Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[King of New York]

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.

As I understand it, the connection works like this: Darwin said that the evolutionary process is driven by competition among species. He himself shied away from discussing competition within a single species--he didn't like the idea of "social Darwinism," in part because he sensed the sort of conclusions that others would reach if one accepted that competition within species was important as competition among species.

Sure enough, some folks (Hitler among them) accepted that competition within a single species existed, and that for the species to thrive, its weaker elements had to be weeded out. For Hitler, that meant weeding out the inferior "races" so that the stronger "races" could flourish and were not sharing living space, food, and bad genes with the inferior races. That's why the Nazis gassed the physically disabled, the elderly, and psychiatric patients, the Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, and most especially Jews.

So, yes, Hitler's thinking was rooted in his own peculiar understanding of Darwin. That an acceptance of the reality of natural selection leads automatically to genocide, though, is quite a stretch, I think.

[King of New York]

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.

Hitler, yes. Manifest Destiny, no--that idea circulated before Darwin published his main works. Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were communists, and Marx published the Communist Manifesto before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. If anything, Darwin, with his emphasis on all history being the history of struggle, might have been borrowing a bit from Marx.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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

I don't know that I'd say I "believe" in what you outline (I'm always careful to use that term with topics like this), but that's close to how I picture things. We experience the universe the way we do because of the senses we were given - sight in particular plays a big part for us. Our brain takes in what our senses feed it and paints the picture of the universe that we have. But what's the universe to a microscopic organism - or even a blind mole rat? Something very, very different from what it is to us, that's for sure.

I feel we are definitely limited in how well we can understand the world. Science is our attempt to understand and predict how things work from our perspective, and it does a pretty good job of that for the most part. But I don't believe we will ever understand how the universe truly works because there is no answer to that question due to the question itself being a very "human" one anyway, and because the universe is just so damn big and inclusive, from the micro-micro-microscopic level to the impossibly immense universal perspective.

I hate to drag a Will Smith movie in to it, but the final scene in Men In Black comes to mind, when the camera pans right out and our entire universe just ends up being a small little insignificant marble that's part of an infinitely larger whole. You could easily do the opposite and zoom right in as well.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by bignej

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..

Actually you are kind of contradicting yourself here. In your example, your belief has been disproven. No one has yet to conclusively prove there is no God. Additionally, no one has yet proven that he exists. Heck, by your own argument, the Big Bang should not be taught in schools.

The discussion is not about God, I never argued that God or the concept that God created the universe should be taught in schools.

My point was to boil down the basic concepts down to their core. My point was how do you explain God coming into being and his powers. The whole premise behind a Supreme Being is that he is able to bring himself into being and create the world around us.

God should not be taught in schools. That is for church and the family to take care of.

Going off on a tangent here:

My concern is that we are beginning to move into territory in several areas where we think that we are all knowing and all powerful. We think we know everything and try to explain things by science, but unfortunately, much of the "science" that is now going on is not for the sake of knowledge, but is to push an agenda or to secure additional funding, etc. Look at government SBIRs. The way they are set up, they are begging for results in a predetermined direction. Show them just enough and you move on to the next stage with a lot more money.

As we move down this path, we are becoming a less and less ethical soceity. Many people think nothing of creating different creatures and organisms to do things without thinking of the repercussions of what they have done. We are creating bacteria to do many different things. One thing about bacteria is that they share genes rapidly due to a variety of factors. What happens if one of these bacteria close up some weakness is a previous benign bacteria? What happens if we accidentally create super bugs that menace society?

Sure, we agree that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are all dangerous. We have strict controls on them. What about the bacteria that is created to digest oil more efficiently than naturally occurring bacteria? What effects on the environment will that have if some of those bacteria get into the wild? It might be nothing, but it could be something terrible to behold. With great power, you must have great responsibility, and I'm not sure we have that as a whole right now.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I feel we are definitely limited in how well we can understand the world. Science is our attempt to understand and predict how things work from our perspective, and it does a pretty good job of that for the most part. But I don't believe we will ever understand how the universe truly works because there is no answer to that question due to the question itself being a very "human" one anyway, and because the universe is just so damn big and inclusive, from the micro-micro-microscopic level to the impossibly immense universal perspective.

One thing that strikes me about this, and ties in to what Marc said pertains to stars. There is something called and Eddington limit where in theory stars that massive cannot exist because internal pressures blow them apart, or something along those lines. Yet, we get data about some stars and rather than assume that the data is correct, we immediately assume that the data is incorrect and the model is right. Yet, we then see some peculiarities near the galactic core, and assume that it has to do with the galactic core that allows for the mass limit to be exceeded. That may be the case, but then isn't the model wrong? Shouldn't the model be taking into account other external forces that might keep the mass together?

Sure, sometimes we recheck data and find out that it is wrong, but other times we find out that it is correct. Why are we unwilling to admit that some models are wrong and tweak them?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

One thing that strikes me about this, and ties in to what Marc said pertains to stars. There is something called and Eddington limit where in theory stars that massive cannot exist because internal pressures blow them apart, or something along those lines. Yet, we get data about some stars and rather than assume that the data is correct, we immediately assume that the data is incorrect and the model is right. Yet, we then see some peculiarities near the galactic core, and assume that it has to do with the galactic core that allows for the mass limit to be exceeded. That may be the case, but then isn't the model wrong? Shouldn't the model be taking into account other external forces that might keep the mass together?

Sure, sometimes we recheck data and find out that it is wrong, but other times we find out that it is correct. Why are we unwilling to admit that some models are wrong and tweak them?

I'd say that's probably because that same model "accurately" (or, maybe to be more exact, "observably") works with a lot (or all) of the other data they have, so they assume that the new data must be wrong, rather than the model, because that opens a bigger can of worms.

IMO the scientific community and the organised religious community share more in common with each other than they'd probably admit, and this problem you outlined is a good example of that. They are both like any other groups (historians come to mind as well) in that they have their fundamentalists, their radicals, their prejudices, etc. They are both trying to explain pretty much the same issues, but by using different reasoning - the observable against the spiritual.

To an atheist like myself the scientific explanation appeals to me because I can see its results right now as I type away on a computer to a bunch of people on the other side of the world. Religious people see the same thing but link it to a different source, which admittedly does baffle me, though I have my own beliefs as to why they do.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Sure, sometimes we recheck data and find out that it is wrong, but other times we find out that it is correct. Why are we unwilling to admit that some models are wrong and tweak them?

The ironic thing is that is exactly what science is willing to do and religion is not, and yet you're using it as an argument against science. Science is all about hypothesis based on observation, theories based on evidence and the willingness to alter or drop either when evidence proves them to be incorrect. But I'm sure you already knew that...

[Groundhog]

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.

On the general side, I think people give Darwin a little too much credit with much of this. Racism/discrimination existed long before Darwin was born.

(insert name of evil dude) was an atheist (or Darwinist) gets thrown around a lot.

Hitler, the first example, was religious - Christian in fact - and if he knew about Darwin and had read any of his work he sure never mentioned it, instead justifying his views on Jews and Aryans on biblical grounds - even referring to the bible as a "monumental history of Mankind". It was bloodlines more than evolutionary lines that he was concerned with, and that's a prejudice that far pre-dates Darwin.

Of course, I don't think it matters whether or not Hitler was Christian, Atheist, or a Pastafarian. It's irrelevant. I just take offense to people implying that guys in the list St. Cronin supplied did what they did because they were Atheists/Darwinists/etc.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The ironic thing is that is exactly what science is willing to do and religion is not, and yet you're using it as an argument against science. Science is all about hypothesis based on observation, theories based on evidence and the willingness to alter or drop either when evidence proves them to be incorrect. But I'm sure you already knew that...

But what we're trying to demonstrate is that science is partially faith based also.

In the example talked about Scientists have found data which appears to disprove one of their theories - however rather than discard it they have decided that because it seems sensible in most cases they'll retain it and presume that the data in question is flawed in some manner.

This is a demonstration of faith in their theory in the face of the available facts.

Not vastly dissimilar to relgious people saying that they believe something when an aetheist can provide facts to disprove its effect (say with the studies into the effects of praying or similar).

In both instances people choose to ignore the raw facts available because of their beliefs in an established system which they have invested time and belief into.

(if you doubt peoples flexibility when it comes to changing a belief system they have emotionally invested in then consider the amount of political arguements most adults have had over time .... then think about how often you've had someone in the discussion say "Oh you're right thats correct I'll convert over to party 'x'" ... not that many I'd expect )

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

In the example talked about Scientists have found data which appears to disprove one of their theories - however rather than discard it they have decided that because it seems sensible in most cases they'll retain it and presume that the data in question is flawed in some manner.

Well its a given that the evidence has to be reliable and repeatable if you're going to alter a well established theory to account for it.... nothing unreasonable about that IMO.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Well its a given that the evidence has to be reliable and repeatable if you're going to alter a well established theory to account for it.... nothing unreasonable about that IMO.

With much of the advanced physics there is no 'reliable' evidence really imho - we've working off 'evidence' that is seen from a vast distance (in the instance you mentioned the 'reliable' data is sampled in exactly the same way as the unreliable data and is just as repeatable - just it doesn't fit the theory).

Following on from this - You must admit that in many advanced scientific areas (notably Quantum Physics and that ilk) there are many theories where data is incomplete or debatable - yet the theories themselves stand and are built upon with the assumption they're true.

For instance Dark Matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) - not much is known about it, but its presumed it exists because several other theories indiccate that it does.

There's nothing 'reliable' or 'repeatable' about it and the current evidence for its existance from the 'motions of galaxies' seems a tad far unscientific to the uneducated eye (ie. mine).

I'm not saying that I doubt its existance - however I think its existance is largely a matter of faith amongst the scientific community at present because logically speaking they have insufficient data with which to prove the theory.

This insufficient proof hasn't stopped large numbers of vastly intelligent people from spending years researching about it though.

(to be frank I'm somewhat cynical about most of the 'higher' physics research - the levels at which the studies are done - ie. movements of galaxies etc. tend to lend themselves to huge inaccuracies in any data or equations which might be developed from them imho ... it reminds me a little too much of my pure maths degree where after 2 days working out some population modelling you'd find the answer was 4.27 with an error quotient of +/- 2,000,000,000* .... ie. worthless because of the inaccuracies in the results)

*Ok so I've exagerrated just a tad

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

In the example talked about Scientists have found data which appears to disprove one of their theories - however rather than discard it they have decided that because it seems sensible in most cases they'll retain it and presume that the data in question is flawed in some manner.

And it works. To presume data is correct would be disasterous. Data shouldn't be considered true until it's been independantly verified several times over. There have been too many times throughout history where data was intentionally falsified in order for a scientist (or I should say "scientist") to push a polticial/religious/moral/etc. agenda.

If the first time specific data comes up and we don't presume it is flawed until it's been verified, then the system won't work.

For example, there are several scientists who insist their data proves homeopathy works. Are we to just take them at their word and develop a Theory of Homoeopathy, or should we be skeptical and demand their experiments be repeated to verify their results? I hope you said the second, because every attempt to recreate these (alleged) homoepathy experiments have resulted in showing that it is in fact not real, and if they came up with the data they claimed to, they either lied about it or the test was contaminated.

And yeah, if the data is shown to be true, there will still be some who doubt it just to hold on to their beliefs (the name Fred Hoyle comes to mind). People can be stubborn/intentially ignorant regardless of their education, background, religious beliefs, etc. We all can be, and have been, I'm sure. The good thing about science is that there is no central authority that determines what data is valid and which isn't. There is simply data and models, and everyone out there is free if to experiment/observe them all they want. There are plenty of scientists out there that would love to make a name for themself. If they see that the data doesn't match the model, they'll be more than happy to jump on it and hope to come up with their own model.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This insufficient proof hasn't stopped large numbers of vastly intelligent people from spending years researching about it though.

This statement makes no sense. Exactly how is anything "proven" if no one researches it? ("Proven" in quotes since theories are never proven)

And "Dark Matter" isn't the only idea out there to explain the observations of the motion of galaxies (why they move faster than the amount of visible mass would suggest), but it does have observational data to support it while the others do not.

[sabotai]

double dola,

Since someone brought up their favorite quote from Einstein, I'll bring up one of mine, and it very simply describes how modern science works.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

This statement makes no sense. Exactly how is anything "proven" if no one researches it? ("Proven" in quotes since theories are never proven)

What I meant wasn't that people were trying to prove the theory - rather that people are building theories upon the fact that it is true before it has been proven.

Its this act which I mean by 'faith' in scientists - there are very intelligent people out there spending their entire careers researching and building upon such theories relying solely upon their 'faith' that the premise they're building upon is true.

And "Dark Matter" isn't the only idea out there to explain the observations of the motion of galaxies (why they move faster than the amount of visible mass would suggest), but it does have observational data to support it while the others do not.

I'm aware of that - however do you agree that while there is data available to support it the limitations of that data is quite severe.

(which again is all I was trying to present rather than to critique "Dark Matter" as a theory itself)

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

With much of the advanced physics there is no 'reliable' evidence really imho - we've working off 'evidence' that is seen from a vast distance (in the instance you mentioned the 'reliable' data is sampled in exactly the same way as the unreliable data and is just as repeatable - just it doesn't fit the theory).

Following on from this - You must admit that in many advanced scientific areas (notably Quantum Physics and that ilk) there are many theories where data is incomplete or debatable - yet the theories themselves stand and are built upon with the assumption they're true.

For instance Dark Matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) - not much is known about it, but its presumed it exists because several other theories indiccate that it does.

There's nothing 'reliable' or 'repeatable' about it and the current evidence for its existance from the 'motions of galaxies' seems a tad far unscientific to the uneducated eye (ie. mine).

I'm not saying that I doubt its existance - however I think its existance is largely a matter of faith amongst the scientific community at present because logically speaking they have insufficient data with which to prove the theory.

This insufficient proof hasn't stopped large numbers of vastly intelligent people from spending years researching about it though.

(to be frank I'm somewhat cynical about most of the 'higher' physics research - the levels at which the studies are done - ie. movements of galaxies etc. tend to lend themselves to huge inaccuracies in any data or equations which might be developed from them imho ... it reminds me a little too much of my pure maths degree where after 2 days working out some population modelling you'd find the answer was 4.27 with an error quotient of +/- 2,000,000,000* .... ie. worthless because of the inaccuracies in the results)

*Ok so I've exagerrated just a tad

As I have said in this thread a number of times... it is the fact that science on these complex questions is so unapproachable for lay people like us (and like Marc, who volunteers his "uneducated eye" above...that makes these issues so ripe for sophistry.

I don't claim to have a perfect handle on any of this myself, I too am a lay outsider in these realms. But my strong suspicion is that the above is largely overstatement to the point of absurdity. But a concept like Dark matter doesn't arise out of whole cloth "theory" -- it arises because it is a conceptual way that actually explains things that we observe. Its foundations are not entirely in chalkboards and inside supercomputers -- dark matter is a mechanism that help to explain the things that we actually observe in the cosmos, and does so better than any idea we have. Much the same logic applies to quantum physics -- it doesn't matter whether it sounds like gibberish to you and me, the simple fact of the matter is that every meaningful experiment we can conduct fits with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and does so far better than the simpler predictions of Newtonian or even Einsteinian mechanics that preceded it as the prevailing theory of physical behavior.

The fact that we tend to find these things mind boggling makes us suckers for someone who comes along with a snappier explanation. It doesn't, however, render them untrue or even suspect.

[Marc Vaughan]

it doesn't matter whether it sounds like gibberish to you and me, the simple fact of the matter is that every meaningful experiment we can conduct fits with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and does so far better than the simpler predictions of Newtonian or even Einsteinian mechanics that preceded it as the prevailing theory of physical behavior.

Surely though it can be conjectured that in the future it might be discovered that these explanations are as inaccurate as those sold to peasant in the 16th century by religious people to keep the masses content that the more intelligent members of their communities knew what was going on and were able to handle it?

You indiate that 'every meaningful experiment' proves the theories - however you admit yourself that you aren't conversant in such things, surely then you are showing blind faith in science - despite the information presented in this thread which places doubt upon some of its current beliefs*.

*Using scientific data which was sampled in exactly the same manner as the data which 'proves' the theory - reminds me a little of the early church picking and choosing which 'books' went into the bible myself

The fact that we tend to find these things mind boggling makes us suckers for someone who comes along with a snappier explanation. It doesn't, however, render them untrue or even suspect.

True enough - but it doesn't make them true either, in the absence of understandable proof I tend to err on the side of caution.

Personally I'd prefer scientists to do the same myself - especially when some of the experiments undertaken could have serious consequences if their knowledge is found to be flawed or incomplete (think along the lines of the experiments done with Nuclear energy originally - people watching bomb tests with minimal protective clothing etc.).

[revrew]

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.

Kodos, you know I love ya man, but this quote just royally ticked me off. How can you lump "highly religious" people into one group, when the differences between their religions make them philosophically, morally, sociologically, politically, and practically so fundamentally different?

In our world today, one of the largest religious groups believes in "blessed are the peacemakers" and another believes in "murder the infidels". How can you look at the second group and paint the first group with that brush? I would suggest that the first group is even MORE an opposite of the second group than atheists/evolutionists are.

One "highly religious" group of people gave us the Red Cross, Salvation army, practically invented the "hospital" (if I can lump Catholics in), World Vision, Food for the Hungry, etc. and are responsible for founding the vast majority of history's compassion and charitable organizations. You cannot lump that group in with Islamo-fascist terrorists just because they both believe in a higher power. The fundamental differences between a Christian and a jihadist Muslim make the two groups incomparable.

I don't mean to flame, here, but I am seriously offended by this kind of talk. In my community, who is manning soup kitchens, who is holding the hands of the abused women, who is counseling troubled couples away from the brink of divorce, who is encouraging and loving on troubled teenagers, who is sheltering single moms and helping them get a better start on life? It's those wacky, scary, dangerous, "highly religious" people. I'm sincerely thankful for the atheists who have decided to join us in our works of compassion, but historically, the Christians were feeding the poor while the atheists were still just a glimmer in their daddy's eye. I know all about the crusades and the inquisition and the shit that was done by so-called Christians in the MIddle ages, but until atheism produces its MOther Teresas, Gladys Aylwards, Geoge Muellers, Clara Bartons, Queen Margarets of Scotland, Franklin Grahams, and the like, it's got no business disparaging Christianity. And don't forget, Christianity may have its Bloody Marys, but atheism has its Margaret Sangers. It's about time we as a country realized just how valuable the "highly religious" among us actually are. Without them, we'd be one, sorry, selfish people.

[Neon_Chaos]

I think that in its core, Science welcomes itself to be disproven, changed, and eventually modified with each iteration, each test, and each experiment. It dares to be proven wrong so it can correct itself. Eventually, ten years down the line, people will know something we don't know now, twenty years, thirty, a hundred... it is continuous in its beautiful cycle of proving and disproving theories and concepts. It welcomes both the success and failure of these ideas in order to form a relative obvservation of how things work.

ID (well, what I know about ID) relies on the tenant that God is part of the process. It relies on a concept that noone is going to be able to prove or disprove conclusively. In its core is faith, which should not be considered as a science at all. It is based on a single pillar, which, if, by any chance, should be disproven (the gaps that are seen now that ID people indicate the presence of a supreme being might be solved in the future), sends the entire concept crashing. It does not welcome a scenario wherein the concept fails, therefore it should not be a science.

[bignej]

From my understanding, Science tries to disprove theories through experimentation. This allows them to fine tune their ideas, reexperiment them and then call it a theory. Just because someone doesnt believe in God (which doesn't mean that he couldn't exist) doesn't mean that they believe everything the scientific community puts out. Many scientists are split on the global warming issue and many are right now experimenting to disprove that it exists. Thats what science is. What happens is many people make the leap that God exists because he can't be disproven and they spend there entire lives in fear of him.

No scientist is 100% sure on the origins or life and they will readily admit that. Damn near 100% percent of believers will tell you flat out how life began but they can't figure out how to work their own computers.

Theories are supposed to be proven wrong. With enough evidence they become law, like gravity. Many of these scientists and there agendas have led us to have many of the things we have today, like electricity. Do you think there was oppostion back then about the "quality" of the experiments. Were the scientists "playing god"?

The fact that there are some shady "scientists" out there is no evidence for God.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by revrew

It's about time we as a country realized just how valuable the "highly religious" among us actually are. Without them, we'd be one, sorry, selfish people.

Yes, those "highly religious" people sure have been persecuted the last few centuries or so. I bet it's been rough.

[Marc Vaughan]

In our world today, one of the largest religious groups believes in "blessed are the peacemakers" and another believes in "murder the infidels". How can you look at the second group and paint the first group with that brush? I would suggest that the first group is even MORE an opposite of the second group than atheists/evolutionists are.

Not to be pedantic but all the major religions of the world today have nice happy loving passages and also some pretty grim stuff ...

As I remind my daughter when she's winding me up - "The bible says I can stone you for being disrespectful" ... or you can choose a selection of the following:

* You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20 "He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed" (King James)
* Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
* Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
* Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
* Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
* Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
* Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
* Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5
* Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
* Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
* Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8
* Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
* Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
* The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
* Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12
* False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

(sorry but I hate it when people bring up the imperfections of non-christian religions and presume that the bible hasn't got any similar passages - strangely yes I do consider myself a christian, thanks for asking )

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Surely though it can be conjectured that in the future it might be discovered that these explanations are as inaccurate as those sold to peasant in the 16th century by religious people to keep the masses content that the more intelligent members of their communities knew what was going on and were able to handle it?

Marc, Quantum theory will be found to be untrue in the same way Einstein's theory's are untrue: They'll be found to be accurate in almost every situation except for a few, at which time a more complex model will be derived.

Einsteins equations all essentially contain Newton's equations with outside conditions to handle the time distortion at higher speeds. If you reduce speed down to normal, einstein's equations become Newtons equations as things start cancelling out.

IE, Newton's aren't wrong, they're just accurate over limited speed.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Not to be pedantic but all the major religions of the world today have nice happy loving passages and also some pretty grim stuff ...

As I remind my daughter when she's winding me up - "The bible says I can stone you for being disrespectful" ... or you can choose a selection of the following:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

ETC.

(sorry but I hate it when people bring up the imperfections of non-christian religions and presume that the bible hasn't got any similar passages)

You CANNOT be serious. There are rules--called hermeneutics and orthodoxy--for determining the proper meaning of biblical passages. Of course, if you throw all those out the window and purposefully twist the words to say anything you want, you can make it sound pretty bad. Your list above...is bullshit interpretation from someone who has no clue what they're talking about. Without getting into a whole Bible study, just taking Exodus 22:20 above is a law established during the Iraelite theocracy for governing the Israelite nation. As you can see, religious freedom wasn't in their constitution. It is not, never was, and no reasonable interpreter (except some smartass jerk or heretical nutcase) has ever taken Exodus 22:20 as permission for Christians to kill nonbelievers. That whole argument is so strawman, it doesn't even merit this response.

[Marc Vaughan]

Marc, Quantum theory will be found to be untrue in the same way Einstein's theory's are untrue: They'll be found to be accurate in almost every situation except for a few, at which time a more complex model will be derived.

That could well be true - however the pyramid effect of building on the shoulders of previous scientists has the problem that at some stage a wrong turn may have been taken and it might take many many further iterations for us to discover it .... at that point we may have to scrap a large proportion of our 'knowledge' and start again.

Think of it like a rubics cube that is fully messed up - science has so far solved 2 of its sides so they're the same colour, they keep going - however when they get to the final side they realise that they'll have to undo all their prior work to get that one completed because one of the earlier changes was wrong.

It 'nearly' works but doesn't complete the puzzle ... unless you know the entire solution in advance you can't be certain you're heading in the right direction.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by revrew

One "highly religious" group of people gave us the Red Cross, Salvation army, practically invented the "hospital" (if I can lump Catholics in), World Vision, Food for the Hungry, etc. and are responsible for founding the vast majority of history's compassion and charitable organizations. You cannot lump that group in with Islamo-fascist terrorists just because they both believe in a higher power. The fundamental differences between a Christian and a jihadist Muslim make the two groups incomparable.

Apparantly you forgot about the crusades, the inquisition, Planned Parenthood bombings, etc.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by revrew

You CANNOT be serious. There are rules--called hermeneutics and orthodoxy--for determining the proper meaning of biblical passages. Of course, if you throw all those out the window and purposefully twist the words to say anything you want, you can make it sound pretty bad. Your list above...is bullshit interpretation from someone who has no clue what they're talking about. Without getting into a whole Bible study, just taking Exodus 22:20 above is a law established during the Iraelite theocracy for governing the Israelite nation. As you can see, religious freedom wasn't in their constitution. It is not, never was, and no reasonable interpreter (except some smartass jerk or heretical nutcase) has ever taken Exodus 22:20 as permission for Christians to kill nonbelievers. That whole argument is so strawman, it doesn't even merit this response.

But thats exactly what you're doing with other religions - you take the literal words from their religious texts and present them as proof that their religion is agressive.

I'm simply showing you that the same can be done with the bible.

If you talk to moderate Islamic scholars then they'll give you similar 'literary interpretations' of their passages as will scholars from all the other major religions.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Revrew, how do you reconcile the blessed peacemakers with well documented atrocities committed by the Church? How is that different than the Islamo-facists?

Thank you for an intelligent question. I mean it.

I imagine many Muslims would say (if their religious permitted them to criticize other Muslims, which I haver heard that it does NOT, but I'm no expert) that the Islamo-fascists are misinterpreting, not following the Koran correctly, and may even question their faith in Allah.

As for the atrocities committed by the church, I am permitted to say...those individuals and groups were acting in direct contradiction to their own founding documents (the Bible), their faith, and the God they "claim" to follow. The word "Christian" means follower of, or one becoming more like, Christ. Where the Church acts in an un-Christlike manner, it's not acting Christian. Frankly, many of the atrocities were committed by people that I sincerely doubt had Christian faith, but had faith more in a social system that carried Christianity in name only. Sadly, I am compelled to tell people - Anybody can do anything and SAY it's in the name of Jesus. If you want to know whether it's true or whether they're wolves pulling the wool over your eyes, you've got to look at Jesus and compare for yourself.

[Marc Vaughan]

As for the atrocities committed by the church, I am permitted to say...those individuals and groups were acting in direct contradiction to their own founding documents (the Bible), their faith, and the God they "claim" to follow.

Or rather as I was trying (badly) to point out - any religious text has passages in it which taken out of context can be used to encourage evil acts.

The Christians (largely) got through their stage of this many many years ago with the crusades etc. - but don't under-estimate the sectarian violence in Ireland etc. in fairly recent years.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

As I have said in this thread a number of times... it is the fact that science on these complex questions is so unapproachable for lay people like us (and like Marc, who volunteers his "uneducated eye" above...that makes these issues so ripe for sophistry.

I don't claim to have a perfect handle on any of this myself, I too am a lay outsider in these realms. But my strong suspicion is that the above is largely overstatement to the point of absurdity. But a concept like Dark matter doesn't arise out of whole cloth "theory" -- it arises because it is a conceptual way that actually explains things that we observe. Its foundations are not entirely in chalkboards and inside supercomputers -- dark matter is a mechanism that help to explain the things that we actually observe in the cosmos, and does so better than any idea we have. Much the same logic applies to quantum physics -- it doesn't matter whether it sounds like gibberish to you and me, the simple fact of the matter is that every meaningful experiment we can conduct fits with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and does so far better than the simpler predictions of Newtonian or even Einsteinian mechanics that preceded it as the prevailing theory of physical behavior.

The fact that we tend to find these things mind boggling makes us suckers for someone who comes along with a snappier explanation. It doesn't, however, render them untrue or even suspect.

I think you're missing the point slightly.

What Marc has expounded upon and what I was originally trying to point out is that there are scientists that are basing their whole work upon some studies that are not even confirmed yet or cannot be confirmed until new technologies that can measure these items are developed.

The point is not in the exact example, but the examples are attempts to illustrate the points.

Dark Matter was created to justify some observations regarding the expansion of the universe. Dark Matter makes quite a bit of sense, not all matter is luminous, you have vast absorbtion nebulas, you have planets, there are burned out stars, black holes, etc. Yet, when that didn't explain everything, there must be Dark Energy. That must make up the difference. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not have enough technology or sensitive enough technology to measure all this. Read up on some of this stuff. Its there because there isn't anything else there. But, it makes up 70% of all energy in the universe. But you can't really detect it because of its low density.

WHAT?!?!?

And no, this is not stuff that is going over my head. I understand, but this is a classic, we're observing X, and the only way to explain it is Y (fair enough). But we can't measure it, so we're going to assume it is true and go on down the road.

Isn't this the same thing that people are bashing religion for?

[Marc Vaughan]

I imagine many Muslims would say (if their religious permitted them to criticize other Muslims, which I haver heard that it does NOT, but I'm no expert) that the Islamo-fascists are misinterpreting, not following the Koran correctly, and may even question their faith in Allah.

I knew many Muslims in England and by and large they criticised the fundamental idiots of their faith in the same way in which Christians cringe when fundamentalists of their faith say and do stupid things.

(incidentally I've gone to christian churches where arguing points of the bible is considered incorrect and frowned upon - the 'ignorance is bliss' approach is something which universal to all relgions I'd expect)

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

But thats exactly what you're doing with other religions - you take the literal words from their religious texts and present them as proof that their religion is agressive.

I'm simply showing you that the same can be done with the bible.

If you talk to moderate Islamic scholars then they'll give you similar 'literary interpretations' of their passages as will scholars from all the other major religions.

A note of clarification: I wan't suggesting Christians and Muslims were such opposites, but that Christians and Islamo-fascists were opposites. I try to be very clear in making that distinction, but perhaps I failed in my state of consternation.

The Islamo-fascist jihadists take the "kill the infidels" literally as permission and even direction to do so through terror. I'm not saying that Islam is agressive or evil or terrorist, but only those that take up the banner of "kill the infidel" in the name if Islam. It is not the Muslims in general who are "causing the bloodshed", as Kodos said, but specifically these who consider murder a mandate.

My point in my rant was that I am offended that all "highly religious" people be lumped in with the terrorists. I am highly religious, and it is BECAUSE of that that I am actively involved in ministries of compassion, sacrificial giving, and so forth. I am a fanatic. I am a "religious extremist" in the truest sense of the word. But just being an extremist doesn't make you a murderer. And I resent the casual references that suggest religious extremism is an evil to be fought. On the contrary, I consider certain religious extremism to be valuable, crucial even, to our society's improvement.

(BTW, MV, thanks for responding so well to my rather heated and snotty reply. My bad. Thanks.)

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by revrew

You CANNOT be serious. There are rules--called hermeneutics and orthodoxy--for determining the proper meaning of biblical passages. Of course, if you throw all those out the window and purposefully twist the words to say anything you want, you can make it sound pretty bad. Your list above...is bullshit interpretation from someone who has no clue what they're talking about. Without getting into a whole Bible study, just taking Exodus 22:20 above is a law established during the Iraelite theocracy for governing the Israelite nation. As you can see, religious freedom wasn't in their constitution. It is not, never was, and no reasonable interpreter (except some smartass jerk or heretical nutcase) has ever taken Exodus 22:20 as permission for Christians to kill nonbelievers. That whole argument is so strawman, it doesn't even merit this response.

Whoops, hadn't seen rev's post before posting my comment: withdrawn.

[King of New York]

You know, the older I get, the more I come to realize that morality is independent of everything else in life: religion, politics, sexual orientation, everything. I've known some highly religious people who were wonderful, and some who were awful; I've known some atheists who were wonderful, and some who were awful; I've known wonderful Republicans and Democrats, and awful Republicans and Democrats.

I think the mistake we make is in thinking that politcs, religious affiliation, belief or disbelief in evolution, or anything else that someone thinks defines whether someone is a good person or a bad. All that matters is the decisions that people make and the actions they take. I guess that makes me an existentialist.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think you're missing the point slightly.

What Marc has expounded upon and what I was originally trying to point out is that there are scientists that are basing their whole work upon some studies that are not even confirmed yet or cannot be confirmed until new technologies that can measure these items are developed.

The point is not in the exact example, but the examples are attempts to illustrate the points.

Dark Matter was created to justify some observations regarding the expansion of the universe. Dark Matter makes quite a bit of sense, not all matter is luminous, you have vast absorbtion nebulas, you have planets, there are burned out stars, black holes, etc. Yet, when that didn't explain everything, there must be Dark Energy. That must make up the difference. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not have enough technology or sensitive enough technology to measure all this. Read up on some of this stuff. Its there because there isn't anything else there. But, it makes up 70% of all energy in the universe. But you can't really detect it because of its low density.

WHAT?!?!?

And no, this is not stuff that is going over my head. I understand, but this is a classic, we're observing X, and the only way to explain it is Y (fair enough). But we can't measure it, so we're going to assume it is true and go on down the road.

Isn't this the same thing that people are bashing religion for?

The concept of Dark Matter is stilled considered as a hypothesis. For now, it will be considered as a stop-gap hypothetical explanation for the way things work. And yes, future research will most likely be built from it.

It's similar to how Luminiferous aether was once considered to be the medium by which light would pass by. The hypothesis of aether would then be superseded and would be falsified. If Dark Matter is eventually falsified, then we move on.

It will eventually be either proven or disproven by the course of scientific study, and the research will change based on these assumptions.

Which is why it's ok.

That's science.

[bignej]

I think you're missing the point slightly.

What Marc has expounded upon and what I was originally trying to point out is that there are scientists that are basing their whole work upon some studies that are not even confirmed yet or cannot be confirmed until new technologies that can measure these items are developed.

The point is not in the exact example, but the examples are attempts to illustrate the points.

Dark Matter was created to justify some observations regarding the expansion of the universe. Dark Matter makes quite a bit of sense, not all matter is luminous, you have vast absorbtion nebulas, you have planets, there are burned out stars, black holes, etc. Yet, when that didn't explain everything, there must be Dark Energy. That must make up the difference. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not have enough technology or sensitive enough technology to measure all this. Read up on some of this stuff. Its there because there isn't anything else there. But, it makes up 70% of all energy in the universe. But you can't really detect it because of its low density.

WHAT?!?!?

And no, this is not stuff that is going over my head. I understand, but this is a classic, we're observing X, and the only way to explain it is Y (fair enough). But we can't measure it, so we're going to assume it is true and go on down the road.

Isn't this the same thing that people are bashing religion for?

No, because by going down that road will help prove or disprove X. What they're saying is that, if it is "true", they may be able to predict something else. They will then move onto the next step still perfecting the theory. They are assumptions used in experimentation but not taken as fact. For example I believe that the sun will come out tomorrow because I believe that the earth revolves around it. I could be mistaken like you said, because I assumed it was true, and the earth is actually the center of the universe. If the sun comes out tomorrow, I could be right but I could still be wrong, which I will admit and will conduct further testing. That is what is happening in the Dark matter issue and will continue. That is where the difference is between science and religion because that is religion stops.

Religion does what you explained. I predict that the sun will come out tomorrow because I assume God exists and he will make it happen. Once the sun comes out we will assume there is an all powerful being, we can't measure it, but we will accept it to be true. Assuming that is true, that would mean that he can see what were doing and thinking at all times. Religion does no further testing. "Evidence" is a child surving a train wreck where 300 ther people die.

Yeah my examples might suck and I'm not as eloquent as others, but trying to say science isn't credible because we might be incapable of understanding everything in our surroundings is stupid. Science is the study of our surroundings using our senses so we can understand our physical world. God could be the cause of it all, but the only way to find out is further testing to find evidence or to just die and go to heaven(or hell).

[bignej]

Neon you keep stating the same point as me minutes before I post!

[Neon_Chaos]

Are you me in the future?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My concern is that we are beginning to move into territory in several areas where we think that we are all knowing and all powerful. We think we know everything and try to explain things by science, but unfortunately, much of the "science" that is now going on is not for the sake of knowledge, but is to push an agenda or to secure additional funding, etc. Look at government SBIRs. The way they are set up, they are begging for results in a predetermined direction. Show them just enough and you move on to the next stage with a lot more money.

Science has become (and in many ways has always been) just as biased as religion. I don't see the difference in the concepts of justifying funding/political beliefs/completing papers for tenure/earning social acceptance and the concept of justifying religious teachings. The difference is that science has more accepted methods of showing validity. As science gets to be more and more of a business and more biased financially, I think the line between religion and science will be fairly blurred.

As we move down this path, we are becoming a less and less ethical soceity. Many people think nothing of creating different creatures and organisms to do things without thinking of the repercussions of what they have done. We are creating bacteria to do many different things. One thing about bacteria is that they share genes rapidly due to a variety of factors. What happens if one of these bacteria close up some weakness is a previous benign bacteria? What happens if we accidentally create super bugs that menace society?

It's the old Jurassic Park line - we are so caught up in the question of IF we can do something, we never think to ask whether we should try to begin with. Now, there is always going to be some risk with science and that shouldn't discourage all efforts. Still, it almost seems like science almost frowns upon aspects of morality or even basic notions of right/wrong in a way that depicts those people as believing the world is flat and unwilling to move forward.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Arles

The difference is that science has more accepted methods of showing validity.

I think that's a critical point.

The big question is why science has presumably the more accepted method of showing validity when both science and religion/philosophy fundamentally, at their core, share the same philosophical grounding. That is, they assume things that cannot be scientifically proven.

Part of the answer probably lies in the fact that scientists have done a great job of putting a veneer of objectivity over their work. Gotta hand it to their PR firm for that historical sleight of hand.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by revrew

You CANNOT be serious. There are rules--called hermeneutics and orthodoxy--for determining the proper meaning of biblical passages. Of course, if you throw all those out the window and purposefully twist the words to say anything you want, you can make it sound pretty bad. Your list above...is bullshit interpretation from someone who has no clue what they're talking about. Without getting into a whole Bible study, just taking Exodus 22:20 above is a law established during the Iraelite theocracy for governing the Israelite nation. As you can see, religious freedom wasn't in their constitution. It is not, never was, and no reasonable interpreter (except some smartass jerk or heretical nutcase) has ever taken Exodus 22:20 as permission for Christians to kill nonbelievers. That whole argument is so strawman, it doesn't even merit this response.

And you know how to properly interpret the Qur'an?

[Kodos]

Revrew: Allow me to clarify my statement a bit. There are plenty of highly religious people whose faith leads them to good deeds like the ones you mentioned. My criticism was directed at people who use their religion to justify their dislikes for other groups of people and to justify action against the "infidels" or unbelievers. Naturally, it is the highly religious (the folks who REALLY take things to heart) people who end up doing terrible things to other groups because they believe that their religion mandates them (in their mind) to perform that act. Less religious folks might still dislike another group, but the lack of depth in their beliefs keeps them from acting out against the other group in the worst ways.

To say this more simply: Most highly religious people are a benefit to society; it is a subset of the highly religious group who twists their belief to justify horrible acts.

I did not mean to offend the average religious person who tries to live in peace with those of differing belief systems. Which is most people.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I think that's a critical point.

The big question is why science has presumably the more accepted method of showing validity when both science and religion/philosophy fundamentally, at their core, share the same philosophical grounding. That is, they assume things that cannot be scientifically proven.

Part of the answer probably lies in the fact that scientists have done a great job of putting a veneer of objectivity over their work. Gotta hand it to their PR firm for that historical sleight of hand.

+1

I just don't have time anymore (working 3 jobs and having 12 kids is a heckuva rat race) to read the full extent of this thread, but I'm really glad you're in here making these points.

[JPhillips]

Just because science is filled with ideas that can't be completely proven, does not mean that ideas that can't be proven whatsoever should be given equal stature in the classroom.

[JPhillips]

dola

Would you accept teaching a little evolution in Sunday School to provide balance?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just because science is filled with ideas that can't be completely proven, does not mean that ideas that can't be proven whatsoever should be given equal stature in the classroom.

I'll set the classroom question aside for now because I think it's difficult to see how this might play out in a school.

But I think that raises an excellent question. If we say that science can't completely prove its grounding ideas, at least by science's standards and if we say that philosophy/religion (I know I'm perhaps lumping these together unfairly) can't completely prove its grounding ideas, at least by science's standards, why privilege one over the other by giving one more status in the classroom? The answer, I would assume, would be because science is not philosophy and we're back to making the division that really does not seem to exist between these two.

That gets us back to Arles' point earlier. Science has a more publicly accepted method of validating its claims. But if the assumptions behind these claims are scrutinized by science's own standards of validation, they fail. By philosophical standards they pass, but by scientific standards they fail.

I guess I'm just puzzled by science's seeming resistance to that which is not scientific. Does this discussion ultimately just come down to a turf war more than anything else and really, in the end, has nothing to do with ID versus evolution?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Would you accept teaching a little evolution in Sunday School to provide balance?

Couldn't we flip this though and ask the scientists to teach some philosophy/religion to provide balance? That is if balance is what we're really after? I guess I don't necessarily see that balance is what people are after on either side, but maybe that's what they should be after in the end.

[JPhillips]

Not in science class. I personally believe that God had a hand in starting the evolutionary process, but tha discussion belongs in church and at home. In science class I would prefer to discuss theories that have at least some support from peer reviewed experimentation.

However, if you're going to demand religion in science class, wyou should at least consider if you would be willing to put science in Sunday School. For me it doesn't diminsh my faith one bit to discover the wonders of the natural world.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Think of it like a rubics cube that is fully messed up - science has so far solved 2 of its sides so they're the same colour, they keep going - however when they get to the final side they realise that they'll have to undo all their prior work to get that one completed because one of the earlier changes was wrong.

It 'nearly' works but doesn't complete the puzzle ... unless you know the entire solution in advance you can't be certain you're heading in the right direction.

Not to be a smart ass, but it is not possible to have just one side left unsolved on a Rubik's cube.

Besides, at least in my experience, you don't solve the cube by doing two sides and then working from there. You get the corners into the correct position, and then work on the inside.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not in science class. I personally believe that God had a hand in starting the evolutionary process, but tha discussion belongs in church and at home. In science class I would prefer to discuss theories that have at least some support from peer reviewed experimentation.

I guess as long as we're honest about the fact we have no scientific proof of why we choose to accept a scientific methodology in the first place, then maybe that would be fair. If we admit that scientific ways of knowing are one way of knowing and acknowledge that a scientific way of knowing ultimately comes from philosophical beliefs, then that would probably be good. It's when scientists claim that the scientific way of knowing is the only way that I don't see them being consistent by their own standards of measuring epistemological validity.

Of course trying to communicate that notion to elementary school kids is something I would not have the guts to try.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

However, if you're going to demand religion in science class, wyou should at least consider if you would be willing to put science in Sunday School. For me it doesn't diminsh my faith one bit to discover the wonders of the natural world.

That's a fair point. I think the challenge would come from scientists who would quibble about what would count as science. In going back to Quik's citation of the court case earlier, it seems that the kind of science that might appear and likely would appear in Sunday School classrooms would not pass the mustard for scientists.