The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:46 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:14 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
Animal wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
Eh. What I don't understand is why hard-core evolution teachers are dead-set against any sort of guidance to evolution at all and use evolution as a "Because there is evolution there is no god" deal.


Because it's not science, and it has no place in a science class.


And of course, Saying there is no god has a place in a science class then?


Where is this happening now?

Kazriko wrote:
Quote:
Kazriko wrote:
We really don't know. We will probably never know for sure if there was any guidance in evolution. It's easy to ignore the possibility with Occams razor though. Just because it is a less likely possibility doesn't mean that it is impossible though.


Go back and read that again, and I'll bet you can figure out why it's not science.

Kazriko wrote:
So my opinion comes down to "Evolution is just fine to teach in schools, as long as they don't arrogantly dismiss questions with 'There is no god, stupid' and instead say 'It's possible but scientifically unlikely.'"


Evolutionary biology doesn't say anything about God one way or the other.


Exactly. Which is why the only problem with teaching evolution in class comes down to pigheaded teachers who think that it does say something about god one way or the other, and imposes that on their students.

Nice how you restated my point exactly while completely missing it.
[/quote]

I didn't miss it. Where is this happening?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:18 pm 
Science cannot discuss the existence of the supernatural at all, by definition. The scientific method requires reproducibility to work; there must be several independent, sceptical observers all viewing the same phenomenon and trying to determine which model provides the best available explanation for it.

Miraculous or supernatural events are by their very nature subjective and non-reproducible, and as such they are a blind spot to science. Even the most careful observation of them is null data.

An honest scientist will acknowledge the limits of the scientific method, and indeed would see it as one of the definitive qualities separating science from religion: it does not claim to be a source of absolute truth.

Of course, there are many scientists whose religious faith is drawn from their scientific convictions (what is sometimes termed 'scientism', though this is also used to denote the use of the trappings of science to bolster a mystical or pseudoscientific claim), such as the True Believers who make up CSICOP. The fact that most of them don't realize that what they are talking about is religion rather than science can present its own problems, which seems to be the sort of thing which Kazriko is talking about.

As for myself, I don't see a conflict between my scientific opinions and my mysticism, even when they logically contradict each other, because they deal with different levels of reality. Even when 'supernatural' events appear to influence objective reality, they are not subject to scientific scrutiny for the reasons given above. The fact that my philosophy and praxis are intentionally absurd makes this easier than for most, I expect.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:50 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Kazriko wrote:
What I don't understand is why hard-core evolution teachers are dead-set against any sort of guidance to evolution at all and use evolution as a "Because there is evolution there is no god" deal.


Intelligent Design is not "God could have had a part in evolution". It's "God had to have a part because there's no way it could happen by itself." The difference is significant.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:
Of course, there are many scientists whose religious faith is drawn from their scientific convictions (what is sometimes termed 'scientism', though this is also used to denote the use of the trappings of science to bolster a mystical or pseudoscientific claim), such as the True Believers who make up CSICOP. The fact that most of them don't realize that what they are talking about is religion rather than science can present its own problems, which seems to be the sort of thing which Kazriko is talking about.


What the hell are you talking about? How is CSICOP a religion?

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:57 pm 
jeremiahsmith wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? How is CSICOP a religion?


In that, despite their insistence on being 'skeptics' and 'rationalists', they act like just as fanatically as those they are trying to debunk. They do not merely dispute extraordinary claims on the basis of the facts; they often blithely dismiss out of hand the actual facts of the cases, and assume the cases they try to prove in their own arguments. Their convictions are just as seteadfast, and often as just irrational, as those of any fire and brimstone preacher, and even if (unlikely though it is) they were faced with rock solid evidence of some mysterious phenomenon - not necessarily supernatural, mind you, merely unexplained - it seems likely that they would dismiss it as a fraud, rather than sincerely investigate it. Both of the schisms that occurred within the group happened because the leadership of the organization refused to support the experiments that would test the validity of phenomena they 'knew' were bogus.

Furthermore, they repeatedly try to use 'science' as a bludgeon against topics which are outside the purvue of the scientific method - religion and the like. I have no problem with some one being an atheist, but trying to support any theological position on the basis of scientific inquiry is to misunderstand science itself. Agnosticism, scepticism, and materialism cannot be proven scientifically because they are axioms of the system; to debate them at all, you must step outside the structure of scientific method entirely.

Their greatest mistake, however, is asserting that all knowledge is amenable to scientific inquiry. As I said earlier, it is one of the defining qualities of science - the one which really seperates it from religion more than any other, and the really revolutionary part of science - is that it explicitly denies the possibility of it's own perfection; it acknowledges its limits, and indeed goes to great lengths to determine just where those limits lie.


Last edited by Schol-R-LEA on Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:17 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
In that, despite their insistence on being 'skeptics' and 'rationalists', they act like just as fanatically as those they are trying to debunk.


CSICOP may indeed act as you claim, but this does mean their brand of skepticism is a religion. Fanaticism does not a religion make. To claim that any cause followed zealously makes that cause a religion would include UFOs, the environment, veganism, and Manchester United in the same category as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

Quote:
Furthermore, they repeatedly try to use 'science' as a bludgeon against topics which are outside the purvue of the scientific method - religion and the like.


When religion makes claims about the natural, empirical world, then that part of religion is inside the scientific method. The Bible records the history of Israel; this falls well under the purview of archaeology. Likewise for any religious claim about historical events or scientific facts. God himself can't be disproved through empirical evidence, but you can certainly show that the world isn't 6000 years old.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:23 am 
Well argued, and conceded.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:28 am 
I hope (rather bleakly) that people will soon realize that evolutionism and creationism are the same thing.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:02 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
The General wrote:
I hope (rather bleakly) that people will soon realize that evolutionism and creationism are the same thing.


*blinkblink*

Sometimes there are no words.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:04 am 
The General wrote:
I hope (rather bleakly) that people will soon realize that evolutionism and creationism are the same thing.


Oh man. This I gotta hear.

Explain yourself, boyo.

(This is gonna be either really good or really bad.)

So, like, god created the process of evolution and creation evolved?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:58 am 
The General wrote:
I hope (rather bleakly) that people will soon realize that evolutionism and creationism are the same thing.


Depends on how you see it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:00 pm 
The General wrote:
I hope (rather bleakly) that people will soon realize that evolutionism and creationism are the same thing.


Why? They aren't.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:49 pm 
Nyeh, you're reactions are too funny to ruin this now.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:56 pm 
The General wrote:
Nyeh, you're reactions are too funny to ruin this now.


That smells strongly of a cop-out.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:08 pm 
Sorry, I was being a wiseass. Anyway, you're right, they aren't strictly the same thing. What I mean by that phrase is that they aren't mutually exclusive, and could very well both be true (which is personally what I believe).


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:18 pm 
The General wrote:
Sorry, I was being a wiseass. Anyway, you're right, they aren't strictly the same thing. What I mean by that phrase is that they aren't mutually exclusive, and could very well both be true (which is personally what I believe).


OK. Yes, they aren't exclusive - it's possible that some God caused everything to happen the way the evidence shows it did.

But that's not science.

What most people think of when you talk about "creationism" is the drooling morons that insist the world is only 6,000 years old, and that Adam and Eve were real people.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:22 pm 
Well, I was talking about the theory, not the idiots who run it into the ground by overanalyzing all the wrong things.

Of course, there are some things in the Bible that aren't really possible in a scientific world, no matter how you interpret them, but there are a few holes in various scientific theories that we haven't filled in either.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:25 pm 
The General wrote:
Sorry, I was being a wiseass. Anyway, you're right, they aren't strictly the same thing. What I mean by that phrase is that they aren't mutually exclusive, and could very well both be true (which is personally what I believe).


Hm...Not exactly.
It is possible, in theory, that God created the universe, and life evolved from there, if that's what you mean...But that's not creationnism. Creationnism holds that all living species were created from scratch - no evolution, and the world's 6000 years old. That's not compatible with evolutionnism as I know it...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:13 am 
It depends. The Bible (to my limited knowledge) doesn't specifically describe the manner or means in which God created life, simply the fact and order, so as long as you go by that account it's not contradictory with evolution. Creationism is different, and I don't understand where those people are mentally.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:29 am 
The General wrote:
Well, I was talking about the theory, not the idiots who run it into the ground by overanalyzing all the wrong things.


Creation is not a theory. It's a guess. And a silly one at that.
Once again, someone who hasn't the foggiest idea of what a 'theory' is.

The classical idea of 'creation' is exclusive of evolution. You may have a personal view of a god that created the 'all' and let it evolve but when you call that concept 'Creation' you confuse everyone, Creationists and thinking people alike.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:08 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
The General wrote:
It depends. The Bible (to my limited knowledge) doesn't specifically describe the manner or means in which God created life, simply the fact and order, so as long as you go by that account it's not contradictory with evolution.


Except that it gets the order wrong too. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Just to say something.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:42 am 
How long is a day to a god?
What would a fruit fly consider to be a good day?
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
I can't answer those questions, nor can I answer the question of which came first... the chicken or the egg. But if somebody has the answers to those questions, I would like to hear them.

Creation? Mythology? Evolution?
Science is based on what you can SEE (or measure)...it is a public event.
Faith is based on what you FEEL (or believe)...it is a private, internal event.
If you can see a god creating life then that is science because some other god can copy and reproduce that event.
If you can believe that a god created life, that is faith, because no other god saw that event and could not copy that.
Both expressions have a place.

Evolution works (according to the current scientific thinking). But not so long ago INTELLIGENT people were having SERIOUS discussions regarding the first three questions.

Creating life? Is any one a god around here? Was it an isolated event?
I don't know the answer. I wasn't there. I have my own personal private faith (different from all others, it has to be because it is mine). We all use the results of scentific thinking every day of our lives (that magical box we call a computer). We all see the results of religous thinking every day (that religous far right thinking group the Taliban). We study the results of religous thinking (that rocking event called the Crusades and other less glorious events).

Like I said, I just wanted to say something.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:48 pm 
huh wrote:
How long is a day to a god?


As long as it takes heaven to rotate once about its axis.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:21 pm 
huh wrote:
(different from all others, it has to be because it is mine)

You're unique... just like everybody else?

Quote:
(that religous far right thinking group the Taliban)

And here I was expecting you to say the current state of politics.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:15 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
The General wrote:
Nyeh, you're reactions are too funny to ruin this now.


"So, what did you think of that?"
"Oh, I liked it!"
"Wha--uhh--aaaarrrgghh....*thumps head on table* YOU LIKED THAT?!?"
"No, I just wanted to see what you'd do if I said I did."

--Statler and Waldorf, The Muppets


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:45 pm 
jeremiahsmith wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
What I don't understand is why hard-core evolution teachers are dead-set against any sort of guidance to evolution at all and use evolution as a "Because there is evolution there is no god" deal.


Intelligent Design is not "God could have had a part in evolution". It's "God had to have a part because there's no way it could happen by itself." The difference is significant.


Now where was I saying that we should put Intelligent design in the curriculum? I was just saying that if a student brings it up, they should treat it like a non-science based possibility and not say that it's impossible, then go back to the science.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:07 pm 
I don't think the teacher saying "ID's not a scientific theory and anyone who says otherwise is a moron" is quite going to solve the issue, but whatever.

It's certainly appealing in some respects, though.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:21 pm 
I would argue that the best solution would be to assert that ID is a valid philosophical position, but not a valid scientific position - it is an unfalsifiable assertion, and thus is outside of scientific analysis. The problem is that this society as a whole assumes that 'reality' is singular, and that there can be only one 'right' answer to any question. Also, most people have little or no understanding of scientific method (including many scientists); most people would assume that 'unfalsifiable' means 'true', when it really is closer to 'meaningless'.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:57 pm 
Quote:
The problem is that this society as a whole assumes that 'reality' is singular, and that there can be only one 'right' answer to any question.


You're making it sound like it wasn't true.
(Ignoring questions like "what's the square root of 4", which indeed DO have more than one answer)


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group