posted
mph- What I said with a chuckle and a click couldn't encompass the mixture of amusement and bewilderment that I feel about this issue, and didn't translate well to a forum based discussion. For that, I apologize. Leaving my mocking statement aside, however, I believe that education will be the only answer to such wrong-headed thoughts. The difficulty in this situation is that scientific facts are being mingled with religious views. How do you begin to re-educate someone in a neutral way when it conflicts with some of their deepest held beliefs?
On the one hand, I have the 'live and let live' attitude where I could care less what they believe. On the other hand, I question the mental state of people who so willfully ignore evidence that contradicts their views. That type of rigid fanaticism will always frighten me, as it can be directed and misapplied all too easily.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:people feel the need to remove their children from public schools into insular private schools or home schooling, which increases the demand for institutions such as this creationist museum.
I don't believe that the second part of this statement is necessarily correct. It may increase the demand over the short term as parents try to keep their kids from accurate sources of information, but the acts you are talking about may encourage children to reject their parents' fundamentalist beliefs, which would ultimately reduce the demand for things like this museum.
---
I think the disconnect occurred because, if I understand you correctly, you were only talking about the short-term, as opposed to the full potential effects of this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was only talking about short-term. More children in insular private schools are in home schooling precisely to shield their children from being mocked and subverted means an increased demand for institutions which will not mock their beliefs or try to subvert their children.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I did miss the first quote. I agree that this fits what you said. The other two, not so much.
I thought about deleting the 2nd quote in my post, but ultimately decided that it hints at the sentiment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, if kids are anything like me, being mocked and subverted would only strengthen my 'belief' in the 'truth'. I would feel justified for tuning out any of the things *Any* of the teachers had to say, because after all, they're just out there to mock and subvert me. So. I end up rejecting the truly objective information, and feeling justified in doing so because of the mocking and subversion.
Try teaching a kid like that.
<Sigh> I can't wait until some brilliant guy comes up with a third theory that becomes popular (As opposed to all the 'third' theories that nobody's heard of.). He'll just have to have a lot of money to spread the word about it. Hmm... Maybe if he associated himself with a particular religon he could get a lot more milage. Never doubt the power of justification and religious fervor.
PS: I personally found the comment about the 'mocking and subverting children' method rather funny, even if I don't entirely agree with the poster.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:More children in insular private schools are in home schooling precisely to shield their children from being mocked and subverted means an increased demand for institutions which will not mock their beliefs or try to subvert their children.
This seems to me like you are trying to present a restatement of what you said and not an expansion of it. If that impression is correct, I don't think you've done a complete job of it.
There are plenty of institutions that, unlike the museum in question, are honest, and yet do not mock people's beliefs or attempt to subvert their children. In my uniformed opinion, there is likely not an increase in demand for these institutions by these parents in response to the things you are talking about. It's not like the creationists are looking to take their kids to the Museum of Natural History or the Smithsonian.
It is not things that are not mocking or trying to subvert their kids that they are looking for, but rather ones that (in their eyes) confirm or reinforce their beliefs. And in this case, that means going to dishonest sources.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nathan, Do you have any specific complaints about evolution, or is it just a general rejection for you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, In your opinion, is that one somewhat ambiguous quote really sufficient grounds for the reactions that you and porter were having?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I look at people who would build a creationist museum and begin to reject evolution myself. I mean...these are the people who should have been eaten by crocodiles at the watering hole while they adamantly denied the existence of crocodiles. Their (creationists not crocodiles) existence negates all of evolution and natural selection...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, In your opinion, is that one somewhat ambiguous quote really sufficient grounds for the reactions that you and porter were having?
By itself, no. Subsequent comments did not lead me to believe that people were taking the side of freedom of expression either however.
Besides that, in my own daily affairs I have encountered an increasing degree of that particular sentiment expressed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know THT. That sounds like you are taking a Lamarckian view. I think that this outward behavior is the result of a multitude of factors, many of which are environmental.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My complaints comes from one of the principles in Logic -- An incorrect premise will never become a correct one, no matter how much you work on it in the future.
I think of CS Lewis talking about the math problem. If you mess up early on in a math problem, it does no good to complete it, even if you do everything afterwards correctly. The answer will be incorrect.
So. Instead, you go back to the beginning, or wherever you messed up, and start over there. Go back to the root of the problem.
I have problem with specific problems in, or near, the Evolution Theory's roots. Why people came up with the idea, and what their original theories were with regards to evolution.
I'm afraid I couldn't go into much coherent detail without running to fetch a couple of books to refresh the terms in my mind. Flakey, I know.
It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
I have problems with creationism's roots, because it originated out of evolution, at least to my understanding. It served no other purpose than to refute evolution, and bring God back into our origins. A funny thing, since I didn't think he had left when the theory of evolution came about.
I have problems with both, because, in science, when you have a hypothesis, you do everything in your power to prove it wrong. You don't look for affirming evidence until you've done everything you can with the evidence that could potentially disprove your theory. Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence.
So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me. A lot of things do, actually, but 'Evolution VS. Creationism' is definently near the top of the list.
So. I have no problem with the idea of 'evolution'. I just think we've been taking steps backwards, rather than forwards with regards to the current theories regarding evolution.
I guess that would make it a general refusal, rooted in a few, small, specific complaints.
There. By now there are probably 3 posts between the question asked, and my answer.
Actually, I had a question... I had heard (From Encarta Encyclopedia, I believe) that Darwin actually waited several years to publish his theory, out of consideration for his wife. I often use this alleged fact against rabid creationists who try to vilanize Darwin. But somebody said he 'hurriedly' tried to publish it. Which is true?
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Which comments were those?
I'd rather not quote posts because they did NOT say something in particular. I am describing the flavor of the thread up until I made my own first post.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely not Lamarckian...his theories involved too immediate a biological change to be passed on, and ignored behavioural impacts of parent-sibling interactions...
Possibly the Mendelian theory...maybe a genetic pre-disposition that manifests itself in this type of behaviour...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I am not at all aware of this flavor. To me, it seems like you and porter were responding to people's legitimate criticisms of these creationists with unjustified accusations of a desire towards censorship.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Personally, I look at people who would build a creationist museum and begin to reject evolution myself. I mean...these are the people who should have been eaten by crocodiles at the watering hole while they adamantly denied the existence of crocodiles. Their (creationists not crocodiles) existence negates all of evolution and natural selection...
You're funny.
Really, though. You should stop taking everything so seriously. Loosen up, won't you?
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I am not at all aware of this flavor. To me, it seems like you and porter were responding to people's legitimate criticisms of these creationists with unjustified accusations of a desire towards censorship.
Now you will have to do me the favor of quoting anyone's "legitimate concerns," to some wealthy creationists erecting their own museum where they say what they please.
Also one person saying it needs to be stopped and nobody contesting the point IMO is all the justification one needs to express discontent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
There isn't really a single, overarching theory of evolution beyond the statement "All life is descended from a common ancestor." Is this premise what you disagree with?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now you will have to do me the favor of quoting anyone's "legitimate concerns," to some wealthy creationists erecting their own museum where they say what they please.
I believe, aside from the more general complaints about creationism in general, the most prominent specific complaint in this case is that they were falsely representing what they were teaching as science and that this sort of willful dishonesty is wrong. I can provide quotes if you really have missed this in the thread.
---
As I mentioned, Angi's quote was somewhat ambiguous. Upon review, it looks to me that it was likely a "There outta be a law.." sort of statement, not any sort of actual call for peopel to not allow this.
And, bringing this up when you are specifically responding to other people who didn't say this and some of whom specifically said that they weren't doing this as a seeming characterization of what they are talking about doesn't seem proper to me.
Should I assume that you concur with the Occ's nonesense and use what he said in addressing your position? I don't think so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Nathan...you haven't been here long enough to realize that I take almost nothing seriously...
I like this guy! Sorry. Back to the topic.
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
There isn't really a single, overarching theory of evolution beyond the statement "All life is descended from a common ancestor." Is this premise what you disagree with?
posted
What is it that you define as "the theory that we now call evolution", then? There are thousands of theories that deal with different mechanisms and effects of evolution.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence."
Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
Are you seeing what the scientists are actually doing? Do you know what they are actually doing, or is this opinion based on news articles and the statements of nonscientists who don't have vital experiments to do, and so talk about it?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I find it hard to believe that thousands of theories are taught in schools... Mine just taught three... And two of those were glossed over. I based my opinions of evolution on those three theories of evolution. Don't ask me for names, I don't know them.
Seriously. There are thousands of theories all held at equal value and given the same amount of credence?
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, my edit button is messing up. I believe one of them was Darwanism... Maybe. I remember doing a report on him.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I mentioned, Angi's quote was somewhat ambiguous. Upon review, it looks to me that it was likely a "There outta be a law.." sort of statement, not any sort of actual call for peopel to not allow this.
"There outta be a law" is the exact same thing as a call for people to not allow something. I never suggested that everyone was stating violence or coersion were the right means for that end. But errecting laws that prohibit the rightful freedom of expression are to me "using force."
quote:Should I assume that you concur with the Occ's nonesense and use what he said in addressing your position? I don't think so.
Could you state what statement by Occasional you are talking about? I'd look through the thread myself but I can't expend much more time on these forums right now.
I'm not asking you to hold anyone's comments up against every other statement in the thread.
You are welcome to your perception of the thread as I am to mine. If nobody actually feels the sentiment I am detecting in the thread then I of all people will be glad for it. I've stated my reasons for getting that vibe, I don't think I am wrong to have it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence."
Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence."
Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
PS: If this is the second time I've posted this, sorry; I'm experiencing technical difficulties.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously. There are thousands of theories all held at equal value and given the same amount of credence?
Just as there is no single theory of astronomy that describes everything that we see in the universe, there is no single theory of evolution that describes how life has diversified over time. There are many separate theories on topics such as random mutation and natural selection, adaptation, exaptation, phylogenetics, etc.
Within a given area, there can be multiple sub-theories regarding the details of the mechanisms involved. And yes, all of these theories are in near perfect harmony with the more general theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I find it hard to believe that thousands of theories are taught in schools... Mine just taught three... And two of those were glossed over. I
I hate to tell you this, but what's taught in schools and what scientists actually use in research are not the same thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: My complaints comes from one of the principles in Logic -- An incorrect premise will never become a correct one, no matter how much you work on it in the future.
That's true in logic. It's not true in science. Chemistry, after all, developed from alchemy; astronomy from astrology; Newtonian physics, god help us, from Aristotle; Einstein from Newton. Basically, you're stretching the word 'premise' to go into a place it was never meant to cover, and getting very bad results.
quote:I have problem with specific problems in, or near, the Evolution Theory's roots. Why people came up with the idea, and what their original theories were with regards to evolution.
Uh-huh. And do you also object to electromagnetism because Maxwell thought an ether was needed to carry the waves?
quote:It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
And what are those problems?
quote:So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me.
This is known as the argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't wash. If it did, you would instantly have to abandon your theist beliefs, because they seem ridiculous to a lot of people.
quote:So. I have no problem with the idea of 'evolution'. I just think we've been taking steps backwards, rather than forwards with regards to the current theories regarding evolution.
This is so vague as to be nonsense.
quote:Actually, I had a question... I had heard (From Encarta Encyclopedia, I believe) that Darwin actually waited several years to publish his theory, out of consideration for his wife. I often use this alleged fact against rabid creationists who try to vilanize Darwin. But somebody said he 'hurriedly' tried to publish it. Which is true?
Both. He did wait several years. Then a competitor of his, whose name I do not offhand recall, gave him fair warning that he was working on a similar theory and going to publish fairly soon, and Darwin had to get his book out or lose priority.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the first aspects of Creationism vs Evolution is the churches absolute refusal to give up any power what-so-ever, and to further give up the immense financial resource that Power represents.
'The Church' as a bureaucratic organization has consistently been one of the most corrupt throughout history. Though given the extent of modern religion, that statement only applies to a minority aspect of the many religions today. A vast majority of people and religions are more that willing to allow religion and science to peacefully co-exist.
At every stage of development of modern science, the church has opposed it forcefully and usually brutally. When the microscope was invented, leaders of the Church said it was the work of the devil, and that microscopic organisms couldn't possibly exist, and if the did, they were certainly the work of the devil. They refused to even look into the device. ...Galileo ...Marco Polo ...Copernicus ...and now Darwin.
The Church, through out history and now today, it's most radical factions, simply refuse to accept anything that threatens their power.
Personally, I've always taken the view that science simply documents God, it doesn't deny him.
Part of the problem is that Christians on one had claim that God is infinite. Yet, they always insist on humanizing him. God didn't create us in his image, we created God in our image. If God is infinite, then what is time to him; a week, a day, a century, a millennium, or a billion years are insignificant to Him (note God is neither him nor her, he is 'it')?
Who is to say when God snaps his (non-existant) fingers this time, it represents 1 second, but when he snapped his fingers last time, it represented 100 million years.
Also, in my Bible there two accounts of the creation, one right after the other, but they don't match. So, which is the right one, and where was God standing when he created 'earth', and how was he measuring time without the sun and the earth to reference. Who is to say the first day didn't take a billion years, and the second day took 100 million years, etc...? Whose to say? ...people who don't want to give up power and money.
Also, as I have pointed out before, it is the THEORY of Evolution, not the Fact of Evolution. The fact that it remains a theory tells us that it is not a complete science. But keep in mind that we ONLY have the THEORY of Electricity/Electronics and the THEORY of Chemistry. The atomic model that completely explains electricity fails to explain chemistry, and the counter theory that explain chemistry fails to explain electricity.
We don't fully understand either one. Yet we have a sufficiently workable theory that allows us to apply both electricity/electronics and chemistry. We don't fully understand Atomic Physics, but we have enough of a working theory that we can make atomic bombs and nuclear power plants. We don't understand economics, but we have enough of a theory to keep a moderately functioning economy working.
My point is, it doesn't matter that Evolution is not a completely explained and thoroughly understood theory. We have enough of a working theory, and enough evidence, to accept it as a workable applied theory, just as with the other sciences.
Religion however, merely has 'magic' and fanaticism on its side. At least in the form that the most radical Christians apply it.
Further, if 'Religion' were able to force 'Creation theory', or as they are now calling it 'intelligent design', into the classroom, would they be honest about it? I don't think so. They don't want Creation Theory taught, they want THEIR Creation Theory taught. The American Indians have a completely different theory of how the world was created, as do the many African tribes, and the many Asian civilizations. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation stories, are they willing to teach them all? I don't think so.
Is Evolution flawed, of course it is, so is every other branch of science that exists. The fact that it is an incomplete science in no way discredits it.
If we are going to use contradictions and inconsistencies to discredit things, Religion would have vanished centuries ago.
posted
Sigh... There is a fact of evolution, which we observe: Organisms change over time. There is a fact of gravity, which we observe: Things fall down. There is also a theory of gravity, which explains how and to some extent why things fall down. And there is a theory of evolution, which explains how and why organisms change.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i know that the problems that i have with evolution/creation as a science is that it seems like every class i take there is something that has changed in the theory to make it different. Yet all i get preached at me is that it is "infallable".
Things like the rough age of the earth/universe/fossils have changed since i started school. The Universe's age has changed at least 2 times that im aware of, fossils have always been confusing since ive read that nuetrino bombardment can cause a greater appearance of age in biological fossils. The age of the earth ive only heard a few arguements against, one being neutrino bombardment, another being the lack of Hydrogen present because of the decomposition of radioactive materials, and another being the decay of the earth's magnetic field and how it would be too strong if the earth were so old. I only looked briefly into these claims and it seems like they are complaints that are "ignored". But then again i doubt there is a book titled "Neutrino bombardment how it does/doesnt effect the raioactive decay of molocules and appearance of age" so it doesnt seem worth the effort to try and search throuhg archives for such small ideas.
The big bang theory, while being taught in almost every class ive taken in school seems to be rejected in most cases as a truth, and ive read articles by atheists and creationists alike as tot he problems with the theory. I still havent heard a theory wich makes more sense. Hyperspace, and multiverse really dont strike me as any more credible than "god made it".
Industrial melanism(peppered moths, Ladybird beetle), which was a big deal as "proof" micro evolution has been shown to have been made through bad science. Things like errors like increase in black moths in areas that were not industrialised, in some areas of the states (Va i think) the population of black moths was in the 90% range. Also the return of original color species much faster than the return of the lichens thouhgt to hide them showed flaws in the idea of preaditation(sp?). Also that there were incontinuities in the way the experiments were carried out, such as the moths actually dont rest on the trunks of trees, they rest int he tops of trees near the smaller branches, where there is also basically no lichens to hide in. All this points to flaws in the idea yet the most recent biology class i have taken(2 years ago) still taught it as sound scientific data/results. (i believe 1996 or 1998 was the year that the refutation/problems with the claims/data was published, im sure i could look it up, and the details.)
quote:Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I have no problem accepting either as a philisophical foundation, or as a scientific model or belief behind the research. I do however have a hard time believing that they are science and that there are real ways to explain them that are un-assailable.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh... There is a fact of evolution, which we observe: Organisms change over time. There is a fact of gravity, which we observe: Things fall down. There is also a theory of gravity, which explains how and to some extent why things fall down. And there is a theory of evolution, which explains how and why organisms change.
ill agree that evolution along the idea of adaptations cannot be denied, but whos to say that these adaptations denote a change from one type of animal to another. At what point does darwin's finch become something other than a finch? and is it really that big a change to call different breeds of the same animal "evolution"? I am by no means a genetecist, and of course would be open to enlightenment on the subject but it seems flawed to make the assertion that because one set of labradore retreiver hss brown hair, one has black, and one has yellow that there is really an evolution or bettering of the species. Also, since ive been toldthat you can make 1600(?) different species out of a hawaiian fruit fly or that you can breed any dogs and eventually get any other type of dog that that would also classify as evolution. Diversification for certain, adaptation for certain but evolution? i dont know if i would say it could be considered a fact based on that data.
Of course the idea is also that we can never tell if an adaptation is truely and evolutionary step in any short amount of time, so i guess we are too short lived to physically see the advacning steps.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I would imagine that books by authors self-identifing as "evolutionists" or "creationists" are specifically about the evolution-creation arguments and thus will be about wanting to prove the other side wrong. If you want to learn about evolution you should be looking for books whose authors are identified as evolutionary biologists. And if you want to learn about religion you should be looking for books by theolgians.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Warner Bros and Universal studios plan to take fans of [Harry Potter] on another (expensive) adventure with the creation of a $1 billion park in Orlando, Florida."
Which is ~37times more expensive than the CreationMuseum. Not saying that watching live quidditch matches won't be worth it.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I would imagine that books by authors self-identifing as "evolutionists" or "creationists" are specifically about the evolution-creation arguments and thus will be about wanting to prove the other side wrong. If you want to learn about evolution you should be looking for books whose authors are identified as evolutionary biologists. And if you want to learn about religion you should be looking for books by theolgians.
I have other books by "scientific" authors as well. But they are usually just expounding on their thoughts and ideas much like a philospher with very little scientific data seems to be in them (sagan is probably the worst at just going of on a tangent, it usually starts with "Now let us imagine that.....".) It also seems that in the books/articles (occasionally i pickup a journal to read whats going on in the science world) i read that they purposfully leave out any objections that might be had with their research. It seems almost that 100% tests go 100% right and are 100% accurate 100% of the time and are recorded 100% wihtout flaws.
Theologians offer great thought provoking arguements (ie. God can creat a full grown man, full grown plant, full grown animal. Why cant god creat a universe in its prime where everything works like it should?) Very seldom do they have something that is tangible.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Touching the 100% goodness of experiments, it's true that there's a certain amount of selection bias in publications. The flawed experiments get chopped out at peer-review stage. If you look at particle physics journals, though, you'll see a lot of "Search for X" with the result "We find no evidence of X".
I have some experience with this myself: Last year I was trying to measure a certain quantity, which, as it turned out, could not be reliably measured with the data we have, or expect to have in the next twenty years. (Hum. There were some unexpected backgrounds. We had some cause for optimism going in.) Well, that was published in the sense that I gave a talk explaining why it couldn't be done, but you won't see it appearing in any physics journals. You might have, though, if we'd gotten to the data stage. As it was, computer simulation showed it was impossible. If simulations had showed it possible, and the data disagreed with the simulation, then we might have published it as a negative result. (You can't really publish something based purely on simulations.) But I understand that particle physics is an unusual field in this context, because of some bad experiences in the sixties; in medicine, for example, there is supposed to be a definite positive-results bias.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion (2 posts): I hate to tell you this, but what's taught in schools and what scientists actually use in research are not the same thing.
Seeing as I'm still in school, I find this comes as a relief. (I can't get the quotie things to work! Sorry.)
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: My complaints comes from one of the principles in Logic -- An incorrect premise will never become a correct one, no matter how much you work on it in the future.
1. That's true in logic. It's not true in science. Chemistry, after all, developed from alchemy; astronomy from astrology; Newtonian physics, god help us, from Aristotle; Einstein from Newton. Basically, you're stretching the word 'premise' to go into a place it was never meant to cover, and getting very bad results.
quote:I have problem with specific problems in, or near, the Evolution Theory's roots. Why people came up with the idea, and what their original theories were with regards to evolution.
2. Uh-huh. And do you also object to electromagnetism because Maxwell thought an ether was needed to carry the waves?
quote: It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
3. And what are those problems?
quote: So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me.
4. This is known as the argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't wash. If it did, you would instantly have to abandon your theist beliefs, because they seem ridiculous to a lot of people.
quote: So. I have no problem with the idea of 'evolution'. I just think we've been taking steps backwards, rather than forwards with regards to the current theories regarding evolution.
5. This is so vague as to be nonsense.
quote: Actually, I had a question... I had heard (From Encarta Encyclopedia, I believe) that Darwin actually waited several years to publish his theory, out of consideration for his wife. I often use this alleged fact against rabid creationists who try to vilanize Darwin. But somebody said he 'hurriedly' tried to publish it. Which is true?
6. Both. He did wait several years. Then a competitor of his, whose name I do not offhand recall, gave him fair warning that he was working on a similar theory and going to publish fairly soon, and Darwin had to get his book out or lose priority.
An excellent post. I've changed my mind. Evolution goes from 'Ridiculous' to 'Inspires some skeptisism'.
Okay, numbers 1 and 2 are excellent points. Numbers 3 and 4 and 5 seem to think I'm trying to argue against evolution. I'm merely explaining some of the reason I don't see the big deal about a creationist museum, which I think is just as credible as evolution, without going into detail because the thread isn't about evolution. It's about a museum. Also, if I find the topic droll, why on earth would I want to yank books out and elaborate and discuss every minute detail until... <Yawn>
And number 6 was also helpful. Thanks. I've wondered about that for a while.
Something I'm personally having trouble with is the fact that some people here seem to be convinced that you cannot be a creationist scientist... Regardless of whether or not the people who created the museum are, there are actual scientists with doctorates and everything, who know more than some people involved this discussion <Raises hand>, who are not buying into evolution, or whole-hearteded full-fledged creationist. I mean, are some people actually implying that the term 'creationist scientist' is an oxymoron? People can't get a doctorate in the sciences without disagreeing with theories, that could be considered to be flimsy (They aren't, but they could be. And yes, every theory 'can' be considered flimsy, I know.). I have problems with the fact that they would have to distinguish themselves from the 'other' scientists by adding 'Christian' or 'Creationist' to the beginning of 'scientist'. But they're still informed, aren't they. Aren't there people like that out there somewhere? Anywhere? <Sobs>
Okay I'm done.
quote:[qb] I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I would imagine that books by authors self-identifing as "evolutionists" or "creationists" are specifically about the evolution-creation arguments and thus will be about wanting to prove the other side wrong. If you want to learn about evolution you should be looking for books whose authors are identified as evolutionary biologists. And if you want to learn about religion you should be looking for books by theolgians.
Do you have any titles from either of those categories... <Sigh> This thread has made me realize how misinformed I may be... Which means I'll actually have to work to become more informed. Thanks a lot. Motivating me to knowledge in place of ignorance. Sometimes I hate this board.
What are books which you would consider good reads? (With regards to evolution/creationism) Websites are fine, but I already spend too much time on Hatrack.
PS: Somebody help me with quotie things... I have so much trouble.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think anyone who thinks there is no strong scientific evidence for evolution could be considered a reputable biologist. I do not think this is causative, but indicative. I think any scientist who held this opinion would be at best a reckless scientist in their field.
I think someone could think there is strong scientific evidence for evolution and yet hold extreme doubts as to whether or not it is a scientific depiction of reality, and still maybe be a reputable scientist in a number of fields, including biology, depending on the nature of the doubts.
I think someone could think there is strong scientific evidence for evolution (or not be much aware of scientific evidence for or against evolution) and believe the truth is otherwise for religious or other non-scientific reasons and still be a very competent scientist, even a biologist.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I for one am very anxious to go to the Creation Museum to see the facts and truth it holds. It’s a shame that so many of you won’t even consider seeing it instead of bashing it before you know the whole story. I’ve been to many evolutionist museums and seen the lies they tell, what’s the big deal if one place gets it right. Does the truth scare you that much? Are you worried that the strangle hold opinion of the day of evolution might not be able to survive a little criticism? The great thing is that the truth shall set you free and one day we will all be at the great judgment seat and know for sure.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you worried that the strangle hold opinion of the day of evolution might not be able to survive a little criticism?
It's survived 150 years so far. There comes a point when a critic has been answered, and he should just sit down and shut up, and let the show go on. There hasn't been a new creationist argument in the last 100 years, and they've all been answered thousands of times; your material is fantastically boring. We want something new.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Give me your best evidence, your best arguements. Give me the "truth" the reasons for the truth, and all of your evidence.
In response, I'll show you a sampling of my evidence.
We'll see which is better.
Care to go for it?
If you're not afraid of learning the truth, go for it. I'm not afraid of testing my theories. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to admit it if I am.
Are you?
Nathan:
If he goes for it, you'll get to see a whole bunch of things for evolution, at least hopefully, of mine. Okay? Sorry not to respond earlier, I haven't had a chance to. Can you wait until then, and if not I'll do it a different way? (I have a ton of information, it's hard to know where to start, ya know?)
quote:Numbers 3 and 4 and 5 seem to think I'm trying to argue against evolution. I'm merely explaining some of the reason I don't see the big deal about a creationist museum, which I think is just as credible as evolution, without going into detail because the thread isn't about evolution. It's about a museum. Also, if I find the topic droll, why on earth would I want to yank books out and elaborate and discuss every minute detail until... <Yawn>
Your reason for thinking that a creationist museum is no big deal is that you think it's just as credible as evolution. Then you give some reasons, using the word loosely, for why you think evolution is not very credible. In what possible way is this not "arguing against evolution"?
'Droll', by the way, means "amusing, funny, witty". I think perhaps you are under the impression it means 'boring'.
quote:Regardless of whether or not the people who created the museum are, there are actual scientists with doctorates and everything, who know more than some people involved this discussion <Raises hand>, who are not buying into evolution, or whole-hearteded full-fledged creationist.
You'll find the occasional scientist with an extremely well-compartmented mind, yes. They tend to have degrees in engineering, education, and other non-relevant subjects. You'll find a couple of earth scientists, who accept an old earth but not evolution, or more often "macro-evolution". (There are not many left who don't say they accept "micro-evolution", although the distinction is highly artificial.) But I defy you to find any working biologist who is a creationist.
[ June 04, 2007, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
