The School Of Creationism

[marv]

top mosker, you're infering that teaching creationism is somehow a threat. I disagree. Most young people begin to realize that they have an independent mind by the mid-teens. By the late teens and into the twenties, like you, most of those minds begin to get exercized. Whatever they have been taught, somewhere they will come across opposing ideas, have questions, and begin to decide for themselves.

But don't sell people short. Of course there will always be some people who will follow a Pied Piper. Then again, there are a lot of folks who won't. I know many fine people on both sides.

 

[top mosker]

top mosker, you're infering that teaching creationism is somehow a threat. I disagree. Most young people begin to realize that they have an independent mind by the mid-teens. By the late teens and into the twenties, like you, most of those minds begin to get exercized. Whatever they have been taught, somewhere they will come across opposing ideas, have questions, and begin to decide for themselves.

But don't sell people short. Of course there will always be some people who will follow a Pied Piper. Then again, there are a lot of folks who won't. I know many fine people on both sides.

Creationism is only a threat in so that there are those that believe it and wish to make it dogma and will use any manner of twisted logic to do so.

Teaching creationism as an equally accepted theory is not encouraging young minds to "expand" or view the world differently. Should we teach in our schools that the world is flat and is also round? Why stop there? Why not teach our children in public schools about angels. And the loch ness monster. And fairies. And unicorns.

Perhaps you haven't been to the deep south. (or maybe you have judging by your "title.") If you think those in the bible belt will get a fair presentation of both and be able to make their own descisions along with realizing their "independent mind"... well... naivity is comfortable.

 

[Raithere]

When you say some people are not open minded, what you really seem to be saying is they are not disposed to believe as you do. If everyone were truely open minded, they would look at all the evidence, including ID evidence, and come to their own conclusions. True open mindedness would mean teaching both to students - along with challenges to each - and letting the students decide for themselves.

The problem, David, is that there is no evidence for ID. Zero. None. Nada. In fact, it's not even a valid scientific hypothesis because it is un-testable. Even if one proves that this Universe and/or life could not have originated by "chance" (actually a creationist misconception and not a valid representation of Evolution or Cosmological theories) one cannot simply assume the alternative explanation is ID without defaulting on several logical fallacies.

Being open minded does not mean that one should just accept any hogwash that comes down the trough. It certainly does not mean we should teach unfounded religious dogma as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.

~Raithere

 

[marv]

I'm 66 years old, and I've heard all six sides of some arguments. I'm an atheist with the following FIRM convictions:

• Ther are no gods because there is no need for gods,
• There was no Big Bang because it's only a cosmologist's apology for not being a theist,
• Evolution is a proven fact with geological and biological evidence,
• Theists, deists, agonstics and atheists can all be perfectly good citizens and are welcome to live next door to me.

...now, having said that:

• No conviction is worth holding if not held firmly,
• An open mind should not be so open as to let the wind blow through,
• No mind should be so closed as to not hear other opinions,
• Everyone is entitled to form their own opinions,
• Differing opinions of others can and should be challenged, but should never be denigrated or ridiculed.

...and Frank Herbert was insane when he died.

 

[Lemming3k]

Theists, deists, agonstics and atheists can all be perfectly good citizens and are welcome to live next door to me.

Despite being a lot younger than you, i wanted to pick up on this point as it is a point i came to a long time ago, anyone CAN be a good citizen, regardless of religion, naturally some arnt and will assume the worst of other religions etc, i'd rather live next to a christian or muslim that was ok with who i and everyone else is than an atheist that insisted on converting the christian neighbour on the other side of him, i think everyone should have the view that what religion someone is doesnt give them a default personality and i dont think i'll ever understand why we all just cant get along.

 

[David F.]

The problem, David, is that there is no evidence for ID. Zero. None. Nada. In fact, it's not even a valid scientific hypothesis because it is un-testable. Even if one proves that this Universe and/or life could not have originated by "chance" (actually a creationist misconception and not a valid representation of Evolution or Cosmological theories) one cannot simply assume the alternative explanation is ID without defaulting on several logical fallacies.

Being open minded does not mean that one should just accept any hogwash that comes down the trough. It certainly does not mean we should teach unfounded religious dogma as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.

~Raithere

You're missing the point about ID. ID is not a hypothesis, it is a conclusion. Isn't the scientific way to go where ever the evidence leads? You are welcome to come up with another theory which fits the facts but I haven't seen one yet. When a jury is presented with a fingerprint, they could conclude that the molecules simply randomly fell into that configuration. No one would do this since it doesn't make sense, even though it might be statistically possible. When we find a fingerprint, we naturally assume that someone came along and left it there. When we find overwhelming evidence of fine-tuning and unbelievable precision in the universe, just as with a fingerprint, we assume someone left it there or, in the case of the universe, someone fine-tuned the universe to an incredible precision - Design. You're predisposition to think otherwise is not scientific and not even a valid hypothesis.

 

[marv]

Intelligent design is an excuse for wanting to believe in a deity, but not wanting to be bothered with going to church on Sunday morning or worrying if they're sinful. For some it's conclusive and for others it's hypothetical. That's fine with me.

 

[Q25]

ID is not a hypothesis, it is a conclusion.

how did you arive to the conclusion though?
goddidit is answer to every question,thats not science,its fiction.

Isn't the scientific way to go where ever the evidence leads? You are welcome to come up with another theory which fits the facts but I haven't seen one yet.

maybe you havent been looking with an open curious mind.
most ID fans already made up their minds that god did it and go from that premise by explaining,fantasizing,even lying and making up stories to prove HOW God did it.

When we find overwhelming evidence of fine-tuning and unbelievable precision in the universe,
just as with a fingerprint, weassume someone left it there or, in the case of the universe, someone fine-tuned the universe to an incredible precision - Design.

precision?fine tuning?
only small parts of this planet are comfortably habitable for humans,never mind the rest of the universe
so people and animals and all living things adapted,evolved and strugled to survive ever since sunlight with combination of other chemicals created life..
did you know that 99% of lifeforms that existed on earth since life began millions years back,are long extinct..?
but anyhow
you assume without having ANY PROOF of any DESIGNER,
for all we know the universe might have been farted out by a Giant turtle,
heck its just as good hypothesis as any other religious crap.

You're predisposition to think otherwise is not scientific and not even a valid hypothesis.

exactly what I would say about the silly ID cretinism

btw heres a very informative site with many knowledgable scientists that could answer any creation/evolution question you might have
www.infidels.org/index.html

 

[Repo Man]

I'm an atheist, but I think that if a school wants to include "creationism" in it curriculum, that's fine with me. I've encountered prof's in history, economics, business, and other fields with equally untenable positions who would rather preach than teach.

Let the student decide. After all, the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be lit. But if the student's mind happens to be a vessel, there are plenty of janitorial jobs to be had.

I think you underestimate the potential impact of dogmatic indoctrination. Look at the Islamic fanatics that Wahhabist schools turn out.

Syed Bilal
Former 17-year-old student of Dr. Younus Shaikh; the latter was convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan in August, 2001, for teaching that Mohammed did not practice Islam until after he had received his revelation

Only out of respect, because he was our teacher, did we not beat him to death on the spot.
-- Syed Bilal, relating his alleged response to Dr. Shaikh's teaching, quoted from Barry Bearak, "Death to Blasphemers: Islam's Grip on Pakistan," New York Times, May 12, 2001
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/scarstartframe.htm

There are those in this country that would like our schools to crank out equally dogmatic Christians. ID is merely the Camel's nose in the tent.

DavidF: there is nothing scientific about resorting to magic to explain things you don't understand.

 

[top mosker]

You're missing the point about ID. ID is not a hypothesis, it is a conclusion. Isn't the scientific way to go where ever the evidence leads? You are welcome to come up with another theory which fits the facts but I haven't seen one yet.

Oh me!!! Pick me!!!!
Ok, I like, totally have this idea, i mean conclusion about how, like, the universe was created.

It started with a hyperdimensional race of beings which transcended time and space. They were called the Zeejood. The Zeejood were a very clever and fun loving race. One day they decided they would create a universe. At the center of this universe, they would create a planet called 'earth.' Only (haha!) earth wasn't really at the center of the universe. So they created a bunch of animals and then they also created humans, which were better than the animals. And they made the humans think they were at the center of the universe and everything revolved around their tiny little planet and they wallowed in their self basking glory and blinded themselves to ever leaving their chunk of rock because they thought they were so important and knew everything like they were the center of the universe. But they really weren't. And that's how the world was created.

The End.

And my story didn't even have any talking snakes in it....

When a jury is presented with a fingerprint, they could conclude that the molecules simply randomly fell into that configuration. No one would do this since it doesn't make sense, even though it might be statistically possible.

That same jury could also attribute that fingerprint to the wrong person (theory) and put an innocent man (science) behind bars.

When we find a fingerprint, we naturally assume that someone came along and left it there. When we find overwhelming evidence of fine-tuning and unbelievable precision in the universe, just as with a fingerprint, we assume someone left it there or, in the case of the universe, someone fine-tuned the universe to an incredible precision - Design. You're predisposition to think otherwise is not scientific and not even a valid hypothesis.

You are comparing a fingerprint, which has a very structured and limited scope, which we know everything about TO THE FUCKING UNIVERSE.

ahem.

You are assuming our universe has a design. We haven't even set our feet past the moon yet, and you assume we know everything about the universe. How can we possibly know there is some sort of structured design in the universe if we have only observed one single carbon based bio-sphere? Only one solar system. Only one planet. Many of us, only one culture. One language. One city.

This is a perfect example of why we don't teach creationism to people.

It breeds egos.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

As said before there is no such thing as a scientific theory of Intelligent design in the field of biology. It therefore shouldn't be on the curriculum in a scientific class such as biology. They can discuss it during religion class though if they want to.

 

[Voodoo Child]

We do occupy a special place in the universe - all places in the universe are not equally valid for life.

Indeed. Odds are we should exist in a place where we couldn't survive.

far enough away to escape lethal radiation but not so far out so not to have the heavy metals necessary for an Earthlike planet

Why does life need an earthlike planet? It does if it is life from earth. However, life on other planets would suit the conditions in which it lives.

When a jury is presented with a fingerprint, they could conclude that the molecules simply randomly fell into that configuration. No one would do this since it doesn't make sense, even though it might be statistically possible.

Randomly? Who is claiming that? You should acquaint yourself with the theory you seek to discredit. Who makes all the snowflakes? What intelligent designer makes buckyballs?

The complexity and the statistically unlikely series of events and fortuitous circumstances are simply too much to attribute to mere chance. Thus, the CONCLUSION that things must have been Intelligently Designed.

The correct answer is that it was insentient magic. Prove me wrong.

 

[Godless]

One little problem that ID has is to explain the designer; If these dumb asses accept the design "mistheory", what would they explain to a child that asks; Who created the designer?.

This is just indoctrination of blibical text in the class room, many families from all back grounds of religious beliefs are against the school board decisions.

The reason is they believe that science should be taught in school classes, while they are responsible of teaching religion at home or church, many are worried about the seperation of "church & state" issue.

So the implication of this problem is not totally the issue of ID, or evolution, it's also political. Thus someone mentioned this is only the beggining of the camels' nose, and probaly the beggining of the end on our way back to the dark ages.

Godless.

 

[okconor]

If you go to Seti's site you'll find links to a probability equation for intelligent life being found in a galaxy - it's called the Drake Equation. Play around with the figures - starting with approx 100,000,000,000 stars in an average galaxy. There some arguments against some of the assumptions which are incredible - Fermaghs. This is were the Goldilocks idea came from, everything has to be just right and literally just right. Feed it all back into the equation and you start to get figures contradicting the girl in Contact, not 1,000,000 probabilities but a range from -1000 against (1 planet in every 1000 galaxies - there 20 billion Approx) to +1000.

Intelligent life like ours is probably, very, very, very rare, otherwise simple life is probably ubiquitous - big word for David F.

This uniqueness doesn't suggest a creator, but who or rather what ever is responsible for the process of the creation of the Universe and everything in it has at the pinnacle of it's complexity, intelligent life like us bald monkeys. Amazing eh. I'll call it God but teach my Kids all about evolution and have a laugh at the creationists. Look at God's world and learn.

 

[Repo Man]

I think Bertrand Russell said it best when it comes to viewing ourselves as the pinnacle of either creation or evolution:
Since evolution became fashionable, the glorification of Man has taken a new form. We are told that evolution has been guided by one great Purpose: through the millions of years when there were only slime, or trilobites, throughout the ages of dinosaurs and giant ferns, of bees and wild flowers, God was preparing the Great Climax. At last, in the fullness of time, He produced Man, including such specimens as Nero and Caligula, Hitler and Mussolini, whose transcendent glory justified the long painful process. For my part, I find even eternal damnation less incredible, and certainly less ridiculous, than this lame and impotent conclusion which we are asked to admire as the supreme effort of Omnipotence. And if God is indeed omnipotent, why could He not have produced the glorious result without such a long and tedious prologue?

Apart from the question whether Man is really so glorious as the theologians of evolution say he is, there is the further difficulty that life on this planet is almost certainly temporary. The earth will grow cold, or the atmosphere will gradually fly off, or there will be an insufficiency of water, or, as Sir James Jeans genially prophesies, the sun will burst and all the planets will be turned into gas. Which of those will happen first, no one knows; but in any case the human race will ultimately die out. Of course, such an event is of little importance from the point of view of orthodox theology, since men are immortal, and will continue to exist in heaven and hell when none are left on earth. But in that case why bother about terrestrial developments? Those who lay stress on the gradual progress from the primitive slime to Man attach an importance to this mundane sphere which should make them shrink from the conclusion that all life on earth is only a brief interlude between the nebula and the eternal frost, or perhaps between one nebula and another. The importance of Man, which is the one indispensable dogma of the theologians, receives no support from a scientific view of the future of the solar system.
http://www.threads.name/russell/intellectual_rubbish.html

 

[okconor]

Very Good, I agree. But...
Life seems to be the most complicated thing we can see in the universe at this moment in time, and life has gone a long way to producing us and in all probability and still (with my advice) has a bit further to go. But whatever way you look at it, from what we can see from our tiny inconsequential spot in the galaxy and the universe, Life (which includes us) is the ultimate act in the creation of the universe.
We might shame ourselves frequently, we are simply animals after all, but I suspect we're a bit special.
Bertrand Russel was probably comparing himself to his pet dog, which knowing his lot, he had just stopped shagging.

 

[Raithere]

You're missing the point about ID. ID is not a hypothesis, it is a conclusion. Isn't the scientific way to go where ever the evidence leads?

What evidence, Dave? There is no evidence that supports ID.

The entire ID argument consists of claiming that Evolutionary and Cosmological theories are improbable and then defaulting to ID as the only alternative explanation. This argument is called a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy. It most certainly is not science.

You are welcome to come up with another theory which fits the facts but I haven't seen one yet.

You must not be looking very closely then. Evolution fits all the known facts and is contradicted by none. There are a number of cosmological theories that fit the available facts and are not contradicted, however, the problem currently is finding ways to test them further so that we can eliminate some.

When we find a fingerprint, we naturally assume that someone came along and left it there.

Wrong. We don't assume, we know from observing the process how fingerprints occur. Understanding how fingerprints occur, we know that someone must have left them. However, if someone could show evidence that fingerprints sometimes occur by materializing out of thin air we would have to modify our understanding of fingerprints. But to entertain the notion that they can just form magically without any evidence to support the notion is idiotic.

Of course, this is exactly what ID hopes we will do. Without an iota of evidence we are supposed to entertain the notion that some super-natural intelligence created the Universe. Where's the evidence to support such a conclusion?

When we find overwhelming evidence of fine-tuning and unbelievable precision in the universe, just as with a fingerprint, we assume someone left it there or, in the case of the universe, someone fine-tuned the universe to an incredible precision - Design.

Your "fine tuning" is nothing more than natural consequence. Life conforms to the state of the Universe, the Universe does not conform to life. This is no more unexpected or improbable than a cake conforming to the shape of the pan. The ID argument consists of running around and yelling about how improbable it is that the pan is the same shape as the cake. Wow... who would' a thought.

You're predisposition to think otherwise is not scientific and not even a valid hypothesis.

I don't have a predisposition Dave. I started out believing in ID but I couldn't find any evidence to support it. Without evidence it's nothing more than fantasy. Perhaps as science advances we will someday discover evidence that supports the ID hypothesis in which case you will find me in full support of it. Until then I have to go on the evidence that does exist, all of which suggests a fully naturalistic explanation for life and the Universe.

~Raithere

 

[top mosker]

I received When Will Jesus Bring the Porkchops by George Carlin as a gift for christmas and I found a quote that fits this thread perfectly:

"Regarding creationists: Aren't these the same people who gave us alchemy and astrology, and who told us the earth, besides being flat, was at the center of the universe? Why don't we just kill htese fucking people?"

 

[BlueMoose]

God should (sorry, dont get me wrong now, who am I to tell what God should do...)
tell the prophets back then that...
First there was nothing, then the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. Then an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Then came the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single "super force"(Wald). Elementary particles known as quarks begin to bond in trios, forming photons, positrons and netrinos and were created along with their antiparticles. There are minuscule amounts of protons and neutrons at this stage; approximately 1 for every one billion photons, neutrinos or electrons (Maffei). The density of the Universe in its first moment of life is thought to have been 1094g/cm3 with the majority of this being radiation. For each billion pairs of these heavy particles (hadrons) that were created, one was spared annihilation due to particle-antiparticle collisions.......
.....And then there was Adam & Eve and so on... See all the prophets scratching their heads ?
I really dont understand why this stuff and the six day story cant go hand in hand. I mean, can it be that those billions of years was Gods six day, you know ?
In otherhand if you want take the bibble literally its a different story, but but, we are all just a dream in some matrix, so why not six day, after all, everything is possible

 

[David F.]

how did you arive to the conclusion though?
goddidit is answer to every question,thats not science,its fiction.


maybe you havent been looking with an open curious mind.
most ID fans already made up their minds that god did it and go from that premise by explaining,fantasizing,even lying and making up stories to prove HOW God did it.

precision?fine tuning?
only small parts of this planet are comfortably habitable for humans,never mind the rest of the universe
so people and animals and all living things adapted,evolved and strugled to survive ever since sunlight with combination of other chemicals created life..
did you know that 99% of lifeforms that existed on earth since life began millions years back,are long extinct..?
but anyhow
you assume without having ANY PROOF of any DESIGNER,
for all we know the universe might have been farted out by a Giant turtle,
heck its just as good hypothesis as any other religious crap.

exactly what I would say about the silly ID cretinism

btw heres a very informative site with many knowledgable scientists that could answer any creation/evolution question you might have
www.infidels.org/index.html

You are quite wrong. Most of the ID crowd started as atheist scientists in the Naturalist crowd and found that naturalism simply cannot explain the world as it is observed in the laboratory. ID is the result of rejecting naturalism but not being willing to just capitulate to Judeo-Christian Creation. ID is exactly science refusing to just say "Goddidit". ID points to intelligent design without declaring who made the design.