Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 211 of 356 (465793)
05-10-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Taz
05-10-2008 11:55 AM


Interesting, but does it have anything to do with the topic theme?
I may be mistaken, but to me it seems that you are burying a really (IMO) interesting discussion in a place it doesn't belong. How about proposing a new topic, complete with a quality, descriptive topic title?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Taz, posted 05-10-2008 11:55 AM Taz has not replied

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


Message 212 of 356 (465817)
05-10-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Wumpini
05-10-2008 2:26 AM


Re: Objective of School
Well, there are a number of answers to this. This'll take me a while, sit down.
* Evolution is just science. Evolution is just a thing that exists, like gravity. It's not something that conflicts with spiritual beliefs per se; it just happens to disagree with one interpretation of one religious text. If the same religious text said that the planets were pushed around by angels, then we'd have the same problem with gravity.
You write:
They should understand that everything is not as black and white as the physical exists, and the spiritual does not exist.
Sure. But no-one is teaching them that "the spiritual does not exist". No-one will learn that in science classes. They'll learn about gravity and the periodic table and evolution. This is how the world works.
* Second point. You write about:
It seems that if we create a population that has no understanding of how to go beyond the physical realm ...
The fact is that most people don't live in a "physical realm" or a "spiritual realm". They live in a social realm. They live and they die and their major concern is what their boss thinks of them or what their cute co-employee thinks of them and they never think about how the world works.
* Finally, you write:
Children need to have their horizons broadened, not narrowed.
Those are fine sounding words, only doesn't all education "narrow horizons" to a certain extent? You are taught that the world is round, and you are shown evidence. Your "horizons" have then been "narrowed", you now find it hard to believe that the world is flat or tetrahedral. To learn something is to learn that the alternatives aren't true.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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 213 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2008 11:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 213 of 356 (465824)
05-10-2008 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2008 10:24 PM


Re: Objective of School
Those are fine sounding words, only doesn't all education "narrow horizons" to a certain extent? You are taught that the world is round, and you are shown evidence. Your "horizons" have then been "narrowed", you now find it hard to believe that the world is flat or tetrahedral. To learn something is to learn that the alternatives aren't true.
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few." - Shunryo Suzuki-Roshi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2008 10:24 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 214 of 356 (465903)
05-11-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Taz
05-10-2008 11:55 AM


Should public schools teach children to doubt the existence of God?
Taz writes:
So far, we've only had examples of scam artists (aka faith healers) that have scammed people out of millions of dollars.
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.
If you didn't notice, people voted Bush (aka Jesus Christ II) into office for a second term in 2004.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you look at your solution then you can see that it would not be valid in any other situation so why would it be valid in this situation.
_____________________________________________________________________
You argue:
>> Scam artists are conning people out of millions of dollars.
>> They prey upon those who believe in God.
>> People who doubt the existence of God will not be conned.
>>>> Therefore, teach people to doubt the existence of God.
____________________________________________________________________
Let us try this with an example of internet scam artists:
>> Scam artists are conning people out of millions of dollars.
>> They prey upon those who use the internet.
>> People who do not use the internet will not be conned.
>>>> Teach people not to use the internet.
____________________________________________________________________
Or try this example with auto mechanic scam artists:
>> Scam artists are conning people out of millions of dollars.
>> They prey upon those who have automobiles.
>> People who do not have automobiles cannot be conned.
>>>> Teach people not to own automobiles.
____________________________________________________________________
If you look at this closely, you will see the problem with your argument. All three of these arguments have elements in common. Those are the existence of a con artist, the existence of money, and an environment where the con artists operates. You assume by eliminating the environment, the religious world, you eliminate the problem. That is not true. The con artist is the problem, and he will only find another environment. You can see that the environment can be easily changed.
The problem is not God, or the internet, or the automobiles, or any other environment. The problem is the con artist wants money, and he can operate in any environment. There are three options that would solve the problem in all situations. First, you could eliminate all the con artists. It is not going to happen. The internet, carnivals, investment world, religious world, etc. are full of them. Second, you could eliminate the money. Why not make it illegal for all people who believe in God, use the internet, or own automobiles to possess money. That would only solve the problem if you took all the money away from everyone including the con artists. Not a very good solution. Or, third you could teach people (including our children) to be skeptical of anyone who is asking for money in any environment.
The problem is the scam artists preying upon people. Therefore, if you want to protect our children from scam artists then you need to teach them how to spot the con artists, not to be skeptical of those environments where con artists operate. I am sure that all of you know not to send money to someone who sends you an email from Nigeria. Scam artists operate everywhere and anywhere where they can take advantage of anyone for any reason. Religon is only one of the many places that they operate. Let's teach our children that there are some bad people out in the world.
Taz writes:
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.
I had to do a lot of searching before I found your point. I am glad I came across your second post before I gave up. I agree that we need to equip our children to live full and productive lives in whatever environment they choose. We need to help them to understand that there is a significant lack of morality in the world today, and that our children need to be careful because predators exist everywhere who would like to take advantage of them. Yes, teach them to be skeptical of what they see and hear in the physical world. However, God is not going to scam anyone out of their money. There is no reason to teach children to be skeptical of God. I thank God that 45% of scientists (who I hope are science teachers) would never think of doing what you propose.
Taz writes:
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!
This statement I do not doubt.
Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

"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 210 by Taz, posted 05-10-2008 11:55 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Rahvin, posted 05-11-2008 3:11 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 217 by Taz, posted 05-12-2008 12:38 AM Wumpini has 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

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 216 of 356 (465948)
05-11-2008 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 7:43 AM


Re: Contrary Evidence
This is a long post, but I think it is important, so please bear with me.
I hope, as a "theistic evolutionist" (by the standards of Wumpini's favorite Gallup Poll), I will be able to clarify a few things that other non-theistic evolutionists have been "speculating" or "hypothesizing" about.
Wumpini, in #186, writes:
However, you are forgetting that 45% of scientists have looked at the overwhelming evidence, and come to the conclusion that God exists.
I can assure you that this statement only applies to a vast minority of the 45%. In fact, when I was first presented with the evidence for evolution (in college Biology 101), my faith was shaken to its very core. I spent an entire two years reading every scrap of information I could concerning the Mormon church and evolution (even resorting to anti-Mormon literature), making sure I had enough evidence to hold a belief that would really upset my mommy an daddy, and making sure that it was okay for a good little Mormon boy to believe in evolution. Gradually, I switched to merely hoping that my religion (which I "knew" to be true) had not been so foolish as to pit itself against science, which had the lion's share of the data behind it. In the end, I came to the conclusion that my religion has not actually denied the possibility of evolution (although most people in my religion believe it has, and get rather upset with me when I say otherwise).
Likewise, you would be hard-pressed to find any of the 40% theistic evolutionists who would say "I believe in God because the evidence is overwhelming." I am still always scared to death that my faith and convictions are the products of a grand scam, and that I will have thus wasted on a frivolous religion a lot of time and energy that I could have been spending doing things that sound fun, pleasurable and/or interesting in other ways. Yet, if there wasn't some modicum of uncertainty to my beliefs, how could this life truly be the "test of faith" that my religion teaches that it is?
I don't believe in God because I can see it or otherwise prove it scientifically: I believe because I have faith (and my scientific little head spins nauseatingly everytime I say that). Besides, as you have probably heard many times, "goddunit" does not answer the "how" question in any reasonable way: it only answers "who" (and, for some people, "why").
Earlier in this thread, you and Granny (and some others) had a discussion about a children's textbook, which everybody seemed to conclude was lacking in scientific rigor, but which taught important, basic principles to children. Have you ever considered the possibility that the Bible is the equivalent of a children's textbook?
Could you imagine Adam, who could not possibly have known much about anything, trying to understand while God explains to him about His methods and reasons for creating nasty predators, for getting hard pits inside cherries, for making things so tiny that Adam can't see them, and things that lurk in the deep, dark ocean, where Adam will never be able to go? Is it any wonder God didn't bother to tell us when in Creation week He made bacteria? Is it any wonder He didn't bother explaining to the writer of Leviticus that bats and locusts are not birds?
Wumpini, in #189 writes:
They are scientists, and probably educated people, therefore they would seem to need evidence to be convinced of anything.
You would think this would be the case, right? Well, if you examine the evidence, it turns out that this perfectly reasonable assumption is actually very wrong. I personally only continue to follow my religion because I want to believe there is something grander in store for me in the next life (and that there is such a next life at all). And, when you get right down to it, my devotion to God for this reason is no less than anybody else’s devotion for any other reason.
Wounded King, in #191 writes:
That’s 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.
Wounded King is probably over 90% correct in this. At least here at BYU, all the professors were Mormons before they were evolutionists. I have been a Mormon all my life (I even served a mission -- to Taiwan), but I have only been an evolutionist for a few years. I “hold on” to my religion for the reasons mentioned above, but I do not, in any way, advocate teaching them in science classes, because they do not belong there. In fact, they would not even change the answers to the questions, if they were taught: what is the difference between saying “evolution happens” and “evolution happens by the will of God”? As I have said before, I would strongly advocate this option being offered to those Christians who can’t allow anything to be called “truth” that doesn’t include the word “god.”
Rahvin, in #199 writes:
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.
Rahvin: “Bluejay, to you have objective evidence in support of your religious beliefs?”
Bluejay: “No. I believe in God based on my own subjective, 'spiritual' experiences, even though I have no clue what 'spiritual' actually means, and even though I can offer no reason for why my own subjective experiences trump those of Buddhists/Taoists in Taiwan, and even though holding onto my (what other people would likely call) superstitions makes no scientific sense to me whatsoever."
Somebody: "Would you recommend teaching your spiritual convictions in a science class?"
Bluejay: "No. I just told you that I have no explanation for why they should be treated special, except that I, personally, like them very much. Now, I would love to teach them in a religious discussion, or tell my students that they can have their beliefs even if evolution is real."
Edited by Bluejay, : A few clarifications.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

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 220 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 4:50 AM Blue Jay has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 217 of 356 (465955)
05-12-2008 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Wumpini
05-11-2008 1:57 PM


Re: Should public schools teach children to doubt the existence of God?
Wumpini writes:
If I understand your recommendation, it is that we teach our children in school to be skeptical about the existence of God.
Go back and read my post again. This isn't what I said. We can talk after you've reread my message. I don't feel like trying to correct your strawman.

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 214 by Wumpini, posted 05-11-2008 1:57 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 3:42 AM Taz has not replied

BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 218 of 356 (465968)
05-12-2008 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Taz
05-10-2008 2:53 AM


Re: Objective of School
Just watch this short clip of James Randi debunking Peter Popoff, a popular faith healer.
Sorry to bother, Taz, but the sound for my comp is temporarily down. Would you mind posting the transcript? I would like to hear (read) that discussion.
Thank you. And if not, no problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Taz, posted 05-10-2008 2:53 AM Taz has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 219 of 356 (465971)
05-12-2008 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Taz
05-12-2008 12:38 AM


What is your point?
Taz writes:
I was sleepy last night so I didn't make clear what my main point is.
I apologize if I misunderstood your point. You yourself said you did not make your point clear. Obviously, it was not clear to me. The apparent prejudice and bias in your posts towards those that believe in God may have given me the indication that your solution to the problem of religious scams was promoting skeptism towards God rather than the scams of scam artists.
You call those who are taken advantage of by these scam artists spiritual sheep and lambs. You give the indication that parents raise their children in such a way to be taken advantage of by these people. You indicate that an individual lacked the basic skeptical attitude to deal with reality. Expressions such as these gave me the impression that you were referring to the basic belief system of the individual as the problem. This belief system would be in the supernatural or the existence of God.
Therefore, I made the conclusion that your solution is to use our public school system to teach children to be skeptical about (doubt) the existence of the supernatural or God. If this is the case then my previous argument is not a strawman.
The admin in post 211 indicates that this discussion about spiritual scam artists may be off topic for this thread. I tend to agree.
If you would like to continue this discussion with me then please start a new topic as suggested by the admin and clearly state your point, then I will attempt to respond.

"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 217 by Taz, posted 05-12-2008 12:38 AM Taz has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 220 of 356 (465978)
05-12-2008 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Blue Jay
05-11-2008 11:42 PM


I truly appreciate your post. It gives me a better understanding of how those who believe in God have reconciled their beliefs to the Theory of Evolution (and other theories on origins I assume). I would only like to make a couple of comments.
Wumpini writes:
However, you are forgetting that 45% of scientists have looked at the overwhelming evidence, and come to the conclusion that God exists.
Bluejay writes:
Likewise, you would be hard-pressed to find any of the 40% theistic evolutionists who would say "I believe in God because the evidence is overwhelming."
I don't think I have ever been able to clarify this comment. The overwhelming evidence that I am referring to is the presumed evidence for evolution, not the evidence for the existence of God. My point was that these scientists, just as you have, looked at the evidence for evolution, and it did not eliminate their belief in God. They concluded that God exists, not as a result of the overwhelming evidence, but in spite of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Bluejay writes:
Somebody: "Would you recommend teaching your spiritual convictions in a science class?"
Bluejay: "No. I just told you that I have no explanation for why they should be treated special, except that I, personally, like them very much. Now, I would love to teach them in a religious discussion, or tell my students that they can have their beliefs even if evolution is real."
I would think that would be a more friendly way to teach evolution in the classroom than some of the suggestions I have heard. You could teach that, "they can have their beliefs even if evolution is real." This is not compromising the facts or the evidence. It is not belittling the beliefs of the students. And, it would teach that the theory by scientific definition could change in the future if evidence is provided that requires that change.
Would you recommend that our public schools require classes on comparative religions? This would seem to help the population understand the belief systems of others. Obviously, these would not be science classes.
Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

"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 216 by Blue Jay, posted 05-11-2008 11:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 05-12-2008 1:05 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 223 by dwise1, posted 05-12-2008 3:52 PM Wumpini has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 221 of 356 (466019)
05-12-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Wumpini
05-12-2008 4:50 AM


Wumpini writes:
They concluded that God exists, not as a result of the overwhelming evidence, but in spite of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Well, that's just it: the evidence you speak of doesn't have anything to do with God at all. The overwhelming evidence for evolution is only about evolution: it is not overwhelming evidence for the non-existence of God (although some believe it to make His existence less likely--a standpoint for which I can offer no true contest).
So, it isn't really in spite of any evidence that we believe in God. Because God has never actually told us exactly what He is like and what evidence His creative processes, miracles and other divine acts leave behind, we have no way of actually saying that He doesn't exist. So, there is no evidence to say that He doesn't exist. And, where there is a lack of evidence, speculation tends to abound and consensus is almost never seen. That's why some of us say God exists, and some of us say He doesn't.
I believe in God for the same reasons you do, but I don't see that my belief is scientific, or even knowledge, for that matter. And, after reviewing everything that my religion declares to be definitive, orthodox Church doctrine, I have concluded that Mormonism does not preclude evolution. If you come to a different conclusion about your particular sect or religion, you may be forced to make a different choice from mine.
Wumpini writes:
I would think that would be a more friendly way to teach evolution in the classroom than some of the suggestions I have heard.
This does back to what Archer Opterix said in Message #6. You shouldn't be surprised if people get bitter about having to cater their topics of expertise to people who don't understand a lick of it and still act like their opinion on the subject matters. In fact, you should expect it. People who know all about the Bible from every possible angle have every right to get upset when little old, uneducated Bluejay comes in saying stupid things like "the four separate witnesses in the Four Gospels are good evidence for the veracity of the biblical story of Jesus" (I'm referring to this topic).
Don't you ever get tired of having to start at the very beginning of your story every time someone new walks into the room? Don't you ever wish you could say "This is just how it is, will you just trust me," then get on with your story? Well, that's how a lot of scientists feel right now: we're trying to do research on step 84, but, every time we do, somebody has to come up and make us explain step 6 again, which slows down our work on step 84 and probably means we'll never get to see step 100 in our lifetime. Whereas, if IDists didn't keep bringing up the same stupid questions that have been Refuted A Thousand Times, and demanding that such things be given consideration in science classes, we could have reached step 157 by now. Maybe we'd have found out how to raise the thylacine from extinction, or how to cure cancer permanently, if IDists would just shut up and let us teach science the way we've already proved it to be.
Sorry for that little diatribe: maybe i got a bit carried away. I hope you realize that it wasn't aimed at you specifically, but at certain other groups of individuals in our society.
Wumpini writes:
Would you recommend that our public schools require classes on comparative religions?
I don't want to make a definitive statement on this either way, because I haven't thought about it enough yet. I would definitely recommend that comparative religions classes be offered at schools. Whether or not I would recommend them to be mandatory is a question for which I will, for the time being, withhold judgment.
P.S. What's a wumpini, anyway?

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 4:50 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 2:49 PM Blue Jay has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 222 of 356 (466027)
05-12-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Blue Jay
05-12-2008 1:05 PM


Wumpini is a name
Bluejay writes:
What's a wumpini, anyway?
It is my Dagomba name. I live among a tribe of people in Africa called the Dagombas. Actually, it is the only name that many of the people here know me by. Its meaning is "God's Gift." A woman who had difficulty conceiving who finally has her first child would give the child the name "Wumpini." Someone gave me the name, and I kind of liked it so I kept it.
Bluejay writes:
Maybe we'd have found out how to raise the thylacine from extinction, or how to cure cancer permanently, if IDists would just shut up and let us teach science the way we've already proved it to be.
I am only now learning what the difference is between an IDist and a Theistic Evolutionist. I don't think I can be categorized so easily. I definitely want anything that has been proven in science to be taught as such. However, I would surely want us to be careful that we are not teaching something as proven which has not reached such an elevated status. This is especially true if it could affect an individual's faith. I believe with your background that you can understand my concern. I believe if we look at the history of science there are instances where something was taught as fact and later learned to be untrue. So we know the possibility exists.
I am using the term proven even though it is my understanding that a scientific theory can never be proven, it can only be falsified. However, regardless of the words we use, we need to be careful.
Bluejay writes:
... little old, uneducated Bluejay comes in saying stupid things
I can assure you that what you said was not stupid. Remember that you should not discard something you believe to be true only because those who appear to be intellectuals argue against it. You seem to be intelligent, and you have faith. Those who are arguing against you could have no understanding of Biblical inspiration. Their understanding may be limited to logic and science. Review the evidence and make your own decision. Don't jump on the bandwagon based upon someone else's opinion.
Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

"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 221 by Blue Jay, posted 05-12-2008 1:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Blue Jay, posted 05-13-2008 1:41 PM Wumpini has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 223 of 356 (466030)
05-12-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Wumpini
05-12-2008 4:50 AM


My point was that these scientists, just as you have, looked at the evidence for evolution, and it did not eliminate their belief in God. They concluded that God exists, not as a result of the overwhelming evidence, but in spite of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
But why would you believe that the overwhelming evidence for evolution should eliminate their belief in God? That's the part that doesn't make any sense. What do you base that assumption on?
As someone already pointed out to you using gravity as an example, consider recasting your statement thus:
quote:
My point was that these {engineers}, just as you have, looked at the evidence for {hole theory in solid-state electronics}, and it did not eliminate their belief in God.
Why should solid-state electronics eliminate belief in God? Or gravity? Or evolution? What is your reasoning there?
An article posted long ago on our church's bulletin board described how most people's ideas about God are childish, mostly because they had formed those ideas as children and had never gone back to them as adults in order to re-examine them and replace them with a more mature understanding. When we try to get someone to question his beliefs, we are not trying to destroy his faith in God, but rather are trying to help him to see where he had gotten something wrong, something that he needs to correct. Too many believers wrongly believe that to question what they believe would be to question God, when in reality what they would be questioning would be their own misunderstanding of what they think they had been taught.
One of those childish beliefs about God is also one that is routinely shown in science class to be wrong. One of the earliest uses of gods and spirits was to attempt to explain how nature worked. The gods operated the weather. The gods made the sun move through the day sky and the stars and planets through the night sky. Even in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God was assigned the every-day operation of nature and it was indeed part of Christian belief that angels physicially moved the planets through the sky and, upon the discovery of gunpowder, that each bullet was moved through the air by a demon. So when science shows us that nature runs on its own through physical processes and the planets use gravity, not angels, and bullets move by ballistics, not demons, then believers think that science is attacking God. That by removing that most ancient use of and need for the gods, science is attacking the very existence of God. No, science is only showing that gods are not needed to explain how the physical universe works, that the ancient idea that gods are needed to explain physical phenomena is incorrect.
But instead of correcting their childish beliefs with a more mature understanding of God, many believers turn to "The God of the Gaps", a false theology in which God is used to explain everything within the gaps of human knowledge. The problem is that the reason for placing God in those gaps is because they believe that the naturalistic explanations of science disprove God, so as our knowledge grows and those gaps shrink, so does their narrow idea of God. God-of-the-Gaps is the theology of ID and is also widely used by "creation science". It misleads both their followers and non-believing outsiders that science is the enemy of religion and that science and natural explanations disprove God. And young-earth creationists especially teach that if evolution is true, then God does not exist. Even ID founder Phillip Johnson stated in an essay that evolution "doesn't leave God with anything to do" and that he opposes evolution for that reason.
That may be true of their puny and impotent God-of-the-Gaps, but how could it be true of God, Sovereign over Nature? A God Who had created nature to operate through natural processes. A God Who cannot be disproven by any scientific discovery, only by faulty theologies.
So why would you think that the evidence for evolution or for any other part of science should eliminate belief in God?
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : a second typo

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 4:50 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 5:38 PM dwise1 has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 224 of 356 (466034)
05-12-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by dwise1
05-12-2008 3:52 PM


Overwhelming Evidence
dwise1 writes:
But why would you believe that the overwhelming evidence for evolution should eliminate their belief in God? That's the part that doesn't make any sense. What do you base that assumption on?
This overwhelming evidence has really become a thorn in my flesh. It keeps coming up and seems to have evolved from when it was first brought up by someone else. First, I never said that there was overwhelming evidence for evolution. Rahvin said that and here was my response in Message 182:
Rahvin writes:
The evidence is overwhealming.
Wumpini writes:
It does not seem to be as simple as you are making it out to be. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why do the majority of the people in the United States of America prefer Creation over Evolution. In the most advanced and powerful country in the world, only 18% of the population last year said that evolution was definitely true. That means 82% of the population in America has doubts about evolution. That is significant. And, that indicates to me that the evidence cannot be as overwhelming as this website is making it out to be.
Second, my original point was that even though scientists were aware of this supposedly overwhelming evidence for evolution, it did not, for many of them, eliminate their belief in God as the Creator. It only seemed to change the method that they said that God used in Creation.
Even though I don't believe I have argued, as of yet, that the evidence (or the interpretation of that evidence) for the Theory of Evolution can affect someone's belief in God, I believe that to be true. Listen to what Bluejay says:
Bluejay writes:
In fact, when I was first presented with the evidence for evolution (in college Biology 101), my faith was shaken to its very core.
Obviously, when presented with the evidence for evolution Bluejay's faith was seriously compromised. I did not become a Christian until later in life, and when I made that decision, I had to go back and seriously review those scientific facts that I had been taught in my younger years that conflicted with the Bible.
dwise1 writes:
Why should solid-state electronics eliminate belief in God? Or gravity? Or evolution? What is your reasoning there?
Solid-state electronics and gravity have nothing to do with the belief that people have in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. The Theory of Evolution can have an affect on a person's view towards the Bible. That is why this entire dispute between Creation and Evolution exists. If Genesis Chapter One said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and man through the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Evolution" then this website would not exist.
dwise1 writes:
So why would you think that the evidence for evolution or for any other part of science should eliminate belief in God?
I do not think that most of science would have an affect on a person's belief in God. If a person has based their belief in God upon a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, as many do, then many areas of science could affect their faith. This would include Cosmological Origins, Abiogenesis, Evolution, Geological Theories relating to the Age of the Earth or a Global Flood, or any other area of science that conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
It would be interesting to study the statistical relationships of belief in God for scientists in different disciplines to the population in general. I have not had time to do this.
Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

"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 223 by dwise1, posted 05-12-2008 3:52 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Rahvin, posted 05-12-2008 6:31 PM Wumpini has replied

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


Message 225 of 356 (466036)
05-12-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Wumpini
05-12-2008 5:38 PM


Re: Overwhelming Evidence
quote:
dwise1 writes:
But why would you believe that the overwhelming evidence for evolution should eliminate their belief in God? That's the part that doesn't make any sense. What do you base that assumption on?
This overwhelming evidence has really become a thorn in my flesh. It keeps coming up and seems to have evolved from when it was first brought up by someone else. First, I never said that there was overwhelming evidence for evolution. Rahvin said that and here was my response in Message 182:
quote:
Rahvin writes:
The evidence is overwhelming.
Wumpini writes:
It does not seem to be as simple as you are making it out to be. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why do the majority of the people in the United States of America prefer Creation over Evolution. In the most advanced and powerful country in the world, only 18% of the population last year said that evolution was definitely true. That means 82% of the population in America has doubts about evolution. That is significant. And, that indicates to me that the evidence cannot be as overwhelming as this website is making it out to be.
Second, my original point was that even though scientists were aware of this supposedly overwhelming evidence for evolution, it did not, for many of them, eliminate their belief in God as the Creator. It only seemed to change the method that they said that God used in Creation.
Once again Wumpini, popularity is irrelevant. The vast majority of US citizens are horribly undereducated, especially as it pertains to evolution. It is taught extremely poorly in almost all classes beneath the college level, with instruction being extremely brief and general with gross inaccuracies made for the sake of brevity and ease of comprehension since the students simply don't posses a great deal of required knowledge at that stage. Combined with the wacky popularized version of evolution in modern media (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, X-Men, countless travesties based on "evolution" in Star Trek, etc), the average American is an idiot when it comes to evolution, with such a distorted version of the theory in their heads that it's literally worse than knowing nothing about it.
The opinion of the average American regarding Creationism vs Evolution is completely irrelevant to which is the more accurate representation of reality. Truth is not a democracy.
If the "overwhelming evidence" but is a thorn in your side, start looking into it instead of looking into public opinion. Depending on when and where a survey is taken, you can find a majority of people who believe in Biblical literalism, space aliens, vampires, ghosts, a flat Earth, and that the moon landings were a hoax. Surveys are irrelevant. Logically consistent arguments and evidence are all that matter.
Even though I don't believe I have argued, as of yet, that the evidence (or the interpretation of that evidence) for the Theory of Evolution can affect someone's belief in God, I believe that to be true. Listen to what Bluejay says:
quote:
Bluejay writes:
In fact, when I was first presented with the evidence for evolution (in college Biology 101), my faith was shaken to its very core.
Obviously, when presented with the evidence for evolution Bluejay's faith was seriously compromised. I did not become a Christian until later in life, and when I made that decision, I had to go back and seriously review those scientific facts that I had been taught in my younger years that conflicted with the Bible.
You're confusing "does not affect" and "does not necessarily affect." Evolution conflicts only with a literal reading of the Bible, because it is completely incompatible with the 6-day Creation story (among others, but that's obviously the big one). For many people, this is a direct challenge to their faith, and you seem to be in this group. For many others, they already view the Genesis story as more allegorical and less literally true, taking what science uncovers as the "how" of God's Creation. After all, man wrote the Bible...God wrote the world, right?
Bluejay's faith was shaken, sure, but it wasn't destroyed. Evolution didn't destroy my faith, either - I simply took a non-literal view of the Bible, viewing it as more of a road-map to get you to the correct destination than an 100% accurate recounting of events.
Yes, some people, a very large percentage in some areas like the Southern US, will see evolution as a direct contradiction of their beliefs. But the exact same thing was the case when we figured out that gravity, and not angels, moved planets around. You can't sugar-coat or change what is taught simply because some people might get offended - that way lies ignorance and idiocy.
quote:
dwise1 writes:
Why should solid-state electronics eliminate belief in God? Or gravity? Or evolution? What is your reasoning there?
Solid-state electronics and gravity have nothing to do with the belief that people have in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. The Theory of Evolution can have an affect on a person's view toward the Bible. That is why this entire dispute between Creation and Evolution exists. If Genesis Chapter One said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and man through the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Evolution" then this website would not exist.
Quite to the contrary, gravity is instrumental in the formation of stars, our current understanding of which is contrary to the Genesis story (where light appeared before the Sun, and the moon apparently provides its own light despite the fact that it only reflects light from the Sun).
But the real point is once again that evolution conflicts only with a specific version of Christianity, that which reads genesis literally. Many (possibly even most) Christians don't do that. Evolution does not necessarily conflict with religious beliefs.
And of course even that is irrelevant, because once again you cannot sugar-coat or change teachings based on what may offend people. You agree that science should be taught in science classrooms, and that should be the end of this discussion.
Look, Wumpini. Here's the deal. We've directly observed evolution happening. It is a fact that the frequency of genetic traits in populations change over generations. The Theory of Evolution states that this observed effect is due to random mutation guided by natural selection, and all of our experiments in the laboratory over the past 150 years have supported that model. When we dig up fossils, we see exactly what the Theory of Evolution tells us we should see - that no individual feature is wholly unique, but is rather a slightly modified version of a pre-existing structure in another species; that significant changes in the environment should produce significant changes in the frequency of features depending on fitness; there are others, but suffice it to say that the model has proven to be accurate every single time thus far. It's a very accurate model of reality by any test you throw at it. Genetics, taxonomy (the biological classification of similar living things into species, families, etc, which predates genetics but agrees completely with the new data to a startling degree), direct observations, the fossil record, all of these things and more have agreed completely with the predictions of the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is as solid a theory as the Theory of Gravity, or the Theory of Relativity. It is no longer seriously questioned in scientific circles for exactly the same reason the Theory of Gravity is no longer seriously questioned, though research is ongoing for both in an attempt to further increase their accuracy and add to the mounting evidence.
The arguments against the Theory of Evolution are always from people who either have religious beliefs so strong that they believe their faith trumps observable reality, or from the uneducated masses who don't even know what the Theory of Evolution really says. Most often it's a combination of both. Creationist arguments always, every single time consist of distorted strawmen of Evolution that are not related to the Theory as it is held by scientists, or blatant lies regarding supposed "hoaxes," distortions of history, logical inconsistencies such as appeals to consequence or emotion or popularity or authority, and any number of other poor arguments that basically show beyond a shadow of a doubt that those who propose such arguments 1) don't know what they are talking about and 2) insist that they are right anyway.
Only the fanatically religious would suggest that we not teach something that has proven to be so accurate as the Theory of Evolution to our children. It would be as silly as not teaching students that the Earth orbits the Sun, or the water cycle, or Tectonic Plate Theory, or any number of other scientific theories. Evolution is so accurate that you may as well simply call it a fact. It is a fact that human beings and apes share a common ancestor. It is a fact that the Universe, and even just teh Earth, took a lot longer than 6 days to form.
It is a fact that the Earth is not flat. It's really time we stopped arguing over such disproved stone-age mythology and got on with teaching our kids the way the Universe actually works. If one's faith is so weak as to be broken by observations of the natural world that your deity is supposed to have Created in the first place, then perhaps it is best to question your beliefs. But allowing religious beliefs to trump science with regards to sugar-coating science education or even leaving "sensitive" topics out of the classroom has but a single result:
Ignorant children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 5:38 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 12:32 PM Rahvin 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