Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 11 of 356 (464005)
04-22-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by seekingthetruth
04-22-2008 2:58 PM


Evolution in and of itself is very anti "christian". The bible clearly states that "GOD" created the heavens
and the Earth.
Evolution is allele frequency change over time in living populations. It's a mechanism. It makes no statement regarding an intelligent force guiding the process (though it does not require one, either, and parsimony takes care of the rest), and it certainly makes no statements regarding the "heavens and the Earth."
Evolution states that "nothing" exploded billions and billions of years ago. That is what
ultimately created the heavens and the earth.
Evolution says nothing of the sort. You're confusing a strawman version of Big Bang cosmology for evolution. The two are not related except that they are both highly accurate scientific models.
Evolution tends the completly take God of the equation.
As does the Theory of Gravity, but very few Christians have a problem leaving god out of gravitational attraction.
I don't see
how anyone could expect a God fearing christian to believe "nothing" took the place of "God" creating the universe.
Those Christians who accept evolution see evolution as the process by which god did his creating. The two are not mutually exclusive except when one insists on taking the entire Bible literally...which is a fools errand for a multitude of reasons in itself.
I don't know how Hindus belive, but I bet if you told them their god didn't create the universe they would be pretty
upset as well.
Science does not say that any god did or did not create the Universe. It remaine mute on the subject becasue it cannot be tested. Unfalsifiable possibilities like god, gods, ghosts, fairies, and other things people truly believe in but for which there is no objective evidence are not the purview of science. Science is the study of the observable Universe; if we cannot observe it, it has nothing to do with science.
How exactly am I related to a tree?
You both utilize genetic information and are based on a system of cells that have significant similarities. Biologically, you are very distantly related to plants, though the degree of seperation is greater than your relation to any animal.
The bible states God created plants first, then animals, then Man. Nowhere in there does it state we all came from some type of primordial good that miracously transmuted into trees, monkees
and then man. If you ask me, evolution takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the bible.
That's not what the Theory of Evolution states, though. Evolution is not based on faith at all. It's based on observable evidence, and its predictions have been rigorously tested and shown to be highly accurate. Evolution takes no fith whatsoever to believe - it takes education. But learning involves effort, so it's "easier" to say "goddidit."
Of course, "goddidit" explains absolutely nothing, which is why scientific inquiry exists in the first place.
I have just one question to this statement. Where is the proof?
Are you serious? There is roughly as much evidence in favor of evolution as there is for the Theory of Gravity, including direct observation of the process in action.
If evolution and science is all about proof, where
is it? There is nothing you or anyone can produce showing a genetic link between a man and a tree.
They both use deoxyribonucleic acid to store inheritable traits, as opposed to alternatives like RNA. They both consist of cells, which have similar organnelles (as well as many different ones). There are far more similarities than you seem to think. Both humans and all species of plants have a common ancestor in the incredibly distant past.
There is nothing out there proving we all came from "nothing".
Nobody ever said we did. The Big Bang theory does not state "nothing" exploded. If you'd like to discuss the Big Bang theory, we have a few open threads on the subject, and it would seem you have some serious misconceptions about what it does and does not state.
If we are going to expect our children to believe in this there
should at the very least be some type of proof to back it up.
Perhaps you should try doing some research yourself. There is more than ample evidence for evolution and the Big Bang model, and there is promising research going on even now regarding abiogenesis. But from your comments here it is quite plain that you don't know what the Theory of Evolution states, you don't know what the Big bang theory states, and you seem to believe that what you see on TV in dumbed-down "science" documentaries somehow actually represents the real scientific theories that require years of study to properly comprehend.
Seriously? Do I really need to say anything?
You're right only if you insist that the Bible is 100% literally true. This is, of course, demonstrably false, so I hope you don't really believe that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by seekingthetruth, posted 04-22-2008 2:58 PM seekingthetruth has not replied

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


Message 14 of 356 (464009)
04-22-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 1071
04-22-2008 3:23 PM


ol... like that matters, you all try to hide behind empty credentials and self absorbed titles. They mean nothing.
The credentials are not the point. The time spent researching the topic of discussion is, and the credentials directly signify that at least some amount of research was done.
I'm not a PhD. I don't even have a Bachelor's degree. I have spent time learning about evolution and science, so I don't make the same strawman remarks our Creationist posters tend to. Nobody ever asks me for my credentials.
Nobody is hiding behind anything. What is being said is that those who are completely ignorant of a topic cannot effectively make statements regarding that topic with any degree of accuracy. Those who say "there is no evidence for evolution" are quite obviously arguing from positions of total ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 3:23 PM 1071 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 3:42 PM Rahvin has replied

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


Message 17 of 356 (464012)
04-22-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by 1071
04-22-2008 3:42 PM


I see your point, but should we really ask for them?
Personally, I don't, though I'll listen to a person who does have a PhD in a specific field in a much different way than I do with those who make silly arguments like "there is no evidence for evolution."
I was merely pointing out the reason T4C was asking for them, and refuting your claim that we "hide behind credentials."
You guys like that word Strawman. I have been to college, My credentials are not in biology.. I am just like you though I have spent a considerable amount of time researching, I guess that is why when I see people ask for credentials it rubs me the wrong way...lol
"Strawman" is flung about frequently because it is without doubt the most common logical fallacy we see around here.
Personally, while credentials in the specific field being discussed do certainly lend additional credibility to a poster, I otherwise consider credentials to be irrelevant. As I often say, the argument is everything. Solid arguments will speak for themselves without the need for letters after a name. Weak arguments will be broken regardless of the person making them.
then encourage them to research. (special word there.. encourage)
Typically, when a new poster appears and has obvious misconceptions regarding the topics at hand, we gently direct them to threads where they can learn more, or directly try to help educate them and show them what a given theory actually says.
This, of course, is dependent on a number of factors. If a person's first post consists of meaningless, sarcastic, incredulous drivel, I for one am not inclined to respond in the "gentle" tone I use for respectful posters who are willing to learn.
And of course sometimes I'm just cranky like anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 3:42 PM 1071 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 4:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 100 of 356 (464896)
04-30-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Should we consider the implications?
I would agree that the process that is being observed today would be the same.
However, if God was involved in the process sometime in the past, and according to the study 45% of scientists say that He was, would our conclusions be the same?
It seems it would be wise to consider the implications even if they could not be scientifically predicted.
First off: yes, our conclusions would be the same. The Theory of Evolution i still just a model of an observed process. We might add in a little bit that says "God is responsible for this process, and guided the variety of life through seemingly random mutations to eventually result in humanity," if we had conclusive evidence showing as much. We don't, of course. The 45% will still admit that, I'm positive.
And now you get into the realm of misleading statistics. 45% of scientists believe in some sort of supernatural "force" that "guides" evolution, sure...but do all of them actually believe that supernatural force is the Christian God?
What percentage are Christian? What percentage are Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist (a non-deity religion technically, but they still believe in the supernatural)? What percentage are new-agey miscellaneous "spiritual" people?
Remember, the survey doesn't say "45% believe the Christian God is the cause behind evolution." It says that 45% believe in some sort of guiding "creator" and that human beings have some sort of "soul." Technically, you have to ask what percentage think space aliens are responsible for guiding evolution. If they can't even agree on which deity because there is no evidence from which to draw a conclusion, how can we teach that in schools?
This is the reason god is left out of biology: there is no objective evidence requiring a deity to be included in the model. It works just fine without it. Adding the deity of your choice is a matter of faith, and while it doesn't contradict evolution to say "my deity caused it," the evidence doesn't support that, either. It's a matter of personal faith and a decision to violate parsimony in your personal beliefs. Scientists cannot violate parsimony in a scientific paper or model.
You can say that "excluding god" means not allowing ourselves to fully see "the truth," but science really isn't excluding anything - it's simply only including that for which it has objective evidence. If "deity x" decides tomorrow to plant objective evidence proving conclusively that he is necessary for the model to work (I don't know, a binary code in the junk DNA of human beings that mysteriously never changes and is present in all humans and only humans, and which when encoded into a computer opens as a .jpg image of a smiley face and a caption that says "God was here! I totally did all of this!" in every language) science will be surprised but will still assimilate the new evidence into all of our current understanding.
There's no rule in science that says "god isn't allowed in here." There is a rule that says "we don't comment on things we have no evidence for." Right now, that happens to include "god," and so we don't talk about "god" in science classrooms.
Let me say this the most obvious way I can:
If you have a basic understanding of algebra, this will make snese.
IF
a + b = c
AND
a + b + x = c
THEN
x = 0.
You can still include x, and the equation is still balanced and makes sense, but it makes just as much sense without it. All things being equal, the simplest expression, that is, the expression with the fewest terms, is preferred - the x is at best irrelevant, and at worst nonexistent.
In exactly the same way:
IF
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (one or more initial life forms) + (evolution) + (time)
AND
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (one or more initial life forms) + (evolution) + (time) + ("god")
THEN
("god") is at best irrelevant to the equation, and at worst nonexistent. You can include ("god") if you choose to as a personal belief, but without an objective reason to include ("god"), it would violate parsimony to include it in a scientific paper because, all things being equal, the simplest expression is preferred.
Does this help you understand why "god" is not involved in science?
(PS: The Principle of Parsimony is often called Occam's Razor. It states that all things being equal, the simplest expression is preferred. This means that it doesn't make sense to add additional entities like x to an equation, or fairies to a scientific theory. If there is no objective reason to include an entity, it is at best irrelevant to the equation/model at hand, and at worst it simply doesn't exist. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you stated that you were new to debating, so perhaps this will help you understand where I'm coming from)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 11:58 PM Rahvin has replied

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


Message 111 of 356 (464968)
05-01-2008 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 11:58 PM


Re: God does not equal zero!
Rahvin says:
quote:
What percentage are Christian? What percentage are Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist (a non-deity religion technically, but they still believe in the supernatural)? What percentage are new-agey miscellaneous "spiritual" people?
I really don't think it matters what supernatural force these scientists believe was involved. It could even be your fairies for that matter. The point is they believe that something had an effect that was not natural.
If the scientists polled cannot agree on which deity is responsible, it's hardly accurate to say "45% believe God is involved." It presents the 45% as a unified block when they are most definitely not.
quote:
Does this help you understand why "god" is not involved in science?
Not really. It appears to me that there is a fallacy in your calculation.
I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is.
>>>>>>
You are assuming that God had no part in anything. This formula would be true for the 55% of scientists who say God was not involved in any way whatsoever.
In that instance:
God = 0
Therefore - evolution = evolution + God
Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + evolution + time
God is irrelevant as you stated.
But I wasn't referring to your survey in my little algebraic expression at all. Personal opinions and beliefs mean nothing; evidence means everything. I couldn't care less that 45% personally believe a deity is involved.
But more to the point, if you actually understood my mathematical analogy, you would realize that the 45% are simply choosing to violate parsimony in their personal beleifs, and leaving ("god") in the equation. It's no different from you leaving an x variable hanging around in an already balanced equation - it doesn't change anything, it's irrelevant to the significant terms, and while it's more parsimonious to leave the x out, leaving it in will only make your math teacher raise an eyebrow.
The entire point of an IF...AND...THEN statement is that IF both of those statements are TRUE, THEN the conclusion follows. It's a logical expression of the most basic sort. IF the first expression is true, AND the second expression is also true, THEN the aditional term in the second expression must be irrelevant, or equal to 0 for the purpose of that specific expression.
>>>>>>>
However 5% of the scientists believe God created these organisms completely formed 10,000 years ago. Therefore on day one of creation, for these scientists, the formula would be as follows:
evolution = 0 (There was no time for any evolution)
time = 0 (Time had only just begun)
Therefore - God = God + evolution + time
Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + God
On the day of creation evolution and time are irrelevant.
Again, I couldn't care less about personal beliefs...especially for the 5%, where those beliefs are as demonstrably wrong as suggesting the Earth is flat. My analogy was not intended to be taken differently for each group. The fact is, given existing organisms, evolution is sufficient to explain the variety of life on Earth. My little equation represents that accurately, and was intended to show you why we don't discuss ("god") or other irrelevant terms in the Theory of Evolution - they aren't required, so parsimony dictates they must be removed.
Again, you cannot argue with this unless you are suggesting that one of the two statements in the IF...AND...THEN statement are false. It's basic logic. But no scientist will disagree that the current concensus is that the first statement is indeed the scientific model - including the 40% who have an additional belief regarding a deity.
>>>>>>
That leaves the 40% that believe that God was involved in the process, including man's creation. We do not know how involved. However, we do know that His involvement does not equal zero.
We do? You're confusing "I personally believe" with "I can prove." We don't know anything regarding any deity. We know that some scientists personally believe a deity was involved, but again - they're simply choosing to violate parsimony in their personal beliefs. It has nothing to do with the evolutionary model.
God does not equal zero.
Evolution does not equal zero.
Time does not equal zero.
Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + God + evolution + time
All of the components are necessary for the calculation.
No, they are not.
quote:
IF
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time)
No scientist (barring perhaps the 5%) will argue with this, including the 40% who believe a deity guided the process. This is the currently accepted scientific model, and there is no longer any serious scientific controversy over this simple fact. This model has proven to be just as accurate as the Theory of Gravity, and has just as much evidence in support of it.
quote:
AND
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + ("god")
This is the same expression, with an unnecessary term. The addition of the extraneous term violates parsimony. It is irrelevant. The first expression is sufficient, and this expression does not belong in a science textbook for that reason. Personal beliefs can violate parsimony, or even contradict fact; scientific models cannot.
Let's make it even more clear:
quote:
AND
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + (my dog)
This expression adds my dog to the equation. Obviously, my dog has nothing to do with evolution. But for the purpose of my mathematical analogy, all of these statements are true. If all of the expressions are true, then (my dog) must be irrelevant to the equation. Does that mean (my dog) does not exist? Certainly not! It simply means that parsimony dictates (my dog) does not belong in this model, becasue (my dog) is irrelevant to the other terms of the expression.
Let's go further:
quote:
AND
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + (gravity)
Now we have (gravity) in the same position. Obviously, we know (gravity) exists...but it's not relevant to (the observed diversity of life on Earth).
Is any of this helping you understand the basic logic of an IF...AND...THEN statement? IF all of the statements are true, THEN the conclusion must follow.
>>>>>>>
The fact that you cannot measure the value that God played in the observed diversity does not mean that He played no part.
And I didn't say that a deity played no part. I said that (the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time). This is the scientifically accepted model, and it is regarded as sufficient, even by those scientists with an additional belief regarding a deity.
You may say that we must ignore the supernatural part because it is impossible to measure. You may say that we do not teach the supernatural part as science because it is impossible to measure.
Partially. I say we cannot include entities for which there is no objective evidence in a scientific model, when the entire point of the scientific method is to ensure that only objective evidence and the logical inferences the evidence leads to are included in scientific models. Subjective evidence, like personal beliefs, have no place in science until they can be supported with objective evidence...at which point they are no logner subjective beliefs.
However, if 45% of scientists believe that the supernatural exists and was part of the process, then I believe this is significant.
Significant enough not to ban religious people from scinetific research, sure. But it's still irrelevant to the actual scientific models. Ask any of the many scientists on this board (we have quite a few biologists, physicists, mathemeticians, and others, many of whom are religious) - all of them will tell you that the inclusion of a subjective belief, no matter how commonly held, in a scientific model with no objective evidence to support is would be inappropriate.
In fact, your appeal to the 45% is a logical fallacy: the Appeal to Popularity. The popularity of an idea is irrelevant to the idea's validity. The evidence and logical consistency are all that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 11:58 PM Wumpini has not replied

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


Message 115 of 356 (464982)
05-01-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Thanks for the input
I appreciate your input. I am not suggesting that I know what these scientists believe. I have only been attempting to understand what they say they believe. However, it does reassure me that 45% of the scientists polled believe in God.
Percy says:
quote:
Were it actually the case that these 40% of scientists believe what you think they believe, that there are detectable forces beyond evolution at work and that evolution is an insufficient explanation for the diversity of life,...
Actually, I had gotten to the point where I understood that almost all of the scientists believed that evolution was a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, and they were teaching the theory as such.
That's pretty much it.
I was wondering though if some or many of them may believe that there were forces beyond evolution at work sometime in the past. You know for things like the creation of the first living organism, or complex organs, or the human brain, or the soul. What I was considering is whether these two beliefs are really mutually exclusive. You may say, "why believe God did anything if evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity?" It seems that if you are going to believe in God then He ought to be doing something. You know like creating the universe, and life.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As I'm sure you know, there is a wide variety of beliefs held with regard to (specifically human) origins. The belief that "god" is responsible for "guiding" the random mutations that eventually gave rise to human beings is not incompatible with the Theory of Evolution. The belief that "god" is some sort of "divine watchmaker" who set the whole thing up with perfect omniscient foresight and then stood back to observe is not incompatible with any scientific model. They involve extraneous beliefs that are unsupported by evidence, which is why they aren't part of the models, but that doesn't mean a person can't hold such beliefs without contradicting oneself.
There are some beliefs which are mutually exclusive: 6,000 year old Earth, 6-day Creationism, global Floods, etc. These are in direct conflict with observed evidence. The only way to rationalize those types of beliefs is to say "well, God must have made it look this way as a test of faith." That's an intellectual dead-end, but certainly there are many people who take such a view.
I think it could be the wording of the statement that is causing me some difficulty. The statement says that "God guided this process, including man’s creation."
That's understandable; the statement is incredibly vague. It can be interpreted in any number of ways, some of which are in conflict with science and some which are not.
It also may be that since I do not have a good understanding of the theory of evolution yet, that I can not perceive how someone can believe in God, and also believe in what appears to be a naturalistic theory for the creation of man without any intervention.
By all means, start a thread and ask questions. Many of us are more than happy to help you wrap your head around the concepts. And we have several religious scientists right here on this very board who can tell you what they believe.
I can tell you that, while I was a Christian, I viewed science as the exploration of how God "did it," and not as trying to "replace" him at all. I viewed the Biblical stories as the understanding available at the time - one can hardly expect stoneage nomads to understand a great deal of what we take for granted, and the impotant part to me (at the time, of course) was "God did it." Taken from that perspective, I found no conflict in saying "the Biblical stories are not literally true. Science is a proven method of exploring reality. While I still attribute all of creation to God, science is a much better guide to how he did it and how creation works than the Bible is."
Granted, I'm an Atheist now, but strictly speaking the reason had little to do with conflicts regarding science (or at least not the conflicts we're discussing at the moment).
I think I will leave it at that and spend more time studying the theory. Maybe that will help me to understand how so many scientists that believe in God can also accept the theory of evolution.
As I said, feel free to start a thread. Start with one question you have regarding the Theory of Evolution, and we'll take it from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:03 PM Wumpini has not replied

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


Message 121 of 356 (464989)
05-01-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 6:06 PM


Re: Theistic Evolution vs Intelligent Design
Through my research in the past few days, I have noticed there is a difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design. I wonder if the scientists that were polled that believed in intelligent design would be classified with the 5% that believe in a young earth, or would some of them have been mixed in with the 40% that believe in the God guided process for evolution?
Intelligent Design is an interesting movement - what it really boils down to is "Creationism in disguise."
Theistic Evolutionists tend to simply attribute all of the workings of Evolution to a deity. The theory remains intact, they simply personally believe their deity is the cause, though they agree that thie deity does not belong in the actual model (again, this is a description for most of the Theistic Evolutionists I've spoken with - as always, they're a varied lot).
Intelligent Design takes a few specific steps to attempt to sound scientific without actually doing anything related to science. The purpose is to create a "wedge" where religious principles are given a toehold in public science classrooms, and then utilize that "wedge" to further drive religion into the public education system. This has been shown even through memos written by the ID movement's leaders.
ID uses terms like "irreducible complexity" to claim that the complexity of life on Earth could only have resulted from a specific design by an intelligent Creator. They very carefully leave the identity of the designer up to the individual, claiming it could just as easily be space aliens as the Christian god (this is their way to get into schools, where endorsing a specific religion is illegal).
But from my understanding, very few of the ID proponents believe in a young Earth; they are typically Old Earth Creationists, who simply beleive that the 6 "days" of Genesis were not literal 24-hour periods, but were rather thousands or millions of years long each. They typically refer to a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines of "a thousand years are but a day to the LORD."
As you can see, there are a very wide variety of beliefs. When picking and choosing what is and is not literal, multiple interpretations are inevitable. Some of these are compatible with current theory, others are not, and some are somewhere in the middle agreeing with an old Earth and disagreeing (in whole or part) with evolution.
We have several threads on Intelligent Design, if you'd like to give them a quick look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 6:06 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 1:44 AM Rahvin has replied

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


Message 127 of 356 (465039)
05-02-2008 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 1:44 AM


Re: Makes it kind of like Walmart
Thanks for the definitions. It seems like it makes the choice kind of like Walmart. You can pick and choose exactly what fits your price range and needs. Old earth, Young earth, ID, Creation, Evolution, God guided, No God, Abiogenesis, Biogenesis, Big Bang, etc, etc. You can mix and match and come up with exactly what fits your beliefs and knowledge. Actually, I am the type of person that would rather run in and grab the only coffee pot on the shelves rather than try to choose between a 100 different coffee makers.
My choice is very simple. I know that I agree with God, and if anything or anyone disagrees with God then I disagree with them. That may not seem very scientific but it is reality.
It sounds like you would prefer to simply be told what you beleive, and not have to do any thinking for yourself. This is disappointing. There is literally nothing worse intellectually than those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." It involves a total shutdown of all rational thought processes. You're making it sound like you're an example of one of these folks.
People on this forum keep comparing the law of gravity and subatomic principles to evolution and origin of the universe theories. Well obviously from my standpoint (and much of the population of the earth's standpoint), it is like comparing apples and bowling balls.
You're clearly still not understanding the whole point of those simple logical expressions, and I'm running out of ways to explain it more obviously.
From a scientific standpoint, I really should know more about this stuff. I have studied different theories about the age of the earth, and creation but I really have not spent much time to figure out what scientists believe. That does not mean that I agree with you. It means I am not sure how much that I disagree.
Then by all means start up a thread asking questions. The scientific models can be explained to you, and you can decide for yourself what you believe at that point. But really, it sounds to me like objective evidence, direct observation, and rational thought are going to be overridden by your pre-existing faith - which makes the whole point moot.
It really is not my entire fault (Maybe it is, but I will blame others anyway. You know it is the American way. Like when you spill hot coffee on yourself at McDonalds). I went to high school in the state of Arkansas and evolution was not mentioned, and when I attended the University of Arkansas almost thirty years ago the extent of my science classes were basic chemistry and geology. Even up until now most science teachers in schools (not colleges) in Arkansas do not teach evolution. You may think, "They can't do that because it is a scientific theory so they must teach it in biology class." Actually no! Here is a quote from an article dated in January of this year that has something to say about that subject:
quote:
Science educators in certain U.S. states operate a bit like dissidents in the old Soviet bloc. ... Only about a fifth of the science teachers in Arkansas taught evolution, though it was part of the school science education guidelines.
Here is a link if you want to read the entire article:
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/arkansas-teachers
This is fact because I have personally spoken with Arkansas high school students within the past few years. I live in Africa, but I have a house in Arkansas. Most of my time is spent in West Africa. In the town in Arkansas where I live they do teach an old earth, however they leave the subject of origins up to the student. Really this leaves the student with a very mixed up view.
Here is a recent conversation I had with a student who had graduated from high school. I asked what he believed about creation. He said, "God created the world." I asked, "When?" "About 6,000 years ago." I asked what they taught about creation in high school. He said, "They did not mention it. They leave it up to us to decide." I asked, "What about dinosaurs? Do they teach you about dinosaurs?" He said, "Sure!" I asked, "When did they live?" He said, "Millions of years ago." I said, "Don't you see a contradiction there! If the earth is only a few thousand years old, how did dinosaurs live millions of years ago?" He said, "Oh!"
I had a similar experience. They did briefly go over evolution in my High School, but my religious upbringing and education had created two seperate ideas in my head: 6-day Creationism and the scientific model. When I finally allowed myself to think critically on the matter, I determined that the Bible could not be literally true, and so I took it as allegory and methaphor. Thinking back, it seems very odd to have had two completely incompatible beliefs at the same time...but I was a kid, and simply didn't think about it.
This thread was intended to address what is taught regarding the theory of evolution to young people in schools. Some have the impression that I was attempting to create a division among scientists related to what they believe regarding the origins of man. I was not trying to create a division! I was trying to show there is a division in what scientists believe. It seems that most scientists believe that evolution is a sufficient theory to explain the diversity in the world today, but at least in Arkansas, they are not teaching that theory as fact. And, the majority of the people where I live in Arkansas do not believe the theory of evolution explains the origin of man. I can assure you that almost all of the people where I live in Africa believe in creation!
Locations with the worst education statistics tend to have the highest incidence of Creationism. It's really unsurprising that Creationism of various flavors is incredibly common in 3rd world countries and in the American South, particularly a state that not too long ago was 50th in the country for education...dead last.
This is my opinion. It seems that by keeping alternative theories of the origin of man out of the elementary, middle, and high schools, that we are keeping science out of the science classes, and graduating students who are very confused. The problem, in my opinion, is this movement that attempts to divide church and state. A movement that attempts to keep religion, not out of science classes, but out of schools, and out of America. So those who believe in God, and want their children exposed to supernatural theories of creation must attempt to turn religious theories of origin (which are supernatural) into science (which studies the natural world). The end result is a lot of confusion.
The "movement dividing church and state" is the US Constitution. That's a pretty big deal, you know.
There are no "alternative theories" that have any semblance to science. Religion is not based on objective evidence. it doesn't belong anywhere near a science classroom.
At which point would we stop, if we took your suggestion? There are thousands of religions. Should we teach all of their "alternative theories?"
The point of the seperation of church and state is that in order to protect all beliefs, the government must remain strictly neutral with regards to religion. Endorsing Christian Creationism by allowing it in science classrooms would rightly offend non-Creationist Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and anybody else. The only rational solution is to keep religious instruction in the home and at church, where individuals and families can make their own choices.
Note that this does not involve "keeping religion out of America." It involves not forcing particular religions down someone's throat. The only conflict arises when scientific models conflict with religions...which is irrelevant to the accuracy of the scientific models.
In Ghana, where I live, it is required in the curriculum for all students to take Religious and Moral Education at school. Not for only one year, but for numerous years. The area where I live is almost completely Islamic. However, Muslim children are taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Traditional Religion, and other World Religions in public school. Even private schools are required to teach these classes. The science classes can teach science. The religious and moral education class teaches religion and moral education. However, the students don't seem to be confused. They know what Muslims believe, they know what Christians believe, and they know what those in Traditional Religion believe (Actually, most of the people here have a difficult time understanding the concept of being an Atheist.) And, they seem to know what scientists believe.
Comparative Religions classes and the like are relatively common here in the US, as well you know. It's just not taught in science class.
As for having difficulty comprehending Atheism, they certainly aren't alone - that's common here in America, too. Rarely are people asked "are you religious?" They are instead asked "which religion are you?" This often even boils down to "which flavor of Christian are you?"
I think I will try to spend some time attempting to understand what the scientific world has concluded based upon their observations of living things, and their observations of the earth and the universe. This will give me a better idea of where I stand in relation to those theories. As of now, I would place myself in a category of a creationist who takes a literal interpretation of the Bible. But as I said before, if I become convinced that I am wrong, then I will change what I believe. As long as it does not contradict God!
If you believe that the Bible is the inspired work of God and is literally true, then you may as well stop here - no amount of discussing science will have any effect if you start from such a perspective. You really are one of the "God said it, I beleive it, and that settles it" people, and that's highly disappointing.
quote:
Rahvin says:
I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is.
Your right, but I kind of liked the word. It made me feel smart.
Actually, I took a one hour course in logic back a long time ago when I was in college. So, I have vague memories of terms like inductive and deductive reasoning, premises, arguments, and fallacies. I looked up the word, and I can see that I used it incorrectly. The basis for the statement was that I am arguing that one of your premises is wrong. That premise was that God equals zero for those who believe in Theistic Evolution. If it is true that the premise was incorrect, then your conclusion was incorrect.
Looks like you need a refresher. The ("god") = 0 part was not a premise - it was the conclusion. That's why it was at the end, in the THEN portion.
I had two premeses:
Premise 1:
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time)
Premise 2:
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + ("god")
The expression boils down to "IF (Premise 1) AND (Premise 2), THEN ("god") is an extraneous term.
The conclusion is a direct logical result of the two premeses being true. The conclusion is not another premise.
You were right to attack a premise, as this is the only way to argue with such a logical statement. If both premeses are true, then the conclusion has to follow; there is no option. That's basically the way logic works.
If (Premise 1) were not true, but (premise 2) was true, then my conclusion would not follow.
But ((the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time)) is true. Becasue this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth, including the ("god") term is extraneous; it doesn't matter. Future evidence could require the addition of the ("god") term and invalidate (Premise 1), thus invalidating my conclusion...but so far no objective evidence requiring ("god") has been proposed. Ever. The closest we have are generic Arguments from Personal Incredulity ("Wow, this is really complex and cool, God MUST exist!"). That's another logical fallacy, by the way.
It would be wise to try to use the terms correctly rather than just throwing them around. We have posters here who do that with scientific terms, as well, and they are highly annoying. Please don't become another one of them.
I do not believe that God equals zero. Even if evolution is a theory that is sufficient to explain the diversity in the world today, and I come to agree with that conclusion then God still does not equal zero. He has played a part in the process. He is responsible for the universe that exists, and for the existence of all human life. Science can choose to ignore God because they cannot observe and measure His impact. But, that does not eliminate His contribution, and if a person says they believe in Theistic Evolution then scientifically God's contribution is being included in the term evolution.
No. You don't seem to understand the scientific method, even in the slightest bit. Personal belief is irrelevant to science - it's only relevant to individuals. ("god") is not being "scientifically included" in anything, even by Theistic Evolutionists. You're confusing personal beleifs and scientific models, and the difference couldn't be larger.
For ID and Theistic Evolution the argument is:
God > 0
Evolution > 0
Time > 0
Therefore Observed diversity = life forms + God + Evolution + Time
I know you say this is only the ID argument. I propose that it is also the Theistic Evolution argument based upon the fact that you are combining God's effect into your calculation of the term Evolution.
In other words.
Evolution + God = Evolution + God
Evolution (including the effect of God) = Evolution + God
Then you hide the parenthetical notation.
Evolution = Evolution + God
So based upon this clarification of your premise (I don't know if I am using that term correctly but once again it makes me feel smart even though I may look dumb), I would agree with your argument that the formula for Theistic Evolution is:
God = 0 (Only because you are including His effect in Evolution)
Evolution > 0
Time > 0
Therefore Observed diversity = Life forms + Evolution (including God) + Time
All completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. Again, you're taking personal beliefs as if they have some sort of objective relevance, and they do not. The fact that a person, or even a majority of people believes something to be true has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether that belief is objectively accurate. For a very long time the vast majority of people believed the Earth was flat, and every last one of them was wrong.
You also seem to be making the mistake of assuming that my logical expressions are somehow indicative of either a person's beliefs or of actual reality - this is true only indirectly. The expressions were intended to show that, all things being equal, there is no reason to include a deity in the scientific model, and to educate you in the meaning of parsimony. This has no bearing on a person's beliefs, and it could be proven wrong with additional objective evidence that requires a deity. You don't seem to have caught on, and I don't know of a way to make it more plain to you - you've confused a conclusion with a premise, and I really don't know how to proceed from such a basic level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 1:44 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 9:34 AM Rahvin has replied

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


Message 132 of 356 (465052)
05-02-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 9:34 AM


Re: Where there is time, there is always hope
First, I'd like to apologize to you, Wumpini. My last post to you was written at 2am in a bout of insomnia, and I wrote with a cranky tone usually reserved for only the most frustrating members. It was undeserved, and so I apologize.
quote:
Rahvin says:
There is literally nothing worse intellectually than those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
I kind of like those bumper stickers myself.
And yet that simple phrase means "I don't need to think critically. I don't need to examine evidence. I already have all of the answers that matter. If I hear anything that contradicts the Bible, I'll go with the Bible, regardless of the evidence stacked against it."
It's an intellectual dead-end. It's quite literally a promotion of ignorance, and a suggestion that matters of faith should get a "free pass" where rational thought is not required. No advancement of knowledge of the world around us can ever be made from such a perspective.
quote:
You're clearly still not understanding the whole point of those simple logical expressions
Your obviously not understanding my point either. It is good we don't have to put up with each other all the time. It could become very annoying.
My point is that this is a creation vs evolution website. So I see scientific theories related to subjects such as evolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory, age of the earth, etc. as more relevant than theories about gravity and subatomic principles.
1) That's part of the problem - they're all interconnected. Subatomic particles relates to radiology which is one method of dating both the Earth and fossils. The same scientific method used for the Theory of Gravity is used for the Theory of Evolution.
2) My inclusion of gravity in my logical expressions was simply yet another attempt to illustrate that aditional terms are irrelevent and need not be included, whether they actually exist or not. My car certainly exists, but it's not required for describing the process that resulted in the variety of life on Earth. It would be an irrelevant, extraneous term in the expression, and so it has no place in the scientific model. ("god") is the same way - he may exist, and he may even be responsible, but there's no evidence requiring him to be included in the model, and so he is not mentioned until such time as objective evidence does make him necessary.
quote:
Then by all means start up a thread asking questions. The scientific models can be explained to you, and you can decide for yourself what you believe at that point. But really, it sounds to me like objective evidence, direct observation, and rational thought are going to be overridden by your pre-existing faith - which makes the whole point moot.
I got throught the Arkansas school system and learned to read and write English, so I am sure I can understand a few simple concepts like natural selection, genetic mutation, and how populations are affected by their environment through time.
Forgive me - this was one of those "cranky" moments. I'm swearing off 2am posts unless I;ve had plenty of caffeine. I did not mean to insinuate that all or even most Arkansas students are idiots. My statement was meant to convey that, in areas where science in general and evolution in particular are not taught strongly (ie, areas with low education rankings), religious origin stories and literal interpretations of religious teachings tend to be far more common.
It's a rather serious frustration. You may or may not have heard of such evangelists as Ray Comfort, who paint a strawman version of evolution far removed from the actual theory so that they can attack their strawman with incredulity and promote their cause. He suggests that evolution predicts we should find such things as a Bull-Frog: a frog with the head of a bull. He suggests this seriously, not just humorously. In places where people don't know enough about evolution to be able to say "you're wrong, evolution doesn't say that," he can win several converts (or at least preach to the choir and get some applause).
quote:
Locations with the worst education statistics tend to have the highest incidence of Creationism. It's really unsurprising that Creationism of various flavors is incredibly common in 3rd world countries and in the American South, particularly a state that not too long ago was 50th in the country for education...dead last.
Too bad everyone can't have the opportunity to grow up and live in a place where it is easier to obtain faith, and come to an understanding of the Truth (i.e. Jesus is the the Truth - John 14:6). I truly feel blessed.
Having grown up in an extremely Christian home, I feel the exact opposite way. I feel like I was brainwashed and specifically taught never to think critically for my entire childhood - quite far from finding any "truth."
But then, that's part of the reason we call personal beliefs "subjective." They don't work for everyone.
quote:
Religion is not based on objective evidence. it doesn't belong anywhere near a science classroom.
I never said to put it in the science classroom! Regardless of what scientists believe, almost all of the people on this earth believe in the supernatural. There is no reason to try to annoy most of the people on the earth by denying its existence.
I'm confused. In one sentence you say you don't want religion in the science classroom, and in the very next sentence you say that scientists shouldn't "annoy" everyone by denying the existence of the supernatural. Which is it? Is the supernatural to be included in science, or not?
Aside from that, science does not deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is very specifically mute on the subject, becasue science is concerned only with that which is observable and supported by objective evidence. There is no evidence proving a deity does not exist. There is no evidence proving a deity does exist. Science can take no position at all in a complete absence of evidence.
Don't make the common Creationist mistake of assuming that, becasue ("god") is not mentioned in scientific models or textbooks that science specifically denies the existence of ("god").
quote:
It would be wise to try to use the terms correctly rather than just throwing them around. We have posters here who do that with scientific terms, as well, and they are highly annoying. Please don't become another one of them.
I really should have looked up a couple of definitions before I began using those logical terms. Next time I will either try to be logical without the terms or look up the definitions.
While the spirit of my statement here was intact, I apologize for the insulting and snarky tone. I can hardly expect you to be as on-top of logic and debate terms as when you took the class 30 years ago, and you do seem to be making a good-faith effort.
quote:
No. You don't seem to understand the scientific method, even in the slightest bit. Personal belief is irrelevant to science - it's only relevant to individuals. ("god") is not being "scientifically included" in anything, even by Theistic Evolutionists. You're confusing personal beleifs and scientific models, and the difference couldn't be larger.
I believe in God, and it is sort of difficult to leave Him out. Especially when I believe He is the creator of the universe and mankind, and this is a creation vs evolution website.
The topic of this website does not mean that religion gets a free pass into science. Nobody is asking you to give up your personal beliefs, and I'm not trying to tell you that your god does not exist (I don't beleive in him, but I don't insist he doesn't exist either). I have been trying to explain to you why there is no reference to any deity in scientific models. Again, subjective personal beliefs are fine, but science is based entirely on objective evidence, and thre's a very large difference. Science is unable to give a deity "credit" without objective evidence supporting the hypothesis that a deity is responsible.
You may notice that this site has a few different sections, including a Faith and Belief secsion, and a Science section. Threads in Science topics are required to focus on evidence and logical reasoning, and the Bible is not acceptable as evidence of its own validity. In the Faith sections, Biblical interpretation is relevant, and subjective beliefs can be debated more effectively.
This thread is in the Science section, and so there is a greater focus on objective evidence. Religious perspectives like Creationism tend to do poorly here, becasue they lack supporting evidence outside of religious texts.
Therefore, for now I am going to say that God > 0, at least for me. I know you don't think this is scientific but it makes me feel better if I give Him the credit.
And that's fine. Your personal beleifs are not my concern. It would seem there is some sort of miscommunication hapening here, likely made worse by my earlier crankiness. I don't care if you beleive in god. You're welcome to beleive whatever you would like. My only concern is that religion has no place in a science clasroom, and no place in scientific models because religion is based on subjective faith rather than objective evidence. All of my posts have been made with the intention of communicating the reasons for this to you, but it seems that you are interpreting them to mean that I am telling you your god does not exist. That's not the case.
I will try not to annoy you by putting God into any of your arguments.
You're welcome to put god into whatever argument you'd like - but as this is a debate forum, expect any arguments containing logical fallacies or false premeses to be knocked down in short order. If you bring up god in one of the science sections, expect posters to demand that you provide objective evidence in favor of your position. If you bring up god in the faith sections, expect a hearty theological debate with our other religious members.
I am sure it cannot be as hopeless as you seem to think it is. I think I am making progress, slowly. My brain is kind of old, so give it some time.
Again, I'm sorry for my overly insulting and condescending tone....
quote:
You don't seem to have caught on, and I don't know of a way to make it more plain to you - you've confused a conclusion with a premise, and I really don't know how to proceed from such a basic level.
...and I apologize for it here, too. I have a talent for being overly condescending when I don't want to be, and I apologize.
Okay I get it. If the premises are correct, and the argument is sound, then the conclusion must be correct. Like I said it is coming back to me slowly.
Basically. The conclusion is at least consistent with the rest of the logical statement. Remember that future evidence can always falsify one or both of the premeses. If someone eventually provides objective evidence showing that ("god") is involved in the diversity of living things, as opposed to subjective personal beliefs that this is the case, then (Premise 1) wil be falisfied, and the statement becomes worthless. Likewise, if (Premise 2) is falsified by objective evidence showing ("god") does not exist (highly unlikely, consdering the unfalsifiable nature of the supernatural), the expression also loses validity.
Just to sum up and hopefully clear up all of the miscommunication going on, here are my positions:
God is not included in scientific models because his inclusion violates parsimony for the reasons already explained.
The fact that god is not included in scientific models does not mean that science denies god's existence or even involvement. It means only that science has insufficient data surrounding the supernatural to make any sort of statement whatsoever, and so it makes no statement.
Only science belongs in science classrooms. Since there are no "alternative theories" that have any scientific validity at the moment, "teaching the controversy" is simply another way for religion to try to wedge into science class, where it plainly does not belong.
I'm not sure to what degree we disagree on any of these points any longer. We both disagree with our personal beliefs surrounding the existence of god, but that's a topic for a different thread.
Have a good day!
You too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 9:34 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 7:29 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 136 of 356 (465075)
05-02-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 5:10 PM


Re: Propaganda and Evolution in Schools
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how evolution could be taught in our public schools in a manner that does not offend almost half of the population that believes in literal creation, and over 90% of the population that believes in God?
I don't think it's possible, at all, to teach evolution in a way that doesn't offend those who believe in literal Creation as posed in the Bible. The percentage of people is frankly irrelevant - again, popularity has no bearing on accuracy, particularly when a large percentage of the population lacks any sort of education on the topic beyond the horrendously distorted version displayed on TV. I cringe every time I think of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or when I remember all of the evolution-based episodes of Star Trek that portrayed evoution in a way only a total idiot could come up with (obviously I'm not a fan of Star Trek's writers ).
But "offensiveness" is not always something that needs to be considered.
Remember, the exact same problem of faith vs science has plagued us before. The majority used to believe, with Biblical support, that the Earth was flat, and that the sky held a "firmament" that seperated the "waters above" from the "waters below." They believed this firmament was basically a dome that the Sun and Moon traversed, and the stars were little lights hung in its substance.
Those people were demonstrably wrong. There are still people who believe in a flat Earth. Should we change the way we teach geology to avoid offending a group with facts? Honestly, any group that takes offense to reality has serious problems.
People still beleive that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, even though this is demonstrably wrong. Every observable fact about the Earth contradicts such an idea, to such a degree that ages younger than millions of years for the Earth have not been seriously considered by scientists (including devoutly religious ones) in centuries. That the Earth is old is a fact, and we cannot seriously alter the way geology is taught to gloss over that fact without basically tossing all of geology in the waste bin.
For these and other issues, the choice is either (offend some people when religious beliefs come into conflict with scientific models) or (ignorance). To paraphrase a southern politician whose name escapes me, "we've tried ignornace, and that didn't work."
There really isn't a viable compromise. If you tell students "this is the scientific model, but god may have just made it look this way to test us, and the Bible could be true," then you'll not only still offend a large group of people who are not Christian (or who are not Cristian literalists, etc), but you'll also be introducing a very non-scientific idea into science classrooms. You could put "disclaimers" on biology/geology/chemistry/astronomy/physics/history textbooks to cover all of the fields that could contradict Biblical beliefs and bring up the tired old argument that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact," but you'd not only be sabotaging the majority of the curriculum, but also be lying. The definition of the word "theory" is different for scientific theories than it is in common usage. Theories are models of an observed process - they are a description of observed facts, backed up with significant amounts of supporting evidence and verified predictions. The Theory of Gravity is "just a theory," for example.
What possible reason could we have for intentionally leaving our children ignorant? Their parents might be offended because the observable world contradicts their subjective beliefs? How are we to have biologists if we no longer teach the actual Theory of Evolution in schools? How can we have geologists if we throw geology class out the window to avoid offending Young Earth Creationists?
Just stick to teaching science in science class. What if parents want to tell their children, at home, that "we believe something different. We trust god, even if god's word contradicts what your teacher says. But it's still important for you to learn what science says, because ignorance is never the answer." wouldn't that solve the problem? Why can't religion remain a personal and family matter, like it's supposed to be, rather than the State needing to dance around the differing beliefs of 300,000,000 people to avoid offending any of them?
It's completely understandable that people don't like having their worldviews and deeply held beliefs challenged. My de-conversion from Christianity was not fun, and still causes me headaches with my family and even at work. It's not even comfortable for children to learn that Santa Claus isn't real.
But hiding your head in the sand, covering your ears so that you just don't ever learn the scientific models does nothing more than promote ignorance. Strong faith will survive questioning, even if it doesn't necessarily gain much ground on debate message boards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 5:10 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 7:53 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 138 of 356 (465077)
05-02-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 5:58 PM


Re: God has been intervening in the world since the beginning
Whose opinion is that? Yours or God's?
The best response that could possibly be given to you, Wumpini, is this:
"Man wrote the Bible. God wrote the rocks."
I'd cite the quote, but the name escapes me. I'm sure someone else here knows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 5:58 PM Wumpini has not replied

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


Message 170 of 356 (465597)
05-08-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:30 AM


Re: Understanding God, Creation, and Age
So, if man looks at nature and finds evidence that God is not the Creator, then it is entirely possible that man (the creation) is misinterpreting the evidence. Man is attempting to use God's own creation and His laws of nature, to imply that God could be dishonest.
Your argument puts the cart before the horse, Wumpini.
You are suggesting that, if the evidence does not implicate the man you arrested, we must be interpreting the evidence incorrectly.
The reasonable position is that the arrested man is innocent - that the Biblical Creation myth is exactly that, a myth.
Rational conclusions are derived from evidence, not contrary to it. You have placed your conclusion (that god is the Creator) as your root assumption. You've got it backwards. You cannot test for the veracity of the Biblical story by assuming the story is true.
If you state the existence of God as Creator as an axiom, you aren't testing anything at all. Imagine if we did the same in our criminal justice system? The police would arrest someone they believed committed a crime. The evidence could show that no crime was ever committed, let alone that the man was responsible. By the exact same reasoning you are using, we know the man is guilty, so we must be interpreting the evidence incorrectly - we should convict him anyway.
This is not an example of a well-reasoned thought process. It is possible for scientists to interpret evidence incorrectly, but the likelihood of that happening when literally millions of peices of independent evidence all agree to a very high degree of accuracy is incredibly slim. You may as well suggest that we are all in the Matrix.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:30 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Rahvin has replied

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


Message 179 of 356 (465627)
05-08-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:37 PM


Re: God as the Root Assumption
Maybe that would solve this entire controversy. We should allow those who want to make God the root assumption the freedom to do so. Those who choose otherwise can give God a value of zero, as you would. Obviously, we will reach different conclusions.
Which is fine in personal life. I very much respect and uphold the right of any person to believe whatever he/she wants to believe, regardless of what I think about that choice or the beliefs they choose.
It's not so fine in science, or the classroom where science is taught. People are still allowed to beleive whatever they want, of course, but when objectivity conflicts, objectivity must "win" in order to maintain an accurate model of the world. Different conclusions are unacceptable in the end - the most accurate conclusions must be upheld in science, and the classroom where science is taught.
You also need to remember that I am not alone.
45% of Scientists also have included God's involvement in the creation as their root assumption.
40% of scientists said - Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
5% of scientists said - God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
Irrelevant. As I said, personal beleifs are jsut fine. These scientists do not insert their personal beliefs into their research, so we aren't really at odds here.
Aside from that, the Appeal to Popularity is another fallacy. The popularity of an argument has nothing to do with its validity. I don't care if 99% of scientists believe in a 6000-year-old Earth. The arguments in favor of such a view are still completely flawed, and unsupported by objective evidence.
Now, I have been told that the 40% of the scientists believe that the tool that God used for creation was the natural process of evolution. I have started a thread to attempt to clarify my understanding of what they believe. However, it still appears that their root assumption is God as the creator.
Yes, and their position is just as fallacious as yours. Again, it's fine in a personal belief - religion is not a subset of logic, after all.
I have not reached the point yet where I believe that the tool God used was evolution over a long period of time. You see God could have done it however he wanted to. I do agree that some type of evolution is being observed in the world today.
If you continue to look into this objectively, and perhaps ask for a brief summary of what the Theory of Evolution actually states, you'll be swayed. The evidence is overwhealming. The only people who do not accept evolution are those who are ignorant of what it actually means, or override objective reasoning with subjective religious beliefs.
Who said I was testing the truthfulness of the Biblical story? I don't recall mentioning the Biblical story of creation. I am merely attempting to clarify my understanding of how all of the scientific evidence that has been observed can relate to God as the creator.
But that's jsut it: relating evidence to God as Creator invokes the Biblical story of Creation. You've been making Creationist arguments this whole time, Wumpini, like the "distant stars' light created en route" argument.
One of the alternatives is that God created man, and some living things full grown. Obviously, 45% of scientists have already been able to accomplish this task, and reconcile science to their belief in God. However, there may be explanations that I, they, and possibly you have not considered.
I am confused though because it seems that scientists test the truthfulness of all of their theories by assuming their theories are true. What is your point?
Scientists test their theories by saying "IF this theory is true THEN we should see x." If X is not seen, and Y is sen instead, the theory is inaccurate and must be altered or discarded.
That's a very large difference from saying "BECAUSE this theory is true, AND we see X instead of Y, we must re-interpret X to be Y so that the theory remains true."
You're doing the latter, when you should be doing the former if you want to maintain an accurate connection to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 7:28 PM Rahvin 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

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


Message 215 of 356 (465910)
05-11-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Wumpini
05-11-2008 1:57 PM


Re: Should public schools teach children to doubt the existence of God?
Your rebuttal is a very poorly constructed strawman.
You argue that since scam artists are taking advantage of people who believe in God, then we need to teach our children to doubt the existence of God.
This was not Taz's argument at all. Taz's argument was that, sicne there are people who will take advantage of the faithful, the faithful and nonfaithful alike should equip themselves with the tools necessary to detect such scam artistry. This does involve healthy skepticism when confronted with a claim, but the alternative is absolute gullibility.
Without skepticism, critical thinking skills, and the knowledge of science to falsify bullshit claims like those that scam artists make (people walking across hot rocks, salt from the Dead Sea sprinkled on a donation check guaranteed to return wealth to the sender, raping virgins cures HIV, "cold reading" psychics, and snake oil - all real-world examples of provable bullshit that people actually believe in), our children will be nothing but sheep able to be led to whatever conclusion anyone wants.
It is obvious from reading through your post that you have a significant dislike for those of us who believe in God. You call spiritual people stupid, and you use Jesus name in vain in reference to our president.
Irrelevant, as his argument is sound. It has nothing to do with how he feels. You are making an ad hominem attack, attacking your opponent rather than his argument. This is a logical fallacy. If you are drawing conclusions about Taz's argument for such reasons, your reasoning is false.
If I understand your recommendation, it is that we teach our children in school to be skeptical about the existence of God. I looked up skeptical and it means "to doubt." So it appears that you want to use our public school system to teach people with faith that they are stupid, and they need to doubt anything that science cannot prove to exist which includes God.
This is one way to take skepticism. But shouldn't we have a cautious approach to all knowledge? Shouldn't our very first reaction, when told that something is true, be to ask "how do you know this?"
Skepticism does not necessarily mean doubting god entirely. You, for example, would be rightly skeptical if I told you that eating an orange would cure cancer.
Teaching our children to think critically, question everything they are told, and equipping them with the scientific knowledge and skills to test claims against reality are absolutely necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Wumpini, posted 05-11-2008 1:57 PM Wumpini has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024