On the Sixth Day, God Made the Dinosaurs

[Blackjack200]

Why is it sad?

It's sad in the same way it would be sad if someone said they didn't believe in music, and therefore refused to listen to it. That person is missing an wonderful experience due to their own stubbornness.

The rest of your post was sheer idiocy so I won't respond to it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Religious indoctrination is child abuse, regardless of what anyone says.

Not teaching that there could be or is a God is also child abuse, regardless of what anybody says....

 

[JEDIYoda]

I said right at the start that I avoided using the term "abuse" specifically because it's hyperbolic, and leads everyone down the garden path to arguing about that rather than the actual subject.

The problem with calling indoctrination with beliefs "child abuse" is that there is no way to draw a line between what is simple teaching of a belief system and what is "abuse". It's entirely subjective.

I do think, however, that children who are brought up in an insular environment and taught to view science and reason as things that are evil and to be avoided are being set up for difficult lives when they get out into the real world.

I totally agree.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I think a scientist would at the least have to believe in evolution, whether or not he believed that G-d created the Earth (recently or not) versus being its randomly created with life springing from nothing. The evidence is too strong; evolution (on a micro scale) is reproducible and observable in the lab, and a very real concern (viruses that are more lethal and/or employ altered vectors, drug-resistant bacteria) in everyday life.

Beyond that, although the creation and/or evolution of the Earth and its life is of course not observable or reproducible, the huge preponderance of evidence points to a very old Earth with life evolving from simple to complex. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true - it's possible that the Earth was created just a microsecond ago and I sprang into existence complete with detailed memories and in the middle of typing this post. But I don't think one can be a very good scientist without recognizing the vast disparity between the mountain of evidence of an old Earth and the molehill of evidence of a young Earth. Certainly a scientist can maintain his faith in G-d, but if one sets aside that much of the scientific method for religious comfort, one would be more priest than scientist.

I tip my hat to you for another post that seems to me to closely parallel my own thinking.

I take it one step further by observing that our daily lives require us to make myriad choices every day in the absence of absolute certainty about anything. Many of us apply logic and scientific method/thought to identify the probable truths (e.g. gravity, chemistry, physics) with the expectation that decisions based on what's most probable will be most probably "good" (e.g. not falling off a cliff). It's sometime hard to watch while others make decisions on some other basis (such as a literal interpretation of biblical verses) - particularly if you know they vote! 😉

Still I'm thinking that everyone has a right to "decide how to make decisions" for themselves, even if their foundational choice can turn out to be a bad one for them. It does disturb me, however, when parents intentionally indoctrinate their children at an early age so as to take their decisions away for them. Whatever we call this, it's not good.

IMHO there's plenty of room for religion/philosophy to influence beliefs in the areas where science has not yet or never will identify probable truths. There will always be room to believe that something supernatural (by definition outside of the "nature" that science grasps) created the universe and/or imbues our existence with meaning. The friction has always come when old religious/philosophical beliefs continue to be held long after science has advanced enough to point to more probable truths.

My two cents...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Dagnabbit, couldn't I just be 99% wrong?

I don't how on-topic this is, but I have included a link for "How Do We Understand Life". It is pretty heavy stuff. In that entire presentation, I did not notice a single mention of evolution. Here is the opening paragraph....



There is no mention that the goal/cornerstone of biology is evolution theory. In fact, the Nobel laureate explicitly states that the most powerful assumption is that everything can be understood only on the molecular level. This is why I stated that microscopes were one of the two most important things to impact our understanding of modern biology. It is through the microscope that we were able to observe the tiny things that were previously invisible to us.

http://www.garlandscience.com/res/pdf/9780815341888_ch01.pdf

Clearly you didn't read it.

This says it all:

In the first part of this book (Part I, Biological Molecules), we introduce the
important classes of biological macromolecules and discuss the details of their
structures. The first chapter provides an overview of DNA, RNA, and proteins
and also reviews the processes of replication, transcription, and translation. A
more detailed discussion of the structures of biological molecules is provided in
Chapters 2 through 5, including a discussion of how evolutionary processes have
shaped the architecture of proteins.

So in this first chapter it's only mentioned a dozen or so times, but in chapters 2-5 the entire discussion becomes how evolutionary processes affect these building blocks of life.

You cannot understand anything about biology without understanding how the evolutionary processes work.

Here's a question for you:

What chemical properties have led to DNA being
selected through evolution as the information
molecule for complex life forms instead of RNA?

If you cannot answer it you have no business discussing this in the first place.

 

[PowerEngineer]

All of this, in my opinion, is sustained and reinforced by bigotry. I define bigotry as a belief system acquired prior to the full functioning of adult reason in the reality of good and evil and based quite often on religious text. This is indoctrination. Once a child assumes that good and evil exist and needs to be good in order to receive parental approval, the bigotry is set. From that point on, any crack in the dogma received will lead that person straight into evil. A bigot is a person with an irrational, pre-reasoning acquired bias that what he believes is the good, and no rational argument can change the person's mind because thought heresy is evil. The assumption that thinking as a bigot is good and unconsciously assumed. This is why every argument to the contrary is rejected and rationalized away. The person will unconsciously reject any thing that drives him or her into evil and spontaneously find a way to avoid realization. He 'knows' there is a good and nobody can take that away. If there is any error in the Bible for a fundamentalist bigot, then God does not exist. Only the damned would ever think that.

Interesting. It seems to me that what you are describing is a rejection of logic/scientific reasoning rather than bigotry (at least with the connotations I associate with that word). Thoughts?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

His post is an exact demonstration of all I had hoped this forum would not be, statements that assume a truth but provide no reasoning. His job was to demonstrate why indoctrination is child abuse. He would have to define indoctrination and provide evidence as to how it damages children. The same is true of comments I see in this thread from folk on either side calling the other side idiotic. Both are worthless opinions, it seems to me. Tell me why your truth makes the other guy's stupid. How can I tell if I come from Mars, who is who?

Arthur Schopenhauer had this to say on the matter:

"And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."

I believe it's a form of abuse because it binds the child in a perception of reality that becomes as real as everything else, the child never gets the choice what to believe. Couple that with the self-hate that religion enforces in everyone, your will and desires are sinful and you are a sinner that must repent for just being who you are. You are NOT a good person and you never can be (everyone is a sinner), but God still loves you so much that he sacrificed his own son so you, while not deserving it, can be saved.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I didn't propose an equivalence.

When I see a phrase like "there is scientific dogma", and then examples are listed trying to show that scientists are closed-minded, that strikes me very much as an attempt to equate science and religion with respect to how evidence and theories are treated, which I think is not accurate.

I brought up what I thought were interesting facts.

You brought them up to make a point, and I don't think they make it in the way you were implying.

FYI the SS theory was proposed precisely for the reasons I stated.

No, it was not.

You claimed that they proposed the SS theory "because of religion, or in their case their atheism." That's not why it was proposed.

I can imagine some people believing in it because it's more consistent with their lack of belief in a creator, but that doesn't mean the theory was proposed for that purpose.

Ironically enough, since your post was meant to highlight science as being rigid because it resists hypotheses, the steady state theory was resisted because of a lack of evidence, and is now discredited. That's what science is supposed to do.

And even if it had been the case that it was solely about atheism versus religion, then science again behaved as it should, by rejecting it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think you need to take a step back Charles. I'm not placing religion and science on the same level. I am however one who is familiar with academic research first hand. I'm am saying that the imperfect tools of science, that would be humans, still have "territory" to defend so there are parallels. You act as if that isn't the case. You might try to not see every perspective other than yours on this as an attack on science. I'm iconoclastic. I challenge assumptions, reevaluate my own. I'm the gadfly, the devils advocate. I ask questions and make statements which aren't comfortable. I have to go make money. Later!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm not saying you are attacking science, HR. I just see you characterizing science's natural resistance to unusual theories as being representative of some sort of human failing, while I see it as essential to the scientific method.

As for the steady state theory, if you can document that this was initiated because of a desire to avoid supporting religious notions of creation, I'd love to see it. Because I looked around this morning and while there clearly is an association of the Big Bang with the idea of a creator, and thus atheism with the opposite theory, this is all superficial, and doesn't support the idea that the theory was invented specifically for religious reasons.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not saying you are attacking science, HR. I just see you characterizing science's natural resistance to unusual theories as being representative of some sort of human failing, while I see it as essential to the scientific method.

As for the steady state theory, if you can document that this was initiated because of a desire to avoid supporting religious notions of creation, I'd love to see it. Because I looked around this morning and while there clearly is an association of the Big Bang with the idea of a creator, and thus atheism with the opposite theory, this is all superficial, and doesn't support the idea that the theory was invented specifically for religious reasons.

I'm saying that there is at times illogical resistance to demonstrable facts. I'm not going to try to copy and paste right now but if you wiki fred hoyle you'll see his objections to the big bang. It "smacks of creation" and he found that unacceptable. There's lots of information in libraries regarding the interplay of personalities during this era, but it's fairly obvious that the statement I quoted is a not a scientific critique. In short he didn't like it and looked for an alternative and found Steady State was originally conceived in 1928 IRRC. Twenty years later Hoyle picked it up with others based on personal, not scientific in the real sense objections. Obler's paradox was never sufficiently explained away and the models which remained as possible were pretty much indistinguishable from the BB.

Now my question to you. You seem certain that Hoyle could not have had personal bias which might have caused him to pick someone else's theory. How do you demonstrate your contention?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm saying that there is at times illogical resistance to demonstrable facts.

I'm sure it happens, because we are all humans, and humans can be irrational. But it's not the norm, and it's not something that lasts very long in science, as you said. That lies in stark contrast to religion, where irrational beliefs persist for centuries. So while I can't dispute the claim, I don't see that it really matters -- it's somewhat tautological that there would be some irrationality in a field as long and broad as science, but it is not representative of the field as a whole.

I'm not going to try to copy and paste right now but if you wiki fred hoyle you'll see his objections to the big bang. It "smacks of creation" and he found that unacceptable.

I've read his objections, and everything I've seen suggests that you have things backwards. He did not object to the Big Bang on the basis that because it resembled creation myths it had to be wrong. He objected to it because he considered it scientifically unsound in the same manner as religious arguments are.

To wit:

Continuous creation, in the sense I have described it, is certainly a new hypothesis. But it replaces a hypothesis that lies concealed in the older theories, which assume, as I have already said, that the whole of the matter in the universe was created in one big hang at a particular time in the the remote past. On scientific grounds this big bang hypothesis is much the less palatable of the two. For it is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms. Continuous creation, on the other hand, can be represented by precise mathematical equations whose consequences can be compared with observation. On philosophical grounds too I cannot see any good reason for preferring the big bang idea. Indeed it seems to me to be in the philosophical a distinctly unsatisfactory notion, since it puts the basic assumption out of sight where it can never be challenged by a direct appeal to observation.

Emphasis mine.

There's lots of information in libraries regarding the interplay of personalities during this era, but it's fairly obvious that the statement I quoted is a not a scientific critique. In short he didn't like it and looked for an alternative and found Steady State was originally conceived in 1928 IRRC. Twenty years later Hoyle picked it up with others based on personal, not scientific in the real sense objections.

Provide some sources and I'll consider it.

Now my question to you. You seem certain that Hoyle could not have had personal bias which might have caused him to pick someone else's theory. How do you demonstrate your contention?

Sorry, you're trying to shift the burden of proof here.

I fully accept that Hoyle could have had personal bias. I just won't accept that he did have personal bias on this issue until you provide some evidence to back up that claim.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I was taught the same thing. My parents are/were Protestant Christian. I was in a religious atmosphere from a very young age until about 16 when I got a job that I could work on the weekends.

I was about 11-12 when seed of doubt started to grow in me. They don't have answers, just belief and faith...my mind could not allow me to do that.

Fast forward. I'm 32, with two kids, and they get mild exposure to religion via my wife. We're not hardcore about it, and when they begin to question things then I will try to answer at the age appropriate level. I will not indoctrinate them, or try and force them to believe something they don't feel is correct. It's just not the way religious beliefs are truly believed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sure it happens, because we are all humans, and humans can be irrational. But it's not the norm, and it's not something that lasts very long in science, as you said. That lies in stark contrast to religion, where irrational beliefs persist for centuries. So while I can't dispute the claim, I don't see that it really matters -- it's somewhat tautological that there would be some irrationality in a field as long and broad as science, but it is not representative of the field as a whole.



I've read his objections, and everything I've seen suggests that you have things backwards. He did not object to the Big Bang on the basis that because it resembled creation myths it had to be wrong. He objected to it because he considered it scientifically unsound in the same manner as religious arguments are.

To wit:


Emphasis mine.



Provide some sources and I'll consider it.



Sorry, you're trying to shift the burden of proof here.

I fully accept that Hoyle could have had personal bias. I just won't accept that he did have personal bias on this issue until you provide some evidence to back up that claim.

Why is the Steady State theory superior to the big bang? What happened to oblers paradox. Note the portions of Hoyle you didn't quote. In any case this is turning into yet another religion issue. My point was to demonstrate that individual prejudices and bias influence science. It's not this pristine pursuit as some make it out to be not because of the subject but because of the nature of humanity. SS could NOT be demonstrated in any form that could be distinguished from what he objected to. "Produced from equations" does not forgive observational inconsistencies.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting. It seems to me that what you are describing is a rejection of logic/scientific reasoning rather than bigotry (at least with the connotations I associate with that word). Thoughts?

What I am saying, I think, is that the two are one and the same thing, that the absence of logical and scientific reasoning in some folk is not the result of conscious rejection, but the result of motivational blindness, the lack of self understanding as to what is in their unconscious. In short, such folk are not illogical out of a lack of ability but because of unconscious motivation they will not and therefore cannot see. They have a hidden bias that runs them and this is bigotry, the irrational and unconscious assumption that something they were taught to be true, usually from some sacred text, is right because it is stated as an absolute in the text and that these ideas were absorbed and took root before the age of reason. The infant child must conform to the conditions demanded to acquire the sustenance to survive, love and care from adults at any price.

 

[Moonbeam]

Charles Kozierok: I'm not saying you are attacking science, HR. I just see you characterizing science's natural resistance to unusual theories as being representative of some sort of human failing, while I see it as essential to the scientific method.

M: I see some of each and that each point of view has validity. I see this as two factors of the human brain's genetic history. There are two competing forces acting on human culture, the need to preserve and to adapt and there is a constant and dynamic interplay between the two. When do we leap? Does the situation warrant the jump without even looking? We can flee one danger and wind up in another and two different approaches means somebody survives.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My point was to demonstrate that individual prejudices and bias influence science.

And I'd love to debate that with you, but I can't find any evidence to support the claims you are making, and you don't seem to want to provide them yourself. *shrug*

 

[Jaskalas]

And I'd love to debate that with you, but I can't find any evidence to support the claims you are making, and you don't seem to want to provide them yourself. *shrug*

IPCC is a good place to start, but that's another subject.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider
My point was to demonstrate that individual prejudices and bias influence science.

And I'd love to debate that with you, but I can't find any evidence to support the claims you are making, and you don't seem to want to provide them yourself. *shrug*

It only stands to reason that individual prejudices and bias influence the course that science takes towards truth. After all, it's being undertaken by human beings! 😉

The important point about scientific thought/reasoning is that it encourages continuous retesting of accepted theories that over time purge the influences of such prejudices and bias. Just this week we were treated to another reaffirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity:
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/einstein-relativity-theory-eso-white-dwarfs-130425.htm

This feedback loop providing for continuous testing and correction is what makes scientific thought/reasoning so fundamentally different from faith-based belief.

 

[Retro Rob]

[/I]



It only stands to reason that individual prejudices and bias influence the course that science takes towards truth. After all, it's being undertaken by human beings! 😉

The important point about scientific thought/reasoning is that it encourages continuous retesting of accepted theories that over time purge the influences of such prejudices and bias. Just this week we were treated to another reaffirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity:
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/einstein-relativity-theory-eso-white-dwarfs-130425.htm

This feedback loop providing for continuous testing and correction is what makes scientific thought/reasoning so fundamentally different from faith-based belief.

I think that the prejudice is toward a Creator -- to the point of trying to throw math in there to prove that something comes from nothing.

I haven't seen any evidence the Universe came from nothing.

 

[sandorski]

I tip my hat to you for another post that seems to me to closely parallel my own thinking.

I take it one step further by observing that our daily lives require us to make myriad choices every day in the absence of absolute certainty about anything. Many of us apply logic and scientific method/thought to identify the probable truths (e.g. gravity, chemistry, physics) with the expectation that decisions based on what's most probable will be most probably "good" (e.g. not falling off a cliff). It's sometime hard to watch while others make decisions on some other basis (such as a literal interpretation of biblical verses) - particularly if you know they vote! 😉

Still I'm thinking that everyone has a right to "decide how to make decisions" for themselves, even if their foundational choice can turn out to be a bad one for them. It does disturb me, however, when parents intentionally indoctrinate their children at an early age so as to take their decisions away for them. Whatever we call this, it's not good.

IMHO there's plenty of room for religion/philosophy to influence beliefs in the areas where science has not yet or never will identify probable truths. There will always be room to believe that something supernatural (by definition outside of the "nature" that science grasps) created the universe and/or imbues our existence with meaning. The friction has always come when old religious/philosophical beliefs continue to be held long after science has advanced enough to point to more probable truths.

My two cents...

Indeed. I think in time it will be accepted as a form of abuse for that very reason.

 

[LumbergTech]

I think that the prejudice is toward a Creator -- to the point of trying to throw math in there to prove that something comes from nothing.

I haven't seen any evidence the Universe came from nothing.

When it comes down to it, you have absolutely no clue how anything came into existence. We can see that people can reform things that already exist into new things, but we never see new matter created.

 

[Jaskalas]

When it comes down to it, you have absolutely no clue how anything came into existence. We can see that people can reform things that already exist into new things, but we never see new matter created.

When it comes down to it, no theory of origin may deny the history of earth as we know it. The concept of limiting geological time to under 10k years is ridiculous and has no place in an institution of learning.

How does one learn plate tectonics, or glacial / interglacial periods, or of super volcanoes that have erupted in the distant past? Denying the existence of history itself is really quite unfathomable / unacceptable from my point of view. To do so throws both history and science out the window, and the quiz in the OP is a prime example.

 

[Retro Rob]

When it comes down to it, you have absolutely no clue how anything came into existence. We can see that people can reform things that already exist into new things, but we never see new matter created.

Well, what I'm saying is that its the pinnacle of arrogance and irrationality to say "well, there's no need for a creator - so he/she/ it didn't do this, and there's equally no evidence that something comes form nothing", but then use math to attempt to explain the latter. There is ample evidence that things are made from existing materials.

Any scientist who attempts to explain something from nothing is equally as faith-based and foolish as the theists some of them like to criticize.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It can also be said that the pinnacle of arrogance is to create conscious beings so they can worship the creator. A loose analogy is someone having a child because they want that child to love them.

Scientists create hypotheses based on information collected about the obvservations made. They strive to learn more, to know more, to observe the next fact that takes them one step closer to the factual truth.

Theists claim to have the absolute, based on faith and belief.