Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[LiuKangBakinPie]

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.

 

[Atreus21]

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.

What convinces you of that?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

What convinces you of that?

Do you not know from the history of the world where the power of the prophets lay? Where was it? In the intellect? Did any of them write a fine book on philosophy, on the most intricate ratiocinations of logic? Not one of them. They only spoke a few words. Feel like Christ and you will be a Christ; feel like Buddha and you will be a Buddha.

 

[Rainsford]

While I have no problems with not teaching creationism in schools, this seems like a poorly designed solution. As I'm reading this, if you teach a lesson about a historical scientific theory that's now considered obsolete (e.g. ptolemaic astonomy, etc) you could lose your funding.

That would only be true if the school had lessons that presented obsolete theories as fact based science. If they presented them as obsolete theories to present context for more modern views, then I don't see how the rule would be a problem for them.

I could also very easily see this used a club against anyone who dares question the "scientific consensus" around man-made global warming as well.

The vast majority of scientific facts and educated opinion on the matter right now supports the idea of global warming in general and the man-made aspect of it in particular...I don't see how it would be reasonable to NOT teach that in a science classroom.

Questioning science is fine, and should be encouraged in a science classroom. What should NOT be encouraged is challenging accepted science without scientific data and arguments. "I know climate scientists say AGW is real, but I think they're wrong/lying" is not a teachable scientific position. Just like it wouldn't be responsible to teach Al Gore's position on carbon credits in a scientific classroom. Science class should be about facts, not opinion. If there are available FACTS that challenge AGW theory, then by all means include them, which I think this rule would certainly allow. What it wouldn't allow is "questioning" AGW theory by accusing climate scientists of bias, complaining about Al Gore, or saying the AGW proponents are silencing debate. It's not that those aren't potentially valid points, it's just that they aren't SCIENTIFIC ones.

 

[Genx87]

If the Alien guy is correct, it does not prove Dawkins incorrect.

Sure it does. That means we had an intelligent designer.

 

[HumblePie]

No, evolution is not a "fact"... it's a theory that has a lot of supporting evidence.

Just to jump in.

Although I know you are for Evolution, your statement is completely incorrect.

Evolution IS A FACT! Evolution happens, it is a fact. It is verifiable, testable, observable, and repeatable anywhere and everywhere that life exists on this planet. It is a fucking fact.

The THEORY of Evolution is the explanation of WHY evolution does what it does. Why does life evolve is the THEORY behind evolution.

People are fucking inane if they think otherwise.

It's the same thing as the Theory of Gravity. Gravity as a force is a fact. It exists. It a force in the universe that can be observed, tested, measured, and verified. Gravity is a FACT. The THEORY of why gravity exists and why it exerts the type of force it does on matter is the THEORY part.

Fucking stupid idiot people that don't understand basic scientific theory. The theory part of any scientific finding is the WHY and the HOW, not the fucking IF. Theory is never a case of "If this exists then..." NOT EVER is that what scientific theories are. That is what these pseudo science religious retarded ideas are. They are a "If this exists then... " type of explanation bullshit. While those can be thought provoking types of discussions that can lead to eventual findings of factual things that may exist, they are purely in the realm of brainstorming and farting. That pseudo science discussion is more philosophy than anything else.

Science deals with facts. A scientist or group of them observe SOMETHING. What that something is doesn't matter. They observe that something happened. Then make sure that what they observed can be observed again and by others. Then they try to observe anything that may be extra evidence in support of their first observation. The more observations that can be repeated they make add to the pile of evidence to a theory that will generated as to WHY such facts are being observed. That is the whole concept of the entire Scientific Method in a dumb downed nutshell.

Evolution is a fucking fact. Evidence of evolution can be seen, tested, and verified. Why Evolution works and How evolution does the things it does between species is the theory of evolution. Stop being stupid around here people. Specifically the religious fundies and idiots like Texashiker. Damn I can't believe I occupy the same state as retards like that sometimes.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Sure it does. That means we had an intelligent designer.

If we were designed, the desiger was not intelligent. So many flaws and useless organs. He's downright stupid.

 

[Juddog]

Apparently, you know more than the professors at Berkeley University. Bravo!


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

If you look on the left hand side, you will see different sections for macro and micro evolution.

Macro happens across species, micro within a single population. They are definately related and definately different.

Of course, you are free to write Berkeley and tell them about how they are wrong and you are right if you wish.

Nothing in the link you posted refutes anything I said.

Keep trying to make up issues out of nothing though. It's funny watching how pathetic you are getting with the strawman attempts. Your statement about macroevolution having never been observed is also false - speciation has already been observed in the laboratory. So not only do you not understand what you're talking about, you just continue to make yourself look more stupid by trying to invent an issue of separation which simply doesn't exist amongst actual evolutionary biologists.

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/

Also there is this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news...ulticellular-yeast-in-the-lab-in-2-months.ars

 

[zsdersw]

Just to jump in.

Although I know you are for Evolution, your statement is completely incorrect.

Evolution IS A FACT! Evolution happens, it is a fact. It is verifiable, testable, observable, and repeatable anywhere and everywhere that life exists on this planet. It is a fucking fact.

The THEORY of Evolution is the explanation of WHY evolution does what it does. Why does life evolve is the THEORY behind evolution.

People are fucking inane if they think otherwise.

It's the same thing as the Theory of Gravity. Gravity as a force is a fact. It exists. It a force in the universe that can be observed, tested, measured, and verified. Gravity is a FACT. The THEORY of why gravity exists and why it exerts the type of force it does on matter is the THEORY part.

Fucking stupid idiot people that don't understand basic scientific theory. The theory part of any scientific finding is the WHY and the HOW, not the fucking IF. Theory is never a case of "If this exists then..." NOT EVER is that what scientific theories are. That is what these pseudo science religious retarded ideas are. They are a "If this exists then... " type of explanation bullshit. While those can be thought provoking types of discussions that can lead to eventual findings of factual things that may exist, they are purely in the realm of brainstorming and farting. That pseudo science discussion is more philosophy than anything else.

Science deals with facts. A scientist or group of them observe SOMETHING. What that something is doesn't matter. They observe that something happened. Then make sure that what they observed can be observed again and by others. Then they try to observe anything that may be extra evidence in support of their first observation. The more observations that can be repeated they make add to the pile of evidence to a theory that will generated as to WHY such facts are being observed. That is the whole concept of the entire Scientific Method in a dumb downed nutshell.

Evolution is a fucking fact. Evidence of evolution can be seen, tested, and verified. Why Evolution works and How evolution does the things it does between species is the theory of evolution. Stop being stupid around here people. Specifically the religious fundies and idiots like Texashiker. Damn I can't believe I occupy the same state as retards like that sometimes.

You managed to completely misinterpret what I said. I was replying to a statement the context of which is that there is nothing theoretical or unexplained about evolution. I never meant to imply that there are no demonstrable cases of evolution occurring.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sure it does. That means we had an intelligent designer.

Where did the aliens come from?

 

[HumblePie]

Where did the aliens come from?

^ Exactly.

Who designed the designer?

If you state the designer needed no one to design him, then why do we need a have had a designer as well?

 

[cybrsage]

If we were designed, the desiger was not intelligent. So many flaws and useless organs. He's downright stupid.

Or the designer could have had human intelligence. Just look at the way we design our governments as an example of something created with many useless parts, many flaws, etc.

 

[cybrsage]

Where did the aliens come from?

^ Exactly.

Who designed the designer?

If you state the designer needed no one to design him, then why do we need a have had a designer as well?

Evolution starts with life already existing. Where the designers came from is outside the scope of evolution, just like abiogenesis is outside the scope of evolution.

Not that I agree with ID, just letting you know of the mistake you both are making.

 

[cybrsage]

I used the term literal interpretation for a reason. It's not vague at all if you take it at face value as some people do.

Ah, sorry, my bad. I read your post too quickly. Genesis is not to be taken literally. There are too many issues when you do, which shows it was never intended to be taken literally.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

The most contentious debates over evolution have involved religion. From Darwin’s day to the present, members of some religious faiths have perceived the scientific theory of evolution to be in direct and objectionable conflict with religious doctrine regarding the creation of the world. Most religious denominations, however, see no conflict between the scientific study of evolution and religious teachings about creation. Christian Fundamentalists and others who believe literally in the biblical story of creation choose to reject evolutionary theory because it contradicts the book of Genesis, which describes how God created the world and all its plant and animal life in six days. Many such people maintain that the Earth is relatively young—perhaps 6,000 to 8,000 years old—and that humans and all the world’s species have remained unchanged since their recent creation by a divine hand.

Laws against the teaching of evolution were upheld for another 40 years, until the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 1968 decision in the case Epperson v. Arkansas, ruled that such laws were an unconstitutional violation of the legally required separation of church and state. Over the next decades, Fundamentalists responded by de-emphasizing the religious content in their doctrine and instead casting their arguments as a scientific alternative to evolution called creation science (see Creationism) or intelligent design theory. In response to Fundamentalist pressure, numerous states debated laws that would require teachers to spend equal amounts of time teaching creation science and evolution. Only two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, passed such laws. The Arkansas law was struck down in federal district court, while proponents of the Louisiana law appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. In its 1987 decision in Edwards v. Aquillard, the Court struck down such equal time laws, ruling that creation science is a religious idea and thus an illegal violation of the church-state separation. Despite these rulings, school board members and other government officials continue to grapple with the long-standing debate between creation and evolution scientists. Courts generally struck down school board decisions to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in place of evolution. The official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore, entered the debate in 2006, calling intelligent design “unscientific” and adding that it should not be taught as an alternative to evolution.

 

[cybrsage]

And this you want to be taught in science? That God created the world. In science class.

You missed my post about it. Easy to do in this thread, so no big deal.

I do want ID taught in science class, but only to be used as an example as to why it is not a valid scientific theory. They can add string theory as well to round it out more.

ID and string are not valid theories due to not being falsifiable. They can be used as perfect examples of this, to aid people in understanding theories much better.

 

[Cerb]

Where did the aliens come from?

His hair. As you can see, the circle of logic is now complete.

 

[Genx87]

Where did the aliens come from?

What does that matter? The discussion is about from where we came.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sure it does. That means we had an intelligent designer.

We're still talking two non equivalent cases which can be summed up as the difference between an intelligent designer and The Intelligent Designer.

Still, this isn't about Dawkins who seems to have reached deity status in the minds of some but teaching the proper subject in the proper setting. Discussing ID? Sure, but not AS science.

 

[alexruiz]

Kind of depressing when an online forum that is supposed to be full of nerds, knowledgeable on the details of science and its methodology, are still arguing for several pages about what a theory is.

Scientific method (one version):

1) Problem
2) Observation(s)
3) Hypothesis
4) Experimentation(s)
5) Theory
6) Proof(s)
7) Law

Next time someone wants to argue about the "theory of creationism", ask them first if they know how the scientific method works. They will answer "NO" 100% of the time (nobody who knows how the scientific method works would call creationism a theory...) Tell them to go learn how the scientific method works before wanting to discuss the subject

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You missed my post about it. Easy to do in this thread, so no big deal.

I do want ID taught in science class, but only to be used as an example as to why it is not a valid scientific theory. They can add string theory as well to round it out more.

ID and string are not valid theories due to not being falsifiable. They can be used as perfect examples of this, to aid people in understanding theories much better.

String theory is unlike most other theories in that it isn't a single theory, it's a group of competing models. The models that are still used are consistent with all available evidence that we have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Testability_and_experimental_predictions

"Several major difficulties complicate efforts to test string theory. The most significant is the extremely small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory, which might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies.

On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit. Therefore, to failsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity."

Regardless of the view you hold on the topic however, I think string theory may be a bit too complex for a basic secondary school science class.

Evolution starts with life already existing. Where the designers came from is outside the scope of evolution, just like abiogenesis is outside the scope of evolution.

Not that I agree with ID, just letting you know of the mistake you both are making.

Exactly. Aliens are already existing life. How can you say that they did not evolve?

What does that matter? The discussion is about from where we came.

No, the discussion in terms of evolution is about how all life changes over time.

His hair. As you can see, the circle of logic is now complete.

lulz

 

[crashtestdummy]

ID and string are not valid theories due to not being falsifiable. They can be used as perfect examples of this, to aid people in understanding theories much better.

I (actually) agree with you to a limited extent. String theory (any particular variant of such) at this point is a hypothesis, not a theory. To treat it as anything more is delving into the realm of philosphy than science.

I don't think you'll see many high school classes (or even undergrad college classes) teaching string theory on any deeper level than "here's an idea that might work!" and moving on.

One minor difference, though: There are those looking for ways to test predictions of string theory, some of which folks hope they can accomplish with the Large Hadron Collider. I've not seen such efforts with ID proponents.

 

[Genx87]

No, the discussion in terms of evolution is about how all life changes over time

Sure it is but in this context we are discussing if humans have an intelligent designer or if we evolved from apes. If aliens come down and tell us they designed us hundreds of thousands of years ago in a lab that means we have an ID. Whether or not Aliens have an ID or evolved from something else is irrelevant to the discussion from where humans came.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sure it is but in this context we are discussing if humans have an intelligent designer or if we evolved from apes. If aliens come down and tell us they designed us hundreds of thousands of years ago in a lab that means we have an ID. Whether or not Aliens have an ID or evolved from something else is irrelevant to the discussion from where humans came.

False premise. The discussion is whether life on Earth has an intelligent designer and they have not changed since this design, or whether life on Earth was created some other way and they have changed since this creation.

 

[sandorski]

Sure it does. That means we had an intelligent designer.

Evolution would still have occurred.