I could just walk right up to him and sell him a "miracle" water bottle for $500 and he'd gladly give me $500 for the "miracle" water bottle.
Over the years, James Randi has said over and over that if you are confronted with what seems to be a miracle, wouldn't it be better if we could have a natural explanation? Skepticism and science allow us to have a natural explanation for these things. Why automatically assume the supernatural? If god is as all powerful as people make him out to be, wouldn't it make more sense to try to be as skeptical and learn as much science as you can so you could differentiate between bullshit and miracle?
Added by edit.
Percy writes:
In other words, not only is this style of evangelizing fraudulent, the crime is committed upon the most sincere and unsuspecting among us by the worst kind of people. The deeply religious just don't realize what sitting ducks they are, and the fundamental reason is that their a significant portion of their world view is not based upon reality.
The problem right now is that these scam artists are doing this in the name of religion. This is how they are able to not get charged with fraud. The christian right have made sure that the atmosphere is perfect for these spiritual wolves to prosper. Remember our dear Madeline and the laws that allow faithful parents to maim and kill their kids because they have faith in god? The reason these scam artists are not being charged with fraud and that they are allowed to continue to scam people out of millions of dollars is simply because the christian right don't want the faithfuls to become skeptical. To hell with being victims to these scam artists. What's important is they will go to heaven for remaining spiritual sheeps to be preyed on.
Added by edit.
"Boy could I make a lot of money if I just didn't have a conscience!"
Speak for yourself. I just realized how much money I could be making by playing along with the faithfuls. I'm gonna drop everything and become a faith healer. My wife could stop teaching and start helping me scam christians out of their hard-earned money (they asked for it by not paying attention in science classes). We could do that prop by Popoff. My wife could talk into my ear via wireless radio and tell me people's names and symptoms from the cards they filled out at the door. I'm on my way to becoming a millionaire!
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 05-10-2008 7:46 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-10-2008 3:12 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 214 by Wumpini, posted 05-11-2008 1:57 PM Taz has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024