Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Negative Impacts on Society
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 16 of 222 (94349)
03-24-2004 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hitchy
02-27-2004 3:18 PM


I think two issues are being confused here, who get's to decide what is good science, and what is actually good science.
The Lysenko affair is more of an issue of centralised dictate of science, then it is of Lysenko's science not being very good IMO. If we would have centralised dictate of Darwin's "Origin of Species" / "Descent of Man", then we might have gotten the same kind of thing, because Darwin's work also contains wholy erronuous ideas like the heritability from habits, and pangenesis (Darwins idea that from every part of the organism information is gathered up to the sexcells for reproduction), and some racism and eugenicism to top it of. Besides the theory of Natural Selection isn't very well formulated in Darwin's work either.
So I think the Lysenko affair shows that each individual should have the power of decision what knowledge goes into their head, or not. It more supports the idea that students can decide what to learn for themselves, and they would choose creationism in large nubmers I suspect.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hitchy, posted 02-27-2004 3:18 PM hitchy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 03-24-2004 11:08 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 222 (94366)
03-24-2004 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:53 AM


Re: lure'em in...
Hi Servant!
I sure do hope you decide to reply to my message #67 in the "Moral Perspective" thread over in the Evolution forum. There are quite a few questions that you have not answered, and I look forward to reading your reply.
Now, on to your current post in this thread...
quote:
I understand also that creationists are often viewed from the secular world as being narrow-minded and having tunnel-vision to real science.
Hmmm, this is true, and for good reason.
That's pretty much in evidence in your posts so far. (Not trying to be a jerk here. Being blind to science doesn't mean you are a bad person. Just calling it like I see it.)
quote:
The truth is, creationists and evolutionists alike have contributed to modern science (every high school science teacher I know is an evolutionist) and yet Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Thomas Barnes (U of Texas), Samuel Morse, Johnathen Wells (doctor from Berkely) and many other scientists are either creationists or at least carry heavy criticisms of evolution.
Well, Mendel and Newton don't count for two reasons; they do not invoke the supernatural to explain a single thing in their work as any good scientist today, and they did their work before Evolution was as well-documented and understood as it is today.
As far as I can tell, Thomas Barnes also did not invoke the supernatural in any of his legitimate scientific work during his career.
Jonathan Wells has credentials, but when was the last time he published any peer-reviewed work rather than popular press books and articles? Also, does he invoke any supernatural entities in his peer-reviewed work?
quote:
That leads me to the conclusion that is pertinent to this thread: taxes should not further nor hinder the cause of any theory of origin.
Origin of life or origin of species? These are two different topics.
Anyway, if a theory is scientific and has lots of evidence to support it suc as the Theory of Evolution, it should be taught in science classrooms regardless of how any religious sects feel about it.
quote:
What I have said to many people in a face-to-face discussion on the topic of government and education is this: "want a great comprimise? How's this: nobody gets what they want!" Evolutionists, for the most part, want to rid all public schools of the discussion of creation as a valid theory;
Which theory of creation? There are hundreds.
If you mean which scientific Theory of Creation, there has never been one as far as I can tell.
Even the Federal Supreme Court has determined that Creation science bears no resemblance to real science in the least.
quote:
likewise, most creationists I know want evolution taken out of school science classrooms.
Why should a very robust and very well-supported unifying theory of Biology be removed simply because some religious people don't like it?
quote:
I myself want both to be discussed through a non-government-regulated cirriculum.
The fact that religious people have always tried to control what is taught in schools in order to impose their particular religious dogma upon all children, it is imperative that our secular government regulate what is taught. Children used to have to recite and memorize Christian Bible passages and also participate in school led Christian prayer.
I have no problem with creationism being discussed in a historical context, along with other failed or fringe ideas.
quote:
Sounds a little far-fetched, I know, but truly if evolution and creation were both taken out of context, the science classroom would flourish (I believe) on the study and observations and the advancements of true science (keeping in mind that "Science" = "knowledge gained through ovbservation and experimentation").
So, when discussing where nylon-digesting bacteria came from, or why whales are sometimes born with hind legs, what explanation do you propose we tell children accounts for these events?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 7:52 AM nator has not replied
 Message 31 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 5:23 PM nator has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 18 of 222 (94381)
03-24-2004 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
03-24-2004 5:32 AM


Re: lure'em in...
Schrafinator:
"The fact that religious people have always tried to control what is taught in schools in order to impose their particular religious dogma upon all children, it is imperative that our secular government regulate what is taught. Children used to have to recite and memorize Christian Bible passages and also participate in school led Christian prayer."
Now add some talk about religion is the opium of the masses, and you have a communist speech for the secular communist government imposing Lysenkoism on everybody. The Supreme Court ruled Intelligent Design theory scientifically invalid, now that's the bizarre nature of American society IMO, where the courts rule science. Next they will be bringing Johnson and Behe to trial for proliferating this false theory?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 03-24-2004 5:32 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 8:59 AM Syamsu has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 222 (94390)
03-24-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Syamsu
03-24-2004 7:52 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID?
The Supreme Court ruled Intelligent Design theory scientifically invalid, now that's the bizarre nature of American society IMO, where the courts rule science. Next they will be bringing Johnson and Behe to trial for proliferating this false theory?
I can find no source for any Supreme Court decision re ID as you state.
The People for the American Way make no mention of such a case while discussing the decision on creationism and while talking about intelligent design as the next wave of attack. This article attacks ID and I would expect them to mention it.
The Intelligent Design Network, Inc. also talks about the creationism ruling and the place of ID and does not mention any such ruling regarding ID. This article defends ID and I would expect them to mention it.
Johnson and Behe should be brought to trial for trying to get untested concepts into science classes before they have been scientifically validated, but I don't know what legal basis that would come under .... fraud?
Feel free to comment further on ID on my Is ID Properly Pursued thread (click) in the ID area of this board.
ps -- we did not have school prayer, nor did many public schools. It was not universal.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 7:52 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 10:20 AM RAZD has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 20 of 222 (94405)
03-24-2004 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
03-24-2004 8:59 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID?
That the court ruled ID theory invalid I understood from Schrafinator's post I was replying to.
If we would go that route of prosecuting Johnson and Behe, there would be a large backlog of cases of Darwinists teaching bad science and immoral ideology.
But it's not the point obviously, in a free society individuals can decide for themselves what to think, and extended from that, what to learn. I'm not even so sure government shouldn't pay for religious education. If you're talking about native Americans and native American beliefs in stead of Christians and Christianity for instance, then somehow it becomes more clear to me that it's evil to root out religion from education. It doesn't seem okay for government to lay such a large claim on people's lives, taking so many years and hours in the day of a person, and the cultural heritage being completely ignored. I think this problem can largely be taken care of with vouchers, you just pay for the education you want. There couldn't be a Lysenko affair in a voucher system.
Actually I think the only good argument against a voucher system is that possibly science could become too powerful once it is infused with the force of democracy from vouchers in education, leading to too many people with too powerful scientific knowledge. Considering how free market and individual choice caused explosions of growth and development in other areas, I think this is a justified concern. But maybe more extended copyright laws could temper a voucher system.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 8:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 11:47 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 222 (94414)
03-24-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
03-24-2004 3:38 AM


I think (but I may be documentable wrong onthis one) that we DO have the same kind of thing which BACKFIRED on Lewontin for instance in the case of drug delievery stratgies in economically (failing) pharmas. Lewontin rests his TRIPLE helix instead on a reference to past Scottish practices than noticing as I said that we have indeed post-Sputnik the same Darwin thing that was a Lysenko thing. I started to think this was true when I was reading a translation of DOSTAL who continued to work up plants around where Mendel was. The book on Stableizing Evolution via Selection ideed appears to me as "regime" of anti-Wolfram claims rather than A Gladyshev extension of Einstein's not FIRST knowing of GIbbs' work here. Once again Creationism is not Lamarkianism but symptoms are symptoms no matter the diagnosis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 222 (94425)
03-24-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Syamsu
03-24-2004 10:20 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
there would be a large backlog of cases of Darwinists teaching bad science and immoral ideology.
What bad science? Do you mean any science that has been superceded by later discoveries \ evidence? That would not be on the same level as presenting a crude concept as scientific before any validation has occurred.
Evolution is science not ideology. Likewise there is no "Darwinists" science (nor new sects of "Gouldism" or "Dawkinism"). Science is based on knowledge not people. This is a common creationist misconception -- that one man formed a science like some bearded prophet from the mountain - and it demonstrates an inability to understand the basic differences between science and belief.
I'm not even so sure government shouldn't pay for religious education. If you're talking about native Americans and native American beliefs in stead of Christians and Christianity for instance, then somehow it becomes more clear to me that it's evil to root out religion from education.
Perhaps the reason you don't see other religions clamoring for inclusion in public schools is because they feel they cover the subject adequately in their churches and homes and wouldn't presume to have it taught by someone who was not of the faith in a cogent manner.
You obviously have some strong biases here. There was a course on comparative religions that was taught in California high schools until a group of parents objected to it -- fundamentalist christian parents.
The largest group of Americans who are intolerant of the beliefs of others is ... the fundamentalist christians.
And the attack on classroom content is not coming from some quasi-conspiratorial "root out religion" group, but from a vocal minority of ... fundamentalist christians.
taking so many years and hours in the day of a person, and the cultural heritage being completely ignored. I think this problem can largely be taken care of with vouchers
I'll offer you a trade ... vouchers in exchange for loss of all tax exempt status for all religious institutions, income, assets, etcetera. Why should my tax dollar support these institutions that are of no benefit to me? See this article in The World Union of Deists Quarterly Publication (click) for more information.
According to the tax appraiser's office for Pinellas County, Florida the dollar amount of exempt real estate held by religions in Pinellas county alone is:
$583,581,970.00!!!
That half a billion dollars plus could be added to the tax base and used to help the uninsured that the faith-healers can't heal, or to help clean up the environment, for education, etc., etc., etc. Instead it goes to promote superstition.
That amounts to a government subsidy of religion. When it is done for a business to attract more businesses, it is called a subsidy -- let's be honest eh?
Taxes are essentially a "user fee" -- if you make use of the social-economic system of the country you are in, then pay your share of maintaining and operating it, whether "you" are a person or a corporation or a club.
There couldn't be a Lysenko affair in a voucher system.
Pure opinion unsubstantiated by any basis in fact. I would "vouch" that the rise of private separate schools teaching creationism as science will end up doing just that, but that is my (not so humble) opinion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 10:20 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 4:46 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 03-26-2004 8:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 222 (94894)
03-26-2004 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
03-24-2004 11:47 AM


I am not trying to force, Or impose--as you put it, creationism on others. In other words, I am not trying to force creationism into the schools. That is for the simple reason that school teachers (even science teachers) have the legal right to discuss it.
Despite popular opinion, sep. or church and state and the first amendment does not forbid it. The first amendment ("congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...") does not forbid teachers from discussing it. Granted, forcing children to pray is wrong, and so is forcing them to take part in any particular religion. However, there is a difference between a teacher saying: "let us all bow our heads in prayer," and a teacher saying, "and this is a basic overview of what the Christians believe..."
The former is unconstitutional, while the latter is an example of how a teacher can, legally and constitutionally, approach the theory of creationism from a non-ridiculing perspective.
The western science may have a firm grasp on the theory of evolution, but since it is an extrememly controversial topic and will NEVER be proven %100 percent (face it, we will never be as certain of the theory of evolution as we are that the earth is flat because every century the common theories and hypotheses of science have been altered or dropped altogether). And what could make anybody assume that, even though science has been under constant reproof and re-correcting for over 20 centuries, all that is going to change THIS century at the feet of evolution? OR to put it mildly, why is it that evolution is such a "FACT" today when indeed the idea that the sun orbits the earth was such a "FACT" ten centuries ago? After all, like the theory of evolution is today, the theory of the sun orbiting the earth was based on observations and resources available to us AT THE TIME. Therefore, we can never know for sure that the theory of evolution will be discarded in the future science world and therefore can never know for sure if the theory of evolution is proven.
That brings me to the perspective of church, school, and government.
First off, the idea that money spent via churches to further their "superstition" is NOT wrong legally, morally, or constitutionally. Whether the money spent in and by churches was a half-billion or a half-trillion, the money belongs to the churches (which are generally NOT under 501-C3 corporation status and therefore not liable to owing the government in taxes or in upholding any county restrictions or building codes). The money also belongs to the people who GIVE it to the churches on their own recogniscance. Therefore, the money spent on churches and the Christian cause goes, therefore, toward however the church sees fit and the government is restricted from ruling over the church in such a way (you have to remember that the whole separation of church and state ALSO applies to the government not being allowed constitutionally to meddle in the church's business, provided the churchgoers are not breaking any federal laws).
Now then, I was not trying to use that list of creation-believing scientists to argue that creation "must be valid because scientists believe it." Although that is how you misinterpreted the way I was mentioning them. You see, I was just simply providing a small list of scientists who do not necessarily believe in evolution for the purpose of proving that it DOES NOT require believing in evolution to get further in the field of scientific research. I have known plenty of people, even in my personal experience, who have made ample additions to modern science WITHOUT the aid of evolution, or even believing thereof. My grandfather was a chemical scientist, and graduate of Oregon State University, and yet a creationist (who subscribed regularly to Nat. Geographic, Scientific American, and a few peer-reviewed magazines without ever being swayed into the belief in evolution). My father is a veteran with a degree in Physics from West Point Academy (FYI West Point is tax-funded) and yet my father believes in creation as firmly as I do. Two of my cousins are students at Texas A&M majoring in science-related fields who are not evolutionists. One of my friends' father is a Phd-chemist who believes in creation. Many of my high school teachers were creationists. The physician whom I seek medical advice from when in need is a creationist. My brother and I are both creationists, which by the way we have studied both sides very in-depth and are yet happy with our system of beliefs. My brother's girlfriend--majoring in Sociology at Carroll College in Wisconsin--is a creationist. Several other friends, relatives, and aqcuaintances hold B.S.'s if not Ph.D's in their fields and yet believe in creationism.
I mentioned all that for one reason and one reason only (so DON'T misquote me):
It is not imperative that students believe in evolution in order to get a good-quality science education--for that they may recieve nonetheless. Therefore, if not to believe in creationism, at least try to understand the idea that it is important not to indoctrinate students with one theory exclusively over another, ESPECIALLY if it conflicts both with their beliefs AND is supported by their tax-dollars.
As I have asked before, how do you think the theory of evolution would survive without tax support? Honestly, if the theory of evolution was to be supported by ONLY private organizations and funding the same way creationism is being supported, do you think it would last? After all, the belief in ID may be ridiculed in the science world but it is very prevalent in society; so, if creationism was allowed to be supported by taxation--or if evolution were to be demoted to the same sources of funds as the creationists use--would the theory still prevail in the world of education, government, and society?
Sincerely,
Servant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 11:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 11:35 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 03-26-2004 3:08 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 03-26-2004 3:47 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 24 of 222 (94909)
03-26-2004 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
03-24-2004 11:47 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
Darwinists already had their sort of Lysenko affair. Back in the earyly 20th century most American students were taught eugenics as a logical extension of evolution theory in the most widely used textbook at that time. There were also eugenic birthcontrol policies, and eugenic immigration policies besides that.
Some years ago the NABT (national association of biology teachers) proposed to formulate evolution theory using the words impersonal, and unguided process. We could with equal merit call gravity impersonal and unguided, but we don't, because it's a ludicrous formulation of a scientific theory.
So you see, Darwinists are perfectly capable of delivering bad science to students, and this will be solved in a voucher system because
1. there will be more customerreview of curriculum, more peerreview if you will
2. it isn't such a big problem if somebody bough the exactsame education as the hitleryouth in the hitlerschools had with their voucher, because it is then an individual choice. When something like eugenics, or the ridiculous formulation of evolution by the NABT is enforced by a state or nation, then you get weird trends in intellectual climate of opinion, the problem is not manageable.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 11:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 11:52 AM Syamsu has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 222 (94946)
03-26-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 4:46 AM


servant to subsidy
S2C
First off, I did not say "impose" either, but I will agree that the assault on education is from the fundamentalists who want to replace science with a hypothetical viewpoint based solely on a story in a book. Hardly science.
However, there is a difference between a teacher saying: "let us all bow our heads in prayer," and a teacher saying, "and this is a basic overview of what the Christians believe..."
Yes, and now we are teaching mythology in science class as if it were science. The place for that is in a humanities class, along with all the other creation myths.
Furthermore, if that discussion presents only one religious view of the myths of creation, then it is a violation of the principle of not endorsing one religion over another.
the theory of evolution, ... will NEVER be proven %100 percent (face it, we will never be as certain of the theory of evolution as we are that the earth is flat because every century the common theories and hypotheses of science have been altered or dropped altogether).
This old charlie-horse about the theory never being proved. No theory is every proved (but let's try to slide over that and imply that only theories of evolution are so endangered) -- a theory by nature cannot be proved, only disproved or invalidated or superceded by a better model.
A scientific theory also makes predictions, and as those predictions come to pass the theory becomes validated. The reason that theories have been altered and dropped in every science discipline is because the predictions fail to be correct or new information comes along that does not fit the theory or better theories are developed. This holds for the theory of gravity (which everyone accepts as true even though it has evolved from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein and there are problems with it that are currently "fixed" by epicycles of dark matter and dark energy ... let's not get too fixed on any theory). I would say that the fact that theories have changed, are changing and will be changed is validation of the scientific process, adapting to knowledge as it become more complete. A cryptographer does not take only one try at solving a cipher. Likewise any belief put forth as unchanging truth in spite of contrary evidence is showing that it is not scientific. For instance the Young Earth Creation (YEC) model has been invalidated by mountains of evidence for an old earth, down to the counting of annual layers of mineral deposit to 567,700 years ago (see Age Dating Correlations for more complete discussion). In science an invalidated hypothesis is chucked out, in the pseudo-science world of creationism it keeps going like the energizer bunny on a solar cell while the evidence is chucked out by denial.
OR to put it mildly, why is it that evolution is such a "FACT" today when indeed the idea that the sun orbits the earth was such a "FACT" ten centuries ago?
We are now comparing modern science with ancient philosophy, for there were no real scientists until the scientific method was developed and the rigors of the scientific process were applied to the assembly of knowledge into coherent wholes. The fact is, the position of the earth at the center and the sun in orbit within the solar system was no more than a theory that was superceded when a better theory came along. Look at the history: the heliocentric model was accepted because it did a better job of explaining the observations. From wikipedia: "The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age; from the late 16th century onward it was gradually replaced by the heliocentric model of Copernicus and Galileo due to the simplicity and predictive accuracy of that newer model." Later evidence from space missions validated the latter theory and totally invalidated the former. And yet it is still possible that our understanding of how the solar system works and operates will change again. The issue of gravity and the fixes of dark matter and energy are central to the current understanding, and the pioneer satellites leaving the solar system exhibit the effects of dark matter ... where is it? Or will a new theory explain the effect without needed dark elements? That would change the model of the solar system yet again.
The conflation of evolution as theory and evolution as fact is because it is both. There is factual evidence of change in species over time. Documented, observed, verified independently fact. And that is all evolution is: change in species over time (including change within a species and change from one species to a new species). One example of this factual basis of evolution is the Foraminifera fossil record extending back hundreds of thousands of years with unbroken lineages ("This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."). Changing theories as new evidence comes along does not change the facts of the previous evidence.
First off, the idea that money spent via churches to further their "superstition" is NOT wrong legally, morally, or constitutionally. Whether the money spent in and by churches was a half-billion or a half-trillion, the money belongs to the churches
I'm sure Ken Lay feels the same way about his salary. You make no case for the need for the government subsidy of religion through tax-exempt status, just state that it has been so. History may be tradition but it is not reason enough for keeping something: it is never too late to stop going the wrong way.
(you have to remember that the whole separation of church and state ALSO applies to the government not being allowed constitutionally to meddle in the church's business, provided the churchgoers are not breaking any federal laws).
and taxing the income and property of church organizations does not interfere with the church's business, rather it goes to the maintenance and operation of the {social \ political \ economic} system that it benefits the church to operate within.
Now then, I was not trying to use that list of creation-believing scientists to argue that creation "must be valid because scientists believe it." Although that is how you misinterpreted the way ... the purpose of proving that it DOES NOT require believing in evolution to get further in the field of scientific research.
I get the feeling you are really replying to someone else, although the message you hit the reply button for was mine. I have not had the opportunity to misinterpret such a list, yet. I am sure that a list of scientists can also be assembled for any science that would show disagreement with the majority views of that science, from scientists within and outside the discipline. Which is to say that such a list proves nothing. I am also sure that all these friends and relations, especially those in biology related sciences, accept "micro-evolution" as valid within their personal creationist viewpoints. A Doctor or a Vet that does not accept "micro-evolution" is unfit to treat diseases from evolving bacteria -- the original medications should work as well as the new versions that have had to be developed as the bacteria evolved resistance to the originals. Tell me they accept "micro-evolution" and you admit that they accept evolution (remember that "change in species over time" bit?), and further, that they need it to properly understand and do their job. Tell me they don't and you tell me that they let their religious views interfere with doing their job to the point where they could be reprimanded.
It is not imperative that students believe in evolution in order to get a good-quality science education--for that they may recieve nonetheless. Therefore, if not to believe in creationism, at least try to understand the idea that it is important not to indoctrinate students with one theory exclusively over another, ESPECIALLY if it conflicts both with their beliefs AND is supported by their tax-dollars.
As I have asked before, how do you think the theory of evolution would survive without tax support? Honestly, if the theory of evolution was to be supported by ONLY private organizations and funding the same way creationism is being supported, do you think it would last?
And yet you think it is okay to support religions through tax subsidies. The ICR and other creationsist foundations are supported by tax subsidies.
The work of professors on independent research is not supported by tax dollars unless it is underwritten by government for some specific purpose (like star-wars and other weapons systems, disease research to save lives, etc). Government grants are given out to further the growth of knowledge, usually with a perceived direct benefit back to the society (vaccines, etcetera). The fact is that science in general is not directly financed by any taxes, that the flow of dollars is mixed with that from other institutions and donations and directed to where good science is being done according to the accepted methods and principles of doing good science. That evolution studies get some of this money is a measure of how valid the study is regardless of the discipline.
You also imply that creationism is another theory of value ("with one theory exclusively over another"), and yet there is no factual basis for the hypothesis and no predictions that can be used to test the validity of the concept that I am aware of. As such it is not a scientific theory anywhere close to the level of those currently used in the science of evolution. It is an untested hypothesis at best, and not something sufficiently developed to present in science class (same with ID btw).
After all, the belief in ID may be ridiculed in the science world but it is very prevalent in society; so, if creationism was allowed to be supported by taxation--or if evolution were to be demoted to the same sources of funds as the creationists use--would the theory still prevail in the world of education, government, and society?
When it comes down to it, if the study of evolution was limited to the creationsist wet dream of an ostracized private institution, there would be plenty of continued institutional and private funding for it to continue uncovering the truths of the world of evolution. I would expect drug companies to be the biggest donors, followed by hospitals, etcetera. And even then the value of creationism would not be any greater or any more validated, whether supported by more tax dollars or not. Money does not make evidence disappear from the world of reality, nor make myth any more real. "Truth will out" as the bard said, and the evidence of religious suppression of scientific truth is large and pervasive. In fact one could argue that evolution alone has continually suffered from more oppression by religious institutions than any perceived slight of creationism within science.
For a discussion of ID, we can start with Is ID Properly Pursued in the Intelligent Design section.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 4:46 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 222 (94948)
03-26-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Syamsu
03-26-2004 8:30 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
Darwinists already had their sort of Lysenko affair. Back in the earyly 20th century most American students were taught eugenics as a logical extension of evolution theory
Exactly as I predicted: "Do you mean any science that has been superceded by later discoveries \ evidence?" Next.
Some years ago the NABT (national association of biology teachers) proposed to formulate evolution theory using the words impersonal, and unguided process. We could with equal merit call gravity impersonal and unguided, but we don't, because it's a ludicrous formulation of a scientific theory.
It is also a statement that has not been invalidated, so "ludicrous" is just a matter of personal opinion and not fact. Gravity is very impersonal, it doesn't care who trips on a crack in the sidewalk, and the subsequent dance of descent down to the hard reality of earth is very unguided.
So you see, Darwinists are perfectly capable of delivering bad science to students, and this will be solved in a voucher system because ...
Sorry, were you making a logical progression there? It just jumped several tracks from bad facts to unsubstantiated belief. Invalid basis for any conclusion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 03-26-2004 8:30 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 03-26-2004 4:22 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 03-27-2004 9:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 222 (94985)
03-26-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 4:46 AM


Hi Servant!
I'd really appreciate a reply to my message #17 in this thread.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 4:46 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 222 (94993)
03-26-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 4:46 AM


quote:
You see, I was just simply providing a small list of scientists who do not necessarily believe in evolution for the purpose of proving that it DOES NOT require believing in evolution to get further in the field of scientific research. I have known plenty of people, even in my personal experience, who have made ample additions to modern science WITHOUT the aid of evolution, or even believing thereof. My grandfather was a chemical scientist, and graduate of Oregon State University, and yet a creationist (who subscribed regularly to Nat. Geographic, Scientific American, and a few peer-reviewed magazines without ever being swayed into the belief in evolution). My father is a veteran with a degree in Physics from West Point Academy (FYI West Point is tax-funded) and yet my father believes in creation as firmly as I do. Two of my cousins are students at Texas A&M majoring in science-related fields who are not evolutionists. One of my friends' father is a Phd-chemist who believes in creation. Many of my high school teachers were creationists. The physician whom I seek medical advice from when in need is a creationist. My brother and I are both creationists, which by the way we have studied both sides very in-depth and are yet happy with our system of beliefs. My brother's girlfriend--majoring in Sociology at Carroll College in Wisconsin--is a creationist. Several other friends, relatives, and aqcuaintances hold B.S.'s if not Ph.D's in their fields and yet believe in creationism.
And how many of the above scientists use theories based on supernatural manipulation of natural phenomena? Do all of the scientists above use methodological naturalism? I think they do. No matter what they believe about the origin of life or the diversity of life, I would bet my bottom dollar that they all expect a natural mechanism for natural phenomena. Or perhaps you want us to believe that the chemists listed above think that any chemical reaction is due to God's special intervention instead of free moving electrons? Maybe they feel they can throw out any theory in chemistry just because it can never be proven 100%?
I think it is ludicrous to point to creationist chemists and claim that believing in supernatural explanations for natural phenomena is warranted. Those same chemists that you hold in such high regard follow the same methodology that evolutionists use, methodological naturalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 4:46 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 29 of 222 (95003)
03-26-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
03-26-2004 11:52 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
Abby,
It's only fair to warn you that you're on a hiding to nothing with Syamsu, I fear.
There is NOTHING you can say that will change his opinion. Whatever you do, don't try & reference your claims, you will be accused of trickery & lawyering. A cunning evolutionist ploy to snow him under with literature. Of course, the rest of us call it "relevant reading material". Or, "supporting a claim", but there you go.
He doesn't even read the material he criticises. He has NEVER read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins, or The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould. He bases his knowledge of these texts on introductions & other peoples reviews (I shit you not). None of this stops him stridently quoting, & then refusing to accept that he has misquoted, based on a failure to place said quote(s) in their relevant contexts. How could he of, he hasn't read them!
I'll give you a classic example from the Selfish Gene. Syamsu thinks that when Dawkins says "we are born selfish", he means it literally. He refuses to accept that when Dawkins mentions the word "selfish", he is actually meaning it in an inclusive sense. Altruism in many cases (eg parental care is a genetically selfish adaptation to ensure survival of the parents genes) is genetically selfish. It is after all THE POINT OF THE BLOODY BOOK!!!!! Syamsu hasn't read it but somehow knows what context Dawkins' quotes are to be placed. By magic, it seems.
Syamsu has wasted too many peoples time here, don't be another casualty.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 11:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 5:03 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 03-27-2004 9:25 AM mark24 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 222 (95008)
03-26-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mark24
03-26-2004 4:22 PM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
Thanks for the heads up. I am familiar with they type. Ever run into a character called (variously) SpiderMBA (aka Buxup2002 aka etc etc)?
Posts long "critiques" of book and then rants about part quoted while demonstrating a lack of understanding thereof. Gets humorous after a while.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 03-26-2004 4:22 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 03-27-2004 9:34 AM RAZD 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