North American Man Boy Love Association (Turned Evolution)

[null0010]

Evolution is not something I would call a belief. It's not taken on faith, there is a large body of scientific evidence that supports the idea. When the idea of natural selection was first proposed it was seen as laughable. Unfortunately because of the inherent hubris of mankind, this is the way new ideas that challenge the status quo are seen. However, the evidence slowly accumulated and eventually evolution and natural selection were generally looked at as the best theories to explain that particular phenomenon. If something else comes along with better or more evidence of a scientific nature, I'm sure the scientific community will be more than happy to turn to it, instead.

[Spidey]

Yea well, I’m a very science orientated person, and evolution is a theory that I happen to believe…so I don’t know how that affects what you just said.

Belief and faith are two different things.

Now, lets use those in a sentence…

I believe evolution is real, but I don’t have any particular faith in it.

[null0010]

Believe is a word that implies faith. I think it is more correct to say \"I think...\" than \"I believe...\"

Or at least that's what I think.

[Heretic]

There you go right from the mouth of a spider. You have to believe the evidence to have a belief in evolution. You don't to have faith to believe in science. You have to have faith to believe in God you don't have to have evidence.

With that said, why do scientist disregard evidence that don't fit into their belief of evolution or creation?

[Heretic]

Believe is a word that implies faith. I think it is more correct to say "I think..." than "I believe..."

Or at least that's what I think.

I can't believe this passes as education these days.

Words most often have more than one meaning.

be·lieve   
[bih-leev] verb, -lieved, -liev·ing.
–verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
—Verb phrase
6.
believe in,
a.
to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b.
to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.
—Idiom
7.
make believe. make ( def. 46 ) .

think    
[thingk] verb, thought, think·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used without object)
1.
to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2.
to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
3.
to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts: I was thinking about you. We could think of nothing else.
4.
to call something to one's conscious mind: I couldn't think of his phone number.
5.
to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.: She thought about cutting her hair.
6.
to invent or conceive of something: We thought of a new plan.
7.
to have consideration or regard for someone: Think of others first.
8.
to esteem a person or thing as indicated: to think badly of someone.
9.
to have a belief or opinion as indicated: I think so.
10.
(of a device or machine, esp. a computer) to use artificial intelligence to perform an activity analogous to human thought.
–verb (used with object)
11.
to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.
12.
to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon: Think the deal over.
13.
to regard as specified: He thought me unkind.
14.
to believe to be true of someone or something: to think evil of the neighbors.
15.
to analyze or evolve rationally: to think the problem out.
16.
to have as a plan or intention: I thought that I would go.
17.
to anticipate or expect: I did not think to find you here.
–adjective
18.
of or pertaining to thinking or thought.
19.
Informal . stimulating or challenging to the intellect or mind: the think book of the year. Compare think piece.
–noun
20.
Informal . the act or a period of thinking: I want to sit down and give it a good think.
—Verb phrases
21.
think of,
a.
to conceive of; imagine.
b.
to have an opinion or judgment of.
c.
to consider; anticipate: When one thinks of what the future may bring, one is both worried and hopeful.
22.
think out / through,
a.
to think about until a conclusion is reached; understand or solve by thinking.
b.
to devise by thinking; contrive: He thought out a plan for saving time.
23.
think up, to devise or contrive by thinking: Can you think up an arrangement of furniture for this room?
—Idioms
24.
think better of, to change one's mind about; reconsider: She considered emigrating to Australia, but thought better of it.
25.
think fit, to consider advisable or appropriate: By all means, take a vacation if you think fit.
26.
think nothing of. nothing ( def. 19 ) .
27.
think twice, to weigh carefully before acting; consider: I would think twice before taking on such a responsibility.

[Isaac]

Evolutionists argue their version of creation is correct because they have \"scraps of proof\" that make up pieces to a large missing puzzle. How much does this prove their version is correct? Little

\"Anti-evolutionists\" argue their version of creation is correct because they can disprove those \"scraps of proof\". How much does this prove their version is correct? None

Little >= None

Unless this balance changes Evolution should be taught in school as long as we feel that kids should understand how life developed. If the balance changes, which would be far more interesting and terrifying, then I would see reason to remove the teaching of Evolution. And I think continuing to teach something is at least > nothing.

[Jeff250]

Are belief in science and faith in religion the same... no. An important difference is that belief in science can be fractional, whereas faith in religion cannot. I can believe that a scientific theory is true with probability 80%. But religion typically doesn't permit this--you need to believe in God 100%, i.e., you need a leap of faith. So no, I don't believe in scientific theories the same way that most religious people have faith in God.

About Creationism and Intelligent Design being science... no. They don't make any predictions. The theory that our solar system evolved from the gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud makes a lot of predictions. We should find that all planets rotate the sun in roughly the same plane, in the same direction. We would expect the more inner the planet the heavier the elements it has (the \"terrestrial planets\") and the more outer the planet the lighter the elements (the \"gas giants\"). And so on. What does Creationism or I.D. predict about what we should expect to find in our solar system? Nothing. God could have designed it any way he wanted. Creationism and I.D. don't help us to predict anything.

Will scientists only go with evidence that supports their cause... no. In fact, I take this personally. If you think that scientists don't publish papers on problems with our understanding of evolution, then you are wrong. But unlike the items on the conspiracy Websites that suggest that evolution is impossible, the ones that scientists publish are scientifically valid concerns, but instead of suggesting that evolution is impossible, they just suggest that we don't understand it perfectly yet--that there are still holes in the theory that need to be filled.

[Will Robinson]

Evolutionists argue their version of creation is correct because they have "scraps of proof" that make up pieces to a large missing puzzle.
...

"Anti-evolutionists" argue their version of creation is correct because they can disprove those "scraps of proof".
....

Not taking a side in the debate however just want to take a shot at what I believe is poor logic.
If the Anti-evolutionists can disprove the scraps of evidence offered by the Evolutionists then why would the discredited scraps have any merit by which to elevate the Evolutionist's position above that of the Anti-evolutionist?

[Heretic]

Jeff,
Then why do some of the evolutionist or creationist say things as they do and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary?

Forms of scientific misconduct

Forms of scientific misconduct include:

fabrication – the publication of deliberately false or misleading research, often subdivided into:
Obfuscation – the omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.
Fabrication – the actual making up of research data and (the intent of) publishing them, sometimes referred to as \"drylabbing\".
Falsification – manipulation of research data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result.
bare assertions – making entirely unsubstantiated claims

Scientist shouldn't turn a blind eye to things that disprove their theories. It all adds up to scientific fraud.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091031.htm

http://www.experiment-resources.com/science-fraud.html

[null0010]

With that said, why do scientist disregard evidence that don't fit into their belief of evolution or creation?

This sounds a bit "no true Scotsman," but the answer to that question is those scientists you are referring to have forgotten what being a scientist is about, namely, the pursuit of truth, no matter how disquieting, no matter how much it contradicts whatever it is you think to be true.

[Jeff250]

Jeff,
Then why do some of the evolutionist or creationist say things as they do and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary?

First, evolutionists and creationists aren't necessarily scientists. Most of them are book authors or politicians or anyone with access to the Internet. Consider Richard Dawkins. I'm sure he makes some nice points, but I wouldn't expect his books to be unbiased. Whatever he is, he's an author first, and he'll say things to sell books. To consider another case, that link that you posted to written by the 10th grader is characteristic of a lot of the evolution vs. creation literature you can find on the Internet. We would expect that that author is biased and wouldn't have the sophistication to not gloss over inconvenient evidence.

Second, yes, there are bad scientists, but, as your links say, they are a vast minority, and this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

[Heretic]

Well now your Scotsman seems a little like trolling. At least you answered the question sort of, but you had to put your dig in first. I have not changed my position one bit on hypothetical science of evolution nor on the hypothetical science of creation. Evolution will never be proved one hundred percent since scientist will always disregard what doesn't fit the paradigm. Neither will creationism for the same reason.

[null0010]

the hypothetical science of creation

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa

whoa

hold on a minute there sparky

I'm pretty sure there's absolutely zero way to scientifically prove the existence of God, which I'm also pretty sure proving creationism would entail.

[dissent]

Nope

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html

When your article tries to play the bogus 2nd Law argument as a serious consideration, I have to stop reading right there.

[Heretic]

Jeff Richard Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist. So he is a scientist. Also states creatures seem like the were planted instead of evolving.

Null that was the point.

[Jeff250]

Technically correct--no scientific theory is provable. You can get more and more certain of them over time, but there is no kind of scientific evidence that would allow you to rule out future contradicting evidence a priori. That's still not a good reason for not believing in something 90% though. Also, to remind you, creationism isn't a scientific theory because the idea that God created the universe makes no testable predictions.

Jeff Richard Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist. So he is a scientist. Also states creatures seem like the were planted instead of evolving.

If you can't discern people like Richard Dawkins from real scientists, then it's no surprise that you feel overwhelmed by biased evidence. In fact, his bias is how we know your quote must have been quote mined--even if Richard Dawkins thought your claim was the case, he would never admit to it.

[Isaac]

Evolutionists argue their version of creation is correct because they have "scraps of proof" that make up pieces to a large missing puzzle. How much does this prove their version is correct? Little

"Anti-evolutionists" argue their version of creation is correct because they can disprove those "scraps of proof". How much does this prove their version is correct? None

Little >= None

Not taking a side in the debate however just want to take a shot at what I believe is poor logic.
If the Anti-evolutionists can disprove the scraps of evidence offered by the Evolutionists then why would the discredited scraps have any merit by which to elevate the Evolutionist's position above that of the Anti-evolutionist?

Disproving the "scraps" only means there's a bigger chance Evolution is incorrect, not impossible. This is only because no person knows exactly what happened in prehistoric times.

[Will Robinson]

Evolutionists argue their version of creation is correct because they have "scraps of proof" that make up pieces to a large missing puzzle. How much does this prove their version is correct? Little

"Anti-evolutionists" argue their version of creation is correct because they can disprove those "scraps of proof". How much does this prove their version is correct? None

Little >= None

Not taking a side in the debate however just want to take a shot at what I believe is poor logic.
If the Anti-evolutionists can disprove the scraps of evidence offered by the Evolutionists then why would the discredited scraps have any merit by which to elevate the Evolutionist's position above that of the Anti-evolutionist?

Disproving the "scraps" only means there's a bigger chance Evolution is incorrect, not impossible. This is only because no person knows exactly what happened in prehistoric times.

Why does offering 'proof' that is subsequently proven false give them 'a little' credit toward being correct?
I've got a bit of a belly. I claim to be pregnant. Someone points out that I eat too many doughnuts, I'm male and my belly is merely enlarged by fat not a growing fetus. You come along and say I have credibility in my claim to be pregnant, not based on my erroneous proof but simply because I offered it?!?

[Isaac]

Evolutionists argue their version of creation is correct because they have "scraps of proof" that make up pieces to a large missing puzzle. How much does this prove their version is correct? Little

"Anti-evolutionists" argue their version of creation is correct because they can disprove those "scraps of proof". How much does this prove their version is correct? None

Little >= None

Not taking a side in the debate however just want to take a shot at what I believe is poor logic.
If the Anti-evolutionists can disprove the scraps of evidence offered by the Evolutionists then why would the discredited scraps have any merit by which to elevate the Evolutionist's position above that of the Anti-evolutionist?

Disproving the "scraps" only means there's a bigger chance Evolution is incorrect, not impossible. This is only because no person knows exactly what happened in prehistoric times.

Why does offering 'proof' that is subsequently proven false give them 'a little' credit toward being correct?
I've got a bit of a belly. I claim to be pregnant. Someone points out that I eat too many doughnuts, I'm male and my belly is merely enlarged by fat not a growing fetus. You come along and say I have credibility in my claim to be pregnant, not based on my erroneous proof but simply because I offered it?!?

Now you finally see my point! The Evolutionist in this example looks at the evidence first, the doughnuts, and claims there is proof that a person is getting "Fat". The Anti-Evolutionist goes off something else and claims "pregnancy", which has no evidence. This isn't a great example since a doctor can determine exactly what's what and the same can't yet be done for Evolution.

[Will Robinson]

Evolutionists argue their version of creation is correct because they have "scraps of proof" that make up pieces to a large missing puzzle. How much does this prove their version is correct? Little

"Anti-evolutionists" argue their version of creation is correct because they can disprove those "scraps of proof". How much does this prove their version is correct? None

Little >= None

Not taking a side in the debate however just want to take a shot at what I believe is poor logic.
If the Anti-evolutionists can disprove the scraps of evidence offered by the Evolutionists then why would the discredited scraps have any merit by which to elevate the Evolutionist's position above that of the Anti-evolutionist?

Disproving the "scraps" only means there's a bigger chance Evolution is incorrect, not impossible. This is only because no person knows exactly what happened in prehistoric times.

Why does offering 'proof' that is subsequently proven false give them 'a little' credit toward being correct?
I've got a bit of a belly. I claim to be pregnant. Someone points out that I eat too many doughnuts, I'm male and my belly is merely enlarged by fat not a growing fetus. You come along and say I have credibility in my claim to be pregnant, not based on my erroneous proof but simply because I offered it?!?

Now you finally see my point! The Evolutionist in this example looks at the evidence first, the doughnuts, and claims there is proof that a person is getting "Fat". The Anti-Evolutionist goes off something else and claims "pregnancy", which has no evidence. This isn't a great example since a doctor can determine exactly what's what and the same can't yet be done for Evolution.

I never failed to grasp your point. It is the logic you support it with that seems to be at odds with your claim that the evolutionists position is stronger than the anti-evolutionist position is.
You asserted that the anti-evolutionists have disproven the evolutionists evidence....soak that in for a minute...
Yet inspite of your assertion that the evidence is of no value you site the presentation of that evidence (valueless evidence) as reason to value the evolutionists position over the anti-evolutionists'.
According to your formula if the anti-evolutionist were to come out and present twice as much valueless evidence as the evolutionist did then they would be little more=>little

[Isaac]

Evolutionists argue their version of creation is correct because they have "scraps of proof" that make up pieces to a large missing puzzle. How much does this prove their version is correct? Little

"Anti-evolutionists" argue their version of creation is correct because they can disprove those "scraps of proof". How much does this prove their version is correct? None

Little >= None

Not taking a side in the debate however just want to take a shot at what I believe is poor logic.
If the Anti-evolutionists can disprove the scraps of evidence offered by the Evolutionists then why would the discredited scraps have any merit by which to elevate the Evolutionist's position above that of the Anti-evolutionist?

Disproving the "scraps" only means there's a bigger chance Evolution is incorrect, not impossible. This is only because no person knows exactly what happened in prehistoric times.

Why does offering 'proof' that is subsequently proven false give them 'a little' credit toward being correct?
I've got a bit of a belly. I claim to be pregnant. Someone points out that I eat too many doughnuts, I'm male and my belly is merely enlarged by fat not a growing fetus. You come along and say I have credibility in my claim to be pregnant, not based on my erroneous proof but simply because I offered it?!?

Now you finally see my point! The Evolutionist in this example looks at the evidence first, the doughnuts, and claims there is proof that a person is getting "Fat". The Anti-Evolutionist goes off something else and claims "pregnancy", which has no evidence. This isn't a great example since a doctor can determine exactly what's what and the same can't yet be done for Evolution.

I never failed to grasp your point. It is the logic you support it with that seems to be at odds with your claim that the evolutionists position is stronger than the anti-evolutionist position is.
You asserted that the anti-evolutionists have disproven the evolutionists evidence....soak that in for a minute...
Yet inspite of your assertion that the evidence is of no value you site the presentation of that evidence (valueless evidence) as reason to value the evolutionists position over the anti-evolutionists'.
According to your formula if the anti-evolutionist were to come out and present twice as much valueless evidence as the evolutionist did then they would be little more=>little

You're right, where my specific wording implies that Evolution is disproved in the opinions of both parties. I apologize for this miscommunication. I really hope this is more clear: What we have is a disagreement between those in group A and B. A gets credit for supplying evidence. B devalues A, but, since neither can completely evaluate the other with out a time-machine, none can prove nor disprove that the "scraps of evidence" have true value other than they exist. However, we do know that party B is incredibly late, even with a several thousand year head-start, to provide any evidence to properly compete with A. If B did nothing to devalue A, A would still be winning with a slightly higher score. A is winning in credibility with a score with a low, very low, value. Thanks, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be rude.

[AlphaDoG]

LOL @ new topic title. Seems to suggest that man/boy love leads to evolution.

[Will Robinson]

..

You're right, where my specific wording implies that Evolution is disproved in the opinions of both parties. I apologize for this miscommunication. I really hope this is more clear: What we have is a disagreement between those in group A and B. A gets credit for supplying evidence. B devalues A, but, since neither can completely evaluate the other with out a time-machine, none can prove nor disprove that the "scraps of evidence" have true value other than they exist. However, we do know that party B is incredibly late, even with a several thousand year head-start, to provide any evidence to properly compete with A. If B did nothing to devalue A, A would still be winning with a slightly higher score. A is winning in credibility with a score with a low, very low, value. Thanks, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be rude.

rude? Not at all...hey at least our little side track can have a resolution!

OK, so you credit A because they bring evidence and claim B does not but A brings scientific evidence because that is the nature of their theory. However B is not "late" to provide their evidence, they have been bringing first person accounts of their theory since before time was recorded!
They bring their faith in god and witnesses to his presence and deeds as their evidence because that is the nature of their theory.
In prison there are many men who are convicted on the same kind of evidence....

Demanding they prove it within the bounds of the theory of their adversary is like a Chinese person demanding you produce Shakespeare's original works written by his hand in Mandarin or else they refuse to even consider that he is a great playwright.

In a way your scoring of the two parties is biased due to your own preference for scientific evidence over first person testimony.
Weighing the evidence of science versus faith to find a solution is to create a paradox.

[null0010]

LOL @ new topic title. Seems to suggest that man/boy love leads to evolution.

Well, only on the DBB. We possess that unique environment where man/boy love can prosper and grow.

[Isaac]

..

You're right, where my specific wording implies that Evolution is disproved in the opinions of both parties. I apologize for this miscommunication. I really hope this is more clear: What we have is a disagreement between those in group A and B. A gets credit for supplying evidence. B devalues A, but, since neither can completely evaluate the other with out a time-machine, none can prove nor disprove that the "scraps of evidence" have true value other than they exist. However, we do know that party B is incredibly late, even with a several thousand year head-start, to provide any evidence to properly compete with A. If B did nothing to devalue A, A would still be winning with a slightly higher score. A is winning in credibility with a score with a low, very low, value. Thanks, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be rude.

rude? Not at all...hey at least our little side track can have a resolution!

OK, so you credit A because they bring evidence and claim B does not but A brings scientific evidence because that is the nature of their theory. However B is not "late" to provide their evidence, they have been bringing first person accounts of their theory since before time was recorded!
They bring their faith in god and witnesses to his presence and deeds as their evidence because that is the nature of their theory.
In prison there are many men who are convicted on the same kind of evidence....

Demanding they prove it within the bounds of the theory of their adversary is like a Chinese person demanding you produce Shakespeare's original works written by his hand in Mandarin or else they refuse to even consider that he is a great playwright.

In a way your scoring of the two parties is biased due to your own preference for scientific evidence over first person testimony.
Weighing the evidence of science versus faith to find a solution is to create a paradox.

Yeah, I can't argue against that.

[Will Robinson]

..

You're right, where my specific wording implies that Evolution is disproved in the opinions of both parties. I apologize for this miscommunication. I really hope this is more clear: What we have is a disagreement between those in group A and B. A gets credit for supplying evidence. B devalues A, but, since neither can completely evaluate the other with out a time-machine, none can prove nor disprove that the "scraps of evidence" have true value other than they exist. However, we do know that party B is incredibly late, even with a several thousand year head-start, to provide any evidence to properly compete with A. If B did nothing to devalue A, A would still be winning with a slightly higher score. A is winning in credibility with a score with a low, very low, value. Thanks, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be rude.

...
SNIP-I blather on weaving close to the idea in my head but swerve away everytime I get too close...blah blah..-/SNIP

Weighing the evidence of science versus faith to find a solution is to create a paradox.

Yeah, I can't argue against that.

LOl, glad you liked it because I just read what I posted again and although I know what I was thinking I sure didn't explain it very well! Someone must have slipped me the decaff this morning!

[woodchip]

LOL @ new topic title. Seems to suggest that man/boy love leads to evolution.

Or evolution leads to man/boy love....

[Lothar]

About Creationism and Intelligent Design being science... no. They don't make any predictions.

Fundamentally, science is a repeated two-step process.

Observe. Theorize. Observe. Theorize. Observe. Theorize.

It's best if observations are measured to the best of our ability, recorded carefully, and their context is well understood. And it's best if our theories make specific predictions that we can directly test, such that if new observations do not match the theory, we can revise and update it.

But remember, "prediction" in the scientific sense does not necessarily mean "future". It simply means that the theory should say something about data we haven't yet analyzed. A prediction about the contents of the fossil record is still a prediction.

While the broad categories of "creationism", "intelligent design", "evolution", and "naturalism" do not make specific predictions, specific forms of those theories do make predictions. For example, the creationist theory presented in this thread predicts that creatures will only exist within certain "kinds", never in between. That is a prediction that can be compared both to the fossil record and to modern life, and which falls short when compared to either, showing the theory should be revised or discarded. Likewise, the particular form of evolutionary theory most widely believed by modern scientists makes specific predictions about the DNA content of various creatures, and has of course gone through several revisions as its predictions have turned out to be in error.

On the other hand, neither "creationism" nor "naturalism" make testable predictions about the origin of the universe. The Big Bang makes testable predictions about the moments following the origin of the universe, but not about the origin itself. And specific creationist theories make predictions about the contents of the universe (for example, its age, size, radiation content, etc.) Many of these theories, again, fail and should be discarded in light of the available evidence.

It is not a lack of predictions that makes the theories unscientific; it is the dodging and avoiding of evidence that doesn't fit the theories that makes their believers unscientific.

-----

aren't you tacitly admitting that there *is* a chain and in general a phylogenetic tree?

I recall an amusing comment by Joe Felsenstein given in one of his classes on phylogenetics, which I am paraphrasing here:

When you analyze the fossil record, you get a tree, and when you analyze DNA, you get a tree, and some people will say they are similar. Well, yes, in the sense that both are trees.

More correctly stated: there isn't "a" phylogenetic tree. There are phylogenetic relationships which may differ from gene to gene, and which we simplify into a tree format by statistical means that do not always give us exactly what we expect either from gross anatomy or from any specific gene.

[Jeff250]

While the broad categories of "creationism", "intelligent design", "evolution", and "naturalism" do not make specific predictions, specific forms of those theories do make predictions.

Right, I intentionally used the phrase "the idea that the universe was created by God" to try to make it clear that I'm talking about the more general idea rather than any specific ones, but I should be more clear. A specific creationist theory might be unscientific for making bad predictions, like that the universe is only 8,000 years old, but I don't think that that kind of theory is politically relevant anymore. I think that enough young-earth creationists have seen the writing on the wall. I'm more concerned with the newer, washed up versions like "you should be skeptical of evolution *wink* *wink*" or "Intelligent Design" that don't make any predictions themselves, which are becoming more politically relevant.

[Will Robinson]

I wonder, how important would it be to any of you to prove evolution or creation is wrong?

Take politics out of it and I just don't see officially disproving creation being very important to any one.

Now I can anticipate the anti-christian knee jerk reaction to that statement going off to tell me how 'it would end the practice of X, Y and Z....'
Well think about it for a minute, without the politically motivated attack on Christian influence in america there would be no defensive effort from the Christian faction so just what would be left on the X, Y and Z list that could possibly offend anyone? Someone might dare say God bless you when you sneeze in a government building or school?!?

[Jeff250]

Will, I don't want to stop adults from thinking that the earth is 8,000 years old or that evolution is false, beyond what people will tolerate to hear me say on the DBB or elsewhere, but they'll be at a competitive disadvantage, where people with a better understanding of the universe will be able to outproduce them, so I just have to trust that their ideas will eventually lose in the long term. I especially don't want to stop people from thinking the more general idea that God created the universe as, for all I know, she did. But bad science and religion shouldn't be taught in publicly funded science classrooms. You can pile whatever political analysis you want on top of that as long as you know that.

[Will Robinson]

... I especially don't want to stop people from thinking the more general idea that God created the universe as, for all I know, she did. But bad science and religion shouldn't be taught in publicly funded science classrooms. You can pile whatever political analysis you want on top of that as long as you know that.

I wasn't thinking in specific terms like suggesting if not for politics people wouldn't protest the Texas school board's attempt to give equal time in a science curriculum to intelligent design. That maneuver is an extreme reaction to too much heavy handed political correctness. Before liberals took over the schools religion had a quiet role, one of personal choice and without being accused of robbing America of it's intelligence. You brought it to school with you, or not, like you brought your manners and respect and kids could spontaneously say a prayer when they heard about someone who was in dire straights and still get their work done, including their science work, all in the same classroom. And their parents never felt the need to insist evolution and creation share the science book because no one was ridiculing their faith or telling them to leave the bibles at home but oh, by the way, come dressed as a Muslim next Tuesday because the elites have determined society needs an attitude adjustment.

There was a time before the moral majority was identified as a political group that threatened the liberals on election day where you wouldn't even think about suggesting someone would be outproduced because of their beliefs on the origin of the universe because people who had those beliefs were productive in spite of what you characterize as a handicap. Anyone trying to design a better transit system or transplant a heart or dig a ditch or write a sonnet could produce those results regardless of their Sunday morning influences.

There surely have been scientists who successfully used data and conventions of modern science that support the theory of evolution all the while they believed in God. I just want people to ask themselves when did it become important to shove that potential contradiction in someones face like a blood sport and why?
Will it ever become as important to attack the followers of astrology? My guess is only if they band together and vote republican or democrat en bloc.

[Jeff250]

I think that your historical analysis only tells half the story. For instance, this specific controversy started with the Butler Act, a 1925 Tennessee law making it a misdemeanor offense to teach evolution in schools. The tension between science and religion goes back much further than American liberals and conservatives (consider Galileo), although the two political parties have definitely polarized the issue, and I'd be careful to put too much blame on one party over the other.

About people saying scientists shouldn't believe God, I don't think there are very many people who say that--just some fringe people like Richard Dawkins, who I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about. edit: But, although you're right that with most professions, your opinion on the origin of the universe doesn't matter much in how good you are at your job, it's still not unfair to point out that an astronomer who thinks the universe is only 8,000 years old won't be as productive as an astronomer who thinks the universe is much older, because the latter astronomer will be able to make much better predictions than the former.

[Will Robinson]

We some how came through incidents like the Butler Act without needing to belittle Christians as a whole. fundamentalists were a side show and the mouthpieces of our culture never would have attacked Christians the way they do now. I don't believe there has been an increase in fundamentalism in America to cause this. I think what has changed is the nature of politics, the politics of personal destruction etc.

I don't blame one party over the other, it happens that liberals are voted against by Christians so my examples have to show that...like I pointed to earlier, if followers of astrology were a large group and voted as a group against conservatives you would see the republicans attack them in a similar fashion

As to the astronomer scenario, I think anyone who's faith restricts their thinking that much won't pursue that field to begin with so you won't find him performing poorly at the job.

I guess my underlying point is when these evolution vs creation debates spring up the fervor to attack and defend looks to me from the outside like it is born out of something other than the actual topic. It reminds me a lot of fans from opposing football teams getting into a fight outside the stadium. Ask them why they fought after the dust has settled and their reasons sound pretty hollow.

[Spidey]

edit: But, although you're right that with most professions, your opinion on the origin of the universe doesn't matter much in how good you are at your job, it's still not unfair to point out that an astronomer who thinks the universe is only 8,000 years old won't be as productive as an astronomer who thinks the universe is much older, because the latter astronomer will be able to make much better predictions than the former.

Well…so you are making a job specific bias claim, good for a minute there, I thought you were making a general claim.

I think saying someone that believes the universe is 8000 years old wouldn’t make a good astronomer is a pointless point…that’s like saying a person who believes in the sanctity of life, would make a poor abortion doctor.

But who knows, if that person was a true scientist, his perspective of the universe would probably have to change.

Shhh…but I think Jeff was just trying to make one of his veiled attempts to say liberals are smarter than conservatives, again.

[Jeff250]

There are young-earth creationists trying to be astronomers. ICR even offers a graduate degree in it.

Talking about liberals and conservatives is boring. My point is simple, and anyone who thinks that this is an attack on anyone's religion is being too sensitive. Having the wrong conception of reality can mean that there are some things that you will never be able to understand or do. If you think that the earth is flat, then you will never find America. If you think the universe is 8,000 years old, then you can't explain why the planets orbit the sun in the same direction. If you think that life can't evolve, then you will never find an HIV vaccine.

You might say, \"Well, I didn't really want to understand or do those things anyways.\" Ok. But people who have more opportunities are on average more successful, and having the wrong conception of reality shunts opportunities to understand and do things. That's why I'm not *too* concerned about people who think that the universe is only 8,000 years old, because their ideas can't compete and will lose in the long run.

[Will Robinson]

..
Talking about liberals and conservatives is boring. My point is simple, and anyone who thinks that this is an attack on anyone's religion is being too sensitive. ...

I'm not talking about liberals or conservatives, I'm talking about us. I think that there is a whole lot of circling the wagons on the part of Christians in America due to the demeaning nature of the way some of us have targeted them and I don't think the targeting was done out of fear they may not produce up to your standards.
I believe a lot of the fighting back by Christians is a provoked response and there are always some exploiters or power hungry who will rush in and set up snake oil sales tents or take donations for the-young-earth-tuition-fund when the emotionally driven are in search of a cure. There never was a market for a lot of this fundamentalist crap before yet there always were fundamentalists. I'm talking about what has changed and if it bores you then by all means ignore me and go back to proving there is, or is not, a God and good luck with that exiting discourse!

[Spidey]

Lol…well Jeff, all I can say is…you just have to stand back and let those people knock themselves out…

Who knows, maybe someday they will prove the existence of god.

[Jeff250]

Will, who is \"us\"? Do you think that the debate we had here was unfairly demeaning to Christians or that they were unfairly attacked? I don't. I think you mean people in general?

You seem to agree that the tension between science and religion is old but assert that the demeaning nature in which some people talk about them is new. For instance, you say that we got over the Butler Act without anyone belittling Christians. But, in fact, during the Scopes Trial, we saw the exact opposite, with one side colorfully calling the other immoral, and the other colorfully calling the one ignorant--nothing new under the sun. I agree when people add unnecessary insults to a debate that it only further polarizes the issue. But I don't think that you can point to that as the primary cause for young-earth creationism or why it is still around today. I think that the explanation is much simpler. Some people perceive some scientific results as threatening to the veracity of their religion. That's more than enough to explain young-earth creationism.

Besides, let's be consistent here. The same reason why people shouldn't demean science or religion are good reasons why people shouldn't demean \"people of the other political party.\" I wonder how much unnecessary conflict has been caused because of this. Ah, but demeaning can be so enjoyable... sometimes making the perfect remark can be that highlight of one's day.

[Bet51987]

Deleted