Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Lol MSN. Creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not science! I am all for the freedom for people to believe whatever they choose, and I do think the creationist myth should be taught in schools, just not in science class.

If you think creation stories belong in science class, then why not include other creation stories? There are hundreds of different creation stories that stem from different religions. From Greek mythology, to the various tribes in Africa, to Buddhism, Hinduism, the list goes on and on. The reason all these stories do not belong in science class is because they are not science.

You keep talking about "subjectivity" as if this important to science, it is not. While I agree that there is much more to understanding humanity than objectivity, this is not the case in science. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, creation is not. Therefore creation does not belong in science class.

Finally, I will reiterate that evolution should NOT be considered as an opponent to religious beliefs. Evolution offers a beautiful explanation for how complex life can evolve from very simple beginnings but it does NOT claim to answer the question of the origin of life. Science does not yet have a well developed theory on the origin of life (i.e. where/how did life begin in the first place). All evolution tells us is how life has evolved after it already was here on earth. Trust me, as an atheist I wish that evolution could disprove God but the fact is that is doesn't.

You support people choosing, you just don't support teaching the fact that choices are made. You have not thought this through.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This shows your compete lack of understanding for what science is. Also, it is ridiculous that you call us "evolutionists" as if "believing" in evolution is an ideology or something.

Additionally, anyone who understands and appreciates science would tell you that we DO question EVERYTHING!! (Including the theory of evolution!!) That is the entire point of science! If anyone could offer any evidence whatsoever that evolution did not exist they would win a Nobel prize! Scientific theories are meant to be questioned, retested, changed, otherwise the scientific method would not be so effective!

Seriously I don't even know why I bother. . .

You demonstrably shove all knowledge about how anything is chosen in the universe aside. That is ideology.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution along with the scientific age of the earth does certainly debunk a literal translation of Creation as it is taught in Scripture. This is why creation stories are not (and should not) be taught in science classes.

Evolution is an explanation (again, supported with SO MUCH EVIDENCE) for how life went from simple to complex. It does NOT disprove God. It simply disproves a 6,000 year old earth, that all life was created in 6, 24hr days etc.

Answer me this, why couldn't God have created/guided the process of evolution on earth?

Also, have you even looked into why scientists all believe evolution is a valid theory? Do you really believe that earth is only thousands of years old?

Credit where it's due, the Bible correctly stated that the universe did in fact begin in a specific creation event.

'Big Bang' was the term atheist scientists used to mock the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom. Calling it 'religious pseudo-science' , complaining of religious concepts being imported into science.
They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

Similarly with classical physics- ' immutable laws' which made God redundant by presenting a complete explanation for the physical universe. Only the ignorant religious masses believed that there must be deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces at work. Again no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism also.

i.e. many of these big questions have been a battle of science v atheism. Perhaps science would have progressed faster if the latter had been kept out of the classroom?

 

[dust1n]

I do.

That's weird, because I learned about it in high school, The University of West Florida, and Pensacola State College. Also have watched classes on biology and evolution that were uploaded online for free from Yale and Stanford.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

You support people choosing, you just don't support teaching the fact that choices are made. You have not thought this through.

No, I just don't support teaching non-scientific theories in science class.

 

[metis]

Nevermind. I was wondering if you thought he might have a point,

I was not trying to be evasive. Was it this that he wrote: "All subjective things like fairness, honesty, courage, they simply pay no mind to it."? If so, let me deal with this.

I am an anthropologist, retired. In cultural anthropology, we deal with these three characteristics on a regular basis plus much more. Obviously, that is not something that a cosmologist or nuclear physicist is going to specialize in, much like I can only at best dabble a bit into what they specialize in.

Did I answer your question? If not, please clarify.

 

[metis]

Credit where it's due, the Bible correctly stated that the universe did in fact begin in a specific creation event.

'Big Bang' was the term atheist scientists used to mock the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom. Calling it 'religious pseudo-science' , complaining of religious concepts being imported into science.
They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

Similarly with classical physics- ' immutable laws' which made God redundant by presenting a complete explanation for the physical universe. Only the ignorant religious masses believed that there must be deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces at work. Again no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism also.

i.e. many of these big questions have been a battle of science v atheism. Perhaps science would have progressed faster if the latter had been kept out of the classroom?

The "Bible" is no more a science book than "On the Origin of Species" is a theology book.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, I just don't support teaching non-scientific theories in science class.

So it is not a scientific fact that freedom is real.

How do you rate your knowledge about how choosing works? The physics of it, the mathematics? Or the logic of it as used in common discourse. Would that be 1 out of 10?

So how does this work again with science always being open for testing, challenges? Does it work like this, somebody who does not know what they are talking about, nor even wants to know, writing some smart alecky remarks dismissing the whole thing?

It is very clear that you put pressure on knowledge about how things are chosen. And as subjectivity operates by choosing, then you get into an area of causing depression. That is reasonable argument. And if we look at the facts, it is shown true, that rejection of subjectivity caused by acceptance of evolution theory, is what is causing the increase in depression.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've noticed something.
The most adamant critics of a university are people who've never actually been to it.
It's easy to be certain when lacking experience.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

So it is not a scientific fact that freedom is real.


How do you rate your knowledge about how choosing works? The physics of it, the mathematics? Or the logic of it as used in common discourse. Would that be 1 out of 10?


So how does this work again with science always being open for testing, challenges? Does it work like this, somebody who does not know what they are talking about, nor even wants to know, writing some smart alecky remarks dismissing the whole thing?


It is very clear that you put pressure on knowledge about how things are chosen. And as subjectivity operates by choosing, then you get into an area of causing depression. That is reasonable argument. And if we look at the facts, it is shown true, that rejection of subjectivity caused by acceptance of evolution theory, is what is causing the increase in depression.

What I am saying is that subjectivity is a philosophical concept. Science is objective by definition. If science teachers were to teach evolution and then say, "evolution has shown us that there is no biblical God" then that teacher would be wrong to do so, because that is a subjective view of the evidence for evolution, and subjective views are not what science is all about.


To use the example that has been thrown out there already, one person can look at a painting and say, "what a beautiful painting" while another person looks at the same painting and says, "how ugly". In this example, two people have attempted to answer the subjective question of, "is this painting beautiful?" Science does not seek to find the answers to subjective questions because they cannot be tested.


Here are examples of questions science would seek to answer:


How old is that painting?

Who is the artist of that painting?

What type of paint was used to create that painting?


All of these questions have an objectively true answer. We may not know the answer, but they can all be proven to be true/untrue.


Now, if I were to make a CLAIM to know any of these answers I would have to prove it with objective evidence. I could not say, "I know this painting was painted by Picasso because I love Picasso and I love this painting" that would be a subjective line of reasoning and consequently bad science. If I said, "I know this painting was painted by Picasso because his signature is in the corner" that is an objective, testable piece of evidence. Now, in order to say the painting was definitely painted by Picasso we could take several lines of evidence (signature, type of paint used, age of painting, etc.) and using all these pieces of evidence we could have a pretty good idea that it is indeed a Picasso. BUT in order for us to have a sound "theory" of the painting being by Picasso, it would not be enough to simply say all my evidence and leave it at that. No, I would then have to publish my findings and ask the entire world to review my evidence and make sure we arrive at the same conclusion.


The question of, "did life evolve on earth" is a scientific question because it definitely has an objective answer. Either it did, or it did not.

 

[Shad]

Credit where it's due, the Bible correctly stated that the universe did in fact begin in a specific creation event.

'Big Bang' was the term atheist scientists used to mock the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom. Calling it 'religious pseudo-science' , complaining of religious concepts being imported into science.
They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

The problem with your scripted response is the BB theory is about inflation not the beginning of the universe. This is a common error in which people trace back in time using physics models while ignoring the fact that physics breaks down in Einsteins own formulation. IE The math fails. Quantum mechanics also has rendered this "beginning" untenable. There are also other issues with the singularity concept specifically with Einstein's math.

Similarly with classical physics- ' immutable laws' which made God redundant by presenting a complete explanation for the physical universe. Only the ignorant religious masses believed that there must be deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces at work. Again no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism also.

Planck religious views are irrelevant. He is also out of date by decades. In his own words his views of God were based on faith so has no merit within science.

i.e. many of these big questions have been a battle of science v atheism. Perhaps science would have progressed faster if the latter had been kept out of the classroom?

Atheism was not taught in a classroom unless the teacher was a fanatic, which is grounds for dismissal, or you lived under a communist system. One could easily charge the same on the religious in modern times with those that reject evolution. However in the end both "sides", religion/atheism, only have influence with the masses that are not involved at all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

, because that is a subjective view of the evidence for evolution, and subjective views are not what science is all about.

Maybe we are getting somewhere. Don't you think I already know all that. Of course I do, anybody would know if they simply "studied" it, thought about it at length, discussed it, and looked at the available information etc.

Evolutionists are putting pressure on the knowledge about how things are chosen, it cannot be denied. You may say, oh that is philosophy, but then, that is not safeguarding our knowledge. Evolutionists are, well, they know no bounds, they are extremists, generally. Pitbulls fighting for evolution against creationism. They don't respect philosophy, religion, or common discourse, in which our knowledge about how things are chosen, and likewise our subjectivity, would then be safe. Evolutionists put pressure, and more importantly people in general put pressure on this knowledge.

The wellknown head vs heart struggle. People are tempted naturally to conceive of everything in terms of it being fact, including good and evil, God, the soul, and everything. The head fights against the heart, fact replaces opinion. So you see that then evolution theory becomes a catalyst in the already existing head vs heart struggle, and subjectivity gets to be mangled.

We should have scientific knowledge about how things are chosen. About how people choose, but just as well about how things in the universe in general are chosen. That way we can safeguard our knowledge about how things are chosen. To describe how choosing works mathematically and in physics, is a complicated issue. It involves among other things, positing that the future is real. That an object has potentials existing at time t+1, which may or may not become the present, which means chosen. It may also involve reinterpreting the laws of nature, so as that objects consist of the laws of nature. But aside from these technical difficulties, it is shown that theory in terms of things being chosen, obviously with human behaviour, but also with the design of organisms being chosen in nature, has much merit.

It is science that should be respected, and most of all scientists should accept that the issue of what the agency of a decision is, is a subjective issue. That is not making subjectivity part of science, it is just acknowledging a limit on science that it cannot make objective statements about agency, which means science cannot say what is good and evil, beautiful etc.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

Maybe we are getting somewhere. Don't you think I already know all that. Of course I do, anybody would know if they simply "studied" it, thought about it at length, discussed it, and looked at the available information etc.

Evolutionists are putting pressure on the knowledge about how things are chosen, it cannot be denied. You may say, oh that is philosophy, but then, that is not safeguarding our knowledge. Evolutionists are, well, they know no bounds, they are extremists, generally. Pitbulls fighting for evolution against creationism. They don't respect philosophy, religion, or common discourse, in which our knowledge about how things are chosen, and likewise our subjectivity, would then be safe. Evolutionists put pressure, and more importantly people in general put pressure on this knowledge.

The wellknown head vs heart struggle. People are tempted naturally to conceive of everything in terms of it being fact, including good and evil, God, the soul, and everything. The head fights against the heart, fact replaces opinion. So you see that then evolution theory becomes a catalyst in the already existing head vs heart struggle, and subjectivity gets to be mangled.

We should have scientific knowledge about how things are chosen. About how people choose, but just as well about how things in the universe in general are chosen. That way we can safeguard our knowledge about how things are chosen. To describe how choosing works mathematically and in physics, is a complicated issue. It involves among other things, positing that the future is real. That an object has potentials existing at time t+1, which may or may not become the present, which means chosen. It may also involve reinterpreting the laws of nature, so as that objects consist of the laws of nature. But aside from these technical difficulties, it is shown that theory in terms of things being chosen, obviously with human behaviour, but also with the design of organisms being chosen in nature, has much merit.

It is science that should be respected, and most of all scientists should accept that the issue of what the agency of a decision is, is a subjective issue. That is not making subjectivity part of science, it is just acknowledging a limit on science that it cannot make objective statements about agency, which means science cannot say what is good and evil, beautiful etc.

MNS, your poor English makes it very difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Also, you could not be more misguided on your interpretations of evolutionary theory, and of science in general.

That is all, I am going to quit wasting my time with someone as deluded as you clearly are. I hope religion gives you peace because your intelligence is certainly not going to get you very far. I will say this just one more time: SCIENCE IS NOT INTERESTED IN SUBJECTIVITY. SCIENCE USES EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIVITY TO MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE WORLD.

Answer me this one question please Muhammad: if you are so concerned in human agency, subjectivity etc, why pick on evolution? In other words, why do you not feel that the theory of gravity poses the same problem (of not recognizing subjectivity)?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science is objective by definition.

No it isn't. At all. Why does it seem that every time some would be challenge of evolutionary theory is proffered (evolutionary theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression? If the theory is true, then should we lie about it? what difference does the mental health of a population prone to mental health issues make about the veracity of evolutionary theory?), the stalwart champions who defend "Science", "theory", and/or "The Scientific Method" most ardently always seem to be those who aren't practicing scientists and usually lack much in the way of a background in evolutionary theory, biology, and often the sciences more generally?
Definitions can't make something objective, there is nothing about any standard definitions of "science" that make it true by definition, and this is wholly irrelevant anyway.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

No it isn't. At all. Why does it seem that every time some would be challenge of evolutionary theory is proffered (evolutionary theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression? If the theory is true, then should we lie about it? what difference does the mental health of a population prone to mental health issues make about the veracity of evolutionary theory?), the stalwart champions who defend "Science", "theory", and/or "The Scientific Method" most ardently always seem to be those who aren't practicing scientists and usually lack much in the way of a background in evolutionary theory, biology, and often the sciences more generally?
Definitions can't make something objective, there is nothing about any standard definitions of "science" that make it true by definition, and this is wholly irrelevant anyway.

What I am trying to say is that science seeks to find objective truth. In terms of what us scientists value it would always be objectivity over subjectivity. This is relevant to Muhammad's claim that Creationism should be taught alongside science in schools essentially because he values subjectivity. If you read the back and forth we had I think you would see how this is relevant.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What I am trying to say is that science seeks to find objective truth.

Scientists frequently see themselves as doing so (I do). "Science" doesn't, nor do all scientists. Also, this is irrelevant. Putting science on some god-like pedestal is no way to combat illogical, baseless claims about evolutionary theory that are motivated by religion and ignorance.

In terms of what us scientists value it would always be objectivity over subjectivity.

Actually, most scientists should (if not would) always value the recognition that they can't be objective so as to minimize there necessary biases.

This is relevant to Muhammad's claim that Creationism should be taught alongside science in schools essentially because he values subjectivity.

Valuing subjectivity is fine. There is nothing about valuing subjectivity that warrants teaching creationism. By this "logic", we should teach torture and molestation too.

If you read the back and forth we had I think you would see how this is relevant.

I have. And I see why both of you think it relevant. I just don't understand why you think your reasoning sound.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

Actually, most scientists should (if not would) always value the recognition that they can't be objective so as to minimize there necessary biases.

I am not saying we don't value this. I am just saying it is not what science seeks to do. He was bringing in philosophical and sociological arguments to defend his position (which I agree is irrelevant and absurd) I was attempting to explain how subjectivity is an irrelevant and invalid line of reasoning to argue for creationism being taught in science class.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not saying we don't value this.

When I say "we" here, I mean "we scientists." I don't know if you work as a researcher or not, but I thought I should make that clear.

I am just saying it is not what science seeks to do.

Science doesn't seek anything, and objectivity is just as much a philosophical "construct" as is subjectivity.

He was bringing in philosophical and sociological arguments to defend his position (which I agree is irrelevant and absurd)

Neither philosophy nor sociology is absurd here. Their misuse is.

I was attempting to explain how subjectivity is an irrelevant and invalid line of reasoning to argue for creationism being taught in science class.

You used objectivity to argue your point, thus defeating yourself. The reason we shouldn't teach creationism in science classes has nothing to do with the would-be objectivity of scientists but because creationism doesn't even meet the standards of evidence required of fields in the humanities like history, certainly isn't a scientific view, isn't supported by any methods used in any sciences, and requires a series of logical fallacies just to justify attempting to equate it with evolutionary theory,

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

I am not saying we don't value this. I am just saying it is not what science seeks to do. He was bringing in philosophical and sociological arguments to defend his position (which I agree is irrelevant and absurd) I was attempting to explain how subjectivity is an irrelevant and invalid line of reasoning to argue for creationism being taught in science class.

This shows your compete lack of understanding for what science is. Also, it is ridiculous that you call us "evolutionists" as if "believing" in evolution is an ideology or something.

Additionally, anyone who understands and appreciates science would tell you that we DO question EVERYTHING!! (Including the theory of evolution!!) That is the entire point of science! If anyone could offer any evidence whatsoever that evolution did not exist they would win a Nobel prize! Scientific theories are meant to be questioned, retested, changed, otherwise the scientific method would not be so effective!

Seriously I don't even know why I bother. . .

I definitely should have left it at this lol

 

[viole]

I do.

Not surprisingly

Ciao

- viole