The dumbing down of America continues...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by llama64

The creationists are presenting evidence advancing their theory towards the origins of life. Their evidence is dismissed outright by many because they are "creationists". To me, this is unscientific, unfair and rude. Judge them by the validity of their arguments. What is wrong is to call them idiots for posing their argument. They are judged on a personal level rathern then as competing scientists.

Or are they not allowed to participate in science because they are religious?

The thing about creationism is the science is non existent. The evidence is dismissed for several reasons. The theory has already been given a chance and it did not hold up at all. There is no reason to keep revisiting it and smashing it to pieces. Secondly it's not science, it's just repacked religious beliefs. If you don't want to believe that then even looking at the evidence scientifically, and it is still terribly weak. Creationism science, to follow the lines of Micheal Shermer, is card board cut easily pushed over by elementary science. Creationists maybe dismissed because they are creationists and it is because the creation science has already been throughly debunked as not science. It's the same as astrology. They are not given a listen anymore because it has no scientific merit. Unless they can present new evidence that hold it's ground then we have to listen to keeping listening to same tired old arguments.

Science is not some sharing circle of best friends where everyone is given equal opportunity to present their case and each case is even given equal merit, despite evidence or the fact that is has been disputed as junk time and time again. You say dismissing creation is "unscientific" you couldn't be more wrong. It is very scientific in fact. When a theory is presented it is required to present evidence that stands up to rigorous and repeated testing. Creation did this, and went down in scientific flames. Science shouldn't have to waste it's time continually dismissing creation because of political or religious influence, that's the reason it keeps coming up. It doesn't keep coming up because it has scientific validity, it comes up because of peoples religious beliefs. Despite the fact that creationist, and you, may think it is rude of the other scientists to dismiss "this theory" is irreverent. Science doesn't have to be nice and appease to peoples personal beliefs, to do so would be the total opposite of science.

Not every scientists is atheist. In fact many are religious. So scientists are not dismissed because they are religious. They are dismissed if their findings, regardless of personal beliefs, are found to not stand up to the scientific method.

To reiterate, creationism is not science. It was given a chance and failed. The debate is over, unless something new and significant is discovered creationism and the creationists can't stand in the scientific ring. If creationism is your personal belief, that is totally fine, but you have no right to push it into the scientific forum.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Something fascinates me about these sorts of threads...just like the geekyness thread, there are just as many closet-Christians or reformed-ex Christians as there are closet or reformed Trekkies

Even as child, I could never stomach most of the hardline stuff they fed me about science or morality in Church. It was simply filled with too many contradictions and held no resonance with what appeared to me to be reality.

Exactly the reason I left organized religion behind.

Still, I came away with a sense of purpose in the universe that can only be described by a concept of a "god". Science and spirituality are two sides of the same coin to me. Both seek the truth, but each have a different way of understanding it. To me at least, both ways are valid.

In order to reach a better understanding of things, both ways are needed, otherwise you only realize half truths. It's not for everyone, but it suits me just fine.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

They are very much sciences and form the basis of social understanding for most of the developed world. There are methods towards the positing of theories and arguments and standards towards the collecting and interpretation of data. Sociology in particular relies on mathmatical and statistical models as evidence.

As you like to toss around, you don't know what you talking about. You were at first discussing subjects that were Humanities, now you actually talking about a real science (sociology) as a soft science. Again, you need to revisit the definition of what soft and hard sciences are.

Would you be adverse to presenting creationism as an alternative to evolution? It could be used to highlight the difference of a proper scientific inquiry to one based on "pseudo-science". Or should that be left to parents?

I have no problem with creation being taught in school, as long as it does not leave the theology or religious studies classroom. The story is plain undulterated garbage from step one. Care to explain how a species propagates itself with a gene pool that is based from one pair? Creationism has no scientific basis, no scientific support, and in no shape or form be used in any way as anything resembling even a pseudo-science. Pseudo-sciences at least attempt to follow an accepted methodology and find scientific support for their theories. Creationism is all about ignoring the science and "creating" more supposition to support the claim. That is no science any way you try to shape it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The creationists are providing proof of nothing. They present no scientific proof and use wild conjecture to support their claims (the dinosaurs lived on the ark with Noah and the other animals, as example). Sorry, you have to be an idiot to fall for this incredibly deluded line of thought. The body of evidence to debunk these claims is massive and is beyond buttal by the "creationists". The creationists are NOT scientists because they do not use a scientific method to test their theories. If they did test any of their they would quickly come to the understanding that the story is physically impossible and their theory impractical.

In fact, I have read many arguments by literal Creationists, when faced with the prospect of a "two of every kind" scenario on the Ark creating a massive genetic bottleneck simply resort to saying that it was miraclulous event, therefore the normal rules of genetics don't apply. That's not science. That's just apologetic excuse making. If that were the case, why didn't Noah simply take one of each kind and have them reproduce miraculously asexually or parthenogenetically?

The problem with Creationists is that they are never starting out with a rational hypothesis to expand their horizons, but are rather trying to find answers that already fit their rather small world view.

[peter12]

llama64, I think you should read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He's an American cell biologist who is a formidable opponent of the ID and Creation "science" crowd in the US. However, he is also a very devout Roman Catholic Christian.

This book is excellent for exploring the interface between real science and a dedicated belief in God. I think it would answer alot of the questions you are asking.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by llama64

Would you be adverse to presenting creationism as an alternative to evolution? It could be used to highlight the difference of a proper scientific inquiry to one based on "pseudo-science". Or should that be left to parents?

I am honestly starting to think that you have a poor understanding of evolution and/or creationism. If you apply any science to creationism it is completely destroyed. There is absolutely no reason that creationism should be presented as an alternative to evolution. None. Your comparison is like saying that when you teach that the world is round you should also present an alternate theory that the earth is flat. Parents can delude their children if they want to, that is well within their right. But schools should not. Someone must have lead you to believe that evolution and creation are on equal scientific planes. Well they are not, in fact they are not even close. They are not even in the same ball park, or the same sport, or even the same city!

[Hack&Lube]

Does anybody have the link to that article about the evolutionary psychology / social antropological roots of religion? (the one that had to deal with agents in our environment) For me, that really describes what's going on in this thread as well and why for some, it's neccessary to cling onto a hope for something supernatural or a hope for something in the universe that is ordered or good. Some do it by clinging onto a literalist interpretation of the bible. Others do it by ignoring the dogmatic parts of organized religion and throwing out or rationalizing out the contradictory parts of their religious texts. In the end, it seems awfully like the same thing...some kind of evolutionary psychological need for security...even if it leads to cognitive dissonance.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

llama64, I think you should read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He's an American cell biologist who is a formidable opponent of the ID and Creation "science" crowd in the US. However, he is also a very devout Roman Catholic Christian.

This book is excellent for exploring the interface between real science and a dedicated belief in God. I think it would answer alot of the questions you are asking.

I also recommend Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design by Micheal Shermer. He was once an Evangelical Christian but now is the editor of Skeptic magazine. It was a really good read.

http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Darwin-Matt...1321968&sr=8-1

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I am honestly starting to think that you have a poor understanding of evolution and/or creationism. If you apply any science to creationism it is completely destroyed. There is absolutely no reason that creationism should be presented as an alternative to evolution. None. Your comparison is like saying that when you teach that the world is round you should also present an alternate theory that the earth is flat. Parents can delude their children if they want to, that is well within their right. But schools should not. Someone must have lead you to believe that evolution and creation are on equal scientific planes. Well they are not, in fact they are not even close. They are not even in the same ball park, or the same sport, or even the same city!

Agreed, the constant rhetoric of the creationists is that "evolution is just a theory". Evolution is not just a theory, it's the basis of most fields of modern biological and paleontological sciences and the body of complementary and concordant evidence is simply insurmountable to anything that creationism could ever hope to present.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Burninator

<snip>

I'm arguing for the creationists to have a chance to posit their evidence and arguments with the same level of authority as other theoretical scientists. I have not and will not pass judgement on it since I am certainly not qualified.

I'm not trying to say that the creationists argument and evidence is valid. Just that their way of trying to back up their statements should be given equal credence.

Don't get me wrong, I personally think creationists are blind to reality, but they have the right and the privilage to be that way.

"I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it."

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Agreed, the constant rhetoric of the creationists is that "evolution is just a theory". Evolution is not just a theory, it's the basis of most fields of modern biological and paleontological sciences and the body of complementary and concordant evidence is simply insurmountable to anything that creationism could ever hope to present.

Is "Evolution" still a theory? I thought the concept of evolution itself has been proven.

It's just the methods by which evolution is achieved that are still debated hotly as theoretical topics (natural selection, genetic mutation...). I wouldn't mind some clarification on this actually.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Does anybody have the link to that article about the evolutionary psychology / social antropological roots of religion? (the one that had to deal with agents in our environment) For me, that really describes what's going on in this thread as well and why for some, it's neccessary to cling onto a hope for something supernatural or a hope for something in the universe that is ordered or good. Some do it by clinging onto a literalist interpretation of the bible. Others do it by ignoring the dogmatic parts of organized religion and throwing out or rationalizing out the contradictory parts of their religious texts. In the end, it seems awfully like the same thing...some kind of evolutionary psychological need for security...even if it leads to cognitive dissonance.

That's exactly what I was pointing out to llama64 when he first entered the thread.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Agreed, the constant rhetoric of the creationists is that "evolution is just a theory". Evolution is not just a theory, it's the basis of most fields of modern biological and paleontological sciences and the body of complementary and concordant evidence is simply insurmountable to anything that creationism could ever hope to present.

Back-to-back excellent posts H&L. Should be red boxes heading your way IMO.

[MarchHare]

Agreed, the constant rhetoric of the creationists is that "evolution is just a theory".

Statements like that also show just how uninformed creationists are about the scientific definition of the word "theory".

Take a look at the different definitions of the word found here: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=theory

When scientists state something is a theory, they mean the first definition (emphasis mine):

1 : A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

When creationists try to belittle evolution by calling it "just a theory", they're using defintion (6), but scientists would not use the word theory in this context; they would say either "postulate" or "hypothesis", which mean very different things in the scientific community than the word "theory".

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption

[Edit]
And it just goes to show how successful the creationists have been at obfuscating the defintion of "theory" when even pro-evolution people in this thread are using definition (6) for "theory" instead of definition (1).

Example:

Is "Evolution" still a theory? I thought the concept of evolution itself has been proven.

Sidenote: science doesn't "prove" anything. Theories provide models that can be used to predict future events. For example, the theory of gravity predicts that if I drop a pen, it will fall to the floor because the gravitational force attracts my pen to the largest nearby mass (in this case, the Earth itself). Theories can also be adapted when new information is available. Einstein's theory of general relativity made Newton's theory of gravity obsolete (although using Newtonian equations to describe movement on a small scale still predicts results accurately; it's only when discussing very large masses, such as stars and galaxies where Newtonian physics breaks down and Einstein's models become more accurate.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm arguing for the creationists to have a chance to posit their evidence and arguments with the same level of authority as other theoretical scientists. I have not and will not pass judgement on it since I am certainly not qualified.

The fact that most creationists lack the credentials and typically do not contribute to peer reviewed scholarly journals is generally why they do not posit their evidence and arguments "with the same level of authority".

If we return to the child with an illness, are you going to grant the same level of authority and trust to a medical doctor as you would to a man selling miracle cures on an infomercial?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by llama64

Is "Evolution" still a theory? I thought the concept of evolution itself has been proven.

It's just the methods by which evolution is achieved that are still debated hotly as theoretical topics (natural selection, genetic mutation...). I wouldn't mind some clarification on this actually.

The concept of evolution IS natural selection and genetic mutation. Nothing has actually been truly proven, but the amounts of circumstantial evidence is staggering.

I think that to answer this question, you have to go out and figure things out for yourself.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm arguing for the creationists to have a chance to posit their evidence and arguments with the same level of authority as other theoretical scientists. I have not and will not pass judgement on it since I am certainly not qualified.

I'm not trying to say that the creationists argument and evidence is valid. Just that their way of trying to back up their statements should be given equal credence.

Don't get me wrong, I personally think creationists are blind to reality, but they have the right and the privilage to be that way.

"I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it."

*sigh*

Creationists don't get a multitude of tries to present the same case over and over. That's what they've tried and will probably continue to do. As far as science is concern, creationism is not a science. They have been given a chance, and it has been dismissed. Dismissed by in large by the scientific community in multiple disciplines, it's been dismissed by the courts in the realm of teaching it at schools, and it's been dismissed by theologians.

The theory of creationism in the scientific realm is dead. I understand what you are getting at, but what I am trying to tell you is that, it's already happened at some level. It died when Darwin theory of evolution became the reasonable and testable theory. But some people, for whatever their reasons are, still cling to it and are trying to force it into science. Which is not how the process works. I am not sure how much you know about the creationists theory's and science, but it is a joke, it is weak, and it doesn't stand up to science or logic. There are still debates with creationists and other scientists, so it's not like the whole community snubs them. But most of them don't give them the time of day anymore because it is a waste of time because it's not science.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

Wow... that's an awesome summary of of why people will never come to any understanding of each other in this debate. It all stems from a personal choice to believe in the validity of some base root. From there, all truth is determined by it's relativity to our initial understanding of how to determine things.

I think people understand each other fine, I understand both sides.

As you say it stems from a personal choice. Personal choices can be wrong though.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sidenote: science doesn't "prove" anything.

That's a good thing to point out. As some would say, the most militant of atheists, Richard Dawkins when talking scientifically, doesn't say "there definitely isn't a God" He says "God almost certainly doesn't exist."

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

The concept of evolution IS natural selection and genetic mutation. Nothing has actually been truly proven, but the amounts of circumstantial evidence is staggering.

I'm not the most credible source on the topic, but on this I'm fairly certain there is a difference between evolution itself and the methods by which evolution are achieved.

Take for instance the title of Darwin's most famous work: On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection.

But this is opening up a whole new debate, so I'll state exactly what I understand evolution to be:
" Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." taken from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

The method by which those changes are selected and then passed on, as an aggregate in a population is what is debated. Evolution itself must necessarily exist and occur, otherwise the way humanity developed the various types of dogs and cats would have to be re defined. You can't tell me that wild poodles used roam the hinterlands of France...

I'm also fairly sure that natural selection itself has been relatively sidelined by biologists as a viable means for the propagation of new species. Or at least the natural selection described by Darwin. I'll try to dig up the articles I read (or at least the arguments). It's been a long time since I studies the intricacies of that particular debate.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm not the most credible source on the topic, but on this I'm fairly certain there is a difference between evolution itself and the methods by which evolution are achieved.

Take for instance the title of Darwin's most famous work: On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection.

But this is opening up a whole new debate, so I'll state exactly what I understand evolution to be:
" Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." taken from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

The method by which those changes are selected and then passed on, as an aggregate in a population is what is debated. Evolution itself must necessarily exist and occur, otherwise the way humanity developed the various types of dogs and cats would have to be re defined. You can't tell me that wild poodles used roam the hinterlands of France...

I'm also fairly sure that natural selection itself has been relatively sidelined by biologists as a viable means for the propagation of new species. Or at least the natural selection described by Darwin. I'll try to dig up the articles I read (or at least the arguments). It's been a long time since I studies the intricacies of that particular debate.

Wild poodles didn't roam the hinterlands ever, but wolves sure did. Human beings can effect the transformation of wolves into dogs by selectively breeding the traits we find desirable.

Why do "modern" dogs seem to have such human-like features? We like them. When we domesticated dogs about 7000 years ago (before the Earth was created, according to some!) we intensely bred them over a short period of time. That domestication has resulted in the vast area of dog breeds we see today.