Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I lose a lot of respect for Ben Stien here. The VAST majority of genocide has been done by religious groups, almost all of which are creationist.

Adolf Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin in working out his ideas. Also see: Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin, Manifest Destiny. The list of genocides/atrocities coming from a Darwinian viewpoint is quite long and horrifying.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But I'd hold very firm to the view that teaching matters of faith or philosophy or similar conjecture simply don't belong in the science classroom.

I think this is a valid point. But then I still have to wonder about the dichotomy between science and philosophy. I don't see them as necessarily separated. Does the scientist have a scientific basis for saying that everything we experience is only experienced through our senses? If the answer is yes, then I would think there should be experiments that have proven this is the case. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read very much in this area, but would be curious to know if there have been scientific studies that have proven that all we can know is only the natural. It seems the scientist accepts this presupposition, one that is philosophical, without having scientific evidence to support it. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

The double standard comes in asking the ID sympathizer for a completely scientific explanation of their position when that position is philosophical (I'm assuming as much based on the court's decision cited earlier) when the scientist can't support the grounding assumptions of their work without resorting to philosophical presuppositions.

So I guess the bigger question for me comes down to how this is all framed. Why is the onus on the ID sympathizer to prove their position scientifically without philosophy? Why is the onus not on the scientist to prove their position scientifically without philosophy? I suppose the scientist might say that the onus is on the one who needs to prove something scientifically. But then we're back to the original question. Can the statement 'the onus is on the person needing to prove something' be itself proven scientifically? I could be wrong, but it seems there haven't been experiments done to prove this statement to be true and we're back to philosophy again.

How this plays itself out in the classroom, I have no idea. Maybe we need to teach philosophy of science alongside science. Maybe we do need to teach philosophy in the science classroom and be objective about its philosophical assumptions. All this to say that I think it's a bit disingenuous for science to distance itself from the non-scientific when it seems firmly embedded in the non-scientific in its grounding assumptions.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I think this is a valid point. But then I still have to wonder about the dichotomy between science and philosophy. I don't see them as necessarily separated. Does the scientist have a scientific basis for saying that everything we experience is only experienced through our senses? If the answer is yes, then I would think there should be experiments that have proven this is the case. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read very much in this area, but would be curious to know if there have been scientific studies that have proven that all we can know is only the natural. It seems the scientist accepts this presupposition, one that is philosophical, without having scientific evidence to support it. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

The double standard comes in asking the ID sympathizer for a completely scientific explanation of their position when that position is philosophical (I'm assuming as much based on the court's decision cited earlier) when the scientist can't support the grounding assumptions of their work without resorting to philosophical presuppositions.

So I guess the bigger question for me comes down to how this is all framed. Why is the onus on the ID sympathizer to prove their position scientifically without philosophy? Why is the onus not on the scientist to prove their position scientifically without philosophy? I suppose the scientist might say that the onus is on the one who needs to prove something scientifically. But then we're back to the original question. Can the statement 'the onus is on the person needing to prove something' be itself proven scientifically? I could be wrong, but it seems there haven't been experiments done to prove this statement to be true and we're back to philosophy again.

How this plays itself out in the classroom, I have no idea. Maybe we need to teach philosophy of science alongside science. Maybe we do need to teach philosophy in the science classroom and be objective about its philosophical assumptions. All this to say that I think it's a bit disingenuous for science to distance itself from the non-scientific when it seems firmly embedded in the non-scientific in its grounding assumptions.

seems like what you're saying (apologies if i'm wrong, but it' s almost time for lunch and i'm hungry), is that ID is more philosophy than science. That seems to be the thread running through your point. And if that's true, then you have inadvertantly proved the point: ID should not be taught in SCIENCE classrooms. If you want to teach it in a philosophy class, fine. But if it's not a science it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

And there are numerous examples of evolution that have been studied in the real world, so that is IN as a science. Until ID can be scientifically TESTED and EXAMINED then it needs to stay out of the science classrooms.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

seems like what you're saying (apologies if i'm wrong, but it' s almost time for lunch and i'm hungry), is that ID is more philosophy than science. That seems to be the thread running through your point. And if that's true, then you have inadvertantly proved the point: ID should not be taught in SCIENCE classrooms. If you want to teach it in a philosophy class, fine. But if it's not a science it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

And there are numerous examples of evolution that have been studied in the real world, so that is IN as a science. Until ID can be scientifically TESTED and EXAMINED then it needs to stay out of the science classrooms.

I think you need to read his post again, you missed his point completely.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

My perspective. I have faith. I don't believe that life on earth was an accident. Is it all that outrageous to consider the posibility that there is a God, and that he created ... well Everything? Is it more outrageous than considering that life simply spontaneously began?

Which is harder to explain:

An all-powerful, all-knowing being that created everything in the universe, including all life.

or

Complex life forms evolving from simple molecules as guided by environmental forces gradually over a vast amount of time.


It's hard to wrap your mind around the complexity that we see in the world arising from very simple molecules, but to me, it's easier to understand than the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who controls the whole show.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Adolf Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin in working out his ideas. Also see: Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin, Manifest Destiny. The list of genocides/atrocities coming from a Darwinian viewpoint is quite long and horrifying.

Okay, let's just say that an understanding of the principles of evolution have the potential to lead one toward other ideas that are themselves potentially dangerous or harmful. That's possible. But it doesn't have any bearing on whether the principles of evolution are true.

Science is about engaging in experience, conducting experiments, and gathering empirical evidence that can either support of rebuff a well-structured hypothesis. That's what it is. It's not science if you have one eye wandering off to worry about what might be the political or sociological consequences of the findings of the research, and allow your findings to be guided by that. And it's most definitely not science if you're just trying to conjure up an explanation for things with your desired conclusions already in mind. Once you decide to bastardize the search for truth into an agenda with a preferred outcome, you have shifted gears into pseudoscience and sophistry.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'll use Occam's Razor, based upon assuming that aliens exist, assuming they have FTL drives, that they had the technology to seed life on planets, that they were unaffected by the time paradoxes that are caused by travelling the speed of light, etc., or merely assuming that there is a Supreme Being, I think the Supreme Being premise wins.

Now, will I argue that the other is not at least possible, I'll grant you that.

I'd say they BOTH sound about equally far-fetched to me. And actually, we know that life came into existence at least once, so we actually do have evidence that suggests the life might have arose elsewhere in the universe. So score one for the alien theory.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay, let's just say that an understanding of the principles of evolution have the potential to lead one toward other ideas that are themselves potentially dangerous or harmful. That's possible. But it doesn't have any bearing on whether the principles of evolution are [i]true[/u].

Certainly, and that's not even my point - I was responding to a post which I thought went the other way, that Darwinian thinking naturally leads to a nicer world.

And your point works with other subjects, too - just because there is an historical fact called The Inquisition, doesn't mean Christianity is invalid.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I think this is a valid point. But then I still have to wonder about the dichotomy between science and philosophy. I don't see them as necessarily separated. Does the scientist have a scientific basis for saying that everything we experience is only experienced through our senses? If the answer is yes, then I would think there should be experiments that have proven this is the case. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read very much in this area, but would be curious to know if there have been scientific studies that have proven that all we can know is only the natural. It seems the scientist accepts this presupposition, one that is philosophical, without having scientific evidence to support it. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

The double standard comes in asking the ID sympathizer for a completely scientific explanation of their position when that position is philosophical (I'm assuming as much based on the court's decision cited earlier) when the scientist can't support the grounding assumptions of their work without resorting to philosophical presuppositions.

So I guess the bigger question for me comes down to how this is all framed. Why is the onus on the ID sympathizer to prove their position scientifically without philosophy? Why is the onus not on the scientist to prove their position scientifically without philosophy? I suppose the scientist might say that the onus is on the one who needs to prove something scientifically. But then we're back to the original question. Can the statement 'the onus is on the person needing to prove something' be itself proven scientifically? I could be wrong, but it seems there haven't been experiments done to prove this statement to be true and we're back to philosophy again.

How this plays itself out in the classroom, I have no idea. Maybe we need to teach philosophy of science alongside science. Maybe we do need to teach philosophy in the science classroom and be objective about its philosophical assumptions. All this to say that I think it's a bit disingenuous for science to distance itself from the non-scientific when it seems firmly embedded in the non-scientific in its grounding assumptions.

From my recollection of school, science (of all varieties) was always explained as arising from the basis of a few axioms. These axioms couldn't be proved (or at least wouldn't in that class), but it was clear that an assumption of truth was required to build on them and discuss science. Discussions on the truth of the axioms would be appropriate in a philosophy class, but it is the axioms which define science. Adding ID to the science class implies that they are built on the same axioms and should be tested within the bounds of science.

It doesn't really make sense to say that our definition of science could be wrong so anything else *could* be called science.

Religion is a Truth like science that you can't prove without some basic principals. Faith provides the religious axioms from which everything else is derived. The comparative discussions of scientific axioms and religious faith is pretty much the definition of philosophy, isn't it?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Which is harder to explain:

An all-powerful, all-knowing being that created everything in the universe, including all life.

or

Complex life forms evolving from simple molecules as guided by environmental forces gradually over a vast amount of time.


It's hard to wrap your mind around the complexity that we see in the world arising from very simple molecules, but to me, it's easier to understand than the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who controls the whole show.

I think this is basically a fair distillation of the vast opportunity that lies here for snake oil. It's exactly because issues of cosmology and infinity and very long periods of time are so staggering to us that most of us have trouble "wrapping our minds" around this stuff. And when someone comes along and reinforces our intuitions with a little bit of spruced-up showmanship, we are attracted to it, as it just feels like an easier way to explain things.

Whether it's relativity, quantum mechanics, complex number theory, or life origins -- there are some areas of inquiry that just get beyond our basic capacity to effectively grasp. Talk to an average high-school graduate about any of these topics and the science that underlies it, and you will lose him pretty quickly. If someone else comes along with a snappy-sounding "alternative" that is specifically constructed to make sense of things in simpler and more accessible terms, and he might find that much more comfortable.

Problem is, he'll end up believing in phlogiston and faith healing and ESP and all manner of things for which there's no evidence outside of a nifty story. Meanwhile, the real explanations behind things are still what they are, regardless of how difficult they may be to articulate or grasp. The bottom line is that our own ability, as lay people, to make judgments about these things, is a rather poor yardstick for what's really at work. We just don't process huge numbers, and unfamiliar frames of reference, very well -- and to try to understand things like this, we fail ourselves.

And that, ultimately, is the foothold for these specious ideas. Whatever started the process of evolution, it remains completely staggering to many/most of us that it could have all started with tiny, simple beings that changed over a long time into the range of complex things we see today. Every part of that concept is basically beyond our ability to judge it fairly -- the numbers, the time periods involved, everything. And our innate instinct is to reject the theory. The fact that many people and organizations have a vested interest in the sort of options we move on to by rejecting the considerable science just makes this the perfect opportunity for them to engage the issue. And by pointing out what we intuitively feel -- that it's *hard* to see how a tiny swimming creature can ever become a zebra or whatever -- then they have their opening to present a simpler, more approachable theory. It has nothing to do with what is real, or what is justified by the evidence -- it's just a wide-open opportunity to lure people away from what we believe to be true and toward something else that has some attractive conclusions in mind.

[KWhit]

One of the main ideas behind ID is that life is so complex that it is impossible for it to have evolved into what it is today - it had to be designed by an intelligent designer.

If that's the case, who created the intelligent designer? There had to be a designer to design Him too, right?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by KWhit

One of the main ideas behind ID is that life is so complex that it is impossible for it to have evolved into what it is today - it had to be designed by an intelligent designer.

If that's the case, who created the intelligent designer? There had to be a designer to design Him too, right?

Maybe there is.

Maybe the answer is that "science" in this case is all wet and that man isn't as smart as it thinks it is.

I'd guess the answer to these questions are things we as people can't even imagine.

I mean isn't the science we are talking about just a way to explain life in a way our minds can grasp at this point?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Science is about engaging in experience, conducting experiments, and gathering empirical evidence that can either support of rebuff a well-structured hypothesis. That's what it is. It's not science if you have one eye wandering off to worry about what might be the political or sociological consequences of the findings of the research, and allow your findings to be guided by that. And it's most definitely not science if you're just trying to conjure up an explanation for things with your desired conclusions already in mind. Once you decide to bastardize the search for truth into an agenda with a preferred outcome, you have shifted gears into pseudoscience and sophistry.

I like the idea of defining science as that is definitely useful.

I will agree that on the surface, a good scientist does not have a desired conclusion in mind before starting an experiment at a micro level. However, it seems they do have a desired conclusion nonetheless at a macro level. The desired conclusion, however it takes shape, is a scientifically verifiable one. Either the hypothesis panned out or it didn't and we can verify that from our experiment. That macro level outcome is preferred and one to which scientists are biased. I won't say it's a purposeful bastardization of the search for truth, pseudoscience or sophistry. It's just what scientists do. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with their preferred outcome.

It's when scientists suggest that the reason for their preferred outcome is scientific that they seem to be engaged in doublespeak. Their claim to having no preferred outcome is itself a preferred outcome. It also seems to be a philosophically based position and not a scientifically based position. I'm open to being wrong though if there are experiments out there that prove that the assumptions grounding science are scientific and not philosophical.

Alright, I'll shut up on this point now.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Certainly, and that's not even my point - I was responding to a post which I thought went the other way, that Darwinian thinking naturally leads to a nicer world.

And your point works with other subjects, too - just because there is an historical fact called The Inquisition, doesn't mean Christianity is invalid.

My post in no way said that darwinian thought leads to a nicer world, just that large amounts of genocide has been infact done by creationists.


Evolution is by nature, expansionist. Evolution creates more species, not less. Evolution fosters variation. The wider the gene pool, the better. Hitler's ideas were not evolutionist.

His were like most other tyrant's: An idea twisted to its extreme. His ideas were as much evolutionist as Al Sharpton's are about equal rights.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

With regards to Hitler/Darwinsm - firstly Hitler referred to to "Holy Blood", "God's Will", "Divine Destiny" frequently in his speeches and many people believe he thought God wanted him to do what he did.

Hitler also believed himself a christian - however few christians would acccept that for the same obvious reasons that people try and 'tar' Dawinsm using his name.

Lets just leave it as "He was nuts and evil to boot" ... luckily I doubt anyone really knows what was going on in his head.

Generally agree with your last point, but its also a fact that he referenced evolution and Darwin as a justification for his ideas. This is not to say he interpreted Darwin correctly, or even coherently, but what I was responding to was the assertion that genocide and creationism are somehow correlative.

[Kodos]

It's easy to imagine a god who just created everything, and it provides a nice explanation for what we see around us. Until you have to explain how the god came into being, and where he got his powers.

I highly recommend Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker. It addresses how things can appear to have been designed without needing an actual designer. He does a good job of explaining things in layman's terms.

[Kodos]

All I know is that highly religious people seem to be causing a lot more conflict and bloodshed in the world today than atheists and people who believe in evolution.

[MJ4H]

Even highly religous people can be misguided.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Kodos

It's easy to imagine a god who just created everything, and it provides a nice explanation for what we see around us. Until you have to explain how the god came into being, and where he got his powers.

Not at all. How do we explain how everything got here to begin with?

There are two big theories:

1) A Supreme Being brought himself into being and created it.

2) There was this singularity that for some reason blew up.

If you buy string theory, there was this 10 dimensional universe which broke down to a 6 dimensional one and a 4 dimensional one where we reside.

Which one you think is more far fetched is up to everyone to decide for themselves.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Not at all. How do we explain how everything got here to begin with?

There are two big theories:

1) A Supreme Being brought himself into being and created it.

2) There was this singularity that for some reason blew up.

If you buy string theory, there was this 10 dimensional universe which broke down to a 6 dimensional one and a 4 dimensional one where we reside.

Which one you think is more far fetched is up to everyone to decide for themselves.

and in the same way you question who designed the supreme being that designed life you could question how exactly this singularity that blew up came to be.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Science is about engaging in experience, conducting experiments, and gathering empirical evidence that can either support of rebuff a well-structured hypothesis. That's what it is. It's not science if you have one eye wandering off to worry about what might be the political or sociological consequences of the findings of the research, and allow your findings to be guided by that. And it's most definitely not science if you're just trying to conjure up an explanation for things with your desired conclusions already in mind. Once you decide to bastardize the search for truth into an agenda with a preferred outcome, you have shifted gears into pseudoscience and sophistry.

I just want to add that economic issues cloud matters as well. There is very little "true" science going on today.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

and in the same way you question who designed the supreme being that designed life you could question how exactly this singularity that blew up came to be.

No argument.

EDIT: That is exactly the point I was trying to make. You can make a pretty powerful argument that the universe is God.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Generally agree with your last point, but its also a fact that he referenced evolution and Darwin as a justification for his ideas.

He also referenced god as justification for his ideas.

[cartman]

While Ben was filming this instructional documentary, the executive producer was trying the catch the Darwinists in a lie, but was always one step behind while they were tooling around in a classic Ferrari and impersonating Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Synovia

He also referenced god as justification for his ideas.

God /= Creationism

[st.cronin]

dola, or rather:

belief in God /= belief in Creationism

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

God /= Creationism

I wasn't saying it did.


I was saying that using "Hitler thought this" to justify anything is a pretty poor argument. Almost as poor as "Because God told me so"



Both evolutionists and creation thinkers have been guilty of genocide. Neither has anything to do with genocide.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Both evolutionists and creation thinkers have been guilty of genocide. Neither has anything to do with genocide.

Yes, that was exactly my point.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Adolf Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin in working out his ideas. Also see: Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin, Manifest Destiny. The list of genocides/atrocities coming from a Darwinian viewpoint is quite long and horrifying.

I am not religious, and on the other side I do not care to research Darwinism. I know the general theory and have left it at that, but obviously there is something in the details which I do not know that connects to this.

If it doesn't require you to spend a ton of time making a long post perhaps you could explain the connection between the Darwinian view and genocides/racism, I am interested knowing what it is. If it is something too long to get into then perhaps a link to somewhere that dives into.

Thanks.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yes, that was exactly my point.

Thats what I thought. Why were we arguing again?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I am not religious, and on the other side I do not care to research Darwinism. I know the general theory and have left it at that, but obviously there is something in the details which I do not know that connects to this.

If it doesn't require you to spend a ton of time making a long post perhaps you could explain the connection between the Darwinian view and genocides/racism, I am interested knowing what it is. If it is something too long to get into then perhaps a link to somewhere that dives into.

Thanks.

I don't have anything at my fingertips, but it was something like: conflict between states is analogous to Natural Selection, and frequent war makes states more vigorous; this justifies wars of aggression. Certain races are biologically inferior, and should not be allowed to reproduce, as they will weaken the overall gene pool of the state; this justifies forced euthanasia, genocide, extermination of the Jews.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I am not religious, and on the other side I do not care to research Darwinism. I know the general theory and have left it at that, but obviously there is something in the details which I do not know that connects to this.

If it doesn't require you to spend a ton of time making a long post perhaps you could explain the connection between the Darwinian view and genocides/racism, I am interested knowing what it is. If it is something too long to get into then perhaps a link to somewhere that dives into.

Thanks.

Cringer, most of it comes from a misunderstanding that abusing those weaker than you is some part of evolution. IE, that it was ok for the US to invade Iraq because they can, because Iraq is weaker.

The problem is, theres no real clear meaning to the word Darwinism.


Despots have used "Survival of the fittest" as an excuse. Thats not what darwinism is about.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

At its core, isn't science grounded in some type of philosophy though (of course contingent on how we define philosophy)?

Yes, Logic. the Principles of Logic are the foundational principles of mathematics and science Logic is an element of Philosophy.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Kodos

All I know is that highly religious people seem to be causing a lot more conflict and bloodshed in the world today than atheists and people who believe in evolution.

Of course they do, they are a significantly higher portion of the world's population. You'll also note the world's greatest humanitarians are motived by more than mere atheism, from Martin Luther King, Jr to Ghandi to Mother Theresa.

To hold a belief hostage because some adherants to that belief do no fully practice it, when we all admit that none of us is perfect, seems flawed. Weigh the belief on its own merits.

[Logan]

I'm not trying to stir up shit, but I'd like to hear a response from revrew about the articles posted that pointed out the "real" reasons for why his buddy was denied tenure.

[TroyF]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

One of my favorite quotes from Einstein.

Schools should teach the sceince. Parents should teach the religion in the home.

I'm just impressed this thread has stayed civil.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm just impressed this thread has stayed civil.

I've been involved in about a half dozen or so of these ID/creationism/evolution or athiest-type debates here and each one has stayed civil and had some very good discourse and discussion on the various topics.

I agree, it is impressive.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I've been involved in about a half dozen or so of these ID/creationism/evolution or athiest-type debates here and each one has stayed civil and had some very good discourse and discussion on the various topics.

I agree, it is impressive.

+2

[Kodos]

Just responding to the evolution --> Hitler remark.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Yes, Logic. the Principles of Logic are the foundational principles of mathematics and science Logic is an element of Philosophy.

I would have said that Science relies on faith in the same way as religion - however the faith it relies upon is vastly different.

Science relies on faith in the human experience - that is what we experience and observe is accurate and 'real'.

Just because the most people accept this blindly doesn't mean that its true - after all its only a few hundred years since the vast people blindly accepted that the world was flat etc.

For an example of how this 'faith' could be totally wrong watch the Matrix

Its also an example of how science and faith are not as wholly different as people would like to think they are - science is inherantly untestable because all tests involve a subjective observation which could in essence be flawed but undetectably so.

[CamEdwards]

How much has Darwinism influenced a guy like Peter Singer? I wonder if that would have been a more politically correct reference for Stein to have made... not to mention he wouldn't have invoked Godwin's Law.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

How much has Darwinism influenced a guy like Peter Singer? I wonder if that would have been a more politically correct reference for Stein to have made... not to mention he wouldn't have invoked Godwin's Law.

Was Singer the one who made the claim, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy?"

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Not at all. How do we explain how everything got here to begin with?

There are two big theories:

1) A Supreme Being brought himself into being and created it.

2) There was this singularity that for some reason blew up.

If you buy string theory, there was this 10 dimensional universe which broke down to a 6 dimensional one and a 4 dimensional one where we reside.

Which one you think is more far fetched is up to everyone to decide for themselves.

Those aren't theories because they cannot be tested using the scientific method. They are philosopical ideas.

[Buccaneer]

Not really reading much after QS's well measured response, it still a bit jarring to me to see ID being creationism. As someone said, it appears they hijacked it and dressed it up to soft pedal creationism. That is unfortunate. I guess I have stop think of it as what I knew was ID from a long time ago and call it something else, which I don't think is the issue being discussed.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Adolf Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin in working out his ideas. Also see: Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin, Manifest Destiny. The list of genocides/atrocities coming from a Darwinian viewpoint is quite long and horrifying.

As opposed to the list of religious genocides/atrocities? This says more about humans than it does religious beliefs or lack of.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by bignej

Those aren't theories because they cannot be tested using the scientific method. They are philosopical ideas.

Fine, use the word hypotheses then. They are not philosophical ideas. The fact that no one has created an experiment that can prove or disprove them does not relegate them to the area of philosophy.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Fine, use the word hypotheses then. They are not philosophical ideas. The fact that no one has created an experiment that can prove or disprove them does not relegate them to the area of philosophy.

actually, that combined with the lack of any supporting scientific evidence does precisely that

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Fine, use the word hypotheses then. They are not philosophical ideas. The fact that no one has created an experiment that can prove or disprove them does not relegate them to the area of philosophy.

Noone has created an experiment for my santa clause theory ,er I mean, hypotheses. I demand that it be included on equal footing with other scientific theories. People believe Santa doesn't exist because they have evidence in seing their parents putting gifts under the tree. I refuse to believe them because I *want* there to be a jolly fat man somehwere giving away free stuff. Every religious debate has this same thing come up. Yes it is possible that a God created the universe. The problem is that very sentence is all the evidence that a God exists. Its just an idea supported by only faith and hope. There isnt anything to be taught in the classroom except that which is why it should not be in Science. Also being a philosophical idea is not a bad thing as most theories start as philosophical ideas. Bring me evidence and we'll move on to the next step.

On a small tangent, When my mother died last year, everyone was saying that you will see her in heaven, just accept Jesus Christ. Your mother is watching you right now and you will join her one day. I think it's all a big "fairy tale" we tell people to help them cope with the unknown after death. It does work. Kids feel better "knowing" that they will see their mother one day and all is not lost. Your mom isnt rotting below ground in a box. The problem is noone tells them later that its probably not true, and then the cycle repeats itself. Unlike the Santa Cluase thing, They don't catch there parents putting gifts under a tree to realize its a hoax. I have a 15 yr old step sister in law in TX who has never heard of evolution but knows all about the wonders of god(WTF!).

Personally, I could give a rats ass if someone believes. Just don't teach it in science, don't preach at my door, and keep your moral highground out of politics. I live a good life because I "know" its the only one I'll have so the morals thing is bogus.

[Marc Vaughan]

Noone has created an experiment for my santa clause theory ,er I mean, hypotheses. I demand that it be included on equal footing with other scientific theories. People believe Santa doesn't exist because they have evidence in seing their parents putting gifts under the tree. I refuse to believe them because I *want* there to be a jolly fat man somehwere giving away free stuff. Every religious debate has this same thing come up. Yes it is possible that a God created the universe. The problem is that very sentence is all the evidence that a God exists. Its just an idea supported by only faith and hope. There isnt anything to be taught in the classroom except that which is why it should not be in Science. Also being a philosophical idea is not a bad thing as most theories start as philosophical ideas. Bring me evidence and we'll move on to the next step.

The same could be argued with Science though - man wants to 'make sense' of things and believe that everything has order and can be controlled.

To encourage this delusion man is arrogant enough to believe that his observations are accurate and that the leaps of assumptions he takes from the myriad of small conclusions is perfect enough to warrant faith in.

For a 'non-matrix' example of how our interpretation of reality might be incorrect - man only knows a limited amount about the brain, yet we label a vast many things through what we presume is a common basis of reality.

For instance if two humans see something then we will describe it differently, but we presume both of us saw the same thing - it could be that our senses act differently and that both of our views are incorrect.

Essentially what I'm saying is that mankind as a species may be limited in some manner in the same way which a blind man is and not know it - yet we blunder forward presuming we aren't because we want to believe we are in control of our destinies and able to master the world around us.

(and yes I'm arguing this case mainly because I find it an intruiging idea rather than because I personally believe in it)

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Essentially what I'm saying is that mankind as a species may be limited in some manner in the same way which a blind man is and not know it - yet we blunder forward presuming we aren't because we want to believe we are in control of our destinies and able to master the world around us.

This has been (more eloquently) my outlook with committing to organized faith or classifying myself as atheistic. I suppose I would classify myself as more atheistic by my actions(or inactions), but not willing to commit myself as I am convinced(or choose to believe, if you will) there are too many things which mankind is unable/incapable of understanding.

This is a common question I find myself using nearly on a daily basis...do we even know, what we dont know? And because I "think" the answer is no, I cannot commit myself to a path which I cannot be true to. I can only keep myself open to possibility.