[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 27 2009, 02:12 AM, said:

fwiw, the louisiana law doesn't promote religious teaching

E. This Section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

a belief in evolution is protected

The following Scientific American article has some interesting information

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-la...-of-creationism

One of the more telling comments is the following:

Quote

The bill was introduced at the behest of the Louisiana Family Forum, which seeks to “persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.”

[HeavyDluxe]

mikeh, on Jan 26 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

'I can't engage in an intellectual discussion, because you'll laugh at me... so I'm right... take that!'

I actually meant that posting our CVs seems like the intellectual equivalent of a pissing match and isn't going to convince anyone one way or the other.

Quote

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

*sigh*

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

Let me underscore my point, again. I'm not arguing - for the sake of this thread, anyway - the particulars of evolutionary or 'intelligent design' science. I *am* saying that there are some (IMHO) no-so-scientific presuppositions that both sides bring to the table which compromise the objectivity of the science behind them. I think both camps would be better served to own up to those.

[HeavyDluxe]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 26 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

Right, like the bridge "creationist" that I partnered recently....he created a reverse bid on a 2443 14 count saying that it wasn't a reverse because he had to show his 4 card major over my 1 spade response to his 1 diamond opener....

If I had known that would come back to bite me in this thread, I never would've said it.

[Fluffy]

I agree with Luke in the sense that I don't understand what winstonm had started in a thread about Iceland.


What I don't understand either is why people tend to say you are wrong, I am right, for me when someone says that something is true, I tend to believe him, even if it is contradictory with my beliefs.

What I mean is that there is surelly a way to make evolution compatible with religion as there is a way to make islam compatible with cristianism or any other religion. (sorry for putting evolution in the same sentence with 2 religions, not comparable I took it )

[Codo]

I really hate this kind of debate.
Heavy states his opinion that evolution is just a theory.

Now, the true believers in evolution claim that he is wrong and that his claims are silly.

Impressive. So you state an opinion is wrong, but your opinion is right.
Now, this is really convincing- at least for you fundementalists.

What you (Al, Josh and Mike) did, was: Ha ha ha, you stupid guy, you are wrong, I am right. When you had read the right books you would know the truth.

This is stupid.

Please, I know that you can do better then that.
That you believe that Dawkins is right, is no proofe for the theory of evolution.

So, when you want to show him and others, that evolution is more then a theory, maybe some statements like: Look here, a nice article about ring species, or here a research about the evolution of bacterias etc.

Of course, if you simply want to write your already well known opinion and your believes, go ahead, we all have the right to believe in things we do not understand. I for my part believe that evolution is more then a theory.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jan 27 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

What I mean is that there is surelly a way to make evolution compatible with religion as there is a way to make islam compatible with cristianism or any other religion. (sorry for putting evolution in the same sentence with 2 religions, not comparable I took it )

I think you have this one completely wrong. As a practical example, consider the following

Pope John Paul II directly stated that "Evolution is Compatible with Christian faith".

I'll be shocked if anyone can find an example where he receits the Shahada (You know, "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet".

[Fluffy]

There is a god, that sends prophets, I don't find that much differences, the fact that others are willing to separate them for power purposes doesn't change the way I see it.

Maybe if I believed in the sacred words from each religion that have been adulterated through the years I would see the differences.

[Al_U_Card]

Codo, on Jan 27 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

I really hate this kind of debate.
What you (Al, Josh and Mike) did, was: Ha ha ha, you stupid guy, you are wrong, I am right. When you had read the right books you would know the truth.

It is not a debate. It is a turkey-shoot.

We are not "right" and we are not invested in proving a point. We are just stating that even though the sun "rises" in the morning, it is the earth that is spinning that makes it seem so. This has been verified sufficiently even though many people for many years thought that the sun moved around the earth.

It is not stupid, it is reality.

[mikeh]

Codo, on Jan 27 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

I really hate this kind of debate.
Heavy states his opinion that evolution is just a theory.

Now, the true believers in evolution claim that he is wrong and that his claims are silly.

Impressive. So you state an opinion is wrong, but your opinion is right.
Now, this is really convincing- at least for you fundementalists.


This is stupid.

Please, I know that you can do better then that.
That you believe that Dawkins is right, is no proofe for the theory of evolution.

So, when you want to show him and others, that evolution is more then a theory, maybe some statements like: Look here, a nice article about ring species, or here a research about the evolution of bacterias etc.

Of course, if you simply want to write your already well known opinion and your believes, go ahead, we all have the right to believe in things we do not understand. I for my part believe that evolution is more then a theory.

Quote

What you (Al, Josh and Mike) did, was: Ha ha ha, you stupid guy, you are wrong, I am right. When you had read the right books you would know the truth.

I am not a scientist. I am a widely-read, intelligent layperson with some university training in chemistry and physics, before going to law school. I do not pretend to have read everything there is to read nor to have conducted any research of my own.

However, unless there is a vast conspiracy amongst virtually all scientists, it seems reasonable to me to accept that when a large number of prize-winning scientists from major universities (rather than fringe religiously funded quackeries) repeatedly and consistently report research findings (usually in the first instance in peer-reviewed journals and only later in books and articles more accessible to people like me), the odds are that their information is based on reality...observed, verifiable reality.

Thus when there are reports of new species of bacteria arising, or that ring species have been observed or that we share 98.3% (or whatever the figure is)of our dna with chimps, or any of thousands of findings consistent with the validity of evolution by natural selection, I accept that the theory has been tested, and retested, and continues to be tested and that so far it has held up (obviously with refinements as our knowledge base has expanded) for 150 years!

That last point about knowledge base expansion is very important. Revealed truth usually changes only when the discrepancies between popular knowledge and the old revealed truth threatens the control of the religious hierarchy.. which then reinterpretes the revealed truth to be more consistent... so as to retain control... witness the way in which the Mormons outlawed polygamy or recognized that blacks were fully human. Science, being based on an understanding gleaned from actual reality changes as new facts arise.

So when someone who 'believes' in evolution does so because he or she has actually read a significant number of books and understands (or thinks he does) what the authors are saying... based on verifiable physical observation and genetic analysis and mathematics, then (absent the huge conspiracy theory) this is completely different from being a creationist or even just a non-acceptor of evolution. It is a rational, fact-based opinion which is based on faith only in the integrity of a mulitude of very intelligent, hard-working scientists at major institutions.

Only an idiot or a religious believer or someone who is too intellectually lazy to actually do any serious reading would equate this sort of opinion with that of the creationists or ID'ers. Strong words... but, really, what do you expect if you make public pronouncements about such things as gaps in the fossil record leaving doubts about evolution... evolution was never based solely on the fossil record.. Darwin wasn't a fossil hunter.. and with modern science, especially in genetics, the fossil record, while still important, is far from central to the understanding of the theory. The doubts that lingered in the early years, based on the fossil record's incompleteness, have been assuaged by other approaches, using techniques unavailable to Darwin and his peers. To not know this reveals an astounding degree of ignorance.

And to call evolution a 'philosophy' equivalent in intellectual validity to creationism is absurd.

[ASkolnick]

I happen to be on the side of Heavy on the fact that too many people do not leave things open for debate, which I think is good discussion in schools. Now, I will have to admit I may be suspicious in Louisiana that they are trying to slip in some "religious" information under the guise of scientific discovery, but I don't think about talking about alternative theories is a bad things.

The general problem is people who are clearly "evolutionists" will dismiss anything that someone has stated and call them "religious nuts", "fanatics", "stupid" etc.

I happen to think evolution and religion are compatable, so I don't have a problem.
The fact that no one has been able to tell me "How life started?" seems to me a gaping hole in evolutionist theory, yet it seems to be dismissed. At least in this forum is was explained:

Occam's razor was used, but this is a horrible case of it:

Why is the chance of proteins building in such a combination that life started
any more or less likely than
An Entity decided to start the ball rolling.

I don't think anyone can do a statistical analysis of that anyway.

Unlike the sun and the angles, which can now be measured, this is not the same argument as the sun moved around the earth.

So if you think I am being dumb, fine. But I think many of you are being quite closed-minded about the fact there are holes in both theories.

[mikeh]

What alternative theories??? Does anyone have one other than ID.. which is no theory at all..merely dogma dressed up to look (to illiterates or religious believers) like one?

As for evolution not having all of the answers, so what? That is the essence of a scientific theory.. that it develops, changes, evolves as the knowledge base expands. Evolutionary theory is far more complete than it was 150 years ago and continues to grow... arguing that it is invalid until it answers every question is, frankly, dumb. It has proven to be correct in example after example.. if it ever proves to be incorrect, then we all have to rethink the theory... and maybe abandon it...but so far, while some important questions are not fully resolved, it has not been shown to be false... and it has been shown to be valid in the areas so far explored. Unlike ALL alternatives beyond the intellectually meaningless proposition that God created all, which is completely untestable. If that distinction is not appreciated, then, yes, that does say something about the intelligence of the person concerned... or more likely, given that I have a high opinion of the intelligence of all who post here, about the strength of the human tendency to reject that which makes us uncomfortable.... religious faith must be a very cozy blanket, compared to which science must seem very cold and frightening. After all, there is zero scientific evidence for an afterlife.

Edit: in case it isn't clear from the above... if there is actually a real alternative theory, that accords as well with reality as evolution by natural selection appears to, then I would be delighted to read about it, and very happy to have it taught in school as a legitimate alternative. I waste my time reading about evolution, psychology, antrhopolgy and physics because I enjoy the exploration of the universe, even if only at second-hand and on a dumbed-down basis. I am currently reading The Elegant Universe, about string theory...thankfully the book is devoid of math... which means that I don't have a true understanding of the issues, but it is so well written that I am left with the impression that I do... more importantly, that the physicists and mathematicians working in the field do.. and I get the same feeling about evolution when I read equivalent material in that area. So if there is something new.. I'd love to read about it.

[luke warm]

HeavyDluxe, on Jan 26 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 26 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

*sigh*

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

if you and mike are reading the same books and if those books impart to him certitude while leave you still wondering, there must be a reason... maybe you're just a naive fundy idiot... you know what they say, put a thousand chimps in a room full of dawkin's books and one of 'em would - oh wait, i think that was something else

[Trumpace]

HeavyDluxe, on Jan 26 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 26 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

'I can't engage in an intellectual discussion, because you'll laugh at me... so I'm right... take that!'

I actually meant that posting our CVs seems like the intellectual equivalent of a pissing match and isn't going to convince anyone one way or the other.

Quote

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

*sigh*

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

Let me underscore my point, again. I'm not arguing - for the sake of this thread, anyway - the particulars of evolutionary or 'intelligent design' science. I *am* saying that there are some (IMHO) no-so-scientific presuppositions that both sides bring to the table which compromise the objectivity of the science behind them. I think both camps would be better served to own up to those.

It seems like you are involved in and respect the scientific method.

If, after reading lot of the evidence favouring Evolution, you still think there are _huge_ gaps, I would suggest that you write up an article/paper about the flaws you think there are. Perhaps your insights will help others.

Maybe you could start off by posting a couple of flaws here (not this thread, but perhaps a new thread in the WC forum) and let the Evolution Thumpers agree or point evidence closing the gaps etc.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 27 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

if you and mike are reading the same books and if those books impart to him certitude while leave you still wondering, there must be a reason... maybe you're just a naive fundy idiot... you know what they say, put a thousand chimps in a room full of dawkin's books and one of 'em would - oh wait, i think that was something else

Perhaps the reason is that one of them admits he read it "just for kicks". I read Dilbert just for kicks, which means I do not go into it with an open mind that I may be convinced of something!

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 27 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

HeavyDluxe, on Jan 26 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 26 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

*sigh*

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

if you and mike are reading the same books and if those books impart to him certitude while leave you still wondering, there must be a reason... maybe you're just a naive fundy idiot... you know what they say, put a thousand chimps in a room full of dawkin's books and one of 'em would - oh wait, i think that was something else

I use strong language to express myself, but the one thing that I AM certain about is that my understanding of the questions that we discuss here, and just about everything else I think I 'know', is subject to revision if and when convincing evidence arises... and I am prepared to accept, for these purposes, accounts of new evidence by reputable investigators who make their research and findings available for scrutiny and testing by others.

So, my understanding of the scientific validity of evolution is based on my understanding of the unanimity of the reputable scientific community to the effect that evolution by natural selection is a valid, tested theory supported by the evidence. There are still, and probably long will be, areas of intense debate amongst scientists about some of the more arcane aspects of the theory, but the basic principles are understood.

As an analogy... when I studied physics at the university level in the later 1960s and early 1970s, quantum mechanics was viewed as a very powerful means of understanding the universe on a sub-microscopic level. Yes, it had proved impossible to that time to find a theory that reconciled quantum mechanics with relativity.. and gravity was a real theoretical problem, but I accepted, as did countless thousands of students in a similar situation, that quantum mechanics was the most accurate theory we had.

Now, string theory has upset the applecart. QM is still extremely useful for many aspects of physics... at its heart, as I understand the issues, QM is based on a mathematical concept that the smallest particles (using the term loosely) are dimension-less points. String theory posits that the smallest particles are actually one-dimensional strings... with a determinable 'length'. Except at scales where that length becomes significant, the theories give rise to the same, or much the same, predictions and results... certainly so far within experimental capacity to discern. Ask me what I currently accept as the most accurate theory of the physical universe and I will say 'string theory'. Ask me to do any of the math, and I will just laugh at you.

Only zealots have certainty... it is what makes them zealots. Strong opinions, if held subject to a change of opinion when underlying facts change, are just strong opinions.

A refusal to accept demonstrated facts suggests zealotry. I recognize the difference... do you?

[HeavyDluxe]

Quote

Perhaps the reason is that one of them admits he read it "just for kicks". I read Dilbert just for kicks, which means I do not go into it with an open mind that I may be convinced of something!

Wow...

If you read the post I was responding to, you'll see that Mike asked if I'd read anything by Dawkins, Gould, etc. I was trying to say that I had, including a book ("The God Delusion") that even the author would admit is not a scientific book but a philosophical one. I read that particular book for my own edification - not because it's required for anything else I do.

I have read, critically and open-mindedly, many major books from the last 15 years of the evolution/creationism debate. I, because of my profession, interact with journal articles written from an evolutionary standpoint regular. In so far as any of us are truly able to empty ourselves of bias, I've given all of these a fair shake.

EDIT: Quoting Mike:

Quote

Only zealots have certainty... it is what makes them zealots. Strong opinions, if held subject to a change of opinion when underlying facts change, are just strong opinions.

A refusal to accept demonstrated facts suggests zealotry. I recognize the difference... do you?

What I am certain of is that both sides are conducting science with an incredible amount of hubris.

[jdonn]

HeavyDluxe, on Jan 27 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

I have read, critically and open-mindedly, many major books from the last 15 years of the evolution/creationism debate.  I, because of my profession, interact with journal articles written from an evolutionary standpoint regular. In so far as any of us are truly able to empty ourselves of bias, I've given all of these a fair shake.

I was just waiting for you to tell me that, because despite what you think, I DO believe you.

Quote

What I am certain of is that both sides are conducting science with an incredible amount of hubris.

I agree both sides are showing some hubris. I do not agree that both sides are conducting science.

[Al_U_Card]

One side is conducting "science" the other side is conducting faith, disguised as "pseudo-science".

Evolution doesn't replace a divine creator....CREATOR, but ID attempts to replace evolution.....with faith....gaah!

[jdonn]

BTW just came accross this so what the heck, it seems on topic. Which came first, the chicken or the amoeba?

[HeavyDluxe]

jdonn, on Jan 27 2009, 02:54 PM, said:

Quote

What I am certain of is that both sides are conducting science with an incredible amount of hubris.

I agree both sides are showing some hubris. I do not agree that both sides are conducting science.

I was trying to be courteous. I think both sides risk failing to conduct science at all.

Part of this is my scientific training. A old mentor (and not friendly to the ID/Creationist viewpoint) hammered into my head that science must be careful not to blindly omit possible explanations. Instead, research must be willing to consider all options - disproving the 'wrong' ones clearly to leave the best explanation standing.

I think both sides are guilty of shoehorning results into a predefined framework.

• Evolution is the way it is, so any inferences of design must be explained away through evolutionary means (no matter how improbable).
  
• Intelligent design is the way it is, so any inferences of macro-evolutionary processes must have fundamental flaws if I just look hard enough.

*That's* my problem. I'll admit to having a horse in the race re: how life came into being (I'm even more radical than the IDer, FTR), but my primary concern in this thread is the way both sides stab each other for the same sin.

BTW, thanks for believing that I've read/considered a few things, even if I'm not bright enough to get it right.