What is a 'theory' ?

[Skeptisch]

Newhope, that small list of scientists is always the same, and it does not support your case.

One wonders to what degree Newhope and his creation scientists are influenced by Pascal’s Wager? The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

 

[Frank Merton]

First of all, the Theory of Evolution is not "polemical", if by that you mean controversial. Evolution, itself, is a fact as sound as any other, and the scientific theory that explains it is as certain as certain can be in science.

I don't know that facts can't sometimes be polemical; nevertheless, Dawkins is. I find myself wincing at the way he says things, even though I think he is generally right (at least his biology is). I also understand why some people would put him down after just a few pages.

As for personal biases accounting for "what we get out of a book", your are, of course, referring to the religious community, whose predisposed need for a comforting "world view" most certainly does instill a preinclination to be assured by what reassures.

I think it is a mistake to think that the same bias tendency does not apply to oneself. The bias one brings to a book is only harder to see. We all give more credence to things that reinforce our beliefs than to things that conflict with them; it is only natural.

 

[Frank Merton]

"There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science."

I think that this point is well taken. All of existence is the domain of both science and of religion. Therefore when they seem to conflict, we need to consider that maybe there is an error, or at least a misinterpretation, somewhere.

There are many ways people try to draw a boundary between the two realms -- faith, falsifiability, repeatability, and so on. I think the definition of science should be broader than these things permit. Regardless, in the end, our religious beliefs need to stand up to reasonable science.

The only real exception to that is that sometimes scientists go too far and reject things only on lack of evidence. In areas where there is not enough evidence to force reasonable people to a conclusion, a wait and see attitude is needed rather than dogmatic rejections.

 

[andys]

I don't know that facts can't sometimes be polemical; nevertheless, Dawkins is. I find myself wincing at the way he says things, even though I think he is generally right (at least his biology is). I also understand why some people would put him down after just a few pages.

I agree. Richard Dawkins makes little effort to conceal his contempt for creationists.

That he may have exerted an ounce of effort is bewildering to me, in view of the fact that creationists' actions truly are contemptible. You will concede that these people have nothing to offer that even resembles a legitimate scientific hypothesis to propose, never mind an alternative scientific theory. All they have is religious propaganda consisting of deliberately falsified information and a relentless agenda to impose their nonsense on society. Creationism is not science, it is a well-funded social-political movement that poses a serious threat to the status of science.

Recently, it has adopted a whole new strategy that is unstoppable. It is bypassing the the courts and the scientific arena and is targeting the public directly. It has discovered that the way to avoid exposure to its fallible dogma is to create "churches" disguised as museums.

I was shocked to discover how incredibly lucrative these edifices of illusion are for them. The modus operandi is blatantly Disneyesque; beguile the public with entertainment. And what better suckers could you ask for than the average immediate-gratification-seeking American.

These market-minded creationists even infiltrate public museums and provide the unsuspecting visitors free tours of the exhibits, adding their skewed interpretation to everything displayed. The audacity! Informative pamphlets are generously distributed explaining the "myths" of evolution, and suggesting further reading sources.

I think it is a mistake to think that the same bias tendency does not apply to oneself. The bias one brings to a book is only harder to see. We all give more credence to things that reinforce our beliefs than to things that conflict with them; it is only natural.

That's what distinguishes a believer from the rest of us. We rational sorts don't open a book of science with crazy biases involving supernatural beings.

 

[gnostic]

The only real exception to that is that sometimes scientists go too far and reject things only on lack of evidence. In areas where there is not enough evidence to force reasonable people to a conclusion, a wait and see attitude is needed rather than dogmatic rejections.

But how long do you wait for evidences?

Science can take a long time to check, test and then re-check and re-test for a number of years, decades.

But with the thing about god, angel and demon, how do you wait for their existence to be manifested as evidences?

Already Abrahamic religions have rejected all other gods from other religions, without any evidences to support their rejection of other religions, and yet they expect the supernaturals of the Abrahamic religions, written by ancient superstitious men on archaic belief of unnatural miracles and superior invisible beings, without a single evidence.

In this day and age, where science have proven as well as explain so many natural phenomena (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy), and you ask to be patient for evidences of god or miracles that are not forthcoming, then you asking for too much.

I agnostic, and even I don't have patient with creationism. Don't get me wrong, I love good stories, like ancient myths from ancient cultures, but I known from my experience of day to day life, that magic and supernatural don't exist. I have read about gods and goddesses from ancient European and Near Eastern literature, and I have to say the Bible (both Jewish and Christian) and the Qur'an are no different from myths that these religions have discredited.

If you've read the Genesis or the Book of Revelation, how is that any more believable than Hesiod's Theogony?

All the Judaeo-Christian religions have done is replace one myth for another, and it is no more believable than the Greek or Mesopotamian myths.

It is not biased, Frank. It is accept what is real and what's not real. If you want to belief in the hocus pocus of religion and the great invisible all-powerful and all-knowing man, then that's your right to believe. But please don't ask to accept religion as science, because it is not.

 

[Frank Merton]

I agree. Richard Dawkins makes little effort to conceal his contempt for creationists.

That he, and many others, develop healthy contempt for "creation science" is both understandable and unfortunate. The problem is that most of the population is uninformed and therefore don't easily see the differences between real science and the many pseudo-sciences, of which creationism is but one. Still, it is best to avoid showing contempt or ridicule, no matter how strong the temptation. Christians especially thrive on feelings of persecution.

Creationism is not science, it is a well-funded social-political movement that poses a serious threat to the status of science.

It is a threat: similar stuff conquered the mostly rational Roman Empire and put Europe into a millennium-long dark age. However, the threat needs to be balanced.

Recently, it has adopted a whole new strategy that is unstoppable.

The solution is education; I recently had an exchange here where I presented my view that the present anti-Creationist approach of depending o the First Amendment to keep Creationism out of the schools is self-defeating as it end up with the HS student getting very little evolution instruction at all. This leaves them vulnerable. I think a better course would be to allow the creationist view to be present in the school, but in a point by point comparison of the two.

 

[Frank Merton]

But how long do you wait for evidences?

As long as it takes; some questions may never be answered.

All the Judaeo-Christian religions have done is replace one myth for another, and it is no more believable than the Greek or Mesopotamian myths.

I would say that the victory of Christianity over the old paganism during Constantine's efforts to usurp power was one of the biggest disasters of history; it replaced a set of tolerant, relatively undemanding deities with a jealous, demanding God.

It is not biased, Frank. It is accept what is real and what's not real. If you want to belief in the hocus pocus of religion and the great invisible all-powerful and all-knowing man, then that's your right to believe. But please don't ask to accept religion as science, because it is not.

Oh come now! Religion is not hocus-pocus -- it only sometimes has elements of that in it. Also, please don't attribute beliefs I argue we should be tolerant of as my actual beliefs. That is a serious logical error. Finally, I think religion and science deal with existence -- in other words, with the same things, but that is a far cry from saying I think religion is science.

 

[Frank Merton]

[One wonders to what degree Newhope and his creation scientists are influenced by Pascal’s Wager?

Some are probably charlatans, others are genuine. I have many times seen Christians posts versions of Pascal's Wager, although rarely in as sophisticated a way as Pascal did.

I think, all else being equal (which is the real problem with it -- things are never equal in this sort of consideration), we would all be willing to make Pascal's Wager. Indeed, we do when we reject things like solipsism or nihilism. The consequences that flow from our belief that there is a real external world are tolerable; the consequences otherwise are not -- even though we can offer no proof.

 

[gnostic]

As long as it takes; some questions may never be answered.

Then Creation, like as found in the Genesis, and the miracles of Moses and Jesus, should all be accepted as myths or fables, until empirical evidences are found to prove otherwise; empirical as in that the evidence can be tested and proven, and verified with other independent evidences.

Newton's laws and theory weren't accepted until other scientists can perform the same tests. Evolution was accepted until other scientists have verified Darwin's natural selection.

Accept that without evidences, creation myth shouldn't be treated as science. It is stupid to accept something supernatural without evidences.

 

[gnostic]

Oh come now! Religion is not hocus-pocus -- it only sometimes has elements of that in it.

Is not?

I am referring to hocus-pocus as in magic and the supernatural (or unnatural), but it also could be trick, if not outright fraudulent claims.

How about the illusion trick of Aaron's staff turning into snake? It is parlor trick.

Parting the Red Sea and the pillar of fire? Is not exaggeration and imaginative storytelling?

So is Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick and raising the dead (Lazarus).

There have been so many claims of such miracles since then.

That is a serious logical error. Finally, I think religion and science deal with existence -- in other words, with the same things, but that is a far cry from saying I think religion is science.

Science deal with natural phenomena, without the needs for divine being. It use empirical methodology to understand these natural phenomena.

The serious logical mistake is for people like you, thinking that religious narrative and faith have any real basis in reality, especially with a divine being creating our world in the 6-day. Trying to turn creation into science is nothing more than shameless propaganda by Christians, instead of using scientific methodology. Which is exactly what you are doing.

"God did it", is not logical explanation; and certainly not scientific explanation. To use "God did it" formula, it is faith-based, not evidence-based.

I can accept religion as it is. It is a spiritual or mystic guide. A moral guide. Full of allegory and parables that teach people about these morals or spiritual journey.

What I will not accept is you trying to push religion into science, when it has no basis.

Until you understand the difference between theology and science, that they are not the same, then you will be enlightened that religion have no place in science, especially God and its miracles have no place in reality.

How do you know that anything written in any scripture to be true?

And I mean "true" as in factual. How do you know they are telling the truth, when they write something that defy nature?

How do you know the scriptures are not just using allegory?

 

[Frank Merton]

Then Creation, like as found in the Genesis, and the miracles of Moses and Jesus, should all be accepted as myths or fables, until empirical evidences are found to prove otherwise; empirical as in that the evidence can be tested and proven, and verified with other independent evidences.

I think enough evidence that these stories are essentially mythical is readily available, but you need to remember that myth is an important element in religion, that only the more abstruse continue to insist on literal interpretations. In other words, it is not necessary to rely on absence of evidence to undermine literal interpretations of these stories.

Newton's laws and theory weren't accepted until other scientists can perform the same tests. Evolution was accepted until other scientists have verified Darwin's natural selection.

I think in both cases scientific acceptance was almost immediate and almost universal. I can think of only one prominent scientist (Agassiz) who resisted Darwinism, and none who resisted Newton. The reason was not experimental confirmation, but the masses of evidence both authors presented and the inherent obviousness of their explanations, once understood.

 

[Frank Merton]

Is not?

I find it tiresome to respond to people who have their own agenda and impute what they want to refute into my words. Kindly respond to what I actually say, and stop distorting it and putting words into my mouth.

For example, I did not say that religion has no hocus-pocus; I said it contains such things sometimes, but that is not what religion really is. Your response was merely to give some rather silly examples. Straw man argumentation does not persuade me of anything.

 

[andys]

I think a better course would be to allow the creationist view to be present in the school, but in a point by point comparison of the two.

Oh no, no, no. Once this religious propaganda entered the school system it would easily be perceived as having gained academic endorsement as legitimate science. It would also permit creationist-minded teachers (shudder) to skew their lessons in its favour.

On second thought, perhaps there is one place it could to be taught in school - in psychology classes under "disorders of the mind".

 

[Frank Merton]

Oh no, no, no. Once this religious propaganda entered the school system it would easily be perceived as having gained academic endorsement as legitimate science. It would also permit creationist-minded teachers (shudder) to skew their lessons in its favour.

On second thought, perhaps there is one place it could to be taught in school - in psychology classes under "disorders of the mind".

What you say might happen in many schools. What happens now is that the subject is avoided entirely (in most schools, there are some good exceptions).

The subject being avoided, or only lightly touched, leads to general population ignorance, and a surrender of education on the topic to the pulpit.

Your point about the danger of giving creationism an appearance of scientific respectability is well taken. I would think, though, that this could be handled in the details of the way the topic is presented.

 

[PolyHedral]

Your point about the danger of giving creationism an appearance of scientific respectability is well taken. I would think, though, that this could be handled in the details of the way the topic is presented.

The topic of creationism should not be presented at all, because to present it at all gives it the appearance of credibility where it has none.

 

[Copernicus]

What you say might happen in many schools. What happens now is that the subject is avoided entirely (in most schools, there are some good exceptions).

I do not think that we have an accurate picture of how it is treated in "most schools". We have a lot of anecdotal evidence and no good statistics that I know of. I suspect that the subject is poorly treated in Bible Belt schools, and it is much better treated in urban public schools. Catholic schools probably do a decent job (or will in the future), because the Pope has endorsed evolution theory (i.e. the Christian version in which God "sets things in motion").

The subject being avoided, or only lightly touched, leads to general population ignorance, and a surrender of education on the topic to the pulpit.

The question of what causes the avoidance is where we have a difference of opinion. You seem to think that it is the intransigence of those who think that "creation science" is a misnomer and has no place in the science curriculum. I think that it is caused by the dumbing down of the science curriculum by those who would introduce creationism in the classroom. What you do not seem to get is that the controversy would not be put to rest by injecting religious mythology as a viable component of a biology class. It does belong in a social studies class, where political controversies are more relevant to the subject matter. By giving in to pressure from fundamentalist Christians on this issue, you simply pour gasoline on the fire. There isn't any compromise that will make the controversy go away.

Your point about the danger of giving creationism an appearance of scientific respectability is well taken. I would think, though, that this could be handled in the details of the way the topic is presented.

That is pure speculation. My opinion is that your proposal would actually inflame the situation by forcing teachers everywhere to explain what side of the controversy they come down on. To some extent, they already have to do that--which is why many seek to avoid the subject. Your compromise would not make the controversy suddenly disappear because secular school systems have suddenly decided to teach creationism as if it were a possible approach to explaining biological diversity.

 

[Frank Merton]

The topic of creationism should not be presented at all, because to present it at all gives it the appearance of credibility where it has none.

Lots of things should be or should not be. That is not a realistic approach and only leads to defeat.

It seems to me creationism already has the appearance of credibility to most people, and I think it is because of the poor education on the subject people get in America.

 

[Frank Merton]

I do not think that we have an accurate picture of how it is treated in "most schools". We have a lot of anecdotal evidence and no good statistics that I know of. I suspect that the subject is poorly treated in Bible Belt schools, and it is much better treated in urban public schools. Catholic schools probably do a decent job (or will in the future), because the Pope has endorsed evolution theory (i.e. the Christian version in which God "sets things in motion").

My experience here is with the choice of textbooks, and is a few years old since I now live in Asia, but I know for a certainty that the textbooks, even for the most liberal, urban of districts, give a chapter or two (usually in the back where they are never reached during the class term) to evolution, and the topic is never even mentioned elsewhere. This is seriously wrong. Evolution is the center of any understanding of biology, and should be taught first, and incorporated into the entire text. Given the quality of American teachers, I seriously doubt that the teacher is going to correct for this.

The question of what causes the avoidance is where we have a difference of opinion. You seem to think that it is the intransigence of those who think that "creation science" is a misnomer and has no place in the science curriculum. I think that it is caused by the dumbing down of the science curriculum by those who would introduce creationism in the classroom. What you do not seem to get is that the controversy would not be put to rest by injecting religious mythology as a viable component of a biology class. It does belong in a social studies class, where political controversies are more relevant to the subject matter. By giving in to pressure from fundamentalist Christians on this issue, you simply pour gasoline on the fire. There isn't any compromise that will make the controversy go away.

My perception is not quite as you describe it. The dumbing down phenomenon is going to destroy America. You should compare schools in Asia -- especially India. That aside, the issue here is creationism. Of course the issue would not be put to rest, but we just might see the issue even brought up. I feel confident that the truth, when given a chance to be heard, will generally win out.