400 replies to this topic

[CiaranAnnrach]

Ken Stone, on May 1 2009, 14.38, said:

I don't always follow evolution threads *ahem* religiously so I find this statement interesting.  Are you claiming that there are non-religious based reasons to be "skeptical" of evolution?

In their poll, they have include a section for people who rarely (if ever) attend church, and there's always a few people who list "Don't Know." And then there are plenty of people who are plain ignorant, stupid, or really just don't give two shits about if we evolved from monkeys or not.

If you are asking for scientific reasons, then no.

[EHK for Darwin]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on May 1 2009, 14.37, said:

EHK,

Right.  Given that my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings (one of whom is an evangelical Christian), my priest, and I all believe in evolution and are Christian (of various denominations) it's good to know we are now part of a "pandemic."

Not everyone dies of the plague. But it does seem to have a damned high casualty rate. Fuck the swine flu. We need to deal with Bubonic Christianity.

Quote

I am not in the 61%, but could be counted as solidly anti-Darwinism only because I believe that more research is needed into how species have evolved and what catalysts drive evolution. I do not think that it is always the fittest that survive.

This is simply a misunderstanding of evolution because evolution doesn't state this. Or if it does, they're using a significantly different definition of fittest.

Quote

Then let them decide for themselves what they believe.

http://www.youtube.c...M...6D&index=16
Start at about 5 minutes in.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

Quote

Not everyone dies of the plague. But it does seem to have a damned high casualty rate. Fuck the swine flu. We need to deal with Bubonic Christianity.

You are presenting a false dichotomy.  I can be Christian and believe in evolution.  One belief does not preclude the other.  Hence my family and friends.  Heck, the Roman Catholic church has expressly endorsed evolutionary theory as doctrinally sound.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 01 May 2009 - 02:51 PM.

[Ken Stone]

CiaranAnnrach, on May 1 2009, 14.47, said:

In their poll, they have include a section for people who rarely (if ever) attend church, and there's always a few people who list "Don't Know." And then there are plenty of people who are plain ignorant, stupid, or really just don't give two shits about if we evolved from monkeys or not.

If you are asking for scientific reasons, then no.

If you don't believe that all organisms were created as we see them today, but also don't believe that organisms change over time ... what's left?

[El-ahrairah]

GdMisfits, on May 1 2009, 15.41, said:

Blauer,

I'm in the pastafarian camp in that if you are going to teach any "theory" that has absolutely no evidence for it and mountains of evidence against it, you should teach them all.  I bet there are some religious creation stories that are more interesting than adam and eve, more creative, or more plausable.  You can't teach one and not the others.  

Also, you talk about taking in knowledge, but i don't consider misinformation to be knowledge.

The reason English is (mostly) used in schools is that most of the U.S. citizenry speaks the language. Likewise, as most Americans are adherents to the Abrahamic faith, it is more logical for Genesis to be taught than Ainulindalë or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have no objection to teaching Moses (along with proportional tales from other religions) along with Darwin.

[EHK for Darwin]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on May 1 2009, 14.49, said:

EHK,

You are presenting a false dichotomy.  I can be Christian and believe in evolution.  One belief does not preclude the other.  Hence my family and friends.  Heck, the Roman Catholic church as expressly endorsed evolutionary theory as doctrinally sound.

Of course it doesn't. But odds are one absolutely does follow the other and its not hard to see which one is the egg (or the first chicken) in this instance. Not every believer will be inexcusably stupid on this issue, but most in the US will. And they will be primarily because of religion.

[EHK for Darwin]

El-ahrairah, on May 1 2009, 14.52, said:

The reason English is (mostly) used in schools is that most of the U.S. citizenry speaks the language. Likewise, as most Americans are adherents to the Abrahamic faith, it is more logical for Genesis to be taught than Ainulindalë or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have no objection to teaching Moses (along with proportional tales from other religions) along with Darwin.

Science is science. It is the pursuit of absolute truth, it attempts to answer our questions about physical reality. It is not dictated by cultural popularity and the notion that we should allow that to factor into what gets taught is absurd.

[Blauerdrakken]

GdMisfits, on May 1 2009, 12.41, said:

Blauer,

I'm in the pastafarian camp in that if you are going to teach any "theory" that has absolutely no evidence for it and mountains of evidence against it, you should teach them all.  I bet there are some religious creation stories that are more interesting than adam and eve, more creative, or more plausable.  You can't teach one and not the others.  

Also, you talk about taking in knowledge, but i don't consider misinformation to be knowledge.

So you cannot see the value in studying the fundamental beliefs of a religion that has had a great deal of impact (for good and for ill) on how our global societies have developed, on how our history as a civilization has progressed, and who we currently are as a people??? I don't follow the approach of "cram it down their throats and tell them it is the only way", which is why I agree that creationism does not belong in a science classroom. I do think that explaining the theory (and many other religious theories concerning many other things) do have a place in classroom study. The fact that you are failing to see as relevant for the purpose of knowledge is the fact that the belief in that theory exists, has existed in various forms for hundreds of years, continues to exist even in light of the evidence that would seem to refute it, and has had a significant impact on many parts of our lives. To me, that is worth studying. I agree though, that such class discussions should not be limited to just the Christian view (or any one particular religious view).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 15.52, said:

Of course it doesn't. But odds are one absolutely does follow the other and its not hard to see which one is the egg (or the first chicken) in this instance. Not every believer will be inexcusably stupid on this issue, but most in the US will. And they will be primarily because of religion.

So, you're going to, in effect, throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[CiaranAnnrach]

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 14.41, said:

For most of them 'No opinion' likely means 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure', which is still fricken bad.

They shouldn't have. That option fucks up more polls then you can count. Its not appropriate in this case. You're obviously gonna lean more one way then the other. But even if they did want a 3rd option, that option should have been 'unsure/Don't know', cause everyone has a damned opinion on it, even if its a weak one.

I 100% agree with you, but Gallup seemed to think it was a valid answer, and thus included it. If they really wanted to be accurate, they would increase the number of choices to:

[] I believe in evolution due to scientific evidence and I am not religious ( NR )
[] I believe in evolution due to scientific evidence and I am religious ( R )
[] I don't know much about the scientific evidence, but I believe in evolution ( NR )
[] I don't know much about the scientific evidence, but I believe in evolution ( R )
[] I'm skeptical about evolution, but not for religious reasons
[] I'm skeptical about evolution for religious reasons

That's about the only way to really get an accurate assessment of how America stands. Until then, any speculation on the reasons for peoples answers is just that, speculation. And no matter how much you think you know, you don't really know 100% why people picked what they did. The options are way too open ended.

Quote

Is it heavy handed when its 110% deserved and appropriate? And really, what other obstacle to a belief in evolution is there for the vast majority of the population? Religion is absolutely the culprit.

Of course it's not going to appear heavy handed or unjustified to you, and we've discussed this before without your opinion being swayed. That is just supporting what I've said. And no matter what we really say here or try to point out, you are not the type of person who will give in easily, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But when it comes to religion, you are the type to use a chainsaw, when a scalpel would yield the best results.

[Edit] ® was supposed to be ( R ), to denote religious.

Edited by CiaranAnnrach, 01 May 2009 - 03:02 PM.

[EHK for Darwin]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on May 1 2009, 14.55, said:

EHK,

So, you're going to, in effect, throw the baby out with the bathwater?

That cliche generally applies to situations where there's a few bad applies fucking things up for everyone else. This ain't a few isolated fanatics. This is the large majority. There ain't a rotted edge to the apple, the vast majority of the apple is rotted. At that point, yes I think its a good idea to throw away the entire fucking apple. Maybe there are a few chunks here and there you can slice away and munch down without killing yourself, but why bother? Just buy a fresh orange. They taste better anyway.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Ken Stone, on May 1 2009, 14.51, said:

If you don't believe that all organisms were created as we see them today, but also don't believe that organisms change over time ... what's left?

Apathy. Won't make my life easier or harder, so why think about it?

[DISCLAIMER]I actually do support evolution, this is not my views.[/DISCLAIMER]

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 15.58, said:

That cliche generally applies to situations where there's a few bad applies fucking things up for everyone else. This ain't a few isolated fanatics. This is the large majority. There ain't a rotted edge to the apple, the vast majority of the apple is rotted. At that point, yes I think its a good idea to throw away the entire fucking apple. Maybe there are a few chunks here and there you can slice away and munch down without killing yourself, but why bother? Just buy a fresh orange. They taste better anyway.

You know if there were a more nuanced poll I imagine there would be a more nuanced result.  You're hanging your hat on some rather raw data.

[Merentha]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on May 1 2009, 14.43, said:

There's always room for skepticism in science.  The presence of evolution is very well established.

Tell that to 25% of the population, apparently.

The Blauer Dragon said:

So you cannot see the value in studying the fundamental beliefs of a religion that has had a great deal of impact (for good and for ill) on how our global societies have developed, on how our history as a civilization has progressed, and who we currently are as a people???

Sure, its called anthropology or sociology, depending.  Have fun with it.  Go wild!  Just don't get it in my biology.

Edited by Merentha, 01 May 2009 - 03:02 PM.

[EHK for Darwin]

I want to post this again as probably the definitive argument against anyone who thinks its a good idea to teach creationism in science classes or to let the 'kids learn and decide' for themselves. The whole clip is good and really the entire 30 part series is excellent. But the relevant bits start at about 4:50 in. Shit like this single-handedly justifies Youtube.

http://www.youtube.c...M...6D&index=16

[ljkeane]

El-ahrairah, on May 1 2009, 20.52, said:

The reason English is (mostly) used in schools is that most of the U.S. citizenry speaks the language. Likewise, as most Americans are adherents to the Abrahamic faith, it is more logical for Genesis to be taught than Ainulindalë or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have no objection to teaching Moses (along with proportional tales from other religions) along with Darwin.

What's the scientific basis upon which creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution?.

[EHK for Darwin]

CiaranAnnrach, on May 1 2009, 14.58, said:

I 100% agree with you, but Gallup seemed to think it was a valid answer, and thus included it. If they really wanted to be accurate, they would increase the number of choices to:

[] I believe in evolution due to scientific evidence and I am not religious ( NR )
[] I believe in evolution due to scientific evidence and I am religious ( R )
[] I don't know much about the scientific evidence, but I believe in evolution ( NR )
[] I don't know much about the scientific evidence, but I believe in evolution ( R )
[] I'm skeptical about evolution, but not for religious reasons
[] I'm skeptical about evolution for religious reasons

That's about the only way to really get an accurate assessment of how America stands. Until then, any speculation on the reasons for peoples answers is just that, speculation. And no matter how much you think you know, you don't really know 100% why people picked what they did. The options are way too open ended.

Questions that detailed make for alot of self delusion bias. Some responders won't have a problem saying 'religion is the reason I don't believe in evolution'. But some will intentionally or unintentionally assert that they have non-religious reasons for not believing it. They may not recognize the awesome cultural influence of Christianity, the role it played in the information they received from every possible source (school, media, politics, parents, community), and how such factors may have influenced where they fall on the issue. Religion may still be the dominant factor in their position whether they're heavily religious or not and whether they personally realize it or not. Giving them that option simply gives us their own subjective impression, it does not answer the question.

Also, most polls ask demographic information (do you go to church, how often, do you identify yourself Christian, is religion an important factor to your daily life, etc) separately and compare that data with the results, so there's no need to attach a religious modifier to the actual question itself. The more complex and more parts you add to the question, often the less useful and meaningful the results become. 'Do you believe in evolution?': Yes, no, I don't know--is the absolute maximum that's necessary. More detailed questioning may be useful to determine just what people believe about evolution. (If you believe in evolution, do you believe it occurred on its own or do you believe god guided it, that sort of shit)

You will not find an appreciable number of people today who do not believe in radio waves. Or gravity. Who believe the world is flat. But you will find a HUGE number of people disbelieving evolution. Why is just about every other 'proven' (science doesn't like that term, but you get the idea) scientific theory accepted pretty much without question, but this one meets such large scale and vocal opposition? If you can find another cause beyond religion, I'd be fascinated to hear it.

Quote

Of course it's not going to appear heavy handed or unjustified to you, and we've discussed this before without your opinion being swayed. That is just supporting what I've said. And no matter what we really say here or try to point out, you are not the type of person who will give in easily, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But when it comes to religion, you are the type to use a chainsaw, when a scalpel would yield the best results.

[Edit] ® was supposed to be ( R ), to denote religious.

I would LOVE to take a chainsaw to religion.

[El-ahrairah]

ljkeane, on May 1 2009, 16.05, said:

What's the scientific basis upon which creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution?.

Scientific basis? As understood today, none. The original field of philosophy (love of wisdom) has branched out into natural philosophy (what is now known as science) and theology. Both are important fields of which no one (regardless of his beliefs) should be ignorant.

[Shryke]

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 15.41, said:

For most of them 'No opinion' likely means 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure', which is still fricken bad.

Yeah, but that just speaks to the ill education of the masses, and not to their belief in Religion and/or Creationism. Which is kinda the point of separating the 2 groups.

There's the ignorant and the deliberately ignorant.

[Merentha]

El-ahrairah, on May 1 2009, 15.17, said:

Scientific basis? As understood today, none. The original field of philosophy (love of wisdom) has branched out into natural philosophy (what is now known as science) and theology. Both are important fields of which no one (regardless of his beliefs) should be ignorant.

Provided you taught every other major religion in the world fairly and with equal emphasis in a theology class, then sure, put it in the public schools.  Just don't take out math, chemistry, biology, physics, or history to do it.