Message 31 of 107 (442964) 12-23-2007 9:51 AM

Reply to: Message 29 by anglagard 12-23-2007 4:30 AM

Not really. The observation is to mean that the mostest propagated in the population the mosted believed. We already know what is by far the mostest propagated to the mostest students.

Message 32 of 107 (442987) 12-23-2007 10:59 AM

Reply to: Message 28 by Archer Opteryx 12-23-2007 4:21 AM

So is the Creationism cancer slowly permeating throughout the globe? They have the time and money to spread their aganda. I'm disturbed by this.

Message 33 of 107 (442999) 12-23-2007 11:50 AM

Reply to: Message 32 by reiverix 12-23-2007 10:59 AM

quote:

---

So is the Creationism cancer slowly permeating throughout the globe?

---

Not really, that story got a great deal of coverage because it was such an oddity.

Message 35 of 107 (443015) 12-23-2007 1:08 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by Archer Opteryx 12-23-2007 4:21 AM

Well, I'll be damned, but thanks for informing us of that.

Message 36 of 107 (443021) 12-23-2007 1:30 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by Archer Opteryx 12-23-2007 4:21 AM

No where is this message clearer than in looking at English History. Beginning with Henry VIII and continuing down to the Act of Settlement (even beyond if the Jacobitism movement is considered) religion, absolute monarchy and power were the order of the day.

One interesting thing is that James II & VII while a supporter of Absolute Monarchy was also a supporter of Religious Freedom and to a great extent his deposition was as much to preclude religious tolerance as it was to attack absolute Monarchy.

We need to remember that the English who settled what became the US had known and lived under religious intolerance from The Act of Supremacy in 1534 until the end of the Jacobite Risings in 1746. The issue was NOT ancient history to them but rather very real and very immediate.

Message 37 of 107 (443024) 12-23-2007 1:40 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw 12-22-2007 8:42 PM

quote:

---

Of course we know which ideology the students hear the most.

---

Yeah, that stupid Round Earth ideaology.

Message 39 of 107 (443059) 12-23-2007 4:46 PM

Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw 12-23-2007 3:10 PM

quote:

---

Your message has absolutely no substance as to an objective response.

---

Science isn't an "ideology", it is a tool, a way of thinking about evidence that is designed to produce reliable explanatory results.

Ideologies are philosophical beliefs or doctrines.

If you think that Evolutionary Biology is an "ideology", then you must also think that Cosmology is an "ideology"..

Message 40 of 107 (443151) 12-23-2007 8:43 PM

Reply to: Message 39 by nator 12-23-2007 4:46 PM

I know, but there are varying ideologies among scientists which have a bearing on how things observed are interpreted.

Message 41 of 107 (443165) 12-23-2007 9:38 PM

Reply to: Message 40 by Buzsaw 12-23-2007 8:43 PM

From christian to any other religion to atheistic. What you are looking for is an overall philosophy for science.

See naturalism

quote:

---

Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish the supernatural (including strange entities like non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) from nature. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. Some naturalists also insist that a legitimate distinction between supernatural entities and natural entities cannot be properly made (focusing on the conceptual distinction itself), and that when someone is talking or thinking about supernatural entities, they are actually referring to natural entities (though confusedly).

---

Pretty big umbrella.

Enjoy.

Message 43 of 107 (443183) 12-23-2007 11:20 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by reiverix 12-23-2007 10:59 AM

It's a situation that the local Government has turned a blind eye to because of the fiscal benefits of so called "Faith" schools and I also have suspicions that Blair has been less than candid about the extent of his religiosity.

Emmanuel College has a particularly interesting background. It has been partly funded by Vardy, a fundamentalist used car salesman (does that ring any alarm bells with you as well!). There is evidence that this school is making life very difficult for the secular and the less fundamentalist teachers.

The last I heard the same man was trying to "invest" in a third school in another economically disadvantaged part of the North East despite almost unanimous opposition from parents. It would seem that the fundies see these areas as a cheap way to gain a foothold in our education system.

Edited by William Rea, : Naming error

Edited by William Rea, : Corrected error on wording related to fiscal matters

Message 44 of 107 (443199) 12-24-2007 12:26 AM

Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw 12-23-2007 10:50 PM

It's correct, but not because of anything in evolution.

It is correct in the different faiths of scientists, and it is correct in the overall philosophy of naturalism - both with and without supernatural inclusions to varying degrees.

But evolution just says how life happens. No whys.

When creationists say "evolutionism" what they really mean is "naturalism" - and usually metaphysical naturalism:

quote:

---

Metaphysical naturalism is any worldview in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls, non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) do not exist.
(Wikipedia 2007}

---

Which is essentially atheism. By contrast scientists in general would use methodological naturalism:

quote:

---

Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions.
(Wikipedia 2007}

---

Which is essentially agnostic and would not interfere with belief in the supernatural. These philosophies have been around a lot longer than Darwin's theory of evolution too.

When I look up the definition of "evolutionism" (which gives me a spell-check error) I get

quote:

---

ev·o·lu·tion·ism n.
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2007}

---

Not a philosophy based on evolution or an ideology.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : credit

Edited by RAZD, : clarity