How interested in the US elections are you?

Do the US elections matter to you?

  • Hugely important

  • Taking a casual interest

  • Meh...

  • There's an election?


Results are only viewable after voting.

GreenMunchkin

Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things.
Supporter
Jan 21, 2007
20,382
7,476
45
United Kingdom of wo0t
✟99,941.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This didn't show up in my subscribed threads, for some reason. Am sorry. It looks really rude that I didn't respond :hug:
It’s not about mocking it’s about being ill equipped to do a subject because they're ill informed of the realities of science.
Except there *are* scientists who also believe in creationsim. Have a look http://www.answersingenesis.org and you'll see that for many, creationism is something defendable. It's a genuine area of apologetics. I personally don't hold to a literal translation of Genesis, but many do, for what they feel are legitimate, scientifically valid reasons.

Most of the people in uni I've known were Christian (a few dozen) but only one was a creationist and she wasn't mocked. My MSc supervisor was a devout Christian who did a talk in his church every week and occasionally reminded me about how he worried about my atheism, he also considered creationism to be invalid as a science.
As Marcus stated science isn’t a democracy, science lessons should reflect the realities of science in academia and industry. Creationism is simply not used by either because it’s useless when it comes to scientific research so what’s the point of teaching it?
Macro-evolution isn't verifiable, either, but that's taught as a science. Science isn't as black and white as that.

If people want their kids taught creationism they should send them to a church that holds that view, or give them genesis to read. There is nothing to be gained by giving it some false legitimacy in a science lesson but I do think if a student does bring up a question on creationism it should be addressed and not dismissed.

Many parents hold beliefs in Ghosts, homoeopathy and a small number hold the sun goes round the earth, should these things be also taught as science?
Ghosts and homeopathy... I wouldn't be so quick to say no with those. I don't believe ghosts exist, but enough people do to validate it being taught. At least an exposition of what they could be. And homeopathy has legitimate affects on the body. So, again, that has scientific merit. But, no, the sun circling the earth is crazy talk and doesn't belong in a science class.

I’m not implying believing in creationism is criminal and I'm sorry if you thought that was my implication. I’m saying that creationism is essentially anti-science. My analogy might be overly emotive but that’s how I as a scientist feel. Creationism weakens science because it adds untestable elements that make the whole process of science useless.
But, again, so does macro-evolution. It's so far untested, unverified and 100% theory, and yet it's taught as fact.

So teach kids about both - give them all the information we have on both, and allow them to come to their own conclusions. Both schools of thought do have merit.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
This didn't show up in my subscribed threads, for some reason. Am sorry. It looks really rude that I didn't respond :hug:
Dont worry about it, after tonight I'll be quite busy so a worthwhile response may be slow coming but I'll definitely try to address your comments as soon as possible.

 
Upvote 0

MarcusHill

Educator and learner
May 1, 2007
976
76
Manchester
✟16,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Except there *are* scientists who also believe in creationsim. Have a look http://www.answersingenesis.org and you'll see that for many, creationism is something defendable. It's a genuine area of apologetics. I personally don't hold to a literal translation of Genesis, but many do, for what they feel are legitimate, scientifically valid reasons.


Oddly enough, all are Christians. It's interesting how no atheist scientists look at the evidence and come to those "valid conclusions", and yet the vast majority of Christian scientists follow the evidence and find it points overwhelmingly at evolution.

Although science isn't a democracy, the science that gets taught in school is, by necessity, only the science that is accepted by overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. This consensus can and does change when evidence is presented, even when the new position was initially denigrated - for instance, the bacterial cause of the majority of stomach ulcers was widely doubted until experiments proved it was so. The problem with creationism is the total lack of real evidence.


Macro-evolution isn't verifiable, either, but that's taught as a science. Science isn't as black and white as that.


What do you mean by "macro-evolution"? I'm afraid that most creationists either don't have a real idea, or hide behind a definition that is basically "whatever level of evolution hasn't been observed yet" tautological definition. Scientifically, the only definition of "macro-evolution" that makes sense is when speciation occurs - two descendants of the same creature that can no longer interbreed. That has been obseved numerous times, both in the lab and in nature.

Ghosts and homeopathy... I wouldn't be so quick to say no with those. I don't believe ghosts exist, but enough people do to validate it being taught. At least an exposition of what they could be. And homeopathy has legitimate affects on the body. So, again, that has scientific merit. But, no, the sun circling the earth is crazy talk and doesn't belong in a science class.

No scientific experiment has demonstrated the existence of ghosts. There is no cogent, rational explanation of "what they could be" beyond the imagination and pattern-seeking nature of humans. They don't belong in a science class. Anthropology or psychology, perhaps, in explaining why people believe they see things that aren't there.

Repeated scientific studies have shown that the effect of homeopathy is indistinguishable from the placebo effect. A combination of confirmation hypothesis, people's reluctance to think they've shelled out good money for a small vial of water and the underestimation of how powerful the placebo effect actually is account for the good anecdotal evidence touted by homeopaths. It would serve as a decent case study in the scientific method, demonstrating that no amount of anecdotal evidence trumps proper controlled trials in science.

But, again, so does macro-evolution. It's so far untested, unverified and 100% theory, and yet it's taught as fact.
So teach kids about both - give them all the information we have on both, and allow them to come to their own conclusions. Both schools of thought do have merit.

As I mentioned, only creationists think any major aspect of evolution is unverified, and that's because they reason from conclusions and deny evidence that contradicts those conclusions. It is this antiscientific way of doing things that makes it devoid of merit in a scientific sense.
 
Upvote 0

huldah153

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2007
501
13
✟742.00
Faith
Oddly enough, all are Christians. It's interesting how no atheist scientists look at the evidence and come to those "valid conclusions", and yet the vast majority of Christian scientists follow the evidence and find it points overwhelmingly at evolution.

Of course an atheist would accept the theory of evolution. If you don't believe in any gods, you're not going to say that a god did it.

Although many agnostics, such as David Berlinski and Fred Hoyle, have vehemently opposed evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Pogue

left CF, please see profile for further details
Supporter
Mar 6, 2006
11,851
525
35
http://www.thesonscafe.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15
✟37,340.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Greens
Sorry if all this has been said before- don't have time to go through the whole thread!
For me, they are hugely important just because US politics, and I suppose culture as well, has a huge impact on the UK and the rest of Europe. I have been told in the past that perhaps I don't have any room to comment on the US elections or have an opinion on the candidates because I'm a Brit and it doesn't concern me, but it does, because the USA is the biggest superpower around today and carries an enormous weight in international politics. We're involved in a war at the moment, and if it wasn't for the friendship between the US and the UK, I doubt we'd be involved to anything like the same extent, and that's why it's so important for me.
I'm held back a little by my general ignorance about the workings of American politics, though :)
 
Upvote 0

MarcusHill

Educator and learner
May 1, 2007
976
76
Manchester
✟16,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Of course an atheist would accept the theory of evolution. If you don't believe in any gods, you're not going to say that a god did it.

Although many agnostics, such as David Berlinski and Fred Hoyle, have vehemently opposed evolution.

But ID proponents don't say that a god did it, they say an "intelligent designer" did, whilst remaining resolutely noncommittal about the identity of the designer. If the evidence really did point that way, thousands of atheist biologists would be busily searching for the identity of the designer whose existence is shown by the evidence.

Berlinski is a mathematician, Hoyle was a cosmologist. Show me an atheist biologist who rejects evolution and you might just have the beginnings of an argument from authority.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Except there *are* scientists who also believe in creationism. Have a lookhttp://www.answersingenesis.org and you'll see that for many, creationism is something defendable. It's a genuine area of apologetics. I personally don't hold to a literal translation of Genesis, but many do, for what they feel are legitimate, scientifically valid reasons.

Oh I certainly know there are scientists that believe in creationism, As I said one of my friends in university was a creationist and a scientist but the work she did had no baring in evolution or creation.

I know about AIG and are actually a good example of what I talk about when I state creationism is anti-science... I invite you to read their statement of faith here

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
The quote above from their statement of faith essentially says no evidence no matter how compelling will change our minds on what we accept as the truth. Would you regard such a view as being scientific?

They have a conclusion and they will stick to it no matter what, which is the exact opposite of how science should work.

Macro-evolution isn't verifiable, either, but that's taught as a science. Science isn't as black and white as that.
I'll take it that when you say Macro-evolution your talking about common decent; there is actually quite a lot of evidence for this.

Just taking the genetic evidence of humans sharing a common ancestor with other apes (chimps, gorillas, etc...) pseudogenes and ERV's can be used as phylogenetic markers that are easily explained and predicted by common decent but make little sense coming from a design POV. Also there is the fusion event of human chromosome 2, which is my particular fav piece of evidence.

Ghosts and homeopathy... I wouldn't be so quick to say no with those. I don't believe ghosts exist, but enough people do to validate it being taught. At least an exposition of what they could be. And homeopathy has legitimate affects on the body. So, again, that has scientific merit.
Ghosts really have very little in the way of evidence outside of the anecdotal. People can make mistakes when it comes to perception; this is especially true when exposed to environmental effects such as infrasound, which seems to be present in many places with a history of ghosts.

Homeopathy can be explained by the placebo effect, which can be very powerful. Just to note if homeopathy actually worked then all we think we know about chemistry would be wrong and we would be unable to utilize our current knowledge for anything. But we can and do use our knowledge of chemistry for a range of processes everyday.


But, no, the sun circling the earth is crazy talk and doesn't belong in a science class.
But some people actually think this, shouldn’t their views be promoted also?

But, again, so does macro-evolution. It's so far untested, unverified...
Actually it's constantly tested because it's a applied science. If it didn’t work then the theory would be modified to fit the new data. If the theory cant incorporate the new data it is effectively falsified and a new theory would take it's place.

...and 100% theory, and yet it's taught as fact.
You need to be careful with your terminology here, a theory in science isn’t a guess; it's the highest level an idea in science can get to. Other things that are 100% theory are atomic theory and germ theory.

So teach kids about both - give them all the information we have on both, and allow them to come to their own conclusions. Both schools of thought do have merit.
Can you show how creationism has scientific merit?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

huldah153

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2007
501
13
✟742.00
Faith
But ID proponents don't say that a god did it, they say an "intelligent designer" did, whilst remaining resolutely noncommittal about the identity of the designer. If the evidence really did point that way, thousands of atheist biologists would be busily searching for the identity of the designer whose existence is shown by the evidence.

Not really, because science does not test the supernatural; when such an idea is unsupported by science, falsifiability goes out of the window. The scientific method is based on the assumption that the natural world is the result of natural processes.

Berlinski is a mathematician, Hoyle was a cosmologist. Show me an atheist biologist who rejects evolution and you might just have the beginnings of an argument from authority.

I'm not arguing from authority, I was disputing your claim that all skeptics of naturalistic evolution are fundamentalist Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Markus6

Veteran
Jul 19, 2006
4,039
347
39
Houston
✟22,034.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I voted "hugely important" though I'm not sure my interest is quite that extreme. It's certainly a lot more than a casual interest. I'm currently living in the states so it might actually affect me and I'm surrounded by people who are quite interested.

On the way this thread has turned, I have to say, of all the issues involved in the election, Palin's stance on evolution is probably the most insignificant. I say that as an outspoken evolutionist. She will have absolutely no power to affect the teaching of biology in the country and I doubt she'd even choose to if she could.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MarcusHill

Educator and learner
May 1, 2007
976
76
Manchester
✟16,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Not really, because science does not test the supernatural; when such an idea is unsupported by science, falsifiability goes out of the window. The scientific method is based on the assumption that the natural world is the result of natural processes.

So ID isn't science, then. Or do you want to have your cake and eat it?

I'm not arguing from authority, I was disputing your claim that all skeptics of naturalistic evolution are fundamentalist Christians.

I claimed nothing of the sort. Read what I said and what I was replying to. I said all the ones who claim creationism is defensible on AiG are Christians (I didn't even say they were all fundamentalists, since they're not). Nice strawman, though.
 
Upvote 0

MarcusHill

Educator and learner
May 1, 2007
976
76
Manchester
✟16,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
For the record -- I am not a creationist, or an ID proponent.

The fact remains that there are three possibilities:

ID isn't science

ID is science, but the evidence doesn't back it

ID is science, the evidence backs it, but the Super Secret Cabal are suppressing it

(Incidentally, are you one of those rare transitional cdesign proponentsists? :p)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
65
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
but I also believe that God set the whole process in motion

So did he stop creating after he started it going?

Personally, I have no problem with the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Nor with subsidiary theories such as abiogenesis. It neither says that God did it, nor that God didn't do it. It merely describes what happened, and what the processes were/are that power it.

Science can't do metaphysics. Metaphysics can't do science.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
65
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
How about the idea that God is involved in creation from the beginning, intimately involved in the process of evolution itself?

Maybe the problem is the idea that God only gets involved in these "supernatural interventions" and not in the day-to-day natural processes? (Maybe that's why I'm noving toward a more process/panentheist theology?)
 
Upvote 0

huldah153

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2007
501
13
✟742.00
Faith
How about the idea that God is involved in creation from the beginning, intimately involved in the process of evolution itself?

Maybe the problem is the idea that God only gets involved in these "supernatural interventions" and not in the day-to-day natural processes? (Maybe that's why I'm noving toward a more process/panentheist theology?)

A friend of mine is an advocate of God-guided evolution. She doesn't believe in the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection, but instead that God is the one who designs through manipulation of DNA blueprints. Both theories are plausible IMO.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums