>Researching religion extensively does not lead to an understanding of Christian theology or doctrine? How do you figure this?
-Luigi Novi
Because research imparts information, not understanding. Understanding is not simply accepted based on some having read something, it has to be demonstrated through application/writing/discussion.
I maintain that his presentation in this article is inconsistent with someone who has an understanding of Christian theology. The God presented doesn't match the personality or the actions of the Christian God. At best, he has presented Deistic theology in place of Christian theology. Considering the numerous differences between the two, that suggests that he doesn't truly know what he is talking about.
>Except that the Peter-rock analogy was a direct metaphor, whereas Paley’s Watchmaker correlates specific activity. Since the Watchmaker’s activity involves assembling pre-existing parts (since Watchmakers probably don’t manufacture the cogs and wheels themselves from scratch), Shermer argued that it was a bad analogy because an omnipotent being would be beyond such things, as he stated in his column.
-Luigi Novi
Pre-Industrial Revolution watchmakers/clockmakers likely had to do a lot more than simply assemble pre-made parts. They would have used what they could, and modified what they had to in order to complete the mechanism that they designed to work properly.
On a human level, EVERYTHING we create involves something that pre-existed, whether used as is or modified as necessary. There isn't a human alive that can make a tree or some metal on his own. Does that fact belittle human achievements? Is the Wright brothers' flight diminished by the fact that they scavenged parts from their bike shop to make their plane? Is Da Vinci's Mona Lisa somehow less if he didn't hand-make the paints and canvas used?
More importantly, you're still missing the point of an analogy. Honestly, if you only look at the surface, any analogy that places God in a human shell is inherently belittling. However, the only way for humans to begin to understand a transcendent being is through analogies that draw from our frame of reference. The Bible is full of analogies and parables that do this, and are not generally understood to be belittling God, especially when Jesus himself uses them numerous times!
>In any event, I got it, you didn’t, so perhaps his composition was good enough for some to understand him, and not for others. To each his own.
>Again, he phrased it well enough for me to get it. But that’s just me.
-Luigi Novi
Indeed. However, given the fact that you have read most of his previous books and already agree with what he is saying, you are hardly his intended audience. His intended audience, from my POV, are the conservative Christians who deny Evolution. Those are the people he needs to be addressing in a way they can understand. If the only people who understand what he is trying to say are the people that already know and agree with him, he is simply preaching to the choir.
>Only if that’s his point. It wasn’t. His point was to show how science explains moral and immoral behavior. He can’t tailor his arguments to every single persuasion, point or argument simultaneously. Obviously, the argument was made on a general point, and not on to address the specific view of literalism. He has addressed what he sees as problems with literalism elsewhere, but this column was not intended for that.
-Luigi Novi
The point of the column, as stated at the end of the first paragraph, was to demonstrate that one can be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian. In order to do that effectively, especially in a short form like this, one needs to address the core points of contention. From my POV, the core issues are 1) a misunderstanding of the scientific process, 2) how to reconcile God and Evolution, 3) how to reconcile Evolution and Genesis, and 4) a general unwillingness to accept new ideas. Shermer barely touches on 2, ignores 1 and 3 completely (4 is untouchable any, so we'll let that go) and wastes most of his column addressing teriary points like family values and economic models. As is, it is not persuasive at all, but merely a waste of time.
>He most certainly has stated his belief that evolution and religion are not contradictory, and has argued this before. Even Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as a scientific fact, as he has pointed out. Just because some may not accept this does not mean that he cannot make an attempt to argue that point.
-Luigi Novi
There is nothing at all wrong with arguing that point. However, trying to argue that point while simultaneously attempting to undermine his audiences religious beliefs (religion is man-made, morality is a product of evolution, each person has good and evil aspects) demonstrates either sloppy composition, i.e. allowing his own religious beliefs to hinder his message, or intellectual dishonesty.
>Of course they’re worth arguing with. The degree to which any argument is worth addressing is the degree to which it is employed by one’s opponents. Since the communism argument is one that is utilized by prominent creationists, including ones that Shermer has debated, like Duane T. Gish, then what is he to do when that argument is made? Not respond? The fact that such fallacies are promoted is why debunking them becomes necessary.
-Luigi Novi
What happened to the belief that those who present extraordinary claims bear the burden of proof? Shouldn't someone suggesting that Evolution leads to Communism (or inflation, crime, cults, suicide, alcohol, or any of the other things on the list that apparently didn't exist before Charles Darwin was born) have to demonstrate at least how that could theoretically happen? The correct response is not "I disagree because ...," since that only validates the absurd suggestion. The proper response is "How?" Then, once the've fumbled for a bit trying to explain the unexplainable, you attack their reasoning, pointing out the numerous holes. In the end, I would wager (ooh, gambling; I wonder how that didn't make the list?) that, in the end, the vast majority of these arguments will boil down to the belief that accepting Evolution means denying God.
>And Shermer most certainly has addressed other arguments against evolution, including the argument that it is inherently atheistic. Why does debunking one point somehow preclude debunking others? Who says it has to be an Either/Or matter?
-Luigi Novi
It's not an either/or matter. It's a matter of addressing the important points of an argument. If this column were part of a series, I could accept that he addressed other arguments elsewhere. However, it is being presented as one-off item, complete unto itself. If he doesn't address the key points, what use is it to spend time addressing anything else?
Look at that tree picture you posted earlier. The picture they use is actually very telling. All of these problems, from their perspective, are a product of evolution, which is based in Unbelief (or no God) and fed by sin. If you waste time pruning the leaves while ignoring the trunk and roots of the tree, the leaves will simply grow back. If you dig up the tree, it doesn't matter whether the leaves were cut from the tree or not.
>Again, because it wasn’t relevant. The column was not about that. A book can take an all-encompassing look at a matter. Columns and articles, on the other hand, tend to be more narrow in their focus. This column focused on how he believes Christians can and should accept evolution. Whether religions are divinely inspired are a separate matter. Putting them together in the same column may not only push his word count over a limit that may be imposed on him by his editors, but would blur the focus on the column. You can’t address every single point or argument of a complex issue like this simultaneously.
-Luigi Novi
So why include the comment at all? Why present the thought that religion is man-made in the middle of an article addressing people who are currently predisposed to assume that Evolutionists are Atheists, if you have no intention or ability to even provide a bit of support to it? It does nothing but antagonize the audience that he is supposed to be attempting to convince.
>He doesn’t have to negate a core belief of Christianity, since, as he has argued before, one can believe in God and divinity and still accept evolution, and can even speculate that God used evolution to help develop humanity. One could suggest, for example, that a religion can be divinely inspired, but that its God used evolution to instill morality in us.
-Luigi Novi
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that he should attempt to negate core Christian beliefs. I'm saying that HE IS attempting to negate core Christian beliefs. By suggesting that man had a dual nature, containing both good and evil, he is contradicting numerous points in scripture that contend that, due to our fallen nature and original sin, man alone is inherently evil. "There is only One who is good," (Matt 19:17 NIV) and only through him (God) dwelling in our hearts can man hope to approach being accurately called 'good.' To suggest otherwise is to either a) demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Christian definition of 'good' or b) an attempt, either conscious or unconscious, to sabotage his own argument.
>Then tell the people making it, since Shermer, as aforementioned, is merely responding to it. Laughable as you may think of it, the degree to which an idea should be addressed is the degree to which it is in danger of being promoted and accepted by a wide audience. Shermer has addressed the argument on the part of his fellow skeptics that creationists should not be debated or responded to at all on the grounds that science is not conducted by opinion polls or democracy, and that responding to them only lends them credence, by arguing this very point. Because creationist belief is so widespread, it is necessary to respond to them. Because the communism argument is a prominent one, he addresses it. This is the right thing to do, because if you pick and choose which fallacies to respond to, those that have not been debunked are in greater danger of widespread acceptance.
-Luigi Novi
If it is as truly widespread as you are suggesting, then it shouldn't be ignored. However, it shouldn't be elevated into a position of authority by debating it as if there was some merit to the charge. Attempts to claim that Evolution leads to Alcoholism needs to address how Noah, Lot and numerous other Biblical characters were shown to be heavily drinking, even to the point of passing out, long before Darwin's great-grandparents were twinkles in their parents' eyes. If they can't, they should be excused from the discussion until such time as they can present something that resembles a valid case. In the meantime, let them join the flat-earthers, the ghost hunters and the "Aliens built the pyramids" freaks in the corner. I don't see anyone wasting too much time countering their absurdist claims as if they were legitimate.
>Again, tell the creationists. Since they believe that the scientific theory leads to communism and all sorts of “ism’s”, then it is reasonable for at least one counterargument to be made that it does not, and that it just might be compatible with the one you favor.
-Luigi Novi
But the initial argument has no merit. Your personal preference for certain economic models is completly unrelated to your prefered bio-diversity models. To suggest otherwise is pure lunacy! You don't validate lunacy by addressing it as an honest debate, you point out the lunacy of the argument.
As I said before, these type of arguments are all rooted in the belief that Evolution is counter to religion, just as communism theoretically is. Wasting time addressing tangential points is worthless, because if he truly counters the core belief feeding these random, idiotic suggestions, the suggestions diminish until they are only found in the lunatic fringe.
>I have, and as aforementioned, so has Shermer.
-Luigi Novi
I'll take your word for it. From what you've shown me, these arguments aren't truly seperate points to address, but aspects of the larger point that Shermer leaves largely unaddressed.
In the future, can you color code quotes please.
While not a bad idea, I don't think it should be required. Yeah, I know, coloring would make it easier to discern at a glance, but I try to respect different peoples' post-and-response format styles. 
I'm not saying it should be required, just that it would make it easier to read. I'm just glad its not one long paragraph.
Gotcha.
The evolution of humans, as seen by looking at lice.
That's a lousy way of proving evolution. 
LOL.
VT Massacre and evolution: the connection, according to creationists. Took 'em 24 hours before chiming as to how the tragedy is caused by evolution in particular, and science and naturalism in general. I admire their restraint.
For the record, Luigi, the claim was not that the VT massacre was caused by evolution, science, and naturalism, but by the exclusive teaching of those things in the classrooms.
Yes, and that claim is bunk. If you're going to study biology, then naturally, it makes sense to teach how animals evolved. If a student wants to take a religion class, let him. It is not the place of a science classroom to do that, nor would taking that hypothetical religion class prevent that massacre. A deranged, disturbed individual with a lot of pent-up rage and a load of guns, isn't going to be stopped from going on a rampage by teaching him religion.
The following exchange is continued from the Religion in Academia board in RM.
David: Luigi, I have absolutely no problem with natural selection, nor do most Christians. It makes perfect sense that the bear with the least amount of fur will die out in the coldest climates. The actual concept of evolution from one life-form to another over billions of years is what is in question.
Luigi Novi: Well, I'm glad to hear that you accept some aspects of it, but transitioning from one species to another is indeed part of it. If you have all those incremental mutations accumulating to the point where one organism can no longer mate with the a member of the species that does not have those mutations, then what you have is speciation, or transition. It's pretty simple, I think.
I think that we should teach gravity as "only a theory". After all, it's just a theory. The hand of G-d could be holding us down on the planet!
Luigi Novi: Well, I'm glad to hear that you accept some aspects of it, but transitioning from one species to another is indeed part of it. If you have all those incremental mutations accumulating to the point where one organism can no longer mate with the a member of the species that does not have those mutations, then what you have is speciation, or transition. It's pretty simple, I think.
Sure, but where did it all come from? How did it all begin? For the theory of evolution to hold water, one has to accept that enough molecules coagulated in just the right form to produce various cell structures, which then began to perform various functions. Those structures eventually came together as cells, which somehow knew precisely how to operate interdependently towards the goal of reproduction (and how did that particular goal randomly become part of this random collection of mollecules?). The cells then knew how divide into identical versions of themselves, despite the fact that the cell structures were previously independent entities. I could go on with this for quite a long time, but my basic point is that for this theory to be viable, far, far too many coincidences and random convergences had to occur.
One other thing. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, each species has slowly bred itself towards perfection with respect to its environment. Over time, species have mutated to the point where they are no longer compatible biologically. So, at the untold thousands of points throughout history when some members of a species would become incompatible, enough of the incompatible members would be born at exactly the same time to interbreed and keep the species from dying out?
Bzzzt! And thank you for playing. Here's your lovely parting gift.
You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution.
quote:ScottN: I think that we should teach gravity as "only a theory". After all, it's just a theory. The hand of G-d could be holding us down on the planet!
quote:David: One other thing. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, each species has slowly bred itself towards perfection with respect to its environment. Over time, species have mutated to the point where they are no longer compatible biologically. So, at the untold thousands of points throughout history when some members of a species would become incompatible, enough of the incompatible members would be born at exactly the same time to interbreed and keep the species from dying out?
Sure, but where did it all come from? How did it all begin? For the theory of evolution to hold water, one has to accept that enough molecules coagulated in just the right form to produce various cell structures, which then began to perform various functions. Those structures eventually came together as cells, which somehow knew precisely how to operate interdependently towards the goal of reproduction (and how did that particular goal randomly become part of this random collection of mollecules?). The cells then knew how divide into identical versions of themselves, despite the fact that the cell structures were previously independent entities. I could go on with this for quite a long time, but my basic point is that for this theory to be viable, far, far too many coincidences and random convergences had to occur.
As an aside, you should learn more cell biology. Cells are not all alike and the simplest ones (bacteria) are several orders of complexity below eukaryotic cells. For example, bacteria have no organelles at all, with genomes consisting only of a single circular chromosome of DNA. Binary fission of bacteria simply involves growth, followed by replication of the genome, which is then followed by the development of a sinus and finally two separate cells. It's a simple process.
In any case, cell structures do not so much operate interdependently as they follow their "programming" in the DNA - their protein components come together and interact in ways specific to their chemical composition.
I don't have enough time to respond to all of these right now, but I'll post what I can.
ScottN - You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution.
Thank you for providing the term, but it doesn't change anything. Creationism predominantly deals with the origin of life. Some sort of origin theory has to accompany evolution for any valid contrast to be made between the it and creationism. Therefore, abiogenesis is very relevant to this discussion.
Gotta go. I'll post more later.
David: Sure, but where did it all come from? How did it all begin?
Luigi Novi: That has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection is not an "origin" theory. It deals only with how life adapts to its environment after it's here. It does not deal with how it got here in the first place. The origins of life and natural selection have nothing to do with one another.
David: According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, each species has slowly bred itself towards perfection with respect to its environment.
Luigi Novi: Natural selection does not make any claim that species are specimens of "perfection". All you have to do is look at some of the aspects of our own bodies to see that we are not "perfect". What natural selection does, at least for those species who survive, is adapt species to their environment. It doesn't make them "perfect".
David: For the theory of evolution to hold water, one has to accept that enough molecules coagulated in just the right form to produce various cell structures, which then began to perform various functions. Those structures eventually came together as cells, which somehow knew precisely how to operate interdependently towards the goal of reproduction (and how did that particular goal randomly become part of this random collection of mollecules?). The cells then knew how divide into identical versions of themselves, despite the fact that the cell structures were previously independent entities.
Luigi Novi: Keep in mind that all the cells found in a lifeform didn't come together all at once in that lifeform's present form. They evolved gradually over a long period of time. Where did these functions come from? They came from random mutations, which happen all the time. The ones that afforded a beneficial trait, naturally, were passed down among those organisms that survived because of it (echoing what you said about the bear), whereas random mutations that are neutral or harmful did not. Why does not a cell dividing itself after previously being just one entity seem so implausible to you? We see it all the time under the microscope. None of the "random convergences" needed for this are outside possibility in natural phenomena.
To clarify, mutations are less likely to be passed on if they are harmful, but disease-causing alleles will persist in populations.
Thank you for providing the term, but it doesn't change anything. Creationism predominantly deals with the origin of life. Some sort of origin theory has to accompany evolution for any valid contrast to be made between the it and creationism. Therefore, abiogenesis is very relevant to this discussion. David
No, it isn't. Evolution has never been about the origin of life. It is about the origin of species. Whether abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life) happened "blindly" or by a miracle of God has never been an issue. The fundamental divide of Science vs Religion /Evolution vs Creationism was a product of Fundamentalists who refused to accept the possibility that humans evolved from "lower animals" rather than by special creation.
One other thing. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, each species has slowly bred itself towards perfection with respect to its environment. Over time, species have mutated to the point where they are no longer compatible biologically. So, at the untold thousands of points throughout history when some members of a species would become incompatible, enough of the incompatible members would be born at exactly the same time to interbreed and keep the species from dying out?
If one individual's DNA has changed enough that he can't interbreed with others in his population, his line will die out. If there are not enough inter-fertile members in a population, that population will die out. So in one sense the answer to your question is "nothing." There is nothing to keep them from dying out. And there are no guarantees.
But evolution is a science of populations, not of individuals. The changes take place over many, many generations. One or two changes in a couple of alleles are normally not enough to keep an organism from breeding with the rest of its population, and in a couple of generations the new alleles are distributed throughout the population. But that does not mean that the organisms in the current aren't different enough that they can still still (theoretically) interbreed with their x-many great-grandparents. They have become a new species.
Likewise a population does not split willy-nilly into two new species. If two sub-populations of a species are too far away from one another to allow free interbreeding, or if there is an obstacle between them (such as a lake or a mountain range), then the changes that occur in one sub-population cannot spread to the other. Over generations, as they become a separate species from the parent species, they also become separate from one another.
If the theory of evolution is correct, we would expect to see examples of incomplete speciation. That is, we would expect to find examples of populations that are not the same species and yet not quite separate species either. One example would be a mule. Sometimes two different, but closely related species can interbreed, barely. The offspring are like neither parent -- and are usually different depending on which species which parent belong to (for example a mule and a hinney, or a liger and a tiglon).
Another example of incomplete speciation is a "ring species." In a species that split up to go around an obstacle like a lake or a mountain range, both sub-populations can often still interbreed with a third sub-population that stayed at the starting point and so serves as a "bridge" between he two wondering populations, but not with one another.
Tom M - No, it isn't. Evolution has never been about the origin of life. It is about the origin of species. Whether abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life) happened "blindly" or by a miracle of God has never been an issue. The fundamental divide of Science vs Religion /Evolution vs Creationism was a product of Fundamentalists who refused to accept the possibility that humans evolved from "lower animals" rather than by special creation.
You must then be arguing that this discussion board and the related national debate have been incorrectly named, and I doubt that this is the case. Evolution is defined as "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are descended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that occurred over many generations" while creationism is "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing." There's a fundamental difference in those defnitions.
But in the first definition, the one for evolution, notice that life's origins are not mentioned. This is because natural selection deals only with how life evolved after it got here. Not how formed in the first place.
That's what I mean. How can any debate, academic or otherwise, be made over two inherently different concepts?
Now you are beginning to understand why trying to "defend" evolution can be so frustrating. What the Creationists are arguing against bears no resemblence to what evolution really is. When we tell them that, they don't believe us. So they think that it is just part of a conspitracy to wipe out Christianity.
You seem to be operating under the false impression that this whole debate is solely about Christians attacking evolutionists. That is not the case.
Not the case of Christians attacking evolutionists. But Creationists (who are almost exclusively members of fundamentalist Christian churches) attacking the science of evolution because they do not understand it.
Yes, some evolutionists have gotten nasty in the debate. In some cases they have a personal axe to grind against Christianty or against fundamentalist Christianity, or even a specific Christian. In many other cases it is a human reaction against being attacked and vilified, especially being attacked for things they know are not true.
It seems to me that main objection Creationists have to evolution is that they think it denies the special creation of Man. Evolution does connect the rise of human beings to speciation in general. But it speaks only of the physical. It is still possible to claim that when Genesis claims that God breathed Life into the man (Adam) he formed from the "earth" (the lower species), it is speaking of the special creation of a being with an immortal soul.
Fundamentalist Muslims pretty much have the same objections to evolution. One of the people who voiced objections to evolution in a somewhat abusive manner to Professor Richard Dawkins in the televised public square discussion that was inspired by his documentary The Root of All Evil? and by his book The God Delusion was a Muslim.
Regarding the last portion of Tom's post, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists, the late Stephen Jay Gould, was a strong proponent that evolution is not incompatible with a belief in God or the creation. Another is Dr. Michael Shermer, considered the country's leading skeptic, the founder of the Skeptic Society and founder/publisher of Skeptic magazine.
Fundamentalist Muslims pretty much have the same objections to evolution. One of the people who voiced objections to evolution in a somewhat abusive manner to Professor Richard Dawkins in the televised public square discussion that was inspired by his documentary The Root of All Evil? and by his book The God Delusion was a Muslim.
I stand corrected. Please change "fundamentalist Christian churches" in my previous post to "fundamentalist sects," while I go to be flogged 100 times with a wet noodle.
You're into that too?
Last week, PBS' Nova ran a documentary called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial about the Dover, PA trial.
You can watch it in 12 parts for free here.
The Scientific Method made easy. Excellent video. There are numerous other videos in the margin on Ancestry, Evolution, the History of the Universe, etc.
The Evolution video is really good too. Even uses some audio clips from the famous debate between Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and the Rational Response Squad. It even answers his question about the "crocoduck" (a photoshoped hybrid of a crocodile and a duck) which no evolution researcher would suggest came from the same branch on the evolutionary tree, but he does show their last common ancestor.
Another excellently scathing piece by Dawkins.
Dawkins examines the creationist documentary Expelled!, narrated by Ben Stein, which portrays creationist scientists as having been victimized for their beliefs, and an incident in which PZ Myers, the author of the science blog Pharyngula, was turned away (expelled?) from a screening of the film, and ordered by a uniformed individual to leave the premises, because he was, according to Expelled! producer Mark Mathis, not on the guest list, even though there was no indication of such exclusivity when Myers signed up for tickets on the Expelled! website. Interestingly, Mathis had brought Dawkins as one of his guests, and since he did not have to name his guests when getting the tickets online, Dawkins was admitted to the film! What has followed has been a very interesting flap for Mathis, as you can read about.
Myers' account of the incident at the screening is here, and a follow-up in which he responds to Mathis' explanation of why he was expelled from the Expelled! screening is here.
Glitch in natural selection. LOL.
Ben Stein, the guy who made being smart kinda cool with his TV shows like "Win Ben Stein's Money" has apparently jumped on the anti-intellectual band wagon with a new documentary film called "Expelled: In Intelligence Allowed" a documentary about the controversy between evolution and intelligent design landing completely on the ID side of the argument. His film is being criticized for misrepresenting fact in some cases, using logical fallacies, rhetorical arguments and flat out lying in a way that would make Michael Moore proud, if he and Moore were of the same political stripe.
A website called http://www.expelledexposed.com does a good job of debunking a lot of what's in the film. I'm heading to work so I'll have to wait until later to read up on everything.
I do know that he interviews some people who claim that some conspiracy within the academic and scientific community to exclude them based on their beliefs against "Darwinism." I'm already seeing some problems here, the first being that their is no such thing as Darwinism, that's a straw man made up by ID supporters to make it sound more like a religious following of one man's ideas rather than a set of theories and understandings of basic facts across a wide range of scientific endeavors.
As for being excluded, or "expelled" as he calls it; if a doctor started treating people with faith healing and magnet therapy wouldn't the AMA have every right to exclude him from the legitimate medical community. Same with a history professor who is teaching the the holocaust never happened. Perhaps a better title would be "flunked."
Since when is it 'anti-intellectualism' to say that everything did NOT come about entirely by accident? Since when is it 'anti-intellectualism' to say that THERE IS ROOM FOR BELIEF THAT everything did not come about entirely by accident? Haven't seen "Expelled" yet myself. What's so great about saying that ANYTHING "MUST NOT be questioned and MUST be true!" ? Your last 3 sentences SEEM to indicate that you are so devoted to evolution-by-accident that you might as well insist that Moses carried the theory of evolution-by-accident down from Mt. Sinai carved on 2 stone tablets. (Or would such an event be the only thing that could cause you to question it?)
Mike Brill: Since when is it 'anti-intellectualism' to say that everything did NOT come about entirely by accident? Since when is it 'anti-intellectualism' to say that THERE IS ROOM FOR BELIEF THAT everything did not come about entirely by accident?
Luigi Novi: It isn't. It's anti-intellectual to use logical fallacies, lies and other anti-intellectual tactics to argue one's case. This is what Stein and other creationists do.
Evolution has never said that everything happened by "accident", that is either a misunderstanding of the theory or an out & out lie.
The theory of evolution deals in the processes by which things happened and imperial evidence, not miracles or the supernatural. It's perfectly acceptable to believe that God, Vishnu, Allah or even space alien Xenu is behind everything and put things into motion, as many scientists and people of faith do. Heck the HS teacher who I learned about genetics & astronomy from was a Christian who went to church every Sunday, but he certainly never tried to put that into his science lessons.
I think you meant "empirical" evidence...
Sorry the spell check gave me the wrong word and I didn't notice.
No, he meant imperial evidence. Like, er, the evidence that Princess Leia had Artoo give Ben Kenobi about the Death Star.
What evidence? That was a consular ship on a diplomatic mission to Alderan.
If that was an ambassador's ship, then where was the ambassador?
Dinosaurs and humans coexisted, according to Sarah Palin.
Best part of that article was the quote "I need to know if she really think that dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes."
I'm not really sure how this is an issue, to be frank. There's like a kabillion better reasons not to vote for Palin than this.
All right, exactly WHEN was the book of Job written? I think that that book makes reference to 'the Behemoth' and to 'Leviathan'. The Behemoth was a very large land animal, and Leviathan was a very large sea creature. That's all that I know about them. If they were not some of the last of the dinosaurs, then what were they?
As for 'better reasons not to vote for Palin', you probably mean such 'reasons' as:
1 - She's a baby butcher's nightmare;
2 - She will probably not take guns away from good citizens;
3 - She's a wife and mother AND works a job, as opposed to those strange creatures who say that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle;
4 - She's been the governor of about the only state that is located between 2 other countries;
5 - She's not Hillary;
6 - She's registered as Something-Other-Than-Democrat;
7 - The number of popular votes that she got when running for Mayor exceeds the number of electoral votes that Joe Biden got when he ran for President.
8. She eliminated some of the governor's staff to cut costs to the taxpayers (think of the chef...)
Mike Brill: If they were not some of the last of the dinosaurs, then what were they?
Luigi Novi: Fictional creatures, much like the ones written about in other ancient texts, like Homer's descriptions of cyclops and sirens, Norse mythology's descriptions of the sea serpent Jörmungandr, the ancient Egyptian gods Ra and Anubis, which had the heads of a falcon and a jackal, respectively, etc.
7 - The number of popular votes that she got when running for Mayor exceeds the number of electoral votes that Joe Biden got when he ran for President.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ANYBODY running for ANYTHING gets more POPULAR votes than the number of ELECTORAL votes than ANYBODY gets. I think my HS Student Body President got more votes than the electors of any candidate in this race.
Luigi: OK, maybe. But disagreeing with the general consensus about - even being wrong about - when the last dinosaurs died, does NOT mean that someone cannot or should not be trusted with important present-day things. It would REALLY be a problem if a government official believed that (a) nuclear power cannot be done right, (b) that America's Apollo astronauts did not land on the Moon and that they faked the whole thing out in Arizona somewhere, (c) that there is no biological life anywhere in the Universe except on Earth, and (d) that UFOs and aliens are actually demons in disguise.
Brian - Take things IN CONTEXT. These are postulated 'reasons' not to vote for Sarah Palin. Others might be:
9 - She sold the Governor's Luxury Jet on Ebay;
10 - She eliminated "pork" in her own state, saying that Alaska did not need that big expensive bridge out to that island with such a small population.
It would REALLY be a problem if a government official believed that (a) nuclear power cannot be done right, (b) that America's Apollo astronauts did not land on the Moon and that they faked the whole thing out in Arizona somewhere, (c) that there is no biological life anywhere in the Universe except on Earth, and (d) that UFOs and aliens are actually demons in disguise.
C is up for debate since we don't know yet. D I can handle; it doesn't really sound any crazier than the stuff that you see in mainstream religious texts. A I don't agree with as the US Navy has shown nuclear power has been done safely by them since the 1950s, but that's a political issue more than anything else.
B I would not be able to vote for someone who believed that; such a person is either crazy or in denial of basic facts. I would not want such a person to have command of the military or the nations nuclear arsenal.
Mike, I don't think being wrong about the dinosaurs cannot be trusted with present day things, at least in and of itself. But I would be concerned to know whether she would allow her religious beliefs to influence her decision making in such a way that her decisions do not have a secular purpose or violate SOCAS. As for "disagreeing" with the consensus, there's nothing wrong with that at all, provided that you have a scientific basis for doing so, and that holds for whether we're talking about the dinosaurs or the moon landing hoax theory.
As for there being no biological life elsewhere in the universe, even though most scientists think the odds of that being true are low, I don't really see how it would disqualify someone from being VP or P.
I don't agree that letting a belief influence how one makes a decision should make someone ineligable or less valid to hold a politcal office.
All of our deliberate actions (that is, those which are based on choice) are from beliefs; be it the belief that what we can prove via scientific explanation or those which we prove via supernatural explanation. We form our decision based on our understanding of how we perceive truth. There's also no absolute critiera for what constitutes a religious belief.
Physics could be thought of as a religion because it explains, or tries to explain the workings of the universe, but as in other religions, there are some things which our human understanding or human abilities will just never be able to calculate or test. Also, religion is a still a science, one that deals with the super natural universe.
That being said, it is just as valid for someone in office to base his or her decisions on super natural science as it is for someone to base his or her decisions on natural science. If people don't agree with the person's decisons, either those based on science, and/or those based on super natural science; people don't have to vote for the person.
Physics could be thought of as a religion because it explains, or tries to explain the workings of the universe
No, because physics is subject to the scientific method.
Point conceded about physics. I suppose if taking the origin of the word religion, physics cannot be considered a religion. (Gotta watch you nitpickers... you're...)
Of course, I'd say that scientists trying to explain the beginning of the universe with physics is not logical since natural sciences are constrained to the concept of causality... but that's a topic for another board...
However, the larger point I was trying to make, that religion and physics are both sciences and that they are both valid ways to form decisions.
Though, having posted that second post... I've checked several other dictionaries for the origin of the word religion, and while I can find the latin and anglo-french roots , the definition of the latin/anglo-french roots vary from source to source. So I still stand on there not being any absolute criteria for what constitutes a religion.
No, religion is not a science.
Yes, religion is a science.
How are religious theories falsifiable?
I'm with Luigi on this one; how is religion a science? Science is all about making observations, being skeptical, looking for impirical data. Religion is all about faith. Jesus told Thomas "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." How is that at all scientific?
I will answer that later this week when I have time to type up a logically constructed argument instead of just doing brief one line responses. (Less likely to turn to bickering that way if I write it up and give explanation to the points I'm bringing up than to just state the points)
I'll also try to find a board that better fits this current discussion and post it there. Whether religion could be considered a science really doesn't belong in the politics board. If there is already one, let me know, or if someone wants to make one, let me know.
Religion is not a science, Polls. The two have nothing to do with one another. One is concerned with metaphysics, philosophy, and the supernatural, and is driven by authority and personal revelation. The other is concerned with empirical knowledge. They do not seek to answer the same questions, and do not use the same methodologies when doing so.
Mike Brill,
I could postulate a hundred silly reasons why people might not want to vote for Sarah Palin just as easily as you can. What does it prove?
People could vote against her because she has five letters in her first name. I didn't say anyone ever advocated that, I simply said it was possible.
That electoral vote thing is just bizarre (if you were serious). Were you trying to be funny? Sometimes it's hard to tell from words on a screen.
Who would vote against her for running a state between two countries?
What was your point of all that?
Just tell us why you support her instead of setting up straw men. You know, "straight talk."
And on the right board, too. If this veers toward the election, let's move it to that board. What I sometimes do, as a poster, rather than a moderator, when I know that a discussion will veer onto another topic, particularly by my response to it, is put my response on that appropriate board, with a link back to the original conversation.
Brian-Oct. 3, 12:39 pm-(c) is not only unreasonable, it is not supported by the Bible, which says nothing about it whatsoever. (d) is propagated by self-serving liars within 'the church worldwide'; these self-serving liars want to trick parents into keeping kids from watching space TV shows.
Luigi-Oct. 3, 3:37 pm-I doubt that any Presidential contender would try to implement anything like, "Everybody has to become a Baptist or else!", so SOCAS is in nowhere near as much danger as some people would have us believe. As for a President or Vice President believing that there is no biological life anywhere in the Universe except on Earth, this could result in their saying that there is no need to study the Universe.
Everybody-Religion is not a science; however, Sir Isaac Newton was both a scientist and a devout Christian. People need to stop asking, "Does this person have a religion?", and start asking, "What does this person do with it?".
And - Yes, Luigi, we've gone off on a tangent. But just to answer Nove's question, I am (among other things) pro-life and for private citizen's ownership of guns. And that's all I'm going to say about it, ON THIS PARTICULAR BOARD.
Well, she said she would not try to implement such a thing, Mike, but I am not very encouraged by the vagueness and lack of consistency with which she answers questions about such matters. It is for this reason that I stated that I "would be concerned to know" if she'd do this, and not that I knew for a fact that she intended to.
Regarding your thoughts on religion and science, I agree wholeheartedly.
And yeah, mea culpa on that point as well. I'll transfer the appropriate portion of this discussion after it has died down, with links to the "veering off" point.
One of the best videos explaining the "theory-not-fact" fallacy I've seen. Also interesting is how it explains that natural selection is more proven than gravity, and that Darwinism is not the modern understanding of natural selection.
Zarm Rkeeg: Funny; though I'd be the last person to defend evolutionary science since I don't even believe evolution itself is anything other than junk science (Irreducible complexity. Go look it up.)...
Irreducible complexity has been refuted by people such as Richard Dawkins, and was refuted without any rebuttal offered by ID proponent Michael Behe in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. In that trial and elsewhere, numerous examples offered for ID, such as the bacterial flagellum, the bombardier beetle's spray, etc., have been shown to not be irreducibly complex, and all the analogies offered to supposedly refute natural selection, such as the watch on the beach, the tornado in the junk yard, etc., have been shown to be flawed analogies. This is why the attempt to teach creationism in a public school science classroom was defeated in the Dover trial.
Irreducible complexity is false, because it assumes that evolution explains complex mechanisms as forming in their entirety, rather than in gradual steps, and because it assumes that the current function of a given mechanism must necessarily be the function for which its parts were always created for, when they could've have (and have been shown to) been used for earlier purposes. This is the basis upon which it's been refuted.
You once claimed that evolution is pseudoscience. When I asked you point-blank what is your definition of pseudoscience, as I was curious as to whether you truly understood what its criteria are, and as to how those criteria conform to evolution, but not to creationism/ID, naturally, you chickened out of answering, abandoning the conversation. Then, two months later (in your October 27, 2005 post on the Moral Relatavism board), you made the same assertion. I asked you again what the definition of pseudoscience was, and again, you chickened out of answering.
Now you're doing again calling it "junk science". So I ask you again: What are the criteria by which scientific knowledge and pseudoscientific/junk science can be distinguished, and in what way do evolution and creationism line up with those criteria? Do you understand how the methodology of science is defined? Can you answer this, or are you going to show a third time now that you use words like this without really knowing what they mean, and that you cower out of answering because you know that an honest look at those criteria would show natural selection to be a sound scientific observation, and creationism to pseudoscience?
Whence did this chip on your shoulder come from, Luigi? I'm sorry that my little aside caused such a negative response. While I'm flattered by all of the attention you've apparently given little 'ol me, and all of the effort put into these links, I must say I don't recall our conversations- or at least your points on them- being so... aggressive, in the past.
Luigi, I'm not afraid to admit my intellectual betters. When I first started arguing, I was indeed ignorant of Peer Review Process and Scientific Method. I posited that Creationism was valid science- now, while I believe that it is true, I will freely admit that at best it could be 'history'- evidence found to corroborate it historically, etc., but likely not science, as it can't be proven by the scientific process. I'm not going to claim to be a great thinker or even properly versed in all the nuances of terminology required for such a discussion. Maybe psuedo-science is the wrong term. I don't know. But my 'definition' of it is this:
It defies what we know in other areas of science and human knowledge, and yet is still accepted. That's why I call ti junk science.
Whatever was said about Irreducible Complexity in Dover, I frankly don't care- the principle is accurate.
There have been recent discoveries by Richard Wolfenden, for example, indicating that many of the chemical reactions responsible for life would occur too slowly to support life without certain enzymes having simultaneously developed alongside them.
You say "Irreducible complexity is false, because it assumes that evolution explains complex mechanisms as forming in their entirety, rather than in gradual steps," but that is in fact the OPPOSITE of what Irreduceable Complexity states- it instead states that there are numerous systems in nature which would not have functioned had they formed by gradual steps, because any number of 'steps' below the final product would not have functioned; as a bike's mechanical evolution into a motorcycle would not be sound, as the development of a gas tank would be useless without an engine, the developement of a spark plug assembly would be useless without the development of pistons, etc. - the only way that a motorcycle's engine system like that would work is if all parts appear simultaneously. Without all parts, none of the parts work, and would never have been 'kept' in the surviving population long enough to develop their associated components because none of those new features would have been 'beneficial to the species' until such time as all were in place. A 'previous function' is illogical; what exactly does Richard Dawkins claim that the interlocking, co-dependent portions of the flagellum motor did before it was a motor, and before it could have functioned as a whole?
"This is the basis upon which it's been refuted." but it's a false basis.
This is hardly the only reason. The evidence is there that Evolution is not scientifically, biologically, or statistically feasible, and would be rejected as soundly by the scientific community as Creationism is if it were ever looked at objectively, without a presupposed bias that Evoltuion is the truth. That may well be what Creationist are accused of, but don't think- or claim- that it isn't present in both sides.
Finally, you say "Can you answer this, or are you going to show a third time now that you use words like this without really knowing what they mean, and that you cower out of answering because you know that an honest look at those criteria would show natural selection to be a sound scientific observation, and creationism to pseudoscience?"
Natural selection may well be a sound scientific observation. So, indeed, is the principle of evolution within a species. The differences between these principles and Macro evolution, the wholesale development of new species, are pronounced; that is what I rejected as unscientific and foolhardy, sir- natural selection and 'evolution' - the rise and fall of variations within population do indeed occur within existing, previously established species. Claiming that this process can produce one species out of another, on the other hand, or could have produced these species, and their irreduceably complex parts, from previous species in which those parts didn't exist... that where I'm going to say "And you Call what I believe divorced from reality?!?"
Your accusations of cowardice are baseless and empty, and frankly, very petty. I had the time this morning, I answered the question. I may not check back here; I may not have the time. So if you pose a follow-up question and I don't answer, consider the possibility that I didn't see it... not that I was too afraid to answer it. Nitcentral is my recreation, not my life.
[i]It defies what we know in other areas of science and human knowledge, and yet is still accepted. That's why I call ti junk science.[/i]
What other sciences? I know that biology, genetics & paleontology are all on board. There are individuals who might argue against but when they present "evidence" to their peers they are roundly debunked and rather than reexamine their theories or try to debunk the debunkers they just say "I'm right you're wrong" and try to appeal non-scientific people that they are not getting a fair shake. They metaphorically take their bat, ball and glove and go home. I saw a debate where conspiracy theorists were compared to creationists and it's true in both directions. Debunk what they have to say and they just say "is not" and go find another audience to convince and repeat the stuff that has already been debunked.
Andrew, thank you for once again showing that you do not know what science is, or how it is properly distinguished from non-science/junk science/pseudoscience. This is not a chip on anyone's shoulder, it's an accurate observation, and legitimate criticism of your behavior. This is neither different from my established history on this site, nor petty, and you are dishonest for suggesting otherwise. I have pointed out when you have engaged in behavior like this before, as you and others well know. You seem to be confusing pettiness with your mere dislike of being wrong.
Your definition of pseudoscience/junk science is false. Even if it were valid, it would exclude ID, since ID conflicts with all the evidence that disproves it, and no one has been able to rebut this. The issue isn't the word you use, or whether someone is your "better". The issue is the criteria that distinguish science from non-science. When you're actually interested in learning how to properly distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge, let me know. I'll send you a free copy of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Things, as a gift. You tell me where to mail it, and it's yours. And if you like it, I'll also give you a copy of Robert Parks' Voodoo Science and Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. All of these wonderful books examine the methodology by which the veridical worth of ideasasserted to be matters of empirical fact can be assessed.
You don't care what was said in Dover. Thank you for admitting that counterarguments or evidence that refute your position are not important to you, thus reinforcing the fact that you are not interested in how science works, and simply stick your hands over your eyes or in your ears to prevent learning something that might require you to reevaluate your conclusions or beliefs.
What were the function of the flagellum motor before they were the motor? I thought you just said you didn't care what was said in the Dover trial? So you claim you "don't care" about the evidence and arguments that refute your position, but then in the next breath, you question what they were? Can't you make up your mind?
Why not crack open a book on the subject and actually read it if you're genuinely interested, instead of just blindly believing what you want to believe? Whereas Michael Behe merely proclaims the motor to be IC without any evidence in favor of that assertion, research has shown that it was a Type Three Secretory System (TTSS), used not for rotary movement, but by parasitic bacteria for pumping toxic substances through their cell walls to poison their host organism. These mechanisms are often similar across bacteria that are not closely related, as the genes for making them have been widely copied from other bacteria. These components eventually became parts of the motor. Commandeering such components previously used for other functions is a way that complex mechanisms evolve. This example was illustrated with dramatic visuals in the Dover trial. I don't know if I'm conveying this adequately in this all-text medium, but if you watch the PBS documentary Judgment Day it'll explain it in a way that's easy to grasp. You can watch it here for free. (That is, if you actually care about drawing a conclusion based on the evidence presented by both sides, instead of just "not caring" because you want to just continue believing what you're predisposed to believe.)
Behe made similar accusations about the immune system, saying science would never find an evolutionary explanation for such a complex system. He was presented with 58 peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbooks chapters about its evolution. His response was that it was not "good enough" and "unfruitful". But when cross-examined, he admitted that hadn't read most of them. He didn't read it, but he can conclude that it's not sufficient or unfruitful evidence? Does this sound intellectually honest to you, Andrew? If Behe (or you) had a shred of intellectual honesty, he would admit that he was simply wrong. But he doesn't because he doesn't want natural selection to be true.
The only distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution (terms only used by creationists, and not by science) is degree, or time. If a "micro" change causes one fish to give birth to a fish with slightly larger fins, that will give that progeny an adaptive advantage. But if the gradual changes that made those fins slightly different from the parent's continue, and are observed over time after countless generations, they can continue to change in size, shape, etc., and the distant descendants of that parent organism will be so different from it, with adaptations that are simply mutations from parts that the parent indeed had, that it may not only not look like it, but be of a different species, and reproductively incompatible with members of the same species as that parent. Nothing in statistics prevents this, and no one has ever offered evidence that confirms otherwise.
Ignorantly asserting otherwise is not science, and pejorative innuendo regarding whether saying so is your "recreation" or "life" (as if those who disagree with you or criticize you do not also have jobs, families, other interests, etc.) does not change this. Just because someone debunks your falsehoods or calls you out on your behavior does not mean that doing so is their "life". It just means you don't like being wrong.
Re: "macro Evolution" vs "micro Evolution":
When the creationists first coined the phrases, it was easy to claim a distinction. "Micro Evolution" was variation within a species, and not only was it possible, but it was the basis of good farming (and herdsmanship -- Jacob practiced it in Genesis). "Macro Evolution" was development of new species, defined as a cat giving birth to puppies -- a clear impossibility, ignoring claims by science that it was a long-term process on population groups, not an immediate process on individuals. The problem is that there are clear examples of "macro Evolution" out there to be studied: ring species and mules. Both show that populations that were once a single species are differentiating into two or more.
That has caused the Creationists to redefine the basic population unit from species to "kind." The ring species of seagulls that circle the Arctic Ocean may be developing into different species, but they are all still seagulls. The ring species of squirrel circling the Grand Canyon are still all squirrels. Lions and tigers may be different species, but they are still of the same "kind," cats. Similarly, horses and donkeys are of the same "kind."
The problem is that there is no agreement or rationale for defining "kind" to be any specific level of taxonomic classification once it is no longer defined as species. It can no longer be defined in any testable, scientific way. It is, scientifically, meaningless. To say that evolution can only happen within a "kind" and that it cannot produce new "kinds" is a totally empty statement. There can be no such thing as "micro Evolution" without there also being "macro Evolution."
One follow-up: we can certainly define broader categories of "kind", but they're simply called genera, families, classes, orders, and kingdoms, and we know far far more about them thanks to phylogenies based on molecular genetics.
Andrew, to be blunt, short of a solid understanding of molecular genetics and biochemistry, including topics related to molecular evolution, you are not qualified to refute "evolution", and nor is any other layman. The average person does not have the knowledge to question a cardiologist's understanding of cardiac physiology, and the same goes for other fields. Do your research from proper sources (texts, etc.) and get back to us.
I don't think much of the craetionism vs. evo . . . debate as far as REALity goes. I live in Detroit where many students grad high school w/o learning how to READ!! What the hell are they going to do w/ an evolutionary theory OR law, they can't READ!!
Reading and science are not on mutually exclusive points on an "Either/Or" spectrum. Both are important, both can and should be taught, and many such as myself have indeed learned both. It's not one or the other.
Cleric gets death threats from fellow Muslims for supporting evolution.
Apparently, you lost a character, or somehting when copying the url. YouTube can't find the video.
Yeah, I somehow left out the final character during the cut and paste. Thanks for pointing that out. It's fixed now.
In 2008, Louisiana introduced the Louisiana Science Education Act, R.S. 17:285.1, which according to Change.org, allows for the teaching of creationist criticisms of evolution.
According to this story on the bill's passage, the bill is remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects "including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Louisiana high school student Zack Kopplin is trying to overturn that law. You can help him by signing the petition at Change.org here.
All 51 of the Miss USA contestants answer the question of whether evolution should be taught in schools.
While the level of articulateness and sophistication is understandably varied among the answers, and there are a number of references to evolution as a "belief", and at least one reference to it being a theory and not a fact, as well as a few answers that stated that "other beliefs" should be taught alongside it (the question did not specify science classrooms or social studies classrooms), I was surprised at how many were in favor of teaching it. Much to my surprise, only a few stated that it should not be taught.
Victory!
On July 22, the Texas School Board approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers, and rejected creationist-backed supplements in a unanimous 8-0 decision.
Because of the size of the Texas market, the decision has implications nationwide.
Remember when Ray Comfort argued that the banana proves God's existence?
Well it gets better!
Because now someone has argued that peanut butter proves creationism.
This guy thinks that merely "subjecting it to energy"---that is, putting it on a shelf where it receives light---causes life to form. Apparently the right chemicals and the right environment don't factor into the equation for this guy.
LOL!!!
Remember that video I posted this past June 23 featuring the 51 Miss USA contestants being asked if evolution should be taught in schools?
Well, someone parodied it. In this video, they're asked if math should be taught!
And people are already thinking it's real. Snopes has a page on it.
Indiana Senate passes bill to teach creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes.
The story says the bill will allow schools to teach religion-based views on the origin of creation, be they Muslim, Jewish, Scientology or Christian, but is there anyone who really thinks they're going to teach Muslim or Scientologist views?
Teaching about such views in classes devoted to cultural studies, like social studies, is certainly fine, but to teach them in science classrooms, and public school science classrooms no less, is just plain outrageous.
I'm assuming the ACLU or some other civil rights group will immediately file suit against the state of Illinois for this, but shouldn't the 1987 Supreme Court case that determined such laws to be unconstitutional because they are designed to advance religion have prevented such a bill from passing in the first place?
>>I'm assuming the ACLU or some other civil rights group will immediately file suit against the state of Illinois for this,>>
I supose they could, but sholn't they sue INDIANA, not Illinois?
They try to circumvent the "advancement of religion" nature of their "theories" by calling it "Intelligent Design". But really, how many religions teach the Universe was purposefully created by a diety?
Bring on the FSM!!!!
May His Noodly Appendendage touch you, Ramen.
Oklahoma Republican state rep Gus Blackwell has proposed a law to ban Biology teachers from failing students who argue that humans co-existed with dinosaurs.
Great, what next? Telling teachers that they have to pass term papers on English lit that are written in ebonics?
It's been a while since I've gotten into an evolution vs. creationism debate with someone, largely because traffic on Nitcentral has declined over the past decade or so.
But I'm now embroiled in one, and with someone I went to high school with, no less, on Facebook.
If anyone here wants to check it out and/or participate, the thread is here.
I've been following it. Give it up, you can't win against those types.
Yeah, really.
There are a great number of videos on YouTube on that exact subject, and the more general subject of religion vs atheism in its many aspects. I have been watching them with great interest for the past few months.
Generally, the people on the atheist side strike me as far more honest, thoughtful and open than their religious counterparts. They also strike me as quite arrogant and dismissive sometimes, but that is probably due to their position being supported by vastly (and I do mean VASTLY) better evidence than the religious position. The impression I have is that people of both sides are equally intelligent in most aspects of their lives, but the religious people seem to deliberately turn off their brains whenever their attention turns to their own personal faith.
Quite frankly, I don't understand how such a debate can still be going on today. Believing in things you have no real evidence for is one thing, to continue to believe them when presented with mountains of genuine evidence that they are not real is something else entirely.
>>>Believing in things you have no real evidence for is one thing, to continue to believe them when presented with mountains of genuine evidence that they are not real is something else entirely.>>>
Lack of proof dosen't seem to hurt the global warming industry.
Take it to PM.... oh, wait....
I think I finally gave up on the debate. It was just one dishonest thing too many for me. I don't know why I get into such debates. I guess I hope for some honest, constructive intelligence discussions, an exchange of ideas, a chance to learn. Can't say that happened there. It was starting to get a bit too frustrating for me. So I've quit.