The Origin of Species

@Real:

Excellent posting Falk! I admire your eloquent defense of science!

“a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.

A famous physicist once said"I believe in God because it makes me feel better".I think that about sums it up as far as the impact that “faith” has on our way of thinking.It makes people feel better.
I think its odd that there is a “theory” of the Trinity (the idea of God,the Son and the Holy Ghost,all manifestations of the same entity) taught in theological universities.I suppose that even the most passionate of persons,can,at times, see contradictions in their religion,forcing them to take a “scientific” approach to try and resolve the paradoxes that religion generates…But invariably,they will go back to their “faith”,believing that this brief interlude into critical thinking was just a test of their faith,perhaps spurred on by the Devil to try and steal their soul.

Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.

Exactly CC, why does religion and science have to be mutually exclusive? If God exists, as many of us believe he does, then did he not write the laws of science? The very same laws scientists study? So in their studies, are they not studying God and revelling in his works? Of course, those questions only apply if God exists.

If God does not exist, science is helpless to prove it. In the famous words of the Russian Astronaut: “I am in space, and there is no God here.” In other words, how can you prove that something does not exist anywhere?

As I said a couple posts above, would it not be wiser to teach both sides of the story with all the theories and conjecture and facts and allow the children to decide on their own which path they believe to be true or to believe that both paths are false or complimentary to each other and true?

@221B:

Lots of things in science (as in religion) cannot be proven or disproven, for example string theory or what is past the event horizon of a black hole.

But string theory can be proven in principle. Just not now. Just like had no idea about light could transfer momentum before Einstein.

That doesn’t mean its not worthwhile, both scientifically or theologically, to speculate. And you never know that someday it might become possible to scientifically test for it (wouldn’t an experiment that proves God be interesting :D ?).

Well, for string theory, we know how to test it -in theory-. Anything where we even don’t have an idea of how to test it (like what is inside a black hole etc) is metaphysics. Pure speculation and no science at all.

@cystic:

well F_alk - you know i can’t resist the urge . . .

sigh well then, if you must :D ;) :)

but WHY does mass bend space? What compels it to do so? What generated the law for this.

Mainly mathmatics :) … the 4D space a Minowski metric mathematically was known before we knew it can be applied to special relativity. I didn’t spend much time at GR lectures, so i know but i can’t tell which mathematics sits behind GR and “inspired” it.

No prime mover?

Maybe logic :)

And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?

you mean like macroevolution?
It seems to too often be taught in both theological and scientific communities that spirituality and science must be mutually exclusive. No one truly “wins” with this mindset, nor is it either scientific, or religiously dogmatic (unless we want it to be . . . ).

I think they both win when not being mixed. Otherwise it too too easily becomes esoterics. There are questions which religion can’t answer, there are questions which science can’t answer. Just because one discipline can’t doesn’t mean the other can.

but i don’t see how ID and creationism are scientific.

i’ve got into this before and been challenged as being “crazy” (i think “psychotic” was the word here), but there is evidence of God in the hearts and minds of people the world over.

The problem is that this is personal evidence and not quantitative evidence. And science can’t live from personal evidence. I don’t say it is less real for that person, it is just no scienctific evidence.

Miracles happen daily in medicine that are not (currently) explainable by experts in their fields.

Exactly. currently. Like we had no idea of how the sun worked before fusion was predicted.

There is either a folie-a-deux on a massive scale, or there is something else that science is unable to explain.

The sun was bigger. It affected each and everyone. Actually it was quite a blow to creationists, when a way was found allowed the sun to be older than a few 1000 years.

So, how makes believeing that it was rigged a scientific theory?

perhaps not a scientific theory, but this makes it no less valid.

No, it is abut that. I don’t care if it is valid or not. I care about wether it should be teached / mentioned in Science.

really? so aside from defining logic sets, what good is philosophy if
BINGO - we’re here because of the most unlikely occurance happened?

as i said, it gave us models which seem to describe parts of nature very well.
And you van’t prove at all it was the “most unlikely”, you can’t even prove it was “unlikely”. How much more likeliness did we win by the design ?
100% ? i guess not, we could always have been very unlucky ;).

you realize of course that questioning evolution is considered by many so-called-scientists as “idiocy” or “ignorance”.

I already said i appreciate that it push us to close more and more gaps.

ID is SCIENCE! ID is SCIENCE!

Let me think of something along this lines:
http://www.ysa.org.au/themill/2000.1.hell.html

@Jennifer:

And sometimes science proves the Bible right.

Where does the water come from? Was god and water created out of the metric ?

@Jennifer:

Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.

Especially as all scientists of that times were religious scholars or monks (in our culture).

@Jennifer:

In other words, how can you prove that something does not exist anywhere?

Perfect dogma. We are right, and therefor the burden for the proof is on you. And it is a proof of non-existance, just for the fun of it.
That alone is the definition of unscientific. Nothing exists until postulated and proven.

oops

would it not be wiser to teach both sides of the story

Well, there are several religions besides Christianity. If you’re going to teach one, why not the others? Wouldn’t that allow “our children” to choose their own path? And for that matter, why not teach them about Zeus and Ares and all the Norse gods and whatever other mythical deity one can think of. That would really allow our children to make an informed decision.

Well, there are several religions besides Christianity.

Exactly. And they don’t all come to the same conclusion about anything…and in fact if you are going to teach one faith you might as well teach all. Buddism, Muslim, Native American Indian lore and it goes on and on. Religion is an ideal on how to live your life and something to believe in. But to start teaching that as fact in school with nothing to base it on outside of a book of stories that would be tough to swallow.

I’m not bashing anyone for being of a Christian faith at all her nor am I implying you are wrong for thinking this.

@F_alk:

@Jennifer:

Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.

Especially as all scientists of that times were religious scholars or monks (in our culture).

Yes, but thinking the world round and setting out to prove it was still a leap of faith - one that almost cost Columbus his life by mutiney, if I have my history right.

SHP: No, I’ve never objected to chemistry or physics because I can see the tangible results of their theories. I can mix hydrogen and oxygen (two highly explosive elements) and get water (one of the most stable products) or I can throw an apple at an orange with incredible velocity and achieve fruit salad. However, with evolution, there’s no definitive proof other then we are all carbon based life forms. And what proof there is, isn’t even widely accepted by all scientists but only by some scientists - others remain skeptical or outright hostile.

That’s why I say we should teach BOTH evolution and creation in schools so that the individual can decide which they choose to believe and which they choose to disbelieve. I don’t mean to force religion on the people, nor do I mean to force evolution on the people. I just want the schools to give the students both sides of the story and the theories behind those opinions so that the children can work it out, at least until we find incontroversial proof that one or the other theory is false.

I also disagree that science is designed to predict and religion to be psychological. Science is the study of God’s universe and CAN be used to predict what might happen in the future, but it’s more a study of how things work and why, not of future events. Perhaps that’s a matter of semantics to you, but it’s a huge difference in my mind. As for religion, it’s not so much psychology as it is cultural ethics. Thou shalt not kill, steal, lust, etc. These, as well as ancient Mosaic law, are more designed to form harmonious tribes of people then it is to treat depression or anxiety - although, if your wife isn’t being lusted after, your children arn’t killed and you havn’t lost anything to theft, I’d wager you’re a bit happier then the man who’s had that done to him.

F_alk:

Perfect dogma. We are right, and therefor the burden for the proof is on you. And it is a proof of non-existance, just for the fun of it.
That alone is the definition of unscientific. Nothing exists until postulated and proven.

Exactly. Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.

Who knows, maybe God does not exist. Personally, I think he does and that he’s extremely lenient and loving to his creations, but that doesn’t mean he does - or for that matter if he does that he actually cares two hoots about his creations. However, science will never be able to prove - definitavly - that God does not exist and without that proof, religion will always be a part of man’s culture and life - in one form or another.

Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.

Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.

Who’s going to pay for all this? Now not only do you need to squeeze in the normal class time but you need to get teachers who can do all this as well…the parents will start to throw fits about the other religions and it will turn into a Battle Royal with each faith stepping up - which is exactly my point and I am glad you hinted at this idea. Let the teaching of evolution be for public school and the teaching of creationism be for parochial school.

Exactly. Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.

In the same respect no one can prove God does exist…

@haxorboy:

Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.

Who’s going to pay for all this? Now not only do you need to squeeze in the normal class time but you need to get teachers who can do all this as well…the parents will start to throw fits about the other religions and it will turn into a Battle Royal with each faith stepping up - which is exactly my point and I am glad you hinted at this idea. Let the teaching of evolution be for public school and the teaching of creationism be for parochial school.

Or teach neither and let the children learn it in college in elective classes.

The problem is, this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith. I don’t care if your religion said we sprung from acorns that were alit by the tears of the moon goddess while floating on the ocean. Since I cannot disprove it, nor can I prove my own theory as being 100% correct, I should not tell you that you are wrong and that I am right - in this regard. If we truely want to leave religion out of schools, then we need to stop teaching anti-religious theories that we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Will this stop the teaching of math or science? Hardly. Biology, chemistry, physics, calculus, geometery, etc are all still valid. All we’re removing is 1 biology module that is heavily contested and hardly accepted world wide by people in general.

Or, we could teach all major theories on human creation with equal amounts of time dedicated to each.

Well teaching something that isn’t fact isn’t really a good idea so if you take out Evo you probably shouldn’t put in Creation…again there are already schools all around that teach it, if it is a big deal for your child to learn it and not learn the heathen Evo theroy’s then look into private school. Of course the parents that want this so badly are also the ones that wouldn’t want to pay that much for their child to go to a private school, so here we are…:D

@Jennifer:

Exactly. Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.

Science does not attempt to disprove the existance of god. It is creationists who feel so, and thus i nturn want to bring god back into science “as he belongs everywhere”. Disprove that evolution is the way, and disprove that ID does not take place ……

Or teach neither and let the children learn it in college in elective classes.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It does predict things.

this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.

So would the teaching of any non-christian creation myth.
Go to theology and discuss that there, but don’t do it in science!

If we truely want to leave religion out of schools

See, that is not what we are wanting. We want it not to be mixed with science. Each at its time, each at its place … but not together.

All we’re removing is 1 biology module that is heavily contested and hardly accepted world wide by people in general.

Don’t think that the USA is the “world”. Just don’t.
And btw…. you are so wrong with the above.

we could teach all major theories on human creation

Creationism is NOT a theory. It is wild speculation with no scientific basis.

Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.

Right here in front of me there are floating pink elephants that are smoking Cuban cigars and discussing the politics of Peru in “elephantese”.I challenge someone(Jen,maybe? :D ) to “disprove their existence”.

Real, how has your mental health been lately? :D

@haxorboy:

Well teaching something that isn’t fact isn’t really a good idea so if you take out Evo you probably shouldn’t put in Creation.

F_alk basically re-iterated this again in the upper most section of his post before he dissolved into a little anti-american rant by my usage of the word “world” (which I maintain is still a factual claim as much of the world believes in alternative methods of creation of mankind and not necessarily evolution.)

And I agree. It should be removed and not replaced. You may reintroduce it when evolution is proved to be the only method that could have created life as we know it on planet earth. Personally, I think evolution holds up well to explain the differences in “flavors” of mankind (white, black, curly hair, straight hair, etc.)

And F_alk, as I said in my post, many religious people, of varrying “flavors”, view “this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.” Whether it is or is not is totally irrellevant to the discussion. Evolution is a theory, there’s no proof that it exists and as a theory, to believe in it takes faith. That faith is contrary to the faith’s of other people who disbelieve in evolution and to force all children to study it and hold them accountable for repeating it as fact can be perceived by many to be detrimental to their children’s spiritual well being.

Notice, I’m saying “can be viewed” and referencing others then myself. Personally, I like to believe that my children will be raised properly and can tell the difference between opposing theories and choose which they believe in themselves, much like I was able to do. However, if we TRUELY want to be tolerant of all religions, then we really should not side with one theory or another that directly contradicts fundamental pillars of certain religions - especially when the facts supporting the theory in question are questionable at best and at times, completely doctored. (Yes, there are cases where men took bones from different animals and combined them to claim they had the missing link for personal glory, so no, I’m not making it up when I say even evolution has fictitiousness around it.)

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

(which I maintain is still a factual claim as much of the world believes in alternative methods of creation of mankind and not necessarily evolution.)

Okay I object to your oversimplification of origin mythology in non western cultures as being similar to intelligent design. Do the people who believe humans were made by the Jaguar that raped the first women fit into ID. I don’t think so. Unless God is a licentious feline deity.

No, but then again, you’ll notice I said that a majority of the world believes in ALTERNATE methods of creation and not in creation by God or some other form of god(s), thus, a jaguar raping the first woman creating the first man would fit into that alternate theory (alternate to evolution that is.)

Personally, I think evolution holds up well to explain the differences in “flavors” of mankind (white, black, curly hair, straight hair, etc.)

And this is where I previously attacked you for being a cultural evolutionist but not a biological one. You can’t the latter without the former. There is actually very little genetic variation between humans, far less than many other species in fact. The “racial” characteristics are entirely superficial. Could you tell an Arab from an Italian, a German from a Russo-Ukrainian. I seriously doubt it.

That’s the point I was trying to make. While we have minor genetic drift we did not evolve from another species. Yes, we have olive skin, tan skin, white skin, black skin, red hair, curly hair, black hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. But we’re all still human. We have the same number of chromosomes, the same medicine works on us, we all bleed when we’re cut, we all have the capability to love and feel warmth.

We create larger ears of corn by planting only the kernals from the largest ears of corn. Does this mean corn evolved from grass? No, it means that through selective breeding we have brought the best traits of our corn to the forefront while limiting those traits we find least desireable…but it’s still corn.

many religious people, of varrying “flavors”, view “this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.”

If thats the case then they should look into private schooling. These same christian fundamentalists would chafe at the idea of jesuits teaching there kids and if you open the doors to religion in the schools that is what will happen. You can’t reject one faith and allow in another.

Very true, and the same arguement I am making against teaching evolution in schools. How can you permit one theory that contradicts another without disproving one of the theories? Better would be to not teach any form of evolution/creation then to espouse one as true and all the rest as false. Later, when children are in their early twenties, they can take courses on the various theories and decide for themselves which they choose to accept on faith and which they choose to ignore. But having the government decide which to teach is the equivalent of having the government say that all other theories are wrong and that this is the only proper theory. A stance I do not feel the government should be taking - at least without concrete evidence to support their claims - spoken or assumed.

However, if we TRUELY want to be tolerant of all religions, then we really should not side with one theory or another that directly contradicts fundamental pillars of certain religions - especially when the facts supporting the theory in question are questionable at best and at times, completely doctored.

Okay lets let in religion but only the Jesuits b/c they are actually highly educated and therefore the only ones trained to teach to students. Or is it that you want less qualified persons to be teaching the young of America. In other words is your objections to public schooling that it doesn’t reflect the biases of mass culture enough?

No, I think I stated my stance quite well. Basically, the government is determining what theory should be widely accepted at the expense of other theories. It isn’t that they’ve proven their theory to be truth, but rather, have just chosen this theory as the one they want to teach - and thus the one they want people to believe. However, if they dropped the entire module from the curriculum and replaced it with teachings on how to fight viral infections, or some other factual information we have in the field of biology, all would be happy as all could teach their children their own theory and the children could learn the other theories on their own time. It isn’t like I’m advocating the abolishment of all evolutionary teachings from the public library or the internet. I just do not like the government choosing one theory over another based on nothing other then the opinion of a few men decades ago.

(Yes, there are cases where men took bones from different animals and combined them to claim they had the missing link for personal glory, so no, I’m not making it up when I say even evolution has fictitiousness around it.)

But you ignore that it was the scientific process and academic review that acted as a safeguard to prevent such misrepresentations from being taught. If we go to your extreme say there is a minister who preaches that God ordains little boys submit to being molested by him and that it is “scientifically” beneficial for them to be treated so would you permit that if this person could point to “proof” that suggests molestation isn’t harmful. Once you eliminate academic review you open up a pandoras box that can’t be closed. Just who will decide then what ideas are suitable for teaching in schools? Politicians have a conflict of interest to use school as propaganda instruments or is that what you want?

No, I didn’t ignore it. After decades of research peer review did in deed determine that the fossile records had been altered. But this does not negate the fact that the community was so desperate to prove their theory that they were willing to accept falsified records for years without proper scrutiny. It would be like the schools in Texas refusing to teach any form of creation but the Jewish theories and when evidence to the contrary arose ignoring it and when falsified information is brought forth supporting their theory, espousing it as validation.

We really need to get the conjecture out of the class room and leave it for the graduates to research. Our children need to be taught the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. Since evolution is not fact, creationism is not fact and any other story of human existance is not fact, none of it should be taught - especially in an organization where you expect to receive the facts, such as school.